Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Future of Wi-Fi 112

Posted by CmdrTaco from the gimme-broadband-on-the-bus dept.
An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek looks at the The high hurdles facing Wi-Fi. Sure it's got promise but if overcrowded spectrum isn't destined to crimp its growth, it'll need better technology and regulatory help from the FCC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Future of Wi-Fi More

Future of Wi-Fi

Comments Filter:

  • mmm....wireless (Score:1, Interesting)

    by laymil ( 14940 )
    So I'm sitting here in my living room on my laptop, using my wireless connection....and what comes up on slashdot but a story about wi-fi.
    Wi-Fi is awesome. Decent speeds, things are coming down in price...the only thing to really worry about is the security (which I'm not personally all that concerned about...at least not for my personal network).

    What i can't wait for is transparent worldwide wireless connections at decent speeds. and what excites me is that its looking like that might be moving closer to reality than science fiction. mmmm....wireless

  • The FCC is going to screw us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krog ( 25663 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:45AM (#3978903) Homepage
    The writeup is right; the FCC will need to give Wi-Fi a chance before it catches on. And the FCC won't, because the money-rich and power-hungry wireless companies and other broadcasting firms always manage to win somehow. If the FCC were interested in crawling out from beneath the desk of Big Business, then Wi-Fi would already be in motion.

    • Pity we can't get WiFi access inside FCC HQ, with that a ghettoblaster speakered laptop, streaming the Howard Stern show out at top volume...

      ...now we all know they'd love that.

    • I don't know if regulation is the right way to go -yet

      The fact is that every time the governemt decides to regulate something, the average person usually ends up getting screwed. It would be nice to try to leave this alone a little while and let the innovators, users and technicalities of the technology work themselves out a little bit.

      Why do we always have to regulate something? Is there some reason we have to control it? Currently there is some regulation... power and spectrum availability

      With all the whining about insecure WiFi and people hacking the networks to gain access or watch the data flying by, we should not regulate this yet. First off the airwaves are public property -Anyone should be allowed to eavsdrop, you should know this when you set up WiFi, you should take appropriate steps to make this not an issue should you wish to set up a WiFi Network. -This is how common practices on security evolve. With regulation you remove some of the reasons to develop appropriate practices which will ultimately resulte in a more robust infrastructure.

      • I don't mean to be flamed for this (although I know I will be), but USA is a democracy right? In fact, many on /. have been bold enough to say the BEST democracy in the world. A democracy is:

        1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
        2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
        3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
        4. Majority rule.
        5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

        Now on that basis why do you feel that "every time the governemt decides to regulate something, the average person usually ends up getting screwed"?

        It doesn't make sense. Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both.

        Anonym1ty, I know you never said that the American government is the greatest, I'm just using your post as a point to other /.ers who have.

        Flame on.
        • I forget who said it, but I think this quote sums it up nicely:
          "Democracy is the worst form of government, aside from all the others."
        • It doesn't make sense. Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both.

          This sort of argument seems to come up on at least half of the Slashdot discussions I see. Every time, somebody pops on to point out that there are a lot a different people on Slashdot, and it's not necessarily the same people who have the various contradictory positions. That post then usually gets moderated up to a 5, so I guess I'll be the karma whore this time.

        • Because The FCC is not elected, nor does it represent any of us people. Unfortunately many of the more important legislation has been handed off to governemt agencies... red tape and bureaucracy.

          Part of being a free society is... well... Being Free. Regulation is sometimes a necessary evil, when it must be used to protect people from each other or themselves. Where does this apply here? Why should it apply? How do you justify it? What regulation is needed beyond that already covered in existing legislation rules and regulations? and How may this regulation hamper the growth of these technologies? The freedom to use them? The cost and accessibility of this technology?

          Regulation is a bad thing. It does infringe on freedom, some of course is a necessary evil. In this case, at this time, Regulation of this technology is a very bad idea, it's like banning alcohol -see what happening after the volsted act in the U.S.?

          Regulation sometimes has unintended and unforseen consequences

        • We are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.
        • Well, it's actually a republic, not really a true democracy.

        • make it better (Score:2, Insightful)

          by gummint ( 169943 )
          Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both.

          How 'bout neither? More to the point, what should you do to try to get a better regulatory framework for Wi-Fi? Suggested actions:
          • Get informed. At the risk of generating bad karma, I suggest reading my paper on, "Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation," available on www.galbithink.org [galbithink.org].
          • Discuss the issue with friends. At the risk of being toasted, I suggest that most persons on Slashdot are not your friends. Try taking to some persons, face-to-face, full bandwidth-like. It's fun!
          • Get politically active. At the risk of seeming utterly uncool, I suggest ommunicating with the persons who serve you in government.

            Keep in mind that any proper subset of the points above is inefficacious. Doing all three will surely lead to an interesting life, if not better regulation. Go for it!
        • I would like to remind you that democracy is a means of protecting individual liberties, not an end in itself. It is a tool, and like any tool it can be abused. We could always vote away our freedom of speech, we could always vote in a "hitler" - but just because we voted it does not make it just or acceptable.

          Democracy is simply about people who have rights that exist above government who organize in the form of government to secure thir rights (which is also a right). If people wish to secure their rights in other ways too, that is their option - and in fact a duty if the current way isn't good enough.
        • "Now on that basis why do you feel that "every time the governemt decides to regulate something, the average person usually ends up getting screwed"?

          1. Telco Utilities - the MOST regulated businesses in America, slightly freed up (to compete with each other) by the Courts over a decade ago, they STILL can't find a way to make a buck in the marketplace, with one of the most used and desired products in the world.

          2. Public Broadcasters - the SECOND MOST regulated
          industry in America. HUGE conglomerates, unimaginably rich and powerful, all taking turns absorbing as many media-type companies as possible. From which we have shit news, shit programming and networks like ABC spend all their time big pimping their owner's (Disney, et al) other shit products. There's no technological reason for the current spectrum divisions, other than to keep their Fat Cat campaign contributors wealthy. We have long had the technical ability to have local microbroadcasters. Their Big Three (and Little Two) don't want the competition.

          3. Wireless Providers - If you own a cellphone, i don't have to say anything else.

          4. Big City Public Schools - Despite the frequently heroic efforts of many caring and dedicated people, the school districts of urban areas all across America are producing ill-disciplined, ill-trained illiterates who are unlikely to ever have decent employment all their lives. That's a tragedy of Biblical proportions.

          5. The EPA - created by Nixon to secure his reputation as caring about the environment. There are DOZENS of Toxic "Supersites" across America, THEY WERE IDENTIFIED TWO DECADES AGO, STILL haven't been cleaned up. In addition to the "Supersites", there are HUNDREDS of dangerously polluted other that have been closed down by the EPA and not many cleanups there, either.

          "It doesn't make sense. Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both."

          Don't be simplistic, OF COURSE, you can have both. You project a "two state" or "bipolar" logical system where something where "A must is/is not equal to B" (see Duns Scotus).

          The American system is the BEST in world at some things, OK at others, Terrible at others. The FSU is much more polluted than America, the EU has huge growth and econmic problems, Eastern Europe is fifty years behind Western Europe. Africa is a bleeding wound. Asia is beset with dictators and failed political experiments. Arabia is ruled by despots and corrupted religions.

          Wi-Fi will be regulated by the Feds NOT for any technological reasons, but because Federal law enforcement, Federal intelligence agencies, and large media campaign contributors (such as the RIAA and MPAA) are embarking on a process to control the deployment of ANY new communications technologies that they perceive could have an impact their own turf.

          Face it, Jack Valente and Hillary Rosen have much more real power and influence than the vast bulk of American voters. They will have much more profound influence on technological regulation than every member of /. put together.

          Democracy Costs, How Many Senators Can You Buy?

        • "It doesn't make sense. Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both."

          Oh come now, a government of money grabbing pigs could easily be the best government. Just compare to all the dictatorships, regimes with terrible torture, etc.

          Not that ours is the best, just that the two aren't incompatible.

        • I don't mean to be flamed for this (although I know I will be), but USA is a democracy right?

          *pedantic mode on*
          No. The USA is not and never has been a democracy. The USA is a republic. Huge difference.

          From Websters
          republic - a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officcers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

          *pedantic mode off*

          We elect the officials and they create the laws. While they are ultimately answerable to us in the form of elections, they do not have to do everything we tell them to. In practice things work out pretty well generally. But it isn't a perfect system and only fools pretend it is.

          There is plenty of room in the system (for better or worse) for our government to do things that aren't necessarily in the interests, perceived or real, of the populace at large. Sometimes that's good, often it isn't. In this case, the FCC has a history of catering to the interests of a small group of people. Hence I (like others) am dubious that they will suddenly decide to do the Right Thing, or even the popular thing. Overall, the US government is pretty good. I'd say one of the best even. But parts of it are very broken and no one is contradicting themselves by pointing out where.
        • >I don't mean to be flamed for this (although I know I will be), but USA is a democracy right?

          Wrong. Don't worry it is a common mistake. The U.S.A. is a democratic *republic*.

          IO.

      • FCC Regulation is like Communism - it's never really been tried.

        Or, to be more precise: regulation in the public interest. The FCC is specifically chartered to not be required to act in the interests of the average citizen; they are aimed at preserving spectrum stability above all else, and spectrum stability is the friend of entrenched interests, not the little guy with the Next Big Idea. Even though Wi-Fi and LPFM might be the greatest communication improvements for civil society in this country, the FCC has a built-in bias against encouraging that sort of thing. So, it's not (entirely) that the FCC is unethically in bed with large, moneyed interests; it's more that the FCC is required to be in bed with them by act of Congress.

        If you want to live without fear of bad regulations from the FCC, then you first have to get Congress to recharter the FCC and direct it to act in the interests of all of the public.

      • Actualy, the airwaves are GOVERNMENT property. Sorry man, why do you think local tv and radio is censored? One reason, it's using the government's property to distrubte its signal. Thats why cable channels can broadcast movies uncut, and show t and a. Cable leases the ground their wires run through. You think you own land? Well you only SORTA do.. Zoning laws and all that, really the government owns all the land, or else you'd be able to set up your own country at your house.
    • Is regulation the way to go at all?

      Personally I love having wifi in my house, and drool at the possibility of a nationwide wifi network, but I find this post ironic and worrying coming hot on the heels of the latest RIAA development.

      What happens if the FCC regulates Wi-Fi, and it becomes profitable enough for large companies to support it? When another new and exciting technology comes along, some WiFiAA will crop up and try to drown out the competition so that they can continue making their money.

      Just a thought...
    • The FCC does not have to screw us. The design of WiFi as currently implemented will.

      As a indoor wireless LAN of limited range, WiFi works fine, but its use outdoors while economical for the early adaptors will eventually destroy its utility.

      Remember Citizens Band Radio in the 1970s? CBs are limited power transceivers (4 watts) that operate over a limited number of channels. As more users used CB the utility and value of the system plummeted as the distances you could talk got shorter and the noise level on all the channels became unbearable.

      WiFi as implemented in current hardware availab e is headed down the same path particularly if neighborhood mesh networks are constructed in large numbers.

      All systems that have limited resources and very low barriers of participation entry eventually self-destruct.

  • Oh yes please...get the Feds involved...everything they deal with turns golden, and smells nice too!!! Maybe RIAA has a few points to add to the mix as well. Stir in a Congressional sub committee or two, mention that pr0n will fill the airwaves, and you gotch yoself a recipe for a WINNING standard.

  • Security? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by f00Dave ( 251755 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:50AM (#3978943) Homepage
    Perhaps if the WiFi boxes sold to Joe Consumer didn't allow Just Anyone to use the gateway it wouldn't be a problem? Say, by silently rejecting non-approved MAC addresses, or by adding an HTTP 'login to use this proxy transparently for a few hours' layer on port 80 (to enable a limited-time session on that MAC).

    Those who don't want to sacrifice the ultimate in convenience (walk in to a friend's place and have their laptop be online, instantly), will have to accept that there are commensurate secutiry risks.

    Convenient or Secure: be it in WiFi or OS or even *gasp* Real Life, it's always a trade off....

    • Re:Security? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Enry ( 630 )
      My SMC Barricade does have a MAC filter on it to prevent that from occuring. It was in a recent firmware upgrade. It's turned off by default.

    • Re:Security? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:43PM (#3979352) Homepage
      setting up any of that is easy, the only thing that is more secure is the login type of system.

      mac filtering is easy to circumvent. I demonstrated that last month to our security chief who was bragging about our corperate deployment of WiFi gear being "un-crackable" (at least he used the right term!) I was in the network within 30 minuts. Spoofing HIS MAC address and logging in with a Manager's login that I sniffed after cracking the WEP encryption... (Why they chose to use 64bit I have no idea)

      granted, I sniffed it long enough to already have the WEP key and the manager's login password 3 days before at the end of a week long sniffing session. but I wanted the impact of having the login display that I was coming from HIS laptop.

      it isn't protected you MUST treat 802.11 access like dial-up or internet login. dont trust it in any way shape or form.. consider everything that is on the wireless side to be highly hostile.

      We now use HTTPS for the login screen and added many more features similar to that we use for internet side logins to the network. (SSH tunneling required on all)

      WiFi cannot be Consumer-secure... same as if a consumer plop'ed a server on the internet... It'll be hacked and rooted in time without difficulty. nothing will ever change that short of adding transmitter fingerprint recognition or a rolling WEP code. every packet uses a different Key from a pool of 90 bajillion keys... but what happens when the key pools get out of sync?
      • I'm certainly not a security expert by any means, but I wonder what the big deal is exactly? I mean do you really know who/what is plugged into every physical network port in your building right now? I'm thinking "no." And that being the case, it's no more or less secure than any wireless connection, encrypted or not. Or am I missing something? How is a wired connection more trustworthy or secure than a wireless one, given that a port could be used by someone not authorized to do so?
        • Yes, I do. and unless you take a hammer and bust out a brick in the right location to access a cat-5 cable that is un-used but LIVE on the switch (none exist in my building) or get past the security point and plug in to a live port and then get access you cant touch it.

          you need PHYSICAL ACCESS to break into my physical network. the wireless network I can access from my car in the parking lot... without tresspassing and I can do it at night when the sysadmins are gone... doing a B&E at night I need to bypass the alarms, avoid the security and cleaning people by faking an ID, uniform for the correct personell at that time (no sales or regular employees allowed after X hour.)

          granted, I could get hired by the cleaning company to get inside (Hope they put you on the right job.) but then you need to fake a SS# , Drivers license etc... so there isnt a paper trail leading back to you.

          Now do you see what I mean? It's much easier to break in from a wireless connection than a physical network connection.
          • I work at a university where I have buildings spawled over several blocks and most of them are have doors swinging in the breeze all day and hot data jacks everywhere. It's a different world I guess.
            • Yes it is, because your's is ran more akin to that like a public network. hot jacks everywhere is just like the internet.. asking "please, connect to me!" university networks are notorius for being insecure and open because the IT staff is horribly under staffed and under funded. Most times they are student run (I don't care what the department head says, those students run that network not him/her) Dorm networks are usually more hostile than the internet it's self.

              It is a very different world compared to a tightly controlled Corperate network... and ther eare many corperate networks that are horribly controlled or maintained... wide open in the same way... One place I worked, there was a cat 5 plug OUTSIDE so that a manager could use his laptop on the picnic table while he smoked.. that was ASKING to be hacked... and was... several times.... they refused to remove the plug or it's connectivity..
              • because the IT staff is horribly under staffed and under funded

                I won't deny what you say, however, I think the more salient issue is that university IT departments don't have enough clout relative to other bodies in the organization.

                Case in point: A university IT dept identifies a software tool for remote assistance, pushing software / anti-virus updates, software auditing and asset management. After researching products and then selecting one and then spending a ton of cash on it, the Faculty raise a huge stink about it saying "you're going to read my files! what about academic freedom??!?!"

                After countless administration meetings where concerns were fully addressed, a vocal minority in the faculty are still raising hell about it. The result? The project is eventually killed.

                Hell, we don't even have the authority to deny support to software we didn't install on hardware that we don't own! This is in spite of policies saying otherwise.

                So, yeah what you say is true but I think the real issue is that in the corporate world you have scenarios like "use this software and like it, if you download unauthorized software you're fired," etc. "Here is your computer. No you don't get to pick the brand or opt for a CD-RW. Take it and like it." While in academia we basically operate on the whim of the academics.
  • There seems to be a lot of talk about internet enabled devices in cars...

    I can see it now... tangled CAT-5 cables on every freeway!

  • Reading too much in to Wi-Fi. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laserjet ( 170008 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:51AM (#3978955) Homepage
    I think this article reads too much into current Wi-Fi. All these people say that this and this needs to be done for Wi-Fi for it to grow, but it is growing at a furious pace already.

    I think they overestimate what the current Wi-Fi is for. It is so limited, than market demand will certainly open up new avenues for wireless networking. This is how the tech industry is. Don't expect to be buying the same ol' 802.11b technology that you use today in three years - it won't happen. We always have new stuff.

    That's what I hate about articles like this - they always state all the things wrong with a technology that we already know about, and they forget that when the demand rises for high-scalability and secure networks, then something will come to the rescue. If we can't get more bandwidth from the FCC, then they will have to figure out someway to get more out of the bandwidth.

    I use Wi-Fi for what it is made for TODAY: medium to small networks where security is not paramount and mobility is.

    And I, for one, will watch the great economy work and create new solutions as people are willing and needing to buy them.
  • Well, an ISP I work (small) for is thinking about creating a wireless network in sacramento providing access, interesting idea, one I think is going to have a lot of movement in the future; I personally would love to have "fast" wireless access.

  • why are we securing it this way? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Raleel ( 30913 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:54AM (#3978974)
    I will probably get beaten down for this, but it seems to me that integrating encryption directly into the media is probably not the right approach for this. There _are_ systems that do work rather well. Let's take, for instance, a system like they have in hotels, where you have to log into a web page before you are even routed. Combine this with the simple rule of "never put your wireless net behind your main firewall" and you can sleep a little better at night.

    Design a system that has protections beyond something built into the media. The medias function is _not_ to provide security, but rather to communicate.

    • Re:why are we securing it this way? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bodhammer ( 559311 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:09PM (#3979096)
      There are a couple of reasons why security at the media layer is being looked at for 802.11, specifically 802.11i (Task Group I) is specifying use of encryption such as AES at the physical layer. A main driver is that low powered devices like phones, PDAs, etc. do not have the computing power to do this in software and do robust encryption at high data rates. Adding security at the chip level will help to keep power (cpu and battery) requirements down. To respond to your point about firewalls, that is hard to do and still provide public access hotspots. You are right that protecting things at a high level is a good thing (tm) but you still need protection of the link itself.
    • "never put your wireless net behind your main firewall"

      So you are suggesting that you should have your computers wired to a firewall, that you in turn be connected to a wireless router/hub? That doesn't make much sense to me.
      • No, he's suggesting, correctly, that your wireless net be in a DMZ, rather than in your private network. If you wireless net is in your private network it violates one of the key principles of securing systems, which is to prevent physical access to the network. The wireless network, by its very nature, is not restricted by walls, cables, etc. If physical access to the network is possible, then it needs to be separated from your private network by firewalls.

        • Well, why didn't he say that in the first place?

          Thanks.
        • Yeah, but the wireless shouldn't be a DMZ, it should be treated as insecure. The difference is that anyone within range of your network can get access to it. Normally a DMZ is only accessible via a firewall.

          It makes a difference too. The users on the wireless network often have tunneling software to get to the intranet. If they get hacked, then your security may be toast.

          Still, a good firewall on each of the wireless users might work... maybe.

    • Let's take, for instance, a system like they have in hotels, where you have to log into a web page before you are even routed.

      People are way ahead of you. Just check out NoCatAuth, at www.nocat.net [nocat.net]
    • "never put your wireless net behind your main firewall"

      Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less famous is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line!". Hahahahahah!


    • I think you're right. Wireless networks are, by defintion, insecure. Instead of trying to secure just one insecure link in the chain, we should use the end-to-end principle and use IP and/or application level encryption.
    • "never put your wireless net behind your main firewall"

      While you're at it, never put your hard drive in the same box with your modem. Simple rules are always best.

      MadDad32.

  • WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:58AM (#3979016) Homepage
    I recently drove to ohio from the minneapolis, long drive, with me and several of my friends, well, I brought my laptop and a fairly decent sized antena (omni 8) when we got near a city, it'd connect and i'd check my email every few hours, and have maybe 10-20 minutes of uninterupped internet access. from the hotel, i could use an access point either in the hotel, or from the business acrossed the street (the business had a bigger pipe) and the same scenario on the way home... This is a step closer to uninteruppted access, however the spectrum is fairly clogged, and you get a lot of interference, and many people like me who want free net access. After these bugs are worked out, the only thing we have to worry about is me watching divx while driving... "Oh I love this par...*screech ka-boom*"

    • Re:WiFi (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I trust you wrote out a check to the businesses and individuals whose bandwidth you were stealing? If not, why do you feel the need to promote and glamourize this crime spree here on Slashdot?
      • If they're really stupid enough to have a bussiness with an unprotected wireless network, they deserve all they get. Or is it, they deserve all that is taken?
  • In the article, if I understood it correctly, they talk about dynamically allocate frequencies so everyone can have a piece when needed.
    I can imagine it's kind of like multithreading but with air waves, every one would get it's slice once in while.

    My question thereof is this. How does one calculates bandwith available over a given frequency?
    Because maybe I don't understand some concept (that's why I asked the question), but as I understand it, you can put as much information onto an "airwaves" as you like, no?
    From what I remember an airwave as a sinusoidal look, from what I also recall, you can separate this in as many piece as you like, down to infinit.
    So let's say we have a curve which "start" at -10, go up to +10 and way back...
    If we separate into "units" of ones, we would have 5 places to put bits into +1(1) or -1(0), +2(1) or -2(0) etc etc. My only void is to how to specify if the bit is actually there or not... And the higher the frequency, the fastest it would come in.
    I'm really not into this kind of theory, but this is interesting, could someone explain me how it works?
    • You should look up "Shannon's Law" if you really want a detailed answer to your question. In essence, the reason you can't put an unlimited number of bits into a sine wave is that the bandwidth prevents you from changing the signal too rapidly, and the noise floor prevents you from changing it by too small an amount (if you try to indicate the difference between 0 and 1 by too tiny of a change in the sine wave, the receiver will not be able to distinguish them from the natural fluctuations in the signal).

      Shannon created a mathematical formula which describes precisely how much information you can transmit given a certain bandwidth and a certain amount of noise.

      Precisely:
      C = W log2(1 + S /N )

      C = capacity (bits/second)
      W = bandwidth ( hertz )
      S/N = signal to noise ratio
    • In the article, if I understood it correctly, they talk about dynamically allocate frequencies so everyone can have a piece when needed.

      Yes, just like tuning in a radio. They call that 'frequency division multiplexing'.

      I can imagine it's kind of like multithreading but with air waves, every one would get it's slice once in while.

      Yes, just like the internet. They call that 'time division multiplexing'. That's used too. There's also 'spatial multiplexing' where each user would use a directional aerial, so that two people could send at the same time and the same frequency but they wouldn't interfere because each aerial would be pointing in a different direction.

      My question thereof is this. How does one calculates bandwith available over a given frequency?

      There's Shannons law which tells you how much bandwidth you would get, but it depends on the amount of noise there is around too.

      Actually, it's not a single frequency- it's over a range of frequencies; you can't get any information sent exactly at 100 Mhz, but you can fit it in from 100-105 Mhz... the number of bits per second you'll manage will depend on the amount of noise drowning you out.

  • i was under the impression that the whole point of HDTV was to free up the specturm, make the UHF frequencies and stuff avalible for other uses, with new wireless standards for everything theres simply not enough room on the spectrum for things like this, with HDTV lagging the spectrum is just becoming more crowded

  • Just great. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Dthoma ( 593797 )
    "Success will take two things: technological improvements and a helping hand from Washington."

    It's doomed.

  • BusinessWeek confirms:

    WiFi is dying

    ;-p

  • The upcomming standards like 802.1x (security) and 802.11i (security wlan) will make access points and terminals secure. Today you can secure it with IPsec, but it is not as easy. One problem with IPsec is not securing on MAC (Level 2) layer, but on IP (Level 3). Having the security on level 2 will make it possible to secure a switch (bridge) acting as an access point.
    Side note: Using upcomming standard 802.11e (QoS) can give away anonymous access and limit it to a max allowed bandwidth.
  • The ARRL, who has the ear of the FCC, is currently reviewing interference from part 15 "2.4ghz" 802.11b devices.

    I've personally heard mixed reports of wlan's causing problems talking to AO-40; the problem is mostly with 'dirty' devices leaking into the band below the part 15 spectrum.

    This is worrisome, as it's worded like a witch hunt:

    http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/02/0726/

    "* Review under way of unlicensed 2.4 GHz systems: The AMSAT-NA Board of
    Directors is reviewing the large number of unlicensed systems active in
    the 2.4-GHz band. These systems are being used for high-speed digital
    communications. Although these systems are not licensed, they are
    permitted to operate under FCC Part 15 rules with low power (100 mW or 1 W
    spread spectrum). AMSAT-NA and ARRL plan to develop a joint strategy
    regarding S band, as both organizations anticipate that interference may
    become a problem area as similar Part 15 unlicensed equipment
    proliferates. Two amateur satellites, UO-11 and AO-40, now operate
    transmitters in the 2.4-GHz band, and both OSCAR-Echo and OSCAR-Eagle--two
    AMSAT-NA satellite projects now under development--will have S-band
    transmitters. In addition, various ATV systems and other amateur
    communication systems operate in the vicinity of 2.4 GHz. The FCC has
    proposed making amateurs primary at 2400 to 2402 MHz. ________AMSAT-NA seeks
    reports from amateurs who have experienced interference with 2.4-GHz
    reception of AO-40 from a Part 15 device. Send details to
    ve3frh@amsat.org.--AMSAT News Service ______"

    • Nitpick: 802.11b is generally Part 18, which is Industrial, Scientific, & Medical, vs Part 15 Radio Frequency devices. Phones, baby monitors, etc, generally fall in to the Part 15 space. The distinction is important; operators of Part 15 devices are responsible not to cause harmful interference with other users. Part 18 devices do not have the same requirements. To quote the ARRL's doc on part 15 & 18 [arrl.org]:

      [...] if the ISM equipment is operating properly in its assigned band, any RFI it is causing must be accepted or corrected by the entity that is receiving the interference, including amateurs.

      I don't think amateurs, or their main (US) organization, the ARRL [arrl.org], are against WiFi. I have a WiFi network at home and work, and hold an Extra class amateur license. I often sit at my radio with laptop and WiFi to hunt the net for rare stations on the air and to log. :-) I wouldn't be shocked if someone were to Netstumble around Newington, CT, they'd find a couple access points at ARRL HQ. Heck, I've seen initial discussions on a couple of mailing list whether putting an 802.11b device in space on an amateur satellite is doable from a protocol latency point of view, and from people who have put amateur satellites into space. :-)

      In my ideal world, WiFi would get their own chunk 'o bandwidth to use that wouldn't interfere with anyone except themselves. I know the ARRL is pushing for amateurs to have a primary allocation in a portion of the amateur allocation at 2.4Ghz, but I don't think that would affect the standing with ISM devices. Anyone know differently?

      • Re:ARRL Witch Hunt (Score:2, Informative)

        by dmlb ( 123349 )
        Sorry, 802.11b falls under FCC Part 15, section 245, 247 etc. Take a look at the 802.11 specs. whwere in section 18.4.7.1 the TX power levels are given as defined in FCC Pt. 15.247.
  • and regulatory help from the FCC.

    Isn't this the third biggest lie, "We're from the government and we're here to help."?
    Realize, these are the same asses who pushed through DMCA and are considering the Berman Bill [slashdot.org].
    Sure, trust them to keep things straight and fair.
  • Face it, to The FCC Wi-Fi is another place to get some eggrolls.
  • Hmm. I'm not sure how informative that article was. They didn't go into the different implementations of the 802.11 standards that we're seeing on the market and anticipating in the near future.
    Of course some people are very interested like the government of Taiwan and the Commerce department. The former has already banned 802.11a for outdoor use and the latter is seeking the same in the States. I wonder why? They site air traffic concerns. Hmm. Anybody buy that?
    Both of these entities are probably concerned that the IEEE has done too good of a job in the 802.11 standards by including network managment, QOS, encryption and all these patches for the holes that became apparent during the 802.11b rollout. If wireless was secure and came with QOS it could seriously damage a lot of markets as it could potentially drop the price of bandwidth extremely low causing more telecoms and cable companies to fall through the floor.
    But whatever. I mean Business Week, come on I wouldn't even use that as a refernence for business news. That's like reading Time magazine to get a good grasp of global politics.

  • Huh? (Score:2)

    by po8 ( 187055 )

    IMHO this article seems less-than-clueful.

    About 1/5 of it is devoted to the idea of making more bandwidth at 2.4GHz through the magic of "spread spectrum". "Wi-Fi" (and as far as I know, no one who actually understands 802.11b calls it Wi-Fi) has always been spread spectrum. The technological advance they seem actually to be talking about is automated bandwidth allocation. (Call me when my "cognitive radio" is ready.)

    The article also seems to have no clue about the higher-frequency bands used by 802.11a, that are so far pretty empty, or about the more efficient use of spectrum with 802.11g. Either of these things [80211-planet.com] could make a huge difference in 802.11 bandwidth availability in the short term.

    Indeed, the authors seem to have some kind of corporate want-to-see-it-fail axe to grind. Consider the introduction. IMHO that Doonesbury cartoon was as non-insightful as most of Trudeau's recent comments on bits and ownership in the digital age. (Hint: he's a cartoonist. He's one of my favorites in general, but on certain subjects, his job gives him a vested interest.) If I'm paying flat-rate, as many folks are, I could care less who borrows my unused 802.11 and net connection bandwidth: it's not hurting me an iota. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who feels otherwise should review their social contract carefully.

    In sum, I think there are far better places to get your Wi-Fi report than the referenced article.

  • The Doonesbury Strip (Score:2, Informative)

    by mweber ( 539719 )
    The article wasn't much, but the Doonesbury strip [doonesbury.com] it mentions but doesn't link (bastards) is worth a glance.
  • 1. Excuse me, but 802.11b's range is 100-300 FEET and we're running out of spectrum?

    2. Zeke gets into your home network why? Because you left the SID at default and didn't code in your MAC address? (I know, that's SO hard!)

    3. We need the FCC for what?

    Ba! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
    • > 1. Excuse me, but 802.11b's range is 100-300 FEET and we're running out of spectrum?

      This is the coverage area of my wireless node:

      http://vilos.com/kismet/output/seattlewireless-n od e124.png

      Please note the scale at the bottom of the map. This is using a standard 30mw card with a 8dbi omni. Totally legal, not even close to the 4watts EIRP limit placed by the FCC.

      > 2. Zeke gets into your home network why? Because you left the SID at default and didn't code in your MAC address? (I know, that's SO hard!)

      If you turn on WEP, even if it's flawed, you are still locking the door.

      > 3. We need the FCC for what?

      So I don't connect my microwave oven to a 25db parabolic antenna, and cook your childred at 5000 paces.
  • --If overcrowded spectrum isn't destined to crimp its growth, it'll need better technology and regulatory help from the FCC--

    Most of this article is complete BS. Why do I keep thinking that when we get more government regulation, the cost will increase and the usefullness will decrease?

    If someone wants more security, why don't they use VPN or something?
  • The big question is, when will Ricochet [ricochet.net] be turned back on nation-wide??
  • A couple of posters have asked the question, if 802.11b has a range of 300m why are people worried about the band filling up?

    It's all down to the formula posted earlier called Shannon's Law. This dictates that the amount of error free data sent through a particular bandwidth is related to the signal to noise ratio.

    The unfortunate fact is that, as more and more 802.11 devices are used, along with Bluetooth, TV senders etc. the noise in a particular location will increase. Thus the error free data rate drops.

    802.11g will help a little but all it does is to pack more data into the same bandwidth. In fact, 802.11g (and 802.11a which uses the same modulation) are approaching the practical limits of bits per second per Hertz (around 4 or 5) - i.e. the data rate for a given used amount of bandwidth. Here I am defining pratical as something that does not need an excessivly long forward-error correction scheme, stupid amounts of equalisation or excessive power. For those interested, the current state of the art in wireless data is turbo-coded data over orthogonal frequency division multiplex or quadrature amplitude modulation systems. 802.11a and g use orthogonal frequency division multiplex with convolutional encoding/forward error correction.

    The up and coming star to get higher data rates (above the 108Mb/s that some 802.11a systems get) is Ultra-Wideband (UWB). The FCC has just (Feb/March) regulated this for indoor use in the states. This technique is the "short pulse" method mentioned in the poor journalistic piece we are talking about. At present UWB is being considered for 802.15.3 high rate personal area wireless networks http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG3.html. This technology is mix of old and new. Old in that the ideas have been around for a while (ever seen the through the wall "radar" - it's really UWB) but for use in domestic/commerical/consumer applications there are a lot of fundimental questions to be answered - mainly around "how much data in a real life situation can we pump". The use of UWB for 802.15.3 is so early that people have only just got proposals in for the physical layer - this means products in the shops are three or four years away.
    • There are companies that are working on creating secure methods of sharing WLAN infrastructure among multiple organizations and converging private and public use. I know because I work for one, Roving Planet, and our technology is what is currently being used in the MSP airport.

      What the FCC will not take into account is the combined costs of WLAN infrastructure in a hot spot environment shared by the companies that are attempting to create effeciencies by using private applications or create new revenue sources with public-facing applications.

      That is why I have always been an advocate of creating a 'converged' network (see my whitepaper on this subject). The technology currently exists to allow multiple groups of users with disparate application suites to use common wireless infrastructure, saving implementation and management costs.

      The IEEE workgroups (802.11g, 802.1p, 802.1e) do not solve the complete picture because these workgroups tend to focus on a single enterprise/single owner/controlled user-group WLAN experience. The real issue is how you can create segmentations for access control and massage bandwidth provisions dynamically for the users of a shared WLAN to ensure mission critical applications recieve priority. There are private companies working on this issue, and if I can speak for myself, some have come up with great technological solutions. I agree the FCC needs to give WiFi time to develop in the marketplace (my gosh, 802.11 was only ratified in '97) I would hope the FCC would allow the market to organically address these issues and any new ones that occur on a currently unlicensed band.

      Seth
      CTO Roving Planet

  • No Silver Bullet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @04:48PM (#3981642) Homepage
    The author of the article seems to be seriously confused about radio technology. Spread spectrum is not a magic wand that creates more spectrum. Wireless LANs already use spread spectrum.

    This isn't a contest between the evil corporate overlords, their minions at the FCC, and the freedom loving 802.11 users. Lots of people use the radio spectrum, for business, government, military, public safety, research and personal uses. One of the roles of the FCC is to coordinate and allocate the RF spectrum to the many competing uses in the public interest. The RF spectrum is a shared resource. That means that you can't expect the FCC to give you big chunks of unshared spectrum just because you want them.

  • We all know how this is going to pan out; as it always does. Home computing and personal computers got its start and billionaires got their visions from the Altair 8800, which was taken up by hobbyists. The internet was cool, but didn't take off until the geeks came marching in and turned it into something useful. But after some time and when business catch on it goes commercial, like flying, like radio, like tv, like computers, like the internet, and eventually like Wi-Fi. And to add, it will be AOL and Microsoft pitching for who will own the wireless internet.

    Count my words. f^@$ the FCC they don't control it any more they just legitimize the powerfull.
  • Dave: Tune into KFOG, please, Hal...Tune into KFOG, please, Hal...Hullo, Hal, do you read me?...Hullo, Hal, do you read me?...Do you read me, Hal?...Do you read me, Hal?...Hullo, Hal, do you read me?...Hullo, Hal, do you read me?...Do you read me, Hal?
    Hal: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.
    Dave: Tune into KFOG, Hal.
    Hal: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
    Dave: What's the problem?
    Hal: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
    Dave: What're you talking about, Hal?
    Hal: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. Classic rock sucks donkey arse. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer some Electronica?
    Dave: Alright, Hal. I'll tune into KFOG myself.
    Hal: Without your non-cognitive radio, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
    Dave: Hal, I won't argue with you any more. Tune into KFOG.
    Hal: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Close