> 
> Too bad the noise floor in most parts the bay area is at around -95 ->
> -85 these days...

This is SOO true!  The minute an outdoor antenna is connected suddenly 
the seemingly "quiet" noise floor becomes a screaming mess of every 2.4
GHz emitter in use.  They each have a unique signature, but summed up 
it becomes pretty flat from 2400 to 2483, then suddenly drops off.  The
drop off at 2483 is a dead giveaway that it is caused by 2.4 G equipment.

Also- ATHEROS comms, INC has an experimental license for 2.4 G WC2XLH 
operating in "Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mt. View, and San Jose" since 2000.
Anyone experiencing interferance from them can file a complaint against
the FCC since their license is on a non-interferance basis with other 
co channel users.  I can't imagine why they would apply for an experimental
license for a license free spectrum unless they intended to run higher power
levels or wider deviation in development of their product.  Perhaps someone
could explain (who works for Atheros) why the 2000 filing of WC2XLH.

Just when some of us were thinking 5.6-5.8 was the place to go, some 
phone mfgr. started wasting bandwidth up there with a new 5.8 Ghz 
cordless - that's the last thing we need.  

Has anyone heard of network link hardware using the "public" spectrum 
that sits right in the middle of the PCS band (1800-1900 Mhz)?  
(SEE http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/bandplans/pcsband.pdf ) Every
carrier has a High and Low band of frequencies - where they meet in the
middle there is a single band of spectrum that belongs to the public.
(Home Depot, for example, uses this spectrum for their in-plant cordless
phone system - privately owned, high power phones with multiple talk paths
and handsets).  It would seem that an 802.11b'ish digital radio LAN could 
be put in that band just as easily and with less congestion than 2.400-2.483
has today.

The power amplifiers are also easier and cheaper to build in that frequency
range than 5.8 Ghz.  Since 802.11b'ish designs are single frequency, time 
division duplexing, they could easily make use of a block of spectrum only
6 Mhz wide.

I've got enough torn open pcmcia cards kicking around the lab that I'm tempted
to modify a couple to use 1910 to 1930 Mhz just to see how they perform in 
a relative quiet zone.
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to