[HN Gopher] FCC seek comments on NextNav petition for rulemaking...
___________________________________________________________________
FCC seek comments on NextNav petition for rulemaking on lower
900MHz ISM band
Author : pera
Score : 97 points
Date : 2024-08-12 17:08 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (docs.fcc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (docs.fcc.gov)
| rpaddock wrote:
| Seems like NextNav is following the The Firangi Rules of
| Acquisition to Profit at the expense of every existing service in
| the 902 to 907 MHz band.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Just remember:
|
| If companies could reasonably expect to get away with it,
| they'd offer murder-for-hire as-a-service so long as it was
| profitable, and if they didn't, there'd probably be at least
| one activist shareholder who would push for it.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Companies do, just not the ones we read about on Hacker News.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| True Also companies are made of people. There is no magic
| threshold of size at which bad stuff seeps in
| brigadier132 wrote:
| This is statement is so ridiculous. It's like saying "Just
| remember: some humans are murderers"
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Corporations in the US are structured in a way that many
| will act with ethics much lower than the median ethics of
| the employees.
| callalex wrote:
| Isn't that what Blackwater is?
| rpcope1 wrote:
| So basically they want the FCC to punish a bunch of ISM and Ham
| users by taking that spectrum more or less for themselves?
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The worst part about this is they will be out of business in 10
| years, and resold the bands to an existing telecom.
|
| In this day and age, the protocols do not require exclusive
| control over a band to function in spread spectrum modes.
|
| Pretty douche move, and pissing off 68000 amateur radio folks
| in an election year may be unwise. =3
| lenerdenator wrote:
| The thing with 915 ISM is that it's not just crotchety old
| Elmer, K0LD, sitting his shack that you're screwing over.
|
| Meshtastic devices are really starting to see uptake among
| techies in general, and in the US, the primary band they
| operate on is 915Mhz. It's to the point now that DefCon will
| put extra strain on the mesh and the project has to release
| patches ahead of time. If news got there this year, you can
| count on some jimmies having been rustled.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| For sure, some use 900MHz 802.15.4 equipment for
| industrial, agriculture, and environmental monitoring
| systems.
|
| People need the lower frequency to punch though the water
| vapor, and can't get away with <14cm without cutting range.
|
| Using it for 5G bandwidths is stupidly inefficient, as it
| will cap out at a few hundred users a cell. Maybe they are
| getting the bands for cheap... lol =)
| rpcope1 wrote:
| It's honestly as stupid as that HFT shop that was trying
| to grab a bunch of shortwave bandwidth for god knows what
| sort of shenanigans instead of just building microwave
| towers or doing something else mildly more intelligent.
| AriedK wrote:
| From the article: " NextNav asks that the Commission
| reconfigure the Lower 900 MHz Band by creating a
| 5-megahertz uplink in the 902-907 MHz band paired with a
| 10-megahertz downlink in the 918-928 MHz band, shifting all
| the remaining non-M-LMS licensees to the 907-918 MHz
| portion of the band. Petition at 28-30."
|
| So at least all LoRa based applications seem unaffected by
| this. Though I don't know how much traffic in the proposed
| NetNav bands will migrate to 915 MHz bands, crowding the
| spectrum.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| >Finally, we seek comment on the windfall that NextNav might
| receive as a result of its proposed spectrum swap for a new
| nationwide license, including the acquisition of accompanying
| rights as a licensee and lessor, the application of flexible
| use and less restrictive technical rules to this band, and how
| the Commission should address any such windfall.
|
| Seems like you might want to send in your comments.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Do they have any explanation as to why they somehow _require_ 15
| continuous MHz of bandwidth in order to provide basic PNT
| services? This is exceptionally disruptive for technical reasons
| that are not clearly enumerated in this notice.
| sitkack wrote:
| Because they want a nationwide bandwidth block that they can
| hoard. They don't need 15Mhz for PNT.
|
| This is so they can offer nationwide machine to machine long
| distance communication. Commercial meshtastic. They spectrum
| would be entirely theirs across the whole country, and could be
| used for any purpose. The extra anticompetitive move is that it
| would kick out and constraint free users of this bandwidth at
| the same time offering paid services in the same band.
| Corporate enshitification of the commons.
| shagie wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33-centimeter_band for info on the
| current and historical use of this band.
|
| > In 1985, the Federal Communications Commission allocated the
| frequency band between 902 and 928 MHz to Part 18 ISM
| (industrial, scientific, and medical) devices. In that
| proceeding, the band was also allocated to the Amateur Radio
| Service on a secondary basis meaning amateurs could use the band
| as long as they accepted interference from, and did not cause
| interference to, primary users.
| hvs wrote:
| Relevant:
|
| https://meshtastic.org/
|
| https://github.com/meshtastic
|
| https://meshtastic.org/docs/configuration/radio/lora/
| hiddencost wrote:
| "NextNav's Petition for Rulemaking. NextNav asks that the
| Commission reconfigure the Lower 900 MHz Band by creating a
| 5-megahertz uplink in the 902-907 MHz band paired with a
| 10-megahertz downlink in the 918-928 MHz band, shifting all the
| remaining non-M-LMS licensees to the 907-918 MHz portion of the
| band. Petition at 28-30."
|
| Hmmm
| sephamorr wrote:
| I have been very interested in 802.11ah halow (wifi in 900mhz ism
| band) to solve the inconvenient distances where 2.4g wifi has
| insufficient range, but something like a LTE catM modem is
| overkill. I'd be very disappointed if this effectively takes over
| the band nationwide.
|
| Can anyone comment on nextnav's intended duty cycle or just how
| much they'll occupy? They're asking for a lot of bandwidth, so
| perhaps it's in a short enough burst and infrequent enough to not
| cause real problems?
| dboreham wrote:
| > 2.4g wifi has insufficient range
|
| Is this about propagation over obstructed Fresnel zone paths?
|
| I ask because generally 2.4GHz has much longer range than
| 900MHz due to the much higher gain antennas achievable at
| higher frequencies.
|
| But if there's something in the way (trees, buildings, a bit of
| terrain), then 900MHz can work on a path when 2.4GHz doesn't. I
| suppose that's one definition of "has sufficient range".
| sephamorr wrote:
| Yes, forest is my exact use case, with roving devices that
| are too cheap to have phased arrays so get stuck on low gain
| antennas.
| threeio wrote:
| Mmm... power meters mesh in that freq range as I recall as
| well...
| mlfreeman wrote:
| What would this potentially do to Z-Wave devices?
| montjoy wrote:
| Great question. I'm wondering the same. According to Wikipedia:
|
| > in Europe it operates at the 868-869 MHz band while in North
| America the band varies from 908-916 MHz when Z-Wave is
| operating as a mesh network and 912-920 MHz when Z-Wave is
| operating with a star topology in Z-Wave LR mode.
|
| So there definitely would be overlap in North America.
| warble wrote:
| From Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextNav
|
| On March 11, 2024, NextNav announced it signed an agreement to
| acquire spectrum licenses covering an additional 4 MHz in the
| lower 900 MHz band (902-928) from Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and
| Skybridge Spectrum Foundation. NextNav acquired the additional
| spectrum licenses for a total purchase price of up to $50
| million, paid for through a combination of cash and NextNav
| common stock. The acquired licenses are in the same lower 900 MHz
| band as NextNav's current licensed spectrum. On April 16, 2024,
| NextNav filed a rulemaking petition with the Federal
| Communications Commission to deliver a spectrum solution in the
| Lower 900 MHz band to facilitate a terrestrial positioning,
| navigation, and timing network (as a complement and backup to
| GPS) and broadband.
| sitkack wrote:
| This is bullshit taking from the commons. I abhor the writing
| style of this document which might be "obvious" to an FCC
| insider, but this is clearly an unmitigated theft.
| xnyan wrote:
| I agree, the problem is the widely held belief that neutrality
| in writing is possible and positive. It's not possible for
| information to be presented without bias, even when done in the
| best of faith. Attempting to be neutral itself is of course
| biased by the experiences and information that has led one to
| an understanding of what "neutral" is. Neutrality is however a
| fantastic tool for hiding bias and ultimately that is (I think,
| at least) the reason it's such a popular idea.
|
| I think transparency actually gives the benefits that
| neutrality claims. Everything I think and do has bias, I will
| (as best I can) tell you what my biases are and let you
| evaluate that how you will.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Is there a way to restrain what they can use this spectrum for,
| or is it doomed to be resold to someone else, basically depriving
| the public of spectrum?
| montjoy wrote:
| Things in my house that use the lower 900Mhz band already:
|
| - Z-wave network
|
| - Weather Stations
|
| In the past - cordless phones
|
| - baby monitors
|
| Do we have any guarantees that these devices will continue to
| work?
| scottbez1 wrote:
| I'm not super familiar with this so I could be totally
| misreading this, but assuming those are operating under part 15
| the answer to whether they are guaranteed to continue working
| seems to be explicitly "no" under NextNav's proposal:
|
| >NextNav does, however, seek the removal of the current
| requirement that it not cause unacceptable levels of
| interference to part 15 devices. See Petition at A-6 (proposing
| to amend SS 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add SS 90.1410(c)).
| drmpeg wrote:
| Spectrogram of 902-928 MHz here in Silicon Valley with just an
| indoor antenna. Tons of power and gas meters pinging away.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK60cMsBaFo
|
| Make sure to switch to 1080p.
| heywire wrote:
| Casually showing off your B210 lol jk, I'm just jealous. My
| RSP1A clone only goes about 10MHz wide. Patiently waiting for
| an affordable 30MHz wide SDR.
| mikewarot wrote:
| We clearly need ground based navigation and time distribution to
| back up GPS, but it should be run by the Department of
| Transportation, or the DoD, not rent seekers.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| I agree, this is literally what LORAN was/is for navigation
| (and we can and should build a better LORAN), and for time
| distribution WWVB and WWV already exist.
| mikewarot wrote:
| LORAN was great for being in the right part of the ocean, but
| being up to 1/4 mile off when navigating land is unacceptable
| as a replacement for GPS.
|
| WWV isn't a precision timing source, and is only sporadically
| available depending on a number of factors.
|
| The best option would be something like a sub carrier on DTV
| and FM broadcasting, along with a beacon at all cell sites.
|
| Auctions of the airwaves are a hidden tax, and should end.
| scottbez1 wrote:
| These policy tradeoffs are interesting (and tricky) - if you have
| a huge number of different parties that are unorganized yet
| impacted by a policy, how do you ensure you have adequate
| representation from them when compared to a single well-organized
| party?
|
| > The Petition recognizes that there currently are unlicensed
| part 15 devices operating in the Lower 900 MHz Band, but it is
| unclear regarding the extent to which the proposed
| reconfiguration would impact potentially millions of such
| devices. With respect to part 15 devices, NextNav states that it
| is completing technical analyses and "will work with unlicensed
| users to understand their spectrum requirements." Id.
|
| > NextNav does, however, seek the removal of the current
| requirement that it not cause unacceptable levels of interference
| to part 15 devices. See Petition at A-6 (proposing to amend SS
| 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add SS 90.1410(c)).
|
| Requesting public comment is perhaps better than nothing (and
| likely better than just allowing lobbyists to influence policy
| behind closed doors), but it's a hard problem to quantify whether
| the collected comments are representative when one side is more
| heavily resourced and organized than the other?
|
| Is it even _possible_ to "work with unlicensed users to
| understand their spectrum requirements" in a way that doesn't
| ignore a potentially substantial long-tail of varied usage?
| ianburrell wrote:
| I saw response from LoRa organization in another article. They
| use the ISM allocation.
|
| That is also amateur radio band and their organization, ARRL,
| will probably be involved.
|
| There are products, like ZWave, that are in band and might
| protest. The short-range in-house probably won't interfere with
| the outside users.
| Aloha wrote:
| https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-776A1.pdf
|
| Here is the much more readable PDF.
| Spivak wrote:
| > The Petition recognizes that there currently are unlicensed
| part 15 devices operating in the Lower 900 MHz Band, but it is
| unclear regarding the extent to which the proposed
| reconfiguration would impact potentially millions of such
| devices. With respect to part 15 devices, NextNav states that it
| is completing technical analyses and "will work with unlicensed
| users to understand their spectrum requirements."
|
| > NextNav does, however, seek the removal of the current
| requirement that it not cause unacceptable levels of interference
| to part 15 devices. See Petition at A-6 (proposing to amend SS
| 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add SS 90.1410(c)). NextNav also
| states that updating the band to increase flexibility will not
| impact amateur users.
|
| If you were really going to do the first part then surely you
| don't need to remove the no interference requirement, right? If
| the rule is "$new_thing can occupy this spectrum but it must not
| interfere with existing usages of the spectrum" then what's to
| discuss, it's a win-win? It seems like the FCC is doing what they
| need to and making them actually specify what is required to not
| interfere with existing users so it can be made part of the rule.
| So I guess I'll hold my breath and see what they come up with.
| vvpan wrote:
| My friends are running a company called FOAM Space that has also
| put a lot of research into 3D terrestrial-base positioning [1].
| Their system, though, can also make "claims" about the position,
| which is a cryptographic proof that the object that created the
| claim was at location X at time Y. So, not only you can find
| where you are but you can also you prove to others that you are
| there. They use unregulated LoRa bandwidths to operate.
|
| [1] https://foam.space/
|
| EDIT: typos
| loph wrote:
| One should not forget how the FCC gifted the bottom of the 220
| MHz band to UPS, who never used it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.25-meter_band#U.S._reallocat...
|
| I have a better idea. Take the old UHF TV channels 70-83 that
| were re-allocated to AMPS cellular and re-allocate them again.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm a bit confused, UPS didn't end up using spectrum it asked
| for in 1977 to build radio relay stations in 1988, so in 2024,
| we should take old TV channels and reallocate them to UPS?
| NextNav?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Overall people are frustrated at so much radio frequency
| lying fallow. My pet peeve is that the density of commercial
| TV and radio stations in the U.S. East coast is a fraction of
| what it is in the West coast. Seems cities in the East are
| too spread out for a single station to cover much population
| but too close together to reuse frequencies between cities.
| Turn your dial on your TV and radio and it is a lot of dead
| air.
| mordae wrote:
| We need to expand ISM license-free zones to facilitate
| experimentation and development, not shrink them even more.
| 902-925 is not ISM in Europe and it sucks. Don't let them take it
| from you over in the US!
| PaulHoule wrote:
| What I notice when I travel with a scanner is that the US West
| Coast and East Coast are entirely different in terms of radio,
| that includes not just inland areas but also the area around
| New York City.
|
| The 2 meter band for instance is back to back busy with people
| speaking English, Spanish and other languages in L.A. but if I
| scan for a while in NYC I'll eventually hear two people talking
| on a repeater.
|
| So far as I can tell startups in the Bay Area try to develop
| 900 MHz devices and come to the conclusion that the band is too
| crowded because every Stanford student and his uncle is testing
| some gadget they made. If somebody tried that in the Research
| Triangle Park area, however, they'd probably wonder if their
| receiver was dead.
|
| So more products dogpile in the 2.4G band which is crowded
| everywhere.
|
| The situation is at the most blatant where it seems the
| utilization of TV channels is much less than 10% on the East
| coat because our cities are too spread out for it to be easy to
| cover people but are too close together to be able to reuse
| frequencies. Thus you can get more channels than some cable
| plans with just a pair of rabbit ears in LA but it is not like
| that in NYC where reflections are so bad in the canyons I
| wouldn't count in tuning into anything in Manhattan.
| p_l wrote:
| 2.4G is also the archetypical ISM because USA lobbied ITU-T
| to make it international garbage band precisely to allow
| airplanes to use microwaves.
|
| So it's garbage band that works pretty much everywhere.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I just don't understand how the FCC can justify just giving away
| spectrum forever to the first person to ask.
|
| They should instead hold an auction every decade for every bit of
| commercial spectrum. Winner can use it for 10 yrs. Stagger the
| auctions so a new chunk in each band is coming up for auction
| every month.
|
| _Nothing_ should be given away forever. Not even the 2.4 Ghz
| wifi band. One day there will be a better use for that band, and
| one bloke running his 50 year old wifi camera shouldn 't be able
| to shut down the new use for a whole city block.
| epanchin wrote:
| So all the tech you bought fails when the company doesn't
| renew? Although uk works on auctions and they work.
|
| Perhaps combine with restrictions on use - if you don't use the
| spectrum, or use more than you need, it gets taken away
| londons_explore wrote:
| nearly all wireless devices in your home use unlicensed
| spectrum (2.4 Ghz wifi, bluetooth, ISM for car remotes, etc).
|
| Licensed spectrum is nearly always used by subscription
| services - eg. your cell phone service.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| > Nothing should be given away forever. Not even the 2.4
| Ghz wifi band
|
| Given this line, how exactly is this response a defense of
| your original comment?
| mikewarot wrote:
| >I just don't understand how the FCC can justify just giving
| away spectrum forever to the first person to ask.
|
| Strong agree, which is why they've traditionally licensed
| transmitters at specific sites. The coordination of use of a
| limited resource is the proper role of the FCC.
|
| >They should instead hold an auction...
|
| Strong disagree. Any auction is a tax, that gets increased and
| passed along to users. The whole idea of making a "profit" from
| the airwaves is a premature (and evil) optimization.
|
| Part of a broadcast license should be expanded to include
| operating a timing and navigation beacon, supplied and
| maintained by the government, which transmits precision timing
| (via local atomic clock(s)) and thus can be coordinated with
| others to measure position. _This should also apply to all cell
| sites_.
|
| Also, the shutdown of ground based navaids by the FAA should be
| reversed as much as possible. Full ground coverage in the event
| of a GPS loss should be maintained.
| lfmunoz4 wrote:
| highly recommend people read Master Switch by tim wu. In part
| talks about how the FCC in the past has destroyed competition and
| progress.
| dpe82 wrote:
| Just a reminder, this is a request from the agency for comments
| from the public. That means you. If you are opposed to the
| proposal then make your feelings heard by submitting them at
| https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings using proceeding/docket #
| 24-240.
| heywire wrote:
| I would have to imagine the manufacturers of the millions of
| smart electric, water, and natural gas meters across the US might
| have some comments.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Is this going to mess up LORA at 915 MHz? Because a lot of people
| I know will be upset.
| hiddencost wrote:
| "NextNav's Petition for Rulemaking. NextNav asks that the
| Commission reconfigure the Lower 900 MHz Band by creating a
| 5-megahertz uplink in the 902-907 MHz band paired with a
| 10-megahertz downlink in the 918-928 MHz band, shifting all the
| remaining non-M-LMS licensees to the 907-918 MHz portion of the
| band. Petition at 28-30."
|
| This suggests they'd leave 915 alone?
| bb88 wrote:
| 902-928 MHz IS the 915Mhz ISM Band currently.
|
| They're requesting more than half of that space.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-12 23:00 UTC)