FRequency useage coordination is certainly a large barrel of tangled worms, no doubt about that! Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who want to make something wireless in order to profit, and they really have no concern over any potential damage that they would cause.
The other thing that I want the FCC and all of those others to keep in mind is that there is only so much spectrum in existance, and it is not being made any more, so once the last bit of it is filled with junk there simply won't be room for anything else. Do we really need a wireless mouse and keyboard, and a wirless link to the printer? And wireless light switches? The list goes on for a long time, things that would be better, cheaper, and more reliable if they were wired instead of wireless. Of course, those organizations selling the wireless thing would argue about that, I realize. BUT to repeat the saying, "If your only product is hammers, then everybody's problems look like nails."
William K, Bob; Cabe; Ann, Liz,... I really hesitate to comment on this, but after dealing with the FCCs of the world, U.S.A. friendly's, unfriendly's, etc. around the world for most of my life I have to stand with William.
Please let me expand somewhat on this. Design News is, in my opinion, is not the right UMB publication for this subject to be discussed. Why you ask? Because the control and use Spectrum worldwide is, to a great extent, controlled by Sovereign athority and domain. It is also my belief that although Google has spent some time and effort on this, Google has not even begun to scratch the surface of a VERY intricate international web of sophisticated and diverse rules, regulations, established international committee(s), regulators, laws and treaties.
Moreover, Google if they see fit to proceed, needs to become ONE of the proponents for this but, would be wise NOT to force control of any Spectrum. Any of you reading this out there who disagree might first talk to those serving on IEEE and other such international frequency co-ordination committees.
Cabe, any additional unregulkated bandwidth would quickly become exactly the same as the Citizens band radio service that you describe as lame. Besides that there already is more bandwidth set up for use as the "family radio service", already. Those frequencies are available to anybody who buys a radio set to use them. What we certainly do not need is something with internet bandwidth. MY point is that for those who are not technically competent enough to purchase radios from any of dozens of sellers, why should such folks be allowed to talk anyway?
And if you want to do it on your smart phone, there is always twitter, which is not really much different from the CB radio that you call lame, except that it has more modern technology.
William, I guess you answered my "as long as the technology works, why not?" question. Sounds analogous to cable internet--the more users, the worse performance gets. That explains why it's not being talked about much any more. I also see your point about wired vs wireless.
Frequency hopping is only a "sort of good" idea if there are a lot of users to share those frequencies. And as soon as the number of users is equal to the number of alloted frequencies it slows down quite a bit. And when there are more users than there are frequencies things get really stupid. The fact is that there are not that many assigned frequencies, and so there will be problems, because the other thing that happens is folks raise the transmit power to improve their likelyhood of overpowering the interference, which enlarges the area where that frequency can't be used by others. Sort of like at a party where some folks talk louder to be heard over the others talking louder to be heard. See what I mean?
A MUCH better choice would have been for the FCC to issue liceses and restrict the number assigned to each frequency set. Better yet, the FCC should refuse to allow those devices that are just for making short wireless connections. Using wires does not use up spectrum. Less convenient, but cheaper as well.
Frequency-hopping is not a new idea; I remember writing about it ages ago, when there was a lot more "white space" available. As long as the technology works, why not? I agree, the fallout will be very interesting.
I'd think the International Telecommunications Union would get a little testy trying to deal with the concept of frequency-agile equipment capable of jumping bands. And of course our own FCC may feel a little threatened having civilians question their frequency-band re-allocations. I expect there to be some interesting fallout from the data provided.
A slew of announcements about new materials and design concepts for transportation have come out of several trade shows focusing on plastics, aircraft interiors, heavy trucks, and automotive engineering. A few more announcements have come independent of any trade shows, maybe just because it's spring.
Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones used to fare quite well in the repairability department, but last year's flagship S5 model took a tumble, scoring a meh-inducing 5/10. Will the newly redesigned S6 lead us back into star-studded territory, or will we sink further into the depths of a repairability black hole?
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.