7 ms·
FCC seek comments on NextNav petition for rulemaking on lower 900MHz ISM band
- rpaddock 2y agoSeems 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 2y agoJust 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.
- callalex 2y agoIsn’t that what Blackwater is?
- arghwhat 2y agoCompanies do, just not the ones we read about on Hacker News.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoTrue Also companies are made of people. There is no magic threshold of size at which bad stuff seeps in
- brigadier132 2y agoThis is statement is so ridiculous. It's like saying "Just remember: some humans are murderers"
- aidenn0 2y agoCorporations in the US are structured in a way that many will act with ethics much lower than the median ethics of the employees.
- idle_zealot 2y agoThe point isn't just that it would happen, it's that it would be rewarded and encouraged, and ethics preventing the most profitable action (murder) would lead to being outcompeted by an organization with a structure that allows its members to coordinate and profit from murder without their ethics preventing such action. i.e. the market will ruthlessly optimize ethics out of decision-making.
- rpcope1 2y agoSo 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 2y agoThe 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 2y agoThe 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 2y agoFor 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 2y agoIt'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.
- akira2501 2y agoDo 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 2y agoBecause 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.
- RF_Savage 2y agoLess about PNT, more about using it for LTE or 5G, as 15MHz is a standard bandwidth used there.
- shagie 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33-centimeter_band 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 2y agoRelevant: https://meshtastic.org/ https://meshtastic.org/ https://github.com/meshtastic https://github.com/meshtastic https://meshtastic.org/docs/configuration/radio/lora/ https://meshtastic.org/docs/configuration/radio/lora/
- hiddencost 2y ago"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 2y agoI 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 2y ago> 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 2y agoYes, forest is my exact use case, with roving devices that are too cheap to have phased arrays so get stuck on low gain antennas.
- idunnoman1222 2y agoHow would these roving devices even use a phase array? They are moving. Sounds like you dont want directional coverage and just need repeaters
- ianburrell 2y agoHave you found 802.11ah hardware? I'm also interested in it but haven't found hardware to play with.
- timothyb89 2y agoI've been experimenting with the ALFA HaLow HAT [1] for some personal projects. There's also a number of APs good for point-to-point use. [1] https://www.sparkfun.com/products/19956 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/19956
- threeio 2y agoMmm… power meters mesh in that freq range as I recall as well…
- mlfreeman 2y agoWhat would this potentially do to Z-Wave devices?
- montjoy 2y agoGreat 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 2y agoFrom Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextNav 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sitkack 2y agoThis 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 2y agoI 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 2y agoIs 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 2y agoThings 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 2y agoI'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 § 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add § 90.1410(c)).
- drmpeg 2y agoSpectrogram 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK60cMsBaFo Make sure to switch to 1080p.
- heywire 2y agoCasually 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 2y agoWe 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 2y agoI 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 2y agoLORAN 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.
- ianburrell 2y agoNextNav is city-wide navigation. It looks like beacone can cover a few miles which makes sense with the frequency. It can also work indoors. Navigation system like that is useful for more accuracy or when GPS has problem. But not at the expense of 900 MHz band for other useful things. I'm surprised that they can't find an awkward slice of low-band that mobile provider would get rid of or lease.
- scottbez1 2y agoThese 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 § 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add § 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 2y agoI 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.
- hvs 2y agoI think the primary benefit of ARRL (and the main reason I'm a member) is that they do regulatory and legislative advocacy for amateur radio bands. https://www.arrl.org/regulatory-advocacy https://www.arrl.org/regulatory-advocacy
- Aloha 2y agohttps://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-776A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-776A1.pdf Here is the much more readable PDF.
- Spivak 2y ago> 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 § 90.361), A-11 (proposing to add § 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 2y agoMy 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/ https://foam.space/ EDIT: typos
- loph 2y agoOne 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._reallocation 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 2y agoI'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 2y agoOverall 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.
- toast0 2y agoDidn't that get reallocated to other cellular phones? AMPS band became GSM 850 and later LTE band 5 / 5G band n5. TV above channel 37 has been reallocated for even more cellular phone use in two more chunks since then. Cellular phones get a lot of bandwidth, but it's highly utilized.
- ac29 2y ago220-222 MHz is Part 90 now and it is definitely in use.
- mordae 2y agoWe 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 2y agoWhat 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 2y ago2.4G 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.
- giantrobot 2y ago> 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 In LA I think part of that is the repeaters on every mountaintop in the area. Most of LA county and the Inland Empire have clear line of sight to the San Gabriel mountains and most of Orange County has a clear LoS to the Santa Ana mountains. Both ranges have peaks in excess of a mile above sea level. Even before digital TV broadcast the VHF dial was full and there were a lot of UHF channels. I'd guess the Bay Area was similar as most of the population has a pretty clear view of some high peaks with repeaters on them.
- londons_explore 2y agoI 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 2y agoSo 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 2y agonearly 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 2y ago> 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?
- Dylan16807 2y agoI get the impression from their wording that the licensed and unlicensed bands would have different thresholds and rules. For unlicensed, it wouldn't be about registration, it would be about making effective use. It's hard to imagine a situation where nobody is making good use of 2.4GHz, so it should stay unlicensed, but the aspect of effectiveness is still there. Occasionally old tech that is acting like a noise blaster might need to be culled.
- lfmunoz4 2y agohighly recommend people read Master Switch by tim wu. In part talks about how the FCC in the past has destroyed competition and progress.
- dpe82 2y agoJust 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 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings using proceeding/docket # 24-240.
- heywire 2y agoI 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 2y agoIs this going to mess up LORA at 915 MHz? Because a lot of people I know will be upset.
- hiddencost 2y ago"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 2y ago902-928 MHz IS the 915Mhz ISM Band currently. They're requesting more than half of that space.
- myself248 2y agoMost "915MHz" devices are just naming the center of the band, and can operate anywhere within it, or across the whole thing. Nothing operates at a single infinitesimally-narrow frequency except a pure unmodulated sine wave, which carries no information. As soon as you modulate it, you occupy a range. The more modulation, the wider the band. I have a basement full of Ricochet hardware that operates across the whole band, and it occasionally proves useful for data links that're tricky in other ways. It'd all be junk if this goes through.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 2y agoEvery. Single. USA based HNer. Stop right now and file a comment against. To quote another HNer: > If you are opposed to the proposal then make your feelings heard by submitting them at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings using proceeding/docket # 24-240
- jeremywho 2y agoWhat should we say? I'm a licensed ham, meshtastic user and z-wave user but I'm not sure exactly what to include in an FCC comment that would be useful, other than "Hey! I use this!".
- exabrial 2y agoYou could say it's unethical, you use the spectrum, it leaves regular citizens even less experimental bandwidth, it's never coming back after it's gone, and there is an enormous amount of privately held spectrum in the USA they could purchase rather than seizing a public resource.
- jeremywho 2y agoI used Claude to draft something, might help others submit comments: RE: WT Docket No. 24-240, RM-11989 To the Federal Communications Commission: I strongly oppose NextNav's petition to reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band. As an amateur radio operator and user of various devices operating in this spectrum, I believe this proposal would have significant negative impacts on both hobbyists and consumers. 1. Impact on Amateur Radio: This band is crucial for amateur radio experimentation and innovation. I personally use it for Meshtastic devices, which provide valuable experience in mesh networking and could be vital for emergency communications. Displacing these activities would hinder technological advancement and public service capabilities. 2. Consumer Device Disruption: Many common household devices operate in this band. For example, I use Z-Wave devices for home automation. The proposal could render these devices inoperable, forcing consumers to replace expensive equipment and potentially reducing the availability of affordable smart home technologies. 3. Unlicensed Innovation: The 902-928 MHz band has fostered significant innovation in unlicensed devices. Restricting this spectrum could stifle future developments in IoT, smart cities, and other emerging technologies that rely on license-free operation. 4. Inadequate Protection for Incumbents: NextNav's vague assurances about working with incumbents are insufficient. The proposal lacks specific, enforceable protections for existing users, including amateurs and Part 15 devices. 5. Potential Windfall Concerns: The proposed "spectrum swap" appears to grant NextNav significantly more valuable spectrum rights without clear public interest benefits. This raises concerns about equitable spectrum management. 6. Alternative Solutions: The Commission should explore alternative methods to support PNT systems that don't involve disrupting a heavily used and innovative spectrum band. I urge the Commission to reject this proposal and maintain the current diverse ecosystem in the 902-928 MHz band, which supports amateur radio, consumer devices, and technological innovation. Respectfully submitted, [Your Name] Amateur Radio Operator, [Your Call Sign]
- hnburnsy 2y agoWhen the FCC licenses off spectrum they should collect an upfront fee and perpetual royalty fees that should be used to pay down the public debt (or some other use that can't be politicized), unless the use is primarily for the public good. I don't know anything about NextNav but AI says... >will Metropolitan Beacon System charge a royalty for devices to use its network? >Yes, the Metropolitan Beacon System (MBS) developed by NextNav is a proprietary technology, and it is likely that there will be charges associated with using its network. These charges could include royalties or licensing fees for devices that utilize the MBS network for precise location and timing services
- sitkack 2y agoRegister your feedback here https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/docket-detail/24-240 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/docket-detail/24-240
- RobGR 2y agoThis company seems to be publically traded -- should we all buy it's stock and take it over ?