NextNav's Callous Land-Grab to Privatize 900 MHz(eff.org)
eff.org
NextNav's Callous Land-Grab to Privatize 900 MHz
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/nextnavs-callous-band-grab-privatize-900-mhz
6 comments
We do need a land based GPS alternative. The consequences of losing GPS without a ground based backup in place are almost incalculable.
Clearly it doesn't need to be at 902-928 Mhz.
[Edit/Brainstorming]
I suggest we implement a 0.1% (time) tax on digital RF transmissions of all types, I.E. every second UTC, all Fixed Position transmitters send a 1 millisecond "National Positioning System" packet, with position and delay data with precision timing on all packetized systems using the public airwaves. We could use same system to distribute time signals.
This allows implementation of a new public service with minimal cost to all concerned, and we don't have to steal anyone's bandwidth from other services.
Clearly it doesn't need to be at 902-928 Mhz.
[Edit/Brainstorming]
I suggest we implement a 0.1% (time) tax on digital RF transmissions of all types, I.E. every second UTC, all Fixed Position transmitters send a 1 millisecond "National Positioning System" packet, with position and delay data with precision timing on all packetized systems using the public airwaves. We could use same system to distribute time signals.
This allows implementation of a new public service with minimal cost to all concerned, and we don't have to steal anyone's bandwidth from other services.
Do you know how many RF signals would be interrupted by a 1ms broadcast every second that covers every possible spectrum? A hint: most of them. Many protocols rely on exclusive access to the spectrum, and couldn’t possibly be synchronized well enough to have a constant 1ms pulse interrupt them.
OP mentioned packetized, not digital.
All packetized traffic is digital. What’s your point? Regardless of the implementation, anything that would require all other traffic to back off (ie not transmit) every 1ms would break most wireless things.
Everything is already packetized and queued before transmitting. It seems that there are existing timing synchronization frames[1] in 5G transmissions at present. It would only require adding additional metadata to make those useful for positioning and timing distribution.
So, it might only be a few dozen packets/second in the worst case, for cell phone sites, etc.
As far as consumer equipment, like WiFi routers, etc... those are unlicensed, and wouldn't be part of this proposed use. (Though I suppose someone could figure out how to do it with WiFi, etc)
[1] https://howltestuffworks.blogspot.com/2019/10/5g-nr-synchron...
So, it might only be a few dozen packets/second in the worst case, for cell phone sites, etc.
As far as consumer equipment, like WiFi routers, etc... those are unlicensed, and wouldn't be part of this proposed use. (Though I suppose someone could figure out how to do it with WiFi, etc)
[1] https://howltestuffworks.blogspot.com/2019/10/5g-nr-synchron...
They said for 1 ms every second.
> This allows implementation of a new public service with minimal cost to all concerned
I work on private radio networks, and this would require replacing billions of dollars of hardware.
Additionally, to be useful for positioning, these locations probably need survey-grade accuracy of their locations. I imagine they would also need higher quality timesources than they typically have (if they even have timesources at all).
I work on private radio networks, and this would require replacing billions of dollars of hardware.
Additionally, to be useful for positioning, these locations probably need survey-grade accuracy of their locations. I imagine they would also need higher quality timesources than they typically have (if they even have timesources at all).
Couldn't they do it in a similar manner as all of the ad tracking stuff that places signals in frequencies out of human hearing ranges? By all types, do you mean my WiFi router too, or just the public broadcasters like TV/Radio?
If you're considering commercial broadcast transmitters, there's a downside in that most markets have a central place that is ideal transmission tower location for that area. This means that each station's signal will be very close to each other making them essentially the same location. Smaller stations tend to pop up in different places than the "big boys", but they're also lower power.
If you're considering commercial broadcast transmitters, there's a downside in that most markets have a central place that is ideal transmission tower location for that area. This means that each station's signal will be very close to each other making them essentially the same location. Smaller stations tend to pop up in different places than the "big boys", but they're also lower power.
Actually people can hear those. Not all people of course, but I am noticing artifacts in the vocals on some music remasters. Others have reported similar experiences.
It is not a big impact. But it is one and I am not entirely sure we need that crap everywhere.
We for sure don't need the kind of interruption proposed. It is a good thought with good intent, but the fact is RF use cases are not like network packets.
It is not a big impact. But it is one and I am not entirely sure we need that crap everywhere.
We for sure don't need the kind of interruption proposed. It is a good thought with good intent, but the fact is RF use cases are not like network packets.
I'm not sure how remasters with issues have anything to do with this.
You're assuming based on my specific example that the tones would need to be in a range that a microphone on a device could hear. I was thinking that the extra data would be part of the broadcast signal vs the content signal where an antenna would pick it up vs a microphone. My original comment didn't really attempt to explain that though. After sleeping on it, I realize, this isn't an analog broadcast anymore so doubtful it could work with extra frequencies in the FM signal
You're assuming based on my specific example that the tones would need to be in a range that a microphone on a device could hear. I was thinking that the extra data would be part of the broadcast signal vs the content signal where an antenna would pick it up vs a microphone. My original comment didn't really attempt to explain that though. After sleeping on it, I realize, this isn't an analog broadcast anymore so doubtful it could work with extra frequencies in the FM signal
The older recordings are not encoded with the Arbitron type artifacts. New ones may be.
When I compare new vs old, this comes up.
Broadcasters put data in band and have done so for what? A decade now? You mentioned out of band tracking data. I am saying there is also in band data.
Sorry to be unclear.
It is perceptually encoded to ride along with the audio and intended to be inaudible. And it largely is!
It is in band so that AD targeting can be done anywhere audio is played aloud. Say a radio station plays the old tune. It adds its signature to the audio stream which can then be picked up by someone using a tracking device at the local fair, for example.
Adding it to the tunes themselves can do the same for someone using a boom box or some speaker and give some sense of play outside streaming counts, like where exactly are those streams being heard? Your local coffee place might be a likely candidate.
I know the part about radio adding the artifacts is real and old news now. Pretty much all broadcast audio contains it.
The artifacts I hear on some remasters sound a whole lot like those I began hearing on broadcast audio. And back then, I asked and was told nicely how it all worked. Pretty clever tech actually.
I cannot always hear it. Usually, it has to be material I know well and have heard sans encoding. Or, a voice I know well from a time before encoding. It is just different enough to notice for me and some others I have talked with.
When I compare new vs old, this comes up.
Broadcasters put data in band and have done so for what? A decade now? You mentioned out of band tracking data. I am saying there is also in band data.
Sorry to be unclear.
It is perceptually encoded to ride along with the audio and intended to be inaudible. And it largely is!
It is in band so that AD targeting can be done anywhere audio is played aloud. Say a radio station plays the old tune. It adds its signature to the audio stream which can then be picked up by someone using a tracking device at the local fair, for example.
Adding it to the tunes themselves can do the same for someone using a boom box or some speaker and give some sense of play outside streaming counts, like where exactly are those streams being heard? Your local coffee place might be a likely candidate.
I know the part about radio adding the artifacts is real and old news now. Pretty much all broadcast audio contains it.
The artifacts I hear on some remasters sound a whole lot like those I began hearing on broadcast audio. And back then, I asked and was told nicely how it all worked. Pretty clever tech actually.
I cannot always hear it. Usually, it has to be material I know well and have heard sans encoding. Or, a voice I know well from a time before encoding. It is just different enough to notice for me and some others I have talked with.
Consequences are incalculable. Likelihood is calculable.
They could just require it on buildings above a certain height.
Create a new "I'm Here" protocol that just sends an ID, GPS, and whatever telemetry fields people might want, like weather data.
Make them solar powered with LTO batteries that won't need maintenance for 30 years, and just mass produce one tiny transmitter unit.
They could serve as something like Meshtastic nodes in an emergency.
Create a new "I'm Here" protocol that just sends an ID, GPS, and whatever telemetry fields people might want, like weather data.
Make them solar powered with LTO batteries that won't need maintenance for 30 years, and just mass produce one tiny transmitter unit.
They could serve as something like Meshtastic nodes in an emergency.
Yeah, maybe something like LORAN? Or maybe quantum gyroscopes will shrink in cost and size to allow totally offline navigation without references beyond a known starting point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gyroscope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gyroscope
If quantum gyroscopes were made practical, they wouldn't be sold to civilians due to ITAR, as it would make it far, far too easy to make drones that could reach out and strike Peking, Hanoi or Leningrad from here near Fort Dearborn.
I think you'd have more problems with battery range than with navigation in that specific case, although certainly a cheap, reliable navigation system that works in GPS denied environments would be a huge boon for Ukraine right now.
Perhaps the same tricks that are currently done to neuter civilian GPS could be applied. Although as I understand it, those are mainly intended to prevent you from making a cruise or ballistic missile from a box of parts by preventing high speed and high altitude service. Those are likely becoming insufficient in the era of drones, where you don't really need to go outside of civilian GPS approved envelope.
Or maybe it will be like cheap IR cameras. The best cheap IR cameras are currently imported from China, because US companies are prevented from creating anything comparable for the civilian market by ITAR.
Perhaps the same tricks that are currently done to neuter civilian GPS could be applied. Although as I understand it, those are mainly intended to prevent you from making a cruise or ballistic missile from a box of parts by preventing high speed and high altitude service. Those are likely becoming insufficient in the era of drones, where you don't really need to go outside of civilian GPS approved envelope.
Or maybe it will be like cheap IR cameras. The best cheap IR cameras are currently imported from China, because US companies are prevented from creating anything comparable for the civilian market by ITAR.
You know, if someone were actually interested in doing a modern terrestrial navigation system, I think the DME band would be where to go. It's 962-1213Mhz, a whopping 250Mhz of super prime spectrum. Lots of DMEs are now being decommissioned, so it shouldn't need as much spectrum as it has. Now, there are some other things in that band like radars and such, but I'd bet there's at least 30Mhz or so that you could set aside for a more modern ground based navigation system.
How common is enforcement in these situations? What happens if a 900MHz baby monitor continues to be used after this chunk of the spectrum is privatized?
Has there been a precedent like this? I imagine tracking down a gazillion baby monitors would be very tiresome
Not to mention that probably a majority of the electric gas and water meters in the US operate in the 902-928 range.
Wireless microphones used by newsies or other production types used a frequency range that was deprecated. Your gear didn't just magically stop working. The places you were allowed to use it got really small. When a crew works an event like a sporting event, all wireless devices and their frequency must be logged to prevent competing signals between crews. If you show up with the old stuff, you're pretty much laughed out of the room and denied use of the gear. At less regulated places, your use of the equipment will just be subject to interference from other signals that are now using the bands. If your use causes interference, you can be subject to appropriate penalties
Generally, from my time in a radio spectrum regulatory body, you start by enforcing EMR compliance at the importer/manufacturing level, so no-one can buy a new 900ishMHz baby monitor that would cause interference - either by regulating allowed transmitter power or just flat out verboten.
Then you respond to interference complaints as they come up, and commercial operators tend to be very vigorous in monitoring their spectrum that they're paying for, and can often pinpoint the location reasonably well already, and then the nice radio inspectors come out, triangulate it, and have a friendly talk.
Never really had a situation where spectrum that was regulated as "general user" (e.g., no need for a licence, but also no protection against interfering signals) and heavily used by by consumer appliances was modified to no longer be general user though.
Then you respond to interference complaints as they come up, and commercial operators tend to be very vigorous in monitoring their spectrum that they're paying for, and can often pinpoint the location reasonably well already, and then the nice radio inspectors come out, triangulate it, and have a friendly talk.
Never really had a situation where spectrum that was regulated as "general user" (e.g., no need for a licence, but also no protection against interfering signals) and heavily used by by consumer appliances was modified to no longer be general user though.
Thanks for your experience. Good to know.
There is a ton of gear depending on the current spectrum plan.
Seems to me all very problematic and what I read makes it look like the ground based GPS is a ruse for the real money which is selling access to 5G companies, who currently struggle with 5G inability to propagate indoors and in other common terrain.
They could solve that problem using spectrum they already have access to. There is no need to ruin 900Mhz for that.
There is a ton of gear depending on the current spectrum plan.
Seems to me all very problematic and what I read makes it look like the ground based GPS is a ruse for the real money which is selling access to 5G companies, who currently struggle with 5G inability to propagate indoors and in other common terrain.
They could solve that problem using spectrum they already have access to. There is no need to ruin 900Mhz for that.
It seems like there is an asymmetry, we need a way to allocate this pre-existing 'unlicensed' spectrum explicitly for public use... and 900MHz is def a sweet spot. It shouldn't even make sense to attempt to reallocate it. The public ownership should be immutable.
This is just terrible and I’m grateful the EFF keeps an eye on these rent seekers. How can we stop this?
Submit your own comments to the FCC and/or reach out to your legislators.
Yes. That can be quite effective.
I will be writing one. They do not have to attempt this on 900Mhz.
And they shouldn't, unless they can do it in a way that does not disturb considerable use of the spectrum present today.
And perhaps they can! The EU got along with US gps. I bet this can be done here too, no private spectrum required.
I will be writing one. They do not have to attempt this on 900Mhz.
And they shouldn't, unless they can do it in a way that does not disturb considerable use of the spectrum present today.
And perhaps they can! The EU got along with US gps. I bet this can be done here too, no private spectrum required.
What NextNav did include however is its intent to resell their exclusive bandwidth access to mobile 5G networks.
They admit nobody is calling for ground based GPS. And that can be done in lots of ways and on spectrum already allocated as the EFF says in their piece.
Fact is 5G sucks for some use cases, like indoors. And they could fall back to 4G and or do other things to improve on that.
Trying to mooch the 900Mhz spectrum away from an active public use, just to resell their shiny new resource to 5G companies looking for easy options is not in the beat public interest.
I think they are doing it this way to avoid ugly PR for already disliked wireless companies. But I could be wrong...
900Mhz is excellent and widely used too. Augmenting 5G would make whoever stole it from all of us a lot of money.
The great propagation properties are exactly why public use of 900Mhz is popular!
I say the 5G companies already have 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G spectrum and the lower frequency ones propagate better in diverse terrain anyway.
All this means 5G companies have options and there is no need to allow one company to own what is now a public resource serving the public well just as it is supposed to.