what 2.4 article
10-28-2011 | 09:25 AM
#277
RE: what 2.4 article
All ISM- Wifi bands do have licensed operations.
10-28-2011 | 09:29 AM
#278
Senior Member
10-28-2011 | 09:40 AM
#279
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: grand rapids, MI
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Oberst
All ISM- Wifi bands do have licensed operations. The 2.4GHz is licensed by many phone companies giving them commercial rights.
Our radio's are licenced to use certain channels. Most industrial, scientific and medical do use and have the monopoly over the 2.4GHz ISM system. Once RC radios start causing issues with any of them for instance by the way of interference, who do you think will be the first to go?
"802.11 technology has its origins in a 1985 ruling by the US Federal Communications Commission that released the ISM band for unlicensed use.[19] In 1991 NCR Corporation with AT&T invented the precursor to 802.11 intended for use in cashier systems. The first wireless products were under the name WaveLAN."
The industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio bands are radio bands (portions of the radio spectrum) reserved internationally for the use of radio frequency (RF) energy for industrial, scientific and medical purposes other than communications.[1] Examples of applications in these bands include radio-frequency process heating, microwave ovens, and medical diathermy machines. The powerful emissions of these devices can create electromagnetic interference and disrupt radio communication using the same frequency, so these devices were limited to certain bands of frequencies. In general, communications equipment operating in these bands must tolerate any interference generated by ISM equipment, and users have no regulatory protection from ISM device operation.
Despite the intent of the original allocation, in recent years the fastest-growing uses of these bands have been for short-range, low power communications systems. Cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, and wireless computer networks all use the ISM bands.
You can doubt all you want and you can think I'm short on fact and long on anecdote all you want. I don't twist the facts nor am I on a agenda other than to deliver the facts. Your counteraction reads as if it's coming from a pessimist more than knowlege.
The phone companies are just a small pea in the pod who are under license to use ISM. I am saying companies pertaining and not to the phone companies use ISM, and if any want to use the bands our hobby is now using, and if or when the new RC radios starts to interfere, the AMA will be told that they can no longer operate under the ISM Band. The phone companies do have clout and influence with the FCC. Anyone who worked for the phone company knows that.
The AMA is concerned of this, and told me as such in a different way.
Pete
All ISM- Wifi bands do have licensed operations. The 2.4GHz is licensed by many phone companies giving them commercial rights.
Our radio's are licenced to use certain channels. Most industrial, scientific and medical do use and have the monopoly over the 2.4GHz ISM system. Once RC radios start causing issues with any of them for instance by the way of interference, who do you think will be the first to go?
"802.11 technology has its origins in a 1985 ruling by the US Federal Communications Commission that released the ISM band for unlicensed use.[19] In 1991 NCR Corporation with AT&T invented the precursor to 802.11 intended for use in cashier systems. The first wireless products were under the name WaveLAN."
The industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio bands are radio bands (portions of the radio spectrum) reserved internationally for the use of radio frequency (RF) energy for industrial, scientific and medical purposes other than communications.[1] Examples of applications in these bands include radio-frequency process heating, microwave ovens, and medical diathermy machines. The powerful emissions of these devices can create electromagnetic interference and disrupt radio communication using the same frequency, so these devices were limited to certain bands of frequencies. In general, communications equipment operating in these bands must tolerate any interference generated by ISM equipment, and users have no regulatory protection from ISM device operation.
Despite the intent of the original allocation, in recent years the fastest-growing uses of these bands have been for short-range, low power communications systems. Cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, and wireless computer networks all use the ISM bands.
You can doubt all you want and you can think I'm short on fact and long on anecdote all you want. I don't twist the facts nor am I on a agenda other than to deliver the facts. Your counteraction reads as if it's coming from a pessimist more than knowlege.
The phone companies are just a small pea in the pod who are under license to use ISM. I am saying companies pertaining and not to the phone companies use ISM, and if any want to use the bands our hobby is now using, and if or when the new RC radios starts to interfere, the AMA will be told that they can no longer operate under the ISM Band. The phone companies do have clout and influence with the FCC. Anyone who worked for the phone company knows that.
The AMA is concerned of this, and told me as such in a different way.
Pete
Has there ever been any documented loss of signal or interference of these devices CAUSED by a RC Tx? Where there dropped calls at Joe Nall at the same time the models crashed? Should I expect the next guy to put a model in the beans/corn/woods turn back to me and demand compensation because I was uploading photos to a photobucket account using my iphone?
And finally, why so hush-hush? The AMA will tell a guy, but hold him to secrecy, and then make a few backhanded comments at the very end of a magazine, no verifiable outside evidence. As long as I have the little FCC sticker on my TX, I'm flying
<br type="_moz" />
10-28-2011 | 10:34 AM
#281
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
I don't believeranyone one has claimed the AMA is going to 72 Mhz.
I don't believeranyone one has claimed the AMA is going to 72 Mhz.
I agree with Sport_Pilot on this one, As far as 2.4 being replaced i'm not that surprised I think a few years ago there was talk of going up to the
5ghz range. IMO there aren,t that many problems with 2.4 that can directly be associated to the 2.4 frequency itself of course that may change.
It may be possible that the AMA may be aware of some changes coming down that may have a negetive impact on 2.4 but at this point who
really knows. One thing I dont like is most radio manufactors have discontinued the module. system
10-28-2011 | 10:46 AM
#282
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Huntersville,
NC
RE: what 2.4 article
I dont believe it will be anything higher than 2.4. Microwaves already have a hard enough time getting thru obstacles. 5ghz would only compound the issues. Anything less than 2.4 would be beneficial.
10-28-2011 | 11:32 AM
#284
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Huntersville,
NC
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
That is the frequence from phone to tower, some tower to tower and tower to station communications is done on microwave or 2.4Ghz.
However, from looking at the current cellular frequencies, I dont see anything that suggest cellular is a prob with 2.4. The 4G stuff referred to earlier in the thread doesnt appear to overlap the part of the band we use. The 4G range is 2496 - 2690.
I get that technically 2.4 may be used or could be used but just not finding the hard info I want and need.
Microwaves cover a broad part of the spectrum and it wouldnt surprise me if the "new" frequencies being warned of coming down the pipe dont actually fall into the microwave range.
Cheers.
10-28-2011 | 11:35 AM
#285
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: K-Bob
We don't need new xmitters or receivers, we don't half-azzed, pseudo experts that have ancient cell phone sales training, scaring the bejesus out of some of the old timers, we do need new people at the AMA. Starting with the Technical Director.
We don't need new xmitters or receivers, we don't half-azzed, pseudo experts that have ancient cell phone sales training, scaring the bejesus out of some of the old timers, we do need new people at the AMA. Starting with the Technical Director.
Does anyone, that you members have instilled a trust in by electing them to their office, taken the inititive to inform you about these developments? If they have I darn well have missed it.
Does any of those that the elected EC has provided for you to vote on (2011 election ballot) come forth and attempted to explain things to you? NOPE again. They don't have the cajoles to get up front in the firing line and be heard. If they have, I have overlooked any such evidence.
No matter the situation concerning toy airplanes, the sky is not falling. If you want more and better, then contact your AMA DVP. That is what he volunteered to do.
AMA Bylaws:
Section 6. The District Vice President of each of the AMA
districts, as a member of the Executive Council, will formulate
policy, serve on committees (when appointed), and resolve other
matters brought before the Executive Council. The District Vice
President will appoint all of the following for his district: Contest
Board members, Contest Coordinator(s), Frequency Coordinator,
and Associate Vice President. The District Vice President is
responsible for maintaining Academy contact within the district
and providing coordination with Headquarters on AMA matters.
Get on with it!
10-28-2011 | 11:36 AM
#286
RE: what 2.4 article
I think tower to tower communication can be several frequencies, as well as land line. Iwouldn't be suprised to find they use it, but doubt it is common, and certainly they have no claim to it.
10-28-2011 | 12:23 PM
#287
My Feedback: (14)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Arlington,
TX
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Oberst
Did you ever have Bluetooth disconect on you when you knew it was fully charged? Have you ever faded in and out or had the signal weaken and you knew you weren't that far from a tower, but when you redialed it came in strong again? Ever have the signal fade when you were caught in a heavy rain? Have you ever had a dropped call? Have you ever got no signal in a shopping mall, elevator or home? Have you ever sent a text or email and it got lost in cyberspace?
Your phone operates on the 2.4GHz system, enough said! Yea, I want to operate my $1,000 dollar airplane with that type of technology. NOT!
Pete
ORIGINAL: gsoav8r
Wish my MA would show up already...
However, from looking at the current cellular frequencies, I dont see anything that suggest cellular is a prob with 2.4. The 4G stuff referred to earlier in the thread doesnt appear to overlap the part of the band we use. The 4G range is 2496 - 2690. ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies
From looking at videos on rcmodelreviews.com were the gent uses a nice spectrum analyzer we can see that RC 2.4 systems are outputting in the range of about 2400 - 2485.
Who knows whats really being hashed out in FCC and industry circles, but so far I cant decipher what the fuss is about.
Cheers.
Wish my MA would show up already...
However, from looking at the current cellular frequencies, I dont see anything that suggest cellular is a prob with 2.4. The 4G stuff referred to earlier in the thread doesnt appear to overlap the part of the band we use. The 4G range is 2496 - 2690. ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies
From looking at videos on rcmodelreviews.com were the gent uses a nice spectrum analyzer we can see that RC 2.4 systems are outputting in the range of about 2400 - 2485.
Who knows whats really being hashed out in FCC and industry circles, but so far I cant decipher what the fuss is about.
Cheers.
Did you ever have Bluetooth disconect on you when you knew it was fully charged? Have you ever faded in and out or had the signal weaken and you knew you weren't that far from a tower, but when you redialed it came in strong again? Ever have the signal fade when you were caught in a heavy rain? Have you ever had a dropped call? Have you ever got no signal in a shopping mall, elevator or home? Have you ever sent a text or email and it got lost in cyberspace?
Your phone operates on the 2.4GHz system, enough said! Yea, I want to operate my $1,000 dollar airplane with that type of technology. NOT!
Pete
2.4 gear is not fool proof for sure but then neither is any other hobby quality radio or other devices. I guess I must have thrown caution to the wind somewhere by flying 75# waivered airplanes on 2.4.
When 2.4 stuff starts raining from the sky like the birds did last winter then I will become concerned and exercise something other than normal caution and good operating practices.
I also remember Finagles saying "The experiment can be deemed a success if no more than 90% of the findings must be discarded to make it agree with the hypothesis."
I am always more concerned about brain fade than I am signal fade.
10-28-2011 | 01:22 PM
#288
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lacona, NY
RE: what 2.4 article
Many products including the 2.4 RC radio is under the unlicenced digital transmission system by the FCC. When and if it starts to effect the licensed digital transmission, the FCC will regulate and will mandate that all digital transmission systems to become licensed. The airwaves are flooded by different 2.4GHz technologies, eventually new rules will apply and the FCC will grant authority to the licenced holder first.
If the phone companies or any other licensed digital transmission system holder starts to complain to the FCC that RC aircraft are the cause of interference to any of their 2.4GHz systems, say good bye to the 2.4GHz radios that's now being used in this hobby.
Can't say it any better than that, research it like I just did. This is what I've been writing about before, but I was basing it on memory, not what I researched.
Pete
If the phone companies or any other licensed digital transmission system holder starts to complain to the FCC that RC aircraft are the cause of interference to any of their 2.4GHz systems, say good bye to the 2.4GHz radios that's now being used in this hobby.
Can't say it any better than that, research it like I just did. This is what I've been writing about before, but I was basing it on memory, not what I researched.
Pete
10-28-2011 | 01:58 PM
#290
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lacona, NY
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: warbird72
Futaba never wanted to do the 2.4 change.. The Futaba is built in Japan Where 2.4 is illegal.. Hum Makes ya wonder..
Futaba never wanted to do the 2.4 change.. The Futaba is built in Japan Where 2.4 is illegal.. Hum Makes ya wonder..
Yes and I noticed that Tower still sells the 72MHz radio. I don't know if they are still in production or just left overs? I'm disappointed that JR stopped making them, because I only use JR. I assume Futaba is still making them because they are not legal in Japan and Tower sells their products internationally.
The better way to say what I said in my last post:
Our hobby uses the 2.4GHz under the unlicenced digital transmission system by the FCC. It's under recreation and development. The medical, science and industrial is licensed.
The science, medical and industrial has rights over unlicensed recreation using the 2.4GHz system. This among all the mysterious crashes that happen, it makes sense why the AMA is secretly in the new development of the 2.4 replacement. Don't it?
Pete
10-28-2011 | 02:22 PM
#291
My Feedback: (35)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bowling Green,
KY
RE: what 2.4 article
I can't stand it any longer. I hate posting in this forum, but I have to.
The AMA never has and never will do development in any kind of products in RC.
The AMA will not ask or tell any company what they can or can't do.
The AMA will not approve or disapprove products as long as they meet legal standards.
Orerst, I know you don't like 2.4. why? I don't know nor care!!! Starting rumors with out facts and I do know you have no facts, just stirs the pot. Dennis
The AMA never has and never will do development in any kind of products in RC.
The AMA will not ask or tell any company what they can or can't do.
The AMA will not approve or disapprove products as long as they meet legal standards.
Orerst, I know you don't like 2.4. why? I don't know nor care!!! Starting rumors with out facts and I do know you have no facts, just stirs the pot. Dennis
10-28-2011 | 02:30 PM
#292
My Feedback: (25)
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Oberst
Can't say it any better than that,
Can't say it any better than that,
The better way to say what I said in my last post:
ps. I can't say it better than that!
10-28-2011 | 02:32 PM
#293
Senior Member
RE: what 2.4 article
Its called picking up crumbs and creating a story around that is loosely based on a fact taken completely out of context.
This thread is like the Monty Python Thoery of a Dinosaur skit...
This thread is like the Monty Python Thoery of a Dinosaur skit...
10-28-2011 | 02:38 PM
#294
RE: what 2.4 article
The AMA is not a governmental authority, military junta, or secret society. It's an association of modelers. They do not represent the RC industry or make decisions for it.
10-28-2011 | 03:14 PM
#295
Senior Member
RE: what 2.4 article
another thing, if there are concerns with the use of the 2.4GHz band by RC modellers then the FCC would be the people to notify of pending investigation into safety concerns. The AMA would need to communicate that to its members, and advise or recommend mitigation actions while the investigation is undertaken. Any under the table action is illegal is it not?
Thats how it would work over here.
Frm what I have gathered there has been no notification from your governing bodies.
Lastly why is Europe not as concerned since all 2.4 radios currently sold will conform to their pending legislation?
Thats how it would work over here.
Frm what I have gathered there has been no notification from your governing bodies.
Lastly why is Europe not as concerned since all 2.4 radios currently sold will conform to their pending legislation?
10-28-2011 | 03:20 PM
#296
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: warbird72
Futaba never wanted to do the 2.4 change.. The Futaba is built in Japan Where 2.4 is illegal.. Hum Makes ya wonder..
Futaba never wanted to do the 2.4 change.. The Futaba is built in Japan Where 2.4 is illegal.. Hum Makes ya wonder..
10-28-2011 | 04:32 PM
#299
RE: what 2.4 article
In some countries, non-hopping systems are restricted to much lower power levels than those that do hop so this left JR with a problem. Even in its homeland of Japan, the DSM2 system was actually illegal, since it had a power output well in excess of the 10mW allowed for non-hopping systems.
Here I just copy and pasted it
Here I just copy and pasted it
10-28-2011 | 05:33 PM
#300
My Feedback: (4)
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Oberst
What I can tell you is the AMA will be making changes, and that the 2.4 will be replaced by what is now being developed and currently in the testing phase. They are replacing the 2.4GHz system before the phone companies request the higher spectum channels, and has the FCC notify the AMA that they can't have 2.4 GHz radios using what was once open channels.
I can not tell you any more info than that so don't bother trying to get it out of me. All you need to know is that the AMA is aware of the 2.4GHz problems and has known about it for the last 3 years and the new 2.4GHz replacement is under development. It's finally now that they mentioned it in MA that issues do exist. Anyone who knows how to read between the lines can comprehend what the article was truly saying.
Again, about time!
Pete
What I can tell you is the AMA will be making changes, and that the 2.4 will be replaced by what is now being developed and currently in the testing phase. They are replacing the 2.4GHz system before the phone companies request the higher spectum channels, and has the FCC notify the AMA that they can't have 2.4 GHz radios using what was once open channels.
I can not tell you any more info than that so don't bother trying to get it out of me. All you need to know is that the AMA is aware of the 2.4GHz problems and has known about it for the last 3 years and the new 2.4GHz replacement is under development. It's finally now that they mentioned it in MA that issues do exist. Anyone who knows how to read between the lines can comprehend what the article was truly saying.
Again, about time!
Pete
If something like this is going on, the AMA is testing and evaluating prototypes provided to them by the radio industry, as they have always done.
The AMA was introduced to 2.4 at about the same time as the rest of the market....as I recall, they got a DX6 a litle bit earlier than the various radio reviewers.
In the last 6 years, I have had zero 2.4 problems (I have never had a radio related issue with Spektrum after thousands of flights and have witnessed vanishingly few problems with any 2.4 system at many dozens of events that I have attended.)
I know that some seem to be having an inordinate amount of trouble in other areas of the country.
The article mentioned problems indoor with metal buildings. Must be more than a metal building issue, as I regularly fly at an area indoor event in a large, round all metal arena, with corrugated metal walls and lots of metal structure. I have seen at least 30 models flying at once indoors at this site, all 2.4, with zero radio issues over the last 4 years.
