WiMAX could interfere with satellite communications?

Yeah, all those sticky sweet stories about WiMAX actually happening this decade or possibly showing up in a device or two were really getting on our nerves. Now it seems the "little wireless standard that couldn't" is back to form with a report from the Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG). Apparently those folks found "conclusive" results of "unacceptable" levels of interference from WiMAX of satellite signals in the C-band. Naturally, it sounds like this group's primary purpose is to come up with data like this to protect that satellite spectrum turf, but it's disconcerting nonetheless, and we'd love to hear from the WiMAX camp on the issue -- if it comes down to a choice between mobile broadband and a new season of Meerkat Manor in HD, we don't want to be the ones making the hard decisions.

[Via New Scientist]

[Bassir @ Mar 16th 2008 11:29AM]

well uh then make it not interfere

or get new satellites

[w00t @ Mar 16th 2008 2:17PM]

Superb advice I'm sure nobody thought of this!
I'll be sure to pass it on! :)

[jas0nuk @ Mar 16th 2008 1:25PM]

:|

[Blackstar @ Mar 16th 2008 6:08PM]

Hell with the interference, we need to make satellites with anti-Alien capabilities and soon.

[andres @ Mar 16th 2008 9:20PM]

yes, yes, lets also just go save every animal from extinction, while were at it, lets just go solve world hunger, and hey, while were at it, why dont we go and just fix everything. hell, lets just go get a new earth

[tamarok @ Mar 24th 2008 1:25PM]

Part of the reason some of these satellites are still using this frequency is because of cloud penetration, which is particularly important in some parts of the world:

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19726476.200-longrange-wifi-threat-to-satellite-communications.html

[Nutsy @ Mar 16th 2008 11:38AM]

I dont get it... How can sending digital infomation down the same spectrum as whats been used for decades on anilouge cause interfearence with a different conumication system?

The two systems are no different. Its just whats being sent. I dont see how it could interfear at all.

[Ignatius @ Mar 16th 2008 12:14PM]

It seems to have affected your spelling skills. O.o;

[Jason @ Mar 16th 2008 1:48PM]

It's digital information, but our world is inherently analog. These are actual, physical wavelengths that carry the data, so of course if another stream of data crosses on the same wavelength, there will be interference.

[Nutsy @ Mar 16th 2008 3:53PM]

Spelling... Sorry im dyslexic :p

But my point is the spectrum was used before without interfearing the satlite signal... So there is no reason that that after the auction suddernly it would start interfearing...

Tbh it sounds like other ends of the industry trying to throw in a few scare tacticks...

[Sam Winter @ Mar 16th 2008 5:11PM]

Seriously, if you don't have some disorder that affects your communication ability, WILL YOU PLEASE ****** LEARN HOW TO SPELL CORRECTLY?? It's unbelievably agitating to read. You didn't even get close to "analog" and you can't even spell "communication" or "interference"!!!!!
Jesus christ, what is this country (USA) coming to????

[Jordan @ Mar 16th 2008 7:58PM]

Lay off, he is asking for answers, not criticism.

[Nutsy @ Mar 17th 2008 10:52AM]

Actually I’m English... Not American. And yeah I couldn’t be arsed putting my reply through Office. Sorry...

You say I must have some sort of disorder... IM DYSLEXIC YOU FOOL! Maybe if you could get passed your spelling prejudice you might have seen me say that already.

And yeah I put this through word just for you.

Oh and actually it’s spelt analogue. So really I was pretty close to that one, but conunication. Yeah spelt that one pretty badly, hit an N when I meant to hit a M. Oh and should have been double M.

Oh one last thing I wasn’t trying to spell interference… Interfering is what I was trying to say.

But of course you being a narrow minded American who thinks only Americans are smart enough to understand gadgets, and only Americans read an international gadget news site, could only see a few dodgy spellings. It’s bad enough I butcher the English language with my bad spelling, but I have an excuse, I’m dyslexic. What’s your excuse? Analog indeed.

[E71 @ Mar 16th 2008 11:43AM]

Love the image-recycling skills.

[Blaktornado @ Mar 16th 2008 12:14PM]

How dare you!?

The picture is epic.

[erik @ Mar 16th 2008 12:20PM]

I love this picture, it makes me laugh every G** damn time!

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Mar 16th 2008 12:54PM]

Kinda off topic, but is it just me or does the alien look like it's holding a Slushee (straw, cup, lid and all) in its right hand? :P~

[mian @ Mar 16th 2008 2:24PM]

Engadget is doing their part for the environment dude. Good for them.

[Abuzar @ Mar 16th 2008 2:45PM]

Shouldn't you censor damn, and not God?

[erik @ Mar 17th 2008 12:08AM]

d***... you're right!

[Tim Rosencrans @ Mar 16th 2008 1:59PM]

funny they didn't mention what frequency the WI-Max was on. Thats sort of important since WI-MAX can operate on several.

[dizilbdog @ Mar 16th 2008 12:10PM]

Well that would suck no Wimax and getting stuck with the same old Verizon and ATT. I hope this isn't true. Sprint needs Wimax.

[Jon @ Mar 16th 2008 12:05PM]

WiMax runs at a variety of frequencies and I'm sure that they are referring to only one of them. So this has nothing to do with WiMax and probably has to do with use of one particular frequency (by WiMax or any other standard).

[John Stracke @ Mar 16th 2008 1:31PM]

Yes, but some of the frequencies expected to be used for WiMAX do seem to overlap with the C band. The IEEE has specified that WiMax *can* run over any frequency, but, in practice, they realized that they needed to specify some common frequency bands so that we'd actually get interoperability. The frequencies specified for licensed use are 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, and 3.5 GHz; for unlicensed use, we get 5GHz (like 802.11a).

If you read the SUIRG's document describing the test, you see that their tests involved setting the WiMAX equipment to run at 3400, 3450, 3500, 3550, and 3600 MHz. Sprint plans to use the 2.5 GHz band, which it already owns in much of the US. So this shouldn't be a problem for them.

[Jon @ Mar 16th 2008 2:09PM]

Basically they showed that radios operating on 3.5Ghz interfered with other radios at 3.5 Ghz. Brilliant.

I believe that with digital compression techniques, the TV and satellite people do need to use less spectrum and leave bands like 3.5Ghz open to other uses.

[John Stracke @ Mar 16th 2008 2:59PM]

"Basically they showed that radios operating on 3.5Ghz interfered with other radios at 3.5 Ghz. Brilliant." -- Well, yeah, anybody could have guessed that it might've been a problem; but a test is more convincing than a guess.

"the TV and satellite people do need to use less spectrum and leave bands like 3.5Ghz open to other uses." -- I agree, but I don't see it happening any time soon; there's too much money invested in the current equipment. In the short term, you have to wonder why IEEE even considered using this band for WiMAX, when there are large, rich incumbents already there.

[John Stracke @ Mar 16th 2008 3:02PM]

Oh—and there *are* people using compression on satellite signals; for example, DVB can run over satellite (it's called DVB-S), and that can run in the C-band. So the satellite people are switching to more efficient tech, but using it to deliver more signals instead of using less bandwidth.

[David @ Mar 17th 2008 9:31AM]

Most carriers are considering to run WiMAX on 700 or 2500, everyone that I know of is running it on 2500. If this article's testing relied on 3500 frequency, THEN IT'S COMPLETELY POINTLESS. 3500 is too high anyway, absolutely no building penetration unless you had a nuclear reactor powering it at the broadcast site. Heck, 2500 is pretty high, especially considering a lot of cellular networks run at 1900.

[John Stracke @ Mar 17th 2008 4:36PM]

"absolutely no building penetration unless you had a nuclear reactor powering it at the broadcast site" -- and very few manufacturers are currently shipping nuclear-powered cellphones.

(Though I suppose Sony might wish someone would, to get people to forget about exploding laptop batteries. :-)

[007baf @ Mar 16th 2008 12:10PM]

2 Things:

1. The satellite pictured is a GPS satellite. Not a communications satellite.
2. When I worked at Air Force Space Command we constantly had issues with "terrestrial" communications systems interfering with our ability to maintain telemetry with our communication and navigation satellites. The issue is so serious that mobile platforms exist to go out and find the offending source. Often it was other federal agencies, but also civilian uses. So what? you might ask. Well, the ability to maintain complete command and control of satellites is crucial - if we can't control GPS satellites than they lose precision and things start "bumping" into each other, like airplanes.

So, this is a HUGE issue. Hopefully a work-around will be found. Otherwise, we cannot afford to lose our ability to communicate with satellites and space craft so that others can have lickety-split internet access.

[Phoenix @ Mar 16th 2008 12:42PM]

That's just a picture they use pretty much every time there's a satellite story, it's not specific to this one.

But it's a funny pic

[darkroom @ Mar 16th 2008 12:49PM]

i'll never get tired of this image. it's classic.

[3rdsun @ Mar 16th 2008 1:48PM]

Didn't they shoot down that runaway satellite. Can't seem to kill that damn alien.

[buttabean @ Mar 16th 2008 12:12PM]

I laugh out loud everytime is see that alien graphic used on engadget :).

[007baf @ Mar 16th 2008 1:04PM]

I agree it's funny. Most folks can't visually identify satellites - insufferable space geek am I!

[Neebs @ Mar 16th 2008 12:25PM]

Where are the rockets?

[Alec @ Mar 16th 2008 12:38PM]

This picture was too good to go to waste.

[matt @ Mar 16th 2008 12:50PM]

Piss off.

[Homeboy @ Mar 16th 2008 12:55PM]

I second that. The picture is on the hall of fame list. Freaking fantastic and I'm glad they brought it back!

[Adrian Williams @ Mar 16th 2008 12:57PM]

Nail in Sprints coffin?

[Jacob @ Mar 16th 2008 1:02PM]

fail...

[asphixiated @ Mar 16th 2008 1:15PM]

generic and useless comment, AND you signed your comment/spammed your crap site.

Congratulations!

[asphixiated @ Mar 16th 2008 1:17PM]

what a stupidly designed website.

[Wisam @ Mar 16th 2008 1:31PM]

Does anyone knows when we will have WiMax in the US ? I keep hearing Korea, India and such . What about us?

[smoke_tetsu @ Mar 16th 2008 6:13PM]

I know of one ISP that offers WiMax but only in 3 cities... 2 in MI, one in NM.
http://www.azulstar.com/

[Wisam @ Mar 16th 2008 6:16PM]

Thanks smoke-tetsu but I live in NC. I guess we will have to wait few more years before seeing WiMax here.

[Captain Crunkled @ Mar 16th 2008 7:43PM]

NC just recently got plumbing.. I doubt WiMAX will be around anytime soon.

(Native and resident of NC, so I'm allowed)

[Noah @ Mar 16th 2008 2:55PM]

So they can't put this on it right?
"This equipment has been tested and found to comply with limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in residential installations."

[UKNigel @ Mar 16th 2008 3:01PM]

I'm not even going to look to see if it is in fact stupidly designed.

[EagerDragon @ Mar 16th 2008 4:24PM]

Well in that case they can change the frequency of the satellite for all I care. Leave WIMAX alone, we need it.