Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
1. 3.6GHz is a licensed channel, so first would have to pay.
2. The problems (excluding those of Einstein 2012) aren't caused by interfering signals.
3. If implemented properly, normal 802.11n should work fine, even with lots of other networks happening at the same time. Instead of making it more complicated to fix the problem, FIRST should resolve the current issue.
|
The fact that it's licensed is stated in the proposal. Many telecommunication technologies require an FCC license for use - the reason these bands/services are licensed is to protect the users from interfering signals. As that's the point of this proposal, I feel it's an acceptable cost.
From the FCC site (
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...&id=3650_3700), it appears the filing fee would be $60 + $150/Call Sign - at worst, this is less than $2000 (somewhere between $50 and $100 per team) These events cost money - the A/V budget alone for some events would most likely be mind boggling. I think that's a reasonable price to pay to ensure that the command & control network remains isolated and secure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
Overall, the 3.6GHz solution requires too much work (money, new radios...) in order for something that may not be the right solution, may make the situation worse, or could be resolved another way.
|
I don't agree, or at least don't find enough evidence to support that statement in your comment to summarily dismiss the idea.
As for going back to some type of custom hardware/radio: that completely undermines the biggest benefit of going away from the 900MHz radios - that teams can use standard COTS equipment for development/demo/practice/off-season events. I'm suggesting simply swapping out the bridge before you bring the robot out onto the field.