Australia's communications regulator, ACMA, has already permitted Wi-Fi 6E devices to operate in the lower 6 GHz band (5925–6425 MHz) under the Low Interference Potential Devices (LIPD) Class Licence. This includes low-power indoor (LPI) and very low power (VLP) devices.
As for the upper 6 GHz band (6425–7125 MHz), ACMA is still evaluating its use. In June 2024, it sought public input on possible applications, including RLANs and wide-area wireless broadband services.
So, while unlicensed device operations are allowed in the lower 6 GHz band, the upper band is still under consideration.
AM radio, FM radio, amateur radio, and television broadcast have quite a lot of spectrum real estate. Are they being used enough to justify this allocation?
I wonder if this is going to be the distraction to suggested changes in 900MHz.
My other guess is the major uses of this will turn out to be UWB related:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
Which in practice is largely about short range location finding.
I too have been watching the 900 MHz stuff as I have a number of unlicensed long range devices (1W ERP) that work in that range. The paranoid folks believe the FCC is trying to move all of the unlicensed stuff into the GHz+ range to limit long range communications. I don't subscribe to that opinion, I expect however that there is pressure from commercial interests on UHF and VHF frequencies.
I also believe you are correct in that the bulk of the use of the 6 GHz band will be UWB related and folks will exploit the multi-GSPS ADCs and DACs that are on Xilinx's RFSOC and Analog Devices is shipping. I read a pitch for a UWB "HD video extender" which was basically connecting a 4K display over UWB to a source rather than via a cable. That idea became a lot more viable with the current FCC order.
From what i heard from knowledgeable people, not just that but also unspoofable range - when verifiable proximity/direction is desirable eg for security applications. Say you want a car that opens only when your phone is within ~2m range, and not from 1km away with some MITM/amplification device.
Not sure this is used already but it was one of the benefits mentioned to me.
You're referring to that NextNav BS? Utterly insane. I am furtunate enough to have an employer who actually cares, so we wrote a comment together about it.
It's an affront to reason. Yeah, let's nuke a massive chunk of amateur spectrum, AND LoraWAN AND Z-wave AND EZPass so that domestic orgs can have a pre-enshittified PNT implementation. Never mind that demand for PNT is driven primarily by orgs operating on foreign soil, where nobody gives a damn what the FCC thinks.
14 dBm EIRP = 25 milliwatts, typical legal max for wifi, and the -5 dBm/MHz EIRP power spectral density says that 25 mW must be spread over an 80 MHz channel.
To quote that PDF as it was a bit hard to find within the many dozens of pages:
Pg. 95: Very Low Power Device. For the purpose of this subpart, a device that operates in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands and has an integrated antenna. These devices do not need to operate under the control of an access point.
Pg. 98: Geofenced Very Low Power Access Point. For the purpose of this subpart, an access point that operates in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an integrated antenna, and uses a geofencing system to determine channel availability at its location.
> The Commission envisioned that body-worn devices would make-up
most VLP device use cases and that these devices would provide large quantities of data in real-time. Entities that support the Commission permitting VLP device operation expect that these devices will support portable use cases, such as wearable peripherals (e.g., smartphones, glasses, watches, and earphones), including augmented reality/virtual reality and other personal-area-network applications, as well as in-vehicle applications (e.g., dashboard displays).
I feel like limits on EIRP are overly conservative and restrict the usefulness of phased arrays. If the limit were on total radiated power, then your 1 watt WiFi router could have the range of a kilowatt transceiver with a reasonable number of antenna elements, while emitting the same total power as interference. But since the limit is on EIRP, the phased array is limited to the same range, and so there's no point in using a phased array over a single antenna.
Does anyone know if there's a good reason to use EIRP that I'm missing? I figure satellite communication terminals can have huge EIRPs because they're all pointed at the sky, but the FCC can't guarantee that the beams won't cross for other bands, so they limit the EIRP, but I still think we would all be better off of our systems were spatially selective.
I feel like the barrier may be whether dedicated hardware is required or not. In such a large band, 6 GHz, I would expect a lot of generalized (i.e. non-dedicated) platform hardware to be developed & offered allowing software-focused innovators to offer into the long tail of applications, including mesh network(s).
Everyone I've talked to from the LORA crowd and even some (LORA) alliance guys tells me lo-energy meshes are hard to get right. Am I missing something?
This feels very pie in the sky and dreamlike. Of course some corp will figure out something to do within this space and make closed products that push out free and open uses. At least that's my pessimistic view opposed to your optimism.
It's line of sight only. Think about it like a flashlight. If you have a flashlight (w/power) up on top of a skyscraper roof or a mountainside it can be seen at very long distances. At street level it goes till the next small rise in the ground.
I hope other jurisdictions follow suit so hardware using it can be cheaper due to economies of scale. The segmentation of LoRA radios between US/EU is already pretty annoying and they're fairly niche.
Satellite communications, point-to-point microwave systems, and other similar things (high-data-rate, point-to-point communication) all operate near this band. However, there's plenty of spectrum and the use cases may be declining. There were also some radar systems in this band, but IIRC the useful new radar systems are higher-frequency (10's of GHz for resolution) or lower-frequency (10's-100's of MHz to have longer range).
1) VLP: can now happen in 1200 MHz (5925 MHz to 7125 MHz); previously it was only 850 MHz.
Very Low Power: 25 mW (14 dBm) power.. with -5 dBm/MHz PSD, indoor and outdoor usage.
Think of short range use-cases like smartphone to laptop or smartphone to earbuds/ARVR.
2) LPI: already allowed in full 1200 MHz
Low Power Indoor: 1W (30 dBm) power with 5 dBm/MHz PSD (clients are 6 dB lower); only indoor usage.
Think of your home router.
3) SP: allowed in 850 MHz; no plan to expand AFAIK
Standard Power: 4W (36 dBm) power with 23 dBm/MHz PSD (clients are 6 dB lower); indoor or outdoor usage.
Requires Aautomated Frequency Coordination; send your location to cloud, cloud tell you which channels area available.
Think of enterprise or high power routers; outdoor point to point links (WISP)
So, this new regulation is only for VLP and will result in more (especially 320 MHz) channels. No change to the most common usage of Wi-Fi (Router to Laptop/PC).
I wonder if this was in motion for a while and then intentionally accelerated to ensure it happens under Biden.
Optically it's a pretty pure win. Open stuff sounds good. Less regs sounds good. Tech sounds good. And it's not something that has a corresponding voting block opposing. Just pure upside politically.
Is there any merit to non-ionizing frequencies having harmful impacts on human biological function, I thought so, but is it all "conspiracy" and laughed out of the room or a legitimate scientific part of these discussions?
I'm not a physicist or biologist but what's always made sense to me is that anytime you walk outside during the day you are bathed in broad spectrum radiation from the sun. So anything weaker than the sun is probably safe enough. Anything a million or billion times weaker is probably a million or billion times safer. We already know when and how radios get dangerous (large transmission towers, microwave ovens, etc) and how to mitigate that danger. Inverse cube law and somesuch.
Microwave frequencies can harm biological function through heating tissue; in particular eyeballs have lots of water and poor ability to dissipate heat. However, very low power densities are almost certainly safe.
[edit]
Another example of non-ionizing radiation harming human tissue would be if you stick your hand in front of a cutting laser. Maybe obvious, but you asked...
Most concerns focus around the electromagnetic radiation heating your tissue. Microwave ovens operate at 2.4MHz, and most common frequencies can work like a microwave with varying efficiency. At the intensities of normal transmissions that isn't really a concern. For a time this seemed like something we might worry about with phones, since during a phone call there we have an active antenna right next to your fairly sensitive brain that might not like being heated up. But even there it turned out that the effect was too small to be of concern
There’s none other than localized heating effects, and yes, it’s laughed out of the room.
So, obviously you don’t want to microwave your eyeballs, but you’d feel that in other nearby tissues as heat. If you don’t feel heat from a non-ionizing RF source, you’re not getting cooked. In any case, the amount of infrared coming off an incandescent lightbulb is about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the energy coming off a WiFi router antenna. If being in the room with a lightbulb is safe, so is being in the room with WiFi.
There isn’t a set of rules of physics where low-power, non-heating, non-ionizing RF is dangerous, and also where CPUs work. They’re incompatible. You can’t have both of those at the same time.
We honestly don’t know. Current safety standards mostly focus on preventing tissue heating, because that’s the one effect we can reliably measure and understand. But there’s a chunk of exploratory research out there looking at potential “non-thermal” effects—things like subtle shifts in cell signaling, membrane permeability, or oxidative stress—that might not show up as a measurable temperature increase.
So far, the studies that have been well-designed and replicated haven’t consistently nailed down a clear causal link between non-thermal EMF exposure (within the limits that regulators consider safe) and actual health problems. Still, some researchers argue that we’re not accounting for all the slow-burn, cumulative effects that might be happening. It’s not easy to tease out these subtle influences from the noise of environmental variables, and that makes it hard to really say we’ve got a handle on the whole picture. Check out Prof Michael Levin's Bioelectricity work if you want to go down a very interesting rabbit hole about what we're only recently discovering about how our biology might really work and how electricity and emf's shape it.
With a large enough antenna and enough power you can cook your neighbor.
The ham radio licensing procedure in the US mostly focuses on this effect. Even though there's nothing conclusive I'd imagine there are other deleterious effects that aren't trivially measurable. If it can heat it up it can do other stuff too. Cooking your brain by standing too close to a high power transmission tower can't be good.
I'm an amateur extra, I would challenge any "scientist" laughing EMF dangers off to go find the nearest AM radio tower and spend 6 months in the transmission room for "science".
Without sarcasm, the studies I have found over the years ruled out cumulative effects (unlike ionizing radiation). They so far haven't been able to rule out various types of cancer, ALS, or other diseases caused by long-term exposure.
Yes, there is evidence, but as usually you will get downvoted to oblivion before you can get the point across.
One of the things being pointed to are these EMFs effecting ion channels. The TRPV1 receptor is one of these channels. The TRPV1 receptor is a heat receptor but has many functions. Since this receptor is in the skin 5G and 6G can effect it. The receptor pumps calcium into the cell, and any neurologist will tell you what that can do.
[+] [-] schappim|1 year ago|reply
Australia's communications regulator, ACMA, has already permitted Wi-Fi 6E devices to operate in the lower 6 GHz band (5925–6425 MHz) under the Low Interference Potential Devices (LIPD) Class Licence. This includes low-power indoor (LPI) and very low power (VLP) devices.
As for the upper 6 GHz band (6425–7125 MHz), ACMA is still evaluating its use. In June 2024, it sought public input on possible applications, including RLANs and wide-area wireless broadband services.
So, while unlicensed device operations are allowed in the lower 6 GHz band, the upper band is still under consideration.
[+] [-] BeefySwain|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] drmpeg|1 year ago|reply
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcctable.pdf
[+] [-] Amira465485|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] echelon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fidotron|1 year ago|reply
My other guess is the major uses of this will turn out to be UWB related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband Which in practice is largely about short range location finding.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|1 year ago|reply
I also believe you are correct in that the bulk of the use of the 6 GHz band will be UWB related and folks will exploit the multi-GSPS ADCs and DACs that are on Xilinx's RFSOC and Analog Devices is shipping. I read a pitch for a UWB "HD video extender" which was basically connecting a 4K display over UWB to a source rather than via a cable. That idea became a lot more viable with the current FCC order.
[+] [-] hammock|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] klabb3|1 year ago|reply
From what i heard from knowledgeable people, not just that but also unspoofable range - when verifiable proximity/direction is desirable eg for security applications. Say you want a car that opens only when your phone is within ~2m range, and not from 1km away with some MITM/amplification device.
Not sure this is used already but it was one of the benefits mentioned to me.
[+] [-] ryukoposting|1 year ago|reply
It's an affront to reason. Yeah, let's nuke a massive chunk of amateur spectrum, AND LoraWAN AND Z-wave AND EZPass so that domestic orgs can have a pre-enshittified PNT implementation. Never mind that demand for PNT is driven primarily by orgs operating on foreign soil, where nobody gives a damn what the FCC thinks.
[+] [-] autoexec|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] greesil|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hnuser123456|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lelandbatey|1 year ago|reply
Pg. 95: Very Low Power Device. For the purpose of this subpart, a device that operates in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands and has an integrated antenna. These devices do not need to operate under the control of an access point.
Pg. 98: Geofenced Very Low Power Access Point. For the purpose of this subpart, an access point that operates in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an integrated antenna, and uses a geofencing system to determine channel availability at its location.
[+] [-] jareklupinski|1 year ago|reply
i was expecting vehicle-to-vehicle communications
[+] [-] awelkie|1 year ago|reply
Does anyone know if there's a good reason to use EIRP that I'm missing? I figure satellite communication terminals can have huge EIRPs because they're all pointed at the sky, but the FCC can't guarantee that the beams won't cross for other bands, so they limit the EIRP, but I still think we would all be better off of our systems were spatially selective.
[+] [-] ricksunny|1 year ago|reply
When whitespace in television bands went unlicensed i don't know how much of that we saw: https://www.fcc.gov/general/white-space
I feel like the barrier may be whether dedicated hardware is required or not. In such a large band, 6 GHz, I would expect a lot of generalized (i.e. non-dedicated) platform hardware to be developed & offered allowing software-focused innovators to offer into the long tail of applications, including mesh network(s).
[+] [-] larodi|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] DidYaWipe|1 year ago|reply
By that I mean that they're easily blocked, diffracted, whatever.
[+] [-] cbhl|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Aeroi|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] modeless|1 year ago|reply
Spectrum allocation is very weird.
[+] [-] glitchc|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 20after4|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] binary132|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Joel_Mckay|1 year ago|reply
* indoor unobstructed environments
* outdoor point-to-point line-of-sight
It is a holiday miracle for small low power handheld devices.
We'll need to know the ERP limits for these bands before designing any changes.
However, hypothetically even 5W to 8W could open space networks (C band)
[+] [-] superkuh|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] extraduder_ire|1 year ago|reply
I hope other jurisdictions follow suit so hardware using it can be cheaper due to economies of scale. The segmentation of LoRA radios between US/EU is already pretty annoying and they're fairly niche.
[+] [-] pclmulqdq|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] anthomtb|1 year ago|reply
> expand very low power device operations across all 1,200 megahertz of the 6 GHz band alongside other unlicensed and Wi-Fi-enabled devices.
Unless I am missing something, this means Wifi6 currently operates in this range.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jeden|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] qwertywert_|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tradertef|1 year ago|reply
1) VLP: can now happen in 1200 MHz (5925 MHz to 7125 MHz); previously it was only 850 MHz. Very Low Power: 25 mW (14 dBm) power.. with -5 dBm/MHz PSD, indoor and outdoor usage. Think of short range use-cases like smartphone to laptop or smartphone to earbuds/ARVR.
2) LPI: already allowed in full 1200 MHz Low Power Indoor: 1W (30 dBm) power with 5 dBm/MHz PSD (clients are 6 dB lower); only indoor usage. Think of your home router.
3) SP: allowed in 850 MHz; no plan to expand AFAIK Standard Power: 4W (36 dBm) power with 23 dBm/MHz PSD (clients are 6 dB lower); indoor or outdoor usage. Requires Aautomated Frequency Coordination; send your location to cloud, cloud tell you which channels area available. Think of enterprise or high power routers; outdoor point to point links (WISP)
So, this new regulation is only for VLP and will result in more (especially 320 MHz) channels. No change to the most common usage of Wi-Fi (Router to Laptop/PC).
[+] [-] dang|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Havoc|1 year ago|reply
I wonder if this was in motion for a while and then intentionally accelerated to ensure it happens under Biden.
Optically it's a pretty pure win. Open stuff sounds good. Less regs sounds good. Tech sounds good. And it's not something that has a corresponding voting block opposing. Just pure upside politically.
Either party would love that.
[+] [-] neuroelectron|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mannanj|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bithive123|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] aidenn0|1 year ago|reply
[edit]
Another example of non-ionizing radiation harming human tissue would be if you stick your hand in front of a cutting laser. Maybe obvious, but you asked...
[+] [-] wongarsu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rjegundo|1 year ago|reply
Eg of research indicating we should at least do more deep research before calling it "Safe": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9189734/
[+] [-] kstrauser|1 year ago|reply
So, obviously you don’t want to microwave your eyeballs, but you’d feel that in other nearby tissues as heat. If you don’t feel heat from a non-ionizing RF source, you’re not getting cooked. In any case, the amount of infrared coming off an incandescent lightbulb is about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the energy coming off a WiFi router antenna. If being in the room with a lightbulb is safe, so is being in the room with WiFi.
There isn’t a set of rules of physics where low-power, non-heating, non-ionizing RF is dangerous, and also where CPUs work. They’re incompatible. You can’t have both of those at the same time.
[+] [-] devm0de|1 year ago|reply
So far, the studies that have been well-designed and replicated haven’t consistently nailed down a clear causal link between non-thermal EMF exposure (within the limits that regulators consider safe) and actual health problems. Still, some researchers argue that we’re not accounting for all the slow-burn, cumulative effects that might be happening. It’s not easy to tease out these subtle influences from the noise of environmental variables, and that makes it hard to really say we’ve got a handle on the whole picture. Check out Prof Michael Levin's Bioelectricity work if you want to go down a very interesting rabbit hole about what we're only recently discovering about how our biology might really work and how electricity and emf's shape it.
[+] [-] zer8k|1 year ago|reply
The ham radio licensing procedure in the US mostly focuses on this effect. Even though there's nothing conclusive I'd imagine there are other deleterious effects that aren't trivially measurable. If it can heat it up it can do other stuff too. Cooking your brain by standing too close to a high power transmission tower can't be good.
I'm an amateur extra, I would challenge any "scientist" laughing EMF dangers off to go find the nearest AM radio tower and spend 6 months in the transmission room for "science".
Without sarcasm, the studies I have found over the years ruled out cumulative effects (unlike ionizing radiation). They so far haven't been able to rule out various types of cancer, ALS, or other diseases caused by long-term exposure.
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|1 year ago|reply
One of the things being pointed to are these EMFs effecting ion channels. The TRPV1 receptor is one of these channels. The TRPV1 receptor is a heat receptor but has many functions. Since this receptor is in the skin 5G and 6G can effect it. The receptor pumps calcium into the cell, and any neurologist will tell you what that can do.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6592873/
[+] [-] hgomersall|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] carterschonwald|1 year ago|reply