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 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.
Whether or not people are paranoid, if the FCC moves all unlicenced frequencies into the GHz range, they limit the public's ability to communicate over long ranges with unlicensed equipment.
Software defined transceivers exist. Adjustable antennas exist. Poorly shielded electronics that can cause further noise propagation to broadcast out of the transmit side also exist.
You can also change the intended broadcast frequency of some cheap handheld radios using a USB cable and an off-the-shelf antenna.
There is very little in the way of the general public to do something illegal, wittingly or otherwise, in RF.
I'd argue that 'capability' is a naive limiter here as they'd be more likely to do this by accident than on purpose (or ignorance vs malice).
There are tons of illegal/unpermitted/unlicensed broadcasts happening all of the time. They only become an issue when regulators need to enforce rules, usually due to noticed interference.
Bad bonding/grounding is probably the most common cause. RF exists other places too. RF that was meant to be contained in a wire can use these same allocated OTA frequencies because they were never meant to escape that closed system... But do, mostly through poor bonding/grounding.
As you can probably see by now, there is little actually stopping anyone from broadcasting on any particular frequency. Regulators will catch them if they're causing destructive interference, eventually.
But you could potentially use 'illegal' RF for years and never be noticed. Your transmit power/range and your local environment (who else is using the spectrum locally) will dictate that for you more than any allocation rules alone.
The amateur radio scene is a special thing. They share knowledge, experience and more than anything, a culture of informed operation of RF.
I'd encourage anyone interested in operating any RF systems to acquire or at least study enough to acquire an amateur Technician license (US).
I agree, but I think it's important to note that "long range" is the context we're talking about. If you just want to get a quick message out then I fully agree, there's not a ton stopping you, but if you want it be a reliable and/or medium to long-term solution, then the barriers are quite non-trivial. There's also the risk of prosecution, which the regulators are not above if they smell intentionality. If they think you're innocently transmitting they'll just ask you to stop, but if they think you're intentionally and/or openly violating the rules, they can bring some serious legal pain down.
Today's WiFi, that you all know and love, started out on unlicensed RF (radio frequency) bands. We need to continue to expand the ability to talk on RF to allow innovation, like what happened with WiFi.
Personally, I don't like there being more licensed spectrum. I think more spectrum should be unlicensed and therefore free for all who play by the rules.
But in the case of Wi-Fi specifically, part of the success story of 5 GHz (besides having much more spectrum available than 2.4 GHz and having less noisy legacy applications cluttering it) is the lower maximum EIRP in most parts of it.
This forces everybody to have smaller (and if required more) cells – which is a big win in densely populated areas such as apartment buildings, for example.
Because the cell network is designed around the towers managing resource allocation, instead of phones trying and hoping nobody else was trying at the same time. Doing it this way increases the total capacity of the network by a lot.
So to create a phone mesh network, you would effectively need to create an entire new protocol stack, probably some enhancements to the frontend/PHY for the initial connection establishment (two phones realizing they're in range of each other) and congestion handling. And depending on how you implemented it, it would be a power hog too, since listening for a tower broadcast requires much less juice than announcing your presence to the world and hoping someone is in range.
(I do actually think there is phone-to-phone communications buried somewhere in the standards, but it still requires the tower for coordination)
Apple’s AWDL is hacky and ugly in lots of ways, but has been in market for a decade or more and enables phone to phone. If WiFi forum ever gets WiFi direct 2 off the ground it could be amazing.
But phone to phone is chicken and egg; users aren’t demanding it because there aren’t any killer apps, and there aren’t any killer apps because problems like identity, privacy, resiliency haven’t been solved, and those problems haven’t been solved because users aren’t demanding these apps.
Yet the only recent movement in that area was them cutting down on AirPlay to unknown contacts, reportedly due to governmental pressure.
So unfortunately I believe that there is just no interest of Apple to make any move there, despite being in an excellent position: iMessage would solve most problems of spam, discoverability etc. (they could make it so that you can only message preexisting contacts when offline).
You ever try and have a conversation over APRS text messages without even digipeaters in a crowded urban area? Good luck getting through.
I'm not trying to save on data fees; I'd just love to do low-bandwidth peer to peer messaging with people nearby without any network around.
What if, for example, low-frequency 5G bands were available to such P2P applications as a secondary user, similarly to 5G WiFi and weather radars? If there's a network there, use that; if there isn't, do P2P!
You got Zigbee and LoRaWAN for that already. IKEA has water leakage detectors (which I highly recommend, they saved my ass already), and temp/hum sensors, go for Sonoff's lineup.
It is however great for a non-contact point to point where you connect the xmitter and receiver by attaching adjoining faces together. Imagine a PCIe card where the edge connector had no electrical contacts it just sits in the slot and the connection is a 60GHz link between the card and the base board. With inductive power transfer you don't need any conductive contacts at all.
Its very cool and sciencey but the tranceivers are stupid expensive and the use case is really pretty limited.
I am so paranoid I think that if the FCC are doing this they are right to, or may at least have a point.
We need to accept the radio spectrum is part of the cyber security profile of the area of the country.
To drop a giant hint, something that listens to one thing in remote areas, transmits the results via another channel, over a series of hops and then out of the country, would be of great interest to some people.
The restrictions are annoying, but my belief is the FCC (and international equivalents) should promote amateur radio licensing by committing to protecting licensed usage in the existing amateur bands, and get more HAMs inside the tent pissing in the outward direction.
Is preventing this even possible in todays world?
1. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/08/06/china-launches-its-rival...
The oldest operating satellite (older than the Voyagers) appeared to fail to due a battery issue, but somehow woke up in a mostly-working state soon after. It was noticed by activitsts in Poland, and was used to bounce radio messages out of the country. Since satellite communication is pretty directional, and into the sky, it was difficult-to-impossible to triangulate the source of the signals.
A current proposal regarding the 900MHz band, primarily put forward by NextNav, suggests a significant reorganization of the spectrum to allocate a portion for their terrestrial 3D positioning network, potentially creating dedicated uplink and downlink bands within the lower 900MHz range, which could impact existing users like toll systems and RFID devices due to potential interference concerns; however, this proposal faces strong opposition from various industries currently utilizing the band
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.
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.