It should be somehow connected to the width of roman roads, I'm pretty sure of it. But the connection is not an obvious one: "speed of light / 2.4 gHz / (56 1/2 inch) = 0.087041".
Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#32found this article interesting: http://ca.gizmodo.com/5629814/giz-explains-why-everything-wi...
It's a good read, and one of my starting points, but I had already seen some official archival material that contradicted several of the article's claims. There aren't too many references given that can be chased down either.
Have you reached out to the ARRL or the equivalent International Amateur Radio Union organization for your country?
There may be an old ham out there who remembers why 2.4GHz was reserved for ISM use.
edit: fixed typo, thanks lutusp
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good read, and one of my starting points, but I had already seen some official archival material that contradicted several of the article's claims. There aren't too many references given that can be chased down either.
Have you reached out to the ARRL or the equivalent International Amateur Radio Union organization for your country? There may be an old ham out there who remembers why 2.4GHz was reserved for ISM use. edit: fixed typo, thanks lutusp
> Have you reached out to the AARL
s/AARL/ARRL/
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post is full of errors. CMOS radio didn't exist in 1995. 802.11a didn't come out 'after' 802.11b. 802.11a and 802.11b were ratified on the SAME DAY. 802.11g is a bit more than "802.11a in 2.4GHz".
I'm looking at this from the point of view of the technology, rather than the standards, as that's where I was involved. From a technology point of view, 802.11b (particularly its 1 and 2Mbps modes) was developed before 802.11a, and so is "older". I know this, because I had the design for the world's first 802.11a modem on my computer's screen, and one of the professors had earlier bought an instance of a DSSS WLAN (…
802.11b was CCK modulation (and to a lessor extent PBCC, but that didn't take-off).
DSSS wasn't 802.11b, it was 802.11 (or half of it, the other PHY at that point was FHSS). 802.11b's 1Mbps and 2Mbps modes were DSSS, and pre-existed 802.11b. These (and the FHSS PHY) were all part of the 1997 standard. 802.11b and 802.11a came along in September of 1999.
Who is 'we'? Because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#35This wired article _seems_ to explain it:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/wireless-explainer/2/
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#36My guess would be that it has something to do with design considerations for early cavity magnetrons, which generate the radio waves for microwave ovens.
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of the technology, rather than the standards, as that's where I was involved. From a technology point of view, 802.11b (particularly its 1 and 2Mbps modes) was developed before 802.11a, and so is "older". I know this, because I had the design for the world's first 802.11a modem on my computer's screen, and one of the professors had earlier bought an instance of a DSSS WLAN (…
802.11b was CCK modulation (and to a lessor extent PBCC, but that didn't take-off). DSSS wasn't 802.11b, it was 802.11 (or half of it, the other PHY at that point was FHSS). 802.11b's 1Mbps and 2Mbps modes were DSSS, and pre-existed 802.11b. These (and the FHSS PHY) were all part of the 1997 standard. 802.11b and 802.11a came along in September of 1999. Who is 'we'? Because you don't seem to know what you're talking…
"we" = the authors of this paper:
http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/97_mmlan.pdf
Percival is an inventor on one of the fundamental WLAN patents (recently in the news):
http://www.google.com/patents/US5487069
Skellern and Weste were the founders of Radiata Communications, which was first to market with 802.11a, before being bought by Cisco.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/75649/cisco_acquires...
I'm one of the other authors. Maybe I'm wrong, in that the written history tells it differently, but I'm recalling what was said around the meeting table and across the office partition. I might be a bit loose with the terminology, but to me it's not packaged up neatly into standards, as it was a non-linear development process when I was dealing with it. --- Edit: fix URL + name
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#38Some speculations:
I suspect FCC simply allowed Raytheon to use whatever frequency its "Radarange" oven used. After all, Raytheon was the main radar producer for the US military. Presumably the military had a strong influence on FCC. Remember, it all happened in 1947, just 2 years after World War II.
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#39Good luck with your search! Out of interest, have you tried approaching the University to see if they have funds available to help you out? That would be my first port of call - $500USD isn't much to them.
It certainly crossed my mind, but given financial constraints at the moment I didn't think they would jump on the idea. Also, this is a complete side topic for my real research, so I shouldn't even be doing it. It's tweaked some interest now though so they certainly might be more amenable, if nothing for the good PR.
Re: Why 2.4GHz? Chasing wireless history
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good read, and one of my starting points, but I had already seen some official archival material that contradicted several of the article's claims. There aren't too many references given that can be chased down either.
Have you reached out to the ARRL or the equivalent International Amateur Radio Union organization for your country? There may be an old ham out there who remembers why 2.4GHz was reserved for ISM use. edit: fixed typo, thanks lutusp
Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't, but I know that some friends of that sort of person have forwarded it on, so I'm trying to get in touch. Will certainly update everyone if that turns up something.