jof at thejof.com
Mon Nov 21 18:33:32 UTC 2011
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Gopiballava Flaherty <
gopiballava at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:07, Forrest Flanagan <solenoidclock at gmail.com>
> > I'd count on 802.11 standards and cell phone radios being hindered in
> the event of any large police action.
> Intentional interference is, by my reading, against FCC rules. I'd be very
> surprised if police departments had 802.11 blocking systems.
I think they'd have more trouble with 5 Ghz, but in the 2.4 Ghz ISM band,
secondary users are required to just accept any interference by primary
users or other secondary users.
If they got a license, they could blot out portions of 2.4 Ghz. And as
secondary users, I suppose one could argue that a wideband jammer-like
device that transmitted in a pattern that contained some information could
just be using the spectrum as intended.
That said, I haven't even heard anecdotally about any kind of activity like
this. It seems unlikely, but something to seriously consider when you're
talking about the safety controls of a small (but unmanned) aircraft.
If you were using VHF control, via amateur radio or whatnot, it would be
hard to blot out the received signal from a strongly-directional antenna
like this: http://www.arrowantennas.com/arrowii/146-437.html
I've got one of these for amateur satellite work, but it also works darn
well for tuning in remote hilltop repeaters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss