From: Paul Schmehl (paulsutdallas.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 11:40:51 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--On Monday, November 22, 2004 02:26:35 AM +0100 Ake Nordin
<rootmoosetelia.com> wrote:
>
> This (the preamble especially) is what _should_ eliminate
> the motion sensors from the list. I'm out on this one (too
> lazy to do the math), but is the 802.11b air interface that
> resilient (does it really require that much redundancy)? It
> should be, but that would also be some lost (usable)
> bandwidth.
>
Agreed, and I'd like to see more discussion of that aspect from
knowledgeable people.
>
> Sorry.
>
> 1) The building will contain very much of that energy
> (which never was very much on a metropolitan scale, FCC Part
> 15 and all that).
>
> 2) The noise characteristics as received by those services
> would be intermittent, very bursty and come from many
> different directions all over the city. No easy clues telling
> what to complain about there.
>
> 3) I don't know about US emergency communication radios, but
> typical European systems (before Terrestrial Trunked Radio)
> are so bad anyway that this contributed noise hardly would
> be noticed.

You may well be right, but keep in mind that the campus police would be
operating *in and around* those building much of the time, so they might
actually be affected by it, *if* thats possible.

I'm still not convinced that, more than a few feet from a device, the
interference would even be detectable.

Paul Schmehl (paulsutdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]