Please tell your experience and we will see how big it really is a problem. Thanks

EDIT: Please vote only if you have the phone with by the official ROM (FW) from manufacturer (NO ROOT).

Hello fellow pilots,

Could you care to explain why the 5.8 ghz is important? I live in the EU room but i fly with 2.4, i am looking to buy a OTG cable cause i am not happy with my video feed.
thank you.

Opst02 Posted at 2017-11-27 09:46
Hello fellow pilots,

Could you care to explain why the 5.8 ghz is important? I live in the EU room but i fly with 2.4, i am looking to buy a OTG cable cause i am not happy with my video feed.

WiFi 5Ghz Android-RC communication is important in the EU. It is now the only official option to fly more than 300m apart. If you are connected to Android - RC at 2.4Ghz your range is limited to 300m.

When they banned OTG it is a very topical topic ..

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-11-27 10:13
WiFi 5Ghz Android-RC communication is important in the EU. It is now the only official option to fly more than 300m apart. If you are connected to Android - RC at 2.4Ghz your range is limited to 300m.

When they banned OTG it is a very topical topic ..

Do i have to select the 5.8 ghz option maually? Or does it switch automatically? Does it matter if im on iOS or Android?
Thank you for your help

Opst02 Posted at 2017-11-27 13:24
Do i have to select the 5.8 ghz option maually? Or does it switch automatically? Does it matter if im on iOS or Android?
Thank you for your help

Please check out this video. It shows how to switch the frequency, start from 3 min of video time.

I can connect to 5.8 GHz but I use to fly with OTG since i discovered the connection sequence and everything seems to work more smooth, I can reach longer range without having AC disconnection and the video trnasmision is also much better.

Viking-Pilot Posted at 2017-11-28 01:22
I can connect to 5.8 GHz but I use to fly with OTG since i discovered the connection sequence and everything seems to work more smooth, I can reach longer range without having AC disconnection and the video trnasmision is also much better.

really ? ?

Locationscout_B Posted at 2017-11-29 09:39
really ? ?

Yup...I was surprised, the first time I used OTG I could reach over 1,5km before I started to have transmission problems, so very recommended

Viking-Pilot Posted at 2017-11-29 09:50
Yup...I was surprised, the first time I used OTG I could reach over 1,5km before I started to have transmission problems, so very recommended

1,5 in CE ? great redundancy in signal strength

Who from the 38% "I live in EU and I can connect to Spark WiFi 5.8Ghz" uses Android??
If yes, wich mobile device?

cheers
Hans

Locationscout_B Posted at 2017-11-29 11:51
1,5 in CE ? great redundancy in signal strength

Yes, actually I have flown my spark in wifi 5.8GHz up to 850 m with no OTG and in 2.4 with OTG above 1.5km, so yes it's quite impressive.

2.  I live in EU and I cannot connect to Spark WiFi 5.8Ghz!... I have to use OTG... That it is not supported  officially!...

Dji is not strange that most users in the EU do have problem with WiFi 5.8Ghz and Android when you say everything is fine ?? Some official explanation might be useful ..  An you official explanation might be appropriate..

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-11-27 10:13
WiFi 5Ghz Android-RC communication is important in the EU. It is now the only official option to fly more than 300m apart. If you are connected to Android - RC at 2.4Ghz your range is limited to 300m.

When they banned OTG it is a very topical topic ..

Actually it's the other way around.
2.4 has more range than 5.8 unless there is interference in the 2.4 spectrum.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 09:06
Actually it's the other way around.
2.4 has more range than 5.8 unless there is interference in the 2.4 spectrum.

Yes, you are right, but in order for RC and AC to communicate on 2.4Ghz it is necessary to connect Android with RC to 5.8Ghz. This is the problem we are dealing with here. In the EU, you can not connect Android to the RC at 5.8Ghz .. Why is it happening and what its consequences you will find here: https://forum.dji.com/thread-120954-1-1.html

Have to admit I've never tried it. I have always used OTG because I don't trust my phone's wifi client for this sort of job (thank God I have not updated to 4.1.18...)
In Israel, 5.8 is an even bigger problem than in the EU - 5.8 is not available at all... it is taken by the army and is not open to the public.
But why the RC is incapable of supporting two different 2.4 channels is beyond me. i guess they just didn't design for it... yet another f***up.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 09:28
Have to admit I've never tried it. I have always used OTG because I don't trust my phone's wifi client for this sort of job (thank God I have not updated to 4.1.18...)
In Israel, 5.8 is an even bigger problem than in the EU - 5.8 is not available at all... it is taken by the army and is not open to the public.
But why the RC is incapable of supporting two different 2.4 channels is beyond me. i guess they just didn't design for it... yet another f***up.

The problem is that if both WiFi were sent to 2.4Ghz they would interfere with each other, despite the fact that they would be broadcast on another channel. The antennas are very close in the RC.

However, it might work, but the Android-RC link antenna to be at least 2 meters away from the antenna that communicates with Spark. That's why Dji chose it this way.

The situation with 5.8Ghz in your country is disturbing.

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-11-30 09:41
The problem is that if both WiFi were sent to 2.4Ghz they would interfere with each other, despite the fact that they would be broadcast on another channel. The antennas are very close in the RC.

However, it might work, but the Android-RC link antenna to be at least 2 meters away from the antenna that communicates with Spark. That's why Dji chose it this way.

There might be residual interference between the antennas, but it would depend most on the pair of channels you pick. If they are 25MHz apart or more you could be fine. if more isolation is needed because the antennas are too close, then 30 or 35 could do (but that limits your options - the 2.4 spectrum bandwidth is quite small).

But what exactly is the problem in EU with 5.8?
As far as I read, all over the EU channels 149 through 165 are allowed, for up to 25mW transmission power. Spark RC adheres to that (14dBm, that's ~25mW).
That's more than enough power to connect between a phone and an RC which is right next to it.
DFS doesn't apply for channels 149 through 165.
So what's the issue?

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 09:46
There might be residual interference between the antennas, but it would depend most on the pair of channels you pick. If they are 25MHz apart or more you could be fine. if more isolation is needed because the antennas are too close, then 30 or 35 could do (but that limits your options - the 2.4 spectrum bandwidth is quite small).

But what exactly is the problem in EU with 5.8?

Please read this thread https://forum.dji.com/thread-120954-1-1.html . All information, including appropriate standards, is provided.

Channels 149 to 165 are not allowed in the EU. Everything you read in that thread.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 09:46
There might be residual interference between the antennas, but it would depend most on the pair of channels you pick. If they are 25MHz apart or more you could be fine. if more isolation is needed because the antennas are too close, then 30 or 35 could do (but that limits your options - the 2.4 spectrum bandwidth is quite small).

But what exactly is the problem in EU with 5.8?

The most important is contribution # 26.

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-11-30 09:58
The most important is contribution # 26.

Please note that the document to which you refer in that other thread, ETSI EN 301 893, has nothing to do with the frequencies that DJI uses in the 5GHz band.
See the scope chapter (chapter 1) - that doc applies to the lower part of the 5GHz band (known as UNII-1 and UNII-2). DJI uses the higher part (UNII-3).
So any conclusion you draw based on that doc doesn't apply to us.
If you concluded from that document that WiFi is illegal in DJI's frequency range, I believe that is not a right conclusion.

As for ETSI EN 300 440, I only had a brief glance and didn't see anything that limits the use of DJI's 5.8 band other than transmission power. I'll read it more thoroughly and see if I can find anything.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 10:27
Please note that the document to which you refer in that other thread, ETSI EN 301 893, has nothing to do with the frequencies that DJI uses in the 5GHz band.
See the scope chapter (chapter 1) - that doc applies to the lower part of the 5GHz band (known as UNII-1 and UNII-2). DJI uses the higher part (UNII-3).
So any conclusion you draw based on that doc doesn't apply to us.

It is simple. Under the document ETSI EN 300 440 all RC-AC communications are covered, they are "Non-specific short range devices". But wifi is not "non-specific short range devices", therefore WiFi 2.4Ghz fall under the ETSI EN 300 328 and WiFi 5.8Ghz falls under ETSI EN 301 893.

You can check it here http://spektrum.ctu.cz/en/band?f ... quencyToUnit%5D=GHz

Please note that WiFi does not fall under the "Non-specific SRD" device.

This has also been confirmed by the authorities in my country.

But ETSI EN 301 893 clearly states in its scope chapter:

1         Scope         
The present document specifies technical characteristics and methods of measurements for 5 GHz wireless access
systems (WAS) including RLAN equipment.
The present document also describes spectrum access requirements to facilitate spectrum sharing with other equipment.
These radio equipment are capable of operating in all or parts of the frequency bands given in table 1.
Table 1: Service frequency bands
S
ervice frequency bands
Transmit
5 150 MHz to 5 350 MHz
Receive
5 150 MHz to 5 350 MHz
Transmit
5 470 MHz to 5 725 MHz
Receive
5 470 MHz to 5 725 MHz

that's it. No mention of the 5.8 range.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 11:24
But ETSI EN 301 893 clearly states in its scope chapter:

1         Scope         

Of course, because this range is not allowed in the EU. In the EU, 5Ghz band WiFi can use frequencies 5 150 MHz to 5 350 MHz and 5 470 MHz to 5 725 MHz. Other frequencies are not allowed for 5Ghz band WiFi in EU.

5.8Ghz WiFi is misleading, the correct designation is the 5Ghz band WiFi.

You say you checked with your country's authority so I won't argue about the current legal state.
I just don't see any reason (nor do I see any wording in the document) that says why WiFi with limited power would not fall into that category. ETSI themselves define  SRDs as "radio devices that offer a low risk of interference with other radio services, usually because their transmitted power, and hence their range, is low. The definition 'Short Range Device' may be applied to many different types of wireless equipment, including various forms of: <and then comes a long list of applications, including> Local Area Networks". That's pretty much everything with low enough power.
I wonder if there's anyone at ETSI I can ask about it.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 13:31
You say you checked with your country's authority so I won't argue about the current legal state.
I just don't see any reason (nor do I see any wording in the document) that says why WiFi with limited power would not fall into that category. ETSI themselves define  SRDs as "radio devices that offer a low risk of interference with other radio services, usually because their transmitted power, and hence their range, is low. The definition 'Short Range Device' may be applied to many different types of wireless equipment, including various forms of:  Local Area Networks". That's pretty much everything with low enough power.
I wonder if there's anyone at ETSI I can ask about it.

My friend, I do not know how to explain it to you anymore. Probably the language barrier.

I'll try the last time.

SRD is not WIFI. SRD is SRD and WiFi (RLAN) is WiFi (RLAN), you understand already?

You are squeezing pears and apples together. It is necessary to understand that WiFi (RLAN) does not fall under the SRD device and has its own standard.

SRD is governed by ETSI EN 300 440 V2.1.1
The WiFi (RLAN) 2.4Ghz Band is governed by ETSI EN 300 328 - V2.1.1
The WiFi (RLAN) 5Ghz Band is governed by ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7

In the Spark case, the SRD is a communication between the controller and the airplane. Therefore, SRD does not use WiFi (RLAN) protocols and not visible in your phone's WiFi scanner.

WiFi (RLAN) is Spark communication between the controller and the phone. It's not SRD, it's WiFi communication (RLAN) and can be found on your phone in a WiFi scanner.

Do you understand me?

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 13:31
You say you checked with your country's authority so I won't argue about the current legal state.
I just don't see any reason (nor do I see any wording in the document) that says why WiFi with limited power would not fall into that category. ETSI themselves define  SRDs as "radio devices that offer a low risk of interference with other radio services, usually because their transmitted power, and hence their range, is low. The definition 'Short Range Device' may be applied to many different types of wireless equipment, including various forms of:  Local Area Networks". That's pretty much everything with low enough power.
I wonder if there's anyone at ETSI I can ask about it.

In addition, the SRD must use the FHSS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum) in the EU, and WiFi does not support it in principle.

Document http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ... _300440v020101v.pdf page 16 ..

Page 16 in that document deals with test procedures for the transmitter's EIRP. All types of transmitters are tested - not only does it not mandate FHSS, it doesn't mandate any form of spread spectrum at all. other forms of SP-SP as well as Non-SP-SP transmitters are also tested, and all they are tested for in that section is the EIRP within their 6dB bandwidth.
FHSS-compliant equipment is just a sub-section out of the group of devices covered here. It has a section (4.2.6) which details special additional requirements for equipment with FHSS, but it doesn't mandate FHSS (or any form of SP-SP) anywhere, except one location where it refers to FHSS as mandated for a specific application - RFID equipment in the 2.45GHz range. Not relevant to us.

And like I said, I'm not arguing with you about the current status. It is what it is.
I'm just saying that from a technical perspective, WiFi, when limited to 14dBm EIRP, adheres to all the limitations presented in 300 440. There is no reason, from a technical perspective, not to consider it as SRD and allow it like any other SRD application.
Frankly, I'd be curious to hear from ETSI what technical reasoning they have for treating it differently.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-11-30 16:15
Page 16 in that document deals with test procedures for the transmitter's EIRP. All types of transmitters are tested - not only does it not mandate FHSS, it doesn't mandate any form of spread spectrum at all. other forms of SP-SP as well as Non-SP-SP transmitters are also tested, and all they are tested for in that section is the EIRP within their 6dB bandwidth.
FHSS-compliant equipment is just a sub-section out of the group of devices covered here. It has a section (4.2.6) which details special additional requirements for equipment with FHSS, but it doesn't mandate FHSS (or any form of SP-SP) anywhere, except one location where it refers to FHSS as mandated for a specific application - RFID equipment in the 2.45GHz range. Not relevant to us.

Hello, I appreciate our communication. I think I figured out why the 5Ghz RLAN must fall under ETSI EN 300 328 V2.1.1. .

Please see page 8. You can read there:

Introduction
5 GHz wireless access systems (WAS) including RLAN equipment are used in wireless local area networks which provide high speed data communications in between devices connected to the wireless infrastructure. The present document also addresses ad-hoc networking where devices communicate directly with each other, without the use of a wireless infrastructure.
The spectrum usage conditions for equipment within the scope of the present document are set in the ECC Decision (04)08 [i.8] and the Commission Decision 2005/513/EC [i.9] as amended by the Commission Decision 2007/90/EC [i.10].

This refers to page 10 where it is stated:

2.2 Informative references
References are either specific (identified by date of publication and/or edition number or version number) or non-specific. For specific references, only the cited version applies. For non-specific references, the latest version of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
NOTE: While any hyperlinks included in this clause were valid at the time of publication, ETSI cannot guarantee their long term validity.
The following referenced documents are not necessary for the application of the present document but they assist the user with regard to a particular subject area.

next on this page:

[i.8] ECC/DEC/(04)08: ECC Decision of 9 July 2004 on the harmonised use of the 5 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLANs) (30/10/2009).

[i.9] Commission Decision 2005/513/EC of 11 July 2005 on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 5 GHz frequency band for the implementation of Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLANs).

[i.10] Commission Decision 2007/90/EC of 12 February 2007 amending Decision 2005/513/EC on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 5 GHz frequency band for the implementation of Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLANs).

Then look back at page 9, specifically:

2 References
2.1 Normative references
References are specific, identified by date of publication and / or edition number or version number. Only the cited version applies. Referenced documents which are not publicly available in the expected location may be found at http://docbox.etsi.org/Reference.
NOTE: While any of the hyperlinks included in this clause were valid at the time of publication, ETSI can not guarantee their long term validity.
The following referenced documents are required for the application of this document.

Go to page 10 and read specifically:

[9] IEEE 802.11 ™ -2012: "IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications ".

[10] IEEE 802.11ac ™ -2013: "IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 4: Enhancements for Very High Throughput for Operation in Bands below 6 GHz ".

Here I end the quote from ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7.

Please also look at the screenshot of my PC on which the FCC WiFi scanner is running to see the SSID Spark RC. You may notice that communication is routed through 802.11n , uses the IP address and MAC.


This technology is specified in ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7 and is not a non-specific SRD.

What do you think about it?

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-12-1 15:55
Hello, I appreciate our communication. I think I figured out why the 5Ghz RLAN must fall under ETSI EN 300 328 V2.1.1. .

Please see page 8. You can read there:

Well, any WiFi is a product of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. So that in itself is no surprise.

But I think you misunderstood the first item you quoted, on which your concept is based.
What this quotes calls "specific" and "non-specific" is not the technologies or the communication protocols. This quotes means the other documents that are being referenced in that source document.
The referenced documents can be specific, i.e. a specific version or edition of a document, or non-specific - the referenced document as a whole, regardless of version.

So if "specific" and "non-specific" doesn't mean the technologies themselves, what is a "non-specific SRD"?
As far as I could see there is no ETSI document that defines it. There is no document that says "a non-specific SRD is......."
But here's what OfCom (the British equivalent of FCC) thinks it is:

"5.3 The non-specific short-range device category covers all kinds of radio devices, regardless of the application or the purpose, which fulfil the technical conditions as specified for a given frequency band. Typical uses include telemetry, telecommand, alarms, data transmissions in general and other applications."
According to this interpretation, it can be said that "non-specific" means "pretty much means anything you want, as long as it adheres to the limitations of transmission power, out-of-band emissions, etc.
But it has to be said that even OfCom doesn't act according to its own interpretation - 5.8GHz WiFi is not allowed in the UK as far as I know.

So it's all ambiguous to me from a technical standpoint and also from the wording standpoint.
But the practical situation is that most authorities don't allow 5.8GHz regardless of transmission power , even though it doesn't seem to make technical sense. Standard bodies can be pretty bureaucratic, I know that from my experience in cellular... but as things are, that's the way it is.

I did find some quote from a company in Sweden  (which I have to admit I hadn't heard of before) that manufactures RF equipment. Sweden also conforms to ETSI, so 5.8 WiFi isn't allowed there either. But they seem to share my opinion that from a technical standpoint, if WiFi is limited to 14dBm EIRP, there's no reason not to consider it SRD and allow it. In a reply they wrote to a customer in their Q&A page, they said they're considering starting a process to that effect with ETSI - but they acknowledge any change would take a long time... Like I said, bureaucracy...
But it seems I'm not the only one questioning the logic behind the overall ban on 5.8G WiFi in Europe even when power is limited.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-12-2 10:22
Well, any WiFi is a product of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. So that in itself is no surprise.

But I think you misunderstood the first item you quoted, on which your concept is based.

I disagree that every wireless network for data transfer is a product of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. I have a couple of implementations of my own data transfers that work on 2.4Ghz but do not even use IEEE 802.11 standards at all. And yes, my implementation falls under non-specific SRD because the transfer technology is not defined in any standard of EU and for this reason I can approve the device according to ETSI EN 300 440 V2.1.1 .. If I would use the IEEE 802.11 standards I could not approve the device as non-specific SRD and I would have to approve the equipment under ETSI EN 300 328 - V2.1.1 where it is clearly specified and must comply with its requirements if its use in EU.

Yes, I agree that there is no clear definition of what exactly falls under the non-specified SRD and I do not think it necessary. If I want to approve an RLAN 5Ghz device for EU traffic, I will check the standards to see if there is any indication of how this device works. I will find that RLAN 5Ghz is absolutely clear and comprehensible defined, including the use of technologies in ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7. Logically, it is clear that this is not a non-specific SRD and must meet the requirements of this clearly defined facility in the EU. I still do not understand why you think that RLAN 5Ghz is non-specific SRD when it is clearly specified in ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7 and therefore must meet the requirements of this standard in the EU.

It is obvious, that we do not agree on determining whether the 5Ghz RLAN specific SRD or non-specific SRD is. From my point of view everything is absolutely clear. That is why I suggest that you contact ETSI directly http://www.etsi.org/about/contact-us, specifically, use legal@etsi.org and ask them to explain how non-specific SRD is classified. Then give us your answer here. I'm sure they'll tell you what I'm saying here.

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-12-3 00:12
I disagree that every wireless network for data transfer is a product of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. I have a couple of implementations of my own data transfers that work on 2.4Ghz but do not even use IEEE 802.11 standards at all. And yes, my implementation falls under non-specific SRD because the transfer technology is not defined in any standard of EU and for this reason I can approve the device according to ETSI EN 300 440 V2.1.1 .. If I would use the IEEE 802.11 standards I could not approve the device as non-specific SRD and I would have to approve the equipment under ETSI EN 300 328 - V2.1.1 where it is clearly specified and must comply with its requirements if its use in EU.

Yes, I agree that there is no clear definition of what exactly falls under the non-specified SRD and I do not think it necessary. If I want to approve an RLAN 5Ghz device for EU traffic, I will check the standards to see if there is any indication of how this device works. I will find that RLAN 5Ghz is absolutely clear and comprehensible defined, including the use of technologies in ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7. Logically, it is clear that this is not a non-specific SRD and must meet the requirements of this clearly defined facility in the EU. I still do not understand why you think that RLAN 5Ghz is non-specific SRD when it is clearly specified in ETSI EN 301 893 V2.0.7 and therefore must meet the requirements of this standard in the EU.

I never said every wireless network for data transfer is a product of IEE 802.11 family of Standards.
I said every WiFi is.
Like you said maybe it's the language barrier...

The current practical interpretation of the standards is clear to me, the fact that most EU countries don't allow WiFi in 5.8 is testament to it and I don't argue with it. I say this for the third time already, talk about language barrier...

but what I seek is a TECHNICAL reasoning. Not a bureaucratic one. That's what I would also try to get from ETSI. Hopefully they will give me a TECHNICAL reason.

You see, my feeling is that nobody in the governing bodies addressed the possibility of WiFi with SRD power. There's a bureaucratic loophole there.

Let me ask you this: forget about the standards for a second. From a purely TECHNICAL point of view - would you agree that WiFi in the UNII-3 range, when limited to 20MHz bandwidth and 25mW EIRP, would not have a problem co-existing with other SRDs in the band?  Or maybe the more correct statement is - it would not cause more problems than current SRDs cause each other already?
If your answer to that is "yes", then there is no technical reason to prevent WiFi with SRD power to operate in 5.8G. It requires a bureaucratic change.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-12-3 02:31
I never said every wireless network for data transfer is a product of IEE 802.11 family of Standards.
I said every WiFi is.
Like you said maybe it's the language barrier...

Now i understand. If we forget the standards and the device will not interfere with any other service listed here http://spektrum.ctu.cz/en/band/5 ... quencyToUnit%5D=GHz , there is no technical reason why it could not be broadcast there.

I agree with this.

Man, I remember the time when I started working in radio, and cellular in particular, in the 1990s.
Back then, Europe was the advanced area of efficient spectrum usage, and the US lagged behind (especially because of the strong TV lobby, and back then they were using inefficient over-the-air analog broadcasting).
Now it looks like things have reversed 180 degrees... the FCC is so much more liberal and the spectrum in the US is used much more efficiently, especially in unlicensed access to the spectrum. the mechanisms the FCC uses to share unlicensed spectrum between applications are so much more efficient and innovative. They seem to think more flexibly, with the motivation to allow regular people as much access to spectrum as possible. Europe is the one lagging behind now.

I think our discussion here symbolizes that.

djiuser_Kf4iPA3 Posted at 2017-12-3 07:31
Man, I remember the time when I started working in radio, and cellular in particular, in the 1990s.
Back then, Europe was the advanced area of efficient spectrum usage, and the US lagged behind (especially because of the strong TV lobby, and back then they were using inefficient over-the-air analog broadcasting).
Now it looks like things have reversed 180 degrees... the FCC is so much more liberal and the spectrum in the US is used much more efficiently, especially in unlicensed access to the spectrum. the mechanisms the FCC uses to share unlicensed spectrum between applications are so much more efficient and innovative. They seem to think more flexibly, with the motivation to allow regular people as much access to spectrum as possible. Europe is the one lagging behind now.

Hello, you are right. The question is why this is happening. The sad thing is that the laws tighten on and on .. I afraid where we're going to end ..

It's hard to say what's going on. The second is that ETSI is a private organization, they only do the recommended standards and it is up to Member States to add them to their legislation. Unfortunately, all member countries blindly accept standards. For example, ETSI EN 300 440-1 V1.6.1 is in our country as ČSN ETSI EN 300 440-1 V1.6.1 and is only translated into national language and is of course charged ($ 34) .. I'm afraid it's not technical complications like money.

The more sad is that just WiFi, which is part of countless HWs that should be compatible in principle everywhere in the world, does not have a global standard ... It would prevent situations like this.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that ETSI will not do more frendly standards, almost every year they update standards, but rather towards greater restrictions.

Arcicorsa Posted at 2017-11-27 10:13
WiFi 5Ghz Android-RC communication is important in the EU. It is now the only official option to fly more than 300m apart. If you are connected to Android - RC at 2.4Ghz your range is limited to 300m.

When they banned OTG it is a very topical topic ..

You know I was out testing my P4Pro today, it has both 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz, it has much less range in 5.8 than 2.4ghz , I’m also using android for this test, it would seem to be opposite of what you are saying here.

He’s talking about the phone->RC connection so you actually agree on this ;)

Flip_L Posted at 2017-12-5 11:33
He’s talking about the phone->RC connection so you actually agree on this ;)

Ok but it is exactly the same when using iPad Pro .