Talk:ISM radio band

whats ism

868 vs 900 Mhz

I miss the 868 MHz band as a possible ISM band? or is that incorporated in the 900 Mhz band? --Alras 14:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• The 863-870 MHz range is an ISM band in Europe only. A side note: The current list of ISM bands here (900 MHz, 1.8 GHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz) appears to refer to US regulations. However, I do not find any reference to the 1.8 GHz band in Part 18 of the FCC rules (47CFR18.301)? --128.131.214.206 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest to add the ISM 868 MHz band and mark at as only existing in EUrope.

There are already 433 MHz for Regfion 1 and 915 MHz for region 2, why not 868 MHz for Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.82.123 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oops: Just saw in the German ISM Band article, that 868 MHz is NOT an ISM band, but an SRD (SHort Range Device) Band, It is listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-power_communication_device

German Wikipedia article

The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia, de:ISM-Band, has lots of more info, especially on the different bands, perhaps someone who feels confident enough could merge in some of that? -- magetoo 07:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)..

• I think its quite a bit more work then it seems at first sight. As ISM bands somewhat differ per country. Creating an article that is somewhat specific is relatively ok for the german page. But for the english version, it should probably be a bit more in general. I will try to find some time and add some stuff. brainball 09:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• My compliments if you do, Alras. I also strongly feel that this page should at least attempt to distinguish between the different regulations per country when referring to frequency bands and related regulations. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do it right now... --128.131.214.206 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be really helpful to include the date that the ITU-R adopted the ISM band and how the band came to include 900 MHz and 5.8 GHz under its profile in the United States. It would also be helpful to indicate whether other countries also use this same convention. Sorry I am only asking questions and not providing answers at this point... [This unsigned comment was added by Prof R on 04:10, 28 May 2006 --128.131.214.206 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)]

Links to CFR

I just added a link to CFR Title 47 Part 15 (Subpart 247), which looks as if it could break soon. The GPO has a page describing how to generate proper CFR links (which would even be independent of the CFR edition). Alas, the link generated according to these instructions didn't work for me. --128.131.214.206 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

5.2 GHz ISM

Isn't there also an ISM band around 5.2 GHz? -Roger (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No. There is a band from 5.15-5.35 GHz which is authorized in some places (including the United States [1]) for unlicensed uses of ultra-wideband equipment that you may be thinking of, but it isn't an ISM band. While unlicensed operations often makes use of the ISM bands because they don't have to worry about causing interference within those bands, they aren't the only frequencies in which unlicensed operation is allowed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

microwave ovens and the ISM band

Which came first -- the ISM band allocation, or the microwave oven? Please help us find out at Talk:Electromagnetic compatibility#ISM bands. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Part 18 ISM rules prohibit using ISM for communications"

perhaps this isn't the place to ask this, but could someone clarify this part of the rules for me? It would seem to me that wireless networking and 2.4Ghz phones are probably used for communication. What do they really mean by prohibiting communication on the ISM band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venevus (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Prohibiting communication" means exactly as it reads, use for telecommunication purposes is not allowed. The reason that this is seems confusing is because there is a common misconception that wireless networking and cordless phones qualify as ISM equipment. They do not. Cordless phones and the like operate under Part 15 rules in the United States, and they operate under similar provisions to Part 15 in other countries. These unlicensed devices are permitted to operate in ISM bands because of the undesirability of these bands by licensed services, due to the requirement to accept harmful interference from ISM equiment. –Sparkgap (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What does "must accept" mean?

From the article, "In general, communications equipment must accept any interference generated by ISM equipment." Also the FCC label requirements include a statement that "this device must accept any interference that may cause undesired operation." But what does "accept" mean in this context? Is the device required to absorb the interference rather than reflecting it? Is the device not allowed to burst into flames? (Or would bursting into flames simply be "undesired operation"?) What could the device do that would constitute not accepting the interference? --Brouhaha (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It means you can't complain about any interference you are subject to. Basically, you are a "secondary" user on the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.232.92 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. The FCC requires the label to say that "this device" (not the user) "must accept any interference". What would constitute the device rejecting the interference? --Brouhaha (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The FCC's "must accept any interference" labeling requirement is for Part 15 devices, not Part 18 (ISM) devices. The labeling requirements for ISM devices are different. –Sparkgap (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

bhanchod na ban ganduuuuu :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.188.40 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ISM equipment does not include telecommunication devices.

It is a common misconception that ISM equipment includes telecommunication devices such as WiFi and cordless phones. This misconception stems from the fact that many unlicensed communication devices are permitted to operate in ISM bands; however, a device is not ISM just because it operates in an ISM band. Unlicensed communication devices legally operate under separate rules from ISM. Of important note is the international definition of ISM written by the ITU (emphasis added):

Industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) applications (of radio frequency energy): Operation of equipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally radio frequency energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunications. [2]

Many national regulators have adopted the above definition as part of their definition of ISM. The following is an incomplete list of countries with the above in their definition of ISM:

• Anguilla (Page 6)
• Canada
• Jamaica
• Pakistan (Page 6)
• Trinidad and Tobago (Page 6)
• United Kingdom (Pages 10 & 11)
• United States (FCC)

–Sparkgap (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about the ISM band(s), not ISM equipment - most users of the ISM bands are using them for communications ( I wonder if wireless hubs now outnumber microwave ovens? Certainly cordless phones outnumber diathermy machines or plywood gluing presses.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the only article dealing with specifically with ISM. Mentioning what ISM equipment is, is within the article's scope. Not having a mention as to what ISM equipment is, is similar to having an article on baseball field, with no mention or reference of what baseball is. Many of the ISM bands are clearly used more by unlicensed communication devices than by any other user, but the communication uses of the bands are not why they are called ISM bands.

Overall though, I do like the rewrite of the introduction that you made.

–Sparkgap (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Free bands not ISM

Seems this piece of information is rejected by some users. So any suggestion where to place it?

There no free bands in North America neither in the ITU regulations. If you have a source for thoses claims, please provide it. Sparkgap is right, ISM and Licensed free are linked, but not the same. For example, a frs radio is license free in North America but does not operate in a ISM band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albator2214 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"In the USA there are also Licence Free Part 15 bands for "Short Range Devices" that are not ISM bands. 315 MHz is commonly used instead of the European ISM 433 MHz, though 315 MHz is not an ISM band. In Europe, CE marked and ETSI approved equipment can use the 868 MHz band lying between GSM and UHF TV. The USA 902-928 MHz is overlapped by European 872-960 MHz Mobile bands (formerly GSM only)."Electron9 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if a new article, which covers unlicensed radio spectrum use in general, should be made. Currently, there does not seem to be an article on this notable subject. Such an article could hold information like the above, and it could list/link the various related articles out there. My principle objection to the above being added to this article, is that ISM is not a catchall for unlicensed use. Many ISM bands permit notable unlicensed uses, but not all. Also, not all frequency ranges where unlicensed users may operate, are available for ISM devices. There is a relation between the two subjects but not an equivalency. The closest existing article I see for the general topic is Part 15, but that is an inherently US-centric topic. –Sparkgap (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I also miss an central article on frequency allocation with an international perspective. Jumping between articles seems crap really. Electron9 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Frequency allocation? ISM is just one chipped plate in the kitchen cupboard of dishware...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That article is only true in name, not in content. A table like the ISM article would be neat covering bands not channels thoe. Electron9 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ISM band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070314063902/http://www.marcus-spectrum.com:80/documents/81413RO.txt to http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/documents/81413RO.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

The second paragraph does not clearly define what it purports to. It implies that _any_ unlicensed use of ISM bands is legal, which is certainly not the case in the US (except under the strict Part 15 limits not specific to ISM bands). I'm not sure how all those wireless services did become allowed to use these frequencies, and I hoped this article would explain that.

I think the paragraph only says those mentioned devices use those bands because you don't need a license. This usage is allowed by the local governing body. I am European, but I think in the US that's the FCC, see the paragraph below it. Can you point exactly to what is confusing you, so perhaps some things there can be written in a better way?Robijn (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

But it is not true that the user of such devices does not need a license because it is an ISM band. The rules state that any use of RF for communication requires a license unless a specific exemption is written in for it - even if enforcement is sometimes less than strict, it's certainly not true that I would be allowed to broadcast with high power on an ISM frequency without even a license! Such exemptions often use ISM frequencies, but also some that definitely aren't like the 49 MHz band.

I suspect someone made the false assumption that because ISM use for ISM purposes doesn't require a radio license, use for radio purposes doesn't either. Maybe that ought to be true, but it certainly isn't how the law is written and there can be no doubt about that (I've read it). The accurate way it should be written (as far as I know) is that because the ISM bands are full of interference anyway, governments are more willing to approve devices that will create more if they use those frequencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.242.3.106 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No reply. I admit my use of license above was potentially ambiguous but my facts were correct. The way in which the government uses forms of 'license' in the radio context is confusing to the general public - what they call unlicensed use is not what most people would think of, which is probably the origin of this mistake. In any case, this demonstrates once again Wikipedia's lack of interest in the truth, as it is clearly wrong and in a way that should be especially avoided (declaring something illegal to be legal).

I was shocked when I found that List of teetotalers had been deleted; God forbid that Wikipedia have some true and useful information that's not accessible anywhere else online! I had used that article many times, and the arguments for deletion were largely specious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.242.3.106 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)