Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

Eric S. Johansson esj at harvee.org
Thu Nov 4 16:44:29 UTC 2004

Drew Baxter wrote:
> That's purely my thought though.  I agree, like you seem to, that using 
> higher frequency allocations would be nice but we'd have to contend with 
> other issues.  Cost seems to be the largest issue.  We'll go around 
> trees, use mountains, etc. to overcome obstructions, but we've never 
> been able to easily get over the hurdle of the dollar.   I'm hoping as 
> the components become cheaper, perhaps we'll have better opportunity to 
> explore.  However, that also means other unlicensed folks could easily 
> do the same.  Otherwise, they'd simply give us a software tool and let 
> us tweak the frequencies on the WiFi radios for our purpose.

I think you nailed it in one.  Cost is a huge driver for anything in 
amateur radio.  Personally, since we have such a lousy footprint on the 
ground, I really think we should be heading lower in frequency.  Which 
would allow us greater coverage per station which in turn would allow 
for easier network construction.

I would propose an STA which would allow us to use television channels 
idled for protection for distant stations.  For example here in the 
Boston area, we could use Channel 3, 6, 13.  Other regions have similar 
spectrum availability.  So with a transverter, we could run wifi radios 
in VHF spectrum, get the coverage we need, which would attract some 
number of technologically literate folks to our hobby.

alternatively, give up on using wifi gear at VHF levels and use a very 
wideband version of soundcard plus a simple transverter to build a 
digital radio.  Costs may not be really where we want it to be but it 
would probably be cheaper than some of earlier high-speed packet attempts


George Bush makes me long for the honesty of Richard Nixon

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list