Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

Jeff King jeff at aerodata.net
Thu Nov 4 18:08:05 UTC 2004


Droo:

Your likely right. Until (U.S.) hams realize the cold war is over and your 
allowed to have fun with ham radio, we are going to be a target. Wally and 
Beaver are nearing retirement age. But hey, last I heard Eddy Haskell was a 
cop, so stranger things have happened  ;-)

<soapbox> So here is your chance (a little off topic). Encourage groups like 
TAPR to take a stand for amateur radio. One thing to watch is this "bandwidth 
by regulation" the ARRL is pushing for HF. Bottom line, this is government 
involvement that is not needed, and basically states to the government that 
hams can't be trusted to self police. Instead, just like (many) hams in 
Europe, we should push for full access to the bands, on whatever mode we 
want, only limited by (non-governmental) band plans. It is not a coincidence 
that 95% of all the new and innovative HF digital modes have come from 
non-U.S. hams. </soapbox>

Anyways, back on topic. There is always Part 15. Recently, the FCC relaxed 
the certification rules, you can now mix and match antennas and amplifiers 
are allowed to be sold ala carte in certain circumstances. 

IMHO the ball and chain around amateur radio is not the FCC, but it is our 
own fellow hams. As I have said for years, we are our own worst enemy. If we 
create a vibrant market for amateur radio (such as embracing the Part 15 
community networking movement) all of a sudden >we< become a commercial 
interest. This is good.  Closing the gate after the last ham enters is not 
going to work anymore.

-Jeff wb8wka



On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:19:24 -0500, Drew Baxter wrote:
>My concern is that the FCC is going to largely keep hacking away at
>our spectrum in that mid-2ghz spectrum and then we couldn't do that
>anymore.  I don't have a lot of faith in using those allocations
>solely because the current FCC seems to be on a tangent of
>commercial interest.  I'm hoping they'll be making some changes
>there and perhaps many amateur-radio related issues will take
>different turns.
>
>I don't think they're going to kick all the Part 15ers off the
>current block that is used for 802.11b/g.. So I think we're safer
>finding ways to adhere access control within the existing footprint
>at the moment.  It's largely easier to co-habitate with the masses
>than put ourselves in a position where we can lose the allocation
>where our hill-top gear is.
>
>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.
>
>Maybe someone (such as K5YFW) can set my mind at ease about my
>concerns.  :-)
>
>--Droo, K1XVM
>
>
>At 09:54 AM 11/4/2004, Steven Phillips wrote:
>>Here's another idea.  Transverters.  Switch them to a frequency of
>>our choice.  10GHz would be an interesting band to experiment with
>>for long distance links.  Granted, build a transverter isn't the
>>cheapest solution, but, it's probabaly a lot cheaper than the D-
>>Star system.  Or, would it be better to build a frequency
>>multiplier or sorts to keep them in the 2.4GHz range, just lower or
>>raise the frequency a small bit to put them into the ham only
>>portions?
>
>
>_______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing
>list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-
>bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211







More information about the ham-80211 mailing list