Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

Steven Phillips steven_phillips at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 4 18:49:16 UTC 2004

I have decided to use this topic as a research project
for my sociology class.  Here's a question that I have
come up with.

In my opinion, one of the major uses of this type of
system would be for emergency use in disaster
situations.  With the exception of long range
communciation, is really necessary to use WiFi under
part 97?  What I"m getting at, is this.  In the event
of a natural disaster, a small and portable network
infrastructure would be created to accomodate
communcations of various types, be it text, video,
data, what ever.    In such a small network
configuration, wouldn't it be an advantage to do this
under part 15?  If it is done under part 15, then
personally from the Red Cross who are not hams would
have direct access to communicating with other field
locations or personell.  Granted, this leaves the
possibilit of eliminating the need for Hams to conduct
emergency communications, or does it?  We could still
handle all of the communications, and just give access
to status report information to non hams.  This could
be done by having a small web server with customized
PHP software to generate the reports.  Non hams from
the Red Cross could send a message to the ham in
control at the time who would in turn use what ever
means necessary to convey the message to the recipient
via standard radio communication or via the network. 
A system like this would leave hams in charge of the
communication, after all we are "trained experts" and
have a very well established communication
infrastructer for such events.

Ok, what about a dual zone network?  One zone for part
15 so Red Cross personell can relay messages to the
hams.  The hams then relay the messages through the
second zone under part 97 to other field locations or
HQ?  Then the other locations would relay messages
back through their local part 15 network?

I think this type of setup would be a resonable effort
to limit unauthorized access.  Since the long range
links would be part 97, we could use high gain
parabolic dishes.  Everyone should know that parabolic
dishes are rather directional and would minimize the
opportunity for others in a given radius to access the
ntwork.  Throw 128bit WEP using the ARRL standard keys
and you would have a fairly secure network.  Having
local sites under part 15 would eliminate the
encryption laws under part 97, so, any WEP key could
be used to super secure the local network from outside

Sheesh I'm long winded.  If any clarification is
needed, please let me know.  

--- Drew Baxter <droobie at maine.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi Marlon:
> My large concern was things such as the reallocation
> in the 2ghz spectrum 
> for '3G' wireless services which resulted in some
> fragmenting in the upper 
> 2.3ghz spectrum.  It seems to me that allocations
> that were used for 
> amateur radio use and research, are being chipped
> away at for private 
> entities.  I have nothing wrong with the public
> having use of more spectrum 
> for their projects.  As a matter of fact, I prefer
> that and see that 
> (similar to how you seem to) it will help trigger
> research and projects in 
> larger numbers than solely Ham use of that same
> spectrum.  I'm under the 
> impression that '3G' means private cellular services
> of the same 
> name.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.
> I feel that the existing Part 15 spectrum
> allocations are largely already 
> present but the reallocation into private spectrum
> seems to be 
> happening.  I don't feel this is good for the
> public, or for amateur radio 
> operators.  I meant 'our' in the public sense, as
> much as  the primary 
> allocations of Amateur radio operators.  Rest
> assured that I rather work 
> within the boundaries of Part 15 vs working within
> Part 97 any day when it 
> comes to working with data.  There are not enough
> amateur radio operators 
> to justify cheap wireless network hardware.  I think
> we'll see further 
> blending in the landscape between the unlicensed and
> the license users in 
> this regard.
> I do understand your issues with empty TV
> allocations in your area.  It is 
> similar here in Maine, and I am a Dish Network
> customer as well (after the 
> other carrier sued me without success earlier this
> year).  Personally, I 
> find it a problem that I can't buy NY/LA market
> locals, even though 
> reception of local channels is either impossible or
> difficult 
> here.  Ignoring that entirely - These analog
> allocations will be shifted as 
> there is a move to Terrestrial HDTV as well, so
> something should be done 
> with those VHF allocations.
> I just want to be clear that I am of interest in
> amateur radio use as much 
> as public use of the frequencies.  I think that the
> public gets the raw 
> deal compared to private entities however.  I also
> feel that the amateur 
> radio service continues to get overlooked because of
> entities buying up 
> allocations.  That issue is of my concern.  I'd
> rather see public 
> unlicensed allocations compared to private
> commercial allocations any day.
> I hope I cleared that up.  It does seem that you
> have a vivid picture of 
> the problem at hand.  I think that microwave Wi-Fi
> solutions are a better 
> approach to the ever growing need for High Speed
> Internet Access in rural 
> areas, especially compared to BPL.  BPL will
> definitely corrupt the 2-80mhz 
> piece of spectrum for everyone, while Wi-Fi has
> largely improved the 
> ability to expand network access for the individual
> and the business alike.
> I was an American long before I was a Ham. 
> Co-habitation between Hams and 
> unlicensed users has worked out well for both groups
> I think with the 
> 2.4ghz spectrum.  I just hope we have more
> opportunities in the future to 
> continue our own individual research instead of
> selling off spectrum to 
> commercial entities.
> I hope that brings clarity to my thoughts.  I have a
> better idea of yours 
> as well.
> --Droo, K1XVM
> At 11:49 AM 11/4/2004, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> >Hi Guys,
> >
> >I've been swamped and haven't had time to chime in
> here for a while.  Your
> >note, Drew, caught my eye a bit.
> >[....snip....]
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org

Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list