Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

Fw: [WISPA] Fw: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

Marlon K. Schafer ooe at odessaoffice.com
Fri Nov 5 14:04:18 UTC 2004


forwarded

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Webster" <bwebster at wirelessmapping.com>
To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" <wireless at wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:27 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions


> Marlon,
> The problem with most hams is that they don't have any clue how much
> spectrum is worth these days and the pressures of commercial demand for
> spectrum. Having been in the commercial wireless industry for or 15 years,
I
> have been beating my head against the wall trying to convince my fellow
hams
> that the FCC will always make their decisions based on the benefit of the
> most Americans they are supposed to represent. The BPL situation is a
> perfect example. Hams have a lot of spectrum and don't create any jobs or
> tax revenue with it. Slowly the ham radio community demographics are
> changing and you should see an ability for them to co-exist with other
> services once all the olds ideas and notions fade away.
> My personal option is you open all the spectrum up for a free for all and
> just give different services a time slot instead......between frequency
> hopping and/or spread spectrum things could be used much more efficiently.
> But that would negate the ability for the government to create auctions
and
> sell the laws of physics. This in my opinion is why software defined
radios
> are being fought. Think of the idea of a carriers spectrum being made
> instantly worthless because a SDR radio can just hop anywhere to open
> frequencies in any mode. I can't wait for those days. Ok off my soapbox
now
> :-)
>
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster N2KGC
> 214 Eggleston Hill Rd.
> Cooperstown, NY 13326
> www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
>
> (607) 286-3465 Home
> (607) 435-3988 Mobile
> (208) 692-1898 Fax
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:58 AM
> To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization
> Cc: board at wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions
>
>
> forwarded
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff King" <jeff at aerodata.net>
> To: <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
> Cc: <board at wispa.org>; "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization"
> <wireless at wispa.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions
>
>
> > FYI, things stand like this as far as access to the ISM bands:
> >
> > Part 18  (things like microwave ovens)
> > Part 97 (hams)
> > Part 15 (cordless phones, Wifi, wisps, etc)
> >
> > Now, due to the shear volume of part 15 equipment, the priority hams
have
> > over part 15 is like playing whack a mole. You whack one, another one
pops
> > up. And also Part 15 is the FCC's golden child (for a very good reason)
so
> we
> > have to carefully chose the moles we whack. I think the ARRL knows this
> and
> > I'm positive TAPR knows this.
> >
> > Still, WISP's need to play nice with hams, since they are a bit more
high
> > profile then the typical part 15 users (and the non-profit part 15
> community
> > networking movement is largely comprised of hams). That much being said,
> my
> > guess is the number  of true "part 97" WiFi installs likely less then
200
> due
> > to the content/access restrictions. I've only seen a few WISP's that
acted
> > like bull's in a china shop with regard to technical regs. Most try to
be
> > good citizens and it doesn't take much effort from either side to make
> this
> > happen.
> >
> > But never forget, that microwave oven at the 7/11 has more (legal)
rights
> to
> > the band then either Part 15 or Part 97. If your going to base a
business
> > plan on Part 15, or a critical part 97 repeater link, you better darn
well
> > know that.
> >
> > If I was a WISP (I'm not because I am allergic to customer support,
> although
> > I have consulted to a number of them), I'd only target underserved rural
> > areas. Competing with DSL/Cable is a zero sum game. And in rural areas,
> you
> > have little amateur radio activity, 7-11's let alone outdoor ham WiFi.
Its
> a
> > win/win for everyone.
> >
> > Jeff wb8wka
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:49:23 -0800, 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.
> > >
> > >First let me say that I'm a board member of www.wispa.org.  We'd
> > >love to work closely with you guys for the benefit of all spectrum
> > >users. Especially those that are not monopolistic in thought and
> > >action.  I've cc'd our list on this and will attempt to forward
> > >comments from our group to this group if anything looks appropriate.
> > > First I have to take exception to the term "our spectrum".
> > >Spectrum (right or wrong) has been determined to be a public
> > >resource and the FCC has a mandate to manage it in the manner that
> > >benefits the bulk of the American people.  For the "common good" I
> > >think is the terminology that Robert Cannon (plans and policy
> > >office) used to explain it to me.  "Our" should be used to denote
> > >Americans not Hams or WISPs.  This might be splitting hairs as you
> > >guys probably have a greater grasp on that than I do but I wanted to
> > >make sure that my point of reference was crystal clear for the rest
> > >of my thoughts.
> > >
> > >Next, anytime spectrum is opened up for "Part 15ers" (I love that
> > >term btw, very catchy) it's also opened up for Ham use.  Part of the
> > >magic of Part 15 is that, when looked at open mindedly, is the
> > >biggest boon to the Hams in a very long time.  Have you looked at
> > >all of the amazing new, inexpensive (sometimes downright cheap) gear
> > >that's out there now?  And when using Part 15 devices to get higher
> > >speed internet access out to your locations faster than you'd
> > >normally get them by waiting for someone else to build
> > >infrastructure you can have levels of contact with others for
> > >whatever reason than you've ever had before.  I have a neighbor
> > >who's a Ham.  He LOVES his $35 per month 1+mbps internet connection
> > >that comes over a part 15 network.  He's got some device hooked to
> > >it that allows other Hams all over the world to CALL him via PC.
> > >
> > >I've even seen a phone now.  A regular ol' handset.  About $100.
> > >Hook that to any broadband connection with a public ip and call any
> > >other location with a similar phone, talk all you want for free.
> > >
> > >I'm sure that most of you have heard of www.vonage.com.  In my
> > >office we use it for all outbound long distance calls.  Anywhere in
> > >the country.  $30 per month I think is what they are billing me.
> > >Our long distance went from nearly $400 per month to under $100
> > >(only have one line so the "normal" lines have to be used once in a
> > >while).  That's a 75% savings.
> > >
> > >As an outsider it seems that the handwriting is on the wall.  The
> > >Hams are going to be expected to take advantage of new and upcoming
> > >technologies (and isn't that a lot of what being a Ham used to be
> > >about in the first place? How many of you built your own radio that
> > >first time you got involved????) and share "their" spectrum with
> > >other users who are also fulfilling the "public good".
> > >
> > >Be glad that you are still primary users of the band.  I run my
> > >business, feed my family of 5 etc. as a secondary user.  With NO
> > >protection from interference.  Yes I knew the risks when I signed
> > >up, I'm not whining (well not much anyway) simply stating a fact of
> > >life.
> > >
> > >We, the unlicensed community, are going to keep working for more
> > >unlicensed spectrum access.  On a non interfering basis.  In fact
> > >we'll likely be looking for access, at very low power levels and
> > >with non interference hooks , to most all spectrum.  In our area we
> > >can't get a decent TV signal despite the best Channel Master antenna
> > >I can find AND a rec. amp.  The only thing I've not tried is to
> > >replace the RG coax (don't remember which it is but it's not the
> > >smaller of what normally gets used) with a run of lmr400.  But with
> > >only 60 or 70' the change in DB loss isn't enough to get me excited.
> > >I just by my local channel transport from DishNetwork and be done
> > >with it (except when it rains or snows hard....).  I have yet to
> > >hear anyone do a good job of explaining why I shouldn't be allowed
> > >to use those hunks of spectrum for broadband access and provide a
> > >benefit for the local community out of a public resource that's
> > >being wasted today.
> > >
> > >It's hard but the world is changing.  I think you guys will have
> > >more luck moving forward with the unlicensed community than you
> > >would fighting to keep something that the winds of change are
> > >gathering steam to pull from your grasp.  Maybe a partnership
> > >between wisps and hams can somehow be formed in a way to get rules
> > >changes that work for both of our interests.  We're (the wisps) not
> > >hopeful at all that we can get something like the BPL ruling through
> > >but we are hurting from our very successes.  We need room to grow
> > >our industry.  There's too much good being to for too many customers
> > >and there's no stopping this runaway train.  The question now
> > >becomes (at least in my mind) how do we keep it on the right track
> > >so that it doesn't crash into another train or jump it's tracks and
> > >wipe out entire communities of spectrum users.
> > >
> > >Thoughts? marlon
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew Baxter"
> > ><droobie at maine.rr.com> To: "Steven Phillips"
> > ><steven_phillips at yahoo.com>; "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of
> > >802.11" <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004
> > >7:19 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions
> > >
> > >
> > >>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
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing
> > >list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-
> > >bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ham-80211 mailing list
> > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
>
> ________________________________________
> Wireless mailing list
> wireless at wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/wireless
>
> Archives: http://mail.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles/
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Wireless mailing list
> wireless at wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/wireless
>
> Archives: http://mail.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles/





More information about the ham-80211 mailing list