Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Brian Webster bwebster at wirelessmapping.com
Fri Nov 5 20:27:07 UTC 2004

	I was not intending to single any one person out for the "have a clue"
statement, but a large majority of hams are in this category. It is
unfortunate but true. I am a die hard ham radio supporter and advocate of
emergency communications but many hams are not directly involved in the
industry and therefore don't see the truck that is about to hit them.
Telecom and Wireless is a big growth industry these days and they need room
to grow. Ham radio has a lot of spectrum and is not immune from this growth
any more than the federal government and military as we all know. While you
and I agree that we don't directly contribute to the economy in job
creation, we are nowhere near big enough to justify enough equipment sales
(to Japanese companies by and large) to make a dent in the numbers of units
and sales such as the 802.11b home networking equipment shipped in the last
year. We just aren't a big enough group. It makes for a harder and harder
argument. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with many of the FCC policies
and spectrum moves (not to mention the NTIA opinions either) lately. Ham
radio is a unique resource but rarely used compared to the other technology
looking for spectrum. Not what anyone wants to hear but reality just the
same. It's going to be a long hard battle for us in the amateur radio
	On a more positive note, ham radio is once again on the forefront in some
technologies that encourage spectrum efficiency and I am glad to see it.
Software defined radio, PSK31, meteor scatter and other modes to name a few
have come a long way. Systems like the Winlink 2000 initiative will do a
great deal to enhance the emergency value of ham radio by being able to
rapidly deploy a networking and email system without infrastructure (just
radios and modems in the HF spectrum) www.winlink.org. This is a good
example of what you suggest we need to do to drag the group in to this
century. There are many other examples and we are making progress. I fear it
may be to slow to hold off the outside pressures though.

Thank you,
Brian N2KGC

-----Original Message-----
From: jeff at aerodata.net [mailto:jeff at aerodata.net]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 2:40 PM
To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11
Cc: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com; wireless at wispa.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [WISPA] Fw: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions


I assure you I "do have a clue" how much spectrum is worth. That is why
earlier in this thread I commented ham radio had to become relevent to
today's world, the cold war was over, Beaver and Wally had retired and ham
radio had to become commerically viable, much like Part 15 has become.
This is why I have always said their is alot of synergy between the part
15 community wireless movement and ham radio. Ham radio has to generate
value for the country, and since it can't do it directly in spectrum
sales, it has to do it indirectly through equipment sales (and other
value) just like Part 15 does. It also can generate value by being a
emergency service and advancing the state of the art. But to do this, we
(as in hams) have to drag the service kicking and screaming into the 90's.

That much being said, I do like you idea of opening the bands up and smart
radios. TAPR aka Greg Jones was a very big advocate of this, and I feel
that it would bring the most value to the table. Last I heard, the WISP
"700 mhz" proposal also used smart radios to check to see if the channel
was occupied.

The biggest resistance here is going to be the vested interests, ones that
purchased spectrum in the past. There is SO much underutilized spectrum
that something will have to be done soon

Best regards,


Jeff King wb8wka
WISP consultant, MERIT networks, MichNet and MICH.COM (~1995-1997)
Broadcast engineer/RF consultant (20 years)
Firmware engineer (10 years)
And just finished up a part 15 certfication of a 802.11b client device
that I designed.

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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