Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Marlon K. Schafer ooe at odessaoffice.com
Mon Nov 8 17:13:28 UTC 2004


Hiya Jeff,

Sorry to hear that you have a clueless wisp in your area.  They are
certainly out there but aren't the norm.

And there are more starting up all the time (3000 for sure and very likely
6000 today, estimates of 2000 to 4000 more untraceable by standard methods).

Where are you?  Maybe it's time for another company to start up service a
few miles from where they already have a good working system?

laters,
marlon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jeff at aerodata.net>
To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11"
<ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [WISPA] Fw: [Ham-80211] Access control suggestions


> Walt:
>
> Your analogy is close, but not perfect. CB has significant foot print and
> "skip" where as WiFi doesn't. A better analogy would be the VHF dot
> frequencies (151mhz range) that are highly congested in urban areas, yet
> quite useful in rural areas. I use some of the dot frequencies (MURS) in
> my car, and can easily get 5+ mile range with no interference in my rural
> area yet in a urban area, my range is far less.
>
> So, what I am saying, is WiFi can be a viable internet distribution method
> in certain conditions.
>
> Still.... the majority of my WISP consulting was done in a urban area,
> back when 28.8 was the high speed. So we did Wireless mostly for
> backbones... not for the customers. Point to point engineering links.
> These people loved internet and technology but still where good business
> people.
>
> Fast forward to the future.. I moved to a rural area and when two WISP's
> started, I tried to do some consulting for them. However, they knew
> everything. For their range maps, they preferred perfectly round circles
> instead of my ragged propagation study I did on Radio Mobile. When I
> suggested they would be better served with sector antennas on their 200
> foot tower instead of amp'ed 12db omni's, I got blank looks. So I backed
> off. Then when I wanted to get off directway, I had one of them out for
> service. Seems their towers where only in the center of small cities, both
> of which had DSL and Cable modems. The noise level was so high we couldn't
> get a good connection (I had their AP at a 15 DB S/N at 5.5megabit but
> they only had me at 1-2db S/N. We where using smartbridges.
>
> Point being, at least where I am, the WISP's are NOT going after the low
> hanging fruit (underserved rural areas) but focusing on small cites that
> already have cable/dsl. These are either 2nd or 3rd generation WISP's and
> I don't think they understand the technical issues like the 1st generation
> WISP's do. There is no love for radio or technlogy, just a businessman
> trying to turn a buck. I think they can't see the forest through the trees
> and are only looking at the population per square mile as opposed to
> underserved areas.
>
> BTW, I meet with our local power company on the BPL issue. They said it
> wouldn't scale in our rural area. BPL mostly intended for dense urban
> areas, at least that was their thought
>
> 73
>
> JEff
>
>
>
>
> > I'm just sorry that power companies and the government didn't push for
> > fiber
> > along side each power line...you could have telephone, HDTV, highspeed
> > Internet,
> > and many future expanded services.
> >
> > If what I see is true in the local area, some telephone companies are
> > replacing
> > their copper with fiber and new telecommunications are putting in fiber
in
> > rural
> > areas.
> >
> > Also, with reference to BPL, as individual hams learn more about it, I
> > think you
> > will find hams many miles...even hundreds of miles away from BPL
> > transmission
> > lines hearing the BPL signals on HF.  I can't forget copying the CW
signal
> > from
> > downunder from a transmitter/oscillator created using a tunnel diode.
> > Less than
> > 10mw of signal and copied here in the U.S.
> >
> > IMHO, using Part 15 WiFi for commercial distribution of Internet
services
> > is
> > much like companies building their 2-way commercial radio systems on 11
> > meter
> > CB...in the end it just isn't good enough to solve the problem.  Today
you
> > see
> > few businesses using 11 meter CB as a business radio...I believe that in
a
> > few
> > years you will see the same happening with commercial distribution of
> > Internet
> > services using Part 15 equipment.
> >
> > The 11 meter CB experimant failed and took away a great band from
amateru
> > radio
> > operators.  I am glad that at least we still have 2.4-2.45 GHz so that
> > when
> > commercial use of the band fails, at least we will still have the
> > frequencies.
> >
> > Walt/K5YFW
> >
> >
> >> BPL isn't a negotiable situation where people can just decide to
'share'
> >> the frequency.  A chunk of property at 2.4ghz is less of significance
> >> than
> >> the people that are trying to do low-power work on the 2-80mhz HF
> >> chunk.  The signal goes a lot further and penetrates a lot more places
> >> in
> >> the HF than up in microwave allocations.  It's probably still
relatively
> >> easy to find 80mhz of continuous bandwidth up in the microwave
> >> allocations
> >> too.  That 2-80mhz spectrum is prime real-estate for transcontinental
> >> communications.  I don't think residential Internet needs it, and it's
a
> >> bad use of spectrum.
> >>
> >> I think WIFI and MANs in the upper allocations are the way to get fast
> >> network access to rural areas.  As a matter of fact, I'd love some
> >> free-for-all high speed wireless solutions in the 900mhz.  There has
> >> been a
> >> long issue of obstructions preventing network access for everyone.
This
> >> would be a proper way to give the public more options.
> >>
> >> I think these people experimenting with WIFI hardware will perhaps have
> >> interest in becoming ham operators and exploring radio technology
> >> outside
> >> the scope of off-the-shelf solutions.  The 'free for all' should have
> >> limits, however, and realism should be weighed.  I don't think the
> >> current
> >> wave of the FCC has much interest in the public and would sell every
> >> single
> >> allocation if they could.
> >>
> >> The frequency use has to match the job you're trying to accomplish.
> >> 2.4ghz
> >> and 900mhz largely works because it permits cohabitation because of
> >> small
> >> directional footprints as well as more available continuous spectrum
> >> chunks.  Stuffing these things on far-reaching frequency allocations is
> >> not
> >> the solution, it's the start of a problem.
> >>
> >> Just my thoughts.
> >>
> >> --Droo, K1XVM
> >>
> >> At 09:04 AM 11/5/2004, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> >> >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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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





More information about the ham-80211 mailing list