From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 16:03:37 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:03:37 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Hi All, As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to ask for your input on the issue. WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great headaches and gnashing of teeth. We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM community first. Are there people using this ability today? What's it used for? Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to drop the APC requirement? Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? Thanks all! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam From bwebster at wirelessmapping.com Wed May 17 16:30:35 2006 From: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com (Brian Webster) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:30:35 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: Marlon, While it would be a good thing for the industry to oppose this to keep it from possibly happening, in all practical senses there are gong to be very few hams ever using this and it would be in limited areas. I have not heard of any planned uses for the high power rules and no projects I am aware of (been a ham for 17 years). One possible use may be in the same use WISP's do but for emergency communications much like what we did with WISPA down in Mississippi after Katrina. There would be the possibility for this use in the Video uses of ham radio but that has very limited use around the US. If you can get a hold of an ARRL repeater directory you might find listings for ATV (amateur television) repeaters to see who has anything in the band where there would be a more constant use. They may also want to use this for Space communications. This would encompass satellite comms as well as moon bounce experiments (yes they use the moon as a passive repeater). These would be narrow band signals and pointed out in to space not terrestrial comms. This could create problems for WISP's but on a very local area. I'm really not sure why they are asking for this rule change other than hams are normally more frugal than a WISP and they can get gear to operate in this band from surplus sources but it does not meet the APC requirements. To use the gear would require them to figure out a way to deal with that. That's costs time, skill and money. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there will be people who disagree with my opinions. Thank You, Brian Webster N2KGC www.wirelessmapping.com -----Original Message----- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:04 PM To: towertalk at contesting.com Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion; Amateur 802.11b Mailing List Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Hi All, As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to ask for your input on the issue. WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great headaches and gnashing of teeth. We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM community first. Are there people using this ability today? What's it used for? Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to drop the APC requirement? Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? Thanks all! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 16:32:54 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:32:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <41564.207.242.38.2.1147883574.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Hi Marlon: We have talked before on the ISP-WIRELESS list. I have large part 15 community network here in Hillsdale MI, and unlike most WISP's, we actively involve the amateur radio community and participate in their emergency drills. APC is only required on Part 97 Spread Spectrum.... hams running video or FM, the large majority of amateurs by far on 2.4ghz, are not required to run APC. So they are not effected by this proposal. As I understand it, it was the FCC who approached hams about dropping the APC requirement for spread spectrum. Further, the number of amateurs running spread spectrum under part 97 is very small. And the cost of high power amplifiers is prohibitive to most hams. Almost a non-issue. Also, spread spectrum hams already have a written wavier from most APC rules (which is likely why the FCC approached them about dropping the codified requirement). I can count maybe one or two that have actually taken advantage of it. My suggestion, drop your proposal since it likely will have little real world impact and will cost you significant attornies fees to fight an uphill battle against a primary user and gain you some undeserved enemies. It really is a non-issue and once again it appears some are crying chicken little against the hams. But do what you think is best. Should make for some entertaining reading if it goes forward. Jeff King wb8wka Tech chair, Hillsdale CoolCities > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > the > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked > to > ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From w3sz at comcast.net Wed May 17 16:33:58 2006 From: w3sz at comcast.net (w3sz) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:33:58 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: Hello, Marlon, I would strongly recommend dropping the APC requirement for Spread Spectrum. It is difficult to implement and an impediment to further experimentation. Its initial implementation was unfortunate. I believe the ARRL has appropriately come out in favor of dropping APC. The exact wording of their petition to the FCC is: ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, also known as The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), by counsel, hereby respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making at an early date, proposing the deletion of Section 97.311(d) of the Commission?s rules, save for the first sentence thereof. The effect of the rule change would be to eliminate an automatic power control provision that has proven over time to be impractical of compliance; is unnecessary in order to protect other Amateur Radio operations or the operation of any licensed radio service sharing certain Amateur Radio allocations; and which has unfortunately served as an unintended, but effective deterrent to Spread Spectrum experimentation in the Amateur Service. In support of its Petition, ARRL states as follows: Thanks for asking for comment on this. The ARRL has it precisely right this time. I hope you do the right thing and recommend that APC be dropped. Think broader public interest and not narrow special interest group and I think you will agree. Thanks, and 73, Roger Rehr W3SZ On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:03:37 -0400, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I > can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of > the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been > asked to ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -- Roger Rehr W3SZ http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/ From salo at saloits.com Wed May 17 16:37:43 2006 From: salo at saloits.com (Timothy J. Salo) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:37:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <200605171637.k4HGbhuW009304@newbsd.saloits.com> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer > Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:03:37 -0700 > Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > [...] > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? You might look for some of the public statements that hams have made to the effect that they wanted to run amateur TV in the 2.4 GHz spectrum simply to interfere with unlicensed users. -tjs From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 16:38:47 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:38:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> FYI Brian: There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. Regards, Jeff > Marlon, > While it would be a good thing for the industry to oppose this to keep it > from possibly happening, in all practical senses there are gong to be very > few hams ever using this and it would be in limited areas. I have not > heard > of any planned uses for the high power rules and no projects I am aware of > (been a ham for 17 years). One possible use may be in the same use WISP's > do > but for emergency communications much like what we did with WISPA down in > Mississippi after Katrina. There would be the possibility for this use in > the Video uses of ham radio but that has very limited use around the US. > If > you can get a hold of an ARRL repeater directory you might find listings > for > ATV (amateur television) repeaters to see who has anything in the band > where > there would be a more constant use. They may also want to use this for > Space > communications. This would encompass satellite comms as well as moon > bounce > experiments (yes they use the moon as a passive repeater). These would be > narrow band signals and pointed out in to space not terrestrial comms. > This > could create problems for WISP's but on a very local area. I'm really not > sure why they are asking for this rule change other than hams are normally > more frugal than a WISP and they can get gear to operate in this band from > surplus sources but it does not meet the APC requirements. To use the gear > would require them to figure out a way to deal with that. That's costs > time, > skill and money. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there will be people who > disagree with my opinions. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster N2KGC > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:04 PM > To: towertalk at contesting.com > Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion; Amateur 802.11b Mailing > List > Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > the > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked > to > ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From bwebster at wirelessmapping.com Wed May 17 16:51:19 2006 From: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com (Brian Webster) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: Jeff, You are right, I stand corrected. Every time I try and quote from memory I always miss key points. I agree that the WISP industry should not fight this as unlicensed users but am also concerned that they are starting to represent a much larger group of users than hams represent now (including the end users). The government is constantly under pressure to do what is in the best interest to the most people (I know the special interest groups do thing to the contrary) so I can see a point where this band could come under threat of being taken away from ham's. Your response to Marlon is on the money and well presented. I hope that he takes this to the Part-15 and WISPA lists to help alleviate some of the concerns. Thanks for posting this key information to the list, I know Marlon will make good use of it. Thank You, Brian N2KGC -----Original Message----- From: jeff at aerodata.net [mailto:jeff at aerodata.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:39 PM To: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com; TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Cc: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change FYI Brian: There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. Regards, Jeff > Marlon, > While it would be a good thing for the industry to oppose this to keep it > from possibly happening, in all practical senses there are gong to be very > few hams ever using this and it would be in limited areas. I have not > heard > of any planned uses for the high power rules and no projects I am aware of > (been a ham for 17 years). One possible use may be in the same use WISP's > do > but for emergency communications much like what we did with WISPA down in > Mississippi after Katrina. There would be the possibility for this use in > the Video uses of ham radio but that has very limited use around the US. > If > you can get a hold of an ARRL repeater directory you might find listings > for > ATV (amateur television) repeaters to see who has anything in the band > where > there would be a more constant use. They may also want to use this for > Space > communications. This would encompass satellite comms as well as moon > bounce > experiments (yes they use the moon as a passive repeater). These would be > narrow band signals and pointed out in to space not terrestrial comms. > This > could create problems for WISP's but on a very local area. I'm really not > sure why they are asking for this rule change other than hams are normally > more frugal than a WISP and they can get gear to operate in this band from > surplus sources but it does not meet the APC requirements. To use the gear > would require them to figure out a way to deal with that. That's costs > time, > skill and money. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there will be people who > disagree with my opinions. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster N2KGC > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:04 PM > To: towertalk at contesting.com > Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion; Amateur 802.11b Mailing > List > Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > the > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked > to > ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From junger at ask-wi.com Wed May 17 16:52:15 2006 From: junger at ask-wi.com (Jack Unger) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:52:15 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <446B54BF.1020700@ask-wi.com> Marlon, I've been thinking about an appropriate WISPA technical response to the FCC on this as a long-time ham (since 1958) AND a long-time WISP supporter/provider (since 1993). I'll get my suggestions to you by Sunday (5/21). I think we can craft an FCC response that will be a win-win proposition for both communities. jack Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I > can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of > the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been > asked to ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > _______________________________________________ > FCC mailing list > FCC at wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc > > -- Jack Unger (junger at ask-wi.com) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 17:18:43 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:18:43 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <00bb01c679d5$f3121000$09ba9240@marlon> Hi Roger, Thanks for the thoughts! Perhaps I should clarify a little bit. First, as a board member of WISPA and as a WISP, it's my job to look out for my industry. Special interest or otherwise :-). After all, my ability to deliver broadband to the consumer via wireless is how I feed my family. It's important to me. What I'm not interested in doing while wearing that hat is cause harm to the HAM community or develop enemies within it. Hence the questions about how our fighting this change would affect (or not) the HAMs. As for the greater public good. Others have said that almost no HAMs are using the technology/rules in question here. However, there are a GREAT number of WISPs, carriers, schools, home users, portable phones, baby monitors etc. etc. etc. that do use the frequencies in question. And many of those users systems would be severely impacted if not taken completely offline by high powered always on video systems. I don't agree that the HAM community is likely to use this band as much as everyone else already is. The case can also be made that the current users of the bands are doing a lot of experimenting as well. Probably more so because of the commercial component. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "w3sz" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Hello, Marlon, > > I would strongly recommend dropping the APC requirement for Spread > Spectrum. It is difficult to implement and an impediment to further > experimentation. Its initial implementation was unfortunate. > > I believe the ARRL has appropriately come out in favor of dropping APC. > The exact wording of their petition to the FCC is: > > ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, also known as The > American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), by counsel, hereby > respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rule > Making at an early date, proposing the deletion of Section 97.311(d) of > the Commission?s rules, save for the first sentence thereof. The effect of > the rule change would be to eliminate an automatic power control provision > that has proven over time to be impractical of compliance; is unnecessary > in order to protect other Amateur Radio operations or the operation of any > licensed radio service sharing certain Amateur Radio allocations; and > which has unfortunately served as an unintended, but effective deterrent > to Spread Spectrum experimentation in the Amateur Service. In support of > its Petition, ARRL states as follows: > > Thanks for asking for comment on this. The ARRL has it precisely right > this time. > > I hope you do the right thing and recommend that APC be dropped. Think > broader public interest and not narrow special interest group and I think > you will agree. > > Thanks, and > > 73, > > Roger Rehr W3SZ > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:03:37 -0400, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of >> the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I >> can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. >> >> There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of >> the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been >> asked to ask for your input on the issue. >> >> WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical >> purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is >> contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great >> headaches and gnashing of teeth. >> >> We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM >> community first. >> >> Are there people using this ability today? >> >> What's it used for? >> >> Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? >> >> Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to >> drop the APC requirement? >> >> Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? >> >> Thanks all! >> Marlon >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services >> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! >> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ham-80211 mailing list >> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org >> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > > > > -- > Roger Rehr > W3SZ > http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/ > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 17:20:18 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:20:18 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <200605171637.k4HGbhuW009304@newbsd.saloits.com> Message-ID: <00c001c679d6$2bc4fc50$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy J. Salo" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer >> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:03:37 -0700 >> Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> [...] >> We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM >> community first. >> >> Are there people using this ability today? >> >> What's it used for? >> >> Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? >> >> Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to >> drop the APC requirement? >> >> Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > You might look for some of the public statements that hams have made > to the effect that they wanted to run amateur TV in the 2.4 GHz > spectrum simply to interfere with unlicensed users. > > -tjs Why would they want to do something like that? Certainly HAMs aren't jerks just to be jerks! I know there are no WISPs with that attitued!!!! lol sigh marlon > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From kd4e at verizon.net Wed May 17 18:04:42 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> <50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <446B65BA.2030104@verizon.net> > jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, unless they > use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. This > proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with your > opinions, just a point of fact. > > If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, they > need to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM repeaters, > have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white elephant on as is, > this will become clear. It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, and rare. The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of citizens. Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From hfeinstein at cox.net Wed May 17 17:24:06 2006 From: hfeinstein at cox.net (hfeinstein at cox.net) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:24:06 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] APC Message-ID: <21513507.1147886646494.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml06.mgt.cox.net> I recall the original intent of the APC rule was to limit the RF spectral density from a large community of amateur spread spectrum users. The channel models that people used back when the rules were amended to include APC were written anticipated self-jamming and a high noise level from a large population of users. Alas, no such large amateur community of spread spectrum users ever materialized but we were stuck with the APC clause anyway. My support for removing APC is as an experimenter with continuing interest in amateur spread spectrum. The equipment I use for experimenting is either homebrew or locally modified commercial equipment. Avoiding complexity is something I really appreciate. Second, as I mentioned above, the original intent of APC solved a problem that never appeared. In fact, the number of active amateur spread spectum experimenters could probably fill a small room with lots of seating left over. Amateur spread spectrum is authorized on a variety of UHF and microwave amateur bands. My experimental interests are in these other frequency bands and not in the 2.4Ghz band. So, I don't see any real conflict between current 802.11 users or operators and amateur spread spectrum experimenters ( the very few I know). From n8cdw at direcway.com Wed May 17 17:24:56 2006 From: n8cdw at direcway.com (n8cdw at direcway.com) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:24:56 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <39161738bfad.38bfad391617@direcway.com> Hi All I am new and not sure what you guys are discussing, can someone let me know were I can find information on this subject or maybe give me the the basics? Thanks Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Webster Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:51 pm Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Jeff, > You are right, I stand corrected. Every time I try and quote from > memory I > always miss key points. I agree that the WISP industry should not > fight this > as unlicensed users but am also concerned that they are starting to > represent a much larger group of users than hams represent now > (includingthe end users). The government is constantly under > pressure to do what is in > the best interest to the most people (I know the special interest > groups do > thing to the contrary) so I can see a point where this band could > come under > threat of being taken away from ham's. Your response to Marlon is > on the > money and well presented. I hope that he takes this to the Part-15 > and WISPA > lists to help alleviate some of the concerns. Thanks for posting > this key > information to the list, I know Marlon will make good use of it. > > > > Thank You, > Brian N2KGC > > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff at aerodata.net [jeff at aerodata.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:39 PM > To: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com; TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio > Use of > 802.11 > Cc: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > FYI Brian: > > There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, > unless they > use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. This > proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with your > opinions, just a point of fact. > > If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, > theyneed to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM > repeaters,have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white > elephant on as is, > this will become clear. > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > > > Marlon, > > While it would be a good thing for the industry to oppose this > to keep it > > from possibly happening, in all practical senses there are gong > to be very > > few hams ever using this and it would be in limited areas. I > have not > > heard > > of any planned uses for the high power rules and no projects I > am aware of > > (been a ham for 17 years). One possible use may be in the same > use WISP's > > do > > but for emergency communications much like what we did with > WISPA down in > > Mississippi after Katrina. There would be the possibility for > this use in > > the Video uses of ham radio but that has very limited use around > the US. > > If > > you can get a hold of an ARRL repeater directory you might find > listings> for > > ATV (amateur television) repeaters to see who has anything in > the band > > where > > there would be a more constant use. They may also want to use > this for > > Space > > communications. This would encompass satellite comms as well as moon > > bounce > > experiments (yes they use the moon as a passive repeater). These > would be > > narrow band signals and pointed out in to space not terrestrial > comms.> This > > could create problems for WISP's but on a very local area. I'm > really not > > sure why they are asking for this rule change other than hams > are normally > > more frugal than a WISP and they can get gear to operate in this > band from > > surplus sources but it does not meet the APC requirements. To > use the gear > > would require them to figure out a way to deal with that. That's > costs> time, > > skill and money. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there will be people who > > disagree with my opinions. > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > Brian Webster N2KGC > > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [ooe at odessaoffice.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:04 PM > > To: towertalk at contesting.com > > Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion; Amateur 802.11b > Mailing> List > > Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about > half of > > the > > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I > can't> remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board > member of the > > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've > been asked > > to > > ask for your input on the issue. > > > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all > practical> purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much > of the gear is > > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > > community first. > > > > Are there people using this ability today? > > > > What's it used for? > > > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the > proposal to > > drop the APC requirement? > > > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > > > Thanks all! > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq) And I run my > own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 17:36:12 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon><50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <446B65BA.2030104@verizon.net> Message-ID: <00ec01c679d8$64bbbd80$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > jeff at aerodata.net wrote: >> There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, unless they >> use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. This >> proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with your >> opinions, just a point of fact. >> >> If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, they >> need to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM repeaters, >> have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white elephant on as is, >> this will become clear. > > It would be interesting to assess the current > level of Ham use of this spectrum. I am guessing > it is highly localized, specialized, and rare. > > The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and > promulgate regulations that are in the best > interest of the majority of citizens. > > Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum > represents a value to emergency communications, > technology experimentation, and hobby use we will > see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. > > -- > Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com > Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules that put our businesses at risk is all :-). Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under the unlicensed rules. And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the world! Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't have everything! grin Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... laters, marlon > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 17:36:48 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:36:48 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2006517133648.821214@DARLA> Hi Brian: Exactly. Many here where opposed to the APC when it was first suggested in ~1995, including Phil Karn and TAPR. We have to be very careful what we do when we ask for more rules on us then we already have (prior to 1995 there where no APC rules) as the world can change. A little OT, but related to this thought, is the whole bandwidth by regulation thing before the FCC. Presently there are NO bandwidth restrictions on digital on HF, other then good amateur practice. Yet there are some who want the FCC to create a regulation limiting it to 3.5khz. Sounds reasonable now, but who knows, maybe in 10 years when we realize we have made a mistake and wish to correct it, we will have to fight with HISPA (HF? Internet Service Providers), just as we have to do now. Amateurs should have as few rules and regulations as possible. I do hope TAPR steps up to the plate again, and fights the HF bandwidth by regulation as being anti-experimenter, just as they did APC back in 1995. -Jeff wb8wka On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:51:19 -0400, Brian Webster wrote: >Jeff, ? ? ? ? You are right, I stand corrected. Every time I try and quote >from memory I always miss key points. I agree that the WISP industry >should not fight this as unlicensed users but am also concerned that >they are starting to represent a much larger group of users than >hams represent now (including the end users). The government is >constantly under pressure to do what is in the best interest to the >most people (I know the special interest groups do thing to the >contrary) so I can see a point where this band could come under >threat of being taken away from ham's. Your response to Marlon is on >the money and well presented. I hope that he takes this to the Part- >15 and WISPA lists to help alleviate some of the concerns. Thanks >for posting this key information to the list, I know Marlon will >make good use of it. > > > >Thank You, Brian N2KGC > >-----Original Message----- From: jeff at aerodata.net >[mailto:jeff at aerodata.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:39 PM >To: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com; TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio >Use of 802.11 Cc: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 >Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > >FYI Brian: > >There currently are no APC limitations on ATV or space comms, unless >they use spread spectrum, which none to my knowledge currently use. >This proposal will not require them to use APC. Not disagreeing with >your opinions, just a point of fact. > >If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their operations, >they need to make a proposal that all hams, including ATV and FM >repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take this white >elephant on as is, this will become clear. > >Regards, > >Jeff > > > >>Marlon, ? ? ? ? While it would be a good thing for the industry to oppose >>this to keep it from possibly happening, in all practical senses >>there are gong to be very few hams ever using this and it would be >>in limited areas. I have not heard of any planned uses for the high >>power rules and no projects I am aware of (been a ham for 17 >>years). One possible use may be in the same use WISP's do but for >>emergency communications much like what we did with WISPA down in >>Mississippi after Katrina. There would be the possibility for this >>use in the Video uses of ham radio but that has very limited use >>around the US. If you can get a hold of an ARRL repeater directory >>you might find listings for ATV (amateur television) repeaters to >>see who has anything in the band where there would be a more >>constant use. They may also want to use this for Space >>communications. This would encompass satellite comms as well as >>moon bounce experiments (yes they use the moon as a passive >>repeater). These would be narrow band signals and pointed out in to >>space not terrestrial comms. This could create problems for WISP's >>but on a very local area. I'm really not sure why they are asking >>for this rule change other than hams are normally more frugal than >>a WISP and they can get gear to operate in this band from surplus >>sources but it does not meet the APC requirements. To use the gear >>would require them to figure out a way to deal with that. That's >>costs time, skill and money. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there will >>be people who disagree with my opinions. >> >> >> >>Thank You, Brian Webster N2KGC www.wirelessmapping.com >>? >> >> >>-----Original Message----- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 >>[mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:04 >>PM To: towertalk at contesting.com Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; >>FCC Discussion; Amateur 802.11b Mailing List Subject: [Ham-80211] >>OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> >> >>Hi All, >> >>As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about >>half of the 2.4 gig band. ?When using APC you can run very high >>wattage. ?I can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. ?This is for video >>as I recall. >> >>There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. ?As a board member >>of the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) >>I've been asked to ask for your input on the issue. >> >>WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all >>practical purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. ?And much >>of the gear is contention based, so anything that's always on tends >>to cause great headaches and gnashing of teeth. >> >>We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the >>HAM community first. >> >>Are there people using this ability today? >> >>What's it used for? >> >>Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? >> >>Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the >>proposal to drop the APC requirement? >> >>Am I missing anything? ?Asking the wrong questions etc? >> >>Thanks all! Marlon (509) 982-2181 >>Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) >>Consulting services 42846865 (icq) >>And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 17:45:49 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:45:49 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <00c001c679d6$2bc4fc50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <2006517134549.846801@DARLA> On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:20:18 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote: >>You might look for some of the public statements that hams have >>made to the effect that they wanted to run amateur TV in the 2.4 >>GHz spectrum simply to interfere with unlicensed users. >> >>-tjs > >Why would they want to do something like that? ?Certainly HAMs >aren't jerks just to be jerks! ?I know there are no WISPs with that >attitued!!!! ?lol I was going to reply to Tim's missive, but you beat me to it. Yes, I have seen the same verbal bravado Tim alludes to. But it would be a very bad idea citing that as hams could come back with FCC cases where WISP's where fined for interfering with hams. Case law generally trumps rumor and innuendo. As to no WISP's with that attitude... well, I was on ISP-Wireless for quite a few years, and I remember more then a few WISP's wanting to modify microwave ovens and put 802.11b cards in test mode to knock their competitors off the air. If WISPA is going to take this tactic, you might want to disable the search engine on the ISP-Wireless list as it is ripe with Hillbilly logic. People are people, and I don't hold anyone higher then anyone else. Just a bad idea to descend into the gutter. Your fear is not justified, let it go. Most hams on 2.4ghz are not even required to use APC and they are a far larger threat to WISPS then hams that run spread spectrum. Be aware, the ones not running APC for all intensive purposes appear as dead carriers where as most hams running spread spectrum will follow proper channel contention rules (802.11b/g that is). -Jeff From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 17:53:14 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:53:14 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <00ec01c679d8$64bbbd80$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement for APC. The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term business model on. Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the country is almost zero. On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" ?To: >"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" 80211 at lists.tapr.org>?Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM >Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > >>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: There currently are no APC limitations on >>>ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to >>>my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to >>>use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. >>>?If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their >>>operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including >>>ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take >>>this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. >> >>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of >>this spectrum. ?I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, >>and rare. >> >>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate >>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of >>citizens. >> >>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value >>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby >>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. >> >>-- Thanks! &?73, doc kd4e ?http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: >>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html > >I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that >the HAMs loose access to the band. ?We'd like to see a lack of rules >that put our businesses at risk is all :-). > >Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. ?In fact they get >more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under >the unlicensed rules. > >And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have >to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the >world! > >Of course, there's no cool factor in that. ?But hey, a guy can't >have everything! ?grin > >Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... > >laters, marlon > >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 18:06:13 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:13 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] APC References: <21513507.1147886646494.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml06.mgt.cox.net> Message-ID: <00f101c679dc$9606c570$09ba9240@marlon> Hiya, That's about what I thought. Let me ask you a question if I may. You are in Odessa Wa. (population 1000) running your experiments. And we quickly find out that your 100 watt always on transmitter completely shuts down my wifi broadband system and many of the portable phones and home wifi networks in the area. What do we do then? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "ham-80211: lists.tapr.org" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: [Ham-80211] APC >I recall the original intent of the APC rule was to limit the RF > spectral density from a large community > of amateur spread spectrum users. The channel models that > people used back when the rules were amended to include APC were written > anticipated self-jamming and a high noise level from a > large population of users. Alas, no such large amateur community > of spread spectrum users ever materialized but we were stuck with > the APC clause anyway. My support for removing APC is as an > experimenter with continuing interest in amateur spread spectrum. > The equipment I use for experimenting is either homebrew or > locally modified commercial equipment. Avoiding complexity > is something I really appreciate. Second, as I mentioned above, the > original > intent of APC solved a problem that never appeared. > In fact, the number of active amateur spread spectum experimenters > could probably fill a small room with lots of seating left over. > Amateur spread spectrum is authorized on > a variety of UHF and microwave amateur bands. My experimental interests > are > in these other frequency bands and not in the 2.4Ghz band. So, I don't > see any real conflict between current 802.11 users or operators and > amateur spread spectrum experimenters ( the very few I know). > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 18:18:13 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:18:13 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006517134549.846801@DARLA> Message-ID: <010f01c679de$42f01a10$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:20:18 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: >>>You might look for some of the public statements that hams have >>>made to the effect that they wanted to run amateur TV in the 2.4 >>>GHz spectrum simply to interfere with unlicensed users. >>> >>>-tjs >> >>Why would they want to do something like that? Certainly HAMs >>aren't jerks just to be jerks! I know there are no WISPs with that >>attitued!!!! lol > > I was going to reply to Tim's missive, but you beat me to it. grin > > Yes, I have seen the same verbal bravado Tim alludes to. But it would be a > very bad idea citing that as hams could come back with FCC cases where > WISP's where fined for interfering with hams. Case law generally trumps > rumor and innuendo. Yeah, there are certainly down sides to being a secondary user. > > As to no WISP's with that attitude... well, I was on ISP-Wireless for > quite a few years, and I remember more then a few WISP's wanting to modify > microwave ovens and put 802.11b cards in test mode to knock their > competitors off the air. If WISPA is going to take this tactic, you might > want to disable the search engine on the ISP-Wireless list as it is ripe > with Hillbilly logic. roflol I think you missed the tounge in cheek part! I remember those discussions. They are fun to joke about but we'd certainly (not as WISPA or as a professional operator) support someone actually doing this. Though I've sometimes thought about it as a way to kill off the blackbirds that eat my corn patch down to nothing! As a rule, wisps are just like hams. People don't want to cause trouble for others. And we know that interference is a two way street. Can't give without also getting. I'd MUCH rather work with a competitor than fight with him. In the end, fighting hurts the customer the most and that's bad for both of us. > > People are people, and I don't hold anyone higher then anyone else. Just a > bad idea to descend into the gutter. > toche' > Your fear is not justified, let it go. Most hams on 2.4ghz are not even > required to use APC and they are a far larger threat to WISPS then hams > that run spread spectrum. Be aware, the ones not running APC for all > intensive purposes appear as dead carriers where as most hams running > spread spectrum will follow proper channel contention rules (802.11b/g > that is). Understood. It's something that we needed to talk to you guys about though. And I'm glad I did. At this point I think I've changed my mind. There's not really anything to be gained by fighting this fight. USF funds and unused TV bands are a much better use of time, effort, and money right now. laters, marlon > > -Jeff > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 18:22:17 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:22:17 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] APC In-Reply-To: <00f101c679dc$9606c570$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <2006517142217.172728@DARLA> You might try working with the hams in that area Marlion. Many of us using spread spectrum have good relations with our WISPS. Anyways, it appears you are not hearing me or familiar with the FCC proposal you are objecting to. Of the hams using spread spectrum (either part 15 or 97), the great majority are using 802.11, which is far from a "always on" transmitter. And the only "always on" spread spectrum I know would be a multicasting, but even then I don't see that as practical. The spread spectrum used by hams is the same ack/nak stuff the WISP's use. Instead, I think you are concerned about about Amateur TV, or ATV, which for all intensive purposes is "always on" and often runs quite high power. As I said, ATV is not limited by APC currently, and the proposal before the FCC won't change that. Glad I could be of help in your filings against amateur radio before the FCC. On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:13 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote: >Hiya, > >That's about what I thought. > >Let me ask you a question if I may. > >You are in Odessa Wa. (population 1000) running your experiments. >And we quickly find out that your 100 watt always on transmitter >completely shuts down my wifi broadband system and many of the >portable phones and home wifi networks in the area. > >What do we do then? > >Marlon (509) 982-2181 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Equipment >sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Consulting services >42846865 (icq) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?And I run my own >wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: ?To: "ham- >80211: lists.tapr.org" ?Sent: Wednesday, >May 17, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: [Ham-80211] APC > > >>I recall the original intent of the APC rule was to limit the RF >>spectral density from a large community of amateur spread spectrum >>users. ?The channel models that people used back when the rules >>were amended to include APC were written anticipated self-jamming >>and a high noise level from a large population of users. ?Alas, no >>such large amateur community of spread spectrum users ever >>materialized but we were stuck with the APC clause anyway. ?My >>support for removing APC is as an experimenter with continuing >>interest in amateur spread spectrum. The equipment I use for >>experimenting is either homebrew or locally modified commercial >>equipment. ?Avoiding ?complexity is something I really appreciate. >>Second, as I mentioned above, the original intent of APC solved a >>problem that never appeared. In fact, the number of active amateur >>spread spectum experimenters could probably fill a small room with >>lots of seating left over. Amateur spread spectrum ?is authorized >>on a variety of UHF and microwave amateur bands. ?My experimental >>interests are in these other frequency bands and not in the 2.4Ghz >>band. ?So, I don't see any real conflict between current 802.11 >>users or operators ?and amateur spread spectrum experimenters ( the >>very few I know). >> >>_______________________________________________ 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 From jeff at aerodata.net Wed May 17 18:26:06 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:26:06 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] APC In-Reply-To: <2006517142217.172728@DARLA> Message-ID: <200651714266.511328@DARLA> Sorry Marlion, didn't see your earlier response and I wouldn't have come off in this one if I had. On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:22:17 -0400, Jeff King wrote: >You might try working with the hams in that area ?Marlion. Many of >us using spread spectrum have good relations with our WISPS. > >Anyways, it appears you are not hearing me or familiar with the FCC >proposal you are objecting to. > >Of the hams using spread spectrum (either part 15 or 97), the great >majority are using 802.11, which is far from a "always on" >transmitter. And the only "always on" spread spectrum I know would >be a multicasting, but even then I don't see that as practical. The >spread spectrum used by hams is the same ack/nak stuff the WISP's >use. > >Instead, I think you are concerned about about Amateur TV, or ATV, >which for all intensive purposes is "always on" and often runs quite >high power. > >As I said, ATV is not limited by APC currently, and the proposal >before the FCC won't change that. > >Glad I could be of help in your filings against amateur radio before >the FCC. > > >On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:13 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982- >2181 wrote: >>Hiya, >> >>That's about what I thought. >> >>Let me ask you a question if I may. >> >>You are in Odessa Wa. (population 1000) running your experiments. >>And we quickly find out that your 100 watt always on transmitter >>completely shuts down my wifi broadband system and many of the >>portable phones and home wifi networks in the area. >> >>What do we do then? >> >>Marlon (509) 982-2181 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Equipment >>sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Consulting >>services 42846865 (icq) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?And I >>run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: ?To: "ham- >>80211: lists.tapr.org" ?Sent: Wednesday, >>May 17, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: [Ham-80211] APC >> >> >>>I recall the original intent of the APC rule was to limit the RF >>>spectral density from a large community of amateur spread spectrum >>>users. ?The channel models that people used back when the rules >>>were amended to include APC were written anticipated self-jamming >>>and a high noise level from a large population of users. ?Alas, no >>>such large amateur community of spread spectrum users ever >>>materialized but we were stuck with the APC clause anyway. ?My >>>support for removing APC is as an experimenter with continuing >>>interest in amateur spread spectrum. The equipment I use for >>>experimenting is either homebrew or locally modified commercial >>>equipment. ?Avoiding ?complexity is something I really appreciate. >>>Second, as I mentioned above, the original intent of APC solved a >>>problem that never appeared. In fact, the number of active amateur >>>spread spectum experimenters could probably fill a small room with >>>lots of seating left over. Amateur spread spectrum ?is authorized >>>on a variety of UHF and microwave amateur bands. ?My experimental >>>interests are in these other frequency bands and not in the 2.4Ghz >>>band. ?So, I don't see any real conflict between current 802.11 >>>users or operators ?and amateur spread spectrum experimenters ( >>>the very few I know). >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 18:34:18 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:34:18 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] APC References: <2006517142217.172728@DARLA> Message-ID: <012601c679e0$87602c60$09ba9240@marlon> It was our understanding that this mainly applied to the video transmissions. And those, by their very nature are usually going to be almost, or nearly almost always on. I've run into the old Western Multiplex systems. The Lynx and Tsunami radios. Always on high power systems really mess with my "cheapo" internet gear! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: ; "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] APC > You might try working with the hams in that area Marlion. Many of us > using spread spectrum have good relations with our WISPS. > > Anyways, it appears you are not hearing me or familiar with the FCC > proposal you are objecting to. > > Of the hams using spread spectrum (either part 15 or 97), the great > majority are using 802.11, which is far from a "always on" transmitter. > And the only "always on" spread spectrum I know would be a multicasting, > but even then I don't see that as practical. The spread spectrum used by > hams is the same ack/nak stuff the WISP's use. > > Instead, I think you are concerned about about Amateur TV, or ATV, which > for all intensive purposes is "always on" and often runs quite high power. > > As I said, ATV is not limited by APC currently, and the proposal before > the FCC won't change that. > > Glad I could be of help in your filings against amateur radio before the > FCC. > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:13 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: >>Hiya, >> >>That's about what I thought. >> >>Let me ask you a question if I may. >> >>You are in Odessa Wa. (population 1000) running your experiments. >>And we quickly find out that your 100 watt always on transmitter >>completely shuts down my wifi broadband system and many of the >>portable phones and home wifi networks in the area. >> >>What do we do then? >> >>Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment >>sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services >>42846865 (icq) And I run my own >>wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: To: "ham- >>80211: lists.tapr.org" Sent: Wednesday, >>May 17, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: [Ham-80211] APC >> >> >>>I recall the original intent of the APC rule was to limit the RF >>>spectral density from a large community of amateur spread spectrum >>>users. The channel models that people used back when the rules >>>were amended to include APC were written anticipated self-jamming >>>and a high noise level from a large population of users. Alas, no >>>such large amateur community of spread spectrum users ever >>>materialized but we were stuck with the APC clause anyway. My >>>support for removing APC is as an experimenter with continuing >>>interest in amateur spread spectrum. The equipment I use for >>>experimenting is either homebrew or locally modified commercial >>>equipment. Avoiding complexity is something I really appreciate. >>>Second, as I mentioned above, the original intent of APC solved a >>>problem that never appeared. In fact, the number of active amateur >>>spread spectum experimenters could probably fill a small room with >>>lots of seating left over. Amateur spread spectrum is authorized >>>on a variety of UHF and microwave amateur bands. My experimental >>>interests are in these other frequency bands and not in the 2.4Ghz >>>band. So, I don't see any real conflict between current 802.11 >>>users or operators and amateur spread spectrum experimenters ( the >>>very few I know). >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 17 18:36:54 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:36:54 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> Message-ID: <013601c679e0$df3c8b40$09ba9240@marlon> You have us all wrong Jeff! WISPA (and the rest of the wisp industry generally speaking) doesn't think we are ever likely to displace anyone else. (much as we'd love a "broadband" chunk of spectrum!) The reality of it is that most of the technology we use is designed to share spectrum. Ideally I'd like to see ALL bands opened up for a low power unlicensed underlay that would have to use APC, collision avoidance and automatic channel control. Much like the 5.4 gig band is set up like. Today's technology makes some amazing things possible under the normal usage thresholds of most gear that's been deployed as I understand it. Do you think the HAMs would support an unlicensed secondary underlay of the 420-450mhz band? With software defined radios becoming the defacto standard it looks like, we could certainly take advantage of the spectrum without large hardware development cycles. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: ; ; ; Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS > seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary > users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens > and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement > for APC. > > The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as > they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they > serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after > the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. > This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they > would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term > business model on. > > Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream > amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it > worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get > the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their > chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the > country is almost zero. > > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" To: >>"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" >80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM >>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> >> >>>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: There currently are no APC limitations on >>>>ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to >>>>my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to >>>>use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. >>>> If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their >>>>operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including >>>>ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take >>>>this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. >>> >>>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of >>>this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, >>>and rare. >>> >>>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate >>>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of >>>citizens. >>> >>>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value >>>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby >>>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. >>> >>>-- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: >>>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html >> >>I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that >>the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules >>that put our businesses at risk is all :-). >> >>Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get >>more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under >>the unlicensed rules. >> >>And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have >>to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the >>world! >> >>Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't >>have everything! grin >> >>Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... >> >>laters, marlon >> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 From bwebster at wirelessmapping.com Wed May 17 19:44:53 2006 From: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com (Brian Webster) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <013601c679e0$df3c8b40$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: Marlon, I would say that ham's would jump up and down and have a fit over the suggestion. They would do this without any regard for the technical merit of the idea, nor the idea that they don't use the spectrum efficiently. That band is not as under utilized as Jeff mentions and therefore it's not quite as prime as it looks, also it is not a primary allocation for the ham's either. This would be a turf war and ham's are against giving up any spectrum no matter how it is being used currently. The uneducated outcries you would hear over the suggestion will frustrate you to no end and the mentality of the "I've already made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with the truth" operators out there would just muddy up the waters. Let's see how we make out with the White Space stuff first. At least you are arguing with logical people here (the broadcasters). Once that is accomplished and proven in practice it would be easier to look elsewhere for spectrum if necessary. Flame suit on as I am sure I will offend some very good and knowledgeable hams with this statement. It's not those folks I worry about, it's the loudmouths that I don't like. Thank You, Brian Webster N2KGC -----Original Message----- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:37 PM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11; kd4e at verizon.net Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change You have us all wrong Jeff! WISPA (and the rest of the wisp industry generally speaking) doesn't think we are ever likely to displace anyone else. (much as we'd love a "broadband" chunk of spectrum!) The reality of it is that most of the technology we use is designed to share spectrum. Ideally I'd like to see ALL bands opened up for a low power unlicensed underlay that would have to use APC, collision avoidance and automatic channel control. Much like the 5.4 gig band is set up like. Today's technology makes some amazing things possible under the normal usage thresholds of most gear that's been deployed as I understand it. Do you think the HAMs would support an unlicensed secondary underlay of the 420-450mhz band? With software defined radios becoming the defacto standard it looks like, we could certainly take advantage of the spectrum without large hardware development cycles. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: ; ; ; Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS > seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary > users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens > and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement > for APC. > > The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as > they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they > serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after > the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. > This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they > would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term > business model on. > > Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream > amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it > worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get > the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their > chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the > country is almost zero. > > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" To: >>"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" >80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM >>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> >> >>>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: There currently are no APC limitations on >>>>ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to >>>>my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to >>>>use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. >>>> If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their >>>>operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including >>>>ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take >>>>this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. >>> >>>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of >>>this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, >>>and rare. >>> >>>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate >>>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of >>>citizens. >>> >>>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value >>>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby >>>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. >>> >>>-- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: >>>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html >> >>I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that >>the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules >>that put our businesses at risk is all :-). >> >>Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get >>more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under >>the unlicensed rules. >> >>And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have >>to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the >>world! >> >>Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't >>have everything! grin >> >>Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... >> >>laters, marlon >> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From Darryl at radio-active.net.au Wed May 17 22:13:50 2006 From: Darryl at radio-active.net.au (Darryl Smith) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:13:50 +1000 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008801c679ff$2cf430e0$4704a8c0@dell8600> Anyone even thinking of the 420-450 MHz band should do some searches on the net in Australia for LIPD devices. These are Low Interference Potential Devices. By low interference potential, I mean they are jamming repeaters, and repeaters are jamming them. We have people who cannot unlock their car doors thanks to a 420-450 MHz remote control was used, and there is a repeater nearby. Darryl --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459 www.radio-active.net.au/blog/ - www.radio-active.net.au/web/tracking/ -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 5:45 AM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Marlon, I would say that ham's would jump up and down and have a fit over the suggestion. They would do this without any regard for the technical merit of the idea, nor the idea that they don't use the spectrum efficiently. That band is not as under utilized as Jeff mentions and therefore it's not quite as prime as it looks, also it is not a primary allocation for the ham's either. This would be a turf war and ham's are against giving up any spectrum no matter how it is being used currently. The uneducated outcries you would hear over the suggestion will frustrate you to no end and the mentality of the "I've already made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with the truth" operators out there would just muddy up the waters. Let's see how we make out with the White Space stuff first. At least you are arguing with logical people here (the broadcasters). Once that is accomplished and proven in practice it would be easier to look elsewhere for spectrum if necessary. Flame suit on as I am sure I will offend some very good and knowledgeable hams with this statement. It's not those folks I worry about, it's the loudmouths that I don't like. Thank You, Brian Webster N2KGC -----Original Message----- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:37 PM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11; kd4e at verizon.net Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change You have us all wrong Jeff! WISPA (and the rest of the wisp industry generally speaking) doesn't think we are ever likely to displace anyone else. (much as we'd love a "broadband" chunk of spectrum!) The reality of it is that most of the technology we use is designed to share spectrum. Ideally I'd like to see ALL bands opened up for a low power unlicensed underlay that would have to use APC, collision avoidance and automatic channel control. Much like the 5.4 gig band is set up like. Today's technology makes some amazing things possible under the normal usage thresholds of most gear that's been deployed as I understand it. Do you think the HAMs would support an unlicensed secondary underlay of the 420-450mhz band? With software defined radios becoming the defacto standard it looks like, we could certainly take advantage of the spectrum without large hardware development cycles. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: ; ; ; Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS > seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary > users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens > and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement > for APC. > > The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as > they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they > serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after > the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. > This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they > would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term > business model on. > > Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream > amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it > worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get > the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their > chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the > country is almost zero. > > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" To: >>"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" >80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM >>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> >> >>>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: There currently are no APC limitations on >>>>ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to >>>>my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to >>>>use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. >>>> If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their >>>>operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including >>>>ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take >>>>this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. >>> >>>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of >>>this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, >>>and rare. >>> >>>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate >>>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of >>>citizens. >>> >>>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value >>>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby >>>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. >>> >>>-- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: >>>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html >> >>I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that >>the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules >>that put our businesses at risk is all :-). >> >>Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get >>more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under >>the unlicensed rules. >> >>And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have >>to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the >>world! >> >>Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't >>have everything! grin >> >>Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... >> >>laters, marlon >> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 From kd4e at verizon.net Thu May 18 02:53:32 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:53:32 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <00ec01c679d8$64bbbd80$09ba9240@marlon> References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon><50553.207.242.38.2.1147883927.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <446B65BA.2030104@verizon.net> <00ec01c679d8$64bbbd80$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <446BE1AC.1070803@verizon.net> > I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that the > HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules that > put our businesses at risk is all :-). The greater the commercial use of any spectrum the greater the eventual desire to control that spectrum. If millions of dollars are being made and Ham activity begins to collide with commercial profits Hams will be changed to secondary users or lose the spectrum entirely. Again, mediating this is part the FCC mandate and it would not be entirely proper for Hams to control wide swaths of little used spectrum if needed by fellow citizens. UPS and 220 is an example of greed and poor FCC research and oversight, there are more legitimate cases where Ham use may not withstand the challenge of greater public need. Where we are asked to co-exist we may well find that our use becomes conditioned to non-interference and too many complaints could lead to APC or exclusion from access. I kinda like the idea of being able to go QRO with a 2.4GHz link out of a disaster-stricken area so that text and image communications may be re-established but too many low power users on the same spectrum may negate that option. Just thinking aloud via my keyboard! -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From kd4e at verizon.net Thu May 18 03:08:52 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:08:52 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> References: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> Message-ID: <446BE544.1010308@verizon.net> > I suggest they go after the 420-450mhz band, > which is unused over the majority of the country. I beg to differ. 440 is a critical asset to Ham-related emergency communications. You would have a full scale spectrum war on your hands if 440 were proposed, and many in Homeland Security would side with Hams. 440 is used to link HT's in and out of large buildings because 2M does not penetrate well. 440 is also valuable for other crossband repeat applications. 440 is used for ATV and Ham remote control apps. I seriously doubt that there are any major population areas in America absent multiple 440 repeaters. You'd get less grief going after the rest of 220, primary standing on 2.4GHz, or a piece of 1.2GHz or 5.6GHz than you would trying to take 440. IMHO, YMMV ... -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From dyoung at pobox.com Thu May 18 07:10:31 2006 From: dyoung at pobox.com (David Young) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 02:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> References: <00ec01c679d8$64bbbd80$09ba9240@marlon> <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> Message-ID: <20060518071031.GA8159@che.ojctech.com> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:53:14PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement for APC. > > The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum > as they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel > they serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they > go after the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the > country. This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing > the hams they would have a range of frequencies they could actually > build a long term business model on. Assorted thoughts: I get a little itchy when I hear "protected spectrum," because it brings to mind businesses that monopolize broadband access simply because their access to customers---by air, wire, whatever---is "protected," not because they prevail in a melee of high-tech innovation. I am skeptical that a WISP can build a long-term business model on a mere 30 MHz of spectrum, especially if it anticipates demand for higher and higher bandwidth and/or competition from wire & fiber. It seems to me that foliage penetration at 400 MHz is a double-edged sword, especially if all you have is a slim slice of spectrum: it can really cut down on spatial re-use, even within one operator's network. It can help to have a "backstop" for your radio emissions. As a WISP moves to lower and lower frequencies (I read about 900 MHz, 700 MHz, 400 MHz, ...), it needs a bigger and bigger antenna to get the same amount of gain over noise and interference. A WISP can only make its CPE so big. At some point, an operator's gains from foliage/buildings penetration may be overwhelmed by the losses due to a less selective antenna, fewer channels, and narrower channel width. I have a hunch that the losses will overwhelm the gains at a frequency much nearer 2.4 GHz than, say, 400 MHz, especially as techniques like beamforming and MIMO enter the picture. It's just a hunch. Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung at ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 From awolfe at Route24.net Thu May 18 01:03:43 2006 From: awolfe at Route24.net (Al Wolfe) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: Message-ID: <000201c67a76$4a4b3450$cd102acc@Als> > Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:53:14 -0400 > From: Jeff King > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS > seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary > users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens > and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement > for APC. > > The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as > they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they > serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after > the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. > This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they > would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term > business model on. > > Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream > amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it > worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get > the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their > chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the > country is almost zero. > Jeff, What rock have you been hiding under? The 420 to 450 mhz band is the second most used band in amateur radio. Get real. Al, K9SI From jeff at aerodata.net Thu May 18 14:36:16 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:36:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <000201c67a76$4a4b3450$cd102acc@Als> References: <000201c67a76$4a4b3450$cd102acc@Als> Message-ID: <42660.207.242.38.2.1147962976.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> > Jeff, > What rock have you been hiding under? The 420 to 450 mhz band is the > second most used band in amateur radio. Get real. > > Al, K9SI I am getting real. I stated that over the majority of the landmass of the U.S., most of the time, the 440 band is as dead as a doornail. The fact that is may be the second most used band does not invalidate what I said. Look at it another way, you have a 30mhz wide band. Add up the bandwidth of the repeaters (20khz) divided by their utilitzation. Then tell me how much of the band is being used vs. just being warehoused. And do note, most WISP's serve rural areas, so you really can't base your perception on urban america. In any case, I was just musing here. I would be against WISP's making a land grab for 420-450 and I am sure they would loose, just as I am sure they will loose the APC issue. But the difference is asking for 420-450 makes some sense from their perspective, where as the APC issue, in reality, wouldn't buy them a thing except alot of ill-will from amateur radio. Your going to take the gloves off, might as well make the prize worthwhile. From Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL Thu May 18 15:07:03 2006 From: Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL (DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:07:03 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> You have amateur radio using 420-450 MHz in the most populated areas of the U.S. You have the most individuals using 802.11b/g in the most populated areas of the U.S. FYI amateur radio IS really a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band as the military can and does use it. Also, there are many linked repeater systems across the U.S. that use frequencies in the 420-440 MHz band. These are recognized by DHS and FEMA as frequencies used in prime emergency and disaster relief communications. The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access is the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary distributor of broadband Internet access. Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of jeff at aerodata.net Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:36 AM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Jeff, > What rock have you been hiding under? The 420 to 450 mhz band is the > second most used band in amateur radio. Get real. > > Al, K9SI I am getting real. I stated that over the majority of the landmass of the U.S., most of the time, the 440 band is as dead as a doornail. The fact that is may be the second most used band does not invalidate what I said. Look at it another way, you have a 30mhz wide band. Add up the bandwidth of the repeaters (20khz) divided by their utilitzation. Then tell me how much of the band is being used vs. just being warehoused. And do note, most WISP's serve rural areas, so you really can't base your perception on urban america. In any case, I was just musing here. I would be against WISP's making a land grab for 420-450 and I am sure they would loose, just as I am sure they will loose the APC issue. But the difference is asking for 420-450 makes some sense from their perspective, where as the APC issue, in reality, wouldn't buy them a thing except alot of ill-will from amateur radio. Your going to take the gloves off, might as well make the prize worthwhile. _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20060518/2449235e/attachment.htm From jeff at aerodata.net Thu May 18 15:36:06 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:36:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af .mil> References: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <16866.207.242.38.2.1147966566.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> > You have amateur radio using 420-450 MHz in the most populated areas of > the U.S. Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time? > FYI amateur radio IS really a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band as > the military can and does use it. That can be said about just about anything. If the military wants it, the military will take it. Do you commonly have problems with the Military on 440? > The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access > is > the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for > such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary > distributor of broadband Internet access. The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid billions of dollars for these protected frequency. Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry? From ooe at odessaoffice.com Thu May 18 15:46:21 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:46:21 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <008801c679ff$2cf430e0$4704a8c0@dell8600> Message-ID: <003501c67a92$36911710$09ba9240@marlon> That's precisely the types of situations we want to try to avoid creating! Thanks for the heads up! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Smith" To: ; "'TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11'" Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:13 PM Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > Anyone even thinking of the 420-450 MHz band should do some searches on > the > net in Australia for LIPD devices. These are Low Interference Potential > Devices. > > By low interference potential, I mean they are jamming repeaters, and > repeaters are jamming them. We have people who cannot unlock their car > doors > thanks to a 420-450 MHz remote control was used, and there is a repeater > nearby. > > Darryl > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459 > www.radio-active.net.au/blog/ - www.radio-active.net.au/web/tracking/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org > [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster > Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 5:45 AM > To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > Marlon, > I would say that ham's would jump up and down and have a fit over > the > suggestion. They would do this without any regard for the technical merit > of > the idea, nor the idea that they don't use the spectrum efficiently. That > band is not as under utilized as Jeff mentions and therefore it's not > quite > as prime as it looks, also it is not a primary allocation for the ham's > either. This would be a turf war and ham's are against giving up any > spectrum no matter how it is being used currently. The uneducated outcries > you would hear over the suggestion will frustrate you to no end and the > mentality of the "I've already made up my mind, don't try and confuse me > with the truth" operators out there would just muddy up the waters. Let's > see how we make out with the White Space stuff first. At least you are > arguing with logical people here (the broadcasters). Once that is > accomplished and proven in practice it would be easier to look elsewhere > for > spectrum if necessary. Flame suit on as I am sure I will offend some very > good and knowledgeable hams with this statement. It's not those folks I > worry about, it's the loudmouths that I don't like. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster N2KGC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:37 PM > To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11; kd4e at verizon.net > Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > You have us all wrong Jeff! WISPA (and the rest of the wisp industry > generally speaking) doesn't think we are ever likely to displace anyone > else. (much as we'd love a "broadband" chunk of spectrum!) > > The reality of it is that most of the technology we use is designed to > share > spectrum. > > Ideally I'd like to see ALL bands opened up for a low power unlicensed > underlay that would have to use APC, collision avoidance and automatic > channel control. Much like the 5.4 gig band is set up like. Today's > technology makes some amazing things possible under the normal usage > thresholds of most gear that's been deployed as I understand it. > > Do you think the HAMs would support an unlicensed secondary underlay of > the > 420-450mhz band? With software defined radios becoming the defacto > standard > it looks like, we could certainly take advantage of the spectrum without > large hardware development cycles. > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff King" > To: ; ; Ham Radio Use of 802.11>; > Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > >> Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS >> seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary >> users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens >> and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement >> for APC. >> >> The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as >> they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they >> serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go >> after >> the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country. >> This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they >> would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term >> business model on. >> >> Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream >> amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it >> worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get >> the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their >> chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the >> country is almost zero. >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 >> wrote: >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" To: >>>"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" >>80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM >>>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change >>> >>> >>>>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: There currently are no APC limitations on >>>>>ATV or space comms, unless they use spread spectrum, which none to >>>>>my knowledge currently use. This proposal will not require them to >>>>>use APC. Not disagreeing with your opinions, just a point of fact. >>>>> If the WISP's are truly interested in protecting their >>>>>operations, they need to make a proposal that all hams, including >>>>>ATV and FM repeaters, have to implement APC. Clearly if they take >>>>>this white elephant on as is, this will become clear. >>>> >>>>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of >>>>this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized, >>>>and rare. >>>> >>>>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate >>>>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of >>>>citizens. >>>> >>>>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value >>>>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby >>>>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220. >>>> >>>>-- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: >>>>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html >>> >>>I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that >>>the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules >>>that put our businesses at risk is all :-). >>> >>>Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get >>>more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under >>>the unlicensed rules. >>> >>>And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have >>>to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the >>>world! >>> >>>Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't >>>have everything! grin >>> >>>Just trying to keep this all in the proper context..... >>> >>>laters, marlon >>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From esj at harvee.org Thu May 18 16:48:03 2006 From: esj at harvee.org (Eric S. Johansson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <16866.207.242.38.2.1147966566.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> <16866.207.242.38.2.1147966566.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <446CA543.1000204@harvee.org> jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree > with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead > as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time? you've had 2 m to that in the Boston area. Or as I could never strep a contact on 440, I could stir up a contact on 2 m as long as it was during rush hour. Otherwise, the two bands were indistinguishable since my decision to remove 2m/440 from the car. >> The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access >> is >> the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for >> such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary >> distributor of broadband Internet access. > > The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as > provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone > companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid > billions of dollars for these protected frequency. > > Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry? well, there is a significant amount of corporate welfare which has been well documented in many newsmagazines and newspapers. It takes the form of tax write-offs specifically targeted at a company to outright grants of cash. why not wisp? one could also argue that the cell phone companies overpaid for the spectrum. After all auctions represent the triumph of the person with a worse judgment and the most money. When the European 3g auctions went through, the organizations that purchased the spectrum rights lost significant share value. And they lost value because it was generally recognize that the auction winner would never pay off that debt without many years of very expensive services. desperately trying to bring this back on topic, if wireless ISPs want some sort of special treatment, they should get together, plan and build out a shared access wireless infrastructure. once they have demonstrated they can cooperate, build a communal managed and funded wireless infrastructure with nondiscriminatory access, then they deserve special treatment. Otherwise if they can't manage their house in the part 15 spectrum, why would they deserve special spectrum allocations From esj at harvee.org Thu May 18 16:58:54 2006 From: esj at harvee.org (Eric S. Johansson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:58:54 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <446CA543.1000204@harvee.org> References: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> <16866.207.242.38.2.1147966566.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <446CA543.1000204@harvee.org> Message-ID: <446CA7CE.6060408@harvee.org> Eric S. Johansson wrote: > you've had 2 m to that in the Boston area. Or as I could never strep a > contact on 440, I could stir up a contact on 2 m as long as it was > during rush hour. Otherwise, the two bands were indistinguishable since > my decision to remove 2m/440 from the car. sorry sorry sorry. Something is wrong with my XP box which is screwing up speech recognition. I need to reinstall XP yet again (needs to be done every nine months to year) in order to restore things to somewhat more normal functionality. what it should have been was something like: You could add 2 m to that in the Boston area. Where I'd never could stir up a contact on 440,... as for other speech recognition errors, all I can say is: speech recognition in use, it makes mistakes, I correct some. From ooe at odessaoffice.com Thu May 18 17:03:47 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:03:47 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3B9C@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> <16866.207.242.38.2.1147966566.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <009101c67a9d$076d1000$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:36 AM Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change >> You have amateur radio using 420-450 MHz in the most populated areas of >> the U.S. > > Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree > with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead > as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time? > > >> FYI amateur radio IS really a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band as >> the military can and does use it. > > That can be said about just about anything. If the military wants it, the > military will take it. Do you commonly have problems with the Military on > 440? > > >> The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access >> is >> the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for >> such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary >> distributor of broadband Internet access. > > The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as > provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone > companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid > billions of dollars for these protected frequency. > > Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry? And what did the hams pay for their bands? TV? Radio? Sheesh. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'm not far off. I got the info a few years ago so I'm sure things have changed a little bit. If you count usage in bits per second rather than time online there's a calculation that can be done to compare what WISPs make per bit delivered vs. cell phone companies. As I recall, the wisps get something like $.25 per megabit of data. The cell phone companies, using the same measurement, get something like $20! In most places people still pay more, far more, for their cell phones than they do for their broadband. And they spend more time at the computer than they do on the phone. Oh yeah, don't forget that the cell phone guys also get usf funds! I'd be happy to buy spectrum. The deposit to bid on auction 66 is only $1000 less than I paid for my first house! I can put in a lot of gear for that price. And people won't pay any more for licensed service than they will for unlicensed out here. If I could get people to kick loose with $60 to $100 per month for my internet like they will for their cell phones I could *maybe* justify buying some spectrum! Look at the financial health of most of the companies that own spectrum too. I think a pretty good argument can be made that the spectrum auction idea is largely responsible for the near collaps of the telecom industry. > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From jeff at aerodata.net Thu May 18 17:25:23 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <446CA543.1000204@harvee.org> Message-ID: <2006518132524.764162@DARLA> On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:03 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >jeff at aerodata.net wrote: >>Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you >>disagree with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, >>440 is as dead as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the >>time? > >you've had 2 m to that in the Boston area. Next time you are on a transcontential flight, look out the window. You'll find most of the landmass of the U.S. doesn't look like Boston. >>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP >>industry? > >well, there is a significant amount of corporate welfare which has >been well documented in many newsmagazines and newspapers. ?It takes >the form of tax write-offs specifically targeted at a company to >outright grants of cash. ?why not wisp? Your basis is others are doing it, so why not WISP's? Two wrongs don't make a right. Just as amateurs and broadcasters have to demostrate that they serve the public good for their "welfare", the WISP's should also. Oh, and did I mention, WISP are for profit? >?Otherwise if they can't manage >their house in the part 15 spectrum, why would they deserve special >spectrum allocations Bingo. I knew we could agree on something. From jeff at aerodata.net Thu May 18 17:32:36 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:32:36 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <009101c67a9d$076d1000$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <2006518133236.829826@DARLA> On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:03:47 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote: >>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP >>industry? > >And what did the hams pay for their bands? ?TV? ?Radio? ?Sheesh. -0-. Both of them provide to the public good at no charge to the public. WISP's don't, unless of course your saying WISP provide their service for free. You want to make money Marlon, you got to spend money. The Part 15 bands where created for a specific purpose, and WISP's were not even considered then. I think it is wonderful that the WISP's have put it to so much good use, and support both the expansion of the Part 15 bands as well as your white space proposal. Yet if you want protected spectrum, someone is going to have to pay for that. >I'd be happy to buy spectrum. ?The deposit to bid on auction 66 is >only $1000 less than I paid for my first house! ?I can put in a lot >of gear for that price. ?And people won't pay any more for licensed >service than they will for unlicensed out here. ?If I could get >people to kick loose with $60 to $100 per month for my internet like >they will for their cell phones I could *maybe* justify buying some >spectrum! Yet other companies are making a profit (or at least staying in business) providing internet broadband on protected spectrum they paid for. >Look at the financial health of most of the companies that own >spectrum too. I think a pretty good argument can be made that the >spectrum auction idea is largely responsible for the near collaps of >the telecom industry. Sure, no doubt they overpaid. But big difference between paying too much and paying nothing. You get what you pay for and if you want free spectrum, you have to take what you can get. -Jeff p.s. All the CC's you added to this keep bouncing, and I suspect I am only seeing half the conversation. Care to do any cross pollination between the groups? From esj at harvee.org Thu May 18 18:25:42 2006 From: esj at harvee.org (Eric S. Johansson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:25:42 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2006518132524.764162@DARLA> References: <2006518132524.764162@DARLA> Message-ID: <446CBC26.2060908@harvee.org> Jeff King wrote: > > Next time you are on a transcontential flight, look out the window. > You'll find most of the landmass of the U.S. doesn't look like > Boston. speeko hell. 2m == 440 == unused spectrum. >> well, there is a significant amount of corporate welfare which has >> been well documented in many newsmagazines and newspapers. It >> takes the form of tax write-offs specifically targeted at a company >> to outright grants of cash. why not wisp? > > Your basis is others are doing it, so why not WISP's? Two wrongs > don't make a right. Just as amateurs and broadcasters have to > demostrate that they serve the public good for their "welfare", the > WISP's should also. Oh, and did I mention, WISP are for profit? no, I was not suggesting because one does, the other should but to point out that it wouldn't be inconsistent with government policy to subsidize (i.e. corporate welfare) wireless ISPs. And yes, while they are for profit, so are all the other companies that receive government welfare handouts. I think what I'm trying to say is do both or do neither. In either case, make it transparent >> Otherwise if they can't manage their house in the part 15 spectrum, >> why would they deserve special spectrum allocations > > Bingo. I knew we could agree on something. actually Jeff, we agree on many things. It's just that we come at the same problem from different angles. That different angles thang is what makes it look like a conflict. ---eric From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Thu May 18 17:06:15 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:06:15 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> References: <005d01c679cb$765dab50$09ba9240@marlon> Message-ID: <200605181206.15793.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Contrary to other posts, I can find nothing in any FCC documentation that shows they approaced the ARRL about dropping the APC requirement. And since this is a public proceeding, it will cost you little to add your comments to the proceeding at this time. If you do not comment on it and it becomes reality *then* you could incur significant legal costs trying to fight the isse as a seconcdary user of the spectrum. I an an amateur radio operator with two Linksys wrt54g wireless routers I have modified the firmware on. I have been looking at purchasing amplifiers to up their output to establish an omni-directional hubbed network. Amplifiers with moderate power levels are not that expensive. Dropping the APC requirement *would* make it easier to implement the current FCC requirements. Meeting current requirements would require applications to make use of the 802.11h modules in the modified firmware I am using. It *will* require additional work over just buying off-the-shelf stuff and using it. Having said that, I have to tell you I have already posted comments against the proposal. After thinking about it a lot I came to the conclusion that APC *is* the technological path to follow to limit spectrum pollution, be it pollution in the Part 15 or Part 97 arena. Hams are supposed to engineer their equipment based on sound engineering practice and judgment. Implementing APC *is* exhibiting sound engineering practice and judgment. While you can argue that philosophically amateurs will implement APC on their own without it being in the rules, pragmatically that is not the case. The ARRL in their proposal admits this by basically saying APC, as formulated by the FCC, is too hard for amateurs to do. Basically, that is a crock. Conceptually, it is easy to do in any FHSS system. It is hard to do in a DSSS system because trying to identify signal strengths of narrow band signals is difficult in a DSSS system. But I'm sure some DSP processing could handle this. Anyway, as you can see there are probably lots of varying views on this subject. You need to think your position through and put in your comments, while I think it is past the comment date, I think the FCC will still accept comments as long as they aren't actively in the process of analyzing them. tim ab0wr On Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:03, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to > ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From kd4moj at kd4moj.org Thu May 18 18:53:07 2006 From: kd4moj at kd4moj.org (Doug Ferrell) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2006517135314.325358@DARLA> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 May 2006, Jeff King wrote: >but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the country is almost zero. Interesting... try and geta a 70cm repeater pair in florida... stand in line. More UHF here than VHF. -- ...DOUG KD4MOJ From esj at harvee.org Thu May 18 19:17:30 2006 From: esj at harvee.org (Eric S. Johansson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:17:30 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <446CC84A.30100@harvee.org> Doug Ferrell wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Jeff King wrote: > >> but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the country is > almost zero. > > Interesting... try and geta a 70cm repeater pair in florida... stand in > line. More UHF here than VHF. pairs do not equal utilization. In Boston, it's also similarly impossible to get a pair on 2 meters or 440. yet if you scan the bands outside of a 30 minute to one hour window in rush-hour, you hear virtually no activity except a few retirees here and there. Anyway, this is getting a bit far afield of the topic. --- eric From Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL Fri May 19 15:59:35 2006 From: Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL (DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:59:35 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA7@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> See my answers below... Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of jeff at aerodata.net Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:36 AM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change > You have amateur radio using 420-450 MHz in the most populated areas of > the U.S. Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time? Generally speaking the more dense the population the greater the "requirement" for communications. I don't disagree with you statement, it simple not relevant to the discussion of allowing multiple usage of the 420-450 band or any band. If a WISP wants to put in a system on 420-450 in a valley in Big Bend Nat. Park in one of the uninhabited valleys, go for it. No one will care. However, if they want to do this in El Paso, you will hear screams from both sides of the boarder. > FYI amateur radio IS really a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band as > the military can and does use it. That can be said about just about anything. If the military wants it, the military will take it. Do you commonly have problems with the Military on 440? It IS NOT TRUE that if the military wants a certain frequency they can have it. I know of several cases where the Navy and Army really wanted certain frequencies and were flatly told that they could not have/use them for any reason. Yes, we have problems with military encroachment on 420-450 in Texas, the Southwest and Northwest. > The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access > is > the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for > such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary > distributor of broadband Internet access. The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid billions of dollars for these protected frequency. Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry? For the reason previously stated...because it is of great benefit to citizens. Also, the Executive Branch and Congress agree that there is a need for wireless broadband Internet access in the U.S. and have set this as a policy statement and have drafted and in some cases passed legislation to that end. To complete this policy, IMHO, WISPs must have their own band(s) for operation that is NOT shared by another (other) service(s). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20060519/2e8f7e3c/attachment.htm From Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL Fri May 19 16:12:43 2006 From: Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL (DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:12:43 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA8@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> A couple of quick comments... 1) The FCC has defined what is means by spread spectrum and how to obtain APC under Part 97. 2) DSSS (802.11b) and OFDM (802.11g) do not fit the FCC diffinition of spread spectrum. 3) Accomplishing APC on DSSS and OFDM types of modulation using the method of APC that the FCC has defined in Part 97 is a "Practical Impossibility" (a legal term) and I can assure you that no knowledgable federal attorney is going to get the government involved in Practical Impossibility litigation. There is too much case law at stake if they lose and judges almost always rule against practical impossibility. Walt/K5YFW PS, just this week finished a contract law seminar from the Defense Acquisition University (continuing educations requirement for procurement professionals) that shows just how federal judges are ruling. IMHO they would not rule in favor of the government where there is a question of Practical Impossibility. -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:06 PM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Contrary to other posts, I can find nothing in any FCC documentation that shows they approaced the ARRL about dropping the APC requirement. And since this is a public proceeding, it will cost you little to add your comments to the proceeding at this time. If you do not comment on it and it becomes reality *then* you could incur significant legal costs trying to fight the isse as a seconcdary user of the spectrum. I an an amateur radio operator with two Linksys wrt54g wireless routers I have modified the firmware on. I have been looking at purchasing amplifiers to up their output to establish an omni-directional hubbed network. Amplifiers with moderate power levels are not that expensive. Dropping the APC requirement *would* make it easier to implement the current FCC requirements. Meeting current requirements would require applications to make use of the 802.11h modules in the modified firmware I am using. It *will* require additional work over just buying off-the-shelf stuff and using it. Having said that, I have to tell you I have already posted comments against the proposal. After thinking about it a lot I came to the conclusion that APC *is* the technological path to follow to limit spectrum pollution, be it pollution in the Part 15 or Part 97 arena. Hams are supposed to engineer their equipment based on sound engineering practice and judgment. Implementing APC *is* exhibiting sound engineering practice and judgment. While you can argue that philosophically amateurs will implement APC on their own without it being in the rules, pragmatically that is not the case. The ARRL in their proposal admits this by basically saying APC, as formulated by the FCC, is too hard for amateurs to do. Basically, that is a crock. Conceptually, it is easy to do in any FHSS system. It is hard to do in a DSSS system because trying to identify signal strengths of narrow band signals is difficult in a DSSS system. But I'm sure some DSP processing could handle this. Anyway, as you can see there are probably lots of varying views on this subject. You need to think your position through and put in your comments, while I think it is past the comment date, I think the FCC will still accept comments as long as they aren't actively in the process of analyzing them. tim ab0wr On Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:03, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Hi All, > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to > ask for your input on the issue. > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > community first. > > Are there people using this ability today? > > What's it used for? > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > drop the APC requirement? > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > Thanks all! > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20060519/6d8d0a9f/attachment.htm From Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL Fri May 19 16:17:42 2006 From: Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL (DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:17:42 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA9@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Note...being on-the-air or transmitting DOES NOT equate to channel usage. Frequencies set aside for 911 call boxes are used less than 0.01% of the time (thankfully)...yet their usage is 100%. Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Eric S. Johansson Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:17 PM To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change Doug Ferrell wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Jeff King wrote: > >> but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the country is > almost zero. > > Interesting... try and geta a 70cm repeater pair in florida... stand in > line. More UHF here than VHF. pairs do not equal utilization. In Boston, it's also similarly impossible to get a pair on 2 meters or 440. yet if you scan the bands outside of a 30 minute to one hour window in rush-hour, you hear virtually no activity except a few retirees here and there. Anyway, this is getting a bit far afield of the topic. --- eric _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20060519/cc194111/attachment.htm From kc2mmi at verizon.net Fri May 19 16:34:42 2006 From: kc2mmi at verizon.net (KC2MMI (Jared)) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:34:42 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: Message-ID: <009501c67b62$2211ef50$2e01a8c0@armada> <> Literally? Hams have "paid" for their licenses, and their bands, by signing a mortgage on their lives. Don't forget, the reason that hams are required to demonstrate CW proficiency is to provide a pool of trained radio operators for military draft. If there was a war emergency requiring radio operators "NOW"...Yes, that's what your CW requirement was for. That's why the bands aren't auctioned off to cash bidders, having an incentive for the civilian draft pool is worth more. Now that the military has moved away from CW and field repairable radios...Hams may well just become hobbyists, and lose allocations. Cell phone versus WISP data rates are something else again, you are talking about *marketing*. Only a cellco could convince customers to pay ten cents per SMS message (taking maybe 1/10th of a second on the data channel) when the same dime will buy them a full minute, 600x more time, on the voice channel. If hams could be that persuasive, we'd own the air and get paid every time we hit the tx key! From jeff at aerodata.net Fri May 19 16:40:58 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:40:58 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA7@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <2006519124059.594561@DARLA> On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:59:35 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: >If a WISP wants to put in a system on 420-450 in a valley in Big >Bend Nat. Park in one of the uninhabited valleys, go for it. ? No >one will care. But that describes the state of 440 across the bulk of the U.S. land mass, and in particular where WISP's want to service. I'm sure El Paso has a multitude of internet options where as parts of Cambria Township michigan does not. WISP's, by and large, serve rural areas. And I hardly think no-one will care if they start to set up shop on 440 based on your good word. >>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP >i>ndustry? ? ? > >For the reason previously stated...because it is of great benefit to >?citizens. ? And so is my cell phone, that I pay $50 a month for. But they had to pay for the spectrum. This is called capitalism. >Also, the Executive Branch and Congress agree that there >is a need for wireless broadband Internet access in the U.S. and >have set this as a policy statement and have drafted and in some >cases passed legislation to that end. ? ? What is that passed legislation? >To complete this policy, IMHO, WISPs must have their own band(s) for >?operation that is NOT shared by another (other) service(s). ? See, what you are failing to see here, is WISP's are a FOR PROFIT business. This is the distinction between amateur radio and other services. We contribute to the public good without charging the public for this. WISP's do not do this. I am in full support of expansion of the Part 15 bands as well as some of the white space legislation the WISP's have before the FCC. However, if this WISP's want protected airspace, I think they should at least pay some price for this, although I agree no where near what the cell phone providers paid. From jeff at aerodata.net Fri May 19 16:45:28 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA8@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <2006519124528.875791@DARLA> On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:12:43 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: >2) DSSS (802.11b) and OFDM (802.11g) do not fit the FCC diffinition >of spread spectrum. ? ? Actually 802.11b DSSS does meet the definiation. It was when 802.11g OFDM came out they had to rewrite the part 15 rules as it wasn't considered spread spectrum. And ATV, which what it appears the WISP's are most afraid of, was never constrained by the APC rules. >3) Accomplishing APC on DSSS and OFDM types of modulation using the >method of APC that the FCC has defined in Part 97 is a "Practical >Impossibility" (a legal term) and I can assure you that no >knowledgable federal attorney is going to get the government >involved in Practical Impossibility litigation. ?There is too much >case law at stake if they lose and judges almost always rule against >practical impossibility. ? True, but I'm reluctant to argue this point. One of the basis and purpose of amateur radio is experimentation, and to promote this we need as few rules as possible. It also is informative to look back at why APC was implemented... it was to protect the vested VHF/UHF weak signal DX'ers (look at the reply comments). The "threat" of spread spectrum never materialized so the ARRL wants to discontinue an unneeded rule. From jeff at aerodata.net Fri May 19 16:47:51 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:47:51 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA9@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <2006519124751.750879@DARLA> On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:17:42 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: >Note...being on-the-air or transmitting DOES NOT equate to channel >usage. ? ? Is this new math? >Frequencies set aside for 911 call boxes are used less than 0.01% of >the time (thankfully)...yet their usage is 100%. ? ? Yeap, but ham radio is not a 911 call box no matter how many bubble gum lights you put on your EOC vehicle. Further, a 911 call box does not take up 30mhz of bandwidth across the entire nation. From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Fri May 19 22:38:27 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA8@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> References: <1CBE59FBA02D8940B2EC4230CAE72E4B054D3BA8@fstymx45.randolph.aetc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <200605191738.28274.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> I hate to rain on your parade but DSSS *is* most definitely considered by the FCC to be spread spectrum. I quote from Part 2. "Direct Sequence Systems. A spread spectrum system in which the carrier has been modulated by a high speed spreading code and an information data stream. ....." OFDM, if the frequency span occupied is much, much greater than the modulating bandwidth, will probably also be considered spread spectrum based on my reading of the FCC rules and regulations under CFR 47. 802.11h has been specifically designed to work in conjunction with 802.11a (an OFDM system) to provide APC functions. And it works! So saying that it is a "Practical Impossibility" has already been proved wrong. My opinion is that APC, of exactly the sort specified by the FCC, is also possible with DSS. It is merely a matter of implementation. That isn't to say it won't be complex and won't be a pain in the butt but that doesn't make it a "Practical Impossibility". Heck, if nothing else, a scanning narrow band receiver operating in conjuction with the spread spectrum receiver can be used to provide the necessary feedback for the APC loop. There isn't anything very complicated or "impossible" about doing that. It doesn't matter how federal judges will rule on "Practical Impossiblity" cases if "Practical Impossibility" doesn't apply. Sounds to me like perhaps you've been taking the ARRL statements about how hard APC is to do too much to heart. In the case of OFDM and FHSS it is easy to do - it has already been done as a matter of fact. It is just an implementation decision for DSSS - not an impossibility. tim ab0wr On Friday 19 May 2006 11:12, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: > A couple of quick comments... > > 1) The FCC has defined what is means by spread spectrum and how to obtain > APC under Part 97. > > 2) DSSS (802.11b) and OFDM (802.11g) do not fit the FCC diffinition of > spread spectrum. > > 3) Accomplishing APC on DSSS and OFDM types of modulation using the method > of APC that the FCC has defined in Part 97 is a "Practical Impossibility" > (a legal term) and I can assure you that no knowledgable federal attorney > is going to get the government involved in Practical Impossibility > litigation. There is too much case law at stake if they lose and judges > almost always rule against practical impossibility. > > Walt/K5YFW > > PS, just this week finished a contract law seminar from the Defense > Acquisition University (continuing educations requirement for procurement > professionals) that shows just how federal judges are ruling. IMHO they > would not rule in favor of the government where there is a question of > Practical Impossibility. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org > [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:06 PM > To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > Contrary to other posts, I can find nothing in any FCC documentation that > shows they approaced the ARRL about dropping the APC requirement. And since > this is a public proceeding, it will cost you little to add your comments > to > > the proceeding at this time. If you do not comment on it and it becomes > reality *then* you could incur significant legal costs trying to fight the > isse as a seconcdary user of the spectrum. > > I an an amateur radio operator with two Linksys wrt54g wireless routers I > have > modified the firmware on. I have been looking at purchasing amplifiers to > up > > their output to establish an omni-directional hubbed network. Amplifiers > with > moderate power levels are not that expensive. Dropping the APC requirement > *would* make it easier to implement the current FCC requirements. Meeting > current requirements would require applications to make use of the 802.11h > modules in the modified firmware I am using. It *will* require additional > work over just buying off-the-shelf stuff and using it. > > Having said that, I have to tell you I have already posted comments against > the proposal. After thinking about it a lot I came to the conclusion that > APC > *is* the technological path to follow to limit spectrum pollution, be it > pollution in the Part 15 or Part 97 arena. Hams are supposed to engineer > their equipment based on sound engineering practice and judgment. > Implementing APC *is* exhibiting sound engineering practice and judgment. > While you can argue that philosophically amateurs will implement APC on > their > own without it being in the rules, pragmatically that is not the case. The > ARRL in their proposal admits this by basically saying APC, as formulated > by > > the FCC, is too hard for amateurs to do. Basically, that is a crock. > Conceptually, it is easy to do in any FHSS system. It is hard to do in a > DSSS > system because trying to identify signal strengths of narrow band signals > is > > difficult in a DSSS system. But I'm sure some DSP processing could handle > this. > > Anyway, as you can see there are probably lots of varying views on this > subject. You need to think your position through and put in your comments, > while I think it is past the comment date, I think the FCC will still > accept > > comments as long as they aren't actively in the process of analyzing them. > > tim ab0wr > > On Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:03, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of > > the > > > 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't > > remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall. > > > > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the > > Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked > > to > > > ask for your input on the issue. > > > > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical > > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is > > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great > > headaches and gnashing of teeth. > > > > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM > > community first. > > > > Are there people using this ability today? > > > > What's it used for? > > > > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use? > > > > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to > > drop the APC requirement? > > > > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc? > > > > Thanks all! > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From jeff at aerodata.net Sat May 20 00:28:18 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:28:18 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605191738.28274.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> On Fri, 19 May 2006 17:38:27 -0500, Tim Gorman wrote: >OFDM, if the frequency span occupied is much, much greater than the >modulating bandwidth, will probably also be considered spread >spectrum based on my reading of the FCC rules and regulations under >CFR 47. Nope. While OFDM may appear spectrally as "spread spectrum like", it is not. This is exactly why when the first 802.11a products came out, the makers had to get a wavier from the FCC for Part 15. Then they came out with the DTC rules, which addressed spectral density and allowed this emission types to run the same power levels as traditional spread spectrum part 15 devices. Also, Pactor3 and MT63 are popular HF modes, and are OFDM modes. >802.11h has been specifically designed to work in conjunction with >802.11a (an OFDM system) to provide APC functions. And it works! So >saying that it is a "Practical Impossibility" has already been >proved wrong. For a large company. I think the ARRL was referring to some Joe working in his shack. Don't forget that one of the basis and purposes of ham radio is experimentation, and the fewer rules that get in the way of this, generally the better. I am in support of the removal of the APC rule just as I am against the HF regulation by bandwidth giveback. The fewer rules we have, the better. From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Sat May 20 07:22:03 2006 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 02:22:03 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change Message-ID: <000701c67bde$18bf1550$6501a8c0@PB4UGO2BED> I'm totally in favor of this. It helps promote experimentation in the amateur service. I saw and still see the APC rule an obstacle for experimenters. Reminds me of the rules problems that we (gbppr) ran into a few years back with homebrew amps. A good point that anything other than ham SS is not subject to this APC rule anyway. Reminds me of the ATV repeater story a few years back http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/01/0216/, that first got my attention. The truth is a Part 15 remote wireless camera system can pose the same problem for anyone trying to do wireless networking on shared bandspace. I know this because at an adjacent school I ran into this problem. As for the guys trying to make a business off this. My advise is: Assuming you can't collectively pull off buying a chunk of the spectrum. Each WISP can buy their own Part 90? channel. There is wireless gear that can operate on other frequencies. Such as 2.3, 2.5, 3.3 GHz. I remember discussing this here. File/pay for your own corresponding Private Land Mobile Radio channel. Deploy your stuff in your defined area and you should be the only one on that channel and have less headaches and restrictions. I'm sure there is more to it, such as the certification of that gear... but that's the general idea. Apply just like if you were a taxi cab outfit and needed a channel for your taxi cab voice communications. What you are doing right now equates in my mind the same as these local business who use FRS for communications and complain about interference. Using Part 15 Wireless Devices For Amateur Radio: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Sat May 20 10:33:52 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 05:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> Message-ID: <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Guys, this is a philosophy issue as much as a technical issue. Point 1: experimentation typically is not done at high power levels. You get things working at close distances using low power and then scale up, not the other way around. That means that using experimentation as an excuse for removing APC control is basically a non sequitur. Point 2: 1 watt at 2.4Ghz is plenty of power to work all the way to the radio horizon for most installations. Raising power levels to blast through obstructions is NOT a good way of doing things, it shows poor engineering judgment. Finding better paths and setting up mesh networks that will allow routing around obstructions is a much better answer for almost all system metrics - initial cost, operating cost, spectrum pollution, etc. Point 3: APC controls using 802.11h is not just for big companies. The routines are built into alternative firmware loads for wireless routers. Use DDWRT with the Linksys series of routers and you have it built-in and available. Point 4: Narrow band signals co-exist by not stepping on each other. They can do so by not occupying the same spectrum at the same time. Spread spectrum does not have that option. Spectrum sharing for SS operations, and that includes OFDM whether the FCC includes it as SS or not, *MUST* be done by using control of power levels to avoid interfering with other users on the same spectrum as well as with narrow band operations in the same spectrum. You mention Pactor3 on HF - this is a prime example of a mode that does NOT typically follow this philosophy and catches heat for the interference it causes other operators in *every* discussion forum where it is discussed. While mt63 does not cause as much interference that can probably be attributed to the relative un-use of the mode as to anything inherent in the mode itself. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While I agree with you that less regulation is better, regulations which set expectations for what is good engineering practice are not onerous, they only serve to set levels of expectations. The APC regulation does this. If it didn't exist how many hams would be tempted to just buy amplifier bricks to hook up to their wifi routers and go on down the road without ever thinking through the ramifications? There is no "experimentation" in this - other than in seeing what kind of obstructions you can overcome with high power. Even the ARRL recognizes the need for APC - they just throw out the claim that operators can manually control their power better than a built-in feedback loop can. If you want to talk about a "Practical Impossibility" - talk about how *this* will be done. How many SS systems even have an audio output for the SS signal itself for the manual operator to listen to? And do you know any human who can tell the bit error rate of a SS signal by listening to the signal through a speaker? My philosophy on this - FWIW. tim ab0wr On Friday 19 May 2006 19:28, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2006 17:38:27 -0500, Tim Gorman wrote: > >OFDM, if the frequency span occupied is much, much greater than the > >modulating bandwidth, will probably also be considered spread > >spectrum based on my reading of the FCC rules and regulations under > >CFR 47. > > Nope. While OFDM may appear spectrally as "spread spectrum like", it is > not. This is exactly why when the first 802.11a products came out, the > makers had to get a wavier from the FCC for Part 15. Then they came out > with the DTC rules, which addressed spectral density and allowed this > emission types to run the same power levels as traditional spread spectrum > part 15 devices. Also, Pactor3 and MT63 are popular HF modes, and are OFDM > modes. > > >802.11h has been specifically designed to work in conjunction with > >802.11a (an OFDM system) to provide APC functions. And it works! So > >saying that it is a "Practical Impossibility" has already been > >proved wrong. > > For a large company. I think the ARRL was referring to some Joe working in > his shack. Don't forget that one of the basis and purposes of ham radio is > experimentation, and the fewer rules that get in the way of this, generally > the better. I am in support of the removal of the APC rule just as I am > against the HF regulation by bandwidth giveback. The fewer rules we have, > the better. > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From jack at n7oo.com Sat May 20 14:55:11 2006 From: jack at n7oo.com (Jack Taylor) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:55:11 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> Appears one of our WAP11's has rolled over and died. We've set these up for wireless bridge mode. Lately I've become aware of a lot of buzz over the WRT54GL routers and 3rd party Linux software. Does anyone know if one of these would be a suitable replacement for a WAP11? 73 de Jack - N7OO From stephen.brown75 at gmail.com Sat May 20 16:27:09 2006 From: stephen.brown75 at gmail.com (Stephen Brown Jr) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? In-Reply-To: <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> Message-ID: I'm using a WRT54G which I believe was the predecessor to the GL running DD-WRT. It is extremely robust and runs really well. I also had sveasoft's firmware on there (alchemy) but I found DD-WRT to be better and there is no cost unlike sveasoft's firmware. There are others out there as well, but these are the only 2 I am familiar with. http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/index.php 73 de N1VLV Stephen On 5/20/06, Jack Taylor wrote: > > Appears one of our WAP11's has rolled over and died. We've set these up > for > wireless bridge mode. Lately I've become aware of a lot of buzz over the > WRT54GL routers and 3rd party Linux software. Does anyone know if > one of these would be a suitable replacement for a WAP11? > > 73 de Jack - N7OO > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20060520/9a43a9da/attachment.htm From jeff at aerodata.net Sat May 20 18:31:24 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 13:31:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? In-Reply-To: <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> Message-ID: <1933.208.187.92.24.1148149884.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> The WRT54GL is a router/AP. If you want to use it as an AP, just turn off the DHCP server and the firewall function. I'm doing exactly this at one of my installs using DD-WRT and works like a champ. I believe most of the builds can also function in a bridge mode as well. > Appears one of our WAP11's has rolled over and died. We've set these up > for > wireless bridge mode. Lately I've become aware of a lot of buzz over the > WRT54GL routers and 3rd party Linux software. Does anyone know if > one of these would be a suitable replacement for a WAP11? > > 73 de Jack - N7OO > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From droobie at maine.rr.com Sat May 20 18:35:13 2006 From: droobie at maine.rr.com (Drew Baxter) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:35:13 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? In-Reply-To: <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520143238.0d352990@maine.rr.com> I've had pretty good results with the Buffalo units from Best Buy, namely the G54S. They're cheaper than the Linksys too and readily available. The new incarnations of the G and GS from Linksys use VXworks and have very limited memory. They're not particularly helpful for running Linux. The GL will run Linux, but costs more or is harder to locate (usually retail stores don't have them). I have to say the Buffalo units seem to be better made, but also their factory software seems to be well done. Best of all they're supported by DD-WRT, which is a good Linux implementation. Be forewarned that at this time it's impossible to reflash the unit back to the Buffalo firmware if you flash it to DD-WRT. However, no real need to. At a price of about 50-60 bucks, it was cheaper than a WRT54GS but had the same memory and whatnot. Best Buy carries them as regular inventory, one of the few places that seems to carry Buffalo locally. --Droo, K1XVM At 10:55 AM 5/20/2006, Jack Taylor wrote: >Appears one of our WAP11's has rolled over and died. We've set these up for >wireless bridge mode. Lately I've become aware of a lot of buzz over the >WRT54GL routers and 3rd party Linux software. Does anyone know if >one of these would be a suitable replacement for a WAP11? > >73 de Jack - N7OO From kd4e at verizon.net Sat May 20 21:24:21 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:24:21 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520143238.0d352990@maine.rr.com> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> <7.0.1.0.2.20060520143238.0d352990@maine.rr.com> Message-ID: <446F8905.2050705@verizon.net> > I've had pretty good results with the Buffalo units from Best Buy, > namely the G54S. They're cheaper than the Linksys too and readily > available. The new incarnations of the G and GS from Linksys use > VXworks and have very limited memory. They're not particularly helpful > for running Linux. The GL will run Linux, but costs more or is harder > to locate (usually retail stores don't have them). I have to say the > Buffalo units seem to be better made, but also their factory software > seems to be well done. > > Best of all they're supported by DD-WRT, which is a good Linux > implementation. Be forewarned that at this time it's impossible to > reflash the unit back to the Buffalo firmware if you flash it to > DD-WRT. However, no real need to. At a price of about 50-60 bucks, it > was cheaper than a WRT54GS but had the same memory and whatnot. Best > Buy carries them as regular inventory, one of the few places that seems > to carry Buffalo locally. > --Droo, K1XVM Buffalo? I have a PCI card and a PC Card, neither is Linux friendly. AirStation g54. They've refused to provide the necessary info for native Linux drivers to be written so an ugly and unreliable ndiswrapper kludge has to be used. I bought them because they were the most powerful and because they both offered an external antenna connection but they have been collecting dust here. Is there finally a Linux driver or is what you are describing for an entirely different chipset? -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From droobie at maine.rr.com Sat May 20 20:30:48 2006 From: droobie at maine.rr.com (Drew Baxter) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:30:48 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] WRT54GL AP? In-Reply-To: <446F8905.2050705@verizon.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <006801c67c1d$67c5cd30$270a0a0a@acme> <7.0.1.0.2.20060520143238.0d352990@maine.rr.com> <446F8905.2050705@verizon.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520162826.03821ec0@maine.rr.com> I'm talking specifically about their Access Point/Routers, namely the WHR-HP-G54 and the WHR-G54S Airstation units. They run Linux and can use DD-WRT as of Version 2.3. I have the WHR-HP-G54, but the G54S allegedly is cooler running and has better power. I'm not talking about the cards, I'm talking about the routers themselves. I can't speak specifically about the cards. However, Linux folks are handy hackers and it's quite possible they have engineered a driver, so you may want to re-look if you have not recently just in case someone has hacked one up. --Droo, K1XVM At 05:24 PM 5/20/2006, doc wrote: >Buffalo? > >I have a PCI card and a PC Card, neither is Linux >friendly. AirStation g54. > >They've refused to provide the necessary info for native >Linux drivers to be written so an ugly and unreliable >ndiswrapper kludge has to be used. > >I bought them because they were the most powerful >and because they both offered an external antenna >connection but they have been collecting dust here. > >Is there finally a Linux driver or is what you are >describing for an entirely different chipset? From kd4e at verizon.net Sat May 20 21:35:40 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:35:40 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> > Tim Gorman wrote: > Point 2: 1 watt at 2.4Ghz is plenty of power to work all the way to the radio > horizon for most installations. Raising power levels to blast through > obstructions is NOT a good way of doing things, it shows poor engineering > judgment. Finding better paths and setting up mesh networks that will allow > routing around obstructions is a much better answer for almost all system > metrics - initial cost, operating cost, spectrum pollution, etc. I have to question the assumption underlying this statement. Much higher power than 1W will be necessary to maintain solid communications for the following circumstances: 1. Airborne obstructions, e.g. rain, snow, hail, sleet, smoke, heavy mist, windblown dust, windblown pollen, etc. (your airborne nuisance will depend on your QTH -- expect more if you deploy in disaster-impacted locales) 2. Antenna inefficiencies, e.g. snow or ice on the antenna, the impact of various environmental sources such as acid rain, soot, salt-containing rain or mist, etc., slight misalignment due to unusual winds, etc. 3. Seasonal changes, e.g. leaves not there when tests were conducted show up in Spring, or new growth as a result of taller bushes/trees, etc. Yes, there are reasons for the availability of higher- than-1W power levels and they may be more rather than less frequent. One key question goes to the mission-critical nature of making and holding the link and the capacity to locate multiple versus one-to-one sites. IMHO, when one absolutely positively has to make and hold the contact and cannot count on multiple link sites then one needs QRO. The regs nor the spectrum planning cannot preclude QRO or it makes the band unreliable for mission critical apps. -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Sun May 21 00:35:07 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> Message-ID: <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> See my comments below. On Saturday 20 May 2006 16:35, doc wrote: > > Tim Gorman wrote: > > > > Point 2: 1 watt at 2.4Ghz is plenty of power to work all the way to the > > radio horizon for most installations. Raising power levels to blast > > through obstructions is NOT a good way of doing things, it shows poor > > engineering judgment. Finding better paths and setting up mesh networks > > that will allow routing around obstructions is a much better answer for > > almost all system metrics - initial cost, operating cost, spectrum > > pollution, etc. > > I have to question the assumption underlying this > statement. > > Much higher power than 1W will be necessary to maintain > solid communications for the following circumstances: > > 1. Airborne obstructions, e.g. rain, snow, hail, sleet, > smoke, heavy mist, windblown dust, windblown pollen, etc. > (your airborne nuisance will depend on your QTH -- expect > more if you deploy in disaster-impacted locales) Why do you think higher power will be needed? Exactly what radio horizon distances do you think you will be trying to cover with typical installations? Especially in disaster-impacted locales? Most of the links you will find in disaster-impacted locales will be local networks or point-to-point links - neither of which require high power *ESPECIALLY* on the amateur bands. If you think you will be setting up a 2.4Ghz SS hub with an omnidirectional pattern covering a radio horizon of 25-40 miles then I can understand the statement that you will need higher power - but so will all the stations trying to connect to you. That means they will interfere with each other AND with you and will just make an unholy mess of the spectrum being used. Its an issue you just can't get away from - its the nature of the beast. And while you are doing all this just how many people are you going to piss off that are running Part 15 networks? That's all the amateur radio community needs - a big black eye, especially if it occurs during an emergency. > > 2. Antenna inefficiencies, e.g. snow or ice on the antenna, > the impact of various environmental sources such as acid > rain, soot, salt-containing rain or mist, etc., slight > misalignment due to unusual winds, etc. Would anyone like to put forth the word that applies here? Hint: begins with the letter "r". If you are using antennas that become misaligned enough to cause a problem with a link due to unusual winds then that tells me you are using high-gain antennas to begin with - which don't need the high power during regular operation. So when you are saying you don't want to have to run APC you are also saying that you will just run the link ALL THE TIME at the power level needed to overcome any possible impairment - whether the impairment exists or not. This is an even worse engineering practice than raising power levels to blast through an existing obstruction - you are just going to blast the signal out whether you need to or not. > > 3. Seasonal changes, e.g. leaves not there when tests > were conducted show up in Spring, or new growth as a result > of taller bushes/trees, etc. I've been there when system designers haven't considered all the environmental conditions, especially with 11Ghz systems. Again, just blasting away with higher power is a poor engineering fix. > > Yes, there are reasons for the availability of higher- > than-1W power levels and they may be more rather than > less frequent. I'll repeat, use of high power with spread spectrum is self-defeating in the extreme, especially when the spectrum space is limited. If all you ever expect to have is one or two stations in any 25 mile radius using SS under Part 97 then have at it with your high power. If you ever expect to grow past that point, i.e. three or more stations, then you need to understand what use of more than the absolute minimum power needed does to the spectrum capacity. > > One key question goes to the mission-critical nature > of making and holding the link and the capacity to > locate multiple versus one-to-one sites. Those multiple stations have to be able to communicate or they are worthless. The higher power they run the more they interfere with each other. It's why the cell phone people don't just increase their cell site power in order to increase capacity (i.e. they can reach further distances and cover more people). They actually lower the cell site power and put more cell sites in. > > IMHO, when one absolutely positively has to make and > hold the contact and cannot count on multiple link > sites then one needs QRO. The regs nor the spectrum > planning cannot preclude QRO or it makes the band > unreliable for mission critical apps. The regulations don't preclude QRO, especially for emergency situations. But whoever is running that QRO also needs to understand all the ramifications - such as the liklihood of interfering with the local Part 15 network the American Red Cross has set up in their shelter to link PC's doing H&W work or inventory work, etc. tim ab0wr From jeff at aerodata.net Sun May 21 03:59:25 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 22:59:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <4735.208.187.92.24.1148183965.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Are you the same Tim Gorman who is or was on the ISP-Wireless mailing list? Just curious, I used to subscribe to it as well. > See my comments below. > > On Saturday 20 May 2006 16:35, doc wrote: >> > Tim Gorman wrote: >> > >> > Point 2: 1 watt at 2.4Ghz is plenty of power to work all the way to >> the >> > radio horizon for most installations. Raising power levels to blast >> > through obstructions is NOT a good way of doing things, it shows poor >> > engineering judgment. Finding better paths and setting up mesh >> networks >> > that will allow routing around obstructions is a much better answer >> for >> > almost all system metrics - initial cost, operating cost, spectrum >> > pollution, etc. >> >> I have to question the assumption underlying this >> statement. >> >> Much higher power than 1W will be necessary to maintain >> solid communications for the following circumstances: >> >> 1. Airborne obstructions, e.g. rain, snow, hail, sleet, >> smoke, heavy mist, windblown dust, windblown pollen, etc. >> (your airborne nuisance will depend on your QTH -- expect >> more if you deploy in disaster-impacted locales) > > Why do you think higher power will be needed? Exactly what radio horizon > distances do you think you will be trying to cover with typical > installations? Especially in disaster-impacted locales? Most of the links > you > will find in disaster-impacted locales will be local networks or > point-to-point links - neither of which require high power *ESPECIALLY* on > the amateur bands. > > If you think you will be setting up a 2.4Ghz SS hub with an > omnidirectional > pattern covering a radio horizon of 25-40 miles then I can understand the > statement that you will need higher power - but so will all the stations > trying to connect to you. That means they will interfere with each other > AND > with you and will just make an unholy mess of the spectrum being used. Its > an > issue you just can't get away from - its the nature of the beast. > > And while you are doing all this just how many people are you going to > piss > off that are running Part 15 networks? That's all the amateur radio > community > needs - a big black eye, especially if it occurs during an emergency. > >> >> 2. Antenna inefficiencies, e.g. snow or ice on the antenna, >> the impact of various environmental sources such as acid >> rain, soot, salt-containing rain or mist, etc., slight >> misalignment due to unusual winds, etc. > > Would anyone like to put forth the word that applies here? Hint: begins > with > the letter "r". > > If you are using antennas that become misaligned enough to cause a problem > with a link due to unusual winds then that tells me you are using > high-gain > antennas to begin with - which don't need the high power during regular > operation. So when you are saying you don't want to have to run APC you > are > also saying that you will just run the link ALL THE TIME at the power > level > needed to overcome any possible impairment - whether the impairment exists > or > not. > > This is an even worse engineering practice than raising power levels to > blast > through an existing obstruction - you are just going to blast the signal > out > whether you need to or not. > > >> >> 3. Seasonal changes, e.g. leaves not there when tests >> were conducted show up in Spring, or new growth as a result >> of taller bushes/trees, etc. > > I've been there when system designers haven't considered all the > environmental > conditions, especially with 11Ghz systems. Again, just blasting away with > higher power is a poor engineering fix. > >> >> Yes, there are reasons for the availability of higher- >> than-1W power levels and they may be more rather than >> less frequent. > > I'll repeat, use of high power with spread spectrum is self-defeating in > the > extreme, especially when the spectrum space is limited. If all you ever > expect to have is one or two stations in any 25 mile radius using SS under > Part 97 then have at it with your high power. If you ever expect to grow > past > that point, i.e. three or more stations, then you need to understand what > use > of more than the absolute minimum power needed does to the spectrum > capacity. > >> >> One key question goes to the mission-critical nature >> of making and holding the link and the capacity to >> locate multiple versus one-to-one sites. > > Those multiple stations have to be able to communicate or they are > worthless. > The higher power they run the more they interfere with each other. It's > why > the cell phone people don't just increase their cell site power in order > to > increase capacity (i.e. they can reach further distances and cover more > people). They actually lower the cell site power and put more cell sites > in. > > >> >> IMHO, when one absolutely positively has to make and >> hold the contact and cannot count on multiple link >> sites then one needs QRO. The regs nor the spectrum >> planning cannot preclude QRO or it makes the band >> unreliable for mission critical apps. > > The regulations don't preclude QRO, especially for emergency situations. > But > whoever is running that QRO also needs to understand all the ramifications > - > such as the liklihood of interfering with the local Part 15 network the > American Red Cross has set up in their shelter to link PC's doing H&W work > or > inventory work, etc. > > tim ab0wr > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From hfeinstein at cox.net Sun May 21 04:14:38 2006 From: hfeinstein at cox.net (hal) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 00:14:38 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <446FE92E.80601@cox.net> Tim Gorman wrot > Those multiple stations have to be able to communicate or they are worthless. > The higher power they run the more they interfere with each other. It's why > the cell phone people don't just increase their cell site power in order to > increase capacity (i.e. they can reach further distances and cover more > people). They actually lower the cell site power and put more cell sites in. > > > You seem have a pretty strong opinion on high power spread spectrum so I am amazed you have not heard of the overlay concept that was the original reason the FCC authorized Part 97 use of spread spectrum in the first place. If I choose to experiment with a multipoint frequency hopping system on 2.4Ghz and pick the power, dwell time and channel spread, modulation type, etc .correctly there will be little interference to other fixed carriers in minimal. The analogy with cell phones is bogus and led to the introduction of APC to start with.. I spoke up against inclusion of APC when it was proposed but it was politics, not experimental evidence or experience with Part 97 SS systems that championed into the rules. There was no experimental experience, then or now, that this feature in any way promotes experimentation, enhances innovation or is required to safeguards shared users. The attempt to pull the Red Cross emergency communications in this argument is shameful. Hams have always shut down their systems when it in anyway had the potential to interfere with an emergency operation. Its amazing how little people have learned. I thought these arguments were put to rest when the FCC first authorized spread spectrum use in Part 97. Certainly we hams are our own worst enemies in this respect. You only needed to look at the reply comments, filed by hams themselves, arguing against letting hams have any spread spectrum authorization at all. And its not that we are grossly under-regulated. The authorized code sequences we received after a lot of behind the scenes back and forth are so limited as to be pathetic. The FCC essentially shutdown all planned experimentation with advanced code sequences, one of the most promising and fruitful areas of spread spectrum research. A few weeks after this debacle they authorized practically any sequence for commercial users. Hams themselves killed Part 97 spread spectrum off 2meters because of imagined fears of interference. After reading the reply comments the Commission imagined all kind of complaints from the repeater operators who where themselves unaware of spread spectrum testing right on top of their allocation when it actually happened. There continues to be a profound misunderstanding within amateur circles on spread spectrum. Correctly chosen system parameters will produce a spread spectrum system that will be difficult to even detect without specialized equipment. As an argument against high power 802.11 that uses spread spectrum (as opposed to OFDM or other modulation techniques) it is full of holes. All this is argued even when it is a known fact that there are very few such experimental spread spectrum amateur systems anywhere in the US. APC does nothing to safeguard 802.11 users who have valid concerns over badly engineered high powered 802.11 systems. Maybe thats where the APC belongs, not as part of the spread spectrum rules. In short, APC is a bad idea for Part 97 spread spectrum, it adds complexity without purpose, it stifles innovation and doesn't protect anyone in an already overly regulated Amateur service. BTW has anyone really checked if the spread spectrum code sequences used by some 802.11 in amateur operation are Part 97 legal? Maybe not -- STA anyone? > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > > > From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Sun May 21 13:43:17 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:43:17 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <4735.208.187.92.24.1148183965.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <4735.208.187.92.24.1148183965.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <200605210843.17964.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> On Saturday 20 May 2006 22:59, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > Are you the same Tim Gorman who is or was on the ISP-Wireless mailing list? > > Just curious, I used to subscribe to it as well. > > > See my comments below. > > It's possible. I've been on many lists over the years. I don't find any current messages in my cache associated with the list. It would have had to be a number of years ago. tim ab0wr From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Sun May 21 14:34:54 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 09:34:54 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <446FE92E.80601@cox.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <446FE92E.80601@cox.net> Message-ID: <200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Bogus? Hardly. Look at what you are talking about here. Use of SS only for point-to-point links ala "fixed carriers". Yes, these fixed carriers can all run different coding sequences to avoid interfering with each other. But such a paradigm has several severe limiting factors built in as far as popularity of the mode is concerned. 1. What are these "fixed carrier" links supposed to be carrying? a. Traffic from Joe Blow to John Doe so they can type at each other every night? Just how popular is this ever going to be? How will this ever move SS into being a popular mode for amateurs to use? It might be useful for experimentation but as I've already asked several times, how many of these links require high power? b. Traffic between emergency agencies such as county EOC's and first responder agencies? The term "carrier" suits this perfectly - as in "common carrier". This is something that should be anathema to amateurs. Instead of having the FCC taking away our spectrum we would be "giving" it away as a free replacement for services that *should* be provided by common carriers. Again, how popular is this going to be anyway? Does anyone truly expect this to make spread spectrum a popular mode on the ham bands? Is this related to "experimentation" in any way, shape, or form? And why would it require the use of continuous high power since most links would see less than than a 20 mile radio horizon? c. Are they going to be for "free" internet access links? Once again, this smacks of amateurs using "free" spectrum to bypass legitimate common carriers and ISPs. With the current move of so many cities putting in cheap, ubiquitous wireless access via Part 15, the marginal utility of amateurs doing the same becomes very, very small - i.e. it does nothing for making the mode popular with large numbers of users. And, again, just how would this contribute to experimentation in any way? Why would it require the use of continuous high power? If SS is to ever become popular, even minimally, people have to be able to use it to set up more than point-to-point links as psuedo-common carriers. This fact alone prevents using a multiplicity of SS coding schemes - because then all you would have is a Tower of Babel with no one able to talk to anyone. Once you have to settle on the use of few standard coding sequences in order to facilitate intercommunications between stations you then run into determining how the stations will have to operate in order to make the communications possible. Everyone running high power and interfering with each other is NOT the way to go. It is exactly 180deg from where you should go. I pull the Red Cross into this because I already know personally of one instance where a Red Cross wireless intranet was interfered with - by a wireless intranet next door! They both happened to just use the same default channel on the equipment that was installed. Now, what do you suppose would happen if a high powered amateur link just also happened to be using that same channel? You say that the amateurs would shut down but how would they know to shut down? Do you suppose the Red Cross (or whoever) would have the capability to RDF the amateur links and could then find out who the control operators are? The problem is that the black eye would have already been received long before the problem could be alleviated. The mere fact that you don't want to face up to this kind of problem and just want to pooh-pooh it away tells me that you have no real rebuttal to offer. Just vague hand-waving and the statement that the problem will be handled. That's the same kind of magic the ARRL is asking us to believe when it states that the control operator of an SS link can tell better during a transmission what power level to use than a built-in feedback loop in the equipment. And I would suggest that you go back and study the current FCC regulations on SS. I find nothing that limits what coding sequences or even coding types can be used. I believe you will find that the FCC lifted those requirements way back in the nineties. You are putting forth arguments that are no longer relevant. I am not against high power being used on SS. I *am* against it being used indiscriminately. APC should not hinder experimentation in any way. That is actually a very feeble excuse. Yes, it might increase complexity slightly but so what? Single Sideband increased complexity over AM. That didn't seem to hinder its development much. And the actual fact is that 1watt signals should more than suffice for most uses. While you didn't put it forth I have seen the argument that APC can't be used with point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-point operations. Nothing is further from the truth. The FCC rules only say that power has to be limited to that required for communication. There is nothing to keep any implementation from using a leaky bucket type of measurement to determine what power level is needed when multi-point operation is involved. That is just another non sequitur put forth by those who just want to hang bricks on their transmitting chains to make up for other inadequacies in the design. tim ab0wr On Saturday 20 May 2006 23:14, hal wrote: > Tim Gorman wrot > > > Those multiple stations have to be able to communicate or they are > > worthless. The higher power they run the more they interfere with each > > other. It's why the cell phone people don't just increase their cell site > > power in order to increase capacity (i.e. they can reach further > > distances and cover more people). They actually lower the cell site power > > and put more cell sites in. > > You seem have a pretty strong opinion on high power spread spectrum so I > am amazed you have not > heard of the overlay concept that was the original reason the FCC > authorized Part 97 use of spread > spectrum in the first place. If I choose to experiment with a multipoint > frequency hopping system on 2.4Ghz and pick the power, dwell time and > channel spread, modulation type, etc .correctly there will be little > interference to other fixed carriers in minimal. The analogy with cell > phones is bogus and led to the introduction of APC to start with.. I > spoke up against inclusion of APC when it was proposed but it was > politics, not experimental evidence or experience with Part 97 SS > systems that championed into the rules. > There was no experimental experience, then or now, that this feature in > any way > promotes experimentation, enhances innovation or is required to > safeguards shared users. > The attempt to pull the Red Cross emergency > communications in this argument is shameful. Hams have always shut down > their systems when it > in anyway had the potential to interfere with an emergency operation. > Its amazing how little people > have learned. I thought these arguments were put to rest when the FCC > first authorized > spread spectrum use in Part 97. Certainly we hams are our own worst > enemies in this respect. > You only needed to look at the reply comments, filed by hams > themselves, arguing against letting hams have any spread spectrum > authorization at all. And its not that we are grossly under-regulated. > The authorized > code sequences we received after a lot of behind the scenes back and > forth are so limited as to be pathetic. > The FCC essentially shutdown all planned experimentation with advanced > code sequences, one of the most > promising and fruitful areas of spread spectrum research. A few weeks > after this debacle they authorized practically any sequence for > commercial users. Hams themselves killed Part 97 spread spectrum off > 2meters because of imagined fears of interference. After reading the > reply comments the Commission imagined all kind of complaints from the > repeater operators who where themselves unaware of spread spectrum > testing right on top of their allocation when it actually happened. > There continues to be a profound misunderstanding within amateur > circles on spread spectrum. Correctly > chosen system parameters will produce a spread spectrum system that will > be difficult to even detect > without specialized equipment. As an argument against high power 802.11 > that uses spread spectrum > (as opposed to OFDM or other modulation techniques) it is full of holes. > All this is argued even when it is a known fact that there are very few > such experimental spread > spectrum amateur systems anywhere in the US. APC does nothing to > safeguard 802.11 users who have > valid concerns over badly engineered high powered 802.11 systems. Maybe > thats where the APC belongs, > not as part of the spread spectrum rules. > In short, APC is a bad idea for Part 97 spread spectrum, it adds > complexity without purpose, it stifles innovation and doesn't protect > anyone in an already overly regulated Amateur service. > > BTW has anyone really checked if the spread spectrum code sequences used > by some 802.11 in amateur operation are Part 97 legal? > Maybe not -- STA anyone? > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From wk3c at wk3c.com Sun May 21 17:53:32 2006 From: wk3c at wk3c.com (Carl R. Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:53:32 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <446FE92E.80601@cox.net> Message-ID: <003701c67cff$7a5b8240$0b01a8c0@Carlitos1> > -----Original Message----- > From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org > [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of hal > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:15 AM > To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > Tim Gorman wrot > > Those multiple stations have to be able to communicate or > they are worthless. > > The higher power they run the more they interfere with each other. > > It's why the cell phone people don't just increase their cell site > > power in order to increase capacity (i.e. they can reach further > > distances and cover more people). They actually lower the > cell site power and put more cell sites in. > > > > > > > You seem have a pretty strong opinion on high power spread > spectrum so I am amazed you have not heard of the overlay > concept that was the original reason the FCC authorized Part > 97 use of spread spectrum in the first place. If I choose to > experiment with a multipoint frequency hopping system on > 2.4Ghz and pick the power, dwell time and channel spread, > modulation type, etc .correctly there will be little > interference to other fixed carriers in minimal. However, you must be permitted to use appropriate spreading codes ... > The analogy > with cell phones is bogus and led to the introduction of APC > to start with.. I spoke up against inclusion of APC when it > was proposed but it was politics, not experimental evidence > or experience with Part 97 SS systems that championed into the rules. The analogy with CDMA cellphone technology is applicable ... There, the spreading codes are chosen to have low cross-correlation, and tight power control is necessary to allow CDMA reuse - if the power control is not good, the system will fall apart pretty fast. > There was no experimental experience, then or now, that this > feature in any way promotes experimentation, enhances > innovation or is required to safeguards shared users. I don't think anyone ever stated that APC "promotes experimentation" or "enhances innovation," however it IS a good idea to promote good sharing and efficient use of the spectrum. One QRO system (say 100W into one of the 15 dBi slotted waveguide omnidirectional antennas that I've seen plans for) will blanked a wide area with enough signal to severely disrupt dozens, perhaps hundreds, of WLANs that could otherwise share the spectrum quite effectively. I see the wide area (omni, point to multipoint) 802.11x use that many hams tend to envision, based on the FM repeater paradigm, as being extremely inefficient and a misuse of a technology that was never intended to be used in that way. > The authorized > code sequences we received after a lot of behind the scenes > back and forth are so limited as to be pathetic. Agreed ... > The FCC essentially shutdown all planned experimentation with > advanced code sequences, one of the most promising and > fruitful areas of spread spectrum research. A few weeks > after this debacle they authorized practically any sequence for > commercial users. The commercial (Part 15) users aren't allowed to run 100W output with no limit on antenna gain ... > Hams themselves killed Part 97 spread > spectrum off > 2meters because of imagined fears of interference. After > reading the reply comments the Commission imagined all kind > of complaints from the repeater operators who where > themselves unaware of spread spectrum testing right on top of > their allocation when it actually happened. Agreed ... Given that the repeater bands are grossly underutilized (too many repeaters that aren't used all that much, essentially "warehousing" channel pairs) an adaptive FH overlay, done properly, would be very feasible. > There continues to be a profound misunderstanding within > amateur circles on spread spectrum. Correctly chosen system > parameters will produce a spread spectrum system that will be > difficult to even detect without specialized equipment. As > an argument against high power 802.11 that uses spread > spectrum (as opposed to OFDM or other modulation techniques) > it is full of holes. OFDM (as in 802.11a/g) has essentially no greater interference potential to "conventional" uses than does an "old-fashioned" DSSS system using the stupid 11 bit Barker codes that they used ... The spectrum mask and power spectral density are virtually identical. > All this is argued even when it is a known fact that there > are very few such experimental spread spectrum amateur > systems anywhere in the US. APC does nothing to safeguard > 802.11 users who have valid concerns over badly engineered > high powered 802.11 systems. Maybe thats where the APC > belongs, not as part of the spread spectrum rules. > In short, APC is a bad idea for Part 97 spread spectrum, it > adds complexity without purpose, it stifles innovation and > doesn't protect anyone in an already overly regulated Amateur > service. APC (802.11h, which rolls into the base 802.11 standard) isn't an onerous burden as some would assert ... In fact, with most amateur SS using off the shelf or (slightly) modified 802.11x equipment, where's the rub??? For those who want to "roll their own from scratch," I would agree that the current rule ("limit power to that necessary to produce a 23 dB Eb/No at the intended receiver") is awkward and could be improved, but I do *not* favor the removal of an APC requirement. APC is good engineering practice. Too many hams pay NO attention to the "use the minimum power necessary" rule. Any evening, you can tune the HF bands and hear any number of people running legal limit (or more) on 80m/40m/20m to talk to some guy across town ... Bad amateur practice, but, unfortunately it's quite prevalent and in many ways part of the mindset of (far too) many in our ranks. 73, Carl - wk3c From jeff at aerodata.net Sun May 21 18:13:00 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:13:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><446FE92E.80601@cox.net> <200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Tim told us: > I am not against high power being used on SS. I *am* against it being >used indiscriminately. Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns are already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. ). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#313 >APC should not hinder experimentation in any way. Says you. Algorithms have to be written, handshacking done. You continue to think hams in their basement have access to chip fabs. APC is not that hard to do, yet it is just another layer of complexity which in many cases is not even needed (like on a fixed point to point link). >Yes, it might increase complexity slightly but > so what? Single Sideband increased complexity over AM. That didn't > seem to hinder its development much. Exactly! And do note that SSB was not mandated by law, and AM was not outlawed. Yet even though the goverment didn't force it, the development you cite still happened. Believe it or not Tim, when it comes to the goverment, less is more. >That is > just another non sequitur put forth by those who just want to hang bricks > on > their transmitting chains to make up for other inadequacies in the design. Do you really believe all this crap you continue to spew out? "Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, if we don't pass a law, Johnny Ham will put a kicker on his 802.11b card, and tune for maxium smoke!! We must protect the unlicensed part 15 users from those hams!" Cut me a break... Your chicken little tactics may play well to the WISP audience, but they don't amount to much in fact. You don't get it Tim. APC is a good idea, we do agree on that, yet I don't think it should be mandated by law on part 97. I think the less rules we have in the amateur service, the better, since that broad canvas best faciliates experimentation and the advancement of the state of the art. And guess what? It has served us well over the last 80+ years. If anything, you have made a defacto case for implementing APC on the WISP industry, as 1 watt is not a magic number by any means. Hams passed a test so they COULD tinker with radios, the part 15 user, as far as the FCC is concerned, it is a black box and they are are not expected to be able to do path calculations. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is the same ARRL that 10 years ago asked for APC dispite the protests of TAPR, Phil Karn and others. Now, I am glad they saw the error of their ways, and are trying to correct it, however I want to point out that once again, with bandwidth by regulation, they are asking for unneeded regulations on amateurs. Lest I point out the obvious, we need to learn here from history. Ask your ARRL director to not support limiting bandwidth by regulation, but only by good amateur practice, as has been the standard since almost day one of amateur radio. Amateur radio operators can be trusted, and don't need to be told what is right and what is wrong. From kd4e at verizon.net Sun May 21 19:14:18 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <4470BC0A.2080100@verizon.net> > Why do you think higher power will be needed? EME, ATV, etc. None of these are SS and all often require high power for success. -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From jeff at aerodata.net Sun May 21 18:25:29 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:25:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <003701c67cff$7a5b8240$0b01a8c0@Carlitos1> References: <446FE92E.80601@cox.net> <003701c67cff$7a5b8240$0b01a8c0@Carlitos1> Message-ID: <2786.208.187.92.24.1148235929.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> > I see the wide area (omni, point to multipoint) 802.11x use that many hams > tend to envision, based on the FM repeater paradigm, as being extremely > inefficient and a misuse of a technology that was never intended to be > used in that way. And how is that different then the curent state of 90%+ of the WISP industry, other then hams are "talking" about it, and the WISP's have done it? > Too > many hams pay NO attention to the "use the minimum power necessary" rule. Ok, so another law to fix the law everyone is ignoring? Makes sense. > Any evening, you can tune the HF bands and hear any number of people > running legal limit (or more) on 80m/40m/20m to talk to some guy across town ... HF.. you mean SSB. You do realize that this APC request has nothing at all to do with this, just as the WISP misconception of 100watt ATV on 2.4ghz had nothing to do with it? APC does not nor will it apply to what you speak of nor what the WISP industry fears the most... solid on carriers blanketing a wide area. BTW Carl, I think it is proper for you disclose your industry connections here, if you still have any. Nothing wrong with them, good perspective, but Marlon disclosed his. From jeff at aerodata.net Sun May 21 18:27:13 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:27:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <4470BC0A.2080100@verizon.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <4470BC0A.2080100@verizon.net> Message-ID: <2791.208.187.92.24.1148236033.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> And these are exactly the modes which will cause the most grief to the WISP's, and that are not required to have APC currently. > Why do you think higher power will be needed? > > EME, ATV, etc. > > None of these are SS and all often require high > power for success. > > -- > Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com > Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From kd4e at verizon.net Sun May 21 20:02:42 2006 From: kd4e at verizon.net (doc) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 15:02:42 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2791.208.187.92.24.1148236033.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605200533.52442.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><446F8BAC.4010208@verizon.net> <200605201935.07557.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <4470BC0A.2080100@verizon.net> <2791.208.187.92.24.1148236033.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <4470C762.2030905@verizon.net> But they *will* be the target of the next round of FCC rule-making and/or Congressional legislation promoted by the WISPs if they put all of their eggs in the 2.4GHz basket. At the end of the day either the WISPs choose another band for their future expansion or 2.4GHz will come under continual well-funded attack until Hams are essentially driven out. The only way to defend a section of spectrum is to put it to use in such a way that powerful allies will help in its defense from the quick-bucks folks. The UPS taking and under-utilizing of a piece of 220 involved some behind the scenes power politics. If not for the huge impact of cell phones, satellite radio, and wireless internet we would already be dealing with huge pressures to surrender part of 10M to CB. > jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > And these are exactly the modes which will cause the most grief to the > WISP's, and that are not required to have APC currently. > >> Why do you think higher power will be needed? >> >> EME, ATV, etc. >> >> None of these are SS and all often require high >> power for success. -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Sun May 21 18:03:02 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:03:02 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> On Sunday 21 May 2006 13:13, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > Tim told us: > > I am not against high power being used on SS. I *am* against it being > >used indiscriminately. > > Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns are > already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the minimum > transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. ). No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have the problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are not needed. The thing about HF is that these are narrow-band signals and lots of spectrum space exists so you can avoid them by turning your vfo dial. With just a few SS channels available that a multiplicity of users have to share, turning the dial is not that easy. And if you shift to a different spreading code then how do you find anyone to talk to? You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life. > > http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#313 > > >APC should not hinder experimentation in any way. > > Says you. Algorithms have to be written, handshacking done. You continue > to think hams in their basement have access to chip fabs. APC is not that > hard to do, yet it is just another layer of complexity which in many cases > is not even needed (like on a fixed point to point link). And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point link. If you stay at 1 watt and under, you don't have to worry about the APC rule. Then complexity is not an issue, no algorithms have to be written, no handshaking has to be accomplished. As far as chip fabrication is concerned, I believe the first TAPR SS unit used a NE605 DBM mixer in the receive chain which provides a received signal strength indicator lead. Such a simple implementation would give you a perfect (No + Io) measurement with which to establish power levels. Unless you are going to be using off-the-shelf units that are already programmed for a specific purpose, e.g. 802.11 routers, you will already be involved in writing algorithms and handshaking for the application being run in your equipment. Adding such a small thing as a psuedo-802.11h setup would be a minimal thing. > > >Yes, it might increase complexity slightly but > > so what? Single Sideband increased complexity over AM. That didn't > > seem to hinder its development much. > > Exactly! And do note that SSB was not mandated by law, and AM was not > outlawed. Yet even though the goverment didn't force it, the development > you cite still happened. Believe it or not Tim, when it comes to the > goverment, less is more. Certainly it means more power, whether it is needed or not. Listen to 3922khz some evening. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean. The complexity did NOT keep SSB from being developed - yet you are saying it *will* keep down development of Spread Spectrum. You seem to want to have it both ways. > >That is > > just another non sequitur put forth by those who just want to hang bricks > > on > > their transmitting chains to make up for other inadequacies in the > > design. > > Do you really believe all this crap you continue to spew out? "Oh my gosh, > oh my gosh, if we don't pass a law, Johnny Ham will put a kicker on his > 802.11b card, and tune for maxium smoke!! We must protect the unlicensed > part 15 users from those hams!" > > Cut me a break... Your chicken little tactics may play well to the WISP > audience, but they don't amount to much in fact. Chicken little tactics? I suggest you go look on ebay sometime to see what is available. 20watt bricks are readily available - even for 2.4Ghz. While they are certainly pricey, 50watt and up bricks are available as well. You would have us believe that this is NOT where things are headed when it is obvious that they are. If you'll just take the time to look you can find information on the internet about people who have added things like water coolers from rodded PC's to their wifi router power chips in order to run them at max power levels without burning them up!. Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to look back on history and be able to learn from it? > > You don't get it Tim. APC is a good idea, we do agree on that, yet I don't > think it should be mandated by law on part 97. I think the less rules we > have in the amateur service, the better, since that broad canvas best > faciliates experimentation and the advancement of the state of the art. > And guess what? It has served us well over the last 80+ years. Using this logic why do you suppose the FCC has set a power output limit of 1500 watts PEP in the amateur bands? Shouldn't we be expected to only use that power that is needed? And certainly there are times when 5,000 watts or eve 10,000 watts would be useful in emergency situations. Why aren't we allowed to use stations running commercial power levels when needed? Would you also advocate that the 1500watt PEP limit be removed? If you are going to follow the same logic you espouse above, you certainly will! > > If anything, you have made a defacto case for implementing APC on the WISP > industry, as 1 watt is not a magic number by any means. Hams passed a test > so they COULD tinker with radios, the part 15 user, as far as the FCC is > concerned, it is a black box and they are are not expected to be able to > do path calculations. You seem to make no distinction between a WISP and an average Part 15 user. In your rush to lash out you are losing the coherence in your argument. I would certainly expect someone doing something as a business to be able to do such a simple thing as a path calculation - especially if I were an investor in the business. As I pointed out earlier, designing a system to use maximum power all the time is a poor engineering practice. It causes increased system maintenance costs, increased initial investment costs, increased spectrum pollution, etc. It is *these* people that I would expect to find using the absolute minimum power level needed and who would be the *biggest* proponents of APC. > And at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is the same ARRL that 10 > years ago asked for APC dispite the protests of TAPR, Phil Karn and > others. Now, I am glad they saw the error of their ways, and are trying to > correct it, however I want to point out that once again, with bandwidth by > regulation, they are asking for unneeded regulations on amateurs. Lest I > point out the obvious, we need to learn here from history. Ask your ARRL > director to not support limiting bandwidth by regulation, but only by good > amateur practice, as has been the standard since almost day one of amateur > radio. Amateur radio operators can be trusted, and don't need to be told > what is right and what is wrong. > This isn't an issue of "trust" in amateur radio operators. It is a matter of what the FCC needs to do to insure the spectrum is usable by everyone. That includes narrow-band users of the amateur bands as well as Part 15 users in the shared-use bands we inhabit. We agree on the bandwidth regulation proposal but apparently for differing reasons. I see it as a problem with the ARRL recommending the mixing of inherently incompatible modes and expecting voluntary bandplans to be effective when it is obvious that they are not (look at Region 1 experience and look at the ARRL's own experience in following its own voluntary bandplan). tim ab0wr From jeff at aerodata.net Mon May 22 04:17:08 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 23:17:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> > On Sunday 21 May 2006 13:13, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: >> Tim told us: >> Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns are >> already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the minimum >> transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. ). > > No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have the > problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are not > needed. So your saying another law to make up for another law that people already are not following? > You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life. I'm not saying your wrong, I am saying this is amateur radio, and the best way to promote experimentation is to have as few rules as possible. Good amateur practice and minimum power need to communicate, which we have on the books now, covers your concerns but at the same time doesn't overly change Part 97 to a Part 15 service. > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point > link. I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook. >> Cut me a break... Your chicken little tactics may play well to the WISP >> audience, but they don't amount to much in fact. > > Chicken little tactics? I suggest you go look on ebay sometime to see what > is > available. 20watt bricks are readily available - even for 2.4Ghz. While > they > are certainly pricey, 50watt and up bricks are available as well. > > You would have us believe that this is NOT where things are headed when it > is > obvious that they are. Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you cite, are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying, boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big goverment boys do know a thing or two. > Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to look > back on history and be able to learn from it? Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"? From k4pwo at comcast.net Mon May 22 04:57:31 2006 From: k4pwo at comcast.net (Perry - K4PWO) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 23:57:31 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA><200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net><200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <005601c67d5c$47350c80$7201a8c0@Perry> To further fan the flames... Part 15 users have no standing to comment. They aren't licensed. Hee hee... 73 de Perry - K4PWO From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Mon May 22 10:34:46 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 05:34:46 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> On Sunday 21 May 2006 23:17, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > > > > No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have the > > problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are not > > needed. > > So your saying another law to make up for another law that people already > are not following? Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow the law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no speed limits on the highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on. > > > You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life. > > I'm not saying your wrong, I am saying this is amateur radio, and the best > way to promote experimentation is to have as few rules as possible. Good > amateur practice and minimum power need to communicate, which we have on > the books now, covers your concerns but at the same time doesn't overly > change Part 97 to a Part 15 service. But the APC rule does NOT affect experimentation. No one on here has yet to point out a scenario where it does. They just complain that it *does*. When I build a transmitter (I am working on one now) I don't build the PA first and try to run it at maximum power allowed. I build it up and experiment at *low* power levels first. I don't know of any engineer I respect who starts out experimenting at high power first. > > > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point > > link. > > I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link > margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook. He gave no viable answers at all. Just rationalizations for blasting away at full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or not. The *very* rationale that you seem to think amateurs don't indulge in. I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for fixed point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, especially with high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain. > > Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you cite, > are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying, > boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB > radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big > goverment boys do know a thing or two. Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is? The point is that they are available, they *do* contribute to spectrum pollution, it doesn't matter whether it is a Part 15 user or a Part 97 user that is doing the contribution, and they are very rarely needed. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp? > > > Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to > > look back on history and be able to learn from it? > > Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"? The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that isn't in your camp? tim ab0wr From wk3c at wk3c.com Mon May 22 14:47:22 2006 From: wk3c at wk3c.com (Carl R. Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:47:22 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <2786.208.187.92.24.1148235929.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <000101c67dae$a5d1a800$0b01a8c0@Carlitos1> > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff at aerodata.net [mailto:jeff at aerodata.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 2:25 PM > To: wk3c at wk3c.com; TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > > I see the wide area (omni, point to multipoint) 802.11x use > that many > > hams tend to envision, based on the FM repeater paradigm, as being > > extremely inefficient and a misuse of a technology that was never > > intended to be used in that way. > > And how is that different then the curent state of 90%+ of > the WISP industry, other then hams are "talking" about it, > and the WISP's have done it? > > > Too > > many hams pay NO attention to the "use the minimum power > necessary" rule. > > Ok, so another law to fix the law everyone is ignoring? Makes sense. > > > > Any evening, you can tune the HF bands and hear any number > of people > > running legal limit (or more) on 80m/40m/20m to talk to some guy > > across > town ... > > HF.. you mean SSB. You do realize that this APC request has > nothing at all to do with this, just as the WISP > misconception of 100watt ATV on 2.4ghz had nothing to do with > it? APC does not nor will it apply to what you speak of nor > what the WISP industry fears the most... solid on carriers > blanketing a wide area. > > > BTW Carl, I think it is proper for you disclose your industry > connections here, if you still have any. Nothing wrong with > them, good perspective, but Marlon disclosed his. Jeff, I realize that the APC rule has nothing to do with modes other than SS ... I simply stated the fact that the "use the minimum power necessary" rule is widely ignored (and frequently causes interference that wouldn't exist if it WAS observed). As far as my "industry connections" go, it's widely known that I chair the IEEE 802.22 WG ... Which has nothing to do with spectrum shared with hams. And, in any event, my comments here are my personal views and I express them in what I think is the best interests of the ham community "with my ham hat on." (As a consultant, I am VERY used to "wearing the right hat at the right time" and avoiding any conflict of interest (in business between clients, in this case between "industry connections" and my personal, independent beliefs on what's in the best interest of the ham community.) 73, Carl - wk3c From wk3c at wk3c.com Mon May 22 14:52:32 2006 From: wk3c at wk3c.com (Carl R. Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:52:32 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <000501c67daf$5b1528e0$0b01a8c0@Carlitos1> > -----Original Message----- > From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org > [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Tim Gorman > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 2:03 PM > To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 > Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > On Sunday 21 May 2006 13:13, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > > Tim told us: > > > I am not against high power being used on SS. I *am* against it > > >being used indiscriminately. > > > > Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns > > are already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the > > minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the > desired communications. ). > > No, not already covered. If it were already covered we > wouldn't have the problem on the HF bands with people running > amplifiers when they are not needed. The thing about HF is > that these are narrow-band signals and lots of spectrum space > exists so you can avoid them by turning your vfo dial. With > just a few SS channels available that a multiplicity of users > have to share, turning the dial is not that easy. And if you > shift to a different spreading code then how do you find > anyone to talk to? > And, it should be realized that the spreading codes and other techniques in use in Part 15 WLAN equipment (and those allowed in Part 97) are not up to the task of CDMA frequency reuse. 73, Carl - wk3c From jeff at aerodata.net Mon May 22 16:16:28 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:16:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <3202.208.187.92.24.1148314588.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> >> So your saying another law to make up for another law that people >> already >> are not following? > > Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow > the law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no > speed limits on the > highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on. Tim: I've noticed you have a habit of putting words in people's mouths. I never said if people don't follow laws, get rid of them. Those are your claims. If anything, if a law isn't being followed, then it does need to be enforced. You seem to cite multiple cases on HF of people running excessive power. What I suggest to you, is for you to log these calls, and write a letter to the FCC. At least in the case of "good amateur practice", the FCC does pay attention to this one. Still, I have noticed, you have not cited a single instance of a ham violating the APC rules or running excessive power on spread spectrum. This is why I earlier brought up the chicken little scenario. In fact, even though you or others have brought up part 97 interfering with Part 15, you have not demostrated a single instance of this occuring (to a WISP). The same cannot be said of Part 15 interfering with Part 97, as the FCC has proscuted cases of this sort. > But the APC rule does NOT affect experimentation. No one on here has yet > to point out a scenario where it does. They just complain that it *does*. No, your right, it does not stop experimentation, it is just an additional step before Joe Ham puts his spread spectrum rig on the air. > When I > build a transmitter (I am working on one now) I don't build the PA first > and try to run it at maximum power allowed. I build it up and experiment > at *low* > power levels first. I don't know of any engineer I respect who starts out > experimenting at high power first. OK, and can you give any examples of in the ham community that start at high power first? And tell us about the APC circuit you have implemented? Since you such an advocate of legally mandated APC, you must know that 1 watt is no golden number by any means... cell phones implement APC into the milliwatt range. And then to legally require hams to run APC when all those Part 15 WISP's are not? Seems kinda rear backwards to me. >> > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS >> point-to-point >> > link. >> >> I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link >> margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook. > > He gave no viable answers at all. Maybe, but do note that "no one" (your words) means zero responses. This Joe Izuzu act you are putting on may work where you come from, but it doesn't play for me. > Just rationalizations for blasting away > at full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or > not. That would be a violation of 97.313(a). A federal crime. It seems to be before you start painting with a broad brush of libel against all amateur spread spectrum experimenters, that you might give us a example or two of amateurs running SS that are in fact doing this. In other words, show us the money Tim. > The *very* rationale that you seem to think amateurs don't indulge in. I never said they didn't. I asked for some specfic examples, preferabbly of the class that is in question here (spread spectrum hams). I really don't think this to much to ask for. > I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for fixed > point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, especially > with > high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain. Of course I have. But some of us have radio horizon's far in excess of this. And not every ham uses spread spectrum in a manner you think they might. This of course is the beauty of ham radio. >> Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you >> cite, >> are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying, >> boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB >> radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big >> goverment boys do know a thing or two. > > Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is? Ahhh.... yeah?!? If I watched more TV, I'd say this is one of those Homer Simpson "duh" moments, but I've only heard that from other people when I stated stupid things. Tim, Part 15 and Part 95 (CB radio) are highly regulated services, where the individials that participate in them are not licensed. Amateur radio operators on the other hand, have to take a regulatory and technical test AND have to submit to FCC adminstrative law. You thoughts and concepts make great sense for Part15/95 services. But the basis and purpose of amateur radio (97.1) does not agree with many of your thoughts in a broad sense. Amateur radio ideally is a sandbox. As long as we keep our sand in our box, and it doesn't overflow the box, that should be about the extent of the FCC rules. My suggestion to you, take a look at 97.1, and if your still upset at what you see, petition the FCC to bring even bigger goverment and more rules into amateur radio then already exists. >> Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"? > > The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that > isn't in your camp? No, of course not. I just was hoping you might identify the camp's name.... -Jeff From k4pwo at comcast.net Mon May 22 18:02:06 2006 From: k4pwo at comcast.net (Perry - K4PWO) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:02:06 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <001b01c67dc9$daf67040$7201a8c0@Perry> BTW, "full legal limit" for SS under the ARRL proposal is 100 watts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Gorman" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > On Sunday 21 May 2006 23:17, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > >> > >> > No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have >> > the >> > problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are >> > not >> > needed. >> >> So your saying another law to make up for another law that people already >> are not following? > > Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow > the > law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no speed limits on > the > highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on. > > >> >> > You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life. >> >> I'm not saying your wrong, I am saying this is amateur radio, and the >> best >> way to promote experimentation is to have as few rules as possible. Good >> amateur practice and minimum power need to communicate, which we have on >> the books now, covers your concerns but at the same time doesn't overly >> change Part 97 to a Part 15 service. > > But the APC rule does NOT affect experimentation. No one on here has yet > to > point out a scenario where it does. They just complain that it *does*. > When I > build a transmitter (I am working on one now) I don't build the PA first > and > try to run it at maximum power allowed. I build it up and experiment at > *low* > power levels first. I don't know of any engineer I respect who starts out > experimenting at high power first. > > >> >> > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point >> > link. >> >> I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link >> margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook. > > He gave no viable answers at all. Just rationalizations for blasting away > at > full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or not. > The *very* rationale that you seem to think amateurs don't indulge in. > > I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for fixed > point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, especially > with > high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain. > > >> >> Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you >> cite, >> are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying, >> boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB >> radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big >> goverment boys do know a thing or two. > > Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is? The point > is > that they are available, they *do* contribute to spectrum pollution, it > doesn't matter whether it is a Part 15 user or a Part 97 user that is > doing > the contribution, and they are very rarely needed. Is that really such a > hard > concept to grasp? > >> >> > Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to >> > look back on history and be able to learn from it? >> >> Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"? > > The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that > isn't in your camp? > > tim ab0wr > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From ab0wr at ab0wr.net Mon May 22 23:49:24 2006 From: ab0wr at ab0wr.net (Tim Gorman) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:49:24 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <3202.208.187.92.24.1148314588.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> <3202.208.187.92.24.1148314588.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> Message-ID: <200605221849.24889.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> On Monday 22 May 2006 11:16, jeff at aerodata.net wrote: > >> So your saying another law to make up for another law that people > >> already > >> are not following? > > > > Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow > > the law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no > > speed limits on the > > highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on. > > Tim: > > I've noticed you have a habit of putting words in people's mouths. I never > said if people don't follow laws, get rid of them. Those are your claims. > If anything, if a law isn't being followed, then it does need to be > enforced. You seem to cite multiple cases on HF of people running > excessive power. What I suggest to you, is for you to log these calls, and > write a letter to the FCC. At least in the case of "good amateur > practice", the FCC does pay attention to this one. If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. I was *trying* to use your logic train on other instances. If you don't like the paths that your logic takes, then perhaps you should examine your logic. In one instance you claim there shouldn't be any laws regulating operational power limits with SS on VHF and UHF and now you claim the operational power limit laws on HF should be enforced, not ignored. A rather inconsistent point of view at the very least. Why do you not answer the question of why hams on HF shouldn't be allowed to run 5kw or even 10kw output when the situation would be helped with the additional power. You said it would be a good thing on UHF and above if the APC power control limits were removed on SS. Why wouldn't it be a good thing if they were removed for SSB on HF? > > Still, I have noticed, you have not cited a single instance of a ham > violating the APC rules or running excessive power on spread spectrum. > This is why I earlier brought up the chicken little scenario. In fact, > even though you or others have brought up part 97 interfering with Part > 15, you have not demostrated a single instance of this occuring (to a > WISP). The same cannot be said of Part 15 interfering with Part 97, as the > FCC has proscuted cases of this sort. I gave you an instance of where Part 15 interfering with Part 15 occurred. And this wasn't even with jacked up power levels. How can I give you an example of such occurring when so few hams are involved with running high power? Why do you think it hasn't been an issue? If you are puzzled by the whole matter, you should ask why the ARRL brought forth the regulation change at this point in time. If it really does NOT inhibit experimentation, then why did the ARRL say that it does? The only logical conclusion that I have been able to come to is that it is, in fact, inhibiting actual *implementations* that some hams want to do using high power and they want to be free of the APC restriction because it is "inconvenient". Rather than coming out and saying this, which would be highly impolitic, they have masked the regulation change in mumbo-jumbo that is technically inaccurate. They did exactly the same thing with the bandwidth regulation proposal. It is technically unsound and not backed with any kind of spectrum usage studies or interference mitigation studies. The ARRL should have provided exactly the same kind of studies for this proposal but did not. My confidence in the ability of the ARRL to exhibit even a minimum of technical competency with regards to regulation proposals is at an all time low. > > OK, and can you give any examples of in the ham community that start at > high power first? And tell us about the APC circuit you have implemented? > Since you such an advocate of legally mandated APC, you must know that 1 > watt is no golden number by any means... cell phones implement APC into > the milliwatt range. And then to legally require hams to run APC when all > those Part 15 WISP's are not? Seems kinda rear backwards to me. I have no knowledge of any examples where you start experimenting with high power *first* and then move to low power. That is the whole point I was making. I am in the process of experimenting with a pair of Linksys wifi routers. That is how I found the 802.11h routines in the DDWRT firmware load. Those routines do appear to be limited to the 802.11a protocol. They should be usable for any protocol carried over the router. 1 watt is only a golden number in that it is a reasonable power level to reach the radio horizon for a minimal installation using reasonable antennas. If you want to do point-to-point using higher gain antennas then much less than 1 watt is needed. 1 watt is only a good *starting* point. And the nice thing is that no APC is needed. Should you use it even at that power level? Of course. > > >> > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS > >> > >> point-to-point > >> > >> > link. > >> > >> I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link > >> margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook. > > > > He gave no viable answers at all. > > Maybe, but do note that "no one" (your words) means zero responses. This > Joe Izuzu act you are putting on may work where you come from, but it > doesn't play for me. Huh? "no one has answered" means exactly what it says. An answer that is not an answer is exactly that - not an answer. You can't morph it into an answer no matter how hard you try. > > > Just rationalizations for blasting away > > at full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or > > not. > > That would be a violation of 97.313(a). A federal crime. It seems to be > before you start painting with a broad brush of libel against all amateur > spread spectrum experimenters, that you might give us a example or two of > amateurs running SS that are in fact doing this. In other words, show us > the money Tim. Yep. It would be. And the APC formula for SS is a good engineering guideline that should not be violated either. I haven't painted anyone with a broad brush of libel. You are grasping at straws now. Just as the FCC stated in 1999, the rule provides for good neighbors in that spectrum where amateur radio has to coexist with others. If you want to make the rules even more detailed so that specific spectrum bands are specified along with specific power limitations for each spectrum band then you are going to violate your own stance against additional regulation. You keep trying to have it both ways. Pick one and stay with it. > > > I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for > > fixed point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, > > especially with > > high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain. > > Of course I have. But some of us have radio horizon's far in excess of > this. And not every ham uses spread spectrum in a manner you think they > might. This of course is the beauty of ham radio. Really? You have a radio horizon far in excess of this? For experimental purposes? On what frequency? Might I ask just how high your antenna is and just what you are using for feedline to reach that height? Are you trying to implement a point-to-multipoint, multipoint-to-point, or point-to-point system? And have you done the FCC APC calculation for power levels? You can run enough power to keep the received signal 23 db above the noise and the co-channel interference. Just how much power do you need to do this? > > >> Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you > >> cite, > >> are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying, > >> boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB > >> radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big > >> goverment boys do know a thing or two. > > > > Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is? > > Ahhh.... yeah?!? If I watched more TV, I'd say this is one of those Homer > Simpson "duh" moments, but I've only heard that from other people when I > stated stupid things. You know, this is exactly like listening to my son try to explain why he needs a 400 hp Mustang to go to the corner store for groceries. The fact that the Mustang exists means it will get used - for whatever purposes the owner wants. It doesn't matter what Ford designed the car for. Again, I don't know what is so hard to grasp about this concept. > > Tim, Part 15 and Part 95 (CB radio) are highly regulated services, where > the individials that participate in them are not licensed. Amateur radio > operators on the other hand, have to take a regulatory and technical test > AND have to submit to FCC adminstrative law. You thoughts and concepts > make great sense for Part15/95 services. But the basis and purpose of > amateur radio (97.1) does not agree with many of your thoughts in a broad > sense. Amateur radio ideally is a sandbox. As long as we keep our sand in > our box, and it doesn't overflow the box, that should be about the extent > of the FCC rules. It doesn't matter if a police officer throws a piece of trash out of a patrol car or if the local drunk does - it is still pollution. Exactly the same thing applies to Part 15, Part 95, Part 97, and whatever. The radio spectrum is the radio spectrum. If you pollute it then you pollute it. It doesn't matter what part you are licensed under. It doesn't matter what kind of technical test you have to take to get an operators license. The part you seem to be ignoring is that high powered SS stations *WILL* overflow our sandbox in rather short order - in both our dedicated spectrum as well as our shared spectrum. > > My suggestion to you, take a look at 97.1, and if your still upset at what > you see, petition the FCC to bring even bigger goverment and more rules > into amateur radio then already exists. > > >> Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"? > > > > The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that > > isn't in your camp? > > No, of course not. I just was hoping you might identify the camp's name.... > The camp's name? Concerned amateur radio operators that see such technical garbage coming out of the ARRL. If you really want to see some technical analysis of the subject go to the TAPR site and look up the doctoral thesis that was done on the subject of multiple SS sites in a metropolitan area and how power control *must* be done to make such a thing viable. This is *NOT* a political decision. It is a technical decision that will determine the future of SS for a long time to come. tim ab0wr From jeff at aerodata.net Tue May 23 02:11:41 2006 From: jeff at aerodata.net (jeff at aerodata.net) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:11:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change In-Reply-To: <200605221849.24889.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA> <200605220534.46541.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><3202.208.187.92.24.1148314588.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <200605221849.24889.ab0wr@ab0wr.net> Message-ID: <4783.208.187.92.24.1148350301.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> > On Monday 22 May 2006 Tim told us: > If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. I was *trying* to use > your logic train on other instances. If you don't like the paths > that your > logic takes, then perhaps you should examine your logic. I will. Thank you and have a good day. -Jeff wb8wka From beatnic at comcast.net Tue May 23 04:01:07 2006 From: beatnic at comcast.net (Alex Fraser) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Ham-80211] Tempest in a Teapot Message-ID: <44728903.3040004@comcast.net> tempest in a teapot -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ............ Alex Fraser ............ ......... beatnic at comcast.net ....... [~]_>^^^^< From k4pwo at comcast.net Tue May 23 04:22:10 2006 From: k4pwo at comcast.net (Perry - K4PWO) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:22:10 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Tempest in a Teapot References: <44728903.3040004@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00d101c67e20$7cc36030$7201a8c0@Perry> Ain't it true... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Fraser" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:01 PM Subject: [Ham-80211] Tempest in a Teapot > tempest in a teapot > > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > ............ Alex Fraser ............ > ......... beatnic at comcast.net ....... > [~]_>^^^^< > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > From ooe at odessaoffice.com Tue May 30 23:53:22 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:53:22 -0700 Subject: [WISPA FCC] Re: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006518133236.829826@DARLA> Message-ID: <004001c68444$3da19500$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "FCC Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:32 AM Subject: [WISPA FCC] Re: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change > > > On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:03:47 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 > wrote: > >>>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP >>>industry? >> >>And what did the hams pay for their bands? TV? Radio? Sheesh. > > -0-. Both of them provide to the public good at no charge to the public. > WISP's don't, unless of course your saying WISP provide their service for > free. LOL, some days it sure feels that way! > > You want to make money Marlon, you got to spend money. The Part 15 bands > where created for a specific purpose, and WISP's were not even considered > then. I think it is wonderful that the WISP's have put it to so much good > use, and support both the expansion of the Part 15 bands as well as your > white space proposal. Yet if you want protected spectrum, someone is going > to have to pay for that. No one is asking for protected spectrum. Though that would be nice! You annalogy is flawed. Tour guides who get paid to show people around national parks don't pay for the upkeep of the park. Trukers that make money on the road aren't the only one's to pay into the upkeep of the roads etc. Believe it or not, I'd not be opposed to some kind of a tax that would be put to the proper care and feeding of the specturm I use. It would be nice to see those running over powered networks really slapped around and/or shut down before they kill off more of the industry. > > >>I'd be happy to buy spectrum. The deposit to bid on auction 66 is >>only $1000 less than I paid for my first house! I can put in a lot >>of gear for that price. And people won't pay any more for licensed >>service than they will for unlicensed out here. If I could get >>people to kick loose with $60 to $100 per month for my internet like >>they will for their cell phones I could *maybe* justify buying some >>spectrum! > > Yet other companies are making a profit (or at least staying in business) > providing internet broadband on protected spectrum they paid for. Hardly anyone is doing that. Certainly not at a profit. In fact, I heard a very good case made one time about how the spectrum auction has been primarily responsible for the near collaps of the telecom industry. > > >>Look at the financial health of most of the companies that own >>spectrum too. I think a pretty good argument can be made that the >>spectrum auction idea is largely responsible for the near collaps of >>the telecom industry. > > Sure, no doubt they overpaid. But big difference between paying too much > and paying nothing. You get what you pay for and if you want free > spectrum, you have to take what you can get. Yeppers. But, there's more value out there in other ways that is making our services worth much more than one would normally think. Heck, just the competition to the cable/dsl duopoly is a huge deal. You really should think of us more like the airline industry. We too are using a common God given medium for our transport mechanism. > > > -Jeff > > p.s. All the CC's you added to this keep bouncing, and I suspect I am only > seeing half the conversation. Care to do any cross pollination between the > groups? I'm doing what I can on that score. WISPA won't even file on this issue. While we'd like to see it fail, I don't think that there's an upside to our filing. laters, marlon > > > _______________________________________________ > FCC mailing list > FCC at wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc From ooe at odessaoffice.com Wed May 31 17:02:55 2006 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:02:55 -0700 Subject: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change References: <2006519202818.509005@DARLA><200605210934.55080.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2782.208.187.92.24.1148235180.squirrel@www.aerodata.net><200605211303.02846.ab0wr@ab0wr.net><2952.208.187.92.24.1148271428.squirrel@www.aerodata.net> <005601c67d5c$47350c80$7201a8c0@Perry> Message-ID: <015a01c684d4$10421fe0$09ba9240@marlon> ppptttthhhhtttttttttt!!!!!! lol THAT's never kept many of us quiet before! hehehehe Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Perry - K4PWO" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change > To further fan the flames... Part 15 users have no standing to comment. > They aren't licensed. > > Hee hee... > > 73 de Perry - K4PWO > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211