Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

Brian Webster bwebster at wirelessmapping.com
Wed May 17 16:51:19 UTC 2006

	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
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.



> 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 <http://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!
> (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

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list