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

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

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" <w3sz at comcast.net>
To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" 
<ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
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
> <ooe at odessaoffice.com> 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