Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Jeff King jeff at aerodata.net
Wed May 17 17:36:48 UTC 2006


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
>><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! 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






More information about the ham-80211 mailing list