Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 ooe at odessaoffice.com
Wed May 17 18:18:13 UTC 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff King" <jeff at aerodata.net>
To: <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" <wisp at wispa.org>; "FCC Discussion" 
<fcc at wispa.org>
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.
>>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.

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.


> 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.


> -Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> 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