Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] APC

Jeff King jeff at aerodata.net
Wed May 17 18:22:17 UTC 2006


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: <hfeinstein at cox.net> To: "ham-
>80211: lists.tapr.org" <ham-80211 at 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






More information about the ham-80211 mailing list