Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] APC

Jeff King jeff at aerodata.net
Wed May 17 18:26:06 UTC 2006


Sorry Marlion, didn't see your earlier response and I wouldn't have come off in this one if I had.



On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:22:17 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________ 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