Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Brian Webster bwebster at wirelessmapping.com
Wed May 17 19:44:53 UTC 2006

	I would say that ham's would jump up and down and have a fit over the
suggestion. They would do this without any regard for the technical merit of
the idea, nor the idea that they don't use the spectrum efficiently. That
band is not as under utilized as Jeff mentions and therefore it's not quite
as prime as it looks, also it is not a primary allocation for the ham's
either. This would be a turf war and ham's are against giving up any
spectrum no matter how it is being used currently. The uneducated outcries
you would hear over the suggestion will frustrate you to no end and the
mentality of the "I've already made up my mind, don't try and confuse me
with the truth" operators out there would just muddy up the waters. Let's
see how we make out with the White Space stuff first. At least you are
arguing with logical people here (the broadcasters). Once that is
accomplished and proven in practice it would be easier to look elsewhere for
spectrum if necessary. Flame suit on as I am sure I will offend some very
good and knowledgeable hams with this statement. It's not those folks I
worry about, it's the loudmouths that I don't like.

Thank You,
Brian Webster N2KGC

-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:ooe at odessaoffice.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:37 PM
To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11; kd4e at verizon.net
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; FCC Discussion
Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

You have us all wrong Jeff!  WISPA (and the rest of the wisp industry
generally speaking) doesn't think we are ever likely to displace anyone
else.  (much as we'd love a "broadband" chunk of spectrum!)

The reality of it is that most of the technology we use is designed to share

Ideally I'd like to see ALL bands opened up for a low power unlicensed
underlay that would have to use APC, collision avoidance and automatic
channel control.  Much like the 5.4 gig band is set up like.  Today's
technology makes some amazing things possible under the normal usage
thresholds of most gear that's been deployed as I understand it.

Do you think the HAMs would support an unlicensed secondary underlay of the
420-450mhz band?  With software defined radios becoming the defacto standard
it looks like, we could certainly take advantage of the spectrum without
large hardware development cycles.

(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp! (net meeting)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff King" <jeff at aerodata.net>
To: <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>; <kd4e at verizon.net>; <TAPR Mailing List for
Ham Radio Use of 802.11>; <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 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

> Nope, 2.4ghz will not go the way of 220mhz. Both the HAMS and the WISPS
> seem to be forgetting something. Both Part 15 AND Part 97 are secondary
> users here. Part 18 is the primary user, things such as microwave ovens
> and industrial equipment running into the kilowatts with no requirement
> for APC.
> The WISP's need to spend their time fighting for protected spectrum as
> they will never get the ISM industry to vacate 2.4ghz. If they feel they
> serve the public so much better then amateur's do, I suggest they go after
> the 420-450mhz band, which is unused over the majority of the country.
> This offers excellent foliage penetration and by displacing the hams they
> would have a range of frequencies they could actually build a long term
> business model on.
> Or look at it another way, your going to make enemies with mainstream
> amateur radio by doing what you are doing, so you might as well make it
> worth your while. Why ask for what amounts to a crumb when you could get
> the whole wedding cake? The hams will jump up and down, and beat their
> chest, but the utilization of 420-450mhz across the majority of the
> country is almost zero.
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181
> wrote:
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" <kd4e at verizon.net> To:
>>"TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" <ham-
>>80211 at lists.tapr.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:04 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change
>>>>jeff at aerodata.net wrote: 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.
>>>It would be interesting to assess the current level of Ham use of
>>>this spectrum. I am guessing it is highly localized, specialized,
>>>and rare.
>>>The FCC is chartered to allocate spectrum and promulgate
>>>regulations that are in the best interest of the majority of
>>>Unless Hams can show evidence that the spectrum represents a value
>>>to emergency communications, technology experimentation, and hobby
>>>use we will see it follow the unfortunate path of 220.
>>>-- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links:
>>I think that the great thing here is that no one is porposing that
>>the HAMs loose access to the band. We'd like to see a lack of rules
>>that put our businesses at risk is all :-).
>>Lets not forget that HAMs can use the bands too. In fact they get
>>more spectrum, more gear and cheaper toys by using the bands under
>>the unlicensed rules.
>>And use the band to connect to the internet and you'll not even have
>>to wait for the moon to come up to talk to the other side of the
>>Of course, there's no cool factor in that. But hey, a guy can't
>>have everything! grin
>>Just trying to keep this all in the proper context.....
>>laters, marlon
>>>_______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing
>>>list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-
>>_______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing
>>list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list