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

Thu May 18 15:46:21 UTC 2006

That's precisely the types of situations we want to try to avoid creating!

Thanks for the heads up!

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: "Darryl Smith" <Darryl at radio-active.net.au>
To: <bwebster at wirelessmapping.com>; "'TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 
802.11'" <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

> Anyone even thinking of the 420-450 MHz band should do some searches on 
> the
> net in Australia for LIPD devices. These are Low Interference Potential
> Devices.
>
> By low interference potential, I mean they are jamming repeaters, and
> repeaters are jamming them. We have people who cannot unlock their car 
> doors
> thanks to a 420-450 MHz remote control was used, and there is a repeater
> nearby.
>
> Darryl
>
> ---------
> Darryl Smith, VK2TDS   POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia
> Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459
> www.radio-active.net.au/blog/ - www.radio-active.net.au/web/tracking/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org
> [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster
> Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 5:45 AM
> To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11
> Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change
>
> Marlon,
> 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
> spectrum.
>
> 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.
>
> 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: "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
>>>>citizens.
>>>>
>>>>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:
>>>>http://bibleseven.com/hl.html
>>>
>>>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
>>>world!
>>>
>>>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-
>>>>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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 