Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Tim Gorman ab0wr at ab0wr.net
Thu May 18 17:06:15 UTC 2006

Contrary to other posts, I can find nothing in any FCC documentation that 
shows they approaced the ARRL about dropping the APC requirement. And since 
this is a public proceeding, it will cost you little to add your comments to 
the proceeding at this time. If you do not comment on it and it becomes 
reality *then* you could incur significant legal costs trying to fight the 
isse as a seconcdary user of the spectrum.

I an an amateur radio operator with two Linksys wrt54g wireless routers I have 
modified the firmware on. I have been looking at purchasing amplifiers to up 
their output to establish an omni-directional hubbed network. Amplifiers with 
moderate power levels are not that expensive. Dropping the APC requirement 
*would* make it easier to implement the current FCC requirements. Meeting 
current requirements would require applications to make use of the 802.11h 
modules in the modified firmware I am using. It *will* require additional 
work over just buying off-the-shelf stuff and using it.

Having said that, I have to tell you I have already posted comments against 
the proposal. After thinking about it a lot I came to the conclusion that APC 
*is* the technological path to follow to limit spectrum pollution, be it 
pollution in the Part 15 or Part 97 arena. Hams are supposed to engineer 
their equipment based on sound engineering practice and judgment. 
Implementing APC *is* exhibiting sound engineering practice and judgment. 
While you can argue that philosophically amateurs will implement APC on their 
own without it being in the rules, pragmatically that is not the case. The 
ARRL in their proposal admits this by basically saying APC, as formulated by 
the FCC, is too hard for amateurs to do. Basically, that is a crock. 
Conceptually, it is easy to do in any FHSS system. It is hard to do in a DSSS 
system because trying to identify signal strengths of narrow band signals is 
difficult in a DSSS system. But I'm sure some DSP processing could handle 

Anyway, as you can see there are probably lots of varying views on this 
subject. You need to think your position through and put in your comments, 
while I think it is past the comment date, I think the FCC will still accept 
comments as long as they aren't actively in the process of analyzing them.

tim ab0wr

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:03, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
> Hi All,
> As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the
> 2.4 gig band.  When using APC you can run very high wattage.  I can't
> remember if it's 100 or 1000.  This is for video as I recall.
> There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement.  As a board member of the
> Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to
> ask for your input on the issue.
> WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical
> purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites.  And much of the gear is
> contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great
> headaches and gnashing of teeth.
> We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM
> community first.
> Are there people using this ability today?
> What's it used for?
> Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use?
> Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to
> drop the APC requirement?
> Am I missing anything?  Asking the wrong questions etc?
> Thanks all!
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp!
> (net meeting)
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
> _______________________________________________
> 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