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

[jeff at aerodata.net]

>> So your saying another law to make up for another law that people
>> already
>> are not following?
>
> Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow
> the law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no
> speed limits on the
> highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on.

Tim:

I've noticed you have a habit of putting words in people's mouths. I never
said if people don't follow laws, get rid of them. Those are your claims.
If anything, if a law isn't being followed, then it does need to be
enforced. You seem to cite multiple cases on HF of people running
excessive power. What I suggest to you, is for you to log these calls, and
write a letter to the FCC. At least in the case of "good amateur
practice", the FCC does pay attention to this one.

Still, I have noticed, you have not cited a single instance of a ham
violating the APC rules or running excessive power on spread spectrum.
This is why I earlier brought up the chicken little scenario. In fact,
even though you or others have brought up part 97 interfering with Part
15, you have not demostrated a single instance of this occuring (to a
WISP). The same cannot be said of Part 15 interfering with Part 97, as the
FCC has proscuted cases of this sort.

> But the APC rule does NOT affect experimentation. No one on here has yet
> to point out a scenario where it does. They just complain that it *does*.

No, your right, it does not stop experimentation, it is just an additional
step before Joe Ham puts his spread spectrum rig on the air.

> When I
> build a transmitter (I am working on one now) I don't build the PA first
> and try to run it at maximum power allowed. I build it up and experiment
> at *low*
> power levels first. I don't know of any engineer I respect who starts out
> experimenting at high power first.

OK, and can you give any examples of in the ham community that start at
high power first? And tell us about the APC circuit you have implemented?
Since you such an advocate of legally mandated APC, you must know that 1
watt is no golden number by any means... cell phones implement APC into
the milliwatt range. And then to legally require hams to run APC when all
those Part 15 WISP's are not? Seems kinda rear backwards to me.


>> > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS
>> point-to-point
>> > link.
>>
>> I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link
>> margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook.
>
> He gave no viable answers at all.

Maybe, but do note that "no one" (your words) means zero responses. This
Joe Izuzu act you are putting on may work where you come from, but it
doesn't play for me.

> Just rationalizations for blasting away
> at full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or
> not.

That would be a violation of 97.313(a). A federal crime. It seems to be
before you start painting with a broad brush of libel against all amateur
spread spectrum experimenters, that you might give us a example or two of
amateurs running SS that are in fact doing this. In other words, show us
the money Tim.

> The *very* rationale that you seem to think amateurs don't indulge in.

I never said they didn't. I asked for some specfic examples, preferabbly
of the class that is in question here (spread spectrum hams). I really
don't think this to much to ask for.


> I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for fixed
> point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, especially
> with
> high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain.

Of course I have. But some of us have radio horizon's far in excess of
this. And not every ham uses spread spectrum in a manner you think they
might. This of course is the beauty of ham radio.

>> Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you
>> cite,
>> are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying,
>> boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB
>> radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big
>> goverment boys do know a thing or two.
>
> Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is?

Ahhh.... yeah?!?  If I watched more TV, I'd say this is one of those Homer
Simpson "duh" moments, but I've only heard that from other people when I
stated stupid things.

Tim, Part 15 and Part 95 (CB radio) are highly regulated services, where
the individials that participate in them are not licensed. Amateur radio
operators on the other hand, have to take a regulatory and technical test
AND have to submit to FCC adminstrative law. You thoughts and concepts
make great sense for Part15/95 services. But the basis and purpose of
amateur radio (97.1) does not agree with many of your thoughts in a broad
sense. Amateur radio ideally is a sandbox. As long as we keep our sand in
our box, and it doesn't overflow the box, that should be about the extent
of the FCC rules.

My suggestion to you, take a look at 97.1, and if your still upset at what
you see, petition the FCC to bring even bigger goverment and more rules
into amateur radio then already exists.

>> Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"?
>
> The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that
> isn't in your camp?

No, of course not. I just was hoping you might identify the camp's name....

-Jeff