Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Tim Gorman ab0wr at ab0wr.net
Mon May 22 23:49:24 UTC 2006


On Monday 22 May 2006 11:16, jeff at aerodata.net wrote:
> >> 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.

If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. I was *trying* to use your 
logic train on other instances. If you don't like the paths that your logic 
takes, then perhaps you should examine your logic. In one instance you claim 
there shouldn't be any laws regulating operational power limits with SS on 
VHF and UHF and now you claim the operational power limit laws on HF should 
be enforced, not ignored. A rather inconsistent point of view at the very 
least. 

Why do you not answer the question of why hams on HF shouldn't be allowed to 
run 5kw or even 10kw output when the situation would be helped with the 
additional power. You said it would be a good thing on UHF and above if the 
APC power control limits were removed on SS. Why wouldn't it be a good thing 
if they were removed for SSB on HF?

>
> 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.

I gave you an instance of where Part 15 interfering with Part 15 occurred. And 
this wasn't even with jacked up power levels. 

How can I give you an example of such occurring when so few hams are involved 
with running high power? Why do you think it hasn't been an issue? 

If you are puzzled by the whole matter, you should ask why the ARRL brought 
forth the regulation change at this point in time.

If it really does NOT inhibit experimentation, then why did the ARRL say that 
it does?

The only logical conclusion that I have been able to come to is that it is, in 
fact, inhibiting actual *implementations* that some hams want to do using 
high power and they want to be free of the APC restriction because it is 
"inconvenient". Rather than coming out and saying this, which would be highly 
impolitic, they have masked the regulation change in mumbo-jumbo that is 
technically inaccurate. They did exactly the same thing with the bandwidth 
regulation proposal. It is technically unsound and not backed with any kind 
of spectrum usage studies or interference mitigation studies. The ARRL should 
have provided exactly the same kind of studies for this proposal but did not.

My confidence in the ability of the ARRL to exhibit even a minimum of 
technical competency with regards to regulation proposals is at an all time 
low. 

>
> 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.

I have no knowledge of any examples where you start experimenting with high 
power *first* and then move to low power. That is the whole point I was 
making.

I am in the process of experimenting with a pair of Linksys wifi routers. That 
is how I found the 802.11h routines in the DDWRT firmware load. Those 
routines do appear to be limited to the 802.11a protocol. They should be 
usable for any protocol carried over the router. 

1 watt is only a golden number in that it is a reasonable power level to reach 
the radio horizon for a minimal installation using reasonable antennas. If 
you want to do point-to-point using higher gain antennas then much less than 
1 watt is needed. 1 watt is only a good *starting* point. And the nice thing 
is that no APC is needed. Should you use it even at that power level? Of 
course. 


>
> >> > 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.

Huh? "no one has answered" means exactly what it says. An answer that is not 
an answer is exactly that - not an answer. You can't morph it into an answer 
no matter how hard you try. 

>
> > 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.

Yep. It would be. And the APC formula for SS is a good engineering guideline 
that should not be violated either. I haven't painted anyone with a broad 
brush of libel. You are grasping at straws now. Just as the FCC stated in 
1999, the rule provides for good neighbors in that spectrum where amateur 
radio has to coexist with others. If you want to make the rules even more 
detailed so that specific spectrum bands are specified along with specific 
power limitations for each spectrum band then you are going to violate your 
own stance against additional regulation. 

You keep trying to have it both ways. Pick one and stay with it.


>
> > 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.

Really? You have a radio horizon far in excess of this? For experimental 
purposes? On what frequency? Might I ask just how high your antenna is and 
just what you are using for feedline to reach that height? Are you trying to 
implement a point-to-multipoint, multipoint-to-point, or point-to-point 
system?

And have you done the FCC APC calculation for power levels? You can run enough 
power to keep the received signal 23 db above the noise and the co-channel 
interference. Just how much power do you need to do this?


>
> >> 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.

You know, this is exactly like listening to my son try to explain why he needs 
a 400 hp Mustang to go to the corner store for groceries. The fact that the 
Mustang exists means it will get used - for whatever purposes the owner 
wants. It doesn't matter what Ford designed the car for. Again, I don't know 
what is so hard to grasp about this concept.

>
> 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.

It doesn't matter if a police officer throws a piece of trash out of a patrol 
car or if the local drunk does - it is still pollution. Exactly the same 
thing applies to Part 15, Part 95, Part 97, and whatever. The radio spectrum 
is the radio spectrum. If you pollute it then you pollute it. It doesn't 
matter what part you are licensed under. It doesn't matter what kind of 
technical test you have to take to get an operators license. 

The part you seem to be ignoring is that high powered SS stations *WILL* 
overflow our sandbox in rather short order - in both our dedicated spectrum 
as well as our shared spectrum.


>
> 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....
>

The camp's name? Concerned amateur radio operators that see such technical 
garbage coming out of the ARRL. If you really want to see some technical 
analysis of the subject go to the TAPR site and look up the doctoral thesis 
that was done on the subject of multiple SS sites in a metropolitan area and 
how power control *must* be done to make such a thing viable. 

This is *NOT* a political decision. It is a technical decision that will 
determine the future of SS for a long time to come.

tim ab0wr




More information about the ham-80211 mailing list