From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Fri Feb 16 03:26:28 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:26:28 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Message-ID: <000a01c7517a$40659e90$6301a8c0@hp> Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote broadcast from downtown. What's interesting about this is that much to my surprise this was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few hours the 2.4 band was trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit fuzzy as they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards Scrays hill, which I am in the path of. Pretty nice that the local TV stations use a Part 15 band and ham band! for that I thought... A quick look at the 2400-2483.5 MHz licenses in WI shows: KB55142 County: Brown JOURNAL BROADCAST CORPORATION Broadcast Callsign: WGBA EIRP: 60 dBm (1000 watts!) Transmitter Manufacturer: Microwave Radio Comm. Transmitter Model: Code Runner There are other entries, all TV related, that was the only local one I found and this interesting, because their operations are right in the middle of a ham band. Quite surprised and confused to see licenses for this.. Someone a while back point out there are licenses for stuff on the band... This one isn't government related, so quite frankly I'm confused, as it doesn't quite follow the band allocations? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20070215/917cce03/attachment.htm From rwf at bsrg.org Fri Feb 16 03:55:08 2007 From: rwf at bsrg.org (Ralph Fowler) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <000a01c7517a$40659e90$6301a8c0@hp> References: <000a01c7517a$40659e90$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: <002e01c7517e$407224e0$3701a8c0@rlaptop> It is more than just a "Ham Band". They are licensed and are primary to us! -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:26 PM To: ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote broadcast from downtown. What's interesting about this is that much to my surprise this was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few hours the 2.4 band was trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit fuzzy as they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards Scrays hill, which I am in the path of. Pretty nice that the local TV stations use a Part 15 band and ham band! for that I thought... A quick look at the 2400-2483.5 MHz licenses in WI shows: KB55142 County: Brown JOURNAL BROADCAST CORPORATION Broadcast Callsign: WGBA EIRP: 60 dBm (1000 watts!) Transmitter Manufacturer: Microwave Radio Comm. Transmitter Model: Code Runner There are other entries, all TV related, that was the only local one I found and this interesting, because their operations are right in the middle of a ham band. Quite surprised and confused to see licenses for this.. Someone a while back point out there are licenses for stuff on the band... This one isn't government related, so quite frankly I'm confused, as it doesn't quite follow the band allocations? From Jldavis at tribune.com Fri Feb 16 18:30:33 2007 From: Jldavis at tribune.com (Davis, Jack L. (KTXL)) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:30:33 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Message-ID: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> The TV remote pickup bands are 1990-2110 MHz and 2450-2483.5 MHz. These are licensed and primary users of the spectrum. In some areas there are some grandfathered permits on 2483.5-2500 MHz. Most broadcast stations generally apply for blanket licenses that cover all channels in the two bands so at any given time depending on local frequency coordination you could fine an analog FM or Digital COFDM signal on any channel at significant power. Part of this is also the ISM band and is full of microwave ovens, diathermy machines and industrial heating applications. It is amazing that wifi works at all with as many users there are in the band. Jack Davis K6YC -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Fowler [mailto:rwf at bsrg.org] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:55 PM To: 'TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11' Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast It is more than just a "Ham Band". They are licensed and are primary to us! -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:26 PM To: ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote broadcast from downtown. What's interesting about this is that much to my surprise this was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few hours the 2.4 band was trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit fuzzy as they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards Scrays hill, which I am in the path of. Pretty nice that the local TV stations use a Part 15 band and ham band! for that I thought... A quick look at the 2400-2483.5 MHz licenses in WI shows: KB55142 County: Brown JOURNAL BROADCAST CORPORATION Broadcast Callsign: WGBA EIRP: 60 dBm (1000 watts!) Transmitter Manufacturer: Microwave Radio Comm. Transmitter Model: Code Runner There are other entries, all TV related, that was the only local one I found and this interesting, because their operations are right in the middle of a ham band. Quite surprised and confused to see licenses for this.. Someone a while back point out there are licenses for stuff on the band... This one isn't government related, so quite frankly I'm confused, as it doesn't quite follow the band allocations? _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From kd4e at verizon.net Fri Feb 16 19:42:26 2007 From: kd4e at verizon.net (kd4e) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:42:26 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> Message-ID: <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> Some guys were giving a pretty close look at 5GHz. Not sure what they concluded - there was some hope for some really high speed comms with minimal competition for spectrum. > Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote broadcast from > downtown. What's interesting about this is that much to my surprise this > was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few > hours the 2.4 band was trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit > fuzzy as they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards Scrays > hill, which I am in the path of. -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 17 00:13:38 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:13:38 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Message-ID: <000a01c75228$7a64e2f0$6301a8c0@hp> Thanks for your reply Jack.. A bit if research shows you're correct. 2450-2483.5 MHz is allocated for TV auxilary broadcast. I was not aware of this. So just above the ham band, as it stops at 2450 MHz. The license I found for a different (WGBA) local TV station I found isn't anything weird after all. However what I witnessed Monday was centered on 2413 MHz, from WBAY. Could it be that what I saw from them was indeed a Part 15 thing, or do you think they were opperating under some newly formed STA? I guess now that I know a bit more about this, next week I'll call and inquire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20070216/9df58d89/attachment.htm From rt_smith at yahoo.com Sat Feb 17 03:13:46 2007 From: rt_smith at yahoo.com (Tim Smith) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:13:46 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <000a01c75228$7a64e2f0$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: There are quite a few shared-use chucks of spectrum out there which Part 15 makes us secondary in most cases. Tim -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:14 PM To: ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Thanks for your reply Jack.. A bit if research shows you're correct. 2450-2483.5 MHz is allocated for TV auxilary broadcast. I was not aware of this. So just above the ham band, as it stops at 2450 MHz. The license I found for a different (WGBA) local TV station I found isn't anything weird after all. However what I witnessed Monday was centered on 2413 MHz, from WBAY. Could it be that what I saw from them was indeed a Part 15 thing, or do you think they were opperating under some newly formed STA? I guess now that I know a bit more about this, next week I'll call and inquire. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20070216/7e696a1b/attachment.htm From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 17 12:19:12 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:19:12 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Message-ID: <000d01c7528d$d6c2de70$6301a8c0@hp> That's not how I understand things. Logic says a licensed service should have priority over unlicensed. Unless prehaps the allocation table says otherwise. Could you site some regulations or provide an example? Relevant Example: 2400-2483.5 is allocated to ISM (Part 18) Primary (for the most part), everyone else licensed, government, amateur, etc has to yield to them, and deal with any potential interference from them. Taking this a step further, Part 15 on the same band of overlapping frequencies has the lowest position, where they have to yield and deal with all of the above. Common Part 15 general rule of thumb: This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. -----Original Message----- There are quite a few shared-use chucks of spectrum out there which Part 15 makes us secondary in most cases. Tim From res04nyt at gte.net Sat Feb 17 17:37:06 2007 From: res04nyt at gte.net (res04nyt) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:37:06 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast test References: Message-ID: <001601c752ba$3fc9c150$6401a8c0@WindowsXP> test ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Smith To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:13 PM Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast There are quite a few shared-use chucks of spectrum out there which Part 15 makes us secondary in most cases. Tim -----Original Message----- From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:14 PM To: ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Thanks for your reply Jack.. A bit if research shows you're correct. 2450-2483.5 MHz is allocated for TV auxilary broadcast. I was not aware of this. So just above the ham band, as it stops at 2450 MHz. The license I found for a different (WGBA) local TV station I found isn't anything weird after all. However what I witnessed Monday was centered on 2413 MHz, from WBAY. Could it be that what I saw from them was indeed a Part 15 thing, or do you think they were opperating under some newly formed STA? I guess now that I know a bit more about this, next week I'll call and inquire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ham-80211 mailing list ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20070217/fcdb7229/attachment.htm From ooe at odessaoffice.com Sat Feb 17 22:29:37 2007 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:29:37 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> Message-ID: <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> We use 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.3ghz and 5.8ghz for our wisp. Can I be of any help in this thread? marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: "kd4e" To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast > Some guys were giving a pretty close look at > 5GHz. Not sure what they concluded - there > was some hope for some really high speed comms > with minimal competition for spectrum. > >> Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote broadcast >> from >> downtown. What's interesting about this is that much to my surprise this >> was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a >> few >> hours the 2.4 band was trashed. It started with a color test pattern a >> bit >> fuzzy as they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards >> Scrays >> hill, which I am in the path of. > > > -- > > Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com > Personal: http://bibleseven.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From kd4e at verizon.net Sun Feb 18 01:36:41 2007 From: kd4e at verizon.net (kd4e) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:36:41 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> Message-ID: <45D7ADA9.2070405@verizon.net> There is growing concern about congestion and competition for spectrum resources on 2.4. I suppose it varies somewhat based on region and on one's specific locale. How would you compare the propagation, availability of surplus devices, and spectrum congestion across those bands, please? Also, where do you see the challenges to each band in the near-term future? > We use 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.3ghz and 5.8ghz for our wisp. Can I be of > any help in this thread? marlon > >> Some guys were giving a pretty close look at 5GHz. Not sure what >> they concluded - there was some hope for some really high speed >> comms with minimal competition for spectrum. >> >>> Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote >>> broadcast from downtown. What's interesting about this is that >>> much to my surprise this was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see >>> it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few hours the 2.4 band was >>> trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit fuzzy as >>> they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards >>> Scrays hill, which I am in the path of. -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From ooe at odessaoffice.com Sun Feb 18 04:57:23 2007 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:57:23 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> <45D7ADA9.2070405@verizon.net> Message-ID: <00bd01c75319$48051950$640da8c0@mlaptop2> Oh boy, you want to cover the simple questions first eh? hehehehe answers inline: ----- Original Message ----- From: "kd4e" To: "Marlon K. Schafer" Cc: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast > There is growing concern about congestion and > competition for spectrum resources on 2.4. For sure. I've all but completely abandoned channel 6. So 22 mhz of spectrum centered on 2441 or so are gone for all practical purposes. Around 50% of my installs for the last 6 to 12 months have included a home wireless router. Out outdoor gear hears the local, or the next door neighbor, system at 20dB or more higher than my own ap's. So by by channel 6 and most anything around it. > > I suppose it varies somewhat based on region and > on one's specific locale. Yeah, but even in the country it's a problem these days. I can use 6 for backhaul if I run it at pretty high power levels (say a 20 to 30 dB fade margin vs. my normal 10), but that only creates noise MILES past the end of my link. > > How would you compare the propagation, availability > of surplus devices, and spectrum congestion across > those bands, please? Hmmm, propagation. In which band? Through what? 900mhz decent through trees and buildings. But the 4 watt power limit still brings it to a dead stop after a couple of houses or a couple of dozen trees. Half mile of dense trees I think is about all a data system will really work well for. Naturally, the trees make all of the difference..... 2.4 can go through most walls in your house, but not the wire mesh or an in ceiling heating system. Plaster and lath will also hurt distances in the home. Low E windows are a brick wall for it, you're often better to shoot through a wall than a window. 5 gig, gotta see it to do it. In all bands there are some newer technologies (ofdm, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) that can recreate scattered bits of data into one good data packet where the old systems were just confused with all of the "echos". 5.2 and the new 5.4 ghz bands will be hard to use in long distance shots due to the hard eirp limit of 1 watt. > > Also, where do you see the challenges to each band > in the near-term future? Mostly congestion. The technology and the rules have come together very nicely in the midst of a major spike in consumer demand. The license owners have mostly sat on "their" spectrum and the wisps have jumped into the gap with both feet. The technologies are doing a nice job of preventing a cb radio senario, but that'll only go so far. As more spectrum opens up and the products get cheaper we will have more room to grow. And, hopefully, the FCC will do a better job of policing the eirp cowboys in this band than they did in the cb band. I think that the fact that there is soooo much life and business being run on unlicensed bands these days, it'll be much harder to ignore than it was in the past. And trade groups like WISPA (www.wispa.org) are pushing for more rules compliance. And, if the FCC will do a better job or enforcement (I've got a complaint in against a competitor for nearly 2 years now, with no real change in his operation other than to move his amps indoors where we can't see them anymore) we'll not complain but cheer. that help at all? marlon > >> We use 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.3ghz and 5.8ghz for our wisp. Can I be of >> any help in this thread? marlon >> >>> Some guys were giving a pretty close look at 5GHz. Not sure what >>> they concluded - there was some hope for some really high speed >>> comms with minimal competition for spectrum. >>> >>>> Monday I noticed that a local TV station was doing a remote >>>> broadcast from downtown. What's interesting about this is that >>>> much to my surprise this was done on 2.4 GHz analog. I could see >>>> it with a Wavecom Jr. So for a few hours the 2.4 band was >>>> trashed. It started with a color test pattern a bit fuzzy as >>>> they were apparently aiming the remote van's antenna towards Scrays >>>> hill, which I am in the path of. > > > > -- > > Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com > Personal: http://bibleseven.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kd4e at verizon.net Sun Feb 18 18:31:14 2007 From: kd4e at verizon.net (kd4e) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:31:14 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <00bd01c75319$48051950$640da8c0@mlaptop2> References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> <45D7ADA9.2070405@verizon.net> <00bd01c75319$48051950$640da8c0@mlaptop2> Message-ID: <45D89B72.1070906@verizon.net> > I've all but completely abandoned channel 6. So 22 mhz of > spectrum centered on 2441 or so are gone for all practical purposes. > Around 50% of my installs for the last 6 to 12 months have included a > home wireless router. Out outdoor gear hears the local, or the next > door neighbor, system at 20dB or more higher than my own ap's. So by by > channel 6 and most anything around it. Understood. > 900mhz decent through trees and buildings. But the 4 watt power limit > still brings it to a dead stop after a couple of houses or a couple of > dozen trees. Half mile of dense trees I think is about all a data > system will really work well for. Naturally, the trees make all of the > difference..... Are all forms of Ham communications on 900MHz limited to 4W or only high-speed data/video? > 2.4 can go through most walls in your house, but not the wire mesh or an > in ceiling heating system. Plaster and lath will also hurt distances in > the home. Low E windows are a brick wall for it, you're often better to > shoot through a wall than a window. Hmmmm. Sounds like 70CM is more versatile. > 5 gig, gotta see it to do it. Line-of-site, like light? > 5.2 and the new 5.4 ghz bands will be hard to use in long distance shots > due to the hard eirp limit of 1 watt. Are all forms of Ham communications on 5.2 & 5.4 limited to 1W eirp or only high-speed data/video? > that help at all? marlon Every shred of data and informed perspective is valuable for planning a future strategy! -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Mon Feb 19 15:35:13 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:35:13 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast test Message-ID: <000601c7543b$8db08cf0$6301a8c0@hp> I called that station engineer today. Not much to say, other than the WBAY thing was Part 15 power, unlicensed as I assumed. Basically they have 2 other licensed channels, and use this occasionally as a back-up third, when they can make it work since they have equipment capable of it. They guy was surprised I saw their picture, and really was totally not aware of the allocation just above where they were operating. But he did know WGBA was doing something on 2.4 GHz. He did mention that Sprint & Nextel are basically taking over the lower half of 2 GHz, forcing everyone else off, such as the county and their lower channels (previous MMDS/ITMS). Though it was interesting to touch base with him..... From ooe at odessaoffice.com Mon Feb 19 16:55:42 2007 From: ooe at odessaoffice.com (Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:55:42 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast References: <9DCA470951C6D4118EAE0004ACA36A020274F36D@erd-sac-exmb1.tbc.trb> <45D60922.7070403@verizon.net> <004c01c752e3$1bc52ff0$640da8c0@mlaptop2> <45D7ADA9.2070405@verizon.net> <00bd01c75319$48051950$640da8c0@mlaptop2> <45D89B72.1070906@verizon.net> Message-ID: <007f01c75446$caead520$09ba9240@marlon> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kd4e" To: "Marlon K. Schafer" Cc: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] 2.4 GHz remote broadcast >> I've all but completely abandoned channel 6. So 22 mhz of spectrum >> centered on 2441 or so are gone for all practical purposes. Around 50% >> of my installs for the last 6 to 12 months have included a home wireless >> router. Out outdoor gear hears the local, or the next door neighbor, >> system at 20dB or more higher than my own ap's. So by by channel 6 and >> most anything around it. > > Understood. > >> 900mhz decent through trees and buildings. But the 4 watt power limit >> still brings it to a dead stop after a couple of houses or a couple of >> dozen trees. Half mile of dense trees I think is about all a data system >> will really work well for. Naturally, the trees make all of the >> difference..... > > Are all forms of Ham communications on 900MHz > limited to 4W or only high-speed data/video? I'm not a ham. I don't know..... > >> 2.4 can go through most walls in your house, but not the wire mesh or an >> in ceiling heating system. Plaster and lath will also hurt distances in >> the home. Low E windows are a brick wall for it, you're often better to >> shoot through a wall than a window. > > Hmmmm. > > Sounds like 70CM is more versatile. Almost everything is more versital that what I get to use! > >> 5 gig, gotta see it to do it. > > Line-of-site, like light? basically, yes. Again, there are radios out there that can take the glare from the lights as it reflects around a corner and use it to do the equivalent of reading your license plate. But they are very spendy yet. As a rule, we can do many amazing things as long as we remember to keep the path clear. > >> 5.2 and the new 5.4 ghz bands will be hard to use in long distance shots >> due to the hard eirp limit of 1 watt. > > Are all forms of Ham communications on 5.2 & 5.4 > limited to 1W eirp or only high-speed data/video? I must, again, claim ignorance. > >> that help at all? marlon > > Every shred of data and informed perspective is > valuable for planning a future strategy! Grin. I hear that! > > > -- > > Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com > Personal: http://bibleseven.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 20 03:50:34 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:50:34 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast Message-ID: <000601c754a2$47be2fb0$6301a8c0@hp> >Are all forms of Ham communications on 5.2 & 5.4 limited to 1W eirp or only >high-speed data/video?Short answer: Max achievable EIRP is 946.4 Kilo-watts >for Part 97, or obviously the minimum necessary to carry out the >communications, just like any other thing in ham radio.Nothing overlaps at >5.2 GHz... more so 5.6 & 5.7 see these >links:http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html From kd4e at verizon.net Tue Feb 20 04:13:30 2007 From: kd4e at verizon.net (kd4e) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Ham-80211] Re: 2.4 GHz remote broadcast In-Reply-To: <000601c754a2$47be2fb0$6301a8c0@hp> References: <000601c754a2$47be2fb0$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: <45DA756A.5050202@verizon.net> > > Steve wrote: >> Are all forms of Ham communications on 5.2 & 5.4 limited to 1W eirp or >> only high-speed data/video?Short answer: Max achievable EIRP is 946.4 >> Kilo-watts for Part 97, or obviously the minimum necessary to carry >> out the communications, just like any other thing in ham radio.Nothing >> overlaps at 5.2 GHz... more so 5.6 & 5.7 see these >> links:http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html >> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html Awesome resource, thanks! These were VERY amusing to read, especially the EIRP! 900 MHz (non spread spectrum i.e 802.11g) 1500 watts (per 97.313) 14 dBd yagi 37.8 Kilo-watts What sort of surplus amplifier hardware is available for 900MHz and at what sort of prices, please? I hate to think of the price tag on a 1.5KW 900MHz amp! 2.4 GHz (non spread spectrum i.e. 802.11g) 1500 watts (per 97.313) 24 dBi partial parabolic 376.8 Kilo-watts Generating 1.5KW on 2.4GHz is not within the reach of the average Ham, even 150W may be tough, though that still equals 37.7KW EIRP! :-) The 3.3GHz transverter http://www.ubnt.com/sr3_faq.php4 is interesting for many reasons: 1. It interfaces with the Atheros Linux MadWiFi driver. 2. It takes a consumer off-the-shelf 2.4 GHz 802.11 hardware and puts it on the 3.3GHz Ham band. 3. 100W x 25 dBi dish = 31.6 Kilo-watts EIRP!! Questions: 1. What is this device likely to cost? 2. Are amplifiers available surplus and what are they likely to cost? 3. Same question re. high gain 3.3GHz antennas and the associated cables/waveguides? 4. Distance and signal toleration in bad weather? It is so much fun to learn new things in Ham radio! -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~