Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:00:53 -0600
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>

To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] Observations

Finally some activity on this list.  To bad nobody is really building
anything.  It seems to be all typical ham-hype.. talk about and maybe
do it a few years later when the technology is outdated.  Thats the
problem, thats why we are always at least 20 years behind the real
world.

For anyone interested in an inexpensive wireless networking using
part 15 wireless ethernet devices at greater distances here is a link
to my well documented modifications. 

http://www.dct.com/~multiplx/wireless

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:54:15 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: Looking for Part 15 Solution 


Nothing personal against the gentlemen who asked for input about
part 15 wireless linking for his customers.. however may I suggest
you check this list for help;
http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/

I'd like to read more about what hams are doing at higher power
levels converting/using these units for part 97 use.

Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR
Low cost wireless network http://www.dct.com/~multiplx/wireless

PS: please contact me if you have built your own amp for 2.4 GHz

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:10:08 -0500
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? 

We are already doing it.  And so are others. 

http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR

> I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that 
> is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating 
> us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas.  Just 
> think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and 
> co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower.  We could 
> have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of 
> sight of the repeater.  This would be especially nice for those of us who 
> live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be 
> an option.  Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems 
> silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same 
> privileges that non-licensed users enjoy.  The main benefit for us is that we 
> could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance).  We 
> could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else.

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:30:08 -0500
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html

Don't believe everything you read on TAPR's webpage.  Most of it is
outdated.

Here is an outdated excerpt from
http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html#wp15
> Amateurs should realize that under the present Part 97 rules and regulations governing amateur
> spread spectrum today, taking a Part 15 spread spectrum device and adding an amplifier to it
> would break the rules. Even though it would be transmitting within the amateur spectrum, it more
> than likely would not be using one of the specified spreading codes assigned to amateur operation
> (refer to Sec. 97.311 Section (d) - SS emission types). However, this should not deter the radio
> amateur from using Part 15 devices in their experimentation or use in the amateur service. The
> device should be monitored to ensure that it remains under the Part 15 regulations and as such, no
> Part 97 regulations apply. Amateur traffic can flow though Part 15 devices, and they do not require
> a callsign since they do not require a license. However, the radio amateur should realize that when
> the traffic enters the amateur bands, for example, through a gateway, then Part 97 rules begin to
> apply. 

Almost a full year ago the SS rules where relaxed.. So I highly recommend adding an amplifier to a Part 
15 spread spectrum device.  I'm beginning to think TAPR doesn't want to advance the digital radio art. 
They seem happy with ARPS.  Also the so-called 900 MHz FHHS radio kit/project, (it's been 4 years now 
guys) doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  Besides the average ham population won't want to
mess with a kit, they either won't have the time or knowledge to do it. 

So why not buy a part 15 SS ethernet card, add a high gain antenna/amplifer and do 2 Mbps and up
TODAY.... and STOP talking about it!  It's affordable, & easy to implement..  It makes sense to me

Here is a brief overview/comparison of the current rules from: 
http://www.qsl.net/kb9wmr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Parts 15.205, 15.209 & 15.247 FCC Rules for ISM bands:
******************************************************
- Connectors must be hard to find
- +36 dBm (3.981 Watts) EIRP RF output power  (1 watt w/ 6dBi antenna gain)
- Maximum +30 dBm (1 W) RF power output at product's connector
- Spurious emissions in the 2390 and 2483.5 MHz bands must be lower than -41 dBm
- ISM Bands are: 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5 MHz, 5725 - 5875 MHz


Part 97.311 Spread Spectum FCC Rules for Ham bands:
***************************************************
97.311 SS emission types

(a) SS emission transmissions by an amateur station are authorized only
    for communications between points within areas where the amateur
    service is regulated by the FCC and between an area where the
    amateur service is regulated by the FCC and an amateur station in another
    country that permits such communications.  SS emission transmissions 
    must not be used for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any
    communication.
(b) A station transmitting SS emissions must not cause harmful 
    interference to stations employing other authorized emissions, and
    must accept all interference caused by stations employing other
    authorized modes.
(c) When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with
    this Part, a station licensee must:
  (1) Cease SS emission transmissions;
  (2) Restrict SS emission transmissions to the extent instructed; and 
  (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information (voice,
      test, image, etc.) of all spread spectrum communications
      transmitted.
(d) The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances.
    If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit
    output power to that which is required for the communication.  This
    shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the
    receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the
    received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel
    interference (I0).  Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be
    automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/(N0+I0) ratio of no more
    than 23 dB at the intended receiver.

Amateur Band Allocations:
*************************

902 - 928 MHz       Secondary to industrial, scientific and medical 
                    devices; automatic vehicle monitoring systems, and 
                    government stations. 

2300 - 2305 MHz     Secondary - No primary amateur service
2305 - 2310 MHz     Secondary to fixed, mobile and radiolocation services
2390 - 2400 MHz     Primary
2400 - 2402 MHz     Secondary - No primary amateur service
2402 - 2417 MHz     Primary
2417 - 2450 MHz     Co-secondary with government radiolocation(industrial,
                    scientific and medical are primary)
2450 - 2483.5 MHz   Industrial, scientific and medical

5650 - 5725 MHz     Co-secondary with space research (deep space) service
5725 - 5850 MHz     Secondary - No primary amateur service
5850 - 5925 MHz     Secondary to non-government fixed-satellite service

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
[note: some drivers for various cards let you control how/where they hop]
[Direct sequence systems can be set for frequencies centered below 2.45.]
[Proxim will change the country code to that of Australia if you provide
a copy of your ham license.  That puts it in frequencies below 2.45.]
-You need to ID in a known and accepted form every 10 min.
(I suggest using an AXIP driver set to send and AX.25 ID frame every 10
min)
-100 watts (PEP) max for spread modes
-More than 1 watt (PEP) requires automatic transmitter power control 

What it boils down to in my book is this:  Ham radio is far behind the
modern radio world, its time for a big kick in the butt.. Or you can keep 
your 1200 baud AX.25, and watch the hobby die.  Your choice.

Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:37:22 -0400
From: Jeff King <jeff@a...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html

Again, please consider the broader issues here even though some
"old news" specifics (as examples) where listed.

Steve Dimse wrote:

> On 6/24/00 4:20 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote:

> >> In the 5 years or so I have been associated with TAPR, a single spread
> >> spectrum project has been brought to us. This has been very heavily
> >> supported, but even then, we are at the mercy of those voluteers working
> >> on the project.
> >
> >Hmmm.... that's not true. What about Randy Roberts offer in Feb of 1997?
> >
> >See:     http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9702/msg00004.html
> >
> There are a couple key clauses in this offer that explain why this never
> happened:

HOLD ON now. Your now admitting there was indeed another offer!! That's
what I was saying. The fellow was handing you a design that was quite far
along. His clauses seemed quite reasonable  to me and they were publicly
stated (we still don't know what the clauses where on the TAPR SS radio) I
think the real issue is he was a TAPR outsider *and* he just wanted to release his
design for amateur use (i.e. no Part 15 commercial sales). It was also clear to me
their were some amount of friction between him and one of the TAPR SS team members.

Of course that's my opinion based on observation.... And I'm not even saying this
declining of his offer (through neglect) was a bad choice at the time, its just
disingenuous of you to state that no-one has come forward
to TAPR with a spread spectrum project.


> >Now.... at the risk of being compared to space aliens and Elvis again., what
> >many don't know is the TAPR SS radio was a "black" project at or very
> >near that time. Meaning the project was funded, but not yet announced to the
> >membership (I had been told this firsthand by one of the BOD members at the
> >time). More then a few of the membership got upset when this was discovered.
> >
> I do not want to imply something into your words that is not there, but
> are you saying that the above offer was not accepted because there was
> already an SS project being supported by TAPR? Please clarify....

As a member of the BOD, your in a better position that answer that question then me.

All I know for a fact is that TAPR officers and board members organized a design team
for "their" spread spectrum project where as Randy was left to his own resources to
assemble one. This is fairly well documented so no need for me to imply anything
there as the timelines speak for themselves. And here we are today. Can't
change the past, but we can change the future...... only if we are willing.

As a TAPR BOD member, are you willing?


> I>I know three times I offered to get a group buy together
> >with little/no help from TAPR for commercial SS radios.
> >
> Several attempts at group buys have been made. All fell through for one
> reason or another.

I know about FreeWave (and I also know both sides of the story on that one)
.... what other ones fell through?


> Generally, the manufacturers are uninterested in
> dealing with low volume purchases (and even if every member of TAPR buys
> 2, the manufacturers consider this low volume), especially when the
> equipment is to be used for other than its intended purpose.

Since your cutting and pasting Greg's original message, why don't you just cut and
paste my response to this blanket claim?  What your really saying
here is TAPR is not interested in doing a group purchase. Which is FINE,
just say that instead of whining how no-one volunteers.


> >
> >I can go on with other examples, but my point is that its just not as
> >simple as
> >volunteering or asking for help....
> >
> When such negotations are being attempted, they can be very sensitive.

Your making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Like I said, go back and read
the message you where cutting and pasting (here is my earlier response to
these defeatist type comments)

http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/0001/msg00033.html

The point is, if there is a will, there is a way. And the point I believe
these modern day posters was raising is there was no will.

> I too am sorry none of these
> worked out, but the attempts were made to the best of TAPR's ability. I'm
> sorry if you feel that you were left out of the process.

Sorry? Thanks, but I'm OK. Didn't stop me from buying FreeWave radios (10 so far)
or Wavelans or Proxims or... Not the point. At the risk of displaying alot of
bravado, I'm sorry for TAPR for not taking advantage of the skills of their
membership. I'm confident I could have made a deal go through.

Its my _opinion_ that TAPR avoided/suppressed group buys so as not
to dilute the user base for the TAPR, now Dandin, SS radio.  From a business
perspective, I can understand how TAPR would have done this as it would have
diluted there then as yet unannounced TAPR SS radios user base. Yet when you
and others start hooting off how you don't get enough volunteers, I need to point
out its not always as simple as volunteering.

Which was my modern day point.


> >I'd like to see TAPR return to its distant roots....a organization that is
> >more a peer based R&D organization. Then, and only then, will the statement 
> >"membership supported research and development organization" not have a hollow 
> >meaning. We all need to work together and the TAPR membership *can* contribute 
> >alot to this.
> >
> >Give it some thought. You and the board are now in a unique position to
> >change the course.
> >Take advantage of it.
> >
> I think it _is_ a peer-based R&D organization. The peers are those people
> doing R&D...people with ideas that are willing to dedicate their own time
> to developing those ideas.

> To people that are not in that group it may
> sound like elitism,

You have had four people in as many days question this, and it appears all four
have done SS projects on their own. Yet, all four seem to have a problem
with the way TAPR has done things in the past.

http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/
http://www.gbonline.com/~multiplx/wireless/
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html

Or you just don't care?


> It doesn't matter how great a need is, or how many people want to buy a
> product, unless there  are volunteers that have the skills, time, and
> drive to produce it, TAPR can't do it. Wishing won't change that, only a
> few million will.

What I am "wishing" for won't take a few million. Here were some of
my specific suggestions  that I will outline clearly so you don't miss
them this time. These are questions specifically for the BOD, which the
BOD can only address

1. What do you think about some sort of term limits for TAPR BOD/Officers?
This is more complicated then it looks, efforts will have to be made to increase the
number of people running for the board. Yet it is doable and will promote diversity
of views within TAPR

2. What do you think about TAPR reaching out to other organizations (my unanswered
NordLink question might be a good place to start)? There really is alot that TAPR,
and its membership, is missing.

3. Better communications with the membership. (The much tauted TAPR-ORG board
has only had one previous posting on it, my question about the Dayton update) I see
you didn't even bother to use it yourself in responding to this message..... better suited
although I suspect the audience would be far less. How many people even know that
the TAPR president resigned in May (that didn't go to Dayton)?

As a TAPR member it disturbs me when I see comments such as Steve Lampereur,
Jack Kerouac, N8xlr and others make. Yet, there is some basis to truth in these. All
these fellows have given up on TAPR, they let their memberships lapse. I've been
a member for 16 years, and hope the organization can return to its roots. Yet when I see
a BOD member so quickly dismiss these concerns, it really bothers me.

This whole "Dandin issue", or more specifically the mindset that allowed it to happen, I
had hoped had gone away. It seems like it still lives on. I hope this changes and now
seemed like a good time in "TAPR history" for the board to take proactive measures to
change the future.

Flame me all you want, but I hope the BOD considers some of the issues at a later date.

-Jeff

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:27 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html 

Well first off I want to apologize.  Obviously I opened a can of worms.
I would also like to clarify that I don't expect TAPR to do anything, 
other than use their power of influence to promote the future of digital
communications properly.  They don't need to build anything or spend 
any money to make me happy.  Nor do I care about the internal affairs 
of TAPR in anyway.

A lot of hams look at TAPR and what they are doing and promoting.  And
when TAPR's web material is outdated, hams are led astray.  It's just
my observation that TAPR doesn't seem to be promoting the idea of using 
modified part 15 wireless devices as much as they should be.

Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 20:08:54 -0600
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] Re: SS project page updated

I was trying to find particulars about the 900 MHz FHSS project and
eventually found "An Amateur 900 MHz Spread Spectrum Radio Design" at:
http://tprs.org/publications/qr_arch/Aug97.PDF

I assume this what TAPR has been working at since 1997?  With the end
result being a; 1 watt, 128 Kbps, 900 MHz FHSS device running some sort
of embeded Linux?

I guess I'm not overly impressed yet.  Is there a projected time of
completion yet or projected cost?

Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR

Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Cards for Amateur Radio:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:22:47 -0400
From: Jeff King <jeff@a...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
CC: netsig@lists.tapr.org
Subject: [ss] Re: SS, Ricochet, etc



Steve Lampereur wrote:

> We don't have any Ricochet coverage over here so the 900 MHz
> band is fairly quite over here.  And where there is Ricochet
> coverage many hams complain that the 900 MHz band is trashed.
> For those hams, I suggest that you start using the band, and
> they will have to leave as Part 15 has no real rights.

I don't want to start a juhad here, but in practice, I don't think it 
is practical. How would you encourage Metricom (other then bankruptcy) to vacate
900mhz in a deployed urban area? Or your neighbors 900mhz phone? Heck, 
the ARRL and Metricom worked  hand in hand trying to give little reason 
for hams to use off the shelf spread spectrum gear (i.e. automatic power control). 
It is no surprise it hasn't taken off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for encouraging spread spectrum use, but I
see little advantage to operating under part 97, at least if I'm going to
be using off the shelf SS gear, of which I don't have access to the firmware.

> Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR
> High Speed Packet Radio Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Cards:
> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

BTW, you site is regularly mentioned on the wireless ISP (WISP) list. This is
a mailing list for Part 15 experimenters and ISP resellers. Good job.


-Jeff

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:44:56 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: SS, Ricochet, etc

Your right there is little chance of bumping off something like
Metricom from 900 MHz.  If we would have been using the 900 & 2.4 
bands to begin with they probably wouldn't have been allocated for 
ISM as well, and the ARRL probably would of put up a stink about 
the automatic power bologna.  Personally I see no "real" difference
between operating part 97 & part 15 on these bands.  The only 
advantage is the ability to run more power if you need it in the 
first place.  Which can come in handy if you have a lot of 
interference issues to overcome (especially for multipoint links)

My thoughts are of hams can make further part 15 operation on 
these bands difficult as a result of their (somewhat) higher power
co-existing network, this is a step in the right direction to 
ever so slowly reclaiming the band(s).

Also I don't think we will ever see a "part 97" wireless ethernet 
type of card operating in "our portion of the band" (unshared with
ISM) unless we start showing interest and start using what's out there
on the shared bands. 

When trying to promote the use of wireless ethernet to hams the 
words "Part 97 & Amateur Radio" seems to draw more attention and is 
probably more comforting to some. 

[Don't confuse me for someone else Jeff.. Like I said I see no "real"
difference between part 15 & 97 operation.  I'm still that 22 yr old
who has lost most all interest in traditional amateur radio.  I
really could care less what other hams do.]

Your last couple lines confuse me.  You make "off the shelf SS gear"
sound like a bad thing.  What is the difference between "off the shelf
SS gear" and ?? TAPR's 900 MHz radio?

>I don't want to start a juhad here, but in practice, I don't think it 
>is practical. How would you encourage Metricom (other then bankruptcy) 
>to vacate 900mhz in a deployed urban area? Or your neighbors 900mhz 
>phone? Heck, the ARRL and Metricom worked hand in hand trying to give 
>little reason for hams to use off the shelf spread spectrum gear (i.e. 
>automatic power control). It is no surprise it hasn't taken off.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for encouraging spread spectrum use, but I
>see little advantage to operating under part 97, at least if I'm going 
>to be using off the shelf SS gear, of which I don't have access to the 
>firmware.

[Maybe someone should develop a high power (non-SS) sweeping wideband 
umm.. "propagation beacon" for these shared bands.  :) ]

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:55:44 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: SS, Ricochet, etc


Jeff,

First before I forget thanks for the Ricochet info.. & I know about the
WISP stuff.

Part 97.311(d) :
>(d) The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances.
>    If more than 1 W is used,  automatic transmitter control shall limit
>    output power to that which is required for the communication.  This
>    shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the receiver,
>    of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the
>    received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel
>    interference (I0).  Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be
>    automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/(N0+I0) ratio of no more
>    than 23 dB at the intended receiver.

There have never been and ERP limits for amateur radio, that I know of.
(Like 1500 watts PEP not ERP)  Part 97.311 makes no reference to ERP, 
PEP is implied by tht words "transmitter power". (instead of radiated 
power) I could be wrong here, but thats how I see it.

So..

Part 97:
Just under 1 watt PEP (or more with auto pwr ctrl) + your max antenna 
gain 

verses: 

Part 15's 
(which ever is greater:) 1 watt PEP / 4 watt EIRP limit 

(I don't have calculator handy so I'm not goig to dive into calculating
the possible ERP for Part 97)

>How can you do that? The limit on both part 97 and part 15 is 1 watt
>unless you implement automatic power control on the part 97 equipment.
>This even applies with point to point links. And how do you apply
>automatic power control to a piece of Part 15 equipment that you don't
>have access to the firmware source?

True it would be hard but can be done with hardware in the amplifer
as I believe HyperAmp and other do it..

>One exists, and one doesn't, for one. And the "off the shelf" gear I am
>referring to was the Part 15 stuff. Certainly not a bad thing, but most
>(all?) part 15 gear cannot be adapted to the subtleties of Part 97, 
>which requires automatic power control for > 1 watt.

The only stuff that can't be easily adapted for ham use is 2.4 GHz, 
FHSS stuff because the band plan doesn't match up.  And automatic 
power control is only an issue for 1 watt or more PEP.  In which case
you need commercial amps likes I said before.

>Yet, as you know, 900mhz penetrates much better then 2.4ghz, and 
>most rural consumers would be happy to get a 24/7 128-256kbaud
>line. There really is a problem with high speed internet in rural areas, 
>that in my opinion would be much better addressed by a decent 900mhz 
>FH radio.  Now, the only decent 900mhz radio that exists is the 
>FreeWave, and it is to expensive, and in any case, is not tcp/ip 
>friendly. 

True, that's why I asked about an estimated cost for TAPR's 900 MHz 
radio.. 900 MHz FHSS would be nice and I'm all for it.

As for trying to promote the use of wireless ethernet to hams.  I 
realize for the most part it's a waste of time.  Most hams are 
stubborn, and resist change.  My goal is not really to attract new 
blood, but to try to advance our present technology.  If that ever 
happens I think new blood will come forth by itself.  New modes take
years to catch on. (ex: SSB vs. AM)  I know there are few out there
probably lurking this list (waiting for the TAPR radio to come out), 
who will (in the mean time) try adapting part 15 gear.  Those few hams
are the audience I seek not the old moldy guys on HF or the guys on 2
meters who can't put on a PL259.  If it's all the same to you I will 
keep on trying till I'm sick of it and leave the hobby as there is 
nothing left for me.

I urge anyone interested in adapting part 15 gear for part 97 to 
check out the link below for legal implementation:

High Speed Amateur Packet Radfio Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Cards:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Ha ha ha.... that reminds me of the time I was banned from a local clubs field
day for some of my opinions I had expressed, but I digress ;-)   Seriously though, 
you have ham radio and then you have amateur radio. You don't have to participate in 
ham radio to be a amateur radio operator. The FCC allows you to experiment with these 
frequencies by granting you a license. It is even written in the rules as one purpose 
of amateur radio. So don't give up. Like I said before, what you are doing is making
a impact, maybe not in ham radio, but most certainly with radio experimenters. 


73

Jeff

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:49:09 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@l...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: SS,Amature Radio

On the subject of modifying / buying off the shelf FHSS gear with a
modified band plan for amateur use:

>All PC modem cards come with software which enables you to change
>the country settings. Setting the wrong one will take modem parameters
>outside national or regional (EU, ETSI) standards. Nothing more than
>a warning against modifying your modem in this way is required in the
>handbook.

A simple warning makes sense to me.  No company can really prevent an
anyone from modifying something, I doubt they could be held responsible
for something wrong the consumer does with their product.  But I'm not
sure what kind of restrictions manufactures have to abide by.  

Just for everyone's info most of wireless cards out there are obviously
mass produced and have undocumented (pre set) settings for US, France,
Spain and Japan band plans. (And some manufactures have settings for
other countries) The manufacture sets this county code using special
software) to the county where the product will be sold.  And setting
or changing the county code adjusts the frequency operating range, and
power output slightly to comply with that particular countries
standards.

However the only two counties that I know of that have ISM band plans
that end before 2450 MHz (end of the US amateur overlap) are Australia
and Saudi Arabia.

So if you can sweet talk a manufacture to sell you a FHSS card 
programmed with either of those countries codes your in business. 
It would be even better if we (hams) could easily change these
parameters ourselves somehow.  This is why I think it would be well
worth the time to reverse compile some of the drivers out there, you
might just figure out how to change these parameters yourself.

Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Cards For Amateur Radio:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:27:00 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: SS,Amature Radio

At least that helps protect the 2.4 GHz amateur band.  In most large
US cites the 2.4 amateur band is trashed by the Part 15/ISM band stuff

>Althought not the same, but Canada's current regs allow "outdoor" use
>of ISM above 2450MHz until July of 2002. Usage below 2450MHz must be
>indoors only.

Here a couple links for info on international ISM allocations (scroll
down a bit for the tables):

http://www.conformity.com/0008emc1.html
http://www.ask-technologies.com/freqaksframe.html
My extracted text version:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/int-ism.txt

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:39:18 -0600
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] 900 MHz FHSS Radio


From: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/taprfhss.html
>October 1999 
>TAPR has signed an agreement with the Dandin Group to take the TAPR 
>design from its current state into production which TAPR has access to 
>production for sale back into the amateur radio community.

Here it sits:
http://www.dandin.com/tdr900.html
>
>The TDR-900 is being developed for both commercial and amateur radio 
>deployment. Dandin will be handling the commercial interests in the 
>radio, with TAPR handling the amateur radio service.
>
>The system has been designed so that the digital and RF board are 
>separate units. Additional bands for the radio are in development.
>
>More information on technology availability and licensing will be 
>available once the technology transfer between TAPR and Dandin is 
>complete.

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:44:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz FHSS Radio


Ryan,
No it doesn't mean its moving forward.  This is old.  I just wanted to
remind everyone in a few days it will be 2002.  5 years on this thing.  I
also noticed that there isn't a link to the Dandin site where it is
actually described decently.  So I thought I'd post a little reminder.

Also I don't know if anyone noticed that the TDR-900 as it's called
appears to be dual marketed.  For ham radio and commercial use.  I wonder
how that will work assuming a commercial version would still hop 902-926.
Won't that be like merticom all over again?  Where we have commercial
users also using the band causing the noise floor to rise.  I heard some
one complain the 900 MHz band was trashed because of Merticom before.

Anyway I have to agree with my friend that transverting 2.4 GHz stuff to
900 looks more promising.  And I'd like to say thanks right here for all
his hard work with all the gbppr.org documented projects.

>So does this mean it's actually moving forward? Or is this just old news?
>Ryan (N8YHV)

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:41:45 -0600
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Sensible Amateur Radio RF networking (fwd)
I sent this to netsig not to long ago, I should of sent it here also.

----Forwarded Message----
Here are my top reasons for using off the shelf Part 15 wireless ethernet 
devices for Amateur Radio RF networking:

1.) They are fast, speeds in the 1-11 Mega-bit ranges.
2.) They already operate on frequencies allocated to amateur radio.
3.) As is, under Part 15 they have proven to work for links 5-20 miles
4.) They are cheaper than a traditional ham packet setup.
5.) They use a proven successful network protocol, TCPIP.
6.) They use a modern modulation technique called Spread Spectrum

7). It will probably take decades for hams to come up with anything more
    well suited for high speed RF networking. (i.e. TAPR 900 MHz radio)

See for yourself:

1.) All 2.4 GHz DSSS 802.11 is 11 Mbps with slower fall back rates.
http://hydra.carleton.ca/info/  (Pay no attention to the outdated prices
or advertised ranges)

2.) You have 3 bands to choose from 900 MHz, 2.4 & 5.7 GHz. (No re-rocking,
reprogramming needed!) Don't like microwave propagation?  Legally to do any
significant speeds you really need to make use of the 900 MHz bands and up.
(if we fail to use these bands we will eventually loose the allocations) 

Speed and or bandwidth constraints for data [97.307(f)(1)]

Frequency Range           Speed Limit for       Maximum Bandwidth for
                          Specified Codes       Unspecified Codes
50.1 - 148 MHz            19.6 kilobauds        20 kHz
222 - 450 MHz             56 kilobauds          100 kHz
Above 902 MHz             No speed limit        No bandwidth limit


3.) Review what commercial ISP's have been doing.
http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2001/05/03/longshot.html

4.) 
-Typical 1200/9600 Ham setup-
Paccomm Tiny 2 $150 + MFJ data radio $120 + 100ft RG-8/9913 $55 + Decent 
Antenna  $60 = TOTAL: $385

-Typical Wireless ethernet setup-
WLAN NIC/AP $150 + 100ft LMR-400 $65 +  24dB Parabolic  $70 =  TOTAL: $285

Note:
One could use AXIP to can carry existing AX.25 traffic over a wireless
ethernet link.

Find out more:
Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Devices For Amateur Radio:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html

Green Bay Professional Packet Radio:
http://www.gbppr.org
(homebrew bi-directional amplifier designs and path-loss calculators)
A group that actually wants amateur packet radio to evolve sometime this 
century.

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:10:08 -0600
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz FHSS Radio


>Your trying to roll two completely different things into one issue. They
>are not one issue. The ARRL's only responsibility to amateur radio is 
>the interest of its members. While the ARRL did sponsor the initial 
>spread spectrum RFPRM, they insisted on the automatic power control 
>requirements for levels above 1 watt, even though Phil Karn and TAPR 
>withdrew their support of same. What this in effect did was put amateur
>radio spread spectrum in the same class as Part 15 SS as none of the 
>existing Part 15 radios have "hooks" in them to provide automatic power
>control via a external amplifier.

Not really.  What the ARRL did simply put; wasn't in the best interest of
ham radio.  Dual marketing a radio (potential interference) would not be
in the best interest of ham radio.  (I'm sure you can agree on that) 
Unless...

>And in any case, once the product exists it can be
>marketed with a dual set of hop codes so differing users can stay out of 
>each other's way. But the key point here is the product has to exist first.

>One for the ham operators that offers more "knobs' and the other for the
>ISP's. Different hop codes also.

This is what I was trying to get at (and find out)...  so there are 
provisions for this, which is great.  I was worried the commercial model 
would be *exactly* the same as the amateur one.  (now knowing this: I 
withdraw my last message)

>Damage? How would they do damage? The ISP's that would use such a 
>product by and large would be in rural areas ill served by any of the major 
>telco's. No DSL, no cable modems and 56K modem lines that you are lucky to 
>get 24kbaud out of. And in case you haven't noticed, there is already a 
>thriving market for 2.4ghz WISP's (also a ISM/ham band) so the "damage" 
>you speak of already is happening. 

Sorry I should be been more specific.. "further damage".  Reason I bring 
this up is I have heard "the band is trashed by the part 15 stuff.." as a
common excuse.  Doesn't stop me.  But apparently is a concern for many other
hams, probably in bigger cities.

You seem to know a bit more about this thing than I do, naturally.  Maybe
you can tell me if this 900 radio will have "hooks" to provide automatic 
power control via a external amplifier?  That would be cool.


By the way here are some Amps capable of automatic power control.
http://www.teletronics.com/tii/products/amplifiers/amp_900_4w.html
http://www.teletronics.com/tii/products/amplifiers/amp_24_5w.html
(Don't ask the prices, trust me you don't want to know)

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:04:39 -0500
To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" <ss@lists.t...>
From: Steve Lampereur <kb9mwr@y...>
Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio

>Howdy:
>
> Wouldn't it be great if there was a firmware flash that
>would set several (11 or more) channels inside 2390 - 2450 MHz.
>Or, at least, redefining channels 7 - 11 inside 2390-2350 MHz.
>Assuming that, some day, somewhere, interference will exist
>with part 15 users.
>
>Chuck nc8q

Sure would be.  In theory someone with enough knowledge could 
come up with something like this as all 802.11b devices use the
same Prism or Hermes chipset. What would be even better is if 
the manufactures offered this 'firmware flash' to hams who
requested it.  A few manufactures do this to some extent but
worry about their Part 15 certification.  But maybe if a group
like TAPR talked to these manufactures this 'firmware' flash
could happen?

Problem is 2400-2450 is shared with Part 15.  2390-2400 isn't 
enough for even one DSSS channel as they are ~22 MHz wide.  In
theory if you operate under Part 97 you are given some 
protection from all the other wireless stuff that is classified
as Part 15.  See and old message of mine: 
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/confused.txt
But then again under Part 97 you allowed more radiated power,
so you might be able to overcome this interference.

Overview:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Ham_Ethernet_GBPPR.pdf