From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 5 19:32:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA29387 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:32:26 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:29:16 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Greg Jones Subject: [ss] FHSS Radio Update List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Ftaprfhss.html TAPR 900MHz FHSS Radio Design Update January 1st, 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A digital board design review was held January 1st, 2000 in Dallas, Texas. Attending the meeting: * Greg Jones * Steve Bible (Conference Call) * John Schoreder * Bob Stricklin * John Koster 1. PIC Code The meeting started with a conference call made to Steve Bible regarding the current status of the PIC chip for the RF board. Steve reports that his is about completed with the programming, but requested some additional information in order to complete the project. Discussion covered the table look up issues and we would send the information regarding the double indexed look up table as soon as possible. Steve feels he will be ready when the RF boards are available for testing. 2. PIC and RF Testing The group discussed testing of the RF board and PIC chip. John S will post information that was discussed on testing the RF board. The group agreed that the most effective way would be to lift two pins on the PIC chip and connect a Max232 interface board to allow a program to simulate the SPI calls that the controller board would provide. 3. Digital Board Schematic Review The digital schematic was reviewed. The group proceeded to move through the list of issues to be covered on the digital board. A lot of the changes took place on the new circuits required to support the new Lvl1 Ethernet interface chip we are changing to. Changes made as a result of the meeting where made at the time and reviewed by the group. It helped doing this meeting at Bob's house so he could pull up the necessary files for review and change. Action items reflect the additional changes or information needed. Once these items are provided and solved we should be able to send the schematic capture to Steve L for layout to begin. 4. RF Board Steve L will be sending the cadence files to David C and John S for final review before the next board run/fab takes place. John S requested further information from Steve L regarding the state of the RF boards that will be delivered for testing, so that he and David could begin to develop necessary test equipment interfaces. Summary Overall the project proceeds well. We had hoped to have the current version of the RF Board in alpha testing before January 1st, but with the additional changes in parts on the board (to help with fabrication later in the process) the RF board alpha slipped into first quarter 2000. Once the final review of the new layout is complete, the process of board production and then fabrication to get us to testing should be quick. When the RF board goes into fabrication the digital board will be starting into the layout process at the production house. This will allow the digital board to come out about the time we have the RF board testing completed. This is the plan for now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, 8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Road, Tucson, AZ 85749-9399. Phone: (940) 383-0000. Fax: (940) 566-2544. Internet: TAPR@TAPR.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Jones, WD5IVD, wd5ivd@tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 5 22:49:39 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA06215 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:49:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "C Byers" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: FHSS Radio Update Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 20:48:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <002d01bf5801$45988be0$25a2c3d0@crlbyers> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Great work ! I'm hoping we will soon be able to use the system to improve the SF Bay Area Packet network, and for my satellite gateway. 73's de Carol, W9HGI ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Jones To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:29 PM Subject: [ss] FHSS Radio Update > http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Ftaprfhss.html > > TAPR 900MHz FHSS Radio Design Update > January 1st, 2000 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A digital board design review was held January 1st, 2000 in Dallas, Texas. > > Attending the meeting: > > * Greg Jones > * Steve Bible (Conference Call) > * John Schoreder > * Bob Stricklin > * John Koster > > 1. PIC Code > The meeting started with a conference call made to > Steve Bible regarding the current status of the PIC chip for the > RF board. Steve reports that his is about completed with the > programming, but requested some additional information in order to > complete the project. Discussion covered the table look up issues > and we would send the information regarding the double indexed > look up table as soon as possible. Steve feels he will be ready > when the RF boards are available for testing. > > 2. PIC and RF > Testing The group discussed testing of the RF board > and PIC chip. John S will post information that was discussed on > testing the RF board. The group agreed that the most effective way > would be to lift two pins on the PIC chip and connect a Max232 > interface board to allow a program to simulate the SPI calls that > the controller board would provide. > > 3. Digital Board Schematic Review > The digital schematic was reviewed. > The group proceeded to move through the list of issues > to be covered on the digital board. A lot of the changes took > place on the new circuits required to support the new Lvl1 > Ethernet interface chip we are changing to. Changes made as a > result of the meeting where made at the time and reviewed by the > group. It helped doing this meeting at Bob's house so he could > pull up the necessary files for review and change. Action items > reflect the additional changes or information needed. Once these > items are provided and solved we should be able to send the > schematic capture to Steve L for layout to begin. > > 4. RF Board > Steve L will be sending the cadence files to David C > and John S for final review before the next board run/fab takes > place. John S requested further information from Steve L regarding > the state of the RF boards that will be delivered for testing, so > that he and David could begin to develop necessary test equipment > interfaces. > > Summary > > Overall the project proceeds well. We had hoped to have the > current version of the RF Board in alpha testing before January > 1st, but with the additional changes in parts on the board (to help > with fabrication later in the process) the RF board alpha slipped > into first quarter 2000. Once the final review of the new layout > is complete, the process of board production and then fabrication > to get us to testing should be quick. When the RF board goes into > fabrication the digital board will be starting into the layout > process at the production house. This will allow the digital board > to come out about the time we have the RF board testing completed. > This is the plan for now. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, 8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Road, Tucson, AZ > 85749-9399. Phone: (940) 383-0000. Fax: (940) 566-2544. > Internet: TAPR@TAPR.ORG > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Greg Jones, WD5IVD, wd5ivd@tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: CRLBYERS@GARLIC.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 02:16:22 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA19056 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:16:22 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 03:14:34 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] TAPR conflict of interest? (Was Re: FHSS Radio Update) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <38744EE7.DCB2604F@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk C Byers wrote: > Great work ! There is no doubt about that. However, I had hoped to see more detail about the Dandin Group SS radio licensing deal in the last PSR and/or with this posting. Still nothing even though I know a few others besides myself have questioned the Dandin Group deal. Will the Dandin deal limit third party licensing of the SS radio? It was my impression that the SS radio would be licensed in much the same manner as the TAPR TNC2. Is this still the case or is this an exclusive deal only with Dandin? I for one had hoped to have the opportunity to be able to license the TAPR SS radio for my company. And in TAPR's most recent membership poll (Winter 1996 PSR), the membership overwhelmingly disapproved of exclusive licensing deals....they limit competition and lead to higher prices for all . Has the BOD gone against the wishes of the membership in approving this deal? (assuming it is an exclusive license) What are the qualifications of the Dandin group? This takes an even greater importance if TAPR has exclusively licensed the SS radio to the Dandin group. Do they have the funds to develop this? A sensible marketing and production plan? We all know about the TNC2 deal... some TNC2 licenses did good (MFJ, Paccomm), will others (GLB, DRSI, AEA) failed. But that was the beauty of the non-exclusive TNC2 license....not only was TAPR not tied to one manufacturer, it also increased competition and made the TNC affordable. How will the Dandin deal do this with the SS radio if it is exclusive? (which I don't know if it is) And then the matter of officers/appointees of TAPR also simultaneously being part of the Dandin group should be fully explained/disclosed to the membership See: http://www.dandin.com/group.html Yes, I know some BOD members wrote me privately saying "it was a good deal" and to trust them but the fact this has not been publicly disclosed to the membership is disturbing. And I am told the May 1999 BOD meeting minutes have yet to be reduced to writing/made available. This meeting is where I am told the potential of a conflict of interest with the Dandin Group/TAPR was discussed. I've found in life its better to fully address/disclose things that can be misunderstood.. I think TAPR would be a better organization if they would address this to the membership instead of hoping (apparently) that most don't notice and/or the pest members will eventually go away. Just my thoughts. I'm sorry if this offended anyone on the list, being it was non-techical (but did relate to the SS radio). I think we as members need to monitor our organization. Hopefully, TAPR will release more details on the Dandin Deal so that members that don't believe in "faith" but in facts can feel secure that this deal was in the best long term interest of TAPR's membership. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 08:26:27 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA07128 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:26:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 04:16:50 -0500 (EST) From: Johan To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Considering that there are many cheap 11 Mbps wireless ethernet solutions available in the market is this radio obsolete? For example, Wavelan WaveACCESS and AirEzy. The long distance range of these solutions, though not quite there, also appear to compete with the 20 mile range of the TAPR radio. AirEzy claims in their FAQ to get a range of 15 miles with a power booster http://www.ezylink.com/faq/index.html later, -Johan On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Greg Jones wrote: > http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Ftaprfhss.html > > TAPR 900MHz FHSS Radio Design Update > January 1st, 2000 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A digital board design review was held January 1st, 2000 in Dallas, Texas. > > Attending the meeting: > > * Greg Jones > * Steve Bible (Conference Call) > * John Schoreder > * Bob Stricklin > * John Koster > > 1. PIC Code > The meeting started with a conference call made to > Steve Bible regarding the current status of the PIC chip for the > RF board. Steve reports that his is about completed with the > programming, but requested some additional information in order to > complete the project. Discussion covered the table look up issues > and we would send the information regarding the double indexed > look up table as soon as possible. Steve feels he will be ready > when the RF boards are available for testing. > > 2. PIC and RF > Testing The group discussed testing of the RF board > and PIC chip. John S will post information that was discussed on > testing the RF board. The group agreed that the most effective way > would be to lift two pins on the PIC chip and connect a Max232 > interface board to allow a program to simulate the SPI calls that > the controller board would provide. > > 3. Digital Board Schematic Review > The digital schematic was reviewed. > The group proceeded to move through the list of issues > to be covered on the digital board. A lot of the changes took > place on the new circuits required to support the new Lvl1 > Ethernet interface chip we are changing to. Changes made as a > result of the meeting where made at the time and reviewed by the > group. It helped doing this meeting at Bob's house so he could > pull up the necessary files for review and change. Action items > reflect the additional changes or information needed. Once these > items are provided and solved we should be able to send the > schematic capture to Steve L for layout to begin. > > 4. RF Board > Steve L will be sending the cadence files to David C > and John S for final review before the next board run/fab takes > place. John S requested further information from Steve L regarding > the state of the RF boards that will be delivered for testing, so > that he and David could begin to develop necessary test equipment > interfaces. > > Summary > > Overall the project proceeds well. We had hoped to have the > current version of the RF Board in alpha testing before January > 1st, but with the additional changes in parts on the board (to help > with fabrication later in the process) the RF board alpha slipped > into first quarter 2000. Once the final review of the new layout > is complete, the process of board production and then fabrication > to get us to testing should be quick. When the RF board goes into > fabrication the digital board will be starting into the layout > process at the production house. This will allow the digital board > to come out about the time we have the RF board testing completed. > This is the plan for now. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, 8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Road, Tucson, AZ > 85749-9399. Phone: (940) 383-0000. Fax: (940) 566-2544. > Internet: TAPR@TAPR.ORG > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Greg Jones, WD5IVD, wd5ivd@tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JOHAN@UNIXVILLE.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 08:45:26 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA07628 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:45:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Alan Desjardins Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] New to TAPR and SS Sig Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:35:30 -0600 Organization: Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <01BF5821.D956E960.adesjard@cme.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi There, I'm new to the group, my call is N5VXL, and I work with the commercial Part 15 SS radios in my work at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. I have a lot of interest in development of SS for Ham use, and if I can contribute in any way to the success of the project I offer my assistance. Alan N5VXL Alan P. DesJardins RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems Archetecture 30 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312)338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff King [SMTP:jeff@aerodata.net] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 2:15 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] TAPR conflict of interest? (Was Re: FHSS Radio Update) C Byers wrote: > Great work ! There is no doubt about that. However, I had hoped to see more detail about the Dandin Group SS radio licensing deal in the last PSR and/or with this posting. Still nothing even though I know a few others besides myself have questioned the Dandin Group deal. Will the Dandin deal limit third party licensing of the SS radio? It was my impression that the SS radio would be licensed in much the same manner as the TAPR TNC2. Is this still the case or is this an exclusive deal only with Dandin? I for one had hoped to have the opportunity to be able to license the TAPR SS radio for my company. And in TAPR's most recent membership poll (Winter 1996 PSR), the membership overwhelmingly disapproved of exclusive licensing deals....they limit competition and lead to higher prices for all . Has the BOD gone against the wishes of the membership in approving this deal? (assuming it is an exclusive license) What are the qualifications of the Dandin group? This takes an even greater importance if TAPR has exclusively licensed the SS radio to the Dandin group. Do they have the funds to develop this? A sensible marketing and production plan? We all know about the TNC2 deal... some TNC2 licenses did good (MFJ, Paccomm), will others (GLB, DRSI, AEA) failed. But that was the beauty of the non-exclusive TNC2 license....not only was TAPR not tied to one manufacturer, it also increased competition and made the TNC affordable. How will the Dandin deal do this with the SS radio if it is exclusive? (which I don't know if it is) And then the matter of officers/appointees of TAPR also simultaneously being part of the Dandin group should be fully explained/disclosed to the membership See: http://www.dandin.com/group.html Yes, I know some BOD members wrote me privately saying "it was a good deal" and to trust them but the fact this has not been publicly disclosed to the membership is disturbing. And I am told the May 1999 BOD meeting minutes have yet to be reduced to writing/made available. This meeting is where I am told the potential of a conflict of interest with the Dandin Group/TAPR was discussed. I've found in life its better to fully address/disclose things that can be misunderstood.. I think TAPR would be a better organization if they would address this to the membership instead of hoping (apparently) that most don't notice and/or the pest members will eventually go away. Just my thoughts. I'm sorry if this offended anyone on the list, being it was non-techical (but did relate to the SS radio). I think we as members need to monitor our organization. Hopefully, TAPR will release more details on the Dandin Deal so that members that don't believe in "faith" but in facts can feel secure that this deal was in the best long term interest of TAPR's membership. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 08:56:20 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA08015 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:56:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:54:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Johan wrote: > > Considering that there are many cheap 11 Mbps wireless ethernet solutions > available in the market is this radio obsolete? For example, Wavelan > WaveACCESS and AirEzy. The long distance range of these solutions, though > not quite there, also appear to compete with the 20 mile range of the TAPR > radio. AirEzy claims in their FAQ to get a range of 15 miles with a power > booster http://www.ezylink.com/faq/index.html the answer is is not a simple one. As I see it, when you deal with a RF digital systems, you really have two subsystems. First is the RF interface which deals with all of the issues relating to squirting bits via RF and the second is the network interface which deals with squirting bits via 10BaseT or some other interface. The cheap wireless networking solutions only solve half of the problem which is the RF side. The network interface still needs work. Second, it's really really hard to get 11 Mb data rates at 20 miles. The reality is you'll more likely see 0.5 to 1 Mb data rates. Still respectable but not 11. Don't forget also that the 11 Mb data rate is the raw bit rate and the real bit rate is more like seven Mb and then you lose another 30 percent to protocol overhead. So an 11 Mb radio gets you five Mb real bandwidth. Third, these cheap wireless solutions work in the ISM bands. One of the reasons for doing our own spread spectrum care is so that we have a reason to keep access to the boat loads spectrum were not exactly using at 900 MHz and up. If we can get by with using the ISM bands, then there is no reason for us to keep exclusive ham bands allocations. Now, I believe it should be possible to re-engineer some of these cheap wireless solutions to ham spectrum allocations but someone needs to come up with the money to convince a company to do this. Unless of course, there is a ham in one of these companies that is willing to spend their own time advocating releasing reference designs or even working on modifying the existing design to work in the ham radio allocations. once you have the radios, then have the whole issue of engineering paths. It's not like VHF repeaters where you find a high point, pump out a bunch of power and you can blanket the huge area with coverage. I was fortunate enough to be able to gain access to a path analysis program recently and I tried to figure out if there were any paths between myself and a half a dozen nearby hams. Nearly everyone had some form of obstacle between themselves and most of the group. This tells me that if we were able to find a common high point, we would still have serious problems with hidden transmitter issues unless we were operating in classic repeater mode and able to use the repeaters output as a way of managing collisions. This is probably not new to folks with lots of packet radio experience but I will say it was quite discouraging and highlights the importance of complete network design and not just node design. --- eric Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 09:20:07 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA08782 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:20:03 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Walter Holmes" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:13:01 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <001901bf5858$86839580$d90e12ac@im.hou.compaq.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I agree completely...... 3 years ago when this was a hot idea, it made a LOT of sense. And ALL of us were very excited to hear about the project. But given today's rapid advances in technology, and sharp decline in prices for the same, perhaps there would be a far better advantage to pick one of these off the shelf technologies, standardize on them for compatibility reasons, and go forward with it. I personally see the TAPR SS radio as being far too little, and far too late. This would be like releasing a 33.6k modem today. Definitely a fantastic idea at the time, but the window of opportunity has come and gone. I also understand completely how this happened as well. As it's an extremely difficult task to have the cycles to complete these many design issues, while working full time today trying to keep our families fed. If none of us had to worry about working, it would be plenty simple to have the time to tackle these kind of projects in a timely manner. So I am definitely NOT trying to take anything away from the design team and their endless efforts, as I feel they never get near the credit and appreciation they so well deserve. My 2 cents worth, Walter/K5WH -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-5037@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-5037@lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Johan Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:17 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Considering that there are many cheap 11 Mbps wireless ethernet solutions available in the market is this radio obsolete? For example, Wavelan WaveACCESS and AirEzy. The long distance range of these solutions, though not quite there, also appear to compete with the 20 mile range of the TAPR radio. AirEzy claims in their FAQ to get a range of 15 miles with a power booster http://www.ezylink.com/faq/index.html later, -Johan On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Greg Jones wrote: > http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Ftaprfhss.html > > TAPR 900MHz FHSS Radio Design Update > January 1st, 2000 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A digital board design review was held January 1st, 2000 in Dallas, Texas. > > Attending the meeting: > > * Greg Jones > * Steve Bible (Conference Call) > * John Schoreder > * Bob Stricklin > * John Koster > > 1. PIC Code > The meeting started with a conference call made to > Steve Bible regarding the current status of the PIC chip for the > RF board. Steve reports that his is about completed with the > programming, but requested some additional information in order to > complete the project. Discussion covered the table look up issues > and we would send the information regarding the double indexed > look up table as soon as possible. Steve feels he will be ready > when the RF boards are available for testing. > > 2. PIC and RF > Testing The group discussed testing of the RF board > and PIC chip. John S will post information that was discussed on > testing the RF board. The group agreed that the most effective way > would be to lift two pins on the PIC chip and connect a Max232 > interface board to allow a program to simulate the SPI calls that > the controller board would provide. > > 3. Digital Board Schematic Review > The digital schematic was reviewed. > The group proceeded to move through the list of issues > to be covered on the digital board. A lot of the changes took > place on the new circuits required to support the new Lvl1 > Ethernet interface chip we are changing to. Changes made as a > result of the meeting where made at the time and reviewed by the > group. It helped doing this meeting at Bob's house so he could > pull up the necessary files for review and change. Action items > reflect the additional changes or information needed. Once these > items are provided and solved we should be able to send the > schematic capture to Steve L for layout to begin. > > 4. RF Board > Steve L will be sending the cadence files to David C > and John S for final review before the next board run/fab takes > place. John S requested further information from Steve L regarding > the state of the RF boards that will be delivered for testing, so > that he and David could begin to develop necessary test equipment > interfaces. > > Summary > > Overall the project proceeds well. We had hoped to have the > current version of the RF Board in alpha testing before January > 1st, but with the additional changes in parts on the board (to help > with fabrication later in the process) the RF board alpha slipped > into first quarter 2000. Once the final review of the new layout > is complete, the process of board production and then fabrication > to get us to testing should be quick. When the RF board goes into > fabrication the digital board will be starting into the layout > process at the production house. This will allow the digital board > to come out about the time we have the RF board testing completed. > This is the plan for now. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, 8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Road, Tucson, AZ > 85749-9399. Phone: (940) 383-0000. Fax: (940) 566-2544. > Internet: TAPR@TAPR.ORG > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Greg Jones, WD5IVD, wd5ivd@tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JOHAN@UNIXVILLE.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: K5WH@HOUSTON-INTRANET.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 09:48:45 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA09747 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:48:43 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 09:47:18 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: DaHouse X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3874B906.522EF27B@cs.tamu.edu> Precedence: bulk Walter Holmes wrote: > > I agree completely...... > > 3 years ago when this was a hot idea, it made a LOT of sense. And ALL of > us were very excited to hear about the project. But given today's rapid > advances in technology, and sharp decline in prices for the same, perhaps > there would be a far better advantage to pick one of these off the shelf > technologies, standardize on them for compatibility reasons, and go forward > with it. > > I personally see the TAPR SS radio as being far too little, and far too > late. This would be like releasing a 33.6k modem today. And I must disagree: The design effort for this radio will allow future designs to proceed with more deliberate speed. As Walter notes, the requirement for devoting significant time to the design process must be weighed against the need to stay gainfully employed and productive. However, if we don't develop the necessary skills and background in the basic design, all the paper design in the world will not result in a later iteration that serves our needs. I'd have loved to see this project spring fully formed out of a meeting at Tuscon 3 years ago, shortly after the initial announcement. I've been as frustrated as anyone at the delays of a project I think is a real asset to the Amateur Radio art (anyone seen a FHSS radio from Kenwood lately?). I know what the design and implementation time can be like. I recall one specific project I worked on, 40 hours a week, AFTER work, for 3 years before we implemented. Lots of naysayers. Lots of folks wonedering if we'd ever get it going. But when SAREX-II flew, we had a solid design and hardware implementation. Keep up the development. If it's superceded initially by commercial interests in the ISM band, fine. The next one isn't as likely to be superceded, because the industrial folks are looking for a plateau to achieve that will satisfy N% of their customers and they'll rest and perform minor refinements... not further innovation. 73, gerry n5jxs -- Gerry Creager Mapping Sciences Laboratory 409.845.7201 Office Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 409.845.2273 Fax Texas A&M University System 409.228.7686 Pager (preferred) College Station, Texas 77843-2120 gerry@page4.tamu.edu Pager: 4092287686@mobile.att.net "Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of Texas A&M University." --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 09:50:28 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA09819 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:50:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: From: "Mitchell, Ed" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: TAPR conflict of interest? (Was Re: FHSS Radio Update) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:47:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <8185C3875C91D311B8FA00805FA715E62AE901@xch-lbc-10.lgb.cal.boeing.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I agree, this smacks of a "secret deal" and so should be fully explained, does the SS community realize and benefit from this or is this R&D donated with no return. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff King [SMTP:jeff@aerodata.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 12:15 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] TAPR conflict of interest? (Was Re: FHSS Radio Update) > > > > C Byers wrote: > > > Great work ! > > There is no doubt about that. > > However, I had hoped to see more detail about the Dandin Group SS radio > licensing deal in the last PSR and/or with this posting. Still nothing > even > though I know a few others besides myself have questioned the Dandin > Group deal. > > Will the Dandin deal limit third party licensing of the SS radio? It was > my > impression that the SS radio would be licensed in much the same manner > as the TAPR TNC2. Is this still the case or is this an exclusive deal only > with Dandin? I for one had hoped to have the opportunity to be able > to license the TAPR SS radio for my company. And in TAPR's > most recent membership poll (Winter 1996 PSR), the membership > overwhelmingly disapproved of exclusive licensing deals....they limit > competition and lead to higher prices for all . Has the BOD gone against > the wishes of the membership in approving this deal? (assuming it is an > exclusive license) > > What are the qualifications of the Dandin group? This takes an even > greater importance if TAPR has exclusively licensed the SS radio to the > Dandin group. Do they have the funds to develop this? A sensible > marketing and production plan? We all know about the TNC2 deal... > some TNC2 licenses did good (MFJ, Paccomm), will others (GLB, > DRSI, AEA) failed. But that was the beauty of the non-exclusive > TNC2 license....not only was TAPR not tied to one manufacturer, > it also increased competition and made the TNC affordable. How > will the Dandin deal do this with the SS radio if it is exclusive? (which > I don't know if it is) > > And then the matter of officers/appointees of TAPR also simultaneously > being > part of the Dandin group should be fully explained/disclosed to the > membership > See: http://www.dandin.com/group.html Yes, I know some BOD members > wrote me privately saying "it was a good deal" and to trust them but > the fact this has not been publicly disclosed to the membership > is disturbing. And I am told the May 1999 BOD meeting minutes have > yet to be reduced to writing/made available. This meeting is where I am > told the potential of a conflict of interest with the Dandin Group/TAPR > was discussed. > > I've found in life its better to fully address/disclose things > that can be misunderstood.. I think TAPR would be a better > organization if they would address this to the membership instead of > hoping > (apparently) that most don't notice and/or the pest members will > eventually > go away. > > Just my thoughts. I'm sorry if this offended anyone on the list, being > it was non-techical (but did relate to the SS radio). I think we as > members need to monitor our organization. Hopefully, TAPR will release > more details on the Dandin Deal so that members that don't believe > in "faith" but in facts can feel secure that this deal was in the best > long term interest of TAPR's membership. > > > -Jeff > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: ED.MITCHELL@BOEING.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 10:16:08 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA10630 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:16:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Alan Desjardins Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:05:32 -0600 Organization: Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <01BF582E.6E02A430.adesjard@cme.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi Folks, One thought to consider. Developing this might show as an indication to the Amateur manufacturers that we are serious about this mode, and that investigation and investment into a commercial product might have a future. Just a thought..... Alan P. DesJardins RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems Archetecture 30 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312)338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [SMTP:gerry@cs.tamu.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:52 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Walter Holmes wrote: > > I agree completely...... > > 3 years ago when this was a hot idea, it made a LOT of sense. And ALL of > us were very excited to hear about the project. But given today's rapid > advances in technology, and sharp decline in prices for the same, perhaps > there would be a far better advantage to pick one of these off the shelf > technologies, standardize on them for compatibility reasons, and go forward > with it. > > I personally see the TAPR SS radio as being far too little, and far too > late. This would be like releasing a 33.6k modem today. And I must disagree: The design effort for this radio will allow future designs to proceed with more deliberate speed. As Walter notes, the requirement for devoting significant time to the design process must be weighed against the need to stay gainfully employed and productive. However, if we don't develop the necessary skills and background in the basic design, all the paper design in the world will not result in a later iteration that serves our needs. I'd have loved to see this project spring fully formed out of a meeting at Tuscon 3 years ago, shortly after the initial announcement. I've been as frustrated as anyone at the delays of a project I think is a real asset to the Amateur Radio art (anyone seen a FHSS radio from Kenwood lately?). I know what the design and implementation time can be like. I recall one specific project I worked on, 40 hours a week, AFTER work, for 3 years before we implemented. Lots of naysayers. Lots of folks wonedering if we'd ever get it going. But when SAREX-II flew, we had a solid design and hardware implementation. Keep up the development. If it's superceded initially by commercial interests in the ISM band, fine. The next one isn't as likely to be superceded, because the industrial folks are looking for a plateau to achieve that will satisfy N% of their customers and they'll rest and perform minor refinements... not further innovation. 73, gerry n5jxs -- Gerry Creager Mapping Sciences Laboratory 409.845.7201 Office Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 409.845.2273 Fax Texas A&M University System 409.228.7686 Pager (preferred) College Station, Texas 77843-2120 gerry@page4.tamu.edu Pager: 4092287686@mobile.att.net "Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of Texas A&M University." --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 10:22:47 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA10934 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:22:46 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:22:06 -0600 From: Gregory Beat X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: New to TAPR and SS Sig References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3874C12E.E8A0E299@mediaone.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Alan - Small world ! We should have coffee sometime and discuss since I am currently working as a consultant for the Chicago Board of Trade ! Gregory Beat, w9gb Senior Manager, Ernst & Young LLP gregory.beat@ey.com -------- Alan Desjardins wrote: > Hi There, > > I'm new to the group, my call is N5VXL, and I work with the commercial > Part 15 SS radios in my work at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. I have a > lot of interest in development of SS for Ham use, and if I can contribute > in any way to the success of the project I offer my assistance. > > Alan > N5VXL > > Alan P. DesJardins > RF Network Engineer > Chicago Mercantile Exchange > MIS Systems Archetecture > 30 South Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60606 > (312)338-2853 > adesjard@cme.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff King [SMTP:jeff@aerodata.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 2:15 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] TAPR conflict of interest? (Was Re: FHSS Radio Update) > > C Byers wrote: > > > Great work ! > > There is no doubt about that. > > However, I had hoped to see more detail about the Dandin Group SS radio > licensing deal in the last PSR and/or with this posting. Still nothing > even > though I know a few others besides myself have questioned the Dandin > Group deal. > > Will the Dandin deal limit third party licensing of the SS radio? It was my > impression that the SS radio would be licensed in much the same manner > as the TAPR TNC2. Is this still the case or is this an exclusive deal only > with Dandin? I for one had hoped to have the opportunity to be able > to license the TAPR SS radio for my company. And in TAPR's > most recent membership poll (Winter 1996 PSR), the membership > overwhelmingly disapproved of exclusive licensing deals....they limit > competition and lead to higher prices for all . Has the BOD gone against > the wishes of the membership in approving this deal? (assuming it is an > exclusive license) > > What are the qualifications of the Dandin group? This takes an even > greater importance if TAPR has exclusively licensed the SS radio to the > Dandin group. Do they have the funds to develop this? A sensible > marketing and production plan? We all know about the TNC2 deal... > some TNC2 licenses did good (MFJ, Paccomm), will others (GLB, > DRSI, AEA) failed. But that was the beauty of the non-exclusive > TNC2 license....not only was TAPR not tied to one manufacturer, > it also increased competition and made the TNC affordable. How > will the Dandin deal do this with the SS radio if it is exclusive? (which > I don't know if it is) > > And then the matter of officers/appointees of TAPR also simultaneously > being > part of the Dandin group should be fully explained/disclosed to the > membership > See: http://www.dandin.com/group.html Yes, I know some BOD members > wrote me privately saying "it was a good deal" and to trust them but > the fact this has not been publicly disclosed to the membership > is disturbing. And I am told the May 1999 BOD meeting minutes have > yet to be reduced to writing/made available. This meeting is where I am > told the potential of a conflict of interest with the Dandin Group/TAPR > was discussed. > > I've found in life its better to fully address/disclose things > that can be misunderstood.. I think TAPR would be a better > organization if they would address this to the membership instead of hoping > (apparently) that most don't notice and/or the pest members will eventually > go away. > > Just my thoughts. I'm sorry if this offended anyone on the list, being > it was non-techical (but did relate to the SS radio). I think we as > members need to monitor our organization. Hopefully, TAPR will release > more details on the Dandin Deal so that members that don't believe > in "faith" but in facts can feel secure that this deal was in the best > long term interest of TAPR's membership. > > -Jeff > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: GREGORY.BEAT@MEDIAONE.NET > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 12:30:10 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA15604 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:30:10 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Heatherington To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:00:08 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <00010613274507.21823@lab1.wa4dsy.radio.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, you wrote: [deleted] > > once you have the radios, then have the whole issue of engineering > paths. It's not like VHF repeaters where you find a high point, pump > out a bunch of power and you can blanket the huge area with coverage. > I was fortunate enough to be able to gain access to a path analysis > program recently and I tried to figure out if there were any paths > between myself and a half a dozen nearby hams. Nearly everyone had > some form of obstacle between themselves and most of the group. This > tells me that if we were able to find a common high point, we would > still have serious problems with hidden transmitter issues unless we > were operating in classic repeater mode and able to use the repeaters > output as a way of managing collisions. FYI: I have been running a wa4dsy-Paccom 56K RF modem as a full duplex bit bit regenerator on 445.15 output and 440.15 input. This is a standard 5 Mhz split and conventional off the shelf cavity duplexers are used along with a single antenna. Since bit regeneration mode is built into the modem the only other thing needed was to split the transverter functions. The TX IF drives a transmitting converter and a seperate receving converter drives the RX IF input. There are no desense problems. This has been running for over 3 years with only one failure instance caused by a defective low level ampilfier chip in the Downeast Microwave transmitting converter. This 56K repeater is on a high point such that I get error free results from 28 miles (Well , I do have a 190 foot tower ). The user station which supplies internet connectivity is about 7 miles away from the repeater in a low spot. He has 2 stacked 6 element yagis up only about 20 feet. Power levels involved are about 7 watts. Note this is "conventional repeater" mode with no hidden station problems. However, interest in this resource is low to non-existant. Very few hams seem motivated to do high speed RF networking. (high speed relative to 1200 baud that is) Perhaps if the hardware cost $100 and was plug and play on USB and used a built in rubber duck antenna interest would increase :-) -- Dale Heatherington daheath@attglobal.net Web Page http://www.wa4dsy.radio.org Sent by KMail for Linux --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 12:44:12 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA16131 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:44:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Alan Desjardins Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:34:04 -0600 Organization: Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <01BF5843.2D5EE4B0.adesjard@cme.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I think Dale Nialed it! It needs to be available and cheap(er). Where's Moore when we need him? Alan DesJardins (N5VXL) RF Network Engineer MIS Systems Architecture Chicago Mercantile Exchange 30 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60060 (312)338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: Dale Heatherington [SMTP:wa4dsy@wa4dsy.radio.org] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 12:32 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, you wrote: [deleted] > > once you have the radios, then have the whole issue of engineering > paths. It's not like VHF repeaters where you find a high point, pump > out a bunch of power and you can blanket the huge area with coverage. > I was fortunate enough to be able to gain access to a path analysis > program recently and I tried to figure out if there were any paths > between myself and a half a dozen nearby hams. Nearly everyone had > some form of obstacle between themselves and most of the group. This > tells me that if we were able to find a common high point, we would > still have serious problems with hidden transmitter issues unless we > were operating in classic repeater mode and able to use the repeaters > output as a way of managing collisions. FYI: I have been running a wa4dsy-Paccom 56K RF modem as a full duplex bit bit regenerator on 445.15 output and 440.15 input. This is a standard 5 Mhz split and conventional off the shelf cavity duplexers are used along with a single antenna. Since bit regeneration mode is built into the modem the only other thing needed was to split the transverter functions. The TX IF drives a transmitting converter and a seperate receving converter drives the RX IF input. There are no desense problems. This has been running for over 3 years with only one failure instance caused by a defective low level ampilfier chip in the Downeast Microwave transmitting converter. This 56K repeater is on a high point such that I get error free results from 28 miles (Well , I do have a 190 foot tower ). The user station which supplies internet connectivity is about 7 miles away from the repeater in a low spot. He has 2 stacked 6 element yagis up only about 20 feet. Power levels involved are about 7 watts. Note this is "conventional repeater" mode with no hidden station problems. However, interest in this resource is low to non-existant. Very few hams seem motivated to do high speed RF networking. (high speed relative to 1200 baud that is) Perhaps if the hardware cost $100 and was plug and play on USB and used a built in rubber duck antenna interest would increase :-) -- Dale Heatherington daheath@attglobal.net Web Page http://www.wa4dsy.radio.org Sent by KMail for Linux --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 13:49:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA18648 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:49:28 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:48:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: Phil Karn To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" CC: "karn@qualcomm.com" (message from Dale Heatherington on Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:00:08 -0500) Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200001061948.LAA08332@servo.qualcomm.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >However, interest in this resource is low to non-existant. Very few hams >seem motivated to do high speed RF networking. (high speed relative to 1200 Well, now that dialup modems are running at nearly 56kb/s, cable modems and DSL are growing rapidly, and none have any of the onerous content restrictions associated with ham radio, is that really a surprise? I know my own interest in on-air networking dropped rapidly when I got ISDN in 1995, and again when I got Road Runner and Rhythms DSL in the years after that. Virtually *all* of the traffic I send over these services would be in violation of Part 97. Only some of it is business traffic, but a very large fraction of it is encrypted (with SSH). Even my websurfing, which I encrypt as a matter of principle. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 15:46:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA22359 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:46:23 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 16:44:19 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <38750CB2.73B304A5@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Lots of comments on the messages, so I'll just put them all in one. "Eric S. Johansson" wrote: > One of > the reasons for doing our own spread spectrum care is so that we have > a reason to keep access to the boat loads spectrum were not exactly > using at 900 MHz and up. If we can get by with using the ISM bands, > then there is no reason for us to keep exclusive ham bands > allocations. Of course you do know that the TAPR SS radio is in this same ISM band, don't you? (900mhz) This has the advantage (or disadvantage) of allowing dual marketing to both Part 97 and Part 15 on the same platform. A guess on my part, but likely I am correct. Walter Holmes wrote: > But given today's rapid > advances in technology, and sharp decline in prices for the same, perhaps > there would be a far better advantage to pick one of these off the shelf > technologies, standardize on them for compatibility reasons, and go forward > with it. I'm not saying I agree with your total premise, but what you say makes sense. In fact, a few outside of TAPR did just this.... Bob Buaas had a group buy of Wavelan cards. Also, TAPR did make a limited buy of defunct Teatherless Access units.... but these were not "off the shelf" products. One off the shelf product that I think might deserve some attention is the Proxim Symphony. Its cheap and drivers for both Windows and Linux are available. Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Walter Holmes wrote: > > > > I personally see the TAPR SS radio as being far too little, and far too > > late. This would be like releasing a 33.6k modem today. > > And I must disagree: The design effort for this radio will allow future > designs to proceed with more deliberate speed. Clearly they will have to as during the design cycle of the TAPR SS radio parts already have become obsolete. I'm *not* trying to be a naysayer here, but stating a fact that does need to be considered in any other TAPR projects of this magnitude. > > been as frustrated as anyone at the delays of a project I think is a > real asset to the Amateur Radio art (anyone seen a FHSS radio from > Kenwood lately?). And I don't think you ever will. The amateur radio market alone never could support a spread spectrum radio. > Keep up the development. And I'm not saying not to.... I'd just like to see a little bit more realistic thinking here. I think Walter's point is a good one..... three+ years ago we were going to have a group buy of FreeWave spread spectrum radios.....this never happened and any future group buys (through TAPR) seem to be suspended in favor of this ongoing SS radio design. Not a bad thing, but I'd like to see TAPR get behind deploying commercial SS gear in the amateur field. With the new rules, this is a no brainer. Dale Heatherington wrote: > Perhaps if the hardware cost $100 and was plug and play on > USB and used a built in rubber duck antenna interest would increase :-) But it almost is! The Proxim symphony cards are approaching that $100 mark (I think they are around $130 now) and they have a rubber duck! I've seen a few on the SS sig that are using these in 2-4 mile links with stock power levels. And even one of the more robust SS radios.... the FreeWave, can be had for $700 by anyone, and a group buy could lower this price further. And the FreeWave *can* achieve a 20 mile los link easily at a 173kbaud. But I think your point(?) is well taken.... there is no market for SS gear to "hams". (but note I did not say amateur radio). Phil Karn wrote: > >However, interest in this resource is low to non-existant. Very few hams > >seem motivated to do high speed RF networking. (high speed relative to 1200 > > Well, now that dialup modems are running at nearly 56kb/s, cable > modems and DSL are growing rapidly, and none have any of the onerous > content restrictions associated with ham radio, is that really a > surprise? Point well taken.... but what about areas were this infrastructure does not exist, such as outside the U.S.? See http://www.dandin.com/news.html (at bottom) and http://www.dandin.com/projects.html for some potential innovative uses of TAPR's SS radio. But I fully agree with you.... that in the U.S., for the most part, there simply is not a market for such a device for the common "ham" appliance operator. Sure, some of the radio experimenters on here here would buy it.... but in no way could TAPR ever hope to recover its R&D costs on such a limited market. Iregardless of any pros/cons raised on the TAPR SS project, I'd like to see TAPR get behind a group purchase (be it a facilitator or recommended) of commercial SS wireless LAN projects. This project would have a almost immediate short term pay back and cost's to TAPR would be very little. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 17:55:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA27987 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:55:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:53:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Dale Heatherington wrote: > FYI: I have been running a wa4dsy-Paccom 56K RF modem as a full > duplex bit bit regenerator on 445.15 output and 440.15 input. This > is a standard 5 Mhz split and conventional off the shelf cavity ... snipped .... > However, interest in this resource is low to > non-existant. Very few hams seem motivated to do high speed RF > networking. (high speed relative to 1200 baud that is) Perhaps if > the hardware cost $100 and was plug and play on USB and used a built > in rubber duck antenna interest would increase :-) it's really great to hear about your experiences with medium speed networking tools. I am not surprised to hear about the low to nonexistent interest. For $100 initial outlay and 20 bucks per month, I can get 56 K. (or close enough) connectivity. To go the route you've gone, I would need to layout closer to $1000 (RF modem, transverter, antenna, feed line). Then, I'd have almost no one to talk to (i.e. fax machine effect). If hams are going to do anything vaguely useful with high-speed data services over RF, you need to have a sufficiently compelling application to get people to join up and the RF hardware need to be sufficiently inexpensive to be worth taking a risk on. The classic example of this is FM repeaters. Early repeaters were made out of surplus gear and amateur's radios came from the same junk bin. Only once there was enough hams using surplus gear to chat back and forth, did it seem worthwhile to produce commercial radios and repeaters. The early commercial gear sparked enough interest in the folks that didn't have home brewing skills or time to drag them into VHF FM. This in turn sparked even more commercial development and lower-cost radios with more features which attracted even more hams to the point where VHF FM is considered standard operating gear for any amateur. So, what sufficiently compelling application would justify putting in place a network of digital repeaters at 900 MHz and up? --- eric Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 18:17:13 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA29015 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:17:13 -0600 (CST) From: Ken Koster To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:43:53 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <00010616143101.24616@css24u> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk And for my $0.02 worth. On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, Jeff King wrote: > Of course you do know that the TAPR SS radio is in this same ISM > band, don't you? (900mhz) This has the advantage (or disadvantage) > of allowing dual marketing to both Part 97 and Part 15 on the > same platform. A guess on my part, but likely I am correct. While this may be great for marketing, our local experience is that this may likely be more of a disadvantage for ham use. Interference from Part 15 devices and other occupants of 900Mhz can render commercial SS gear useless. We have a 70 mile overwater 56k link on 440Mhz followed by a 5 mile downhill link using commercial SS. The 56k link (local design by VE7BPE) works flawlessly, the last five miles is now dropping 80% because of increased interference over the last few years. Other links have similar problems. I can think of lots of places I'll attempt to make use of the TAPR modem all of which are going to be away from major metropolitan areas. However, I'm afraid the TAPR SS radio will find limited use until we can redo the RF to some other band than 900Mhz. Don't get me wrong, I'm as anxious to get my hands on the TAPR system as anyone (got to be the first on My block) but no sooner will I have it than I'll be trying to figure out how to move it to 1200Mhz or higher. Ken, N7IPB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 18:50:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA00367 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:50:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:42:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Phil Karn wrote: > I know my own interest in on-air networking dropped rapidly when I got > ISDN in 1995, and again when I got Road Runner and Rhythms DSL in the > years after that. Virtually *all* of the traffic I send over these > services would be in violation of Part 97. Only some of it is business > traffic, but a very large fraction of it is encrypted (with SSH). Even > my websurfing, which I encrypt as a matter of principle. you present an interesting predicament. I think your experience will be a common one as high-speed data access from commercial carriers becomes more widely available. in an earlier message, I asked the question about what would be a sufficiently compelling application to justify putting up a widespread digital network (yes, I know that's not the exact wording but it's close enough) One of my personal opinions is that community access Internet services would be one of those sufficiently compelling applications. This would however require a significant change to part 97. It would require eliminating any rules holding the amateur responsible for traffic traversing his machine. We would also need to change the rules to eliminate content restrictions while keeping in place rules against commercial ownership of amateur radio infrastructure. A massive gray area occurs when dealing with originating or receiving commercial content such as email for your SOHO business. The balance between commercial and noncommercial use is a challenge requiring the wisdom of Solomon. It is not unlike the challenge faced by the early days the Internet until the restrictions on commercial traffic was lifted. may be community access Internet is better served by part 15 wireless which again reduces the demand for amateur services and reduces the justification for amateur spectrum. Part of the reason I feel community Internet access by wireless is important is that the telcos (ilecs and clecs) are making an absolute mess of the last mile infrastructure. Right now to get DSL, you need to coordinate your ISP, the DSL CLEC, and the local RBOC. In Bell Atlantic territory (or as I prefer, Bell Titanic) it will take approximately 2-3 truck rolls to get the service working. At $400 per truck roll, each house gets awfully expensive. Other ways they are making a absolute mess of last mile is incredibly redundant infrastructure at the central office (every CLEC either installs or purchases access to a DSLAM) and in some territories, they are laying new copper independent of the RBOC's copper. Some day I'll rant at you about how last mile infrastructure is a natural monopoly. anyway, it would be interesting to see if hams could develop a last mile infrastructure that wouldn't cost $1000 per home to roll-out and far less than the $1.5 mil per cell site costs. As for dealing with encrypted traffic, there's no easy answer there either. I too encrypt virtually all of my traffic although most of it is work-related. again, there hams could pioneer at the legislative level on the "if its private, encrypt it" philosophy to radio privacy. --- eric PS so sue me, I'm an optimist Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 18:52:58 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA00430 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:52:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:45:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Jeff King wrote: > Of course you do know that the TAPR SS radio is in this same ISM > band, don't you? (900mhz) This has the advantage (or disadvantage) > of allowing dual marketing to both Part 97 and Part 15 on the > same platform. A guess on my part, but likely I am correct. urk.. brain fade... you are quite right. I think one of the other design goals for the TAPR design was to make the radio section interchangeable for different bands. although, that might be brain fade as well.. --- eric Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 18:56:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA00574 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:56:58 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 19:54:51 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3875395B.A51C5FE3@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Ken Koster wrote: > Interference from Part 15 devices and other occupants of 900Mhz can > render commercial SS gear useless. We have a 70 mile overwater 56k > link on 440Mhz followed by a 5 mile downhill link using commercial SS. > The 56k link (local design by VE7BPE) works flawlessly, the last five > miles is now dropping 80% because of increased interference over the > last few years. Other links have similar problems. I've had growing problems with the WaveLan stuff I have done on 900mhz in the past.... so much so I don't use 900 for DSSS anymore. It, like most part 15 stuff, just barely complies with the rules for process gain.... and being it is DSSS, just about any inband carrier can take it out. I have had some luck with passband filters, but they are not cheap. What are the specs on each link, so we can compare apples to apples? What frequency is your SS link on, spreading method, antenna gain and power levels? (and also what maker) On 900mhz, I've had really good luck with the directive systems loop yagi's (Down East Microwave sells them also). More so then corner reflectors from 'Olde Antenna labs....even for rejecting interference. Also, you might try horizontal polarization for your 900mhz stuff... seems most of the inband/nearband pagers are vertical. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 6 21:51:52 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA06040 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:51:51 -0600 (CST) Organization: Stroh Publications Message-Id: X-Sender: stevestrohpub@mail.strohpub.com Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 19:50:39 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Stroh Subject: [ss] Re: TAPR conflict of interest? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000106055605.00cdbc50@mail.strohpub.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk My sincere apologies to the technically-oriented SS readership for this posting. This is very clearly a matter that is internal to TAPR's operations and not an appropriate topic for discussion on this mailing list. However, allegations have been made and, distasteful though it is, allegations have to be responded to or they fester and cause even worse problems. I'll answer one of the implied allegations. As TAPR Secretary, it was my job to record the minutes for the 1998 and 1999 Board of Directors meetings where the issues of potential conflict of interest and The Dandin Group's participation in the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio Project were discussed. Although I took notes, at these meetings, I was negligently tardy at converting them into polished, formal minutes suitable for review and publication. The fact that no minutes from these meetings have been published in the TAPR Packet Status Register newsletter is my fault. This issue has since been corrected by the TAPR Board of Directors - I was asked to resign as Secretary and I agreed that was best. My notes have been furnished in raw form to the TAPR Board of Directors, who will convert them into minutes to be published as appropriate (in the PSR, the official TAPR membership publication). I'll take this opportunity to add several personal observations this issue. The potential for conflict of interest was recognized and addressed VERY early and discussed thoroughly. It's my PERSONAL opinion that TAPR's best interests in the matter were THOROUGHLY represented. I'll leave it to the TAPR Board of Directors to elaborate if they feel it appropriate. It's my PERSONAL opinion that, had The Dandin Group not gotten involved in the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio project, that there would not BE a TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio Project. It simply became too big a project for a purely volunteer effort. It had a very promising start and was making great progress until a major redesign was required from the obsolescence of several key parts and some key personnel changes. The design of the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio was dictated by the unique set of requirements of hams (and in my totally unqualified opinion, it was magnificently designed). It's on 900 MHz because that's where the most affordable components could be obtained at the time, and 900 MHz isn't as "scary" for hams as higher frequencies. The speed and range were tradeoffs with each other. It's a hopper because hoppers handle the extensive impulse noise and other systems in the 900 MHz band better than DS. There will be a way to "gang them up" to make "hub systems". The TCP/IP stack will be open source. In short, the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio will be a GREAT system for EXPERIMENTING (remember that word in the context of Amateur Radio???) with wireless techniques of the NEXT ten years, not the previous 30 as most of Amateur Radio has been doing. All the carping, second-guessing, and just negative discussion in general serves NO purpose and can only detract from the intense effort to actually get the Spread Spectrum Radio out of the design stage and actually into production. Don't like how it's designed? DON'T BUY ONE! Lastly, TAPR isn't some faceless megacorp... TAPR is a thin cover of organizational capability for volunteers that want to make something happen in wireless-related experimentation. Want to do a group buy of X, or Y, or Z? No one is stopping YOU from DOING so. To simply whine that "TAPR should be doing..." is totally meaningless. If those doing the whining aren't willing to step up and actually DO the work that "TAPR should be doing", NOTHING happens- rightfully so. I'll be happy to follow up on this discussion in private e-mail but not on this mailing list. Again, SINCERE apologies to the list for having to discuss something so clearly out of scope with the list's charter. Steve Stroh N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com Woodinville, Washington USA Learn, Share, Grow, and Enjoy! --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 7 01:35:21 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id BAA21155 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 01:35:20 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 02:33:33 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] Re: TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <387596CA.81A63713@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk NOTE: NON-TECHINCAL POST REGARDING TAPR SS RADIO FOLLOWS Hi Steve: Your covering two distinct issues here, one being the Dandin group licensing deal (which is the thread you responded to) and the other thread regarding if the TAPR SS radio is obsolete. I will just respond to the issues surrounding the Dandin Group deal. Steve Stroh wrote: > This is very clearly a matter that is internal to TAPR's > operations and not an appropriate topic for discussion on this mailing > list. Maybe not, but it does need to be discussed somewhere. Considering I and others have asked these very same questions, in private mail, to other BOD members, with no direct answers, do you have any suggestions? I'm all ears. As this issue does deal with the TAPR SS radio, I believe it is a relevant issue of interest to some on this list. So until the moderator asks that the discussion be terminated, I feel it is proper for this list. > However, allegations have been made and, distasteful though it is, > allegations have to be responded to or they fester and cause even worse > problems. Finally, someone that understands that a cover-up, or perception of same can be worse then the actual supposed bad act. Mr. Nixon & Clinton could have used your council. I need to make it clear I have been asking QUESTIONS. Others may have connected the dots, and voiced specific charges, but I have yet to make any specific public allegations of any corporate misconduct. Its not even clear to me upon reading Arizonia corporation law, that even if the worst apperences are in fact true, that there is any wrongdoing. I just think its the right thing to do.... that is, inform the membership. > I'll answer one of the implied allegations. As TAPR Secretary, it was my > job to record the minutes for the 1998 and 1999 Board of Directors meetings > where the issues of potential conflict of interest and The Dandin Group's > participation in the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio Project were discussed. > > Although I took notes, at these meetings, I was negligently tardy at > converting them into polished, formal minutes suitable for review and > publication. The fact that no minutes from these meetings have been > published in the TAPR Packet Status Register newsletter is my fault. Allegation? I wasn't making an allegation.... just repeating what you had told me in a private e-mail message to me on 11/15/99. You hadn't got to the minutes for May of 1999 yet. So what? The fact of the matter is, I only asked you for the minutes after I was unable to get answers to my direct questions from BOD members. The fact that you, as an unpaid volunteer, who doesn't sit on the BOD, didn't get them done is really NOT the issue Steve. Your role here, as far as I can determine, is simply the messenger. If "fault" is to be assessed here, as you tell us the BOD wants to do, that fault lies strictly on the BOD's shoulders and not yours. And just so this doesn't get spun once again off in another direction, my specific questions, both voiced here and in the past to BOD members is as follows: 1. Will the Dandin deal limit third party licensing of the SS radio? 2. Is this an exclusive deal only with Dandin? 3. Has the BOD gone against the wishes of the membership in approving this deal? (referencing the 1996 membership poll stating the membership was ~90% against exclusive deals) 4. What are the qualifications of the Dandin group? 5. Do they have the funds to develop this? 6. A sensible marketing and production plan? 7. And then of couse I was asking for some explanation to the membership of the fact that TAPR BOD member/appointees are listed as being part of the Dandin Group (see http://www.dandin.com/group.html ) > This > issue has since been corrected by the TAPR Board of Directors - I was asked > to resign as Secretary and I agreed that was best. Your kidding.... right? They asked YOU to resign? On what grounds? Sure... the meeting minutes should have been published, but this specific issue should have been addressed directly by either the president or vice president of TAPR in the last PSR. Clearly a case of shooting the messenger if the Dandin deal is the reason they asked you to resign. > I'll take this opportunity to add several personal observations this issue. > > The potential for conflict of interest was recognized and addressed VERY > early and discussed thoroughly. Maybe.... but the real problem is this potential conflict of interest was not disclosed to the membership. I asked for specific details when I first heard of the Dandin deal in October of 1999 and was ignored..... I then starting researching the Dandin group on my own, and found that TAPR officers were part of it. This has never been disclosed publically to the membership to this day by any TAPR official (and as you apparently resigned, this still holds true). > It's my PERSONAL opinion that TAPR's best > interests in the matter were THOROUGHLY represented. I'll leave it to the > TAPR Board of Directors to elaborate if they feel it appropriate. OK. You were there. I wasn't. Once in a while some facts need to go along with the faith that TAPR asks its membership to hold.... this may be one of those times. Since clearly the perception of a conflict of interest was understood by the BOD (as you stated), I just think its common sense that it be addressed and disclosed in full to the membership. If not for anything other then to simply to head off discussions such as we are having now. I can't believe the BOD didn't figure someone would eventually make the direct connection between the Dandin Group and TAPR leadership. You *don't* not say anything and hope mommy and daddy won't find the broken vase behind the coach. You proactively approach the membership and tell them the facts. This whole concellement thing is very childish, and insulting to the membership. You understood that this apparent conflict of interest, given the facts, was in the best interest of the project. Why can't we, as the membership, be told the same (or a subset of) these same facts and make our own minds up? I truly think the BOD is severely underestimating the understanding of the membership. > It's my PERSONAL opinion that, had The Dandin Group not gotten involved in > the TAPR Spread Spectrum Radio project, that there would not BE a TAPR > Spread Spectrum Radio Project. Hold on..... lets not start to spin this. I fully believe you in that the SS radio's future may have been in trouble and this deal may have been a good thing. The issue is the continuing non-disclosure to the membership. [rest deleted as not relevent to conflict of interest thread] > I'll be happy to follow up on this discussion in private e-mail but not on > this mailing list. No, I'm sorry. I already tried that route and got no-where. The membership needs to know what is going on within TAPR. As I said, I'm all ears if you want to move this to another public forum. Maybe rec.radio.digital? In the meantime, I have attached a "[OT]" to the head of this posting. Thank you -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 7 21:14:10 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA08814 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:14:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 22:07:00 -0500 From: Paul Sadowski Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3876A9D4.4F35935D@bellsouth.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk As a member, I certainly am VERY interested in hearing from BoD's on this appearance of conflict of interest.... had there earlier been a rapid response from someone - and this has been a public issue for months now.. I would have thought nothing of it all... but the silence is a poor reflection on the board.... how about a clear and full explaination so that we can move forward BoD members? Amazing that we can get immediate audio on the TAPR web site of many events TAPR sponsors... but 8 month silence on what happened at that BoD meeting.... a significant turn of events for what I believe has been a costly project for TAPR to sponsor... I will not second guess what the reason is for silence - or "carp" or "negative discuss" ... but I certainly will ask for information and do believe a public release is needed so we can clear the air.... > All the carping, second-guessing, and just negative discussion in general > serves NO purpose and can only detract from the intense effort to actually > get the Spread Spectrum Radio out of the design stage and actually into > production. Don't like how it's designed? DON'T BUY ONE! I for one believe lots of hard work has gone into the project... I'm not going to put down the design.. and nobody's holding a gun to my head to buy one - but that's not the issue... the BoD not telling the membership about the agreement till after the fact... and no explaination of the financial ramifications to the membership at all - not to mention the contractual aspects... that's the issue... just a thought... is the Contract available (it must have been signed by authorized TAPR person(s) for TAPR).... what's the possibility of getting a copy of it posted on the Web site???... that would resolve alot of questions / concerns ..... TNX for the BW... Apologies to anyone offended... that's NOT my intent.. just info at this point... ALOHA AH6LS --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 00:34:35 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA22537 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:34:34 -0600 (CST) From: Daven6ojj@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:26 EST Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <48.4870b3c4.25a83382@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Let's not forget the part of the FHSS project status report that said there was a desire to keep the cost reasonable. It seems the project team is attempting a group random-juggle of different-sized chainsaws; day-job, home life, steady progress of the design, component end of life issues. Delays are inevitable. Yes, I noticed some commonality between the TAPR BOD and the Dandin Group. But, hey, this project calls for design skills I don't have, and they seem to. Consider this - part of keeping the cost reasonable is putting the radio on the lowest practical band. Repeatability of the hardware is extremely important to the project's success. Yield failures because of circuit board or component variability will drive the unit cost through the roof. 900MHz is a decent compromise. Once the project is released, those who are interested can "gin-up" their own RF deck for their band of interest and swap it for the 900MHz band. Let your technically trained imaginations develop a no-tune transverter that uses either the FHSS radio's "IF". (;-)) Or, separate the RF paths just in from the FHSS radio antenna connection and use 900MHz as the transverter IF. Perhaps we have a microwave specialist on the sig that could come up with a variation on Zack Lau's no-tune transverters using a 900MHz IF instead of 144MHz. If 900MHz is not a reality in some areas (certainly it's marginal in my neighborhood) the transverter design could proceed in parallel with the FHSS radio. The microwave experimenter groups in various parts of the country could be valuable allies in this effort. My imagination is having fun with the possibilities. I am not trained in microwave design, but I am able to build from a drawing and a box of parts (kit), or modify an existing design to accomplish a given result. cheers, Dave McBrayer N6OJJ daven6ojj@aol.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 01:15:56 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id BAA23158 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:15:56 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 02:14:24 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3876E3D0.C393EFCE@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Dave: You pointed out some real common sense things, I'm sure most of your suppositions are in fact true. However, once again I'm seeing a spin develop between the technical side and the issue of basic respect for the membership by the TAPR BOD. These are two seperate and distinct issues. Excellence in one is not an excuse for the neglect of another. Daven6ojj@aol.com wrote: > Yes, I noticed some commonality between the TAPR BOD and > the Dandin Group. And tell me exactly how you noticed this "commonality" between the BOD and the Dandin Group? You most certainly did not notice it by any explanation in PSR or from the BOD. You noticed it because a concerned member brought it to the groups attention. I'd prefer to hear it directly from the BOD rather then guess as to the reasons. Wouldn't you? 73 -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 15:33:42 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA25613 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:33:39 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:30:50 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Greg Jones Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Because the scope of this issue can not adequately be covered in this message, my full response on these issues will appear in the next PSR. I almost had most of this written for last quarter, but ran out of time and submitted what you read last issue. In the meantime, I want to answer at least some of the questions raised. I also want to say that with hindsight we should have addressed some of these issues earlier. Although I firmly believe that TAPR is doing -- and has done -- the right thing with respect to this project, we should have been more forthcoming. As noted near the bottom of this message, the Board recognizes that we need to improve communications on organizational matters, and we're taking actions to address that. 1. Contract Availability As to making contracts available - TAPR has never made available contracts regarding OEM deals. This dates back as far as the founding of the organization and is a requirement of doing business with commercial entities who are concerned about the confidentiality of their business plans. We don't normally disclose even who has signed agreements, but both TAPR and Dandin felt it was important to show the connection between the two groups. Someone asked about license and commercial availability of the radios. Until the actual technology transfer is complete, TAPR is not at liberty to discuss further the license agreement. When that time comes, I am sure Dandin and TAPR will formally announce how the radio will be made available both to the amateur radio community and commercially. 2. Conflict of Interest I am sorry that some of you think that I or the board don't have the best interest of the organization at heart. You (the membership - those on this list at least) elect the board of directors to run the organization and the board elects the officers that carry out the day to day operations. Personally, I have been a member of TAPR since 1985, an officer since 1988, and served as the organizations 5th President since 1993. TAPR makes deals every year with someone, even active officers and board members on occasion. In those cases, the board discusses the potential for a conflict of interest and measures are taken to avoid those possibilities. In this case, the Board recognized the conflict, discussed it at the May meeting, and voted to (a) pursue the deal and (b) have John Ackermann handle the contract and agreement. While Steve Stroh explained about the minutes, as President it was truly my fault that those minutes didn't appear in a timely fashion in the PSR. I let that item slip far too long and I should have been on top of that issue. As someone pointed out, Steve is a volunteer like all of us, and therefore I was giving him as much time as I could -- in this case a little too much. 3. History of OEM deals We attempted several OEM deals with other companies (those that contacted us and those that we contacted) before entering into the final OEM agreement with Dandin. There were several reasons why these agreements failed: 1) TAPR couldn't maintain control of the final design for later use, 2) companies couldn't live with the possibility that TAPR might default on the agreement and not deliver anything for the money paid, 3) the development team had to buy off on who they were dealing with for the technology transfer both personally and because of potential conflicts of interest in their professional lives, 4) TAPR wanted access to any production run based on the design, or 5) the potential companies all wanted to basically pay nothing for the technology transfer because not enough of the design was available for production (i.e. their investment from getting to a completed unit was far greater then they were willing to pay for the license fee TAPR was asking). I think these problems point to some of the reasons why amateur radio groups like TAPR can do small scale productions with success, but face major hurdles for doing large scale projects such as this one. After several failed attempts to reach agreement with these potential manufacturers, I actually began working up a business plan for TAPR to do the production. When Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP, asked me to help found Dandin (http://www.dandin.com) with him, we discussed the radio project. The bottom line was that Dandin is willing to take the risks and pay for the TAPR technology transfer that no other commercial company was either willing or able to do. One of the most important aspects of this deal was that the development team was willing to go along with it and felt that Dandin was in a unique position to make the transition of technology between the two groups much easier with a high level of communications and little or no hassles involved. Without the development team buying into the mechanism for technology transfer, any agreement was doomed to failure. As mentioned above, this was one of the reason two of the potential commercial agreements failed before this one. The bottom line is that with this deal TAPR is reimbursed for the project development cost to date, makes a bit of money now on top of that, and hopefully makes more money from royalties when the radio goes into production. In addition, the radio will be available to the amateur community through TAPR at a price far better than we would be able to obtain if we manufactured the radios ourselves. Dandin gets access to a great radio design and those of us in Dandin who have been involved with TAPR can help gain closure on this project and make something come to life that was about ready to die from the lack of cash. It is a good match. 4. Radio Design Based on some of the comments I have read on the list, I would suggest that you go back and read and listen to the various papers, talks, and presentations made by the development group. This should clarify any discrepancies between what we are doing and what people have been discussing on this list. It is a FHSS radio, so operating on 900Mhz is much less of a problem. The error-correction technology built into the radio will also make it more robust against interference. 900Mhz is a good band because you get a good tradeoff between distance and speed. Yes, 2.4 or 1200 might be better amateur radio bands, but from the start we knew that we had to be on a band that could be made available to both Part 97 and Part 15 in order to be attractive to possible OEMs. Production size is the key to keeping the price affordable and not making these radios cost $1000 or more each. We have too much energy and time invested in it to only sell a few hundred units and then have it die. Another reason 900 was picked is because 1) the parts can be bought and for the most part are not on allocation and 2) 900mhz is a cheaper band to buy RF parts for. As someone also pointed out, the production issues at 900 are much easier to deal RF wise. It is an open OS so that amateurs can experiment with it. The development team picked Xinu for that specific reason. The FPGA code for the modem will be made available. The only thing not being made available will be the PIC chip code that controls the hopping sequences, and this is due to legal restrictions on the export of SS technology. This doesn't mean that you can't program you own PIC chip based on the SPI definitions defined in the source code (should be a simple enough task for those PIC gurus out there). This only means that TAPR or Dandin can't make it available if either group is selling the radio outside the US. I am sure several PIC chips will appear on people's web sites once the radio is available for those that would want to change the sequence for operations under Part 97. The digital and RF board sections are on two different boards, so that someone could design additional RF platforms for the thing. Based on all the RF design I see happening on this list, I will be happily surprised when someone else designs an alternate board for the project that is reproducible. I know I am very interested in developing something on 1.2G and 2.4G myself. Finally, why this design ? As Lyle Johnson explained to me when I first came into TAPR all those years ago "Those who build or code rule." That simple statement drives most of what TAPR is about. The group or person that shows up and puts the time, energy, and effort decides what the final outcome is. All TAPR can do is provide tools, equipment, software, and a little cash here and there to help. I know of people on this list that have said they were going to do this or that that never delivered on those statements. That is fine, this is a hobby and we all have to recognize that. However, you have to applaud the people who do deliver on both the small and enormous projects such as this radio. 5. Group Purchases As to group purchases, if someone can get something arranged we would be glad to look at doing it through TAPR. We were very close on the Freewave deal (now several years past). One of the driving forces for Freewave to deal with TAPR was to be the pipeline into the amateur community. After they kept getting calls from amateurs and they realized the potential impact these sales would have upon their Part 15 customers they backed out of the deal. We have tried doing other deals, but the simple fact is that no Part 15 (aka license exempt) company is going to sell in bulk to amateurs radio operators who, because they can use more power and better antennas, are likely to interfere with their primary customer base, or spend time dealing with what they perceive to be a market outside their business plan. That was at least the situation before the recent Report and Order, and I doubt that that it's changed. Also, there isn't any reason to do a buy unless we can get a deep discount to make it worthwhile in doing. The price points on many of the radios are just too steep for the "amateur radio operator" to buy. I don't find it difficult to plop down $1500 here or there for SS equipment, but then again I am not a "normal" person. At $550 each we didn't have that many orders for the TALNET systems. As Steve Stroh pointed out in his excellent posting, if you want to spend the time and you can find a bargain that TAPR can make available to the membership, please let me know when you have something. After five plus years I am eager for someone else to "push that cart" on this issue. 6. Membership Issues and Feedback A major item to be announced in the next PSR is how to solve issues like this one which cropped up on a technical list. I am sure that several good technical people have by this time unsubscribed to the list, which is a shame. Some of this might have been corrected with the minutes getting published, but I am sure now that additional comments and feedback from the membership would have resulted and is a good thing that our membership wants to provide input. Traditionally in TAPR the board was available at the TAPR annual meeting, now merged with the DCC. With the growth of the organization, the once a year meetings like the DCC and Dayton don't seem to handle membership issues quick enough. We had up to this time just been using the various lists to handle issues as they came up, but the result of those postings have several times been to the technical detriment of the list that was handling it and sometimes turned the list moderator's job into a nightmare. The board has recommended the creation of a membership issues list that all Board members would be on. This would be similar to the in-person meetings we try to do at DCC each year. In this way members can post to the list and get responses from the Board that can later be searched in the archives. In addition, this experience has taught us that we need to do a better job communicating TAPR's activities, while balancing the business confidentiality issues that really do exist. We're taking that message to heart and will do our best to improve our outbound communications. Cheers - Greg Jones, WD5IVD President TAPR P.S. This will be my last posting on the subject on this list. ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 15:36:48 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA25744 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:36:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:33:55 -0500 From: Steve Dimse To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200001082135.QAA14343@raptor.netrox.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 1/8/00 2:14 AM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: >And tell me exactly how you noticed this "commonality" between the >BOD and the Dandin Group? You most certainly did not notice it >by any explanation in PSR or from the BOD. You noticed it >because a concerned member brought it to the groups attention. > >I'd prefer to hear it directly from the BOD rather then guess as to >the reasons. Wouldn't you? > The commonality was never hidden, nor was any reason seen to publicize it. There are many issues discussed by the board that do not make it to the PSR. The whole point of having a Board of Directors is to delegate authority to a few people who have a better chance of making things happen in a small group setting. When you vote for a Director, you vote for someone to represent you. I believe I have acted in the best interest of TAPR, its members, and ham radio in general by approving this deal. Until now I have chosen to keep something quiet, but perhaps this will help people see things in a different light. Close to 2 years ago, when there was a danger of the spread spectrum project getting canceled due to lack of funds, I donated $3000 to the project. This was a true donation, I asked for, and got, nothing, including recognition. The existence of my donation was known to only a handful of people, I didn't even ask for assurances that I be part of the beta test. I simply wanted to see these radios developed and offered to the amateur market. I most certainly did not donate that money to give any commercial interest a boost. Nor would I allow any deal that caused the amateur use of the radio to suffer in any way. In fact, because of my donation, the deal was cleared through me, separate from my involvement as a board member. I could have scuttled the whole thing on my own, as could the hams developing the radio. Not only did I choose not to stop the deal, I was, and am, very excited about it, as it will bring these radios to us far sooner than TAPR could have done on its own. Like many contracts, both parties feel it is in their best interests that the details remain private. The details of the TAPR-2 licenses are not public knowledge either, even after all these years, so this is not an unusual case. Decisions like these are why the board was empowered in the first place. As Steve Stroh pointed out, the board recognized the potential for conflict of interest from the start, and took great pains to assure that none occurred. No external pressure was applied, everyone voted their conscience, and the vote was unanimous. I further testify that I was not involved, nor to the best of my knowledge were any other TAPR board members involved, in the assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The grey skinned, large eyed entity spotted at TAPR board meetings is not an alien but just one of the SS team members that has spent far too much time peering through a 'scope soldering SMT parts. And finally, the persistant rumors that The King gave a private concert following the Board meeting in Phoenix are pure speculation. Elvis has indeed left the building... Steve K4HG --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 16:15:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA27253 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:15:45 -0600 (CST) From: "Roger Rehr" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:14:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000901bf5a25$b656e0e0$0300a8c0@rrehr> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello, All. I am writing this for only one reason. I am concerned that some of the comments I have seen on this reflector will do what I have seen happen so often in other spheres. Specifically, these days outstanding people giving freely and probably too generously of their time and expertise for whatever cause or organization are almost routinely criticized and hounded from their public service by self-appointed critics/watchdogs. This often occurs when these policemen, as is common today, impute the worst possible motives to the supposed offenders, often involving a supposed conspiracy of some sort or other. Totally ignored is the fact that these volunteers are putting in tremendous numbers of hours and contributing tremendous expertise for the public good, not for salary, as they are receiving none. In fact, many of them are working long hours and under considerable stress at their day jobs, as well. And yet they have the drive and the public-spiritedness to try to advance the common good! At least one individual has already left our service in this case as the mailing-list criticism has escalated. In my opinion the real offenders are not the selfless volunteers under fire, but the conspiracy-mongers, who deprive the rest of us of the services of superb individuals by the effects of their unreasonable attacks. The real victims are the selfless public servants (yes, this does include the TAPR Board and TAPR volunteers who serve their community, us, tirelessly and with inspiring diligence, responsibility, and endurance) and in this case us, the TAPR membership and all those who benefit from TAPR's many intellectual and physical contributions to ham radio and digital electronics. So, if you are a TAPR BOD member or volunteer, please keep doing the excellent job you have been doing and ignore the noise. If you are one of the conspiracy mongers, please just keep quiet. If you can't do that, consider counselling. You are just ruining it for the rest of us that don't see a snake under every rock. 73 from Roger Rehr W3SZ ex-AA3QK ex-WA3JYM mailto:rrehr@epix.net FN20ah http://www.epix.net/~rrehr 2 Merrymount Road, Reading, PA 19609 610.670.8687 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 16:22:15 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA27486 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:22:14 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 17:20:14 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3877B81E.C0339CA3@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Greg: Greg Jones wrote: (lots of stuff) Thank you for your response. As you appear to have addressed two threads here, one being the thread I started "Tapr conflict of interest?" and the other being "Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now?", I need to make clear I never questioned the technical ability/decisions of the TAPR team. My concern simply was the complete lack of disclosure by the BOD, which you appear to have largely rectified now. Also, for the record, it needs to be noted that I and others wrote and/or called just about every BOD member on this issue with little or no direct response. So taking the "unsavory" method of asking these same questions in public was not my first choice. None-the-less, I wish to again thank you for your posting. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 16:41:41 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA28240 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:41:40 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:36:47 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Greg Jones Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >Thank you for your response. > >Also, for the record, it needs to be noted that I and others >wrote and/or called just about every BOD member on this issue >with little or no direct response. So taking the "unsavory" method >of asking these same questions in public was not my first choice. > and I believe that Steve Stroh, Bob Hansen, and John Ackermann all sent you email regarding that note you sent to the board before this thread was begun. Anyways, I hope that the new org list will allow these "unsavory" questions to be brought up on a channel that doesn't distract from the various technical lists. If it does and allow members better access to the board and officers then all this was for the good of the organization. >None-the-less, I wish to again thank you for your posting. Glad the posting answered yours and others questions. Now back to SS technology. Cheers - Greg ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 18:04:06 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01082 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:04:05 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 18:56:10 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3877CE99.1EBEA463@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Roger: Roger Rehr wrote: > > Totally ignored is the fact that these volunteers are putting in tremendous > numbers of hours and contributing tremendous expertise for the public good, No-one has _EVER_ questioned this. You are trying to spin things here. > At least one individual has already left our service in > this case as the mailing-list criticism has escalated. Oh, you mean Lyle et. all because of the GPL stuff? And your trying to equate a well founded, on topic, concern about a TAPR conflict of interest with this?? A job is waiting for you at the White House. > If you are one of the conspiracy mongers, please just keep quiet. If you > can't do that, consider counselling. You are just ruining it for the rest > of us that don't see a snake under every rock. So, you suggest Matt Drudge, Ralph Nader et all seek counseling? You do raise some good points, but you really are confusing things. I stand by my convictions, that the TAPR BOD should have disclosed to the membership, which they now have done. This is the ONLY accusation I have made. The Dandin Deal was big enough, and divergent enough from previous TAPR policy that it deserved some mention. Your reading alot more into this then really exists. So instead of continuing to try and spin things, lets all be friends and go on with the task at hand, OK? -Jeff > > > 73 from > Roger Rehr W3SZ ex-AA3QK ex-WA3JYM > mailto:rrehr@epix.net FN20ah > http://www.epix.net/~rrehr > 2 Merrymount Road, Reading, PA 19609 > 610.670.8687 > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 18:04:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01095 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:04:22 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 18:55:55 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3877CE8A.A7E84145@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk As Greg has already addressed this, I'll just make a effort to control the spin Steve is trying to impart here. Steve Dimse wrote: > On 1/8/00 2:14 AM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > > >And tell me exactly how you noticed this "commonality" between the > >BOD and the Dandin Group? You most certainly did not notice it > >by any explanation in PSR or from the BOD. You noticed it > >because a concerned member brought it to the groups attention. > > > >I'd prefer to hear it directly from the BOD rather then guess as to > >the reasons. Wouldn't you? > > > The commonality was never hidden, nor was any reason seen to publicize > it. Never said it was. Just not disclosed. And in fact you are wrong about "nor was any reason was seen to publicize it".... its my understand the decision was NOT unanimous not to disclose among the BOD/officers of TAPR. > The whole point of having a Board of Directors is to delegate > authority to a few people who have a better chance of making things > happen in a small group setting. Right, but there is something else you need to be aware of. Its my understanding under Arizona corporate law, members, who are in fact shareholders, and are allowed to attend these BOD meetings. Yet we never see the meeting rooms/times announced (they typically are at the DCC and Dayton). And private e-mail requesting the locations times of these meeting often is not responded to.(such as this one which would have covered the BOD meeting in question). Jeff King wrote on 4/20/99 >Also, is there a BOD meeting at Dayton or is that just at the DCC? If so, >when/where. Might you have a suggestion to rectify this? > Until now I have chosen to keep something quiet, but perhaps this will > help people see things in a different light. Close to 2 years ago, when > there was a danger of the spread spectrum project getting canceled due to > lack of funds, I donated $3000 to the project. This is good, in fact very good that you did this. But it has nothing directly to do with the thread at hand.... Or maybe it does..... its my understanding others, that are not BOD members also donated money. Where they given full disclosure, just as you were given? > In fact, because of my donation, the > deal was cleared through me, separate from my involvement as a board > member. OK, so your saying that everyone that donated to the project, BOD member or not, the deal was cleared through? I take it that John Coonly, Andrew Skattebo, KA0SNL, Gene Pentecost, W4IMT and other donators had the chance you did? And then of course the question becomes, as members money was also used, how did the BOD make the distinction between the two groups? Either way, I don't have that much of a problem with the above. I just questioned the previously undisclosed connection between the TAPR officer's and the Dandin Group.... which Greg has now fully addressed. > Like many contracts, both parties feel it is in their best interests that > the details remain private. The details of the TAPR-2 licenses are not > public knowledge either, even after all these years, WRONG. I have the paperwork in front of me to license the TNC-2 design for ~$500 and a small royalty. Lyle Johnson was more then happy to send it to me. It has always been TAPR's policy to license its designs on a non-exclusive basis. This policy was again re-affirmed in a membership poll published in the Winter 1996 PSR. So what is in fact unusual about the Dandin deal was that it appears to be exclusive (this question has yet to be fully answered) and that it also involved some "commonality" between the leadership of both groups. Considering the size and scope of the SS radio project, and the divergence from TAPR's standards of practice in the past, some explanation should have been offered to the membership, which in fact now has been done. While we can debate on and if you had a legal requirement to disclose to the membership, most certainly it is the right thing to do by the membership. I think you'll find the BOD's fears that this would be a "big stink" to the membership is unfounded. I in fact think Greg/BOD will be given high praise for making what appears to be a pragmatic business decision that salvaged the product, now that full disclosure has been made. > I further testify that I was not involved, nor to the best of my > knowledge were any other TAPR board members involved, in the > assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The grey skinned, large eyed entity Considering more members then just myself were concerned about this, you really do have quite a pompous and arrogant attitude towards the membership, don't you? There is always 2002 I guess. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 18:05:26 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01243 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:05:25 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 18:56:47 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3877CEBF.BD451D17@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Greg Jones wrote: > > Jeff King wrote: > >Also, for the record, it needs to be noted that I and others > >wrote and/or called just about every BOD member on this issue > >with little or no direct response. So taking the "unsavory" method > >of asking these same questions in public was not my first choice. > > > > and I believe that Steve Stroh, Bob Hansen, and John Ackermann all sent you > email regarding that note you sent to the board before this thread was > begun. Your 110% correct. And you also wrote me back too. However, not a single one of you actually answered my questions. I'd be more then happy to post them to the list to let everyone else decide this, but I fail to see what this will do. Why don't we just move on, as you idea of the other msg group was good. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 18:55:39 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA02853 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:55:38 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 19:53:20 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Group Purchase? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3877DBFF.E8005F1D@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Greg Jones wrote: > 5. Group Purchases > We have tried doing other deals, but the simple fact is that > no Part 15 (aka license exempt) company is going to sell in bulk to > amateurs radio operators who, because they can use more power and better > antennas, are likely to interfere with their primary customer base, or > spend time dealing with what they perceive to be a market outside their > business plan. Good point. Let me suggest, that anyone contemplating such a quest, not even mention amateur radio. My response will be, if asked, that they are for "educational use". Which actually is true. And there is no reason to even mention amateur radio, as the delivered product is in fact a part 15 device. We, as amateur radio operators, can now legally make the device non-part 15 complaint. Anyways, distribution won't give a hoot... they just want to move product. > The price points on many of the radios are just too steep for > the "amateur radio operator" to buy. I don't find it difficult to plop > down $1500 here or there for SS equipment, but then again I am not a > "normal" person. Things have changed. Anyone off this list, on Monday, can buy a FreeWave radio for $700. A group buy could easily lower it to $500. I'd not suggest mentioning TAPR or ham radio, as the are sensitized to this, but I've been doing it for quite some time. In fact, there is quite a bit of equipment under the $600 price point that is well suited to amateur experimentation.... there are even a few on here using $149 Proxim Symphony cards to span multi-mile links. But what are our constraints on such a quest, Greg? There will be two distinct classes of wireless gear we will be seeking out..... consumer stuff (like the Proxim Symphony) and more pro gear like the BreezeCom equipment. I doubt we will get any consideration at all on the Proxim consumer stuff but we may a discount on the more professional stuff. So here are some questions that come to mind which would help anyone in this quest. They are: 1. Will TAPR allow us to ask for educational/non-profit discounts? This of course would have to be done in the TAPR name, and would often allow a 10-30% price reduction, which either could be passed on to the TAPR member or pocketed as a handling charge for TAPR. 2. Would TAPR be willing to act a conduit through a distributor such a INGRAM or BELL MICRO? Typically we can get very good prices through these distributors, but they are unwilling to deal directly with the end users. For example, I have bought Proxim Symphony cards for $120 through distribution (through my corp). 3. And as I asked above, is there any vendor TAPR wishes us to avoid? 4. Anyone have any suggestions on equipment to target? It seems like the best price/performace target these days seems to be BreezeWave, but I have no experience with this. Sounds like a plan. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 8 19:15:19 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA03585 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:15:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 01:50:30 +0100 From: Luis Yanes Organization: Escuela Superior de Ingenieros de Sevilla MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <387689D6.2E72@bart.us.es> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This post (long) are related more to the general ham SS way of doing things, same as the FPGA industry with their tools and IP designs in the idea that if you want to know, must pay for it, and even probably won't let you know, just use it. Dale Heatherington wrote: > > However, interest in this resource is low to non-existant. Very few hams > seem motivated to do high speed RF networking. (high speed relative to 1200 > baud that is) Perhaps if the hardware cost $100 and was plug and play on > USB and used a built in rubber duck antenna interest would increase :-) Few hams are motivated becouse there isn't anyone near them with something that they haven't and could try. And spending over $1000 even locating other local ham interested isn't easy at all just to try. Certainly most people won't make their one and will want to buy it ready to use when realize that there is some guys next door that built their SS link gear with surplus parts, but is too difficult for them but want have it. The starting point therefore is that those guys had enought info to build something that works, to modify to suit their needs. To add presence in the bands where others could look and increase the general interest level. I've said this much times before, you sort or say other way if want: No info -> No experimenters -> No services No services -> No interest -> No network -> No users -> No services But since near all of the SS scene are aimed to commercial interests and not sources are freely available to build a complete system, or even to understand the way they are done, all efforts are stuck until a critical level of acceptance of such system are reached in a zone to have users of these systems, but not experimenters of them. The experimenters must build their gear from scratch, can't reuse SS building blocks designed by others, but the simplest. Also any progress will be done by batchs, when the first generation of the commercial product are obsoleted by a new one, if ever, that could take ten or more years, and must compete with all the commercial stuff changing an order of magnitude faster and widely available. Althought not amateur radio. I personally think that an open design are a far better way to do things in amateur radio, and in the future will be even more if we want to keep an acceptable number of experimenters in our hobby. This will allow continuous improvement of the designs and wide spread of the infrastructures, that for sure will give commercial profits once triggered the interest of unskilled hams, that sadly for sure are the most, that never will build their one, but will pay for it. But the authors owns their designs and is their choice to give them to others just for free. -- 73's de Luis mail: melus@bart.us.es Ampr: eb7gwl.ampr.org http://www.esi.us.es/~melus/ <- Homebrewed Hardware Projects with PCBs --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 9 00:01:51 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA20375 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:01:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 01:00:03 -0500 x-sender: sdimse@earthlink.net From: Steve Dimse To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200001090600.WAA23809@penguin.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 1/8/00 6:55 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: >As Greg has already addressed this, I'll just make a effort to >control the spin Steve is trying to impart here. > It seems to me that most of this message is just another attempt to beat the conspiracy drum, and I do not feel this justifies any additional bandwidth. There is a specific point I'd like to respond to, however. >> I further testify that I was not involved, nor to the best of my >> knowledge were any other TAPR board members involved, in the >> assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The grey skinned, large eyed entity >>spotted at TAPR board meetings is not an alien but just one of the SS >>team members that has spent far too much time peering through a 'scope >>soldering SMT parts. And finally, the persistant rumors that The King >>gave a private concert following the Board meeting in Phoenix are pure >>speculation. > >Considering more members then just myself were concerned about this, you >really do have quite a pompous and arrogant attitude towards the >membership, don't you? There is always 2002 I guess. > I think most people recognize that this remark was not aimed towards the membership in general. It was meant as a humerous satire of those who are determined to invent conspiracies where there are none, whether inside or outside of TAPR. An incredibly tiny percentage of the TAPR membership fits this description. As to 2002, re-election is something I have given no thought to. Through the remainder of my three year term I will continue to represent the membership of TAPR to the best of my ability. I will not tailor my actions in an attempt to placate individual vocal members who dislike myself or my decisions. If I choose to run for re-election, I will place my record of accomplishments before the membership in the customary statement published in the PSR along with all the other candidates, and leave it to the membership to decide. Should I lose the election, I will continue to work in other ways that interest me for the benefit of TAPR and ham radio in general. It won't adversely affect my life a bit if the membership feels another person would serve their interests better. It might even improve my life somewhat, as few of the duties of board membership are enjoyable to me. This is something I do because I believe it is important, and I believe I can make a difference. Steve K4HG --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 9 02:29:04 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA23560 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:29:04 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 03:27:54 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <38784689.4D660C78@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This apparently needs to be repeated: Greg Jones, a TAPR BOD member, stated: > In the meantime, I want to answer at > least some of the questions raised. I also want to say that with hindsight > we should have addressed some of these issues earlier. Although I firmly > believe that TAPR is doing -- and has done -- the right thing with respect > to this project, we should have been more forthcoming. As noted near the > bottom of this message, the Board recognizes that we need to improve > communications on organizational matters, and we're taking actions to > address that. [ the rest of this succinct and thorough response deleted] That seems to addressed the issue(s), as well as taken steps to insure they do not occur again. I'm happy and I think TAPR will be a better organization for this. Then we see Steve Dimse, another BOD member, who writes: > On 1/8/00 6:55 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > > >As Greg has already addressed this, I'll just make an effort to > >control the spin Steve is trying to impart here. > > > It seems to me that most of this message is just another attempt to beat > the conspiracy drum, and I do not feel this justifies any additional > bandwidth. Sure it does.... you just accused me of trying to incite conspiracy theories. What _exact_ conspiracy was I trying to incite? It seems to me questions were just being asked of the board... questions that needed to be answered. If you want to call this a "conspiracy theory" then you are mistaken. But judging from the response we got yesterday, these concerns were legitimate and actions will be taken to see they don't occur again. I'm sorry you appear to be unhappy with this, but I personally think more openness will make TAPR a better organization. > There is a specific point I'd like to respond to, however. As do I... > >> I further testify that I was not involved, nor to the best of my > >> knowledge were any other TAPR board members involved, in the > >> assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The grey skinned, large eyed entity > > > >Considering more members then just myself were concerned about this, you > >really do have quite a pompous and arrogant attitude towards the > >membership, don't you? There is always 2002 I guess. > > > I think most people recognize that this remark was not aimed towards the > membership in general. It was meant as a humerous satire of those who are > determined to invent conspiracies where there are none, whether inside or > outside of TAPR. Your remarks, as a TAPR BOD member, and in my opinion, cheapened Greg's well authored response to this issue. As I know you typically do what you want, I doubt if your comments represent any change of Greg's position, none-the-less, both your timing (coming minutes after Greg's posting) and comments were poorly thought out. > An incredibly tiny percentage of the TAPR membership > fits this description. Again, who do you have in mind when you make these accusations? If it is I that you speak of, as a 15+ year TAPR member who cares about his organization, then I am happy to be part of this "incredibly tiny percentage". Hopefully, with the new membership group that is starting, this "incredibly tiny percentage" of members can grow. Some of us want to be more then "end users" and would like to contribute actively to the organization.... a lot more then you might think. I suggest you just accept the reality of this, which is its face value. That is, some TAPR members were asking serious questions, questions that should have been answered, and that were avoided until this time. These questions have now been answered, and steps are being taken to make sure situations like this don't happen again. There is no need to invoke the name of Elvis, search the skies for Aliens or run to the top of the nearest grassy knoll. All seems as it is. -Jeff P.S. As a general comment, there seems to be a certain percentage of people that feel expressing a legitimate concern about one aspect of an organization is the same as condemning it as a whole. It most certainly is not, nor was it intended in any way here. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 9 05:32:43 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA06077 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:32:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 11:31:20 -0000 (GMT) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd From: Dirk Koopman To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 09-Jan-2000 Jeff King wrote: many interesting things, but please, could I move "next business". Dirk G1TLH -- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 9 08:51:55 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA10244 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 08:51:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:50:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] [SOT] complementary data radios. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk since it looks like it's going to be another 6 to 9 months before the spread spectrum boards will be ready, I decided to take the plunge and play with an alternative high-speed option. I'm speaking about the Slovenian BPSK radios. They are rated at 1.2 Mbps in the 23 and 13 cm bands. They look relatively low-tech when compared to spread spectrum but the user reports sound good. ordering the radios is a bit of a pain. you need to establish contact with Sine Mermal and asked him about the radios. I've ordered three partial kits of the 23 cm bpsk data radios and the partial kits of the high-speed serial card. The Linux drivers are on the net and he is translating the documentation (I hope) into English. for the three partial kits mentioned above, it cost me roughly $540 including Western Union transfer fees ($53) by the time always said and done, I had a $35 credit which isn't bad considering all of the "fuzziness" in the transaction. theoretically the kits were shipped on January 3rd and should take between 10 to 15 days to reach here. the reason I'm bringing this alternative to the attention of the group is that in addition to the "last mile" intended use of the spread spectrum radios developed in TAPR, there is a need for backbone radios. I'm firmly convinced that any backbone link will need to be a full duplex link in order to keep latency low. I may be suffering from a bad case of ignorance but it seems to me that spread spectrum radios can't operate full duplex in the same band but we will need to instead fall back on traditional wideband repeater type technology. anyway, it seems to me that reengineering the Slovenian radios to operate in full duplex mode would be an interesting project and nicely complement the spread spectrum radios currently under development. I am interested in hearing what others have to say especially if it is correcting my ignorance on any topics relating to networks or radios. Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick enough so he no longer feels the pain. -- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 9 09:24:34 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA11234 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:24:33 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 09:21:50 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: DaHouse X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3878A78E.C512668E@cs.tamu.edu> Precedence: bulk Steve Dimse wrote: > > On 1/8/00 6:55 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > > >As Greg has already addressed this, I'll just make a effort to > >control the spin Steve is trying to impart here. > > > It seems to me that most of this message is just another attempt to beat > the conspiracy drum, and I do not feel this justifies any additional > bandwidth. There is a specific point I'd like to respond to, however. It is my considered opinion that most everyone pondering this issue needs to give the keyboards a couple of days off and calm down. Steve, Steve and Greg have made explanation. Others have commented on everything from the conspiracies to the content. IT'S OVER. Thank you. -- Gerry Creager Mapping Sciences Laboratory 409.845.7201 Office Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 409.845.2273 Fax Texas A&M University System 409.228.7686 Pager (preferred) College Station, Texas 77843-2120 gerry@page4.tamu.edu Pager: 4092287686@mobile.att.net "Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of Texas A&M University." --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 10 04:02:16 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA07237 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:02:13 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "C Byers" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:01:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <002101bf5b51$aac6d820$6ba2c3d0@crlbyers> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Dimse To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 10:00 PM Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? > On 1/8/00 6:55 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > > >As Greg has already addressed this, I'll just make a effort to > >control the spin Steve is trying to impart here. > > > It seems to me that most of this message is just another attempt to beat > the conspiracy drum, and I do not feel this justifies any additional > bandwidth. There is a specific point I'd like to respond to, however. Yes, I agree ! I'm satisfied that TAPR is doing the right thing ! Let more on to technical stuff, and ignore those who are trying to disrupt and create wars. 73's de Carol, W9HGI, Westcoast Satellite Gateway --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 10 13:04:16 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA22475 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:04:15 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [OT] TAPR conflict of interest? Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:09:51 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000001bf5b9d$741cc9a0$7708882c@helen.vk2tds.ampr.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day I am not all that interested in comspiricies etc. But as a member of TAPR that because of geography is unable to more fully participate in TAPR, as much as I would like to I am disappointed about the aggreement between the DANDIN group and TAPR. I belive that even if there is no conflict of interest in this agreement (and there is no evidence that there is), there is a certain perception that there has been a cover up given the information that has come out about the members of the DANDIN group. I had no idea who the DANDIN group were. I belive most members had no idea either. But let's move on. Lets do some real work. It is a pity that SS cannot get this sort of traffic normally Darryl --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 10 15:40:35 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA28655 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:40:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:39:30 -0600 From: Jeremy McMillan Organization: Chicago Board of Options Exchange X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <387A5192.41D2A029@cboe.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I agree with Eric's analysis, but I would like to add that the 1996 work by Tim Shepard (IP guru) on his theoretical radio network could be applied to FHSS and solve the near/far (hidden tranciever) problem with dynamic spreading codes and multiple variable-power transciever chips. The commercial ISM products available today are compromises at best, and commercial interests will prevent standardization by competing for market share. The price for this stuff is not at the commodity level pricing a Shepard type network would need. Given there's unexplored potential, and the TAPR FHSS project will provide fundamental understanding to TAPR participants, I would hate to see it disappear. If you look at the Shepard idea, you get the idea that there are amazing possibilities for FHSS packet radio that commercial R&D may never take an interest in. "Eric S. Johansson" wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Johan wrote: > > > > > Considering that there are many cheap 11 Mbps wireless ethernet solutions > > available in the market is this radio obsolete? For example, Wavelan > > WaveACCESS and AirEzy. The long distance range of these solutions, though > > not quite there, also appear to compete with the 20 mile range of the TAPR > > radio. AirEzy claims in their FAQ to get a range of 15 miles with a power > > booster http://www.ezylink.com/faq/index.html > > the answer is is not a simple one. As I see it, when you deal with a > RF digital systems, you really have two subsystems. First is the RF > interface which deals with all of the issues relating to squirting > bits via RF and the second is the network interface which deals with > squirting bits via 10BaseT or some other interface. The cheap > wireless networking solutions only solve half of the problem which is > the RF side. The network interface still needs work. > > Second, it's really really hard to get 11 Mb data rates at 20 miles. > The reality is you'll more likely see 0.5 to 1 Mb data rates. Still > respectable but not 11. Don't forget also that the 11 Mb data rate is > the raw bit rate and the real bit rate is more like seven Mb and then > you lose another 30 percent to protocol overhead. So an 11 Mb radio > gets you five Mb real bandwidth. > > Third, these cheap wireless solutions work in the ISM bands. One of > the reasons for doing our own spread spectrum care is so that we have > a reason to keep access to the boat loads spectrum were not exactly > using at 900 MHz and up. If we can get by with using the ISM bands, > then there is no reason for us to keep exclusive ham bands > allocations. > > Now, I believe it should be possible to re-engineer some of these > cheap wireless solutions to ham spectrum allocations but someone needs > to come up with the money to convince a company to do this. Unless of > course, there is a ham in one of these companies that is willing to > spend their own time advocating releasing reference designs or even > working on modifying the existing design to work in the ham radio > allocations. > > once you have the radios, then have the whole issue of engineering > paths. It's not like VHF repeaters where you find a high point, pump > out a bunch of power and you can blanket the huge area with coverage. > I was fortunate enough to be able to gain access to a path analysis > program recently and I tried to figure out if there were any paths > between myself and a half a dozen nearby hams. Nearly everyone had > some form of obstacle between themselves and most of the group. This > tells me that if we were able to find a common high point, we would > still have serious problems with hidden transmitter issues unless we > were operating in classic repeater mode and able to use the repeaters > output as a way of managing collisions. > > This is probably not new to folks with lots of packet radio experience > but I will say it was quite discouraging and highlights the importance > of complete network design and not just node design. > > --- eric > > Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us > This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: mcmillan@cboe.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 11 10:59:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA19412 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:59:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:57:26 -0500 From: Eric Johansson X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] alternative devices Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <387B60F6.15B9DAEA@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk http://www.maxim-ic.com/showcase_2463.htm here is an interesting design available. now, I raise the question: is it worth building full duplex data radios around bits like these? for example for use in the 219-220 data band. .... from the arrl web page... The FCC has allocated 219-220 MHz to amateur use on a secondary basis. This allocation is only for fixed digital message forwarding systems operated by all licensees except Novices. Amateur operations must not cause interference to, and must accept interference from, primary services in this and adjacent bands. Amateur stations are limited to 50 W PEP output and 100 kHz bandwidth. Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (AMTS) stations are the primary occupants in this band. Amateur stations within 398 miles of an AMTS station must notify the station in writing at least 30 days prior to beginning operations. Amateur stations within 50 miles of an AMTS station must get permission in writing from the AMTS station before beginning operations. ARRL Headquarters maintains a database of AMTS stations. The FCC requires that amateur operators provide written notification including the station's geographic location to the ARRL for inclusion in a database at least 30 days before beginning operations. See Section 97.303(e) of the FCC Rules. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 11 12:17:28 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA23064 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:17:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hunter, Bob" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:15:57 -0600 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <2E785084EBC0D111999900608C14A50901E7EA68@exchangemn2.atk.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Eric, Very good point. A puzzle that I have, as yet, been unable to solve. Bob aa0fg Robert S. Hunter PE Senior Principal Development Engineer Alliant Techsystems Inc. Telephone: 612.931.7619 Facsimile: 612.931.6512 > ---------- > From: Eric S. Johansson[SMTP:esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us] > Reply To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 5:53 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? > > So, what sufficiently compelling application would justify putting in > place a network of digital repeaters at 900 MHz and up? > > --- eric > > Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us > This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 11 12:32:32 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA23915 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:32:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: rschroeder@exchange.bnl.gov Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:25:10 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Ron Schroeder Subject: [ss] Re: Is the FHSS radio obsolete by now? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000111132510.009d5d30@exchange.bnl.gov> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? >> >> So, what sufficiently compelling application would justify putting in >> place a network of digital repeaters at 900 MHz and up? snip I don't know about everybody else but I am interested in using SS for voice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Ron Schroeder WD8CDH E. E. S. rjs@bnl.gov ron@112motors.com 516 344-4561 516 286-5677 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 11 12:36:35 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA24079 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:36:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hunter, Bob" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Is the FHSS radio obsolete by now? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:28:27 -0600 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <2E785084EBC0D111999900608C14A50901E7EA69@exchangemn2.atk.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Ron, This certainly seems like a good starting point! I expect that a voice only system would be easier to set up than one that had to be interfaced with a digital network. Bob Robert S. Hunter PE Senior Principal Development Engineer Alliant Techsystems Inc. Telephone: 612.931.7619 Facsimile: 612.931.6512 > ---------- > From: Ron Schroeder[SMTP:rjs@bnl.gov] > Reply To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 12:25 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Is the FHSS radio obsolete by now? > > [ss] Re: Is the the FHSS radio obsolete by now? > >> > >> So, what sufficiently compelling application would justify putting in > >> place a network of digital repeaters at 900 MHz and up? > snip > > I don't know about everybody else but I am interested in using SS for > voice. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > -------- > Ron Schroeder > WD8CDH > E. E. S. > rjs@bnl.gov > ron@112motors.com > 516 344-4561 > 516 286-5677 > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: BOB_HUNTER@ATK.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 13 17:43:03 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA08671 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:43:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:41:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric S. Johansson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] a potentially compelling application? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I was reading an article about the Sprint/MCI merger and saw a statement by Bernard J. Ebbers claiming to provide open access for broadband wireless Internet services as well as accelerating access to rural areas. the article can be found at: http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_281551,00.html an interesting quote from the article: The Federal Communications Commission has made it a priority for the industry to find a way to span the "digital divide" and develop broadband access to under served communities. By committing the merged company to developing such a network, MCI-WorldCom is offering the federal regulators the means to exit from the open access debate by approving of the pending deal. -------- I'm probably flogging a dead horse with this idea but I still think amateurs providing Internet access has some merit. Considering the FCC's goal and our public service charter, it seems like a natural match. --- eric Eric S. Johansson esj@inguide.com esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 13 19:54:27 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA12441 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:54:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:59:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Edward J." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" cc: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us Subject: [ss] RE:a potentially compelling application Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk IMO This proposal,implemented,would give ham radio a necessary shot-in-the-arm. For openers, the League could show the way by providing an ss gateway in its area as a model/example for providing under-served community access. Not at all a dead horse. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward J.O'Connor ttm@att.net Linux 732 721-3342 W2TTM Crafted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 13 20:33:09 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA13628 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:33:08 -0600 (CST) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:32:47 -0500 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" CC: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us Subject: [ss] RE:a potentially compelling application References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <387E8ACE.4BD38136@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk "Edward J." wrote: > IMO This proposal,implemented,would give ham radio a necessary > shot-in-the-arm. Only hams care about ham radio. Instead of trying to market this stuff to hams, who just don't care, why not try slash-dot? (with credit to Steve S. for this specific venue suggestion) > For openers, the League could show the way by providing an ss gateway The "League" will just get in the way. And they most certainly will stand in the way of any removal of content/encryption restrictions, which do need to go if you even hope to have a remote chance to have this succeed. > Not at all a dead horse. No, not at all. Just don't try and sell ice to eskimos. I'd think in rural areas, this might stand half a chance of working in the form of community networks. Use Part 15 LAN/WAN devices to share bandwidth. Yeap, and you can charge for the membership to defer the prices. No different then a auto patch. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 20 07:39:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA17665 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:39:58 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: rwmcgwier@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:38:34 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Inventor of FHSS dead Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.20000120083458.0093c2c0@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The inventor of FHSS, Hedy Lamarr has died. She had other minor things for which she was famous but this is the most important achievement of her very interesting life. "I read the patent," Franklin Antonio, chief technical officer of the cellular phone maker Qualcomm Inc., said in 1997. "You don't usually think of movie stars having brains, but she sure did." Bob --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 20 13:53:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA00433 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:53:46 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: rwmcgwier@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:52:15 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Re: [amsat-bb] Inventor of FHSS dead In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.20000120090756.009152d0@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> <4.1.20000120090756.009152d0@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.20000120144754.00941ee0@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Thursday, 20 January, 9:53 a.m. O R L A N D O , F L A . (AP) HEDY LAMARR spent the last decades of her life much as she spent the first: scorning the glamorous image that made her a Hollywood star. Neighbors said the Austrian-born movie siren often collected her mail under the cover of night, grasping a cane in one hand and a flashlight in the other. "Any girl can be glamorous," the actress, once billed as the world's most beautiful woman, told The Associated Press in 1942. "All you have to do is stand still and look stupid." Miss Lamarr, who was both a Hollywood pinup and a born tinkerer once granted a communications technology patent, was found dead in her home Wednesday. She was 86. She first achieved international fame and notoriety as a result of the 1933 Czech film "Ecstasy," in which she acted in a steamy love scene and appeared nude in a 10-minute swimming sequence. Hollywood, while decades away from such frankness, recognized a beautiful face and the value of the publicity "Ecstasy" engendered. After a few years away from the camera as the wife of Fritz Mandl, an Austrian munitions magnateMiss Lamarr was signed by MGM and brought to the United States in 1937. Her American film debut came in 1938 with "Algiers," co-starring Charles Boyer. She played a wealthy adventurer and became a box-office sensation despite grousing by Boyer that she couldn't act. In its review, the show biz paper Variety disagreed. "She brings to the picture an abundance of good looks, acting talent and enticement," it said, adding that with a little encouragement, "nothing apparently stands between her and success in Hollywood films." She epitomized smoky glamour in a string of movies in the 1930s and '40s, including "Tortilla Flat," in which she played a woman who was part-Mexican; "White Cargo," playing a slave woman; and "Lady of the Tropics." One of her most successful films was the 1949 "Samson and Delilah," directed by Cecil B. DeMille, with Victor Mature as Samson. She got a rare chance to try comedy in "My Favorite Spy," a 1951 Bob Hope film. "She was one of the most beautiful women in film and a great pleasure to work with," Hope said Wednesday. Miss Lamarr was reputedly the first choice of producer Hal Wallis for the heroine Ilsa in the 1943 classic "Casablanca," but the part eventually went to Ingrid Bergman. The daughter of a banker, Miss Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler on Nov. 9, 1913, although some references say 1914 or 1915. Her screen name was said to be an homage to the 1920s screen beauty Barbara La Marr. She was married and divorced six times - to Mandl, screenwriter Gene Markey, actor John Loder, nightclub owner Ernest Stauffer, oil millionaire W. Howard Lee and lawyer Lewis W. Boies Jr. She adopted a son, James, and had two children with Loder, Anthony and Denise. During World War II, Miss Lamarr showed off another side when she came up with the idea of a radio signaling device that would reduce the danger of detection or jamming. Drawing on her knowledge of military products that she picked up while married to Mandl, Miss Lamarr and a friend, composer George Antheil, developed the idea further and received a patent in 1942. The method she developed was not used at the time but since the '80s, high-tech versions of the concept, called "spread spectrum," have been used in some cordless phones, military radios and wireless computer links. "I read the patent," Franklin Antonio, chief technical officer of the cellular phone maker Qualcomm Inc., said in 1997. "You don't usually think of movie stars having brains, but she sure did." Miss Lamarr said she was "interested in everything." "When I was a little girl, just 4 years old, I remember my father had a gold watch. And I asked "Why does this in front go around, how does this work?" Miss Lamarr told the AP in 1997. She once wanted to work at National Inventors Council in Washington, D.C., but was told she could do more for the fight against the Nazis by using her star status to sell war bonds. "She's been forgotten. But she contributed so much to an older generation. A lot of men fell in love with her. And now the younger generation is benefiting from the unknown creative work that she did," her son, Anthony Loder, said in 1997. Her acting career faded in the mid-'50s, when she appeared in some Italian productions. Her last film was "The Female Animal" with Jane Powell in 1958. She said her career suffered because she wouldn't sleep with a VIP just to get ahead. "My problem is I'm a hell of a nice dame," she said in a 1970 interview. Her 1966 autobiography, "Ecstasy and Me," filled with sexy anecdotes, some of them involving other women, became a best seller. But she later sued, saying the manuscript prepared by the ghostwriter was full of distortions and errors. A pair of shoplifting arrests - neither of which resulted in convictions - and a series of lawsuits against companies she said were misusing her likeness - caused headlines in her later years. "I'm sick and tired of being in the limelight," Miss Lamarr told a New York radio station after the second shoplifting incident. See also: http://www.german-way.com/cinema/lamarr.html At 02:10 PM 01/20/2000 Thursday , you wrote: >>The inventor of FHSS, Hedy Lamarr has died. >>She had other minor things for which she was >>famous but this is the most important achievement >>of her very interesting life. >> >>From a news story carried by @home news service >>quoting N6NKF: >> >>"I read the patent," Franklin Antonio, chief >>technical officer of the cellular phone maker >>Qualcomm Inc., said in 1997. "You don't usually >>think of movie stars having brains, but she sure >>did." >> >>Bob > >Bob- > >Can you forward the article to me or tell me where I can read it? > >Thanks, Dennis > > > / / / / / * Dennis Dinga * dennis@dinga.com > /--/--/--/--/ * 1024 Twin Canyon * n6dd@amsat.org > / / /| / / N6DD * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: 909-860-1515 > | * USA * Fax: 909-860-3685 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 24 07:37:47 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA17198 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:37:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [193.10.138.207] From: "Hamoperator SM7UGT Marcel bos" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Transverter for the TAPR project Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:36:31 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000124133631.40739.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Okey they say now that the TAPR Spreadspectrum Modem will have to wait until april. Now - while I wait I would like to ask for some pointers - if there is possible to construct a 900>430 Transverter for the TAPR project? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 24 08:18:04 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA18427 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:18:02 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:40:11 +0000 From: Mike Dent X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Group Purchase? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <388C725B.27C7376E@dent.org> Precedence: bulk Jeff King wrote: > > Greg Jones wrote: > > [text deleted] > But what are our constraints on such a quest, Greg? > > There will be two distinct classes of wireless gear we will be seeking > out..... consumer stuff (like the Proxim Symphony) and more > pro gear like the BreezeCom equipment. I doubt we will get any > consideration at all on the Proxim consumer stuff but we may a > discount on the more professional stuff. Slightly off subject to the main thread.... has anybody done any design of antennas for the 2.4Ghz ISM band? A while ago when I first played with some Lucent Wavelan cards I bought in some Tonna 25 element yagis centered on 2.46Ghz. Whilst these antennas worked well in dry conditions over a 5 miles LOS path, when it begun to rain the rx signal dropped off to nothing, only starting to resume in strength when the ground and roofs dried out. I tried switching polarisation but still the same effect. I beleive it may have been caused by house roofs near to my house end dispersing the signal and altering its phase. The remote end of the link is well elevated. I changed these antenna to some stupidly expensive circular polarisation jobbies and this fixed the problem. Now I want to do some more "experimentation" but am looking for a simple design, dimensions etc, perhaps for a helix antenna with about 18dbi gain? Can anybody point me to anything similar? Thanks Mike [text deleted] -- Mike Dent, Morecambe, Lancs. UK | email , Amprnet PGP fingerprint: 44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 25 07:17:18 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA16206 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:17:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: roger@overlan.com Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:26:21 -0500 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Roger Boggs Subject: [ss] [ss]Re: Group Purchase? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000125082232.00a44bd0@overlan.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Mr. Dent: http://www.conifercorp.com The link above has some real nice 2.4GHz ISM band antennas that work very well and aren't prohibitively expensive. We sell them with our line of wireless bridges and IP Routers and they do a real good job. Haven't had any problems with them at all. Roger Boggs C-Spec Corporation At 01:00 AM 1/25/00 , you wrote: >TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Monday, January 24, >2000. > >1. Transverter for the TAPR project >2. Re: Group Purchase? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Subject: Transverter for the TAPR project >From: "Hamoperator SM7UGT Marcel bos" >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:36:31 PST >X-Message-Number: 1 > > >Okey they say now that the TAPR Spreadspectrum Modem will have to wait until >april. Now - while I wait I would like to ask for some pointers - if there >is possible to construct a 900>430 Transverter for the TAPR project? > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Subject: Re: Group Purchase? >From: Mike Dent >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:40:11 +0000 >X-Message-Number: 2 > >Jeff King wrote: > > > > Greg Jones wrote: > > > > >[text deleted] > > > But what are our constraints on such a quest, Greg? > > > > There will be two distinct classes of wireless gear we will be seeking > > out..... consumer stuff (like the Proxim Symphony) and more > > pro gear like the BreezeCom equipment. I doubt we will get any > > consideration at all on the Proxim consumer stuff but we may a > > discount on the more professional stuff. > >Slightly off subject to the main thread.... > >has anybody done any design of antennas for the 2.4Ghz ISM band? >A while ago when I first played with some Lucent Wavelan cards I bought >in some Tonna 25 element yagis centered on 2.46Ghz. Whilst these >antennas worked >well in dry conditions over a 5 miles LOS path, when it begun to rain >the rx signal dropped off to nothing, only starting to resume in >strength when the >ground and roofs dried out. I tried switching polarisation but still the >same effect. I beleive it may have been caused by house roofs near to my >house end >dispersing the signal and altering its phase. The remote end of the link >is well elevated. > >I changed these antenna to some stupidly expensive circular polarisation >jobbies and this fixed the problem. > >Now I want to do some more "experimentation" but am looking for a simple >design, dimensions etc, perhaps for a helix antenna with about 18dbi >gain? > >Can anybody point me to anything similar? > >Thanks >Mike > > >[text deleted] > >-- >Mike Dent, Morecambe, Lancs. UK | >email , Amprnet >PGP fingerprint: 44 F5 22 C4 CB A2 3F 9F 73 9C 02 9F 0B 16 55 72 > > > >--- > >END OF DIGEST > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: ROGER@C-SPEC.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org Roger Boggs C-SPEC Corporation 20 Marco Lane, Dayton OH 45458 PH: 937-439-2882 FAX: 937-439-2358 roger@overlan.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 25 12:09:24 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA27155 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:09:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve F. Russell" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:06:44 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [ss] Re: [amsat-bb] Inventor of FHSS dead Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Priority: normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <200001251806.MAA08451@vulcan.ee.iastate.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Thanks for this info Colin. I appreciate you thinking of my work when you saw it. It will come in handy in my book. _______________________________________________________________________________ Steve F. Russell, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Electrical Engineering Tel: 515-294-1273 3107 Coover ECPE Fax: 515-294-3637 Iowa State University sfr@iastate.edu Ames, Iowa 50011 Personal Homepage: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~sfr/homepage.html Wireless Network Security: http://wireless.ee.iastate.edu/ Pioneer Trail Research: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~sfr/TrailWeb/1trailweb.html _______________________________________________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org