From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Nov 1 03:54:55 2002 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 DAA27500 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 03:54:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: RSPF To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:53:33 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 01/11/2002 09:53:33 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 for something potentially more appropriate than RSPF take a look at: http://www.mitre.org/tech_transfer/mobilemesh/ Great, we can do Linux routers. Now what do the MS-windows & Mac users use? The concept of "non-proprietary protocol" is being stretched a bit, as there's no RFC and only one implementation for one OS (although the same could be said for DNS & BIND). One might reasonably expect a router discovery program to utilise all commonly available protocols to locate other routers, in an ad-hoc network one doesn't have control over what other people might run. Can anyone explain what's wrong with RIP, the current internet router-to-router discovery protocol, for doing this task? What's he reason for reinventing wheels? Ant --- 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 Nov 1 07:26:03 2002 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 HAA04055 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:25:56 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:25:17 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: RSPF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DC280BD.4040503@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Anthony N Martin wrote: > > for something potentially more appropriate than RSPF take a look at: > > http://www.mitre.org/tech_transfer/mobilemesh/ > > Great, we can do Linux routers. Now what do the MS-windows > & Mac users use? simple. We use small, Linux based embedded systems for the routers to do the work and there's no need to "disturb" the internals of Mac and Windows systems. Seriously, I'm becoming increasingly a fan of putting network functionality in a stand-alone but modifiable box and leaving the applications on other machines. Making your desktop machine also act as a wireless router is just asking for trouble. > The concept of "non-proprietary protocol" is being stretched > a bit, as there's no RFC and only one implementation for one > OS (although the same could be said for DNS & BIND). actually, now there are multiple implementations of dns but I don't worry about the single implementation issue here. The software is licensed under the GPL, there are draft RFC documents on the Web site and I think if it proves suitable, we could push it forward to full standards status. > Can anyone explain what's wrong with RIP, the current internet > router-to-router discovery protocol, for doing this task? What's > he reason for reinventing wheels? from what I understand (and I'm not a router expert by any stretch of the imagination) rip is extremely noisy on the network, doesn't handle changes well, is oriented towards routing networks, not nodes, and probably has a host of other sins. The reason for the apparent reinventing the wheel in this context is that unlike in the wired environment, routes are not predictable, stable, or coarse-grained (i.e. networks). In the mobile context, links come and go at whim, they are node to node, and they're uncoordinated and independent from each other. ---eric --- 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 Nov 1 17:25:41 2002 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 RAA28081 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:25:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 18:24:42 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] locust world mesh AP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by harvee.billerica.ma.us id gA1NOg120242 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: <3DC30D3A.3020706@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id RAA28081 http://www.locustworld.com/ writes: Finally the enabler has arrived! The Hardware MeshAP has gone into production! For £250 or $390 or 400 euros, you can own your own MeshAP. Built with a 500mhz fanless processor, 128mb RAM, on board 802.11b 2.4ghz wireless adapter. 32mb compact flash drive. No moving parts! The system utilises over-the-air self-updating software and cryptographic mesh authentication. Prices drop to £220 or $340 or 350 euros for orders of 10 or more... Join the mailing list, send a blank email to meshap mailing list. The MeshAP is a self contained Linux powered device, designed to provide mesh connectivity, either by itself as a mesh repeater, or as a client / server / internet gateway to the mesh. You simply plug it into your PC and it connects you in to the wireless network. If you have no internet connection, you can use one via the MeshAP, or if you do have one, you can share this via the same mesh system. It also contains all the standard functions of an access point, so it can be used standalone or as part of the network. Each unit has individual software and automatically loads new updates over the air via the mesh as and when LocustWorld updates the software distribution. If you would like to order one or more of these units, please contact us. The software which drives the MeshAP is available in the Downloads section should you wish to build your own. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Nov 3 10:18:01 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA18197 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:17:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Bret A. Boggs" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: RSPF Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 11:13:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2002 16:13:10.0391 (UTC) FILETIME=[E72E9870:01C28353] List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000c01c28353$e72549a0$0a01a8c0@sirius> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Ant, Do a little research into mobile IP (i.e., a mobile user, say a car moving down a freeway, move from one access point to another access point with no interuption in service). It is an interesting problem that has generated several possible solutions. Bret - WB8WKC --- 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 Nov 3 16:01:47 2002 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 QAA03076 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:01:46 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: RSPF Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:01:03 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id QAA03076 > simple. We use small, Linux based embedded systems for the > routers to > do the work and there's no need to "disturb" the internals of Mac and > Windows systems. Seriously, I'm becoming increasingly a fan > of putting > network functionality in a stand-alone but modifiable box and leaving > the applications on other machines. Making your desktop machine also > act as a wireless router is just asking for trouble. Makes sense to me. That's exactly what the 802.11b wireless experimenters do as well (often with old laptops) > actually, now there are multiple implementations of dns but I don't > worry about the single implementation issue here. The software is > licensed under the GPL, there are draft RFC documents on the Web site > and I think if it proves suitable, we could push it forward to full > standards status. Being GPL, it shouldn't be too hard for a competent Windows (or other OS) programmer to port across. > The reason for the apparent reinventing the wheel in this context is > that unlike in the wired environment, routes are not predictable, > stable, or coarse-grained (i.e. networks). In the mobile > context, links > come and go at whim, they are node to node, and they're uncoordinated > and independent from each other. Exactly, this is a different kettle of fish to the traditional dynamic routing problem. This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 5 09:00:53 2002 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 JAA12945 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:00:51 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: kb9mwr.ampr.org: kb9mwr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:01:41 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Lampereur X-Sender: kb9mwr@kb9mwr.ampr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Random Comments/Thoughts 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 ARRL 802.11b sounds like ham operating practices. Not really any modifications to 802.11b. Which is okay to some extent. Standards are good, but the last thing I think we need right now are more restrictions in this application. Even if they are only gentlemans agreements. Besides I don't really think there is much other 2.4 GHz ham stuff, and we are pretty good about resolving our own problems. I'd like to see someone draft a NPRM to try to standardize spread spectrum. As pointed out it appears sub-standard. It must yield to all other ham modes and then there is the 1 watt PEP automatic power control deal. Why not 3-4 watts and make it like all the other modes. I will also suggest that someone with lobbying power like the ARRL's HSMM or TAPR approach some of the Wi-Fi manufactures and see if any are willing to sell gear with modified operating frequencies. Or an easy way to do this ourselves. I remember discussing that the government is also looking into this concept. Creating our own from ground up is like reinventing the wheel. A reasonably priced transverter might not be crazy. If this avenue is to be pursued as it probably should, what band is good then? It seems that 1296 MHz almost works mathematically, but there is probably more ham activity there than 2.4 GHz, so which band? Security is always at the top of the ham paranoia list. Nothing we have so far is secure, deal with it. Any non-ham, can buy an HT and cause havoc on a repeater. True the potential may be higher in band sharing situations. With 802.11b (I still like FHSS thank you) you set an ESSID or network name, and if you don't hide it, that's all it really takes to latch on to someone's network. So hide it. Also run radius/MAC authentication. Change your MAC to your callsign and if someone by chance gets your ESSID right and tries to duplicated your MAC, if you set it up right it shouldn't allow a duplicate MAC, assuming your still talking to network. Minor Updates: Using Part 15 Wireless Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.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 From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Nov 5 10:20:44 2002 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 KAA16598 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:20:43 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:09:27 -0500 From: John Ackermann N8UR To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] New Issue of Packet Status Register Available Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20 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: <11665073.1036494567@WUSJA129861-8HP.corp.ncr.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The Autumn 2002 issue of TAPR's journal, the _Packet_Status_Register_, is now available online. You can download it, and past issues of PSR, from http://www.tapr.org/psr or via FTP from ftp.tapr.org/psr. The issue name is "Autumn_85_2002.pdf". 73, John N8UR ---- John Ackermann N8UR jra@febo.com http://www.febo.com President, TAPR n8ur@tapr.org http://www.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 Nov 6 01:20:03 2002 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 BAA01005 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:19:59 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:18:15 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Scanner: exiscan *189KT2-0002sh-00*5McT.GtshkQ* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <001a01c28564$af95d050$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The problem as I see it with the TAPR SS modem was that parts became obsolete. The way that 802.11 is going I can see that anything that a manufacturer will do for us will be obsolete very quickly too... Lets have a look at the work a manufacturer needs to do if they want to sell a HAM 802.11 on another frequency 1. Redesign their hardware 2. Probably modify some of their hardware 3. Get it all FCC approved 4. Package it and market it. I don't think that you would would have much change left over from tripple what you are paying for 802.11 today. Therefore we are left with two options if we want a frequency change 1. Transverter 2. Internal Card Mods I initially thought that #2 was the go. After all the chipsets have the signals that we would need to play with... And with some work and with the minicircuits catalog we could be in business. But this is not portable, and the way that the costs are dropping for 802.11 I can see that they need to do more integration and we loose the tap points that we need. Therefore I believe that option #1 is the option... Realistically the biggest killer of transverter building is the TX/RX stuff. However I think you will find that some of this is commercially available, and coming down in price until the FCC decides that they are illegal. What I am talking about is a bidirectional amp. It contains about 1/2 of the circuitry that we need to build a transverter... Some minicircuits cans, and some oscilators, mixers, filters and the like and you have a transvertered 802.11 system. As for the NPRM, I believe that that is an american thing to change the rules. My view would be to start using the 802.11 first, and then get the rules changed. I have a feeling that getting the 1W thing changed will be problematic - although there might be some ways to do it. Phil Karn KA9Q I believe suggested that rule and from what I remember have been attempting to un-suggest it ever since. The way to get it removed might be to somehow prove that keeping the rule and using the higher power forces you to use a Qualcomm patent on closed loop power control (although if you challenge the rule, you might find that the power limit is pushed to 1W maximum period.) X-Message-Number: 1 ARRL 802.11b sounds like ham operating practices. Not really any modifications to 802.11b. Which is okay to some extent. Standards are good, but the last thing I think we need right now are more restrictions in this application. Even if they are only gentlemans agreements. Besides I don't really think there is much other 2.4 GHz ham stuff, and we are pretty good about resolving our own problems. I'd like to see someone draft a NPRM to try to standardize spread spectrum. As pointed out it appears sub-standard. It must yield to all other ham modes and then there is the 1 watt PEP automatic power control deal. Why not 3-4 watts and make it like all the other modes. I don't know what the situation is in the US but over here in Oz, if someone connects to a ham automated system, and they start to use it without a licenses, then they are the ones in trouble. Not the person who has the license. Why should 802.11 be any different? If you are concerned about the security, start implementing NoCat, or something like it. With NoCat (www.nocat.net) you log into a network over a secure connection, and that opens the network to your MAC address for the period of the connection. It is sort of a distributed radius/MAC system. Darryl VK2TDS --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 6 02:19:57 2002 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 CAA03058 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:19:51 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:18:04 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Greg Jones Subject: [ss] RE:Random Comments/Thoughts 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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >The problem as I see it with the TAPR SS modem was that parts became >obsolete. The way that 802.11 is going I can see that anything that a >manufacturer will do for us will be obsolete very quickly too... > I don't think the Part 15 SS market has changed much since we (TAPR when I was president) initially talked to most of the mfg several years ago. They 1) see the amateur market as insignificant (more likely now as part of their existing market) and 2) see amateur's using their equipment as an interference threat to their primary market segment. When we did find a company that was interested in working with us (two in fact) -- it was normally at the engineering level (typically a ham), but when the issue was elevated higher in the company a decision maker would kill any potential equipment purchase or to allow amateur access/modification for operation under Part 97. I am sure it would be useful for someone to go back to the current companies and see if things have changed, but I am pessimistic that it has. I have to agree with something Phil Karn said years ago. If you are going to use Part 15 devices, use them under Part 15. Why go to the trouble of trying to make them fit under Part 97. Yes, there are some valid aspects to experimentation with 802.11 under Part 97 rules, but there are newer and better technology approaches for our community to move forward with and expend limited time, energy, and money on. The 802.11 approach is ten+ years old. Dewayne Hendricks and I started work on the Part 97 SS issues almost eight years ago. Granted the community has lived on inexpensive access to equipment to allow us to do interesting applications. TexNet and other packet radio networks in the mid-80's were possible because of surplus radio technology that could be adapted to 9600b modems. Those radio were ten+ years old at the time they came out of commercial service as surplus. Amateur radio operators live for a bargain that can be modified to do something interesting. >As for the NPRM, I believe that that is an american thing to change the >rules. My view would be to start using the 802.11 first, and then get >the rules changed. I have a feeling that getting the 1W thing changed >will be problematic - although there might be some ways to do it. Phil >Karn KA9Q I believe suggested that rule and from what I remember have >been attempting to un-suggest it ever since. The way to get it removed >might be to somehow prove that keeping the rule and using the higher >power forces you to use a Qualcomm patent on closed loop power control >(although if you challenge the rule, you might find that the power limit >is pushed to 1W maximum period.) I read something the other day and it made me think about this part of the SS rule making we fought so hard for only to have this 1W rule supported by the ARRL and adopted in the final rule making. Even to Phil's comments against. (see http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/rm8737/ka9q.comments.5.5.html under Eliminate the automatic power control requirement). "Those who express random thoughts to legislative committees are often surprised and appalled to find themselves the instigators of law." -- Mark B. Cohen If you don't know the history on how this happened, ask me at the DCC sometime. The ARRL's interest has changed significantly over the past several years in this area. I will not go into why the ARRL filled the initial rulemaking (that had the power control requirements) and not TAPR . If anyone has the lobby power and cash to spend on the legal fees, the ARRL would be the only one that I know of at this time. TAPR spent considerable time, energy, and money to get those SS rules almost the way we wanted. At the end of the day, we were happy with the effort because we felt we got things rolling in the correct direction. Go forth and have fun. Don't let the rules get in the way of experimentation. The history of Part 97 shows us that the rules will adapt to the technology and what amateurs are doing with it. Just some more random thoughts to those Darryl put forth. Cheers - Greg -- ----- Dr. Greg Jones Lecturer, Dept. Technology and Cognition, College of Education University of North Texas, Denton, Texas (972) 492-5472 / Fax (972) 492-5476 email: greg@tapr.org / http://created-realities.com Micro Credo: Never trust a computer bigger than you can lift. --- 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 Nov 6 05:29:57 2002 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 FAA09908 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 05:29:57 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.138] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] The Proposed ARRL 802.11b Standard (DRAFT) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:29:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2002 11:29:18.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[BEC16620:01C28587] 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 Steve, We are working on all the areas you mention in your posting in the draft of the ARRL 802.11b Standard, except perhaps asking manufacturers to make something special for Hams in terms of Wi-Fi. That probably wouldn't be economically feasible relative to our goal of keeping things inexpensive and simple and off-the-shelf. We are asking Ham antenna manufactures for horizontally-polarized, high-gain, omni-directions antennas for the upper end of the 2.4 GHz band. We are finding in our Livingston County, Michigan, HSMM experiments that running horizontal instead of vertical polarization does help us stay out of the way of the Part 15 users, plus seems to get through the trees better. When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. John Champa k8ocl.ham Chairman, ARRL HSMM Working Group From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 05, 2002 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 00:01:23 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Tuesday, November 05, 2002. 1. Random Comments/Thoughts 2. New Issue of Packet Status Register Available ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Random Comments/Thoughts From: Steve Lampereur Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:01:41 -0600 (CST) X-Message-Number: 1 ARRL 802.11b sounds like ham operating practices. Not really any modifications to 802.11b. Which is okay to some extent. Standards are good, but the last thing I think we need right now are more restrictions in this application. Even if they are only gentlemans agreements. Besides I don't really think there is much other 2.4 GHz ham stuff, and we are pretty good about resolving our own problems. I'd like to see someone draft a NPRM to try to standardize spread spectrum. As pointed out it appears sub-standard. It must yield to all other ham modes and then there is the 1 watt PEP automatic power control deal. Why not 3-4 watts and make it like all the other modes. I will also suggest that someone with lobbying power like the ARRL's HSMM or TAPR approach some of the Wi-Fi manufactures and see if any are willing to sell gear with modified operating frequencies. Or an easy way to do this ourselves. I remember discussing that the government is also looking into this concept. Creating our own from ground up is like reinventing the wheel. A reasonably priced transverter might not be crazy. If this avenue is to be pursued as it probably should, what band is good then? It seems that 1296 MHz almost works mathematically, but there is probably more ham activity there than 2.4 GHz, so which band? Security is always at the top of the ham paranoia list. Nothing we have so far is secure, deal with it. Any non-ham, can buy an HT and cause havoc on a repeater. True the potential may be higher in band sharing situations. With 802.11b (I still like FHSS thank you) you set an ESSID or network name, and if you don't hide it, that's all it really takes to latch on to someone's network. So hide it. Also run radius/MAC authentication. Change your MAC to your callsign and if someone by chance gets your ESSID right and tries to duplicated your MAC, if you set it up right it shouldn't allow a duplicate MAC, assuming your still talking to network. Minor Updates: Using Part 15 Wireless Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Issue of Packet Status Register Available From: John Ackermann N8UR Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:09:27 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 The Autumn 2002 issue of TAPR's journal, the _Packet_Status_Register_, is now available online. You can download it, and past issues of PSR, from http://www.tapr.org/psr or via FTP from ftp.tapr.org/psr. The issue name is "Autumn_85_2002.pdf". 73, John N8UR ---- John Ackermann N8UR jra@febo.com http://www.febo.com President, TAPR n8ur@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --- 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 Nov 6 07:53:11 2002 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 HAA14490 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:53:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:52:21 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 There is basically one manufacturer that we <> be able to get somewhere with but I would not hold my breath. Cable modems, DSL cards, 802.11b, and 802.11a cards where the part is not produced completely internally (i.e. Motorola), base their devices around Broadcom modem ASIC's. These ASIC's take in IF and produce IF and then can be adapted to the frequency of choice. They can be made to produce all types of modems (QAM, FSK, etc.). The problem is they just don't talk to folks that are producing for small markets and are decidely unfriendly to the <100000 manufacturer (been there, done that, have the tread marks on the T shirt from their leaving). http://www.broadcom.com/ Bob N4HY -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Lampereur Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:02 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Random Comments/Thoughts I will also suggest that someone with lobbying power like the ARRL's HSMM or TAPR approach some of the Wi-Fi manufactures and see if any are willing to sell gear with modified operating frequencies. Or an easy way to do this ourselves. I remember discussing that the government is also looking into this concept. Creating our own from ground up is like reinventing the wheel. A reasonably priced transverter might not be crazy. If this avenue is to be pursued as it probably should, what band is good then? It seems that 1296 MHz almost works mathematically, but there is probably more ham activity there than 2.4 GHz, so which band? Minor Updates: Using Part 15 Wireless Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.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 Wed Nov 6 11:02:10 2002 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 LAA21267 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:02:08 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:01:25 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211061701.gA6H1PV24554@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? Walt/K5YFW > There is basically one manufacturer that we <> be > able to get somewhere with but I would not hold my > breath. Cable modems, DSL cards, 802.11b, and 802.11a > cards where the part is not produced completely > internally (i.e. Motorola), base their devices around > Broadcom modem ASIC's. These ASIC's take in IF and > produce IF and then can be adapted to the frequency of > choice. They can be made to produce all types of modems > (QAM, FSK, etc.). The problem is they just don't talk to > folks that are producing for small markets and are decidely > unfriendly to the <100000 manufacturer (been there, done that, > have the tread marks on the T shirt from their leaving). > > http://www.broadcom.com/ > > Bob N4HY > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Lampereur > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:02 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Random Comments/Thoughts > > I will also suggest that someone with lobbying power like the ARRL's HSMM > or TAPR approach some of the Wi-Fi manufactures and see if any are willing > to sell gear with modified operating frequencies. Or an easy way to do > this ourselves. I remember discussing that the government is also looking > into this concept. Creating our own from ground up is like reinventing > the wheel. A reasonably priced transverter might not be crazy. If this > avenue is to be pursued as it probably should, what band is good then? It > seems that 1296 MHz almost works mathematically, but there is probably > more ham activity there than 2.4 GHz, so which band? > > > Minor Updates: > Using Part 15 Wireless Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Wed Nov 6 11:19:32 2002 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 LAA22916 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:19:28 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:09:16 +0000 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Message-Id: 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 Walt, Just curious where you got these prices from? Specifically how much it costs the DoD to have them modified? If you know more please share. >If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. >suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 >each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? > >Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? > >Walt/K5YFW And John, Thanks for listening to my input. >When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 >MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling >Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency >and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into >other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html Channel Center Freq. High Freq. Low Freq. 1 2.412 2.423 2.401 2 2.417 2.428 2.404 3 2.422 2.433 2.411 4 2.427 2.438 2.416 5 2.432 2.443 2.421 6 2.437 2.448 2.426 Like you say Channel 1 might be something to stay away from since the AO-40 is there, but I guess it dosen't really matter since the Part 15 guys won't be paying attention to this anyway. Also I recently updated my Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power Comparison section. I put both options into comparison tables. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html Let me know if there are errors. Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.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 From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Nov 6 11:26:48 2002 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 LAA23114 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:26:44 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:30:32 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFujUMjOhJZsBQRba1nslHjuVntQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C0243C9@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id LAA23114 I know this will be viewed as reinventing the wheel, but the only way to make amateurs independent of the whims of the manufacturers is to develop the technology themselves. I think TAPR had the right idea with the FHSS system they tried to develop. Part obsolescence is always a problem in electronic design. This is part of the reason there is such a large industry shift towards DSP in microprocessors and FPGAs. The code remains (mostly) intact even if the platform has to change for obsolescence reasons. If we are going to take the time to build a transverter, why not have a group build an FPGA-based base band processor tailored to Amateur needs? oh well... I realize the tools to do such a development are well out of the reach of most amateurs, but some hams have to have access to those tools. If a base band processing module were developed by a group and sold to the amateur community with a transverter to get the signals to frequency, then we would have an open platform to promote amateur experimentation. I fear experimentation has become stagnant in some of the more advanced communications fields like DSP, mostly because of tool barriers. We need to find a way to break those barriers down. Jason Beens KB0CDN -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:01 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? Walt/K5YFW > There is basically one manufacturer that we <> be > able to get somewhere with but I would not hold my > breath. Cable modems, DSL cards, 802.11b, and 802.11a > cards where the part is not produced completely > internally (i.e. Motorola), base their devices around > Broadcom modem ASIC's. These ASIC's take in IF and > produce IF and then can be adapted to the frequency of > choice. They can be made to produce all types of modems > (QAM, FSK, etc.). The problem is they just don't talk to > folks that are producing for small markets and are decidely > unfriendly to the <100000 manufacturer (been there, done that, > have the tread marks on the T shirt from their leaving). > > http://www.broadcom.com/ > > Bob N4HY > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Lampereur > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:02 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Random Comments/Thoughts > > I will also suggest that someone with lobbying power like the ARRL's HSMM > or TAPR approach some of the Wi-Fi manufactures and see if any are willing > to sell gear with modified operating frequencies. Or an easy way to do > this ourselves. I remember discussing that the government is also looking > into this concept. Creating our own from ground up is like reinventing > the wheel. A reasonably priced transverter might not be crazy. If this > avenue is to be pursued as it probably should, what band is good then? It > seems that 1296 MHz almost works mathematically, but there is probably > more ham activity there than 2.4 GHz, so which band? > > > Minor Updates: > Using Part 15 Wireless Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 11:38:18 2002 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 LAA23901 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:38:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:37:19 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211061737.gA6HbJV02683@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Walt, > Just curious where you got these prices from? Specifically how much it costs > the DoD to have them modified? If you know more please share. Steve, I knew someone would ask... I would like that very much. However, I in my employment, I fall under the Procurement Integrity Act and as such I cannot reveil information under the Freedon Of Iinformation Act (FOIA). However, I would encounage you to go to the procurement offices of the various DoD departments and request the information under the FOIA. This may be difficult though since the items were probably considered commercial or commercial like and fell under the small purchase threshole and as such it was not necessary for the department to advertise the solicitation or award in FedBizOps (http://eps.gov). Also, you might search various government computer related magazines and see if the information appeared there. Since Robert brought up, was it Boradcom? I saw cable modems. Now I am wondering if anyone has given thought to converting one of these to a hamband? I don't recall freqency they use and assume that the output is very low...but perhaps that is the way to go. Walt > >If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. > >suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 > >each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? > > > >Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? > > > >Walt/K5YFW > > And John, > > Thanks for listening to my input. > > >When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 > >MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling > >Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency > >and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into > >other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. > > > From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html > > Channel Center Freq. High Freq. Low Freq. > 1 2.412 2.423 2.401 > 2 2.417 2.428 2.404 > 3 2.422 2.433 2.411 > 4 2.427 2.438 2.416 > 5 2.432 2.443 2.421 > 6 2.437 2.448 2.426 > > Like you say Channel 1 might be something to stay away from since the AO-40 > is there, but I guess it dosen't really matter since the Part 15 guys won't > be paying attention to this anyway. > > Also I recently updated my Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power > Comparison section. I put both options into comparison tables. > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > Let me know if there are errors. > > Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Wed Nov 6 11:44:01 2002 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 LAA24170 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:44:00 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:42:21 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211061742.gA6HgLV14349@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jason wrote: Please make note of Jason's E-mail address and see URL: http://www.sensetechnologies.com/ Walt --- 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 Nov 6 11:56:57 2002 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 LAA24883 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:56:53 -0600 (CST) From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:55:16 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal 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 > ...If we are going to take the time to build a > transverter, why not have a group build an FPGA-based base band > processor tailored to Amateur needs? Defing those needs may be the hardest part... > oh well... I realize the tools to do such a development are well out of > the reach of most amateurs, but some hams have to have access to those > tools. The tools are free! For example, QuickLogic offers a free tool set for ther entire FPGA line. Altera and Xilinx offer free tools that cover enough of their product line for a project like this. Actel's free tools are restricted to their smaller parts such that I doubt they could be used for this.These are all Windoze based, and work quite well. I haven't checked on the Atmel, Cypress or Lattice tool chains recently. The other big piece of a baseband processor is an embedded CPU. The ARM is often used. GNU tools are available for this CPU at no cost. Windoze tools are expen$ive for this part. Used Acorn computers are cheap, though, as are tools for that platform which is ARM-based. As with most large Amateur projects, it isn't the tools. It's the talent and time. 73, Lyle KK7P --- 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 Nov 6 12:05:05 2002 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 MAA25372 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:05:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "P.Gavalas" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] HFSS Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:04:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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: <001901c285be$f40bf520$87ad87d9@klaparhidia> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Has anyone use Ansoft's HFSS? I will be needing feedback at times. I am trying to simulate a wideband coax to waveguide transformer at mobile frequencies. I will be using a wg975 (=wg4 in the UK) waveguide and standard 50Ohm coax. The trouble is you see when you make it wideband (ie corresponding properly to 0.75GHz up to 1.12GHz due to the waveguide's limitations) a probe is needed. There is not enough info around on probes like that and the designs are mostly emperical. If scaled up versions of existing probe designes are to be used then the geometry of the probe will be way to much for the inner conductor of the coax giving a lot of static back. If VSWR is minimised provided a well behaved probe is used then tests on bradband transitions on the frequencies above will become a piece of cake. I am trying to make a matrix of possible probes and designes that worked for people in the past. If anyone can provide me with feedback on such designs and HFSS I will very much appreciate it. Very best regards to all, Panos --- 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 Nov 6 12:12:04 2002 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 MAA25635 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:11:59 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:15:50 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFwImcph+iHleTSL295SdP6neEcQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C0243CA@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA25635 I had thought about this before... Cable Modems use two frequency ranges, one for upstream and the other for downstream. In the US the upstream runs from 5-42 MHz and the downstream from 60-850... (there is lattitude on the exact range of the downstream.) Output levels may be as high as 65 dBmv into 75 Ohms. Pretty good output power. The biggest problem with cable modems is that they are intended for wired networks where the channel is gausian in nature. the equalizers used in the system are intended to EQ out fixed impairments. The rapidly changing environment of a wireless or even worse a wireless mobile installation will likely be too much for the EQ's to handle. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > Walt, > Just curious where you got these prices from? Specifically how much it costs > the DoD to have them modified? If you know more please share. Steve, I knew someone would ask... I would like that very much. However, I in my employment, I fall under the Procurement Integrity Act and as such I cannot reveil information under the Freedon Of Iinformation Act (FOIA). However, I would encounage you to go to the procurement offices of the various DoD departments and request the information under the FOIA. This may be difficult though since the items were probably considered commercial or commercial like and fell under the small purchase threshole and as such it was not necessary for the department to advertise the solicitation or award in FedBizOps (http://eps.gov). Also, you might search various government computer related magazines and see if the information appeared there. Since Robert brought up, was it Boradcom? I saw cable modems. Now I am wondering if anyone has given thought to converting one of these to a hamband? I don't recall freqency they use and assume that the output is very low...but perhaps that is the way to go. Walt > >If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. > >suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 > >each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? > > > >Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? > > > >Walt/K5YFW > > And John, > > Thanks for listening to my input. > > >When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 > >MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling > >Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency > >and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into > >other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. > > > From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html > > Channel Center Freq. High Freq. Low Freq. > 1 2.412 2.423 2.401 > 2 2.417 2.428 2.404 > 3 2.422 2.433 2.411 > 4 2.427 2.438 2.416 > 5 2.432 2.443 2.421 > 6 2.437 2.448 2.426 > > Like you say Channel 1 might be something to stay away from since the AO-40 > is there, but I guess it dosen't really matter since the Part 15 guys won't > be paying attention to this anyway. > > Also I recently updated my Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power > Comparison section. I put both options into comparison tables. > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > Let me know if there are errors. > > Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 12:13:37 2002 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 MAA25721 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:13:37 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:17:09 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFwLhbnM1Mm4mYSYSUYGsnoWkJ3A== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C11377B@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA25721 I forgot the killer about cable modems is that the upstream system is a burst type system and the downstream system is a continuous mode system. THe resulting TX/RX pair is incompatible... -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts --- 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 Nov 6 12:20:16 2002 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 MAA25920 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:20:14 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:24:09 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFwbJbKHF3K8xmQH2b2zdAAxH1Yg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C0243CB@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA25920 I agree that some tools are free, but not the ones from the industry leaders in FPGA. Xilinx offers thier web based tools for free, but if you want to simulate or time something... then you have to shell out cash. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Lyle Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:55 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > ...If we are going to take the time to build a > transverter, why not have a group build an FPGA-based base band > processor tailored to Amateur needs? Defing those needs may be the hardest part... > oh well... I realize the tools to do such a development are well out of > the reach of most amateurs, but some hams have to have access to those > tools. The tools are free! For example, QuickLogic offers a free tool set for ther entire FPGA line. Altera and Xilinx offer free tools that cover enough of their product line for a project like this. Actel's free tools are restricted to their smaller parts such that I doubt they could be used for this.These are all Windoze based, and work quite well. I haven't checked on the Atmel, Cypress or Lattice tool chains recently. The other big piece of a baseband processor is an embedded CPU. The ARM is often used. GNU tools are available for this CPU at no cost. Windoze tools are expen$ive for this part. Used Acorn computers are cheap, though, as are tools for that platform which is ARM-based. As with most large Amateur projects, it isn't the tools. It's the talent and time. 73, Lyle KK7P --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 12:22:59 2002 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 MAA26022 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:22:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:20:13 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 Broadcom produces a part that will do both changing and static environments. If you go to their web page you will see they produce parts for 802.11a and b. Broadcom is at the heart of many if not most cable modems, dsl modems, and rapidly taking over the wireless market as well. Bob -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jason A. Beens Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:16 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts I had thought about this before... Cable Modems use two frequency ranges, one for upstream and the other for downstream. In the US the upstream runs from 5-42 MHz and the downstream from 60-850... (there is lattitude on the exact range of the downstream.) Output levels may be as high as 65 dBmv into 75 Ohms. Pretty good output power. The biggest problem with cable modems is that they are intended for wired networks where the channel is gausian in nature. the equalizers used in the system are intended to EQ out fixed impairments. The rapidly changing environment of a wireless or even worse a wireless mobile installation will likely be too much for the EQ's to handle. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > Walt, > Just curious where you got these prices from? Specifically how much it costs > the DoD to have them modified? If you know more please share. Steve, I knew someone would ask... I would like that very much. However, I in my employment, I fall under the Procurement Integrity Act and as such I cannot reveil information under the Freedon Of Iinformation Act (FOIA). However, I would encounage you to go to the procurement offices of the various DoD departments and request the information under the FOIA. This may be difficult though since the items were probably considered commercial or commercial like and fell under the small purchase threshole and as such it was not necessary for the department to advertise the solicitation or award in FedBizOps (http://eps.gov). Also, you might search various government computer related magazines and see if the information appeared there. Since Robert brought up, was it Boradcom? I saw cable modems. Now I am wondering if anyone has given thought to converting one of these to a hamband? I don't recall freqency they use and assume that the output is very low...but perhaps that is the way to go. Walt > >If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. > >suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 > >each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? > > > >Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? > > > >Walt/K5YFW > > And John, > > Thanks for listening to my input. > > >When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 > >MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling > >Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency > >and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into > >other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. > > > From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html > > Channel Center Freq. High Freq. Low Freq. > 1 2.412 2.423 2.401 > 2 2.417 2.428 2.404 > 3 2.422 2.433 2.411 > 4 2.427 2.438 2.416 > 5 2.432 2.443 2.421 > 6 2.437 2.448 2.426 > > Like you say Channel 1 might be something to stay away from since the AO-40 > is there, but I guess it dosen't really matter since the Part 15 guys won't > be paying attention to this anyway. > > Also I recently updated my Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power > Comparison section. I put both options into comparison tables. > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > Let me know if there are errors. > > Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.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 Wed Nov 6 12:23:35 2002 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 MAA26033 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:23:29 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:21:02 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211061821.gA6IL2V06976@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I forgot the killer about cable modems is that the upstream system is a > burst type system and the downstream system is a continuous mode system. > THe resulting TX/RX pair is incompatible... > How about a power CMTS located at a site like a repeater? -- wdd > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Wed Nov 6 12:25:18 2002 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 MAA26147 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:25:17 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: HFSS Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:27:25 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Thread-Topic: [ss] HFSS Thread-Index: AcKFwidfyOgqggbKRla4jUcKODcGqg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C11377D@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA26147 The tech support for Ansoft products is great. When in doubt send them your model, and they will help you through establishing hte boundary conditions and problem setup. My experience with them has been good, and they usually turn around a help request within a couple of days. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of P.Gavalas Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:04 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] HFSS Has anyone use Ansoft's HFSS? I will be needing feedback at times. I am trying to simulate a wideband coax to waveguide transformer at mobile frequencies. I will be using a wg975 (=wg4 in the UK) waveguide and standard 50Ohm coax. The trouble is you see when you make it wideband (ie corresponding properly to 0.75GHz up to 1.12GHz due to the waveguide's limitations) a probe is needed. There is not enough info around on probes like that and the designs are mostly emperical. If scaled up versions of existing probe designes are to be used then the geometry of the probe will be way to much for the inner conductor of the coax giving a lot of static back. If VSWR is minimised provided a well behaved probe is used then tests on bradband transitions on the frequencies above will become a piece of cake. I am trying to make a matrix of possible probes and designes that worked for people in the past. If anyone can provide me with feedback on such designs and HFSS I will very much appreciate it. Very best regards to all, Panos --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 12:32:00 2002 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 MAA26320 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:31:52 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "P.Gavalas" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] RE: HFSS Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:31:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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: <006701c285c2$bd8d5120$87ad87d9@klaparhidia> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes I know I understand... At the minute the University of Sheffield will not support 2000 sterlings per year to get support. Thus I am left with no support at all!!! Getting support from Ansoft in the UK is expensive and they will not give you as much feedback as the do in the US!! This is why I have no other option than contacting people who are keen with HFSS Except for that I would like to know if anyone has come across such probes. If yes I will need feedback on such designes. Panos The tech support for Ansoft products is great. When in doubt send them your model, and they will help you through establishing hte boundary conditions and problem setup. My experience with them has been good, and they usually turn around a help request within a couple of days. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of P.Gavalas Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:04 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] HFSS Has anyone use Ansoft's HFSS? I will be needing feedback at times. I am trying to simulate a wideband coax to waveguide transformer at mobile frequencies. I will be using a wg975 (=wg4 in the UK) waveguide and standard 50Ohm coax. The trouble is you see when you make it wideband (ie corresponding properly to 0.75GHz up to 1.12GHz due to the waveguide's limitations) a probe is needed. There is not enough info around on probes like that and the designs are mostly emperical. If scaled up versions of existing probe designes are to be used then the geometry of the probe will be way to much for the inner conductor of the coax giving a lot of static back. If VSWR is minimised provided a well behaved probe is used then tests on bradband transitions on the frequencies above will become a piece of cake. I am trying to make a matrix of possible probes and designes that worked for people in the past. If anyone can provide me with feedback on such designs and HFSS I will very much appreciate it. Very best regards to all, Panos --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: ela97pg@sheffield.ac.uk 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 Wed Nov 6 12:34:24 2002 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 MAA26424 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:34:19 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:37:50 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFw5xxJSAPqKOLTfSfkZSSSVgBxg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C11377F@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA26424 ok, that would take care of the problem, but cable modem to cable modem communications would not be possible without a CMTS acting as a relay. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:21 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > I forgot the killer about cable modems is that the upstream system is a > burst type system and the downstream system is a continuous mode system. > THe resulting TX/RX pair is incompatible... > How about a power CMTS located at a site like a repeater? -- wdd > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 12:41:25 2002 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 MAA26653 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:41:12 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:36 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKFxI5e7vFRGtnHRyauiGPldCnMLQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C113780@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA26653 I have dealt with broadcom in the past, and they will not speak with you unless you command a percentage of the marketplace. Check out their website and try to get a datasheet. www.broadcom.com You will find product briefs and marketing releases, but no datasheet. The last time I dealt with them they wanted $50k to see their datasheets. After the whole telecom debacle, that price was either reduced or dropped... I don't know. I think in the end my company paid the cash or some part of the cash, and I was able to see the datasheet. If you can get their parts, then they are absolutely great. The folks that put those Asics together know their stuff. I just would have serious worries about availability. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Robert McGwier Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:20 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Broadcom produces a part that will do both changing and static environments. If you go to their web page you will see they produce parts for 802.11a and b. Broadcom is at the heart of many if not most cable modems, dsl modems, and rapidly taking over the wireless market as well. Bob -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jason A. Beens Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:16 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts I had thought about this before... Cable Modems use two frequency ranges, one for upstream and the other for downstream. In the US the upstream runs from 5-42 MHz and the downstream from 60-850... (there is lattitude on the exact range of the downstream.) Output levels may be as high as 65 dBmv into 75 Ohms. Pretty good output power. The biggest problem with cable modems is that they are intended for wired networks where the channel is gausian in nature. the equalizers used in the system are intended to EQ out fixed impairments. The rapidly changing environment of a wireless or even worse a wireless mobile installation will likely be too much for the EQ's to handle. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-22185@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:37 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > Walt, > Just curious where you got these prices from? Specifically how much it costs > the DoD to have them modified? If you know more please share. Steve, I knew someone would ask... I would like that very much. However, I in my employment, I fall under the Procurement Integrity Act and as such I cannot reveil information under the Freedon Of Iinformation Act (FOIA). However, I would encounage you to go to the procurement offices of the various DoD departments and request the information under the FOIA. This may be difficult though since the items were probably considered commercial or commercial like and fell under the small purchase threshole and as such it was not necessary for the department to advertise the solicitation or award in FedBizOps (http://eps.gov). Also, you might search various government computer related magazines and see if the information appeared there. Since Robert brought up, was it Boradcom? I saw cable modems. Now I am wondering if anyone has given thought to converting one of these to a hamband? I don't recall freqency they use and assume that the output is very low...but perhaps that is the way to go. Walt > >If the DoD can purchase 2000-3000 commercial wireless NICs that have mfg. > >suggested retail price of $129 and modified to their (agency) specs for $249 > >each, why couldn't the TAPR or the ARRL do the same? > > > >Could it be "who you are?" Ya think? > > > >Walt/K5YFW > > And John, > > Thanks for listening to my input. > > >When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 > >MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling > >Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency > >and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into > >other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. > > > From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html > > Channel Center Freq. High Freq. Low Freq. > 1 2.412 2.423 2.401 > 2 2.417 2.428 2.404 > 3 2.422 2.433 2.411 > 4 2.427 2.438 2.416 > 5 2.432 2.443 2.421 > 6 2.437 2.448 2.426 > > Like you say Channel 1 might be something to stay away from since the AO-40 > is there, but I guess it dosen't really matter since the Part 15 guys won't > be paying attention to this anyway. > > Also I recently updated my Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power > Comparison section. I put both options into comparison tables. > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > Let me know if there are errors. > > Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Wed Nov 6 13:00:51 2002 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 NAA27215 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:00:46 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:59:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE:Random Comments/Thoughts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: 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: <20021106185622.FXKV14813.hughes-fe02@DARLA> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA27215 On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:18:04 -0600, Greg Jones wrote: >I have to agree with something Phil Karn said years ago. If you are >going to use Part 15 devices, use them under Part 15. Why go to the >trouble of trying to make them fit under Part 97. While I agree with that statement, if they want to, why discourage them? Now, if the goal is to get more hams, this needs to be addressed (like getting the APC limit up to 10 watts). The one idea of the ARRL HSSM is to get hams playing with spread spectrum and place their ideas into the mainstream of amateur radio. And from what I have observed, they are well on their way to that goal. >Yes, there are some valid aspects to experimentation with 802.11 >under Part 97 rules, but there are newer and better technology >approaches for our community to move forward with and expend limited >time, energy, and money on. Good points, however the problem with this pure approach is you never ever reach critical mass. I.E. we are where we are with nothing much to show from organizations whose goal it was to promote this technology. You have to face the fact that mainstream ham radio is not the main innovator in spread spectrum, as such, your going to have to coattail on others it for a while. >Amateur radio operators live for a bargain that can be modified to >do something interesting. Exactly. And TAPR has recently made some steps forward here by recognizing experimenters like Steve Lampereur and others which was long long overdue (the part 15 community having already recognized him years ago). This currently is the forefront of amateur radio Spread Spectrum experimentation... i.e. people that are implementing and we need to encourage this. -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 Wed Nov 6 13:34:28 2002 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 NAA28506 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:34:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Random Comments/Thoughts To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:33:07 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 06/11/2002 19:33:23 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 What are the ARRL "recommended practices" for 802.11? Are they posted anywhere? The first 3 octets of a MAC address encodes a manufacturer identifier. This is useful to help identify misconfigured/buggy/ misused ethernet devices. No-one should "recommend" changing it. It's supposed to be factory-set, and held in non-volatile EEPROM. Tools for changing it aren't available for most devices. This "misfeature" on open- source tools may not be very well tested either; if it breaks your WLAN card; you have no-one to cry to. The SSID isn't supposed to be a callsign and I doubt it has legal standing as such. Anyone can use any random characters in the SSID. There's no way to stop non-amateurs using SSIDs that look like amateur callsigns. Within the 802.11/FCC/ETSI standards licence-free users are granted free choice of SSID string. The only "callsign" required of them is the unique MAC address, assigned through the standards-based process. (Another good reason amateurs should not abuse MAC addresses.) At this point it seems that the best way for hams to identify amateur 802.11 stations is to register their MAC addresses against their callsign in a public database. This should be permitted as then it becomes a public-knowledge encoding, like "QSL-codes" or "morse" or "ASCII". You've also got reasonable protection that your ident can't be spoofed by non-amateurs. If they modify their MAC address they would void their licence-free status; and it's also technically difficult for all but a few cards/OS combinations. Unless you're prepared to use proven strong crypto authentication (kerberos or whatever) attempts to obstruct non-amateurs will be broken. Like WEP. MAC address filtering is available, but I'd rather have fewer motives for modifying MAC addresses, as its usefulness would be lost. It's well-established that crypto can't be used on amateur traffic. Whether one-way hashes are allowed to obscure authentication data is yet to be tested. Otherwise some kind of single-use password system; ie. the data is plaintext but immediately useless. Secrets enable you to predict the next password. Personally I think it's better to be friends with the neighbours rather than throw rocks at them, then you won't need steel fences. We're all used to sharing the same street with our neighbours when we drive our cars. I don't see custom-cars on a separate set of roads, even though they might have souped-up engines :^) If you want a specific frequency band for FH users then table an ammendment to 802.11 to get another regulatory domain added. Legal compliance is a strong justification for an ammendment. But I think a potential issue here is that amateur 2.4GHz allocations are not internationally universal; we can't have a whole raft of new domains, so some common denominator must be found. 802.11 is in dire need of a way for APs to authenticate themselves to clients ATM. Current protocols only authenticate clients to APs. This is folly as you can easily create a bogus AP and steal the client's credentials. If you can propose a good authentication solution, perhaps the 802.11 committees will adopt it, and you could ensure the traffic encryption bit is separate. At the radio club we had a talk last night about ATV & ATV antennas. He said it wasn't hard to bridge the channel from England to Holland with ATV on 2.4GHz. If it can be done with 10mW ATV, surely it can be done with 100mW WLAN. A good publicity stunt for amateur spread-spectrum, must be worth a go! It relies on ducting over water as it's over the horizon so it's not 24/7, but when it connects you could deliver a very large capacity of waiting e-mails and multiple QSOs... Thinking of water, a floating AP mounted on a buoy would seem to be best placed to offer good coverage of the coast, frequently obscured from inland repeaters by the headland. Anyone ever tried that? Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 6 13:54:46 2002 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 NAA29534 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:54:39 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: Random Comments/Thoughts Message-Id: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:54:00 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >What are the ARRL "recommended practices" for 802.11? >Are they posted anywhere? A few messages ago there were some preliminary drafts... I think. >The first 3 octets of a MAC address encodes a manufacturer >identifier. This is useful to help identify misconfigured/buggy/ >misused ethernet devices. No-one should "recommend" >changing it. It's supposed to be factory-set, and held >in non-volatile EEPROM. Tools for changing it aren't >available for most devices. This "misfeature" on open- >source tools may not be very well tested either; if it >breaks your WLAN card; you have no-one to cry to. Most of the newer hardware allows you to configure your MAC incase of conflicts. No need to swap or burn new proms. Here is the example on my webpage: It is also possible to change your devices MAC address, you could specify your callsign in hex. For Linux systems 'ifconfig eth1 hw ether 4B:42:39:4D:57:52' will do the trick. --- 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 Nov 6 23:08:11 2002 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 XAA23677 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:08:10 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: The Proposed ARRL 802.11b Standard (DRAFT) In-Reply-To: from John Champa at "Nov 6, 2002 6:29:18 am" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:07:23 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211070507.XAA22324@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > We are asking Ham antenna manufactures for horizontally-polarized, > high-gain, omni-directions antennas for the upper end of the 2.4 GHz band. > We are finding in our Livingston County, Michigan, HSMM experiments that > running horizontal instead of vertical polarization does help us stay out of > the way of the Part 15 users, plus seems to get through the trees better. Another (greater) source of interference is from nearby MMDS transmitters, which also use horizontal polarization in the 2.1 GHz & 2.5-2.7 GHz bands. > When it comes to frequencies, what other than Wi-Fi Channel 6 (2437 > MHz...which we jokingly call the "HSMM National Simplex Calling > Frequency"...HI) could one operate on 2.4 GHz anyway? Any higher frequency > and you are out of the band, and any lower you are getting even more into > other Ham modes and weak signal areas. It seems to be the only real choice. If you assume everyone will be using DSSS systems with an 11-bit Barker code. --- 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 Nov 7 03:31:02 2002 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 DAA03140 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 03:31:01 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: watermelon.scs.ch: sailer set sender to sailer@scs.ch using -f Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts From: Thomas Sailer To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 07 Nov 2002 10:30:25 +0100 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 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: <1036661425.27904.2.camel@watermelon.scs.ch> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 19:24, Jason A. Beens wrote: > I agree that some tools are free, but not the ones from the industry > leaders in FPGA. Xilinx offers thier web based tools for free, but if > you want to simulate or time something... then you have to shell out > cash. Eh? look again. There are a couple of free (beer) tools. There's Modelsim XE, which is rather slow. And there is vhdl simili. Tom --- 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 Nov 7 07:44:36 2002 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 HAA09181 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:44:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Jeff Edmonson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] RE: ARRL 802.11b Standard Development Support Request Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:44:37 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (w5omr) List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <018701c28663$d08ed0e0$0200a8c0@hamhome.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > My search for "ARRL 802.11" found no documents; > no such thing exists, does it? No. Nothing directly relating to ARRL 802.11. However, the following was found at google... Searched the web for "802.11b". Results 1 - 30 of about 496,000. Search took 0.49 seconds being that 802.11b is the ARRL accepted protocol. (Seems I read that here, somewhere) 73 = Best Regards, -=Geoff/W5OMR=- --- 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 Nov 8 06:06:50 2002 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 GAA29307 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:06:49 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:06:12 -0600 Subject: [ss] Re: Xilinx tools... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) From: Mike Murphree To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: 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: <796F8596-F312-11D6-AFD1-000393BB4930@tropo.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:30 PM, Thomas Sailer wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 19:24, Jason A. Beens wrote: > >> I agree that some tools are free, but not the ones from the industry >> leaders in FPGA. Xilinx offers thier web based tools for free, but if >> you want to simulate or time something... then you have to shell out >> cash. > > Eh? look again. There are a couple of free (beer) tools. > There's Modelsim XE, which is rather slow. And there is vhdl simili. > I have both XE and SE at work. For the most part, I can't tell that the XE starter version that you can get for free is any slower than paid-for XE version. They say you can use XE for up to 1 million gates but that must be painful. I use SE instead if a license is available. XE Starter is quite useful if you can simulate your design in pieces and is free. 73 Mike W4LNA --- 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 Nov 11 14:48:11 2002 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 OAA03677 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:48:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:44:48 -0800 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 V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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 It is possible to use unmodified cable modems over the air. An interesting company named BridgeWave worked out the particulars of doing so. A story I wrote on BridgeWave is online at http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/volume.asp?Vol=10&story=74. BridgeWave is online at http://www.bridgewave.com/wireless.htm. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jason A. Beens > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:16 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > > > I had thought about this before... > > Cable Modems use two frequency ranges, one for upstream and the other > for downstream. In the US the upstream runs from 5-42 MHz and the > downstream from 60-850... (there is lattitude on the exact range of the > downstream.) > > Output levels may be as high as 65 dBmv into 75 Ohms. Pretty good > output power. > > The biggest problem with cable modems is that they are intended for > wired networks where the channel is gausian in nature. the equalizers > used in the system are intended to EQ out fixed impairments. The > rapidly changing environment of a wireless or even worse a wireless > mobile installation will likely be too much for the EQ's to handle. > --- 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 Nov 11 15:22:39 2002 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 PAA06398 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:22:38 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:26:38 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Thread-Index: AcKJyQSydRgAaSMxQKKSU5sZjPrRnQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C0243CF@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA06398 I agree that you could use an unmodified cable modem over the air if you built a transport system which is immune to the wireless channel effects. The device that Bridgewave has devised sounds clever, but it is in fact the physical layer of the combined system not the cable modem. The cable modem is still not able to cope with the wireless channel impairments, and that is why a simple transverter was not the approach Bridgewave undertook. Here the cable modem is nothing more than a glorified baseband processor. The real difficulty in the design now lies in the coding/modulation system that Bridgewave has produced. This system provides the over the air noise imunity that the cable modem requires, but which the cable modem cannot provide on its own. This keeps the cable modem from having to deal with the wireless channel which I believe was the intent of the original post. BTW, neat article... neat idea... 73 Jason KB0CDN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Steve Wrote... It is possible to use unmodified cable modems over the air. An interesting company named BridgeWave worked out the particulars of doing so. A story I wrote on BridgeWave is online at http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/volume.asp?Vol=10&story =74. BridgeWave is online at http://www.bridgewave.com/wireless.htm. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 --- 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 Nov 11 15:35:43 2002 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 PAA07439 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:35:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Random Comments/Thoughts To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:34:12 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 11/11/2002 21:34:46 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 > Most of the newer hardware allows you to configure your MAC incase > of conflicts. No need to swap or burn new proms. To be pedantic, WLAN card BSSIDs form a separate namespace to ethernet MAC addresses. But manufacturers universally use the MAC address numbering system to get unique numbers. It's the manufacturer's responsibility to give you a unique BSSID. This only works if nobody mods them. > Here is the example on my webpage: > It is also possible to change your devices MAC address, you could > specify your callsign in hex. For Linux systems 'ifconfig eth1 hw ether > 4B:42:39:4D:57:52' will do the trick. AFAIK UK callsigns can be up to ~14 characters. How about something like USA/GQX0MWT/MM? Size may depend on national rules. On basic callsigns you couldn't fit the "/P" for "temporary station". And what about APs or other OS? Linux supports a limited range of cards for which more interface info is available; for those it supports it will /sometimes/ do it. I've got one FHSS 802.11 card on the table here... Reading the readme for ray_cs (linux driver), << The hardware address cannot be set using ifconfig yet. >> It appears there is a means of doing it, but not permanently (re-writing the EEPROM). It requires card-reinsertion to take effect under linux. No use for an AP then, where the card is bolted down and inaccessible - unless a card insertion is deemed to occur at boot. That still means forcing down the network to change operators. I'm not sure my AP can give me any received hardware IDs without modifying the firmware. I can't see how I could practically log them either. For any proposed ID system, it should be simple to get "apache" webserver to log the ID of the requester. Easy. How do we do it with your ID-in-BSSID method? This at least involves modding 3 or 4 bits of software, incl. firmware of an AP... remember that packets could take different routes during a file transfer, so there may be several. For a bridged message repeated by an intermediate AP, you don't get to see the sender's AP address at all! His PC ethernet card's MAC address is there :-) But you recorded the ID of the repeater... Error! - your log must record the station you contacted via the repeater. This is not open-book AX-25, where you see everyone who touched the packet. Once he's more than one hop away, the whole effort is wasted. How do you know if he *is* only one hop away? You don't. You can't know if it's the sender's ID at all, or who's ID it is. (The solution here is to mandate "identd".) Annoying thing is that 802.1 bridges are transparent and aren't visible in arp tables or traceroute. You can't even ping a bridge. It's hard to get identifiers out of network equipment. You're not supposed to, and it shouldn't matter. Internet packet routing should be arbitrary. We should only care about endpoints; machines and users. Only other hardware cares about MAC addresses. Users never see them. If we apply a bit of logic the important thing to identify is not the rig but the user, as it is the user that is licenced, and it's up to him to make sure he's using the right gear. (We don't make HF rigs ident... the user idents.) And it should then go to the user receiving, as in the normal flow of the message. It's no help having bits of kit sending IDs to other bits of kit on a hill somewhere from which we can't extract the ID. It only makes sense to identify the content; eg that e-mails should have the "from" and "to" fields identify callsigns, either in the address itself or in the comment. It seems reasonable that it should be easy for client-server transactions to be automatically logged with callsigns by either party. (Servers have logging as std; clients often don't but you can use a local proxy to log. They normally support reverse-DNS and identd lookup which should be enough to swop callsigns.) If you're using an AP in bridging mode, I'm supicious beacons are'nt sent, and the SSID is not needed. Callsigns in SSID won't work. I need to set up packet sniffing to understand bridging better. My textbooks are weak on 802.11 bridging. (Bridges emit bridge spanning-tree protocol packets to inform other bridges. To 802.11, add 802.1D bridges and 802.2 LLC for the whole story. ) Hmm, are we trying to make useful logging easy for hams here, or trying to prop up some broken laws? The UK regs seem reasonable - we ident the source and destination operators, and we ident the content, not the protocol. And rigs don't ident. Unattended gear is a special case as the owner keeps a robot which does his job every 15 minutes. What's the problem? Please let's not start identing rigs. We ident licensees. We license people. We don't license rigs. Ant M1FDE Trying to document anything accurately for linux is a b* isn't it? In every 10 cases there's always 9 exceptions... I resist the temptation to write "how I made this with linux" Reading linux docs can be a b* too, - if it doesn't specify versions and dates, I've learnt to ignore it. The web is awash with obsolete dead or dying linux docs. --- 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 Nov 11 16:27:22 2002 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 QAA10485 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:27:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:25:00 -0800 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 V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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 The fundamental idea of BridgeWave's approach... which I couldn't much argue with... was that cable modems present a pinnacle of mass production of high-speed RF data communications devices. There are many millions of them, produced cheaply. BridgeWave's approach was intended to allow cable companies to extend their services into areas where they didn't have wired infrastructure, with no change in their Operational and Support Systems (OSS) - the (BridgeWave) wireless links are pretty much invisible to the cable system. The "cable" installer would show up, install a cable modem per usual, and instead of pulling cable to the pole, mounted a small dish pointing at the nearest base station. That was the theory, anyway. I haven't followed up with the company since that article. The "adapter for cable modem to Amateur Radio frequencies" approach has been contemplated previously. I'm not sure if the effort I previously heard about ever came to fruition. Thanks, Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jason A. Beens > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 13:27 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: Random Comments/Thoughts > > > > I agree that you could use an unmodified cable modem over the air if you > built a transport system which is immune to the wireless channel > effects. The device that Bridgewave has devised sounds clever, but it > is in fact the physical layer of the combined system not the cable > modem. The cable modem is still not able to cope with the wireless > channel impairments, and that is why a simple transverter was not the > approach Bridgewave undertook. Here the cable modem is nothing more > than a glorified baseband processor. The real difficulty in the design > now lies in the coding/modulation system that Bridgewave has produced. > This system provides the over the air noise imunity that the cable modem > requires, but which the cable modem cannot provide on its own. This > keeps the cable modem from having to deal with the wireless channel > which I believe was the intent of the original post. > > BTW, neat article... neat idea... > > 73 > Jason > KB0CDN --- 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 Nov 11 17:02:22 2002 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 RAA12809 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:02:17 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hugh Shane" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] DOCSIS Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:52:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2899A.64BFB750" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean 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: <009601c289d5$117ed7c0$7700a8c0@sledcontroller> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2899A.64BFB750 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I worked for a time for a company called Advanced Radio Cells = (http://www.arcells.com) that makes what amounts to transverters for the 5.3 and 5.8 GHz bands. There was no = "transmodulation" done as in the BridgeWave system and we got good bit error rate performance = out to 5 miles line-of-sight with QPSK. I hear that they've got 16QAM working now as well.=20 The main problem with cable modem based systems is that, although the = subscriber modems are massed produced and therefore cheap, the head end systems are anything = but cheap. As a result a would-be wireless ISP, or whoever, needs a pretty hefty bank roll to = deploy service (like $100K for=20 a full blown system). In contrast, 802.11x systems can be deployed much = more cheaply. However,=20 802.11b, according to my sources, deteriorates under loading conditions = that present no problem for=20 DOCSIS. There's a paper on the above web site that I co-authored that = addresses some of these issues.=20 We didn't break a sweat on the analysis of this problem but we cite some = excellent references that did ;) Anyway, my point (and I do have one) is that it wouldn't be too big a = deal to make a DOCSIS-amateur=20 transverter. You need reasonably linear transmitters and low phase noise = frequency sources. Otherwise=20 it's straightforward. The real killer is the cost of the head-end gear.=20 Hugh N7UAX ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2899A.64BFB750 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I worked for a time for a company = called Advanced=20 Radio Cells (http://www.arcells.com) = that=20 makes
what amounts to transverters for the = 5.3 and 5.8=20 GHz bands. There was no "transmodulation" done
as in the BridgeWave system and we got = good bit=20 error rate performance out to 5 miles line-of-sight
with QPSK. I=20 hear that they've got 16QAM working = now as=20 well. 
 
The main problem with cable modem based = systems is=20 that, although the subscriber modems are
massed produced and therefore cheap, = the head end=20 systems are anything but cheap. As a result
a would-be wireless ISP, or = whoever, needs a pretty hefty bank roll to deploy = service=20 (like $100K for
a full blown system). In contrast, = 802.11x systems can be deployed much more cheaply. = However,=20
802.11b, according to my sources, = deteriorates=20 under loading conditions that = present no=20 problem for 
DOCSIS. There's=20 a paper on the above web site that I = co-authored=20 that addresses some of these issues. 
We didn't break a sweat on the analysis of this problem but we cite = some excellent=20 references that did ;)
 
Anyway, my point (and I do have = one) is that=20 it wouldn't be too big a deal to make a DOCSIS-amateur
transverter. You need reasonably = linear transmitters and low phase noise frequency = sources.=20 Otherwise
it's straightforward. The real = killer is the cost of the head-end gear. =

Hugh
N7UAX
------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2899A.64BFB750-- --- 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 Nov 12 05:47:26 2002 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 FAA16328 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 05:47:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: DOCSIS To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:45:23 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/11/2002 11:45:56 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 How would amateurs get hold of cable modem hardware cheaply? Set-top boxes are not sold but are loaned to subscribers. Supplies are controlled by cable companies and aren't available to experimenters in small quantities. (not here anyway) Cable companies don't want people hacking with their boxes as the usual motive for this is breaking into pay-per-view. We could also cite mobile phones as high-rate RF transceiver-modems that are much more readily available than cable-STBs. Modern WAP-enabled phones have as much Flash & RAM & CPU as your WLAN-AP. Any signs of Linux on a mobile phone yet? M1FDE --- 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 Nov 12 07:45:59 2002 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 HAA21372 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:28 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: DOCSIS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD105F8.8090704@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I've seen cable set-top boxes for sale in Best Buy here... that's one avenue. There are Ebay opportunities, as well. gerry Anthony N Martin wrote: > How would amateurs get hold of cable modem hardware > cheaply? > > Set-top boxes are not sold but are loaned to subscribers. > Supplies are controlled by cable companies and aren't > available to experimenters in small quantities. (not > here anyway) > > Cable companies don't want people hacking with their > boxes as the usual motive for this is breaking into > pay-per-view. > > We could also cite mobile phones as high-rate RF > transceiver-modems that are much more readily > available than cable-STBs. Modern WAP-enabled > phones have as much Flash & RAM & CPU as your > WLAN-AP. Any signs of Linux on a mobile phone yet? > > M1FDE > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Nov 12 09:10:57 2002 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 JAA25596 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:10:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:10:12 -0800 From: Bruno Haineault To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: DOCSIS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: 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: <20021112070442.7C78.BHAINEAULT@bhgvh.com> Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:45:23 +0000 "Anthony N Martin" wrote: > > How would amateurs get hold of cable modem hardware > cheaply? > > Set-top boxes are not sold but are loaned to subscribers. > Supplies are controlled by cable companies and aren't > available to experimenters in small quantities. (not > here anyway) > > Cable companies don't want people hacking with their > boxes as the usual motive for this is breaking into > pay-per-view. > > We could also cite mobile phones as high-rate RF > transceiver-modems that are much more readily > available than cable-STBs. Modern WAP-enabled > phones have as much Flash & RAM & CPU as your > WLAN-AP. Any signs of Linux on a mobile phone yet? > > M1FDE Here in the USA you can buy set-top cable modems for around US$47 (after the discounts). I bought my Linksys Etherfast cable modem for just under US$100. If you connect it to the cable system, then it needs to be configured and authorized by the MSO. However, nothing stops you from using it "off-line". I assume that rules in the UK might be different in this area ;-) My question is how/why would one want to use one of these as a transverter? Bruno, VE2EQ/W6AFK Oceanside, California --- 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 Nov 12 09:16:33 2002 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 JAA25944 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:16:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: DOCSIS Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:14:15 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0091_01C28A1B.1C020640" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C28A1B.1C020640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The problem with extrapolating from ARCi's equipment is that the base equipment was from Vyyo, whose technology wasn't "pure" DOCSIS but rather what they called DOCSIS+. For DOCSIS+, Vyyo modified DOCSIS for use on RF. Vyyo was only interested in selling to the MMDS (2.5 - 2.7 GHz band) market, and ARCi got a license to adapt Vyyo's technology to be used on the license-exempt 5.8 GHz band. Since ARCi and Vyyo equipment is proprietary, it's not directly applicable to the amazing cost points and availability of DOCSIS-based cable modems. To answer some questions about availability, DOCSIS (v1.1 if memory serves) cable modems are now on sale at about $100.00. I've seen them at CompUSA and other retailers. It's perfectly legal to own one even if you have no intention of using it for its intended use. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 Editor - Focus on Broadband Wireless Internet Access newsletter http://www.strohpub.com/focus -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Hugh Shane Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 14:53 To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] DOCSIS I worked for a time for a company called Advanced Radio Cells (http://www.arcells.com) that makes what amounts to transverters for the 5.3 and 5.8 GHz bands. There was no "transmodulation" done as in the BridgeWave system and we got good bit error rate performance out to 5 miles line-of-sight with QPSK. I hear that they've got 16QAM working now as well. The main problem with cable modem based systems is that, although the subscriber modems are massed produced and therefore cheap, the head end systems are anything but cheap. As a result a would-be wireless ISP, or whoever, needs a pretty hefty bank roll to deploy service (like $100K for a full blown system). In contrast, 802.11x systems can be deployed much more cheaply. However, 802.11b, according to my sources, deteriorates under loading conditions that present no problem for DOCSIS. There's a paper on the above web site that I co-authored that addresses some of these issues. We didn't break a sweat on the analysis of this problem but we cite some excellent references that did ;) Anyway, my point (and I do have one) is that it wouldn't be too big a deal to make a DOCSIS-amateur transverter. You need reasonably linear transmitters and low phase noise frequency sources. Otherwise it's straightforward. The real killer is the cost of the head-end gear. Hugh N7UAX ------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C28A1B.1C020640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
The=20 problem with extrapolating from ARCi's equipment is that the base = equipment was=20 from Vyyo, whose technology wasn't "pure" DOCSIS but rather what they = called=20 DOCSIS+. For DOCSIS+, Vyyo modified DOCSIS for use on RF. Vyyo was = only=20 interested in selling to the MMDS (2.5 - 2.7 GHz band) market, and ARCi = got a=20 license to adapt Vyyo's technology to be used on the license-exempt 5.8 = GHz=20 band. Since ARCi and Vyyo equipment is proprietary, it's not directly = applicable=20 to the amazing cost points and availability of DOCSIS-based cable=20 modems.
 
To=20 answer some questions about availability, DOCSIS (v1.1 if memory = serves)=20 cable modems are now on sale at about $100.00. I've seen them at CompUSA = and=20 other retailers. It's perfectly legal to own one even if you have no = intention=20 of using it for its intended use.
 

Thanks,

Steve

--
Steve = Stroh  =20 steve@strohpub.com  425-481-0600
Editor - Focus on Broadband = Wireless=20 Internet Access newsletter http://www.strohpub.com/focus

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org = [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On=20 Behalf Of Hugh Shane
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002=20 14:53
To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest=20 Group
Subject: [ss] DOCSIS

I worked for a time for a company = called Advanced=20 Radio Cells (http://www.arcells.com) that=20 makes
what amounts to transverters for the = 5.3 and 5.8=20 GHz bands. There was no "transmodulation" done
as in the BridgeWave system and we = got good bit=20 error rate performance out to 5 miles line-of-sight
with QPSK. I=20 hear that they've got 16QAM working = now as=20 well. 
 
The main problem with cable modem = based systems=20 is that, although the subscriber modems are
massed produced and therefore cheap, = the head end=20 systems are anything but cheap. As a result
a would-be wireless ISP, or = whoever, needs a pretty hefty bank roll to = deploy service=20 (like $100K for
a full blown system). In contrast, = 802.11x systems can be deployed much more = cheaply. However,=20
802.11b, according to my = sources,=20 deteriorates under loading = conditions that=20 present no problem for 
DOCSIS. There's a paper on the above web site that I co-authored that addresses some of these=20 issues. 
We didn't break a sweat on the analysis of this problem but we cite = some excellent=20 references that did ;)
 
Anyway, my point (and I do have = one) is that=20 it wouldn't be too big a deal to make a DOCSIS-amateur
transverter. You need reasonably = linear transmitters and low phase noise = frequency sources.=20 Otherwise
it's straightforward. The real = killer is the cost of the head-end gear. =

Hugh
N7UAX
------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C28A1B.1C020640-- --- 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 Nov 12 12:27:28 2002 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 MAA09131 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:27:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: DOCSIS To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:25:59 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/11/2002 18:26:33 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 > Here in the USA you can buy set-top cable modems for around US$47 > (after the discounts). That's cheap. What speed are they? Now why would you want to use a pair of those, with a pair of transverters, to 23cms, presumably, that someone would have to design & make? How would that compare with 802.11 for a point- to-point link? Would they require a frequency-division-duplex link? Or could they work time-division-duplex on one frequency? (never looked into DOCSIS, but up and down on cable networks are always different frequency bands) (I'm assuming here that we can bridge the difference in uplink and downlink frequencies in the transverter, and fix protocol issues in the firmware so that a pair of cable modems can talk to each other.) > I assume that rules in the UK might be different in this > area ;-) There's no laws that stop you owning or dickering with a cable modem, or using it for alterior purposes. The thing isn't supposed to be a radio transmitter at all. Problems might occur if you tried to do commercial imports getting the devices CE approved. Just take the cases off and specify it as a component module for a ham kit. There's just no demand for cable modems to be on the consumer market in europe as cable companies supply STBs and modems with the service rental. There's no law against it... This was also the case with ADSL, but many ISPs now offer lower rates if you supply your own DSL modem. Consumer DSL modems and DSL firewall/NAT/routers are becoming cheap. I'd query whether the DOCSIS is the standard in use in Europe. No'ones connecting it to the line so who cares? If you start reverse-engineering pay-TV STBs, then there *are* EU laws that could get you, but a modem that does not decrypt pay-TV is OK. M1FDE --- 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 Nov 12 22:59:43 2002 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 WAA05070 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:59:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:59:23 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: DOCSIS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD1DC2B.7080204@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I need to engage one of my grad students in this discussion, and see if he's got any thoughts. I'll brief him and get him to join the list if he thinks he can offer anything. gerry Anthony N Martin wrote: >>Here in the USA you can buy set-top cable modems for around US$47 >>(after the discounts). > > > That's cheap. What speed are they? > > Now why would you want to use a pair of those, with a pair of > transverters, to 23cms, presumably, that someone would have to > design & make? How would that compare with 802.11 for a point- > to-point link? > > Would they require a frequency-division-duplex link? > Or could they work time-division-duplex on one frequency? > (never looked into DOCSIS, but up and down on cable > networks are always different frequency bands) > > (I'm assuming here that we can bridge the difference in > uplink and downlink frequencies in the transverter, and > fix protocol issues in the firmware so that a pair of > cable modems can talk to each other.) > > >>I assume that rules in the UK might be different in this >>area ;-) > > > There's no laws that stop you owning or dickering with a > cable modem, or using it for alterior purposes. The thing > isn't supposed to be a radio transmitter at all. Problems > might occur if you tried to do commercial imports getting > the devices CE approved. Just take the cases off and > specify it as a component module for a ham kit. > > There's just no demand for cable modems to be on the > consumer market in europe as cable companies supply > STBs and modems with the service rental. There's no law > against it... > > This was also the case with ADSL, but many ISPs now offer > lower rates if you supply your own DSL modem. Consumer > DSL modems and DSL firewall/NAT/routers are becoming cheap. > > I'd query whether the DOCSIS is the standard in use in > Europe. No'ones connecting it to the line so who cares? > > If you start reverse-engineering pay-TV STBs, then there > *are* EU laws that could get you, but a modem that does > not decrypt pay-TV is OK. > > M1FDE > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Wed Nov 13 12:42:13 2002 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 MAA04451 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:42:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Stephen Nichols" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 72 mile 802.11b link Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:41:35 -0700 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 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.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.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 From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Nov 13 22:22:36 2002 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 WAA28331 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:22:34 -0600 (CST) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook is dangerous and makes your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:21:52 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link 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: <4.3.2.7.2.20021113211945.034ca980@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Ironically, this link -- as described -- is illegal. To radiate 1 watt on the 2.4 GHz band through ultra-high gain antennas such as the ones used in this link would create an EIRP that's above the FCC limits for Part 15 operation. --Brett At 11:41 AM 11/13/2002, Stephen Nichols wrote: >http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >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 Wed Nov 13 22:33:17 2002 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 WAA28552 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:33:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:32:33 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id WAA28552 > Ironically, this link -- as described -- is illegal. To radiate 1 watt > on the 2.4 GHz band through ultra-high gain antennas such as > the ones used > in this link would create an EIRP that's above the FCC limits > for Part 15 > operation. Certainly illegal down here too. The antennas alone would put you close to the legal limit, without any amplification (our limit is 4W EIRP over most of the band and 200 mW in the top 20 MHz). I suspect US limits are similar. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 13 22:57:09 2002 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 WAA29243 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:57:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:56:55 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD32D17.5080807@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure that, if they're in technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also have the accompanying STA. I think the point here was the fact that they're going 72 miles, across water, beyond the visible and radio horizons. 73, gerry Brett Glass wrote: > Ironically, this link -- as described -- is illegal. To radiate 1 watt > on the 2.4 GHz band through ultra-high gain antennas such as the ones used > in this link would create an EIRP that's above the FCC limits for Part 15 > operation. > > --Brett > > At 11:41 AM 11/13/2002, Stephen Nichols wrote: > > >>http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Wed Nov 13 23:03:51 2002 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 XAA29354 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:03:49 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:02:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id XAA29354 250mw into a 24dBi gain antenna in their configuration would be legal (under the part 15 PtP rules). Likely would have worked also. Ashame they had to go above them... seems they where also getting NFS funding and Proxim had a visible position here. I'm seeing this talked about on quite a few newsgroups so alot of egg on the face for them. Still... cool it worked and under part 97 would have been entirely legal. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/13/2002 On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:21:52 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: >Ironically, this link -- as described -- is illegal. To radiate 1 >watt >on the 2.4 GHz band through ultra-high gain antennas such as the >ones used >in this link would create an EIRP that's above the FCC limits for >Part 15 >operation. > >--Brett > >At 11:41 AM 11/13/2002, Stephen Nichols wrote: > >>http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830 >>,00.html >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: BRETT@LARIAT.ORG >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > >--- >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 Wed Nov 13 23:11:56 2002 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 XAA00431 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:11:51 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:10:35 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021114051035.390.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk No, this joker is raising the noise floor all over the La Jolla area (with the return link from San Clemente) with this setup. La Jolla(with UCSD) is one of the most densest areas of 2.4Ghz 802.11 activity in the world, and this guy is raising the noise floor there. - Stewart --- Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure > that, if they're in > technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also have > the accompanying > STA. I think the point here was the fact that > they're going 72 miles, > across water, beyond the visible and radio horizons. > > 73, gerry > > Brett Glass wrote: > > Ironically, this link -- as described -- is > illegal. To radiate 1 watt > > on the 2.4 GHz band through ultra-high gain > antennas such as the ones used > > in this link would create an EIRP that's above the > FCC limits for Part 15 > > operation. > > > > --Brett > > > > At 11:41 AM 11/13/2002, Stephen Nichols wrote: > > > > > >>http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html > >> > >>--- > >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: > BRETT@LARIAT.ORG > >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > gerry.creager@tamu.edu > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced > Telecommunications > Texas A&M University, College Station, TX > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: > 979.229.5301 > Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.com > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > horseshoe7@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Wed Nov 13 23:20:02 2002 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 XAA00632 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:20:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:16:31 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021114051631.1382.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure > that, if they're in > technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also have > the accompanying > STA. Then what IDIOT at the FCC issued the STA?! La Jolla(UCSD) is a VERY dense area of 2.4Ghz 802.11 activity, and the return link would certainly have raised the noise floor in this important area of 802.11 experimentation. What a bunch of jokers. - Stewart __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Wed Nov 13 23:31:07 2002 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 XAA01056 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:31:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:30:00 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021114053000.17177.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk You know something, it isn't so much the link from San Clemente that ticks me off(as I suppose that would require a dish on the La Jolla end to even detect), but the other illegal links they've strung up all over San Diego County(where I live), according to this article. Maybe they've been careful to choose route that wouldn't interfere with anyone in-between... but I really doubt it. Given their obvious ignorance of the rules, I must assume the haven't thought about others, just themselves. - Stewart --- Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure > that, if they're in > technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also have > the accompanying > STA. I think the point here was the fact that > they're going 72 miles, > across water, beyond the visible and radio horizons. > > 73, gerry > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Wed Nov 13 23:47:24 2002 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 XAA01301 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:47:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:46:47 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD338C7.5010509@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Really surprises me. Most of the links I saw last time I was on top of the building were licensed 5 GHz and higher links. I didn't hear a thing 'bout this one THIS trip... but 2 years ago they were trying hard to figure out how to make the hop. It could be that they're insensitive to the rest of the community, but that's not been my take on them in the past. 73, gerry n5jxs Stewart Teaze wrote: > You know something, it isn't so much the link from San > Clemente that ticks me off(as I suppose that would > require a dish on the La Jolla end to even detect), > but the other illegal links they've strung up all over > San Diego County(where I live), according to this > article. Maybe they've been careful to choose route > that wouldn't interfere with anyone in-between... but > I really doubt it. Given their obvious ignorance of > the rules, I must assume the haven't thought about > others, just themselves. > > - Stewart > > > --- Gerry Creager N5JXS > wrote: > >>Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure >>that, if they're in >>technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also have >>the accompanying >>STA. I think the point here was the fact that >>they're going 72 miles, >>across water, beyond the visible and radio horizons. >> >>73, gerry >> >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Thu Nov 14 00:13:53 2002 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 AAA03797 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:13:43 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:10:53 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021114061053.12602.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Check out this excerpt: ******** Low costs, ease of installation and no hassles with protracted FCC license proceedings are the hallmarks of HPWREN, which uses equipment operating in both the 2.4- and 5-GHz bands to provide broadband data service to scientific installations, schools and Indian reservations scattered throughout 10,000 square miles of rural San Diego and southern Riverside counties in California ******* Arghh! I LIVE in Southern Riverside County, and work in San Diego County. I want to know what these HPWREN guys have been up to - because it looks like they've apparently been up to no good. The FCC is constantly on the public's case about exceeding the 802.11 rules in trying to build a public network, and now look - the NSF is doing the exact same thing, right under all our noses. If the FCC isn't going to do anything about this - then they shouldn't do anything about public installations that are done in a non-interfering way... How is their science any different than our science? - Stewart --- Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Really surprises me. Most of the links I saw last > time I was on top of > the building were licensed 5 GHz and higher links. > I didn't hear a > thing 'bout this one THIS trip... but 2 years ago > they were trying hard > to figure out how to make the hop. > > It could be that they're insensitive to the rest of > the community, but > that's not been my take on them in the past. > > 73, gerry n5jxs > > Stewart Teaze wrote: > > You know something, it isn't so much the link from > San > > Clemente that ticks me off(as I suppose that would > > require a dish on the La Jolla end to even > detect), > > but the other illegal links they've strung up all > over > > San Diego County(where I live), according to this > > article. Maybe they've been careful to choose > route > > that wouldn't interfere with anyone in-between... > but > > I really doubt it. Given their obvious ignorance > of > > the rules, I must assume the haven't thought about > > others, just themselves. > > > > - Stewart > > > > > > --- Gerry Creager N5JXS > > wrote: > > > >>Knowing several of the SDSC folks, I'm pretty sure > >>that, if they're in > >>technical violation of the EIRP rule, they also > have > >>the accompanying > >>STA. I think the point here was the fact that > >>they're going 72 miles, > >>across water, beyond the visible and radio > horizons. > >> > >>73, gerry > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site > > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > gerry.creager@tamu.edu > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced > Telecommunications > Texas A&M University, College Station, TX > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: > 979.229.5301 > Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.com > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > horseshoe7@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Thu Nov 14 00:31:32 2002 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 AAA04203 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:31:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:44:58 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id AAA04203 > You know something, it isn't so much the link from San > Clemente that ticks me off(as I suppose that would > require a dish on the La Jolla end to even detect), > but the other illegal links they've strung up all over > San Diego County(where I live), according to this > article. Maybe they've been careful to choose route > that wouldn't interfere with anyone in-between... but > I really doubt it. Given their obvious ignorance of > the rules, I must assume the haven't thought about > others, just themselves. This brings about an interesting irony. We recently had an inquiry into broadband here, so the Government could look at the issues. One thing that was noticed was that some commercial entities suggested that some hobbyist groups were ignorant or didn't care about the regulations. In the main, that's not the case, and legal requirements (both radio and telco) are regularly discussed amone hobbyist wireless groups here. Some commercial operators apparently have been caught doing the wrong thing... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 04:30:27 2002 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 EAA09980 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:30:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Jeff Edmonson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:29:08 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (w5omr) List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <003f01c28bc8$aa7af4a0$0200a8c0@hamhome.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Would someone please tell me, simply - *is* the link to San Clemente' being done - or is it a hoax? -- 73 = Best Regards, -=Geoff/W5OMR=- --- 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 Nov 14 04:32:02 2002 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 EAA10013 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:32:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 72 mile 802.11b link Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:17:21 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id EAA10013 > Still... cool it worked and under part 97 would have been > entirely legal. Digital repeater links anyone? ;) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 08:58:41 2002 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 IAA20605 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: kabernat@fcc.gov, mcopps@fcc.gov, kjmweb@fcc.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 Commissioners: Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds of watts EIRP. http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html PLEASE hand this to your enforcement division for immediate action. Dr. Robert McGwier IDA/CCR-P --- 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 Nov 14 09:13:29 2002 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 JAA21257 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:13:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:12:47 -0800 (PST) From: Jochen Feldhaar Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021114151247.51245.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello all, that exactly was my first thought when I read this article. Not to exceed 1 Watt of _power_ and then connect a super high gain directional antenna will not alter the TX power, but of course the EIRP will soar! In Germany we are experiencing even more severe new regulations regarding RF emissions as HAMs, and this operating practice would very probably lead to severe reprimands by the authorities involved! Best 73, Jochen Feldhaar DH6FAZ --- Robert McGwier wrote: > Commissioners: > > Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged > about > in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > inception since it was inevitable that the "CB > mentality" > of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am > sure > that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have > hundreds > of watts EIRP. > > > http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html > > > PLEASE hand this to your enforcement division for > immediate > action. > > Dr. Robert McGwier > IDA/CCR-P > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > feldhaar@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Thu Nov 14 10:18:55 2002 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 KAA24797 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:18:51 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:17:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id KAA24797 Your kidding me, right? You didn't actually send this, did you? While the core issue is worthy of a complaint, your opinions have no place, dilute your message and are just dead wrong. Here is why: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: >Commissioners: > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. Part 15 *is* a good idea. It has provided products to consumers and industry that have generated billions of dollars and very innovative devices. And any rule violation(s) are not that widespread, and most certainly other services have similar problems that are best addressed by enforcement, and not banning the service. Oh, and "CB radio" is under part 95. >I am sure >that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds >of watts EIRP. But that is exactly what the rules say you can run and some manufacturers are making legal certified devices that can do this. The point to point rules for part 15 spread spectrum, in theory, allow a unlimited EIRP limit, but the practical limit is about 400 watts. >http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830, >00.html > > >PLEASE hand this to your enforcement division for immediate >action. This would have been a good complaint. Too bad you had to put the crusader stuff in it. -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 Nov 14 11:15:53 2002 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 LAA28863 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:15:51 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:15:14 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: >Commissioners: > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about something illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs me is the higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff in the ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of experimentation. But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed to be about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover all the Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use should be governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with FRS/CB. This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat defined. For example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated antennas) There is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and configurations) to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds >of watts EIRP. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing when they came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't expect people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. --- 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 Nov 14 12:00:44 2002 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 MAA00746 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:00:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: rl@wells.com, dogan@perese.com, thomas@uthscsa.edu, n5jak@arrl.net From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:59:49 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211141759.gAEHxXX18537@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations if not in fact that they do violate the Regulations. There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by industry and community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 further and to allow higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless associations are asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless digital operation. This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on the band. The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am hopeful that San Antonio will have a network operational by the first of the year even if it's with 100 mw devices. And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 (NetMeeting) voice as the first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw and boost it up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni-directional antenna that hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid designs that you have built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that are allowed by FCC Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered FRS and GMRS and are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios with external antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. Walt/K5YFW > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: > >Commissioners: > > > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. > > I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about something > illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs me is the > higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff in the > ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of experimentation. > But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed to be > about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover all the > Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. > > I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use > should be > governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with FRS/CB. > This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat defined. > For > example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated antennas) There > is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and > configurations) > to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. > > > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > >of watts EIRP. > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing when they > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't expect > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 14 12:37:05 2002 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 MAA01556 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:37:05 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:19 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw >and boost it up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni- >directional antenna that hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. >Anyone with solid designs that you have built and are working, >please let the SIG know about them. Before we start calling the kettle black, lets keep in mind we currently have a 1 watt PEP APC rule (even if it sucks) to deal with. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/part97.html#97.311d I don't know if you saw either of these before: Cheap Bi-directional 2.4 GHz amplifier kits from RF Linx: http://www.rflinx.com/2.4GHz%20Bi-Directional%20PCB.htm GBPPR Amplifier designs: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ --- 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 Nov 14 13:10:09 2002 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 NAA03395 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:10:06 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:09:06 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: kabernat@fcc.gov, mcopps@fcc.gov, kjmweb@fcc.gov 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: <20021114190906.74783.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- Robert McGwier wrote: > Commissioners: > > Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged > about in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds of watts EIRP. Give me a break - this WASN'T the public... these people were backed and funded by the US GOVERNMENT. The NSF & HPWREN shouldn't be allowed to get away with something the public can't get away with. Part 15 is a GREAT idea... what is bad are violations of the rules - ESPECIALLY when the Government is the one backing/funding the violators. - Stewart Teaze __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Thu Nov 14 13:13:18 2002 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 NAA03526 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:13:16 -0600 (CST) From: Jake Brodsky To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Spread spectrum, Part 15, and narrowband services Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:12:40 -0500 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: References: 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 X-Message-Id: <9mq7tuoji2n4gg5bla8f7rl760i82u8pbl@4ax.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA03526 /* delurking */ Folks, 802.11b is here to stay. You can get angry at the FCC for allowing it in the first place, but please understand that their choices weren't all that great to begin with. The forces behind this "wireless" revolution in computer networking are very powerful, flush with money, and organized. The problem with advancing home connectivity is the "last mile." Everyone hates to pull wire. They're not even particularly fond of pulling fiber. It's infrastructure and it costs. On the other hand, 802.11b is practically free. It's a lazy solution to a thorny problem. There is no use explaining to the networking weenies that spread spectrum might interfere with someone else's legitimate operations. The sales people told them otherwise and they really don't care to listen to anything different. Many of these ignoramuses believe that the ISM band is exclusively theirs and that these radios will always work. They've never know what real FCC enforcement action looks like because they've never seen it in their lifetimes. The radio spectrum, as far as these people are concerned, is free for the taking. I realize that ham radio operations are suffering here. Umm, folks, this is a hobby. Even if we get some sort of recognition of preemption over part 15 devices, the degree of hate and discontent that would ensue will guarantee that something uncivil and/or outrageous legal machinations will happen. We need to choose our battles and this is one that I don't think we can win. Personally, it doesn't bother me that someone is running a high EIRP. Yes, they do squeeze a lot of power toward one direction, but the other directions don't have to hear this traffic. I call that a good thing. This is called putting an RF signal where it belongs. The only thing I can ask for is some focus toward better link power management. The only way we can defend or reclaim our bands is to educate the public. Everyone goes gaga over all these things that policy wonks who can barely spell "information theory" spout about frequency reuse and spread spectrum --but nobody ever talks about performance issues such as the near/far problem, dealing with IMD, ISI, or even sequency management. Add to this mix the need for priority uses such as police, air traffic, fire, medical, satellite up and downlinks, and other such things, and maybe some of these folks might actually realize that "wireless" is the same damned thing as "radio." Spread spectrum technology has the potential to revolutionize microwave band use. Instead of rehashing someone else's technology (such as 802.11b), let's show the world how we can do it better. /* flame suite on */ Jake Brodsky, mailto:frussle@erols.com "Nearly fifty percent of all graduates came from the bottom half of the class." --- 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 Nov 14 13:44:47 2002 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 NAA05064 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:44:46 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Spread spectrum, Part 15, and narrowband services Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:44:11 US/Central X-User: dubose 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: <200211141944.gAEJiBW25256@mail2.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > The only way we can defend or reclaim our bands is to educate the > public. Everyone goes gaga over all these things that policy wonks > who can barely spell "information theory" spout about frequency reuse > and spread spectrum --but nobody ever talks about performance issues > such as the near/far problem, dealing with IMD, ISI, or even sequency > management. Add to this mix the need for priority uses such as > police, air traffic, fire, medical, satellite up and downlinks, and > other such things, and maybe some of these folks might actually > realize that "wireless" is the same damned thing as "radio." Ah ha, you're on to it. IF we can get some really cool, high power networks up and then put them display them at various locations...like malls in front of a computer store or Radio Shack, at entrances to the mall, then the public will start seeing what hams can do that they can't do and want to join. Example: Back when CB was new, some hams her in San Antonio put on some 10M FM base stations and mobiles. You could talk 30-40 miles mobile to base and out 50-60 miles base to base. And the signal was really good. I know that from one "showing", a rather large display at a mall, we had 20-25 individuals get their tickets. Not bad for one day at the mall. I think we can do the same thing with 802.11b under Part 97. Walt/K5YFW --- 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 Nov 14 15:57:45 2002 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 PAA09537 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:57:44 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:56:56 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA09537 > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > >of watts EIRP. > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they > were doing when they > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe > they didn't expect > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. I read these comments with interest. I don't have any idea what the US Part 15 regs actually say, but our equivalent in VK, the Class Licence (Spread Spectrum) is quite clear on EIRP limits, which are set at 4W EIRP for 2400-2463 MHz and 0.2W for 2.463-2.4835 MHz. There is currently a proposal to make the limit 4W EIRP across the whole band. Our limits are both practical and sensible, IMHO, and people are still managing legal links into the low tens of miles range. Of curse, reclassify a WiFi card as an amateur station under the amateur LCD and we're allowed to run 120W RF power (and no requirement for automatic power control). Only trouble there would be finding an affordable amplifier to run that kind of power... :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 16:08:35 2002 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 QAA09850 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:08:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:07:11 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 > There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by > industry and > community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 > further and to allow > higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless > associations are > asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless > digital operation. > This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on > the band. Here, it's commercial operators looking for more power in rural areas (actually, they do have some good arguments - low population density and long distances). The community groups are happy to work within the power limits - they have a lot in common with hams in the way they work. > The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get > operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am > hopeful that San Antonio > will have a network operational by the first of the year even > if it's with 100 > mw devices. That is indeed a good idea. Get something on air, however that may be possible, and worry about beefing it up later. > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 > (NetMeeting) voice as the > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a variety of protocols. Our VoIP links on the Internet (IRLP, Echolink, etc) actually don't use H323, but instead use variations on the RTP over UDP theme in most cases, and one app (eQSO) actually uses TCP. SMTP is also useful, and it's worth carrying some tunneled AX.25 traffic as well, since this sort of link will kick the traditional packet backbone to death. :) > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take > 50-200mw and boost it > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, > omni-directional antenna that > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid > designs that you have > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. One of the guys in the local community wireless group has been building omnis (and he's not even a ham), and seems to be having good results. I could try and get hold of the design he's using and people here could try building and evaluating them. > Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that > are allowed by FCC > Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered > FRS and GMRS and > are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios > with external > antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. Same here, a lot of UHF CBers are using 25W surplus commercial radios instead of the legal max 5W... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 17:59:07 2002 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 RAA17180 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:59:05 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Robert McGwier at "Nov 14, 2002 9:57:54 am" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:58:20 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211142358.RAA25600@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am sure > that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > of watts EIRP. > > > http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,75830,00.html > > > PLEASE hand this to your enforcement division for immediate > action. > > Dr. Robert McGwier > IDA/CCR-P > Except for the slight fact they are operating under government control. HPWREN works with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center - San Diego (i.e. Navy) and San Clemente Island is their playground. The frequencies between are 2.417 & 2.450 GHz are basicly goverenment exclusive, we're just borrowing them. Refer to the US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration - Office of Spectrum Managment. The FCC is just a pawn, Congress gave them no power for encforcement. Here's a good chart to print out: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf --- 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 Nov 14 18:12:53 2002 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 SAA17829 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:12:51 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:12:27 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD43BEB.CE76024C@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > Here, it's commercial operators looking for more power in rural areas > (actually, they do have some good arguments - low population density and > long distances). The community groups are happy to work within the power > limits - they have a lot in common with hams in the way they work. > I would really like to see them moved the rural use up above 2.45...give them the top 3 channels and let them run more EIRP and have a simple license process. > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 > > (NetMeeting) voice as the > > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. > > Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially > if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a > variety of protocols. Our VoIP links on the Internet (IRLP, Echolink, etc) > actually don't use H323, but instead use variations on the RTP over UDP > theme in most cases, and one app (eQSO) actually uses TCP. SMTP is also > useful, and it's worth carrying some tunneled AX.25 traffic as well, since > this sort of link will kick the traditional packet backbone to death. :) Ok, give me URLs where we can get VoIP software for Linux and MS OSs. My only requirement is that you not need to connect to a server...you can connect peer-to- peer and have multiple connects. > > > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take > > 50-200mw and boost it > > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, > > omni-directional antenna that > > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid > > designs that you have > > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. > > One of the guys in the local community wireless group has been building > omnis (and he's not even a ham), and seems to be having good results. I > could try and get hold of the design he's using and people here could try > building and evaluating them. > GREAT, go for it. Walt/K5YFW --- 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 Nov 14 18:25:49 2002 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 SAA18339 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:25:43 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:25:05 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD43EE1.6090606@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt DuBose wrote: > Ok, give me URLs where we can get VoIP software for Linux and MS > OSs. My only > requirement is that you not need to connect to a server...you can > connect peer-to- > peer and have multiple connects. www.speakfreely.org and additionally look up SIP based systems ---eric --- 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 Nov 14 18:47:35 2002 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 SAA18845 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:47:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:31:51 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id SAA18845 The antenna design being built by the locals is at http://wireless.gumph.org accrding to my sources (actually the guy here that builds them). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 18:54:53 2002 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 SAA19193 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:54:51 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:54:34 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD445CA.B5C1614E@texas.net> Precedence: bulk xlpitlum wrote: > > Except for the slight fact they are operating under government control. > > HPWREN works with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center - San Diego > (i.e. Navy) and San Clemente Island is their playground. > > The frequencies between are 2.417 & 2.450 GHz are basicly goverenment > exclusive, we're just borrowing them. Refer to the US Department of > Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration - > Office of Spectrum Managment. The FCC is just a pawn, Congress gave them > no power for encforcement. > But because it is the Federal Government DOES NOT give them the right to use a specific frequency even though it might be a primary government frequency. There is an Office, like the FCC, within the Federal Government that is in charge of assigning frequencies or frequency bands. Generally, if the frequencies are shared with civilian use, the government follows the FCC emission parameters IF it is the same mode and use as the civilian use. I server 10 years as an Air Force Frequency Manager and can assure you that even within the DoD (especially within the DoD) frequency regulation is very strict. Walt/K5YFW > Here's a good chart to print out: > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 14 19:11:31 2002 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 TAA19927 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:11:30 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:10:25 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD44981.FF95839F@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > The antenna design being built by the locals is at http://wireless.gumph.org > accrding to my sources (actually the guy here that builds them). > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will be between 6-9 dB gain. probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I wouldn't complain if they ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of coax. Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I think most of use are in agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it isolates us from the Part 15 folks and it also seems to have better penetration through foliage. Walt/K5YFW > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > This correspondence is for the named person?s use only. It may contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 14 19:14:54 2002 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 TAA20031 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:14:52 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Walt DuBose at "Nov 14, 2002 6:54:34 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:13:49 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211150113.TAA09340@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I server 10 years as an Air Force Frequency Manager and can > assure you that > even within the DoD (especially within the DoD) frequency > regulation is very > strict. > Then you know all certified Part 15 devices have a sticker on them warning that they may receive "harmful" interference from other operations taking place in that band. The users/consumers where warned their devices may not work as advertised. --- 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 Nov 14 19:16:00 2002 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 TAA20324 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:15:51 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:14:14 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id TAA20324 > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > be between 6-9 dB gain. > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > wouldn't complain if they > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > coax. > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > think most of use are in > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > isolates us from the Part 15 > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > foliage. Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal polarization. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 19:16:58 2002 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 TAA20365 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:16:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:26:30 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id TAA20365 > I would really like to see them moved the rural use up above > 2.45...give > them the top 3 channels and let them run more EIRP and have a > simple > license process. That'd be good, though number of channels available might be a prob there... > Ok, give me URLs where we can get VoIP software for Linux and MS > OSs. My only > requirement is that you not need to connect to a server...you can > connect peer-to- > peer and have multiple connects. Have a look at Speak Freely.. http://www.speakfreely.org (Windows) http://www.fourmilab.ch/speakfree/unix (*NIX). Open source, supports many codecs and multicast, as well as a few transport protocols, and the common ancestor to at least two of today's amateur VoIP systems. > > One of the guys in the local community wireless group has > been building > > omnis (and he's not even a ham), and seems to be having > good results. I > > could try and get hold of the design he's using and people > here could try > > building and evaluating them. > > > > GREAT, go for it. He's just popped onto IRC, so I'll get some info :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 19:24:31 2002 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 TAA20855 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:24:28 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:24:13 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD44CBD.5E18CEE3@texas.net> Precedence: bulk "Eric S. Johansson" wrote: > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > Ok, give me URLs where we can get VoIP software for Linux and MS > > OSs. My only requirement is that you not need to connect to a > server...you can connect peer-to-peer and have multiple connects. > > www.speakfreely.org > > and additionally look up SIP based systems > > ---eric > There are a couple of bothersome things that I see. One is that it appears to require a server. We want software that will work peer-to-peer and even multiple connects (party line) without having a server. And two, an even more importantly this quote bothers me... "To protect against eavesdropping, sfmike provides a variety of encryption algorithms, including Blowfish, IDEA, DES, and a key read from a file. Any number of encryption algorithms may be used simultaneously (assuming your machine is fast enough)." We cannot use encryption under Part 97. So, I think that this would prevent its use on the ham bands. This is very important. We cannot just assume that because we can use certain software on the Internet that we can use it on 802.11b under Part 97. We need to examine the application closely to insure that it can be used under part 97. Thanks for the vital input. I am looking forward to hearing from others. 73, Walt/K5YFW PS, I now have to change my requirement to additionally state that the application muse be usable under Part 97. --- 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 Nov 14 19:29:16 2002 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 TAA21319 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:29:16 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:28:26 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD44DBA.981751EC@texas.net> Precedence: bulk xlpitlum wrote: > > > I server 10 years as an Air Force Frequency Manager and can > > assure you that > > even within the DoD (especially within the DoD) frequency > > regulation is very > > strict. > > > > Then you know all certified Part 15 devices have a sticker on them > warning that they may receive "harmful" interference from other operations > taking place in that band. The users/consumers where warned their devices > may not work as advertised. > But the point is that just because you are the federal government, it does NOT give you carte blanche to use any frequency set aside for government use. You must still obtain permission to use it. Also, in the DoD, you cannot use RF hardware just because it has a Part 15 sticker on it. You still cannot use it without specific permission from you controlling authority. In the Air Force it is you installation Communications Squadron. Walt/K5YFW --- 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 Nov 14 19:31:40 2002 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 TAA21412 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:31:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:29:39 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id TAA21412 > There are a couple of bothersome things that I see. > > One is that it appears to require a server. We want software > that > will work peer-to-peer and even multiple connects (party line) > without > having a server. Well, it solves both of those problems... multicast for the conferences. The other server mentioned is an addressing server. Not really necessary, you can resolve people's addresses by other means (e.g. DNS). > > And two, an even more importantly this quote bothers me... > > "To protect against eavesdropping, sfmike provides a > variety > of encryption algorithms, including Blowfish, IDEA, DES, > and > a key read from a file. Any number of encryption > algorithms > may be used simultaneously (assuming your machine is fast > enough)." You can compile it without encryption, if that's an issue, and a non crypto version is available for download pre-compiled for Windows. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 19:34:18 2002 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 TAA21486 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:34:12 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:33:40 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD44EF4.6A043C8B@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > wouldn't complain if they > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > coax. > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > think most of use are in > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > foliage. > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > polarization. > Yes sir...a slotted antenna is hard to manufacturer as some of us are finding out. You must have a computer milling/punching machine to do it correctly. But we have a good design for a 15 dB slot antenna that is omni-directional (Ok somewhat omin- directional). I think you really need the slots in a cylinder rather than square stock to make it truly omni-directional. Hopefully before I hit the sack tonight I will pull out my 1930's antenna manual and see if there is a design for stacked loop antennas. The highest frequency that I have seen that uses them is on UHF TV channels. Walt/K5YFW --- 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 Nov 14 19:39:53 2002 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 TAA21967 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:39:44 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:39:16 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD45044.2DDAA5EE@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > > There are a couple of bothersome things that I see. > > > > One is that it appears to require a server. We want software > > that > > will work peer-to-peer and even multiple connects (party line) > > without > > having a server. > > Well, it solves both of those problems... multicast for the conferences. > The other server mentioned is an addressing server. Not really necessary, > you can resolve people's addresses by other means (e.g. DNS). Ok, I'm happy to hear that. As you can tell I didn't read all the "specs" I suppose that just needing a server for multicast is Ok...not ideal but Ok. Yes, I expect a lot of manual IP addresses input. In Unix its the /etc/resolv.conf where you out the IP addresses needed for lookup or you can just use IP addresses. I don't know how you do it in MS. > > > > And two, an even more importantly this quote bothers me... > > > > "To protect against eavesdropping, sfmike provides a > > variety > > of encryption algorithms, including Blowfish, IDEA, DES, > > and > > a key read from a file. Any number of encryption > > algorithms > > may be used simultaneously (assuming your machine is fast > > enough)." > > You can compile it without encryption, if that's an issue, and a non crypto > version is available for download pre-compiled for Windows. > Well, I'll have to see if you can do that with the Unix version. Thanks for your assistance and knowledge here. 73, Walt/K5YFW PS, how is you summer? Is El Nino bothering you? > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > This correspondence is for the named person?s use only. It may contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 14 20:18:37 2002 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 UAA23407 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:18:36 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: wchast@utilpart.com To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:16:46 -0500 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: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A001A0A933@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Amen, it even has all kinds of neat codecs to work with, I have even pushed audio over a 2k4 packet link and it was not that bad !!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric S. Johansson [mailto:esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 07:25 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > Ok, give me URLs where we can get VoIP software for Linux and MS > > OSs. My only > > requirement is that you not need to connect to a server...you can > > connect peer-to- > > peer and have multiple connects. > > www.speakfreely.org > > and additionally look up SIP based systems > > ---eric > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > ***************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy any hard copies you may have printed and remove all copies of the e-mail from your hard drive. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Utility Partners, Inc shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Visit us on the web at http://www.utilpart.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 Thu Nov 14 20:24:41 2002 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 UAA23670 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:24:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: wchast@utilpart.com To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:22:35 -0500 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: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A001A0A934@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > > There are a couple of bothersome things that I see. > > One is that it appears to require a server. We want software > that > will work peer-to-peer and even multiple connects (party line) > without > having a server. I have always used it point to point, you can use a server, but I have only used the one SpeakFreely one a couple of times excepth for the echo server to set things up for some internet connect. > > And two, an even more importantly this quote bothers me... > > "To protect against eavesdropping, sfmike provides a > variety > of encryption algorithms, including Blowfish, IDEA, DES, > and > a key read from a file. Any number of encryption > algorithms > may be used simultaneously (assuming your machine is fast > enough)." > > We cannot use encryption under Part 97. So, I think that this > would > prevent its use on the ham bands. > > This is very important. We cannot just assume that because we > can use > certain software on the Internet that we can use it on 802.11b > under > Part 97. We need to examine the application closely to insure > that it > can be used under part 97. > > Thanks for the vital input. I am looking forward to hearing from > others. > > 73, You can use it with or without encryption, your choice. ***************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy any hard copies you may have printed and remove all copies of the e-mail from your hard drive. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Utility Partners, Inc shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Visit us on the web at http://www.utilpart.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 Thu Nov 14 20:53:20 2002 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 UAA24726 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:53:13 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:52:19 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id UAA24726 > Amen, it even has all kinds of neat codecs to work with, > I have even pushed audio over a 2k4 packet link and it was > not that bad !!! It's real ham friendly software, LOTS to tinker with! :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 20:54:38 2002 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 UAA24757 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:54:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:53:26 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id UAA24757 > I have always used it point to point, you can use a server, but > I have only used the one SpeakFreely one a couple of times excepth > for the echo server to set things up for some internet connect. And we ran a multicast group chat WITHOUT a server on a 2.4 GHz WLAN! :) Worked a treat. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 21:59:26 2002 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 VAA26843 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:59:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: wchast@utilpart.com To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:57:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A001A0A93A@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk IRLP is based on it, a modified version is what they use as the computer component running under LINUX. Now to get a Sharp Zarus and put it on there, add a 802.11 card and I am ready for VoIP... B-] Use a camara and they can even see me walk and talk... That is scary, better not do that it could be a problem once seen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Langdon [mailto:tlangdon@atctraining.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 09:53 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > > I have always used it point to point, you can use a server, but > > I have only used the one SpeakFreely one a couple of times excepth > > for the echo server to set things up for some internet connect. > > And we ran a multicast group chat WITHOUT a server on a 2.4 > GHz WLAN! :) > Worked a treat. > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No > confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you > receive this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from > your system and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any > part of this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > ***************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy any hard copies you may have printed and remove all copies of the e-mail from your hard drive. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Utility Partners, Inc shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Visit us on the web at http://www.utilpart.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 Thu Nov 14 22:04:22 2002 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 WAA26996 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:04:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:03:23 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 > IRLP is based on it, a modified version is what they > use as the computer component running under LINUX. That's correct. What is less known is that iLINK/Echolink uses a slightly modifird form of the Speak Freely RTP implementation with GSM encoded audio as the payload. Echolink is heavily based on Speak Freely as well. > > Now to get a Sharp Zarus and put it on there, add a > 802.11 card and I am ready for VoIP... B-] :-) > > Use a camara and they can even see me walk and talk... > That is scary, better not do that it could be a problem > once seen. LOL Well, we setup the world's most expensive walkie talkie the other month... Laptops running Speak Freely and 802.11b ;) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 14 23:11:57 2002 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 XAA29256 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:11:56 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Walt DuBose at "Nov 14, 2002 7:28:26 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:11:14 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211150511.XAA14170@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > But the point is that just because you are the federal > government, it does NOT > give you carte blanche to use any frequency set aside for > government use. You > must still obtain permission to use it. > > Also, in the DoD, you cannot use RF hardware just because it has > a Part 15 sticker > on it. You still cannot use it without specific permission from > you controlling > authority. In the Air Force it is you installation > Communications Squadron. > Does the government get permission everytime a soldier keys a SINCGARS or HAVE QUICK radio set? How about a permission slip to transmit on 243 MHz? Did the government get permission to transmit around 315 MHz near Norfolk, VA and jam all those remote car and garage door openers? Did you get Iraq's permission to jam their radar sites? How about police departments using high power 2.4 GHz devices for both 802.11 data links and video. Law Enforcement Technology magazine, Oct. 2002 has a good article on agencies that use them. Some even admit to use higher power (10 Watt) amplifiers on their video links. If they really needed permission, thousands of high ranking people should/ would be in jail. --- 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 Nov 14 23:46:13 2002 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 XAA29683 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:46:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:43:57 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 The video links referenced are a LICENSED use of 2.4 GHz, so higher power is allowed. The law enforcement use referenced is very much fully compliant with Part 15 rules. The amplifiers used ("high power") are certified as a system and within the EIRP limits allowed for license-exempt Part 15 uses. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of xlpitlum > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 21:11 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > Does the government get permission everytime a soldier keys a > SINCGARS or > HAVE QUICK radio set? How about a permission slip to transmit > on 243 MHz? > > Did the government get permission to transmit around 315 MHz > near Norfolk, VA > and jam all those remote car and garage door openers? > > Did you get Iraq's permission to jam their radar sites? > > How about police departments using high power 2.4 GHz devices > for both 802.11 > data links and video. Law Enforcement Technology magazine, > Oct. 2002 has a > good article on agencies that use them. Some even admit to use > higher power > (10 Watt) amplifiers on their video links. > > If they really needed permission, thousands of high ranking > people should/ > would be in jail. > --- 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 Nov 15 01:00:43 2002 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 BAA03965 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:00:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:58:38 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021115065838.24749.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- xlpitlum wrote: > > Does the government get permission everytime a > soldier keys a SINCGARS or > HAVE QUICK radio set? Generally, yes. The hopsets/frequencies are pre-setup on a daily basis for their GOVERNMENT ALLOCATED frequencies - if you are playing with real fill variables, otherwise you use pre-selected test frequencies for the base you are on. > How about a permission slip > to transmit on 243 MHz? Don't be ridiculous... that's a guard channel, and you better have a good reason to transmit on it... and if you do - then of course you don't need permission. Just like on amateur radio in an emergency, most of the rules go out the window. - Stewart __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Fri Nov 15 02:05:03 2002 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 CAA05269 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:05:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:50:00 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id CAA05269 > Ok, I'm happy to hear that. As you can tell I didn't read all the > "specs" > I suppose that just needing a server for multicast is Ok...not > ideal but > Ok. Multicast doesn't need a server, that's the whole point, but you will need to run a multicast routing daemon on all routers in the network. > > Yes, I expect a lot of manual IP addresses input. In Unix its > the /etc/resolv.conf > where you out the IP addresses needed for lookup or you can just > use IP addresses. > I don't know how you do it in MS. for hosts c:\windows\hosts (win3x/9x/ME) c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (WinNT/2k) c:\windows\drivers\etc\hosts (WinXP) :) > Well, I'll have to see if you can do that with the Unix version. > > Thanks for your assistance and knowledge here. Check the Makefile. :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 15 02:15:41 2002 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 CAA05493 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:15:40 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Stewart Teaze at "Nov 14, 2002 10:58:38 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:14:48 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211150814.CAA06208@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Generally, yes. The hopsets/frequencies are pre-setup > on a daily basis for their GOVERNMENT ALLOCATED > frequencies - if you are playing with real fill > variables, otherwise you use pre-selected test > frequencies for the base you are on. That's the point. 2.417 - 2.450 GHz are GOVERNMENT ALLOCATED also. Get over it. > > > How about a permission slip > > to transmit on 243 MHz? > > Don't be ridiculous... that's a guard channel, and you > better have a good reason to transmit on it... and if > you do - then of course you don't need permission. > Just like on amateur radio in an emergency, most of > the rules go out the window. > That's the point. It's GOVERNMENT ALLOCATED. The government can, and do, transmit there (and anywhere else) they please. --- 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 Nov 15 02:21:53 2002 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 CAA05599 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:21:50 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Steve Stroh at "Nov 14, 2002 9:43:57 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:21:13 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211150821.CAA06845@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > The video links referenced are a LICENSED use of 2.4 GHz, so higher power is > allowed. Duh, that was my point. Government agencies are the primary user of the amateur bands, VHF/UHF, microwave and even HF (OTH radar) are all shared resources. Amateur radio (and Part 15 users) are secondary and must except any interference they receive. --- 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 Nov 15 05:52:23 2002 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 FAA11956 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 05:52:20 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 06:51:41 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 See 47 CFR 15.247(3) (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. Bob -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:00 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Cc: rl@wells.com; dogan@perese.com; thomas@uthscsa.edu; n5jak@arrl.net Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations if not in fact that they do violate the Regulations. Walt/K5YFW --- 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 Nov 15 08:12:30 2002 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 IAA16016 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:12:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:12:18 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD500C2.3060100@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk For VoIP on handhelds, there's been a lot of work on PocketBONE using OpenH323 (http://www.openh323.org) gerry wchast@utilpart.com wrote: > IRLP is based on it, a modified version is what they > use as the computer component running under LINUX. > > Now to get a Sharp Zarus and put it on there, add a > 802.11 card and I am ready for VoIP... B-] > > Use a camara and they can even see me walk and talk... > That is scary, better not do that it could be a problem > once seen. > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tony Langdon [mailto:tlangdon@atctraining.com.au] >>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 09:53 PM >>To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group >>Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea >> >> >> >>>I have always used it point to point, you can use a server, but >>>I have only used the one SpeakFreely one a couple of times excepth >>>for the echo server to set things up for some internet connect. >> >>And we ran a multicast group chat WITHOUT a server on a 2.4 >>GHz WLAN! :) >>Worked a treat. >> >>--- >>Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 >> >> >>This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain >>confidential or legally privileged information or both. No >>confidentiality >>or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you >>receive this >>correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from >>your system and >>notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any >>part of this >>correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. >> >>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the >>individual sender. >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >> > > > > ***************************************************************** > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify > the sender immediately and destroy any hard copies you may have printed and > remove all copies of the e-mail from your hard drive. Opinions, conclusions > and other information in this message that do not relate to the official > business of Utility Partners, Inc shall be understood as neither given nor > endorsed by it. > > Visit us on the web at http://www.utilpart.com > ***************************************************************** > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Fri Nov 15 10:12:12 2002 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 KAA21133 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:12:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:11:14 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021115161114.56700.qmail@web10904.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > That's the point. It's GOVERNMENT ALLOCATED. The > government can, and do, > transmit there (and anywhere else) they please. 1) These are totally different allocations. Even a government entity needs permission to transmit within its allocation. 2) This wasn't even the government - it was a government-funded private entity. If not, why in the heck would HPWREN even have mentioned "not having to deal with the FCC" in the original article? You mix apples and oranges, and other various fruits, so freely, that a conversation with you turns to fruit punch in no time. These suckers appear to have been busting the rules, but on my nickel. That's my only beef. - Stewart __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Fri Nov 15 10:35:49 2002 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 KAA22062 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:35:46 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:35:10 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 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: <1037378110.3dd5223e9b6a4@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk So, your now agreeing that a station with a ERP of 400 watts, in point to point service, would fall under the intent of the part 15 rules? i.e. 36dBi gain antenna + 20dBm transmitter = 56dBm ERP (legal PtP 400 watts erp) What UCSD used: 24dBi gain antenna + 30dBm transmitter = 54 dBm ERP (illegal ~ 250 watts erp) Now, 36dBi gain antennas are basically TVRO dishes... been done but not so portable. However, one can easily get 27dBi gain 2.4ghz dishes, and they are managable, so lets look at what USCD should have tried: 27dBi gain antenna + 23dBm transimitter = 50dBm ERP (legal PtP 100 watts ERP) So, we are looking at a 4db hit they would have to take to be legal under the rules. Quoting Robert McGwier : > See 47 CFR 15.247(3) > > (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this > section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi > are > used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be > reduced > below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, > as > appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the > antenna > exceeds 6 dBi. > > (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used > exclusively > for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas > with > directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output > power > of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the > directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. > > > Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:00 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Cc: rl@wells.com; dogan@perese.com; thomas@uthscsa.edu; n5jak@arrl.net > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that > this > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations > if > not > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > --- > 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 Fri Nov 15 12:45:17 2002 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 MAA27765 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:45:12 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:43:53 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 am saying that I went to look at the rules and here is what I found. I can't believe they understood the full implications of these rules. All I would like to see is for sanity to return to Part 15. Would I throw away the wireless 100-ish mbps LAN I have in my house? Of course not. Would I allow ridiculous interference levels to others in the band by allowing high power and high gain antennas? Of course not. I basically agree with your initial reply insofar as you stated that nothing would ever happen and that indeed, in my lexicon "CB Rules apply" to part 15. There will be no enforcement at all and the 2.4 Ghz bands will become a wasteland for us. Spectrum allocation is another of these places where the removal of federal regulations to allow unfettered development and innovation can easily go too far. I believe we are on the brink with Part 15. Bob N4HY -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jeff King Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:35 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea So, your now agreeing that a station with a ERP of 400 watts, in point to point service, would fall under the intent of the part 15 rules? i.e. 36dBi gain antenna + 20dBm transmitter = 56dBm ERP (legal PtP 400 watts erp) What UCSD used: 24dBi gain antenna + 30dBm transmitter = 54 dBm ERP (illegal ~ 250 watts erp) Now, 36dBi gain antennas are basically TVRO dishes... been done but not so portable. However, one can easily get 27dBi gain 2.4ghz dishes, and they are managable, so lets look at what USCD should have tried: 27dBi gain antenna + 23dBm transimitter = 50dBm ERP (legal PtP 100 watts ERP) So, we are looking at a 4db hit they would have to take to be legal under the rules. Quoting Robert McGwier : > See 47 CFR 15.247(3) > > (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this > section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi > are > used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be > reduced > below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, > as > appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the > antenna > exceeds 6 dBi. > > (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used > exclusively > for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas > with > directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output > power > of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the > directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. > > > Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:00 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Cc: rl@wells.com; dogan@perese.com; thomas@uthscsa.edu; n5jak@arrl.net > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that > this > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations > if > not > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > --- > 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: rwmcgwier@comcast.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 Fri Nov 15 13:11:17 2002 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 NAA28992 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:11:13 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:10:46 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD546B6.677F7220@texas.net> Precedence: bulk You have totally missed the point. But to answer some of your questions, even in war time you are authorized to operate on some, not all of the frequencies that a SINCGARS radio is capable of. You still must go through the AOR (area of responsibility) frequency manager for permission to use specific channels. All DoD aircraft are authorized to operate on "published" (published in the DoD * supplements) air-to-air and air-to-ground frequencies. 243 MHz and 121.5 Mhz are "published" frequencies. You cannot simply choose a frequency and operate on it. If you do, you just might get a courts marshal. As far as transmitting on 315 MHz (actually there are a number of channels used between 314.5 and 315.5 at 50 KHz intervals and that's going back to the mid 1960's), that has been a common published air-to-ground frequency for years. I have no idea why it is allowed for garage openers. I know that the Navy has used 315 Mhz for years. It was originally the Navy/Marine Corp. aircraft to artillery spotter frequency back in the Korean War. Yes, you have to get permission to jam Iraq's radar frequencies. The permission is covered in the OpOrd (operations order) for the sortie. Police departments are not part of the federal government. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) controls the use and assignment of frequencies allocated to the government...for both the civil and military agencies/departments. The NTIA was set up by public law by voted on an approved by Congress. Congress is a representative body elected by U.S. citizens residing in the various states. So if congress has done badly, then the people you need to go to jail are the ones that voted them into their position. If you require additional information, please contact me off-line at wdubose@satx.rr.com Walt/K5YFW xlpitlum wrote: > > > But the point is that just because you are the federal > > government, it does NOT > > give you carte blanche to use any frequency set aside for > > government use. You > > must still obtain permission to use it. > > > > Also, in the DoD, you cannot use RF hardware just because it has > > a Part 15 sticker > > on it. You still cannot use it without specific permission from > > you controlling > > authority. In the Air Force it is you installation > > Communications Squadron. > > > > Does the government get permission everytime a soldier keys a SINCGARS or > HAVE QUICK radio set? How about a permission slip to transmit on 243 MHz? > > Did the government get permission to transmit around 315 MHz near Norfolk, VA > and jam all those remote car and garage door openers? > > Did you get Iraq's permission to jam their radar sites? > > How about police departments using high power 2.4 GHz devices for both 802.11 > data links and video. Law Enforcement Technology magazine, Oct. 2002 has a > good article on agencies that use them. Some even admit to use higher power > (10 Watt) amplifiers on their video links. > > If they really needed permission, thousands of high ranking people should/ > would be in jail. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Fri Nov 15 13:12:47 2002 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 NAA29051 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:12:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:10:34 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 15/11/2002 19:11:07 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 > Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am sure > that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > of watts EIRP. Perhaps someone should remind them that they should get amateur radio licenses for experimenting & education. That's what it's there for. I can't see why universities shouldn't be entitled to callsigns like radio clubs, or shouldn't be allowed to read scientific telemetry data traffic from unattended remote stations. Uni of Surrey / AMSAT amateur satellites do that. It would certainly encourage them to teach more amateur radio courses. A weeks' teaching then they'd know how to set it up and operate it legally and without causing interference. That's why we licence people. CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 15 13:16:01 2002 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 NAA29178 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:15:57 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:15:03 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 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: <1037387703.3dd547b7e94b0@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Going too far? It hasn't gone far enough in my opinion. While I am all for protecting the ham bands, I also realize we live in a captalist society and that the cold war is over. I think the Part 15 manufacturer's are far far more effective at using the resource of 2.45ghz then hams ever will be. That is not to say hams should not have protected spectrum, all I'm saying is this is the reality we need to accept. BTW, in the orginal Part 15 spread spectrum rules (early 80's), the FCC called for far wider bandwidths and power levels up to 75 watts. The incumbent narrowband interests (political PAC's) shot that one down, but things (I wish) could have been far far different. The FCC clearly understands what they are doing in this regard, and I commend them for this. Quoting Robert McGwier : > I am saying that I went to look at the rules and here is what > I found. I can't believe they understood the full implications > of these rules. All I would like to see is for sanity to > return to Part 15. Would I throw away the wireless 100-ish mbps > LAN I have in my house? Of course not. Would I allow ridiculous > interference levels to others in the band by allowing high power > and high gain antennas? Of course not. I basically agree with > your initial reply insofar as you stated that nothing would > ever happen and that indeed, in my lexicon "CB Rules apply" > to part 15. There will be no enforcement at all and the 2.4 Ghz > bands will become a wasteland for us. Spectrum allocation is > another of these places where the removal of federal regulations > to allow unfettered development and innovation can easily go too > far. I believe we are on the brink with Part 15. > > Bob N4HY > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jeff King > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:35 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > rg> > > > So, your now agreeing that a station with a ERP of 400 watts, in point > to > point > service, would fall under the intent of the part 15 rules? > > i.e. 36dBi gain antenna + 20dBm transmitter = 56dBm ERP (legal PtP > 400 > watts > erp) > > What UCSD used: > > 24dBi gain antenna + 30dBm transmitter = 54 dBm ERP (illegal ~ 250 > watts > erp) > > > Now, 36dBi gain antennas are basically TVRO dishes... been done but not > so > portable. However, one can easily get 27dBi gain 2.4ghz dishes, and they > are > managable, so lets look at what USCD should have tried: > > 27dBi gain antenna + 23dBm transimitter = 50dBm ERP (legal PtP 100 > watts > ERP) > > So, we are looking at a 4db hit they would have to take to be legal > under > the > rules. > > > > > Quoting Robert McGwier : > > > See 47 CFR 15.247(3) > > > > (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this > > section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 > dBi > > are > > used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be > > reduced > > below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this > section, > > as > > appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the > > antenna > > exceeds 6 dBi. > > > > (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used > > exclusively > > for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting > antennas > > with > > directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output > > power > > of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that > the > > directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. > > > > > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org > > [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:00 AM > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Cc: rl@wells.com; dogan@perese.com; thomas@uthscsa.edu; > n5jak@arrl.net > > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > > > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that > > this > > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 > Regulations > > if > > not > > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > > > > > --- > > 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: rwmcgwier@comcast.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > --- > 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 Fri Nov 15 13:26:31 2002 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 NAA29767 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:26:23 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:25:22 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 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: <1037388322.3dd54a222fc05@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk What advantage would a University have running that link under part 97? They have to follow the APC rules if they go over 1 watt. Further, I'd suggest we not encourage people that don't have a interest in radio to come to amateur radio. They (the university) just wanted to move data from point a to point b. They had their hand held by Proxim and where funded by the NSA. This is not a radio experimenter. If you really want to attract more WIFi experimenter's to amateur radio, the first thing is you have to give them an advantage to doing so. There is no significant advantage to doing so the way the rules are currently written, IMHO. Loosening up the APC rule (maybe to 10 watts) and give SS hams the same rights as other hams, and it could be a different story. BTW, Part 15 DOES allow experimentation and this is covered under 15.23. I think this is a good thing. Quoting Anthony N Martin : > > > Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > > in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > > inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > > of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. I am sure > > that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > > of watts EIRP. > > > Perhaps someone should remind them that they should get > amateur radio licenses for experimenting & education. > That's what it's there for. I can't see why universities > shouldn't be entitled to callsigns like radio clubs, > or shouldn't be allowed to read scientific telemetry > data traffic from unattended remote stations. Uni of > Surrey / AMSAT amateur satellites do that. It would > certainly encourage them to teach more amateur radio > courses. A weeks' teaching then they'd know how to > set it up and operate it legally and without causing > interference. That's why we licence people. > > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. > > Ant M1FDE > > > > > > > --- > 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 Fri Nov 15 17:09:45 2002 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 RAA09755 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:09:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:08:11 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 15/11/2002 23:08:44 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 > The antenna design being built by the locals is at http://wireless.gumph.org > accrding to my sources (actually the guy here that builds them). Seen that page. I've made one. I didn't make it out of RG213 as it's really crappy at 2.4GHz. My books don't even give loss figures over 1GHz. I should post some plots of the loss of a sample of RG213 (with N-types) from a network analyser. I don't know why but the attenuation went through a hideous looking step downwards :-( so I chickened out of using RG213. Hmm, now I can't find that sample, these leads (of various brands) are all different... Mine are made of Andrews FSJ1-50A heliax - because I found lots of offcuts lying around :-) It's 8.5mm OD over the jacket. Velocity factor is 84% so 1/2 wave is 51.6mm. The frequency is spot-on, halfway between 2.4 and 2.45GHz. My first attempt had crummy mismatch around 8dB return loss. I was seriously concerned it wasn't working but it seemed to have the expected polar response at 2.4GHz. If you chop 3mm long holes in a transmission line every 1/2 wave you would expect return loss to go bad. I made another with the gaps between sections reduced as much as possible (0.5-1mm) and the return loss is more respectable 18dB (1.3:1) at the band edges and over 30dB in the middle - that's as good as my calibration kit. I've got plots to prove it. * I left the dielectric on the last 1/4 wave bit, as shown in the 1st photo, not as shown in the diagrams, and made it a full 1/4 wave. (Ah - he's changed the webpage from when I did it.) * I didn't use a jig and my sections aren't in-line but it doesn't matter. * I put mine in a 15mm plastic water pipe. I heated up the end to jam it over the back of the N connector. * The bandwidth is very narrow. 50MHz is about the limit. Just enough for 2.4-2.45GHz. Make it much longer and I'm sure it would be even narrower. * The omni radiation pattern varies in elevation across the band. ie. at one end it tilts downwards and at the other it tilts up. Only in the middle it goes out horizontal. When you get really high-gain omnis the beamwidth in the vertical plane gets very very narrow, much narrower than a yagi to cover the same range, or of the same gain. If you're trying to cover a town from a tower it may not be quite what you were thinking of. The elevation of the targets may not be in-line with your antenna. Beam it over their heads and miss them all, and the signal comes down too far away when it's too weak anyway. You need to think about aiming in the vertical plane, ie. lean it over, change height, or change frequency. If the coverage radius is 500m it's critical, if you have people with yagis 5km away it probably isn't. The good thing about omnis is that they just look like a mast so they don't draw much attention. Put a flag on it if you like :-) I want to design a really long alford slotted pole. It's said to be "the thing to have" but there don't seem to be any free designs. I could use common materials like copper water pipe and aluminium mast tubing. I've got access to simulation tools but I don't have any papers on the subject, nor have I seen any existing designs. Any info appreciated. You know the thing I'm after - an oversized vertical co-ax with lots of slots distributed around it and along its length. There's plenty of info on single alford-slots but that's nothing more than a dipole (but horizontally polarised for a vertical pole). Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 15 18:25:38 2002 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 SAA12182 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:25:37 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Anthony N Martin at "Nov 15, 2002 7:10:34 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:24:50 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211160024.SAA10075@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Perhaps someone should remind them that they should get > amateur radio licenses for experimenting & education. > That's what it's there for. I can't see why universities > shouldn't be entitled to callsigns like radio clubs, > or shouldn't be allowed to read scientific telemetry > data traffic from unattended remote stations. Uni of > Surrey / AMSAT amateur satellites do that. It would > certainly encourage them to teach more amateur radio > courses. A weeks' teaching then they'd know how to > set it up and operate it legally and without causing > interference. That's why we licence people. > > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. > Part 15 allows for experimenters to operate without a licence or FCC certification. ---- [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 47, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 19] [Revised as of October 1, 2000] [CITE: 47CFR15.23] TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices. (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use. (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. (the other sections list the frequencies) --- 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 Nov 15 18:34:24 2002 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 SAA12542 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:34:21 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Pinfold" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:31:31 +1300 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 V6.00.2600.0000 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: <001301c28d07$8441fdc0$2901a8c0@co.nz> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi there i remember seeing somthing about making alford slot antennas in a RSGB uhf handbook for ATV repeater use ??or was it VHF Comms mag cheers Mike ZL1BTB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony N Martin" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 12:08 PM Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > The antenna design being built by the locals is at > http://wireless.gumph.org > > accrding to my sources (actually the guy here that builds them). > > Seen that page. > > I've made one. > > > I didn't make it out of RG213 as it's really crappy at 2.4GHz. > My books don't even give loss figures over 1GHz. I should post > some plots of the loss of a sample of RG213 (with N-types) from > a network analyser. I don't know why but the attenuation went > through a hideous looking step downwards :-( so I chickened out > of using RG213. Hmm, now I can't find that sample, these leads > (of various brands) are all different... > > Mine are made of Andrews FSJ1-50A heliax - because I found lots > of offcuts lying around :-) It's 8.5mm OD over the jacket. > Velocity factor is 84% so 1/2 wave is 51.6mm. The frequency is > spot-on, halfway between 2.4 and 2.45GHz. > > My first attempt had crummy mismatch around 8dB return loss. I was > seriously concerned it wasn't working but it seemed to have the > expected polar response at 2.4GHz. If you chop 3mm long holes in a > transmission line every 1/2 wave you would expect return loss to > go bad. I made another with the gaps between sections reduced as > much as possible (0.5-1mm) and the return loss is more respectable > 18dB (1.3:1) at the band edges and over 30dB in the middle - > that's as good as my calibration kit. I've got plots to prove it. > > * I left the dielectric on the last 1/4 wave bit, as shown in the > 1st photo, not as shown in the diagrams, and made it a full 1/4 > wave. (Ah - he's changed the webpage from when I did it.) > > * I didn't use a jig and my sections aren't in-line but it > doesn't matter. > > * I put mine in a 15mm plastic water pipe. I heated up the end > to jam it over the back of the N connector. > > * The bandwidth is very narrow. 50MHz is about the limit. Just > enough for 2.4-2.45GHz. Make it much longer and I'm sure it would > be even narrower. > > * The omni radiation pattern varies in elevation across the band. > ie. at one end it tilts downwards and at the other it tilts up. > Only in the middle it goes out horizontal. > > When you get really high-gain omnis the beamwidth in the vertical > plane gets very very narrow, much narrower than a yagi to cover the > same range, or of the same gain. If you're trying to cover a town > from a tower it may not be quite what you were thinking of. The > elevation of the targets may not be in-line with your antenna. Beam > it over their heads and miss them all, and the signal comes down > too far away when it's too weak anyway. You need to think about > aiming in the vertical plane, ie. lean it over, change height, or > change frequency. If the coverage radius is 500m it's critical, if > you have people with yagis 5km away it probably isn't. > > The good thing about omnis is that they just look like a mast so > they don't draw much attention. Put a flag on it if you like :-) > > > I want to design a really long alford slotted pole. It's said > to be "the thing to have" but there don't seem to be any free > designs. I could use common materials like copper water pipe > and aluminium mast tubing. I've got access to simulation tools > but I don't have any papers on the subject, nor have I seen > any existing designs. Any info appreciated. You know the thing > I'm after - an oversized vertical co-ax with lots of slots > distributed around it and along its length. > > There's plenty of info on single alford-slots but that's nothing > more than a dipole (but horizontally polarised for a vertical > pole). > > Ant M1FDE > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: PINFOLD@XTRA.CO.NZ > 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 Fri Nov 15 18:51:11 2002 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 SAA12918 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:51:04 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Stewart Teaze at "Nov 15, 2002 8:11:14 am" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:50:21 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211160050.SAA14194@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > 1) These are totally different allocations. Even a > government entity needs permission to transmit within > its allocation. No kidding, and the permission was already authorized. If you have a 10 year license and sit on it for 9 years you can still transmit for a year, without having to get permission. > 2) This wasn't even the government - it was a > government-funded private entity. If not, why in the > heck would HPWREN even have mentioned "not having to > deal with the FCC" in the original article? Cuz' they are using part 15 off-the-shelf equipment? > > You mix apples and oranges, and other various fruits, > so freely, that a conversation with you turns to fruit > punch in no time. That's why no one likes you. > > These suckers appear to have been busting the rules, > but on my nickel. That's my only beef. > Where were you two years ago? http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/Photos/index.html You're telling me those are illegal? Wanna make a bet? They even testified before the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research: http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/info/testimony.html Clearly someone thinks they are doing something useful. I don't see any US Marshalls tearing down their gear. All HPWREN is doing is using wasted RF spectrum for somethine useful, it's not the end of the world. --- 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 Nov 15 19:02:37 2002 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 TAA13413 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:02:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:01:54 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <20021116010154.31102.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- xlpitlum wrote: > > You mix apples and oranges, and other various > fruits, > > so freely, that a conversation with you turns to > fruit > > punch in no time. > > That's why no one likes you. > ???? http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.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 Fri Nov 15 19:59:54 2002 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 TAA15744 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:59:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:59:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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 Fri, 15 Nov 2002, xlpitlum wrote: > > All HPWREN is doing is using wasted RF spectrum for somethine useful, it's > not the end of the world. > Your not in SoCal are you? Bob wd6dod --- 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 Nov 15 23:56:04 2002 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 XAA22327 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:55:59 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Stewart Teaze at "Nov 15, 2002 5: 1:54 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:54:54 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211160554.XAA26364@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > ???? > > http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922 > http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/Photos/20020204/2-RIMG0049.JPG Are they bass fishing?? P.S. HPWREN is working with the Navy and have persmission to use those setups. Get over it. http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/Photos/20020204/ --- 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 Nov 16 00:17:25 2002 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 AAA24552 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:17:24 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Walt DuBose at "Nov 15, 2002 1:10:46 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:16:10 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211160616.AAA28712@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > You have totally missed the point. No, I didn't. The HPWREN project has been going on for years, they even testified before Congress, http://hpwren.ucsd.edu/info/testimony.html If they were doing something blatantly wrong, I'm sure they would of fixed it. > But to answer some of your questions, even in war time you are > authorized to > operate on some, not all of the frequencies that a SINCGARS radio > is capable > of. You still must go through the AOR (area of responsibility) > frequency > manager for permission to use specific channels. Those where examples, proving you don't need to get a new license every time you key a radio. > idea why it is allowed for garage openers. I know that the Navy It's a frequency authorized for Part 15 devices to use. No, wait, you said the military would never transmit on a Part 15 frequency without proper authorization (or warning). Guess I proved you wrong. --- 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 Nov 16 06:20:50 2002 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 GAA03379 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 06:20:49 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Jeff Edmonson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 06:19:18 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (w5omr) List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <002701c28d6a$6324c880$0200a8c0@hamhome.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > > idea why it is allowed for garage openers. I know that the Navy > > It's a frequency authorized for Part 15 devices to use. > > No, wait, you said the military would never transmit on a Part 15 frequency > without proper authorization (or warning). Guess I proved you wrong. You are incorrect. He said that the frequency that garage door openers operated on were Military frequencies, and he had no idea why there were such devices on that range of frequencies. The whole thing is pointless, though and a horrible waste of bandwidth. No, I'm not talking about Spread Spectrum - I'm referring to your constant (yet unsuccessful) effort to spew out something that's not true, or try to defame someone who is. Look, Friend - I'd considered it a personal favor if you would only contribute to the list, when you've got something POSITIVE to say. -- 73 = Best Regards, --- 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 Nov 16 09:31:10 2002 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 JAA07844 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:31:06 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:24:04 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] WiFi Speed Spray Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD66314.2040100@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk a lighter note about part 15 hacks http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/wifispray.htm --- 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 Nov 16 10:56:45 2002 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 KAA11778 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:56:43 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:55:12 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] RE: WiFi Speed Spray To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 Har. I am going to put it on the shelf in my office right next to the can of Bull Shit repellant. Thanks! Bob -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-27907@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Eric S. Johansson Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 10:24 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] WiFi Speed Spray a lighter note about part 15 hacks http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/wifispray.htm --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: rwmcgwier@comcast.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 Nov 16 14:47:11 2002 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 OAA20235 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:47:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:46:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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 Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Tony Langdon wrote: > Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially > if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of routable IPs... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security --- 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 Nov 16 18:13:06 2002 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 SAA29728 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:13:04 -0600 (CST) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea In-Reply-To: from Jeff Edmonson at "Nov 16, 2002 6:19:18 am" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:11:46 -0600 (CST) 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: <200211170011.SAA02276@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > You are incorrect. He said that the frequency that garage door openers operated > on were Military frequencies, and he had no idea why there were such devices on > that range of frequencies. Because it proves military operations (through 225 - 400 MHz) *can and do* cause interference to civilian Part 15 devices. Even if it's only accidental. We can also prove military operations will interfere with amateur radio and Part 15 operations on other bands. Just ask anyone with a 440 ATV or 23 cm ATV repeater near a military base or airport. > > The whole thing is pointless, though and a horrible waste of bandwidth. > > No, I'm not talking about Spread Spectrum - I'm referring to your constant (yet > unsuccessful) effort to spew out something that's not true, or try to defame > someone > who is. > > Look, Friend - I'd considered it a personal favor if you would only contribute > to the > list, when you've got something POSITIVE to say. > Haha, because it's arrogant to asssume military or government operations don't effect Part 15 or amateur radio use. Here's even more proof: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/newlinkpaper.html Written by *TAPR's own Phil Karn* on how to deal with radar interference on packet radio links. Look, Friend - I'd considered it a personal favor if you would only contribute to the list, when you've got something TRUTHFUL to say. --- 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 Nov 16 20:25:08 2002 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 UAA03321 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:25:06 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:23:54 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD6FDBA.1040908@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Kris Kirby wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Tony Langdon wrote: > >>Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially >>if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a > > > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of routable IPs... that's irrelevant. address allocation policy aside, there's no way in heck I'm going to allow any network direct access to my network except for very limited ports/services. H.323 is royally broken and doubly so when you try to cross a security perimeter with address translation. I think it has something to do with the fact that H.323 was designed by telephony people instead of by folks who understand networks. It never fails but the phone company always makes things more complicated than they need to be, with less functionality than they could have, and for a higher price. ---eric --- 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 Nov 16 21:41:12 2002 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 VAA07788 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:41:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:41:00 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD70FCC.3040901@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Just because you have to open 100 or so ports to make it work? That's broken? Oh, come on, now...:-) SIP's not gonna be much better, although we can do setup reasonably. We're still a ways from getting a decent VoIP protocol working. gerry Eric S. Johansson wrote: > Kris Kirby wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Tony Langdon wrote: >> >>> Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, >>> especially >>> if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment >>> with a >> >> >> >> What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of routable >> IPs... > > > that's irrelevant. address allocation policy aside, there's no way in > heck I'm going to allow any network direct access to my network except > for very limited ports/services. H.323 is royally broken and doubly so > when you try to cross a security perimeter with address translation. > > I think it has something to do with the fact that H.323 was designed by > telephony people instead of by folks who understand networks. It never > fails but the phone company always makes things more complicated than > they need to be, with less functionality than they could have, and for a > higher price. > > ---eric > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Nov 16 21:54:11 2002 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 VAA08555 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:54:09 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:53:55 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD712D3.4E62118@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Kris Kirby wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Tony Langdon wrote: > > Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially > > if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a > > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of routable IPs... > > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org The domain is registered to Brian Kantor, wb6cyt at USCSD and Bdale Garbee, KB0G. Please see http://www.ampr.org You can contact your local coordinator and get a couple of IP addresses. Walt/K5YFW k5yfw.ampr.org/44.76.2.88 --- 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 Nov 16 22:01:58 2002 Received: from mx1.mail.twtelecom.net (mx1.mail.twtelecom.net [207.67.10.250]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with ESMTP id WAA08783 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:01:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by mx1.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B06106BF16 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:14:52 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 21:14:40 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DD709A0.8050602@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes. But there are still folks using them. The issue is, NAT and H.323 (for VoIP) do not play well together. Now: We can start talking rationally about an IPv6 block for ham radio. Then we could incorporate a callsign in the address and go on. gerry Kris Kirby wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Tony Langdon wrote: > >>Well, I'd go for VoIP. I dunno about H323, it can be a bit ugly, especially >>if you have to stick NAT in to make IPs go around. I'd experiment with a > > > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of routable IPs... > > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Sun Nov 17 06:44:32 2002 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 GAA26981 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 06:44:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:43:29 -0500 From: Jim Sanford X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD78EF1.635B3ABB@amsat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt: DOn't know about the amp, but the most recent proceedings of microwave update (2002) has two good articles on extended range linking like this. Of note, there's good info on an Alford Slot antenna. This is a piece of waveguide with slots in it, oriented vertically, that has horizontal radiation with a very narrow vertical lobe. You can build these for whatever gain you want. Construction details for a 2.4GHz version in the proceedings (I got mine from ARRL.) GOod luck! 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org dubose@texas.net wrote: > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations if not > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by industry and > community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 further and to allow > higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless associations are > asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless digital operation. > This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on the band. > > The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get > operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am hopeful that San Antonio > will have a network operational by the first of the year even if it's with 100 > mw devices. > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 (NetMeeting) voice as the > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. > > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw and boost it > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni-directional antenna that > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid designs that you have > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. > > Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that are allowed by FCC > Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered FRS and GMRS and > are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios with external > antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. > > Walt/K5YFW > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: > > >Commissioners: > > > > > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > > >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > > >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > > >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. > > > > I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about > something > > illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs me is > the > > higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff in the > > ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of > experimentation. > > But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed to be > > about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover all > the > > Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. > > > > I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use > > should be > > governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with > FRS/CB. > > This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat defined. > > For > > example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated antennas) > There > > is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and > > configurations) > > to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. > > > > > > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > > >of watts EIRP. > > > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing when > they > > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't expect > > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > 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 Sun Nov 17 06:59:53 2002 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 GAA27213 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 06:59:49 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:59:09 -0500 From: Jim Sanford X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 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: <3DD7929D.60ABB29A@amsat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Tony Langdon wrote: > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > wouldn't complain if they > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > coax. > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > think most of use are in > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > foliage. > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > polarization. > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > 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 Sun Nov 17 07:02:41 2002 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 HAA27245 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:02:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:01:40 -0500 From: Jim Sanford X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 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: <3DD79334.388F9310@amsat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt: In addition to my earlier post about the latest 2002 Microwave Update, I've read some good analytical stuff about slots somewhere on the web recently. A rectangular waveguid slot CAN be made very omnidirectional. You might check out W1GHZ's online antenna book. Good luck! 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Walt DuBose wrote: > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > coax. > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > think most of use are in > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > foliage. > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > polarization. > > > > Yes sir...a slotted antenna is hard to manufacturer as some of us > are finding out. > You must have a computer milling/punching machine to do it > correctly. But we have > a good design for a 15 dB slot antenna that is omni-directional > (Ok somewhat omin- > directional). I think you really need the slots in a cylinder > rather than square > stock to make it truly omni-directional. > > Hopefully before I hit the sack tonight I will pull out my 1930's > antenna manual and > see if there is a design for stacked loop antennas. The highest > frequency that I have > seen that uses them is on UHF TV channels. > > Walt/K5YFW > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > 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 Sun Nov 17 15:51:52 2002 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 PAA16550 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:51:49 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:51:01 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA16550 > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. That's the same argument I've made here in the past weeks, and one of the reasons I'm active on the local 802.11b comunity (besides it's cool toplay with ;) ). Many of these guys know little about radio (but are learning fast), and very few have any concept of the broad range of activities that hams partake in. I've opened a few eyes and made a few people somewhat interested. Besides doing VoIP over WLAN, I've pulled out the HT and done a few IRLP demos - the reaction you get when an American accent claiming to originate from somewhere in the USA appears on a little HE speaker in full clarity is always one of amazement. HF gets some interesting responses too, as to most WLAN experimenters, HF ionospheric propagation is akin to black magic (had one guy ask me how the hell the signal got across the country :) ), and one has to explain how the signals get from one place to another, without the help of the Internet, satellites, etc... Speaking of satellites, I gotta do a UO-14 demo one day.... :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 17 16:33:24 2002 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 QAA18513 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:33:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:41 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id QAA18513 > Now: We can start talking rationally about an IPv6 block for > ham radio. > Then we could incorporate a callsign in the address and go on. Now you're talking! :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 17 17:30:18 2002 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 RAA20807 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:30:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:07:34 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id RAA20807 > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of > routable IPs... Depends how well they're allocated worldwide... Just like in the case of the mainstream Internet... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 18 11:34:14 2002 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 LAA00613 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:34:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:29:40 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18/11/2002 17:32:41 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 > Part 15 allows for experimenters to operate without a licence or > FCC certification. The European equivalent "license free" operation is intended to permit only operation of commercially available equipment. "Type approved" is what it used to be known as, but since the introduction of R&TTE directive, it isn't demanded as such. Equipment suppliers must "self-certify" which still means independent tests in a facility with equipment with traceable calibration. If antennas are involved, a calibrated open-air test site (OATS). Users who modify their gear become responsible for demonstrating conformity before putting it in service, more of a financial impediment to home experimenters. If you require this much formality & quality, then it ceases to be experiment; you need to know what you're doing before you do it. You can establish conformity by analysis in simple cases, if, for example, you fit a 10dB gain antenna and reduce Tx power by 10dB. (Still gives +10dB on link budget.) * But, there is a requirement for antennas to be "dedicated" (non-interchangeable) hence the oddball connectors. As I understand it, this anti-experimentation measure is required by the FCC who started the idea, did they not? The new amateur Foundation Licence permits very little experimentation (modification & construction of transmitters). The idea being that so few amateurs now actually do this it seems little point teaching them, testing them and licensing them to do it unless they want to. We have amateurs here experimenting with 2.4GHz "video senders" for ATV. These come license-free from the shops with 10mW but beget 8W PAs... Are "video senders" a USA phenomenon too? Ant --- 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 Nov 18 12:28:42 2002 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 MAA03999 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:28:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Pinfold" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:25:46 +1300 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 V6.00.2600.0000 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: <001201c28f2f$ea27b1a0$2901a8c0@co.nz> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk anybody after 2.4 Ghz ..+20 dBm (100 mW) video senders for ATV ham radio use cheers Mike ZL1BTB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony N Martin" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:29 AM Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > > Part 15 allows for experimenters to operate without a licence or > > FCC certification. > > The European equivalent "license free" operation is intended > to permit only operation of commercially available equipment. > "Type approved" is what it used to be known as, but since the > introduction of R&TTE directive, it isn't demanded as such. > Equipment suppliers must "self-certify" which still means > independent tests in a facility with equipment with traceable > calibration. If antennas are involved, a calibrated open-air > test site (OATS). > > Users who modify their gear become responsible for > demonstrating conformity before putting it in service, > more of a financial impediment to home experimenters. > If you require this much formality & quality, then > it ceases to be experiment; you need to know what you're > doing before you do it. > > You can establish conformity by analysis in simple cases, > if, for example, you fit a 10dB gain antenna and reduce > Tx power by 10dB. (Still gives +10dB on link budget.) > > * But, there is a requirement for antennas to be "dedicated" > (non-interchangeable) hence the oddball connectors. > As I understand it, this anti-experimentation measure is > required by the FCC who started the idea, did they not? > > > The new amateur Foundation Licence permits very little > experimentation (modification & construction of transmitters). > The idea being that so few amateurs now actually do this it > seems little point teaching them, testing them and licensing > them to do it unless they want to. > > We have amateurs here experimenting with 2.4GHz "video > senders" for ATV. These come license-free from the shops > with 10mW but beget 8W PAs... Are "video senders" a USA > phenomenon too? > > Ant > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: PINFOLD@XTRA.CO.NZ > 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 Mon Nov 18 13:01:53 2002 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 NAA06228 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:01:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:58:38 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18/11/2002 19:01:05 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 > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/newlinkpaper.html > Written by *TAPR's own Phil Karn* on how to deal with radar interference on > packet radio links. Notice he's also proposing RTS/CTS from 802.11 into AX-25! Let's go the whole deal and adopt 802.11 for high-rate packet instead... The paper could address how the proposed protocol/modulation can be supported on hand-helds and devices that haven't got MIPs to burn or PCs to burn them on; laptops; green-PCs, 10-port nodes, emergency, satellite, inaccessible repeater sites, etc. Given portable C source, DSP power will do it given cheap small boards in sufficient quantity. I'm still looking for a cheap palmtop with PCMCIA for a WLAN card. (And USB for a webcam? - I'd love pocket mobile DV) Any suggestions? Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 18 13:22:43 2002 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 NAA07376 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:22:42 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:16:52 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 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: <1037647012.3dd93ca421281@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk There are plenty of compact flash WLAN (802.11b) cards available specifically designed to plug into HPC's, got one for my E-100 and many available for the IPAQ and cheaper ones. Quoting Anthony N Martin : > I'm still looking for a cheap palmtop with PCMCIA for a WLAN > card. (And USB for a webcam? - I'd love pocket mobile DV) > Any suggestions? --- 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 Nov 18 14:30:38 2002 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 OAA10152 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:30:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Alford slot To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18/11/2002 20:29:28 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 > See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. Any links to an on-line version please? Obviously found this, http://www.microwaveupdate.org/ Seems not yet updated now the conference has passed... There's an overview here... http://www2.arrl.org/catalog/proc02.html But I see no 2.4GHz alford slots. nb. A slotted-waveguide antenna is a waveguide with slots in it. Like this one: http://trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm An alford slot is a large diameter coax with a slot in it. Here's some examples, although single slots are excited by balun connections to the centre to couple 100% power into one slot: http://www.eta.chalmers.se/~pgp/alford_slot/alford_eng.html http://www.w1ghz.cx/antbook/ch7_part4.pdf In the long multiple alford slots the slot array is excited by a centre co-axial rod; it's like a leaky-feeder coax, although I've seen some hints probe wires are used on one edge of each slot to couple power. Here's some clues about broadcast slot antennas: http://www.transmitter.com/articles/96/rf-9602.html Here's a page with an extensive range of homebrew and some very nice high-performance and expensive antennas. http://www.wlan.org.uk/antenna-page.html Slotted waveguides can't produce a very clean omni pattern (gain varies by 5dB) as the wave up the guide has polarisation, and slots only radiate on 2 faces of the guide. The slotted co-ax is round and can radiate equally from a slot at any angle round the axis, which should give freedom to optimise the pattern better. I'd expect the losses to be higher than waveguide. Now chaps, what's inside one of these then: http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/pdf/hg2415u.pdf A 15dBi omni, 2.4-2.5GHz, for $159 . Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 18 14:49:50 2002 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 OAA11047 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:49:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] WLAN MAC address fingerprinting To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18/11/2002 20:49:05 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 This site is trying to build a database of MAC addresses vs. manufacturers' hardware to allow packet sniffers and the like to provide more info about what's out there. It may be very useful if it's interfering with you. Maybe you want to contribute. I'll add a few to his list tomorrow. http://fingerprint.unbolted.net/ He's not trying to build a database that translates MAC addresses to a user, a grid ref, or other useful info. Hmm, why not? Ant M1FDE --- 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 Nov 18 15:32:00 2002 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 PAA13094 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:31:55 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Alford slot Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:31:12 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 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: <1037655072.3dd95c205eadd@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk That is made by comet. End feed colinear array. Similar stuff here, except the comet one uses PCB traces: http://wireless.gumph.org/ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/5140/2.4colinear.jpg http://www.tux.org/~bball/antenna/ http://www.aerialix.com/kits/arlx-om2400-all/arlx-om2400-all-inst.html Quoting Anthony N Martin : > Now chaps, what's inside one of these then: > http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/pdf/hg2415u.pdf > A 15dBi omni, 2.4-2.5GHz, for $159 . --- 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 Nov 18 15:35:56 2002 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 PAA13501 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:35:56 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:35:13 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA13501 > Users who modify their gear become responsible for > demonstrating conformity before putting it in service, > more of a financial impediment to home experimenters. > If you require this much formality & quality, then > it ceases to be experiment; you need to know what you're > doing before you do it. In Australia, this is normally the case, but with 802.11b gear that has external antennas, nothing has been mentioned in the Class Licence LCD (Spread spectrum devices). > We have amateurs here experimenting with 2.4GHz "video > senders" for ATV. These come license-free from the shops > with 10mW but beget 8W PAs... Are "video senders" a USA > phenomenon too? We have them here in VK too, but it's a LOT cheaper to build a much better quality FM ATV transmitter from locally available kits, about 1/3-1/4 of the price for a basic 50mW 2.4 GHz exciter, and the kit one offers much better performance and there's a PLL option, if you want more stability and digital frequency readout. Even with the PLL option, the kit setup is still cheaper... I started down this road myself, but got sidetracked by other projects... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 18 16:26:12 2002 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 QAA15494 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:26:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:25:35 -0500 From: Jim Sanford X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Alford slot 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: <3DD968DF.8ED016C7@amsat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Sorry, I know of no online version, other than the descriptions on the w1ghz web site: http://www.w1ghz.org/antbook/preface.htm 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Anthony N Martin wrote: > > > See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. > > Any links to an on-line version please? > > Obviously found this, http://www.microwaveupdate.org/ > > Seems not yet updated now the conference has passed... > > There's an overview here... > http://www2.arrl.org/catalog/proc02.html > > But I see no 2.4GHz alford slots. > > nb. > > A slotted-waveguide antenna is a waveguide with slots in it. > Like this one: http://trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm > > An alford slot is a large diameter coax with a slot in it. > > Here's some examples, although single slots are excited > by balun connections to the centre to couple 100% power > into one slot: > http://www.eta.chalmers.se/~pgp/alford_slot/alford_eng.html > http://www.w1ghz.cx/antbook/ch7_part4.pdf > > In the long multiple alford slots the slot array is excited > by a centre co-axial rod; it's like a leaky-feeder coax, > although I've seen some hints probe wires are used on > one edge of each slot to couple power. > > Here's some clues about broadcast slot antennas: > http://www.transmitter.com/articles/96/rf-9602.html > > Here's a page with an extensive range of homebrew and > some very nice high-performance and expensive antennas. > http://www.wlan.org.uk/antenna-page.html > > Slotted waveguides can't produce a very clean omni pattern > (gain varies by 5dB) as the wave up the guide has polarisation, > and slots only radiate on 2 faces of the guide. > > The slotted co-ax is round and can radiate equally from > a slot at any angle round the axis, which should give freedom > to optimise the pattern better. I'd expect the losses to be > higher than waveguide. > > Now chaps, what's inside one of these then: > http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/pdf/hg2415u.pdf > A 15dBi omni, 2.4-2.5GHz, for $159 . > > Ant M1FDE > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > 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 Mon Nov 18 17:05:38 2002 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 RAA17379 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:05:30 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.199] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 17, 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:04:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2002 23:04:27.0512 (UTC) FILETIME=[D816AF80:01C28F56] 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 Jim, Thanks for the suggestion regarding the slot antenna, but have you actually tried to build one? They are very difficult to make because of the extreme precision required at our SS center test frequency (2437 MHz). Also, they are not very "omni" with at least 6 dB variation in field strength as you move about the far field of the antenna. To date, the local HSMM Experimenters Team (Livingston County, Michigan)has been unsuccessful in getting one of the slots to work as expected, or even load properly (VSWR of <2:1 across the entire 22 MHz bandwidth of the signal from 2426-2448 MHz). We are currently investigating stacked loop dipoles with varied resonances (if they were all perfectly resonant they would only have a bandwidth of about 8-10 MHz...too narrow for SS, in our opinion). Any other recommendations would be most welcomed and needed. Vy 73, John Champa, K8OCL ARRL Chairman High Speed Multimedia Working Group From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 17, 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:13 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 17, 2002. 1. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 2. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 3. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 4. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 5. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 6. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Jim Sanford Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:43:29 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 Walt: DOn't know about the amp, but the most recent proceedings of microwave update (2002) has two good articles on extended range linking like this. Of note, there's good info on an Alford Slot antenna. This is a piece of waveguide with slots in it, oriented vertically, that has horizontal radiation with a very narrow vertical lobe. You can build these for whatever gain you want. Construction details for a 2.4GHz version in the proceedings (I got mine from ARRL.) GOod luck! 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org dubose@texas.net wrote: > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations if not > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by industry and > community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 further and to allow > higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless associations are > asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless digital operation. > This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on the band. > > The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get > operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am hopeful that San Antonio > will have a network operational by the first of the year even if it's with 100 > mw devices. > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 (NetMeeting) voice as the > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. > > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw and boost it > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni-directional antenna that > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid designs that you have > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. > > Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that are allowed by FCC > Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered FRS and GMRS and > are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios with external > antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. > > Walt/K5YFW > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: > > >Commissioners: > > > > > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > > >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > > >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > > >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. > > > > I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about > something > > illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs me is > the > > higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff in the > > ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of > experimentation. > > But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed to be > > about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover all > the > > Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. > > > > I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use > > should be > > governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with > FRS/CB. > > This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat defined. > > For > > example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated antennas) > There > > is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and > > configurations) > > to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. > > > > > > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > > >of watts EIRP. > > > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing when > they > > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't expect > > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Jim Sanford Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:59:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Tony Langdon wrote: > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > wouldn't complain if they > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > coax. > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > think most of use are in > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > foliage. > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > polarization. > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Jim Sanford Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:01:40 -0500 X-Message-Number: 3 Walt: In addition to my earlier post about the latest 2002 Microwave Update, I've read some good analytical stuff about slots somewhere on the web recently. A rectangular waveguid slot CAN be made very omnidirectional. You might check out W1GHZ's online antenna book. Good luck! 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Walt DuBose wrote: > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > coax. > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > think most of use are in > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > foliage. > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall any > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > polarization. > > > > Yes sir...a slotted antenna is hard to manufacturer as some of us > are finding out. > You must have a computer milling/punching machine to do it > correctly. But we have > a good design for a 15 dB slot antenna that is omni-directional > (Ok somewhat omin- > directional). I think you really need the slots in a cylinder > rather than square > stock to make it truly omni-directional. > > Hopefully before I hit the sack tonight I will pull out my 1930's > antenna manual and > see if there is a design for stacked loop antennas. The highest > frequency that I have > seen that uses them is on UHF TV channels. > > Walt/K5YFW > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Tony Langdon Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:51:01 +1100 X-Message-Number: 4 > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. That's the same argument I've made here in the past weeks, and one of = the reasons I'm active on the local 802.11b comunity (besides it's cool = toplay with ;) ). Many of these guys know little about radio (but are = learning fast), and very few have any concept of the broad range of activities = that hams partake in. I've opened a few eyes and made a few people somewhat interested. Besides doing VoIP over WLAN, I've pulled out the HT and done a few = IRLP demos - the reaction you get when an American accent claiming to = originate from somewhere in the USA appears on a little HE speaker in full = clarity is always one of amazement. HF gets some interesting responses too, as to = most WLAN experimenters, HF ionospheric propagation is akin to black magic = (had one guy ask me how the hell the signal got across the country :) ), and = one has to explain how the signals get from one place to another, without = the help of the Internet, satellites, etc... Speaking of satellites, I = gotta do a UO-14 demo one day.... :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Tony Langdon Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:41 +1100 X-Message-Number: 5 > Now: We can start talking rationally about an IPv6 block for=20 > ham radio.=20 > Then we could incorporate a callsign in the address and go on. Now you're talking! :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Tony Langdon Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:07:34 +1100 X-Message-Number: 6 > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of=20 > routable IPs... Depends how well they're allocated worldwide... Just like in the case = of the mainstream Internet... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --- 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 Nov 18 18:08:22 2002 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 SAA19239 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:08:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:07:16 -0500 From: Jim Sanford X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 17, 2002 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 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: <3DD980B4.6B88B8C9@amsat.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt: I have not (yet) built one, but intend to for 10GHz eventually. The W1GHz web site has a bunch of practical how to including how to get it right. Allegedly, these things can be very omnidirectional if you put "wings" on them. This is corroborated in the Microwave Update 2002 proceedings with an article by a guy who has built some for 2.4GHZ 802.11 use. I also know a guy who has built at least one for 10GHz and is very pleased with how it works. I think the guys in CA who are using TWTs in OCAR service on 10GHz are also pleased with their homebrew slots. Whichever way you go, bets of luck, and please share what you decide and how it works. 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org John Champa wrote: > > Jim, > > Thanks for the suggestion regarding the slot antenna, but have you actually > tried to build one? They are very difficult to make because of the extreme > precision required at our SS center test frequency (2437 MHz). Also, they > are not very "omni" with at least 6 dB variation in field strength as you > move about the far field of the antenna. > > To date, the local HSMM Experimenters Team (Livingston County, Michigan)has > been unsuccessful in getting one of the slots to work as expected, or even > load properly (VSWR of <2:1 across the entire 22 MHz bandwidth of the signal > from 2426-2448 MHz). We are currently investigating stacked loop dipoles > with varied resonances (if they were all perfectly resonant they would only > have a bandwidth of about 8-10 MHz...too narrow for SS, in our opinion). > > Any other recommendations would be most welcomed and needed. > > Vy 73, > John Champa, K8OCL > ARRL Chairman > High Speed Multimedia Working Group > > From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" > > Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" > To: "ss digest recipients" > Subject: ss digest: November 17, 2002 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:13 -0500 > > TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 17, > 2002. > > 1. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > 2. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > 3. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > 4. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > 5. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > 6. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Jim Sanford > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:43:29 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > Walt: > DOn't know about the amp, but the most recent proceedings of microwave > update (2002) has two good articles on extended range linking like > this. Of note, there's good info on an Alford Slot antenna. This is a > piece of waveguide with slots in it, oriented vertically, that has > horizontal radiation with a very narrow vertical lobe. You can build > these for whatever gain you want. > > Construction details for a 2.4GHz version in the proceedings (I got mine > from ARRL.) > > GOod luck! > > 73, > Jim > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > dubose@texas.net wrote: > > > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this > > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations > if not > > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > > > There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by industry and > > community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 further and to > allow > > higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless associations are > > asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless digital > operation. > > This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on the band. > > > > The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get > > operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am hopeful that San > Antonio > > will have a network operational by the first of the year even if it's > with 100 > > mw devices. > > > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 (NetMeeting) voice as > the > > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. > > > > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw and > boost it > > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni-directional antenna > that > > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid designs that you > have > > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. > > > > Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that are allowed > by FCC > > Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered FRS and GMRS > and > > are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios with > external > > antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: > > > >Commissioners: > > > > > > > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > > > >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > > > >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > > > >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. > > > > > > I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about > > something > > > illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs > me is > > the > > > higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff > in the > > > ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of > > experimentation. > > > But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed > to be > > > about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover > all > > the > > > Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. > > > > > > I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use > > > should be > > > governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with > > FRS/CB. > > > This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat > defined. > > > For > > > example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated > antennas) > > There > > > is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and > > > configurations) > > > to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. > > > > > > > > > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > > > >of watts EIRP. > > > > > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > > > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing > when > > they > > > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't > expect > > > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Jim Sanford > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:59:09 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 2 > > See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. > > 73, > Jim > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > coax. > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > think most of use are in > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > foliage. > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall > any > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > polarization. > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > > > > This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No > confidentiality > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive > this > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system > and > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of > this > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender. > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Jim Sanford > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:01:40 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 3 > > Walt: > In addition to my earlier post about the latest 2002 Microwave Update, > I've read some good analytical stuff about slots somewhere on the web > recently. A rectangular waveguid slot CAN be made very omnidirectional. > > You might check out W1GHZ's online antenna book. > > Good luck! > > 73, > Jim > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > > coax. > > > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > > think most of use are in > > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > > foliage. > > > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a > slotted > > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall > any > > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > > polarization. > > > > > > > Yes sir...a slotted antenna is hard to manufacturer as some of us > > are finding out. > > You must have a computer milling/punching machine to do it > > correctly. But we have > > a good design for a 15 dB slot antenna that is omni-directional > > (Ok somewhat omin- > > directional). I think you really need the slots in a cylinder > > rather than square > > stock to make it truly omni-directional. > > > > Hopefully before I hit the sack tonight I will pull out my 1930's > > antenna manual and > > see if there is a design for stacked loop antennas. The highest > > frequency that I have > > seen that uses them is on UHF TV channels. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Tony Langdon > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:51:01 +1100 > X-Message-Number: 4 > > > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. > > That's the same argument I've made here in the past weeks, and one of = > the > reasons I'm active on the local 802.11b comunity (besides it's cool = > toplay > with ;) ). Many of these guys know little about radio (but are = > learning > fast), and very few have any concept of the broad range of activities = > that > hams partake in. I've opened a few eyes and made a few people somewhat > interested. > > Besides doing VoIP over WLAN, I've pulled out the HT and done a few = > IRLP > demos - the reaction you get when an American accent claiming to = > originate > from somewhere in the USA appears on a little HE speaker in full = > clarity is > always one of amazement. HF gets some interesting responses too, as to = > most > WLAN experimenters, HF ionospheric propagation is akin to black magic = > (had > one guy ask me how the hell the signal got across the country :) ), and = > one > has to explain how the signals get from one place to another, without = > the > help of the Internet, satellites, etc... Speaking of satellites, I = > gotta do > a UO-14 demo one day.... :-) > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > =20 > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > sender. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Tony Langdon > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:41 +1100 > X-Message-Number: 5 > > > Now: We can start talking rationally about an IPv6 block for=20 > > ham radio.=20 > > Then we could incorporate a callsign in the address and go on. > > Now you're talking! :-) > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > =20 > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > sender. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > From: Tony Langdon > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:07:34 +1100 > X-Message-Number: 6 > > > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of=20 > > routable IPs... > > Depends how well they're allocated worldwide... Just like in the case = > of > the mainstream Internet... > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > =20 > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > sender. > > --- > > END OF DIGEST > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > 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 Mon Nov 18 19:49:59 2002 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 TAA22693 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:49:52 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:48:58 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 17, 2002 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: <3DD9988A.89CEEC35@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Jim, I think the problem with 2.4 is that everyone is using rectangle stock and it should be round but at 10 GHz, they use tubing stock. I really think that stacked loops are better for 2.4 Walt Jim Sanford wrote: > > Walt: > I have not (yet) built one, but intend to for 10GHz eventually. > > The W1GHz web site has a bunch of practical how to including how to get > it right. Allegedly, these things can be very omnidirectional if you > put "wings" on them. This is corroborated in the Microwave Update 2002 > proceedings with an article by a guy who has built some for 2.4GHZ > 802.11 use. > > I also know a guy who has built at least one for 10GHz and is very > pleased with how it works. I think the guys in CA who are using TWTs in > OCAR service on 10GHz are also pleased with their homebrew slots. > > Whichever way you go, bets of luck, and please share what you decide > and how it works. > > 73, > Jim > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > John Champa wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > Thanks for the suggestion regarding the slot antenna, but have you actually > > tried to build one? They are very difficult to make because of the extreme > > precision required at our SS center test frequency (2437 MHz). Also, they > > are not very "omni" with at least 6 dB variation in field strength as you > > move about the far field of the antenna. > > > > To date, the local HSMM Experimenters Team (Livingston County, Michigan)has > > been unsuccessful in getting one of the slots to work as expected, or even > > load properly (VSWR of <2:1 across the entire 22 MHz bandwidth of the signal > > from 2426-2448 MHz). We are currently investigating stacked loop dipoles > > with varied resonances (if they were all perfectly resonant they would only > > have a bandwidth of about 8-10 MHz...too narrow for SS, in our opinion). > > > > Any other recommendations would be most welcomed and needed. > > > > Vy 73, > > John Champa, K8OCL > > ARRL Chairman > > High Speed Multimedia Working Group > > > > From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" > > > > Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" > > To: "ss digest recipients" > > Subject: ss digest: November 17, 2002 > > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:13 -0500 > > > > TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 17, > > 2002. > > > > 1. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > 2. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > 3. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > 4. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > 5. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > 6. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Jim Sanford > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:43:29 -0500 > > X-Message-Number: 1 > > > > Walt: > > DOn't know about the amp, but the most recent proceedings of microwave > > update (2002) has two good articles on extended range linking like > > this. Of note, there's good info on an Alford Slot antenna. This is a > > piece of waveguide with slots in it, oriented vertically, that has > > horizontal radiation with a very narrow vertical lobe. You can build > > these for whatever gain you want. > > > > Construction details for a 2.4GHz version in the proceedings (I got mine > > from ARRL.) > > > > GOod luck! > > > > 73, > > Jim > > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > > > dubose@texas.net wrote: > > > > > > I have a slightly different take on the issue; however, agree that this > > > "operation" seems to show an intent to disregard FCC Part 15 Regulations > > if not > > > in fact that they do violate the Regulations. > > > > > > There is MUCH pressure being put on the FCC and Congress, by industry and > > > community wireless associations, to deregulate Part 15 further and to > > allow > > > higher EIRPs. I understand that some community wireless associations are > > > asking for primary and exclusive use of 2.4 GHz for wireless digital > > operation. > > > This is very much a threat to the amateur radio existence on the band. > > > > > > The above alone makes it imperative that we all work together to get > > > operational on 2.4 GHz under Part 97 rules ASAP. I am hopeful that San > > Antonio > > > will have a network operational by the first of the year even if it's > > with 100 > > > mw devices. > > > > > > And let me push here for the use of SMTP and H323 (NetMeeting) voice as > > the > > > first uses of 802.11b operation under Part 97 rules. > > > > > > We REALLY need a bi-directional amplifier that will take 50-200mw and > > boost it > > > up to 2-3 watts and an horizontally polarized, omni-directional antenna > > that > > > hams can build that has 8-9+ dB gain. Anyone with solid designs that you > > have > > > built and are working, please let the SIG know about them. > > > > > > Almost any unregulated/under regulated RF transmissions that are allowed > > by FCC > > > Rules are going to be broken. Some truckers have discovered FRS and GMRS > > and > > > are running GMRS without a license also they have FRM radios with > > external > > > antennas and 5 watt amplifiers and 9 dB gain antennas. > > > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:57:54 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: > > > > >Commissioners: > > > > > > > > > >Here is a clear violation of Part 15 being bragged about > > > > >in a press release. Part 15 was a bad idea from its > > > > >inception since it was inevitable that the "CB mentality" > > > > >of "anything goes" would eventually creep in. > > > > > > > > I see your point. As you say here is a press release bragging about > > > something > > > > illegal. I can't disagree that Part 15 is needed. I guess what bugs > > me is > > > the > > > > higher allowed PEP/field stength and ERP limits for this type of stuff > > in the > > > > ISM bands. I doubt Part 15 was intended to be for this type of > > > experimentation. > > > > But Sec. 15.23 makes you wonder sometimes. Amateur radio is supposed > > to be > > > > about experimentation. Yet Part 15 has to be flexible enough to cover > > all > > > the > > > > Part 15 devices and allow the end user to make miror repairs. > > > > > > > > I know it has been said before, maybe unlicenesed wireless ethernet use > > > > should be > > > > governed by a different part, such as Part 95. I have no problem with > > > FRS/CB. > > > > This is because the limits on experimentation are at least somewhat > > defined. > > > > For > > > > example I view FRS as a good thing. (1/2 watt with integrated > > antennas) > > > There > > > > is incentive to some degree if you want more flexibility (power and > > > > configurations) > > > > to look into a licensed service such as ham radio or GMRS. > > > > > > > > > > > > >I am sure that no one intended for Part 15 devices to have hundreds > > > > >of watts EIRP. > > > > > > > > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html > > > > I don't really beleive this. The FCC should know what they were doing > > when > > > they > > > > came up with the present Part 15 wording. However, maybe they didn't > > expect > > > > people to be able pull off such lengthy path-links. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Jim Sanford > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:59:09 -0500 > > X-Message-Number: 2 > > > > See Microwave update 2002 for DIY on a 2.4 Ghz Alford Slot. > > > > 73, > > Jim > > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > > coax. > > > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > > think most of use are in > > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > > foliage. > > > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a slotted > > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall > > any > > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > > polarization. > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > > > > > > > > This correspondence is for the named person?s use only. It may contain > > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No > > confidentiality > > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive > > this > > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system > > and > > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of > > this > > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual > > sender. > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Jim Sanford > > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:01:40 -0500 > > X-Message-Number: 3 > > > > Walt: > > In addition to my earlier post about the latest 2002 Microwave Update, > > I've read some good analytical stuff about slots somewhere on the web > > recently. A rectangular waveguid slot CAN be made very omnidirectional. > > > > You might check out W1GHZ's online antenna book. > > > > Good luck! > > > > 73, > > Jim > > wb4gcs@amsat.org > > > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > > > > > Tony Langdon wrote: > > > > > > > > > That is a SUPER design and the dimensions look right and it will > > > > > be between 6-9 dB gain. > > > > > probably more like 6. But they will have some coax loss so I > > > > > wouldn't complain if they > > > > > ran one watt out and a 9 dB gain antenna and using 10+ ft of > > > > > coax. > > > > > > > > > > Again its a good antenna, its just vertically polarized and I > > > > > think most of use are in > > > > > agreement that we should use horizontal polarization as it > > > > > isolates us from the Part 15 > > > > > folks and it also seems to have better penetration through > > > > > foliage. > > > > > > > > Well, omnis get harder. I know the guys in perth were selling a > > slotted > > > > waveguide antenna at one stage, but it was expensive and I don't recall > > any > > > > DIY details being published. That might have yielded horizontal > > > > polarization. > > > > > > > > > > Yes sir...a slotted antenna is hard to manufacturer as some of us > > > are finding out. > > > You must have a computer milling/punching machine to do it > > > correctly. But we have > > > a good design for a 15 dB slot antenna that is omni-directional > > > (Ok somewhat omin- > > > directional). I think you really need the slots in a cylinder > > > rather than square > > > stock to make it truly omni-directional. > > > > > > Hopefully before I hit the sack tonight I will pull out my 1930's > > > antenna manual and > > > see if there is a design for stacked loop antennas. The highest > > > frequency that I have > > > seen that uses them is on UHF TV channels. > > > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Tony Langdon > > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:51:01 +1100 > > X-Message-Number: 4 > > > > > CBers that want more than CB have traditionally made > > > the transition to amateur radio. We should encourage > > > WLANers who want more than "local" LANS to do the same. > > > We need to offer carrots as well as sticks. We could > > > make amateur radio courses cover more stuff relevant > > > to SS & WLAN for VHF-and-above licencees. > > > > That's the same argument I've made here in the past weeks, and one of = > > the > > reasons I'm active on the local 802.11b comunity (besides it's cool = > > toplay > > with ;) ). Many of these guys know little about radio (but are = > > learning > > fast), and very few have any concept of the broad range of activities = > > that > > hams partake in. I've opened a few eyes and made a few people somewhat > > interested. > > > > Besides doing VoIP over WLAN, I've pulled out the HT and done a few = > > IRLP > > demos - the reaction you get when an American accent claiming to = > > originate > > from somewhere in the USA appears on a little HE speaker in full = > > clarity is > > always one of amazement. HF gets some interesting responses too, as to = > > most > > WLAN experimenters, HF ionospheric propagation is akin to black magic = > > (had > > one guy ask me how the hell the signal got across the country :) ), and = > > one > > has to explain how the signals get from one place to another, without = > > the > > help of the Internet, satellites, etc... Speaking of satellites, I = > > gotta do > > a UO-14 demo one day.... :-) > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > =20 > > > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > > contain > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > > confidentiality > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > > this > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > > and > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > > this > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > > sender. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Tony Langdon > > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:41 +1100 > > X-Message-Number: 5 > > > > > Now: We can start talking rationally about an IPv6 block for=20 > > > ham radio.=20 > > > Then we could incorporate a callsign in the address and go on. > > > > Now you're talking! :-) > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > =20 > > > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > > contain > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > > confidentiality > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > > this > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > > and > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > > this > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > > sender. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea > > From: Tony Langdon > > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:07:34 +1100 > > X-Message-Number: 6 > > > > > What? Huh? um, `whois -a 44.0.0.0'! We've a whole block of=20 > > > routable IPs... > > > > Depends how well they're allocated worldwide... Just like in the case = > > of > > the mainstream Internet... > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 8/11/2002 > > =20 > > > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > > contain > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > > confidentiality > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > > this > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > > and > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > > this > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > > sender. > > > > --- > > > > END OF DIGEST > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: WB4GCS@AMSAT.ORG > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Tue Nov 19 12:20:10 2002 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 MAA00702 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:20:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: kbanke@mage.qualcomm.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:19:31 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Kerry Banke Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 17, 2002 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: <5.1.1.6.2.20021119100656.026df900@mage.qualcomm.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk A good number of the slotted waveguide antennas are in use around the world for X-Band beacon use as well as our X-Band OCAR as mentioned. A number of us have used them mobile as well. There does however seem to be issues in using the same designs at 2.4 Ghz. Chuck Swedblom , WA6EXV of the SBMS has been building and testing slotted waveguide antennas for a 2.3 GHz translator/repeater and ran into problems with the original design software as published on the W1GHZ website. If you want to use that type of antenna at S-Band, I'd recommend contacting Chuck (chuckswed@juno.com) about the corrections he had to make to get expected performance. I have also had very poor luck with the Alford slot designs for some reason. I currently use one on 1296 for taking checkins to our SDMG microwave net but never obtained near the stated gain. - Kerry N6IZW - At 07:07 PM 11/18/02 -0500, you wrote: >Walt: >I have not (yet) built one, but intend to for 10GHz eventually. > >The W1GHz web site has a bunch of practical how to including how to get >it right. Allegedly, these things can be very omnidirectional if you >put "wings" on them. This is corroborated in the Microwave Update 2002 >proceedings with an article by a guy who has built some for 2.4GHZ >802.11 use. > >I also know a guy who has built at least one for 10GHz and is very >pleased with how it works. I think the guys in CA who are using TWTs in >OCAR service on 10GHz are also pleased with their homebrew slots. > >Whichever way you go, bets of luck, and please share what you decide >and how it works. > >73, >Jim >wb4gcs@amsat.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 Nov 21 15:36:20 2002 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 PAA00388 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:36:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:35:45 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] more part 15 spectrum proposed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DDD51B1.3050707@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/1545891 Senators George Allen (R.-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D.-Ca.) are circulating a draft bill to gain early support in the 108th Congress to promote a wireless approach to broadband deployment. An Allen spokesperson said the bill and accompanying "Dear Colleague" letter are efforts to "get beyond the stalemated debate of cable versus DSL." The draft legislation calls for the Federal Communications Commission to allocate not less than 255 megahertz of contiguous spectrum below 6 gigahertz for unlicensed use by wireless broadband devices. --- 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 Nov 21 18:28:17 2002 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 SAA07403 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:28:14 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:27:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Fwd: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id SAA07403 FYI --- Original Message --- From: "Jack Grimes" To: Wireless List List Cc: Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > >Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and >Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >maintains >from San Diego to San Clemente Island. > >Full article at: >http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM > > >They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >still above >the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >~300KBits/sec. >Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >--jack --- 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 Nov 21 21:30:56 2002 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 VAA13760 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:30:55 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:30:22 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Fwd: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 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: <3DDDA4CE.B58F1D2D@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." Using the decibel conversion calculator at http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, 250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw 0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and connector loss. But, YES, I'd say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB EIRP (1.995 watts). Jeff King wrote: > > FYI > > --- Original Message --- > From: "Jack Grimes" > To: Wireless List List > Cc: > Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 > Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > > >HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > > > >Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and > >Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it > >maintains > >from San Diego to San Clemente Island. > > > >Full article at: > >http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM > > > > > >They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't > >still above > >the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to > >~300KBits/sec. > >Still, 72 miles is remarkable! > >--jack > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 21 21:43:18 2002 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 VAA14498 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:43:17 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:42:53 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DDDA7BD.8080003@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous indignation. These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that this is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. They responded to the complaints by reducing power. And the research data they're bringing back in happens to be fairly significant, and is now being relayed for a significantly lower cost than INMARSAT, or other alternatives. So: Why is everyone still bitching? gerry Walt DuBose wrote: > Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder > if this isn't > still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." > > Using the decibel conversion calculator at > http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, > 250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna > is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw > 0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and > connector loss. But, YES, I'd > say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB > EIRP (1.995 watts). > > Jeff King wrote: > >>FYI >> >>--- Original Message --- >>From: "Jack Grimes" >>To: Wireless List List >>Cc: >>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 >>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >> >> >>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>> >>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and >>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >>>maintains >> >>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. >> >>>Full article at: >>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM >>> >>> >>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >>>still above >>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >>>~300KBits/sec. >>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >>>--jack >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Thu Nov 21 21:54:47 2002 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 VAA14901 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:54:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:58:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-Topic: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link Thread-Index: AcKR2f6urJRc6r2tR1CZKL+ORvg9MQAALiXw From: "Jason A. Beens" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <3ED688DB5D46C04695CFB16A7CBA5F0C1137E7@office.sa-office.sensetechnologies.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id VAA14901 I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand. Jason Beens KB0CDN -----Original Message----- From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous indignation. These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that this is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. They responded to the complaints by reducing power. And the research data they're bringing back in happens to be fairly significant, and is now being relayed for a significantly lower cost than INMARSAT, or other alternatives. So: Why is everyone still bitching? gerry Walt DuBose wrote: > Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder > if this isn't > still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." > > Using the decibel conversion calculator at > http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, > 250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna > is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw > 0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and > connector loss. But, YES, I'd > say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB > EIRP (1.995 watts). > > Jeff King wrote: > >>FYI >> >>--- Original Message --- >>From: "Jack Grimes" >>To: Wireless List List >>Cc: >>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 >>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >> >> >>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>> >>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and >>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >>>maintains >> >>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. >> >>>Full article at: >>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM >>> >>> >>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >>>still above >>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >>>~300KBits/sec. >>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >>>--jack >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: jbeens@sensetechnologies.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 Nov 21 21:57:54 2002 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 VAA15327 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:57:42 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:57:13 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 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: <3DDDAB19.8A14A569@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Gerry, Using your logic... Its very important that I get to work every morning at 07:30, in fact some people might say that my being there is part of the national infrastructure protection and thus the defense of the nation. So, I should be able to travel down Loop 410 and I-35 and Loop 1604 at 80 MPH with impunity. Walt/K5YFW Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > > I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous indignation. > > These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and > admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that this > is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking > advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that > precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. > > They responded to the complaints by reducing power. > > And the research data they're bringing back in happens to be fairly > significant, and is now being relayed for a significantly lower cost > than INMARSAT, or other alternatives. > > So: Why is everyone still bitching? > > gerry > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder > > if this isn't > > still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." > > > > Using the decibel conversion calculator at > > http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, > > 250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna > > is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw > > 0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and > > connector loss. But, YES, I'd > > say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB > > EIRP (1.995 watts). > > > > Jeff King wrote: > > > >>FYI > >> > >>--- Original Message --- > >>From: "Jack Grimes" > >>To: Wireless List List > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 > >>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > >> > >> > >>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > >>> > >>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and > >>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it > >>>maintains > >> > >>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. > >> > >>>Full article at: > >>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM > >>> > >>> > >>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't > >>>still above > >>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to > >>>~300KBits/sec. > >>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! > >>>--jack > >> > >>--- > >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications > Texas A&M University, College Station, TX > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 > Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.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 Nov 21 22:08:59 2002 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 WAA15628 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:08:58 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: wa7nwp@pop.mail.yahoo.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:08:12 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link In-Reply-To: References: 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: <4.2.0.58.20021121195920.00aa9a20@pioneernet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 09:42 PM 11/21/02 -0600, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: >I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous indignation. > >These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that this is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. > >So: Why is everyone still bitching? Maybe because in the old days it was the hams doing neat stuff. Now the new "Radio Amateurs" are going faster and farther and we're being left in the dust running 1200 baud AFSK. No licenses and no Morse Code involved. Anybody remember the last time we hams had headlines like that? The only one I can think of in recent history is Bob's PCSAT. So what does it take to get some decent SS radios running on 144, 223 and 440? Bill, WA7NWP --- 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 Nov 21 22:30:10 2002 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 WAA16129 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:30:10 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:29:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id WAA16129 Speak for yourself Gerry... I posted this to stop all the bitching. Should have known better I guess. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/21/2002 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:42:53 -0600, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: >I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous >indignation. > >These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and >admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that >this >is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking >advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that >precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. > >They responded to the complaints by reducing power. > >And the research data they're bringing back in happens to be fairly >significant, and is now being relayed for a significantly lower cost >than INMARSAT, or other alternatives. > >So: Why is everyone still bitching? > >gerry > >Walt DuBose wrote: >>Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder >>if this isn't >>still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." >> >>Using the decibel conversion calculator at >>http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, >>250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna >>is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw >>0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and >>connector loss. But, YES, I'd >>say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB >>EIRP (1.995 watts). >> >>Jeff King wrote: >> >>>FYI >>> >>>--- Original Message --- >>>From: "Jack Grimes" >>>To: Wireless List List >>>Cc: >>>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 >>>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>> >>> >>>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>>> >>>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research >>>>and >>>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >>>>maintains >>> >>>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. >>> >>>>Full article at: >>>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid >>>>=PM >>>> >>>> >>>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >>>>still above >>>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >>>>~300KBits/sec. >>>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >>>>--jack >>> >>>--- >>>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net >>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu >>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 Nov 21 22:32:14 2002 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 WAA16203 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:32:13 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:31:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id WAA16203 Walt: Your attributing a quote to me I didn't make. I just forwarded a message from another newsgroup. 24dBm into a 24dBi gain antenna on a point to point link under part 15 is legal. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/21/2002 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:30:22 -0600, Walt DuBose wrote: >Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder >if this isn't >still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." > >Using the decibel conversion calculator at >http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, >250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna >is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw >0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and >connector loss. But, YES, I'd >say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB >EIRP (1.995 watts). > >Jeff King wrote: >> >>FYI >> >>--- Original Message --- >>From: "Jack Grimes" >>To: Wireless List List >>Cc: >>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 >>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >> >>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>> >>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research >>>and >>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >>>maintains >>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. >>> >>>Full article at: >>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid= >>>PM >>> >>> >>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >>>still above >>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >>>~300KBits/sec. >>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >>>--jack >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > >--- >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 Thu Nov 21 22:50:40 2002 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 WAA16791 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:50:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:50:32 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DDDB798.4050503@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I'm working on it, but I'm running out of hours in the day. I'll try again Monday to reach a couple of colleagues out there. gerry Jason A. Beens wrote: > I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand. > > Jason Beens > KB0CDN > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link > > > I guess I'm frustrated here. All I'm seeing is righteous indignation. > > These guys pushed a 2 GHz signal out *72* *MILES* on 1 watt RF, and > admittedly plenty of antenna. I feel obligated to point out that this > is beyond the visual and RF horizons, that they're obviously taking > advantage of refraction in the sea-surface boundary layer, and that > precious few on this list have achieved anything similar. > > They responded to the complaints by reducing power. > > And the research data they're bringing back in happens to be fairly > significant, and is now being relayed for a significantly lower cost > than INMARSAT, or other alternatives. > > So: Why is everyone still bitching? > > gerry > > Walt DuBose wrote: > >>Quoting Jeff..."They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder >>if this isn't >>still above the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain..." >> >>Using the decibel conversion calculator at >>http://www.ecommwireless.com/calculations.html, >>250 mw is 23.9 dB. 23.9 dB xmit power plus a 24 dB gain antenna >>is 47.9 dB or 61,659 mw >>0r 61.659 watts. Hummmm Ok, I'll give them 3 dB coax and >>connector loss. But, YES, I'd >>say they were still illegal since Part 15 only allows for 33 dB >>EIRP (1.995 watts). >> >>Jeff King wrote: >> >> >>>FYI >>> >>>--- Original Message --- >>>From: "Jack Grimes" >>>To: Wireless List List >>>Cc: >>>Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:56 -0800 >>>Subject: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>> >>> >>> >>>>HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link >>>> >>>>Responding to complaints, the High Performance Wireless Research and >>>>Education Network has reduced power on a 72-mile, 2.4-GHz link it >>>>maintains >>> >>>>from San Diego to San Clemente Island. >>> >>> >>>>Full article at: >>>>http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C76118%2C0.html?nlid=PM >>>> >>>> >>>>They reduced the power from 1W to 250mW. I wonder if this isn't >>>>still above >>>>the 1W EIRP due to their antenna's gain. Data rate dropped to >>>>~300KBits/sec. >>>>Still, 72 miles is remarkable! >>>>--jack >>> >>>--- >>>You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net >>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Thu Nov 21 22:55:43 2002 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 WAA16946 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:55:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:55:09 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: Da House User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DDDB8AD.4060408@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk It just seems like when they admit they screwed up and then try to do the due diligence (which admittedly they should have done before), and implement a change, folks are still unhappy with them. These guys never were a cowboy outfit. But as they point out, they're computer geeks, not RF geeks. 2 years ago, I spent an extra afternoon, helping them work the kinks out of a licensed 5 GHz link they were having troubles with, for the same reason. They accomplished something pretty darned neat. The sea layer refraction, which, actually, I don't think they even planned on, is a real nice turn. And the only way they could accomplish the link, unless I miss my bet. I still think that, even if they were running a whole watt, it's a neat result. Thanks for trying. This time, you get to try to keep ME in check from flaming the world! 73, gerry Jeff King wrote: > Speak for yourself Gerry... I posted this to stop all the bitching. Should > have known better I guess. > > -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering, Academy for Advanced Telecommunications Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Page: 979.228.0173 -or- gcreager@my2way.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 Fri Nov 22 06:29:40 2002 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 GAA01293 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:29:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 802.11 Up Converter... Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:27:30 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18FCvV-0004wt-00*B1DBszbiBDw* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <00b101c29222$89ebcab0$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day... The way I see it many hams love 802.11, but see a problem with the fact that there is so much rubbish there, and would love the chance to actually run 802.11 somewhere else - Maybe 5 GHz, or 900 MHz. Even 1.2 GHz. One of my clients tipped me off to YDI releasing a new product that up/down converts an 802.11b signal to the 5.8 GHz. From memory the unit add/subtracts 3328 MHz to/from the 802.11 signal. Not cheap, but solves a problem on some links.... http://www.ydi.com/products/ca2458.php Darryl P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'... --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 22 09:28:51 2002 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 JAA07843 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:28:48 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: kb9mwr.ampr.org: kb9mwr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:30:56 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Lampereur X-Sender: kb9mwr@kb9mwr.ampr.org Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] More thoughts 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 X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Here are some more random thoughts (not attacks at anyone). I guess we can sit in the corner and complain about what the Part 15 users are doing even if they are bending the rules a little, or we can mimic them. Yaya, it would be great to get something going on a different unpolluted band. But, I fear, that's not the right approach. First there has to be demonstrated interest before any person or groups of people will go out of their way to build a cheap transverter or try to "butter up an existing manufacture." (You didn't see APRS integrated into Kenwood amateur gear without demonstrated interest?) Not only do you have to do it, but demonstrated it, so (the right) people know and see a trend. Once enough hams start doing stuff with this questions like backbones pop up. Right now hams are probably experimenting with point to point links for the most part. In order to build a network, if that's our goal. (But note that it doesn't have to be, maybe a point to point link to your ham friend to play Doom over is all you seek..) a network needs a centralized method of local/national mail & other services (DNS/proxy). This means a centralized DNS and routing system. Which spells out "backbone" in order to do this. True RF backbones take years to build after the concept has caught on. So naturally our Virtual Private ham Network will most likely tunnel over the internet to a centralized DNS/routing server. (kinda like findu.com for APRS). Centralized DNS/routing is, I think, something to start thinking about. I think its lack was/is a major fallback for conventional packet. Even though it would/is hard to pull off a such slow speeds. Maybe this is where we get "computer" help from some of the part 15 guys in exchange for our "RF" help. --- 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 Nov 22 10:11:46 2002 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 KAA09447 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:11:43 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:01:17 +0000 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11 Up Converter... Message-Id: 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 This was posted before: http://www.teletronics.com/tii/products/udc/udc_table.html Other options like 2.4 to 900 MHz (1 & 4 watts), 2.4 to; 2.6 GHz, 3.4 GHz, 3.5 GHz, 4.4 GHz. --- 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 Nov 22 16:53:39 2002 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 QAA26659 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:53:37 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [ss] RE: 802.11 Up Converter... X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:52:54 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] 802.11 Up Converter... Thread-Index: AcKSIsXZayEGLl1oTPSO6gusNH5wkAADaakg From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A96ECE5D@kosh.ARRLHQ.ORG> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id QAA26659 > P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'... Hams can use it under Part 97 irrespective of its FCC authorization. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis > -----Original Message----- > From: Darryl Smith [mailto:Darryl@radio-active.net.au] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:28 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] 802.11 Up Converter... > > > G'Day... > > The way I see it many hams love 802.11, but see a problem > with the fact > that there is so much rubbish there, and would love the chance to > actually run 802.11 somewhere else - Maybe 5 GHz, or 900 MHz. Even 1.2 > GHz. > > One of my clients tipped me off to YDI releasing a new product that > up/down converts an 802.11b signal to the 5.8 GHz. From > memory the unit > add/subtracts 3328 MHz to/from the 802.11 signal. Not cheap, > but solves > a problem on some links.... > > http://www.ydi.com/products/ca2458.php > > Darryl > > P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'... > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: W1RFI@ARRL.ORG > 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 Fri Nov 22 20:56:46 2002 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 UAA05055 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:56:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:54:56 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249" 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: <20021123025456.65527.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It's my understanding that someone from HPWREN spoke at last week's SDWUG meeting in San Diego. Didn't hear any feedback after the meeting on the SDWUG mail list, however. (I've got to figure they don't want any more negative publicity over this issue, and want the issue to blow over). I'm willing to accept these folks' explanation that this was an honest mistake. Like I said before, my real concern wasn't this particular link, but that this was just the "tip of the iceberg", as HPWREN has links running all over my neck of the woods in San Diego and Riverside counties - and I was kind of concerned that they weren't playing by the rules(because they didn't understand them), and were (are) doing it on my nickel (funded by the govt), and then were going around spreading false information in a national publication. But, you know, I bet nobody would have ever known about HPWREN's transgressions, if they hadn't have gone and BLABBED about it in that publication. Moral of the story: If you keep quiet about it, you can run illegal power levels (within some reasonable limit that hasn't been figured out yet) on Part 15, and nobody will EVER know. Even if you were caught, you could simply claim ignorance of the rules... tell 'em you read how to do it in a magazine article describing HPWREN's system :) "Jason A. Beens" wrote:I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand. Jason Beens KB0CDN -----Original Message----- From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

It's my understanding that someone from HPWREN spoke at last week's SDWUG meeting in San Diego.  Didn't hear any feedback after the meeting on the SDWUG mail list, however.  (I've got to figure they don't want any more negative publicity over this issue, and want the issue to blow over).

I'm willing to accept these folks' explanation that this was an honest mistake.  Like I said before, my real concern wasn't this particular link, but that this was just the "tip of the iceberg", as HPWREN has links running all over my neck of the woods in San Diego and Riverside counties - and I was kind of concerned that they weren't playing by the rules(because they didn't understand them), and were (are) doing it on my nickel (funded by the govt), and then were going around spreading false information in a national publication.

But, you know, I bet nobody would have ever known about HPWREN's transgressions, if they hadn't have gone and BLABBED about it in that publication.  Moral of the story: If you keep quiet about it, you can run illegal power levels (within some reasonable limit that hasn't been figured out yet) on Part 15, and nobody will EVER know.  Even if you were caught, you could simply claim ignorance of the rules... tell 'em you read how to do it in a magazine article describing HPWREN's system :)

 "Jason A. Beens" <jbeens@sensetechnologies.com> wrote:

I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand.

Jason Beens
KB0CDN

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM
To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group
Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249-- --- 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 Nov 22 21:21:47 2002 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 VAA05877 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:21:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] [Fwd: [bawia] FW: MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DDEF420.3050602@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bawia] FW: MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:52:39 -0500 From: Timothy M. Lyons Reply-To: Organization: Digitalvoodoo, LLC To: -----Original Message----- *From:* arte merritt [mailto:am@3mginc.com] *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2002 20:45 *To:* mitwf@mitwf.org *Subject:* MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed Hello all, Our next event is scheduled for Wednesday December 4th. As this is late notice, the price will be $10 at the door without any late registration fee. To help else get an accurate headcount, please pre-register online at: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 Thanks, Arte *The MIT Wireless Forum Presents*: An Evening with David Reed Why spectrum is not property: the case for an entirely new regime of wireless communications policy. *Date*: Wednesday, December 4, 2002 *Location*: Room E51-315 (directions below) *Cost*: $10 Register online at: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 *Schedule*: 6:30 to 7:00pm Registration and Networking (0:30) 7:00 to 7:45pm David Reed's Presentation (0:45) 7:45 to 8:30pm Discussion Session with David Reed and Guests (0:45) Dr. David P. Reed will give a presentation on spectrum allocation issues and argue that what we now know about the physics and architecture of RF communications contradicts the "property" model of spectrum. There is a need to see spectrum in a new way and an opportunity for much better spectrum use that is based on cooperative networking rather than a property model. Dr. Reed is an independent entrepreneur, advisor and consultant. His current work is focused on densely scalable, mobile, and robust RF network architectures and highly decentralized systems architectures. He is co-inventor of the end-to-end argument, often called the fundamental architectural principle of the Internet. He also discovered Reed's Law, a scaling law for group-forming network architectures with significant implications for large-scale network business models. His distinguished career includes research at Interval Corporation, chief scientist for Lotus Development Corporation, and professor of computer science and engineering at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. Dr. Reed holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and M.S and Ph.D. degrees in computer science and engineering from MIT. For more information and to register, visit: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 *Directions* Room E51-315 is located in Building E51 on the third floor. Building E51 is located on Memorial Drive - a map is online at http://whereis.mit.edu/bin/map?locate=bldg_e51 . The entrance is on the corner of Amherst & Wadsworth (Amherst is parallel to Memorial Dr). There is an elevator in the lobby area that will take you to the third floor. There will be signs to the room as soon as you enter the building. *Parking* There are a few MIT parking lots that are free nearby. One of them is off of Hayward St which is off of Amherst (see the map link above). Another is on Main St just before you cross back over the Longfellow bridge. There is generally parking on most of the side streets on campus as well. --- 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 Nov 23 11:23:01 2002 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 LAA00447 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:23:00 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.199] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 22, 2002 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:22:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Nov 2002 17:22:07.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9227BE0:01C29314] 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 Greetings, The ARRL High Speed Multimedia (HSMM) Working Group is in the process of designing and testing a possible national-wide mesh network for the 2.4 GHz Ham band based on the IEEE 802.11b technology on Channel 6, but intended for Part 97 (Ham) use on 2437 MHz. FYI, in the test network we presently have set up and running in Livingston County Michigan, one of the several methods we use to keep our friendly distance, so to speak, from the many Part 15 users of the band is that the HSMM stations and nodes use only horizontal polarization. Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically polarized. That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. Given the low power levels we all are presently using, coupled with the generally poor antenna system design and/or n.f. of most Part 15 stations, they don't even know we are there (HI). Vy 73, John Champa, K8OCL ARRL Chairman HSMM Working Group 734-657-1000 k8ocl@arrl.net From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 22, 2002 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:00:13 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Friday, November 22, 2002. 1. 802.11 Up Converter... 2. More thoughts 3. Re: 802.11 Up Converter... 4. RE: 802.11 Up Converter... 5. Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link 6. [Fwd: [bawia] FW: MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 802.11 Up Converter... From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:27:30 +1100 X-Message-Number: 1 G'Day... The way I see it many hams love 802.11, but see a problem with the fact that there is so much rubbish there, and would love the chance to actually run 802.11 somewhere else - Maybe 5 GHz, or 900 MHz. Even 1.2 GHz. One of my clients tipped me off to YDI releasing a new product that up/down converts an 802.11b signal to the 5.8 GHz. From memory the unit add/subtracts 3328 MHz to/from the 802.11 signal. Not cheap, but solves a problem on some links.... http://www.ydi.com/products/ca2458.php Darryl P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'... --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: More thoughts From: Steve Lampereur Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:30:56 -0600 (CST) X-Message-Number: 2 Here are some more random thoughts (not attacks at anyone). I guess we can sit in the corner and complain about what the Part 15 users are doing even if they are bending the rules a little, or we can mimic them. Yaya, it would be great to get something going on a different unpolluted band. But, I fear, that's not the right approach. First there has to be demonstrated interest before any person or groups of people will go out of their way to build a cheap transverter or try to "butter up an existing manufacture." (You didn't see APRS integrated into Kenwood amateur gear without demonstrated interest?) Not only do you have to do it, but demonstrated it, so (the right) people know and see a trend. Once enough hams start doing stuff with this questions like backbones pop up. Right now hams are probably experimenting with point to point links for the most part. In order to build a network, if that's our goal. (But note that it doesn't have to be, maybe a point to point link to your ham friend to play Doom over is all you seek..) a network needs a centralized method of local/national mail & other services (DNS/proxy). This means a centralized DNS and routing system. Which spells out "backbone" in order to do this. True RF backbones take years to build after the concept has caught on. So naturally our Virtual Private ham Network will most likely tunnel over the internet to a centralized DNS/routing server. (kinda like findu.com for APRS). Centralized DNS/routing is, I think, something to start thinking about. I think its lack was/is a major fallback for conventional packet. Even though it would/is hard to pull off a such slow speeds. Maybe this is where we get "computer" help from some of the part 15 guys in exchange for our "RF" help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 802.11 Up Converter... From: Steve Lampereur Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:01:17 +0000 X-Message-Number: 3 This was posted before: http://www.teletronics.com/tii/products/udc/udc_table.html Other options like 2.4 to 900 MHz (1 & 4 watts), 2.4 to; 2.6 GHz, 3.4 GHz, 3.5 GHz, 4.4 GHz. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: 802.11 Up Converter... From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:52:54 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 > P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'...=20 Hams can use it under Part 97 irrespective of its FCC authorization. 73,=20 Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis > -----Original Message----- > From: Darryl Smith [mailto:Darryl@radio-active.net.au] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:28 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] 802.11 Up Converter... >=20 >=20 > G'Day... >=20 > The way I see it many hams love 802.11, but see a problem=20 > with the fact > that there is so much rubbish there, and would love the chance to > actually run 802.11 somewhere else - Maybe 5 GHz, or 900 MHz. Even 1.2 > GHz.=20 >=20 > One of my clients tipped me off to YDI releasing a new product that > up/down converts an 802.11b signal to the 5.8 GHz. From=20 > memory the unit > add/subtracts 3328 MHz to/from the 802.11 signal. Not cheap,=20 > but solves > a problem on some links.... >=20 > http://www.ydi.com/products/ca2458.php >=20 > Darryl >=20 > P.S. It is FCC approved 'AS PART OF A COMPLIANT SYSTEM'...=20 >=20 > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International]=20 > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: W1RFI@ARRL.ORG > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org >=20 >=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link From: Stewart Teaze Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:54:56 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 5 --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It's my understanding that someone from HPWREN spoke at last week's SDWUG meeting in San Diego. Didn't hear any feedback after the meeting on the SDWUG mail list, however. (I've got to figure they don't want any more negative publicity over this issue, and want the issue to blow over). I'm willing to accept these folks' explanation that this was an honest mistake. Like I said before, my real concern wasn't this particular link, but that this was just the "tip of the iceberg", as HPWREN has links running all over my neck of the woods in San Diego and Riverside counties - and I was kind of concerned that they weren't playing by the rules(because they didn't understand them), and were (are) doing it on my nickel (funded by the govt), and then were going around spreading false information in a national publication. But, you know, I bet nobody would have ever known about HPWREN's transgressions, if they hadn't have gone and BLABBED about it in that publication. Moral of the story: If you keep quiet about it, you can run illegal power levels (within some reasonable limit that hasn't been figured out yet) on Part 15, and nobody will EVER know. Even if you were caught, you could simply claim ignorance of the rules... tell 'em you read how to do it in a magazine article describing HPWREN's system :) "Jason A. Beens" wrote:I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand. Jason Beens KB0CDN -----Original Message----- From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

It's my understanding that someone from HPWREN spoke at last week's SDWUG meeting in San Diego.  Didn't hear any feedback after the meeting on the SDWUG mail list, however.  (I've got to figure they don't want any more negative publicity over this issue, and want the issue to blow over).

I'm willing to accept these folks' explanation that this was an honest mistake.  Like I said before, my real concern wasn't this particular link, but that this was just the "tip of the iceberg", as HPWREN has links running all over my neck of the woods in San Diego and Riverside counties - and I was kind of concerned that they weren't playing by the rules(because they didn't understand them), and were (are) doing it on my nickel (funded by the govt), and then were going around spreading false information in a national publication.

But, you know, I bet nobody would have ever known about HPWREN's transgressions, if they hadn't have gone and BLABBED about it in that publication.  Moral of the story: If you keep quiet about it, you can run illegal power levels (within some reasonable limit that hasn't been figured out yet) on Part 15, and nobody will EVER know.  Even if you were caught, you could simply claim ignorance of the rules... tell 'em you read how to do it in a magazine article describing HPWREN's system :)

 "Jason A. Beens" <jbeens@sensetechnologies.com> wrote:

I am not familiar with the HPWREN project aside from what I have seen here. Does that group have any amateur operators involved? If they do, perhaps we could convince them to join this list. I would love to hear about their trials and errors that led up to their 72 mile launch, even if the link is technically illegal. They had to have overcome several technical issues to achieve a link at that distance, and learning from others' mistakes is less painful than learning stuff firsthand.

Jason Beens
KB0CDN

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Creager N5JXS [mailto:gerry.creager@tamu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:43 PM
To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group
Subject: [ss] Re: [BAWUG] HPWREN reduces power on 72-mile WLAN link


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1203710455-1038020096=:65249-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: [Fwd: [bawia] FW: MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed] From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bawia] FW: MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:52:39 -0500 From: Timothy M. Lyons Reply-To: Organization: Digitalvoodoo, LLC To: -----Original Message----- *From:* arte merritt [mailto:am@3mginc.com] *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2002 20:45 *To:* mitwf@mitwf.org *Subject:* MITWF: Dec 4th - an evening with David Reed Hello all, Our next event is scheduled for Wednesday December 4th. As this is late notice, the price will be $10 at the door without any late registration fee. To help else get an accurate headcount, please pre-register online at: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 Thanks, Arte *The MIT Wireless Forum Presents*: An Evening with David Reed Why spectrum is not property: the case for an entirely new regime of wireless communications policy. *Date*: Wednesday, December 4, 2002 *Location*: Room E51-315 (directions below) *Cost*: $10 Register online at: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 *Schedule*: 6:30 to 7:00pm Registration and Networking (0:30) 7:00 to 7:45pm David Reed's Presentation (0:45) 7:45 to 8:30pm Discussion Session with David Reed and Guests (0:45) Dr. David P. Reed will give a presentation on spectrum allocation issues and argue that what we now know about the physics and architecture of RF communications contradicts the "property" model of spectrum. There is a need to see spectrum in a new way and an opportunity for much better spectrum use that is based on cooperative networking rather than a property model. Dr. Reed is an independent entrepreneur, advisor and consultant. His current work is focused on densely scalable, mobile, and robust RF network architectures and highly decentralized systems architectures. He is co-inventor of the end-to-end argument, often called the fundamental architectural principle of the Internet. He also discovered Reed's Law, a scaling law for group-forming network architectures with significant implications for large-scale network business models. His distinguished career includes research at Interval Corporation, chief scientist for Lotus Development Corporation, and professor of computer science and engineering at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. Dr. Reed holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and M.S and Ph.D. degrees in computer science and engineering from MIT. For more information and to register, visit: http://www.mitwf.org/servlet/eventdetailcontrol?eventID=14 *Directions* Room E51-315 is located in Building E51 on the third floor. Building E51 is located on Memorial Drive - a map is online at http://whereis.mit.edu/bin/map?locate=bldg_e51 . The entrance is on the corner of Amherst & Wadsworth (Amherst is parallel to Memorial Dr). There is an elevator in the lobby area that will take you to the third floor. There will be signs to the room as soon as you enter the building. *Parking* There are a few MIT parking lots that are free nearby. One of them is off of Hayward St which is off of Amherst (see the map link above). Another is on Main St just before you cross back over the Longfellow bridge. There is generally parking on most of the side streets on campus as well. --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus --- 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 Nov 23 23:46:53 2002 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 XAA01616 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 23:46:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18FpaQ-0003Ob-00*bVoS6cgSy/M* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <00c901c2937c$93126800$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically polarized. >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to be basically farcical. Darryl VK2TDS --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 24 10:14:52 2002 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 KAA19230 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:14:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: doug@the-one.com@mail.safelink.net Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:14:02 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Doug Rich Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3790348==.ALT" 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: <5.1.1.6.0.20021124085457.00a80ec0@mail.safelink.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. >I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down >here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and >to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems. We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both. Doug W7DVR >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
G'Day

>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically
polarized. 
>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them.

I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis.
I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down
here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL
polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and
to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting.

I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems.  We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both.
Doug W7DVR


I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find
that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which
are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on
http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm )

Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points
with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use
Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to
be basically farcical.

Darryl VK2TDS
--=====================_3790348==.ALT-- --- 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 Nov 24 10:45:45 2002 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 KAA20184 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:45:40 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:44:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id KAA20184 Darryl: I can't answer your questions, but in the U.S. Part 15 users have a requirement to avoid interfering with Part 97 stations to the extent a part 15 user can be compelled to shut down their station if it can be demonstrated their operations stop communications of a Part 97 station. Now, with you average off the shelf Part 15 WLAN system, which is vertical, trying to do this would be like herding cats. However, with a WISP, which is a "static target" they could be compelled to work with hams in the area (or be forced off the air). I am not in any way suggesting hams chase after WISP's (Wireless ISP's). In fact, if this where done with no basis I'd be the first one trying to defend these guys... they provide a much needed service. But many of them don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are "bad RF citizens". These would be the one's ham's need to use a stick on. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: >G'Day > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and >>them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >hypothesis. >I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's >down >here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, >and >to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will >find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas >which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access >points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to >use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going >to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS > >--------- >Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia >Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] >Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > >--- >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 Sun Nov 24 10:49:24 2002 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 KAA20296 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:49:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "jeff millar" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:48:16 -0500 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 V6.00.2600.0000 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: <004001c293d9$4e3e0970$6a01a8c0@wa1hco> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk 20-25 dB of polarization isolation depends on a free space path between transmitter and receiver. In a multipath environment, the polarization rotates every time it bounces off and object. By the time it gets to the receiver, polarization becomes mostly random. In the Cellular (850 MHz) and PCS (1900 MHz) propagation, base stations often receive the signal on both polarities and combine them for best reception. When the vertical component has a deep fade, the horizontal component most often doesn't have a fade. Measurements show about 6 dB improvement in net performance by receiving both channels. The only way to get a free space environment for polarization isolation purposes is to place the interferring source antenna so that the beam does not splash into the ground or other object along its path. jeff, wa1hco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:44 AM Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... > G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find > that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which > are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on > http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JEFF@WA1HCO.MV.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 Sun Nov 24 11:10:23 2002 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 LAA20906 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:10:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DE107C8.80506@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to coexist is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum engine like the PNcodes or process gain. this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. ---eric --- 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 Nov 24 11:32:33 2002 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 LAA22246 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:32:29 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:31:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id LAA22246 >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl >negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and I do not speak for them). However, anything like this would require at least a $25K commitment... I know this because a company I do some work for was going to license some 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way could be found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with Intersil and a few Taiwan manufacturers). Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but very few hams even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating it. I'd first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for perfection. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Darryl Smith wrote: >>G'Day >> >> >>>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >> >>polarized. >> >>>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and >>>them. >> >> >>I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >>hypothesis. >>I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's >>down >>here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >>polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting >>with, and >>to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to >coexist >is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum engine >like >the PNcodes or process gain. > >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl >negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. > >---eric > > >--- >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 Sun Nov 24 12:51:58 2002 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 MAA25326 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:51:51 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:13 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DE11FA1.6070607@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Jeff King wrote: >>this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >>tapr/arrl >>negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to >>tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. > > > I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and I do not > speak for them). > > However, anything like this would require at least a $25K commitment... I > know this because a company I do some work for was going to license some > 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way could be > found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with Intersil and a few > Taiwan manufacturers). I was under the impression that most of the spread spectrum hardware had significant "programmability" and just by tweaking some registers in the right way, we could control enough of the parameters to reduce our interference potential with the stock 802.11 systems. Now, if all of these parameters have been locked down in hardware in the name of cost reductions, then yes, I can see the reason for a $25,000 commitment for chip/board rework/license fees. any idea how we can get this information? > Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but very few hams > even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating it. I'd > first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for perfection. I agree. Which brings me to my second rant. I've been watching the conversation over the past few weeks and it seems to me that a lot other reason we don't have any activity is because we don't have a common platform from which to launch the activity. I believe we need a common platform for 802.11 experimentation that will serve a similar purpose to that of the TNC only more so. Yes, the openAP project has identified some potential boards but I believe them to be as ephemeral as soap bubbles on a summer day. On the other hand, a basic microprocessor platform (arm/Intel CPU, flash, RAM) with ethernet and PCMCIA could probably be built and sold for under a couple hundred dollars like... http://www.soekris.com/net4511.htm which sells for under $200 in qty 1. TAPR/ARRL could arrange for group purchases, standardized tools, mailing lists, support, etc. and make a board like this the standard platform for 802.11 experimentation. The only thing I'm not happy with is that it's a relatively slow CPU but in reality, it will do everything we need. yes, I can purchase the board myself and play with it but I'd rather head off in the same direction as everyone else and be part of the network rather than off in the weeds enjoying pretty flowers (this time). ---eric --- 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 Nov 24 14:03:54 2002 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 OAA27518 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 14:03:52 -0600 (CST) X-Internal-ID: 3DDE68280001EC00 From: "Marcelo Puhl" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:03:59 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Proxim mods? Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: Priority: normal Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3DE1148F.7166.579155C@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. Thanks. Marcelo - PY3SS --- 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 Nov 24 15:37:41 2002 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 PAA00837 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:37:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: More thoughts Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:36:53 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA00837 > off a such slow speeds. Maybe this is where we get > "computer" help from > some of the part 15 guys in exchange for our "RF" help. This is what I'm advocating too. There's a small number of us who know something about both domains (pun not intended), but a much larger body who know one or the other. Why not pool talent together? I've got a couple of the local 802.11b people keen to get their ham ticket, was talking to them at our group's installfest on the weekend (and showing off a bit of 10m FM propagation on the HT as the band was wide open :) ). One of the guys indicated he's just got to get his last week of uni out the way and then he's going to hit the books big time to get at least a Limited (29 MHz and up) licence by early next year. The next generation of ham is coming. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 24 15:52:04 2002 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 PAA01724 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:52:00 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: Proxim mods? Message-Id: Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:51:27 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. >Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > Thanks. > Marcelo - PY3SS Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our origional work was based around Proxim Symphony gear: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.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 From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Nov 24 16:42:00 2002 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 QAA03644 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:41:59 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: "TAPR Board of Directors" Subject: [ss] TAPR List Sponsorship Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:37:40 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18G5PL-0007uL-00*ls0eoGl1nj.* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <00ed01c2940a$1b9aaa60$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day All Thank you for reading this message. TAPR provides this mailing list along with others as a service to their members and the Ham Radio community in general. Providing this service and other services such as our FTP site and the cost of developing new products like the Pic-E and EasyTrak, costs money. We are more than happy to provide these resources to the entire Ham Radio community, but we do ask that you do concider joining TAPR. A good way to see what we're up to is to take a look at the latest issue of our quarterly journal, the _Packet_Status_Register_ which is available for download at http://www.tapr.org/PSR Membership in TAPR is only US$20 regardless of whether you live in Tuscon, Arizona, or Sydney, Australia. If you want to join, or if your membership is coming up for renewal, please visit www.tapr.org on the Web for details. Specifically you can go to the following page for information http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Fmembership.html Darryl Smith, VK2TDS TAPR Board Member P.S. I have recently joined the board as its first non-North American board member. As part of my Board duties, I have agreed to have overall responsibility for membership. If anyone has any questions or concerns about membership or TAPR in general, please EMAIL me. I can also be contacted by phone with prior arrangement --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] vk2tds@tapr.org | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 24 17:27:27 2002 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 RAA05549 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:27:25 -0600 (CST) X-Internal-ID: 3DDE682800021156 From: "Marcelo Puhl" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:27:18 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Re: Proxim mods? Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: Priority: normal In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3DE14436.20589.6333E05@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 24 Nov 2002 at 15:51, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. > >Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > > > Thanks. > > Marcelo - PY3SS > > Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our original work was based > around Proxim Symphony gear: > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.html > Thanks Steve, that is a good source. There I found some very interesting mods. Do you know of any mod to install an external antenna to the 4930 gateway? Marcelo --- 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 Nov 24 22:47:20 2002 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 WAA19901 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:47:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:46:26 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <3DE1AB22.8030108@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The typical US Part 15 (has to accept all interference, has to cease and desist if causing interference, bought it at the office supply store and is required to not have any real knowledge of RF [as opposed to 'not required to have knowledge of RF'...], etc.:-) antenna is set up to be vertically polarized. If you set the AP on the desk, the only, or best way, the antenna sits/fits is vertical. Otherwise, if you place same on the wall, then it's "intuitive" to place the antennas so that they're vertically polarized... That's probably the extent of "research" performed, but not a bad assumption. gerry Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find > that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which > are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on > http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > 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 Sun Nov 24 23:58:33 2002 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 XAA22496 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:57:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:21 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18GCDP-0005oS-00*6C5oycYrTiM* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <012d01c29446$8d662b60$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Eric Commented >good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to coexist >is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum engine like >the PNcodes or process gain. Unfortunately the cost of modifying the equipment is only a minor cost. There are some other costs that need to be mentioned a) FCC Approval Costs b) Export approval. If you change the PN code it makes it very hard for me to get one. You see I am in another country and you need to get an export license to get it to me since it is SS. And in order to be sold, many of these units have the PN code in the most protected microcode so that it cannot be modified. Since the US government would not like it if we modified it. Osama would be able to put this into his laptop and the US Secret Service would not be able to hack in. >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the tapr/arrl >negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. Much of the information needed is in the FCC filings for your particular network card. Have any of you checked out what information has been filed? In many cases full circuit diagrams have been made public. This allows the items to be modified at will. If a person or a group were to come to TAPR with a proposal to do a TAPR 802.11 system we would look at it. But we need something to look at... And we need people who will actually do the work. Until then we need to get more hams into the Wireless ISP world ensuring that they do things that are sound engineering... You never know what you might get out of it too... Apart from consulting income... One client came very close to buying a spectrum alanyser on Friday that I could have used anytime... Darryl --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-5334@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-5334@lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest Sent: Monday, 25 November 2002 4:01 PM To: ss digest recipients Subject: ss digest: November 24, 2002 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 24, 2002. 1. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 2. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 3. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 4. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 5. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 6. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 7. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 8. Proxim mods? 9. RE: More thoughts 10. Re: Proxim mods? 11. TAPR List Sponsorship 12. Re: Proxim mods? 13. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100 X-Message-Number: 1 G'Day >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically polarized. >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to be basically farcical. Darryl VK2TDS --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Doug Rich Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:14:02 -0700 X-Message-Number: 2 --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the >local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using >HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any >consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather >interesting. I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems. We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both. Doug W7DVR >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
G'Day

>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically
polarized. 
>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them.

I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis.
I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down
here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL
polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and
to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting.

I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems.  We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both.
Doug W7DVR


I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find
that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which
are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on
http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm )

Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points
with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use
Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to
be basically farcical.

Darryl VK2TDS
--=====================_3790348==.ALT-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Jeff King Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:44:40 -0500 X-Message-Number: 3 Darryl: I can't answer your questions, but in the U.S. Part 15 users have= a requirement to avoid interfering with Part 97 stations to the= extent a part 15 user can be compelled to shut down their station if it can be= demonstrated their operations stop communications of a Part 97 station. Now, with you average off the shelf Part 15 WLAN system, which is= vertical, trying to do this would be like herding cats. However, with a= WISP, which is a "static target" they could be compelled to work with hams in= the area (or be forced off the air). I am not in any way suggesting hams chase after WISP's (Wireless= ISP's). In fact, if this where done with no basis I'd be the first one= trying to defend these guys... they provide a much needed service. But many of= them don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are "bad RF citizens". These= would be the one's ham's need to use a stick on. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: >G'Day > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the >local= ISP's >down >here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting= with, >and >to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you= will >find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide= antennas >which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be= found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of= access >points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams= to >use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is= going >to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS > >--------- >Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia >Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] >Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to= leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "jeff millar" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:48:16 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 20-25 dB of polarization isolation depends on a free space path between transmitter and receiver. In a multipath environment, the polarization rotates every time it bounces off and object. By the time it gets to the receiver, polarization becomes mostly random. In the Cellular (850 MHz) and PCS (1900 MHz) propagation, base stations often receive the signal on both polarities and combine them for best reception. When the vertical component has a deep fade, the horizontal component most often doesn't have a fade. Measurements show about 6 dB improvement in net performance by receiving both channels. The only way to get a free space environment for polarization isolation purposes is to place the interferring source antenna so that the beam does not splash into the ground or other object along its path. jeff, wa1hco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:44 AM Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... > G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that > hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the > local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using > HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any > consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather > interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will > find that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas > which are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be > found on http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access > points with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams > to use Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is > going to be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JEFF@WA1HCO.MV.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500 X-Message-Number: 5 Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that > hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the > local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using > HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any > consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather > interesting. good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to coexist is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum engine like the PNcodes or process gain. this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. ---eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Jeff King Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:31:31 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information >on= how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own= purposes. I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and= I do not speak for them). However, anything like this would require at least a $25K= commitment... I know this because a company I do some work for was going to= license some 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way= could be found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with= Intersil and a few Taiwan manufacturers). Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but= very few hams even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating= it. I'd first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for= perfection. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Darryl Smith wrote: >>G'Day >> >> >>>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >> >>polarized. >> >>>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us= and >>>them. >> >> >>I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >>hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the >>local= ISP's >>down >>here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >>polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, >>and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to coexist >is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum= engine >like >the PNcodes or process gain. > >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information >on= how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own= purposes. > >---eric > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to= leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:13 -0500 X-Message-Number: 7 Jeff King wrote: >>this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >>tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information >>on how to tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own >>purposes. > > > I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and I do > not > speak for them). > > However, anything like this would require at least a $25K > commitment... I > know this because a company I do some work for was going to license some > 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way could be > found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with Intersil and a few > Taiwan manufacturers). I was under the impression that most of the spread spectrum hardware had significant "programmability" and just by tweaking some registers in the right way, we could control enough of the parameters to reduce our interference potential with the stock 802.11 systems. Now, if all of these parameters have been locked down in hardware in the name of cost reductions, then yes, I can see the reason for a $25,000 commitment for chip/board rework/license fees. any idea how we can get this information? > Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but very > few hams > even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating it. I'd > first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for perfection. I agree. Which brings me to my second rant. I've been watching the conversation over the past few weeks and it seems to me that a lot other reason we don't have any activity is because we don't have a common platform from which to launch the activity. I believe we need a common platform for 802.11 experimentation that will serve a similar purpose to that of the TNC only more so. Yes, the openAP project has identified some potential boards but I believe them to be as ephemeral as soap bubbles on a summer day. On the other hand, a basic microprocessor platform (arm/Intel CPU, flash, RAM) with ethernet and PCMCIA could probably be built and sold for under a couple hundred dollars like... http://www.soekris.com/net4511.htm which sells for under $200 in qty 1. TAPR/ARRL could arrange for group purchases, standardized tools, mailing lists, support, etc. and make a board like this the standard platform for 802.11 experimentation. The only thing I'm not happy with is that it's a relatively slow CPU but in reality, it will do everything we need. yes, I can purchase the board myself and play with it but I'd rather head off in the same direction as everyone else and be part of the network rather than off in the weeds enjoying pretty flowers (this time). ---eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Proxim mods? From: "Marcelo Puhl" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:03:59 -0200 X-Message-Number: 8 Hi, I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. Thanks. Marcelo - PY3SS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: More thoughts From: Tony Langdon Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:36:53 +1100 X-Message-Number: 9 > off a such slow speeds. Maybe this is where we get=20 "computer" help > from some of the part 15 guys in exchange for our "RF" help. This is what I'm advocating too. There's a small number of us who know something about both domains (pun not intended), but a much larger = body who know one or the other. Why not pool talent together? I've got a = couple of the local 802.11b people keen to get their ham ticket, was talking to = them at our group's installfest on the weekend (and showing off a bit of 10m = FM propagation on the HT as the band was wide open :) ). One of the guys indicated he's just got to get his last week of uni out the way and = then he's going to hit the books big time to get at least a Limited (29 MHz = and up) licence by early next year.=20 The next generation of ham is coming. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Proxim mods? From: Steve Lampereur Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:51:27 -0600 X-Message-Number: 10 >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony >cards. Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > Thanks. > Marcelo - PY3SS Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our origional work was based around Proxim Symphony gear: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: TAPR List Sponsorship From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:37:40 +1100 X-Message-Number: 11 G'Day All Thank you for reading this message. TAPR provides this mailing list along with others as a service to their members and the Ham Radio community in general. Providing this service and other services such as our FTP site and the cost of developing new products like the Pic-E and EasyTrak, costs money. We are more than happy to provide these resources to the entire Ham Radio community, but we do ask that you do concider joining TAPR. A good way to see what we're up to is to take a look at the latest issue of our quarterly journal, the _Packet_Status_Register_ which is available for download at http://www.tapr.org/PSR Membership in TAPR is only US$20 regardless of whether you live in Tuscon, Arizona, or Sydney, Australia. If you want to join, or if your membership is coming up for renewal, please visit www.tapr.org on the Web for details. Specifically you can go to the following page for information http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Fmembership.html Darryl Smith, VK2TDS TAPR Board Member P.S. I have recently joined the board as its first non-North American board member. As part of my Board duties, I have agreed to have overall responsibility for membership. If anyone has any questions or concerns about membership or TAPR in general, please EMAIL me. I can also be contacted by phone with prior arrangement --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] vk2tds@tapr.org | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Proxim mods? From: "Marcelo Puhl" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:27:18 -0200 X-Message-Number: 12 On 24 Nov 2002 at 15:51, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony > >cards. Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > > > Thanks. > > Marcelo - PY3SS > > Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our original work > was based > around Proxim Symphony gear: > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.html > Thanks Steve, that is a good source. There I found some very interesting mods. Do you know of any mod to install an external antenna to the 4930 gateway? Marcelo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:46:26 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 The typical US Part 15 (has to accept all interference, has to cease and desist if causing interference, bought it at the office supply store and is required to not have any real knowledge of RF [as opposed to 'not required to have knowledge of RF'...], etc.:-) antenna is set up to be vertically polarized. If you set the AP on the desk, the only, or best way, the antenna sits/fits is vertical. Otherwise, if you place same on the wall, then it's "intuitive" to place the antennas so that they're vertically polarized... That's probably the extent of "research" performed, but not a bad assumption. gerry Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that > hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the > local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using > HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any > consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather > interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will > find that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas > which are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be > found on http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access > points with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams > to use Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is > going to be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu To > unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: darryl@radio-active.net.au 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 Mon Nov 25 09:04:08 2002 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 JAA11128 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:03:52 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.199] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 24, 2002 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:03:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Nov 2002 15:03:11.0815 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5B93D70:01C29493] 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 Greetings! Horizontal polarization, as I stated in my last posting, is only ONE means we are using to separate our SS test nodes from most Part 15 users. In addition, it appears to get through the trees around here better than vertical polarization (HI). Most importantly, Hams need to agree on SOMETHING regarding 802.11b if it is to ever be effectively and econoimically re-utilizated under Part 97. This is really nothing more than the what Hams customerily do to agree on polarizations for other "new" modes, e.g. I do not recommend you try working 2M SSB DX using a vertically polarized beam...not that it can't be done (HI). Now, let's focus on some REAL technical issues, instead of the tiny, nic picking armchair debates and negative characterizations this webpage is so well known for, OK? Please re-read with care Jeff's profound comments, questions, and concerns mentioned previously. Thank you! Vy 73, John Champa, K8OCL ARRL Chairman HSMM Working Group k8ocl@arrl.net From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 24, 2002 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:37 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 24, 2002. 1. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 2. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 3. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 4. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 5. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 6. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 7. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 8. Proxim mods? 9. RE: More thoughts 10. Re: Proxim mods? 11. TAPR List Sponsorship 12. Re: Proxim mods? 13. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100 X-Message-Number: 1 G'Day >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically polarized. >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to be basically farcical. Darryl VK2TDS --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Doug Rich Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:14:02 -0700 X-Message-Number: 2 --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. >I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down >here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and >to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems. We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both. Doug W7DVR >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS --=====================_3790348==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
G'Day

>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically
polarized. 
>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them.

I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis.
I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down
here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL
polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and
to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting.

I work for an ISP and install wireless Internet systems.  We use both vertical and horizontal polarization. When we have an AP and a back haul system at the same location we us both.
Doug W7DVR


I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find
that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which
are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on
http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm )

Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points
with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use
Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to
be basically farcical.

Darryl VK2TDS
--=====================_3790348==.ALT-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Jeff King Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:44:40 -0500 X-Message-Number: 3 Darryl: I can't answer your questions, but in the U.S. Part 15 users have= a requirement to avoid interfering with Part 97 stations to the= extent a part 15 user can be compelled to shut down their station if it can be= demonstrated their operations stop communications of a Part 97 station. Now, with you average off the shelf Part 15 WLAN system, which is= vertical, trying to do this would be like herding cats. However, with a= WISP, which is a "static target" they could be compelled to work with hams in= the area (or be forced off the air). I am not in any way suggesting hams chase after WISP's (Wireless= ISP's). In fact, if this where done with no basis I'd be the first one= trying to defend these guys... they provide a much needed service. But many of= them don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are "bad RF citizens". These= would be the one's ham's need to use a stick on. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:44:32 +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: >G'Day > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >polarized. >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and >>them. > >I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >hypothesis. >I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local= ISP's >down >here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting= with, >and >to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you= will >find >that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide= antennas >which >are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be= found on >http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > >Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of= access >points >with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams= to >use >Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is= going >to >be basically farcical. > >Darryl VK2TDS > >--------- >Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia >Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] >Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to= leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "jeff millar" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:48:16 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 20-25 dB of polarization isolation depends on a free space path between transmitter and receiver. In a multipath environment, the polarization rotates every time it bounces off and object. By the time it gets to the receiver, polarization becomes mostly random. In the Cellular (850 MHz) and PCS (1900 MHz) propagation, base stations often receive the signal on both polarities and combine them for best reception. When the vertical component has a deep fade, the horizontal component most often doesn't have a fade. Measurements show about 6 dB improvement in net performance by receiving both channels. The only way to get a free space environment for polarization isolation purposes is to place the interferring source antenna so that the beam does not splash into the ground or other object along its path. jeff, wa1hco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:44 AM Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... > G'Day > > >Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > polarized. > >That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find > that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which > are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on > http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JEFF@WA1HCO.MV.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500 X-Message-Number: 5 Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to coexist is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum engine like the PNcodes or process gain. this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the tapr/arrl negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. ---eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Jeff King Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:31:31 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl >negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on= how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own= purposes. I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and= I do not speak for them). However, anything like this would require at least a $25K= commitment... I know this because a company I do some work for was going to= license some 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way= could be found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with= Intersil and a few Taiwan manufacturers). Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but= very few hams even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating= it. I'd first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for= perfection. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/24/2002 On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:28 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Darryl Smith wrote: >>G'Day >> >> >>>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically >> >>polarized. >> >>>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us= and >>>them. >> >> >>I am interested in what research has been done to prove that >>hypothesis. >>I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local= ISP's >>down >>here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL >>polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting >>with, and >>to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > >good info. Personally, I think the only way we will be able to >coexist >is by changing some of the parameters of the spread spectrum= engine >like >the PNcodes or process gain. > >this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >tapr/arrl >negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on= how to >tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own= purposes. > >---eric > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to= leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:13 -0500 X-Message-Number: 7 Jeff King wrote: >>this is why I keep coming back to the importance of having the >>tapr/arrl >>negotiate with some board manufacturer to gain information on how to >>tweak the settings of a standard 802.11a/b card for our own purposes. > > > I think that has been discussed in the HSMM in general terms (and I do not > speak for them). > > However, anything like this would require at least a $25K commitment... I > know this because a company I do some work for was going to license some > 802.11b designs and this is the cost of the license. Maybe a way could be > found to do it cheaper (this was from a meeting I had with Intersil and a few > Taiwan manufacturers). I was under the impression that most of the spread spectrum hardware had significant "programmability" and just by tweaking some registers in the right way, we could control enough of the parameters to reduce our interference potential with the stock 802.11 systems. Now, if all of these parameters have been locked down in hardware in the name of cost reductions, then yes, I can see the reason for a $25,000 commitment for chip/board rework/license fees. any idea how we can get this information? > Long term, I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but very few hams > even understand what spread spectrum is, let alone are operating it. I'd > first worry about getting some part 97 activity, then go for perfection. I agree. Which brings me to my second rant. I've been watching the conversation over the past few weeks and it seems to me that a lot other reason we don't have any activity is because we don't have a common platform from which to launch the activity. I believe we need a common platform for 802.11 experimentation that will serve a similar purpose to that of the TNC only more so. Yes, the openAP project has identified some potential boards but I believe them to be as ephemeral as soap bubbles on a summer day. On the other hand, a basic microprocessor platform (arm/Intel CPU, flash, RAM) with ethernet and PCMCIA could probably be built and sold for under a couple hundred dollars like... http://www.soekris.com/net4511.htm which sells for under $200 in qty 1. TAPR/ARRL could arrange for group purchases, standardized tools, mailing lists, support, etc. and make a board like this the standard platform for 802.11 experimentation. The only thing I'm not happy with is that it's a relatively slow CPU but in reality, it will do everything we need. yes, I can purchase the board myself and play with it but I'd rather head off in the same direction as everyone else and be part of the network rather than off in the weeds enjoying pretty flowers (this time). ---eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Proxim mods? From: "Marcelo Puhl" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:03:59 -0200 X-Message-Number: 8 Hi, I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. Thanks. Marcelo - PY3SS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: More thoughts From: Tony Langdon Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:36:53 +1100 X-Message-Number: 9 > off a such slow speeds. Maybe this is where we get=20 > "computer" help from > some of the part 15 guys in exchange for our "RF" help. This is what I'm advocating too. There's a small number of us who know something about both domains (pun not intended), but a much larger = body who know one or the other. Why not pool talent together? I've got a = couple of the local 802.11b people keen to get their ham ticket, was talking to = them at our group's installfest on the weekend (and showing off a bit of 10m = FM propagation on the HT as the band was wide open :) ). One of the guys indicated he's just got to get his last week of uni out the way and = then he's going to hit the books big time to get at least a Limited (29 MHz = and up) licence by early next year.=20 The next generation of ham is coming. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Proxim mods? From: Steve Lampereur Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:51:27 -0600 X-Message-Number: 10 >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. >Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > Thanks. > Marcelo - PY3SS Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our origional work was based around Proxim Symphony gear: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: TAPR List Sponsorship From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:37:40 +1100 X-Message-Number: 11 G'Day All Thank you for reading this message. TAPR provides this mailing list along with others as a service to their members and the Ham Radio community in general. Providing this service and other services such as our FTP site and the cost of developing new products like the Pic-E and EasyTrak, costs money. We are more than happy to provide these resources to the entire Ham Radio community, but we do ask that you do concider joining TAPR. A good way to see what we're up to is to take a look at the latest issue of our quarterly journal, the _Packet_Status_Register_ which is available for download at http://www.tapr.org/PSR Membership in TAPR is only US$20 regardless of whether you live in Tuscon, Arizona, or Sydney, Australia. If you want to join, or if your membership is coming up for renewal, please visit www.tapr.org on the Web for details. Specifically you can go to the following page for information http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Fmembership.html Darryl Smith, VK2TDS TAPR Board Member P.S. I have recently joined the board as its first non-North American board member. As part of my Board duties, I have agreed to have overall responsibility for membership. If anyone has any questions or concerns about membership or TAPR in general, please EMAIL me. I can also be contacted by phone with prior arrangement --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] vk2tds@tapr.org | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Proxim mods? From: "Marcelo Puhl" Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:27:18 -0200 X-Message-Number: 12 On 24 Nov 2002 at 15:51, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >I'm looking for any information about mods for the Proxim Symphony cards. > >Have tried Google but didn't find nothing useful. > > > > Thanks. > > Marcelo - PY3SS > > Not sure which mods exactly you seek. But most of our original work was based > around Proxim Symphony gear: > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/cardmap.html > Thanks Steve, that is a good source. There I found some very interesting mods. Do you know of any mod to install an external antenna to the 4930 gateway? Marcelo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:46:26 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 The typical US Part 15 (has to accept all interference, has to cease and desist if causing interference, bought it at the office supply store and is required to not have any real knowledge of RF [as opposed to 'not required to have knowledge of RF'...], etc.:-) antenna is set up to be vertically polarized. If you set the AP on the desk, the only, or best way, the antenna sits/fits is vertical. Otherwise, if you place same on the wall, then it's "intuitive" to place the antennas so that they're vertically polarized... That's probably the extent of "research" performed, but not a bad assumption. gerry Darryl Smith wrote: > G'Day > > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > polarized. > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > I am interested in what research has been done to prove that hypothesis. > I did some commercial 802.11 consulting with one of the local ISP's down > here on Friday, and they stated that they are using HORIZONTAL > polarisation. This is the first ISP I have done any consulting with, and > to find that they are using Horizontal is rather interesting. > > I you start looking into the Commercial ISP world I think you will find > that a lot of them are starting to use slotted waveguide antennas which > are designed to operate horizontal. (More information can be found on > http://www.trevormarshall.com/waveguides.htm ) > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > be basically farcical. > > Darryl VK2TDS > > --------- > Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia > Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] > Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: gerry.creager@tamu.edu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail --- 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 Nov 25 23:25:43 2002 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 XAA17855 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:25:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:23:08 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Thanks for Darryl for highlighting this. I missed it when first posted. I had a discussion with a large Wireless ISP in the Northeast this morning, and learned that he operates two parallel 2.4 GHz systems from each tower. His FHSS systems use sectorized vertical polarization antennas, and the 802.11b systems use omnidirectional horizontal polarization antennas. Many Wireless ISPs make use of both polarizations on 2.4 GHz to increase their density of coverage. Those that haven't done so to date are now doing so as the availability, quality, and cost-effectiveness of horizontal polarization sectorized and omni antennas has increased dramatically. And yes... Amateurs operating in their sections of 2.4 GHz are technically within their rights to request "cease and desist" to Wireless ISPs using Part 15 equipment on 2.4 GHz. I submit that such an approach is extremely short-sighted on the part of Amateur Radio as a whole, and will be a case of "win the battle, lose the war". Note that there is significant momentum building in, of all places, the US Congress and Senate for allocating additional license-exempt spectrum. Wireless ISPs are specifically mentioned as users of that additional spectrum. Amateur Radio Operators are not mentioned as users of that additional spectrum. Draw your own conclusions. Thanks, Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of John Champa > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 22:19 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Cc: kilo.mike@gte.net > Subject: [ss] HSMM Experimenters Group > The ARRL 802.11b Standard protocol we are developing, coupled with the > exclusive use of horizontal polarization, keeps us out of the way of the > Part 15 vertically polarized users throughout the area, and BTW, gets > through the trees better than vertical polarization. > Vy 73, > John - K8OCL > Chairman, ARRL HSMM Working Group --- 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 Nov 26 00:48:07 2002 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 AAA21435 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:47:59 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:44:48 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 John: Agreed wholeheartedly that there is way too much "you shouldn't DO that" commentary on this list, and many others. Where I, and many others, depart from the ARRL's efforts to "take back 2.4 GHz" using Amateur-specific implementations of 802.11b, is to understand what significant differentiation can be offered by doing so. One problem with operating under Part 97 (at least in theory... which consumes WAY too much bandwidth, thoughts, angst, etc.) are the Amateur Radio content restrictions. The bottom line to me in the "use 802.11b under Part 97" versus "use 802.11b under Part 15" is that absent significant differentiation of Part 97 operations, it's far simpler and easier to operate under Part 15 rules. No issues with Internet interconnection, content, encryption, etc. Some years ago I made the comment that at more and more of the meetings of the Puget Sound Amateur Radio TCP/IP Group that the attendees were showing up with laptops... and no way to communicate between them. Pretty ludicrous for folks that are supposed to be communicators! At one meeting we called for each laptop user to bring an Ethernet card. An Ethernet hub was supplied, and finally we achieved connectivity. We've made some progress since then using 802.11b cards, but nowhere near enough. Here are some of the issues I would like to see touched upon by whatever group decides to advocate "Amateur Radio" use of 2.4 GHz / 802.11b/g - be it ARRL HSMM, TAPR, or "Part 15 hobbyists": * Recommendation of a particular 802.11b/g card. In my opinion, the best is a "Lucent Silver" because it includes an antenna jack and it is very widely supported by both Windows and Linux * Recommendation of a particular 802.11b/g access point. In my opinion, the "best" (most amenable to experimentation) is the Linksys WAP-11. * Stocking of such cards, antenna pigtail adapters, and external antennas (including vehicular) from a traditional "Amateur Radio" supplier (encouraged by the ARRL?) TAPR? * Research on the potential use of a non-TCP/IP networking protocol in conjunction with ad-hoc use. Specifically... would the use of Novell's IPX instead of TCP/IP result in any significant benefits? It's supported natively in Windows 95 and newer versions of Windows until (if memory serves) Windows XP. * Research, standardization, and documentation for Amateur Radio use of the use of the (optional in the 802.11b standard) ad-hoc mode where peer-to-peer networking can be implemented without the need of an access point. Specific research should be conducted into how the ad-hoc mode of Windows XP works, and if there is potential for adapting its method of operation to be used by other operating systems. * Research, standardization, and documentation of 802.11b "beaconing" as it can be applied to Amateur Radio operations (such as how to transmit callsign, "status / text messages" to a standardized port that a "helper" app could be set to watch for. * Research, standardization, and documentation for Amateur Radio use of SSIDs used in 802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g * Research, standardization, and documentation of Amateur Radio (44.x.x.x) IP addresses as applied to 802.11b, ad-hoc, portable, and mobile use; in particular standardized approaches to netmask, default gateway, and DNS (or static routing tables) * Research, standardization, and documentation of automatic routing solutions * Research, standardization, and documentation of Linux and Windows server solutions usable for Amateur Radio; easy to set up, easy to maintain. Servers needed include email (POP/IMAP), newsgroups, web, DNS, DHCP * Research, standardization, and documentation of (first) 802.11b repeater (digipeater) modes or solutions and (eventually) true 802.11b mesh networking. * Reliable 12V switching power supply adapters for popular 802.11b equipment (such as WAP-11 mentioned above) * Testing of off-the-shelf 802.11b equipment for thermal stability, and simple enclosures allowing 802.11b to be mounted outside (put the radio next to the antenna - don't run long coax) * Research, standardization, and documentation of Power Over Ethernet (sending power over the two unused pairs of an 8 pair 10baseT Ethernet cable) Some additional areas of research and experimentation: * MeshNetworks (the company) has some very interesting mesh networking technology that they will be hard-pressed to make much headway in a market interested only in 802.11b/g/a systems. If someone in an official capacity to represent Amateur Radio... like the ARRL, approached them at a high level, they may be more receptive to an "Amateur Radio" variant of their product to gain at least some traction, in some market, than would a vendor that's currently shipping hundreds of thousands of 802.11b/g STANDARD devices. * Proxim has all but abandoned their work with HomeRF-based systems, almost completely ceding the home market to 802.11b/g. Perhaps Proxim would be willing to license the "obsolete" HomeRF technology for Amateur Radio usage (which, truth be told, is probably MUCH better suited for Amateur Radio usage than is 802.11b.) As with MeshNetworks, Proxim would need to be approached at a high level by someone in an official capacity to represent Amateur Radio. * US Robotics tried to differentiate themselves in the 802.11b market by supporting ad-hoc mode better than other vendors, and didn't seem to succeed. Perhaps US Robotics would be willing to work with Amateur Radio to make some use of their ad-hoc technology. * Raylink offers low-cost FHSS equipment to Wireless ISPs, including PC cards modified with a pigtail terminated in a type N for $199. Raylink is leveraging an enormous backlog of devices originally developed by Raytheon. Again, FHSS operation may well be far more useful to Amateur Radio operation than 802.11b. * Icom offers some very interesting 802.11b devices, primarily in Japan. Institutionally, they understand Amateur Radio well, and may be in a position to create variations of their 802.11b products for Amateur Radio (and the even bigger "Part 15 hobbyist" / "emergency preparedness") markets. One motivation for Icom to do so is that they are unlikely to achieve much penetration with their 802.11b products into the US market with its well-entrenched 802.11b companies like Proxim. * Texas Instruments developed its PBCC technology to propose to the IEEE 802.11g committee for the 2.4 GHz "high speed" follow-on to 802.11b. Ultimately, the IEEE chose to use OFDM for 802.11g. TI is selling its PBCC chips at the moment to Buffalo and others that offer "802.11b+" devices operating at 22 Mbps. Like the above, TI may be motivated to realize at least some additional revenue and market traction for its PBCC technology if approached at a high level by someone officially representing Amateur Radio. * It would seem like a relatively simple proposition to develop a 2.4 GHz to 1.2 GHz converter/amplifier. What would be required would be "grant" for the non-recurring professional engineering expertise to design, prototype, test, and certify the design, which could then be licensed to one or more vendors (who would not have to undergo the expense of the NRE) and could then afford to sell the device at "typical" Amateur price points. Little or no modification would be required to the 802.11b equipment. Such usage of 1.2 GHz would likely be enthusiastically received because it would in no way "compete" with Wireless ISPs and other Part 15 usage of 2.4 GHz. * 802.11g with the use of OFDM, will (I expect) result in 802.11g in the long term performing profoundly better in a number of situations better than does 802.11b (using DSSS). Amateur Radio should pay more attention to what will be a rapid conversion of the market from 802.11b to 802.11g that will likely begin by late 2003. Thanks, Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of John Champa > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 07:03 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: November 24, 2002 > > > Greetings! > > Horizontal polarization, as I stated in my last posting, is only > ONE means > we are using to separate our SS test nodes from most Part 15 users. In > addition, it appears to get through the trees around here better than > vertical polarization (HI). > > Most importantly, Hams need to agree on SOMETHING regarding > 802.11b if it is > to ever be effectively and econoimically re-utilizated under Part > 97. This > is really nothing more than the what Hams customerily do to agree on > polarizations for other "new" modes, e.g. I do not recommend you > try working > 2M SSB DX using a vertically polarized beam...not that it can't be done > (HI). > > Now, let's focus on some REAL technical issues, instead of the tiny, nic > picking armchair debates and negative characterizations this > webpage is so > well known for, OK? > > Please re-read with care Jeff's profound comments, questions, and > concerns > mentioned previously. Thank you! > > Vy 73, > John Champa, K8OCL > ARRL Chairman > HSMM Working Group > k8ocl@arrl.net --- 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 Nov 26 07:09:06 2002 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 HAA01935 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:09:03 -0600 (CST) From: Frosty6981@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:08:24 EST Subject: [ss] 802.11 Modifactaions. To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9f.3106ce19.2b14cc48_boundary" 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: <9f.3106ce19.2b14cc48@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --part1_9f.3106ce19.2b14cc48_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are there any cards out there that are easy to modify for Amateur radio, lik= e=20 increase the power output? Also are there any packages that will let you=20 mount the radio up on a tower next to the antenna? 73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_9f.3106ce19.2b14cc48_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are there any cards out there that are easy to modify=20= for Amateur radio, like increase the power output?  Also are there any=20= packages that will let you mount the radio up on a tower next to the antenna= ?

73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_9f.3106ce19.2b14cc48_boundary-- --- 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 Nov 26 09:16:51 2002 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 JAA07175 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:16:49 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:15:51 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz 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 I would just like to say that I agree with all Steve says especially the comments on part97 content restrictions. I would also like to add that Senao makes a card that has rx sensitivity equal or better than the Lucent silver and has 200 mw to dual external ant connectors. $98 delivered from www.netgate.com. Bob - wd6dod --- 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 Nov 26 11:22:18 2002 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 LAA12006 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:22:15 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id LAA12006 Huh?!? Short cited? Amateurs should defer to WISP's??... many of them who are in blatant violation of Part 15 rules to begin with? Your kidding, right? I am drawing my own conclusions here. This is how the law is written. And my opinion is that WISP's have to be good RF citizens and that includes working with amateur radio operators, if the need arises. I made it very clear that I felt WISP's bring a needed service to america... there is no doubt about that. But they have a requirement to follow the law just (IMHO) just as amateur radio operator's have an obligation not to bring friveroius complaints against them. Since you are so well connected to the part 15 WISP industry as well as a TAPR board member, maybe you could serve as a conduit to them. We have already had the Darwin Network's episode last February which gave WISP's a black eye. I think there is a potential for some synergy here instead of a adversarial relationship. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/26/2002 On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:23:08 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote: > >Thanks for Darryl for highlighting this. I missed it when first >posted. > >I had a discussion with a large Wireless ISP in the Northeast this >morning, >and learned that he operates two parallel 2.4 GHz systems from each >tower. >His FHSS systems use sectorized vertical polarization antennas, and >the >802.11b systems use omnidirectional horizontal polarization antennas. > >Many Wireless ISPs make use of both polarizations on 2.4 GHz to >increase >their density of coverage. Those that haven't done so to date are >now doing >so as the availability, quality, and cost-effectiveness of horizontal >polarization sectorized and omni antennas has increased dramatically. > >And yes... Amateurs operating in their sections of 2.4 GHz are >technically >within their rights to request "cease and desist" to Wireless ISPs >using >Part 15 equipment on 2.4 GHz. I submit that such an approach is >extremely >short-sighted on the part of Amateur Radio as a whole, and will be a >case of >"win the battle, lose the war". Note that there is significant >momentum >building in, of all places, the US Congress and Senate for allocating >additional license-exempt spectrum. Wireless ISPs are specifically >mentioned >as users of that additional spectrum. Amateur Radio Operators are not >mentioned as users of that additional spectrum. Draw your own >conclusions. > > >Thanks, > >Steve N8GNJ > >-- >Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org >>[mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of John Champa >>Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 22:19 >>To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group >>Cc: kilo.mike@gte.net >>Subject: [ss] HSMM Experimenters Group > > > >>The ARRL 802.11b Standard protocol we are developing, coupled with >>the >>exclusive use of horizontal polarization, keeps us out of the way >>of the >>Part 15 vertically polarized users throughout the area, and BTW, >>gets >>through the trees better than vertical polarization. > > > >>Vy 73, >>John - K8OCL >>Chairman, ARRL HSMM Working Group > > > >--- >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 Tue Nov 26 11:56:14 2002 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 LAA14414 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:56:12 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:54:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id LAA14414 Hi Steve: Some points I want to address here. On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:44:48 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote: >Agreed wholeheartedly that there is way too much "you shouldn't DO >that" commentary on this list, and many others. Isn't this what you are doing below? >Where I, and many others, depart from the ARRL's efforts to "take >back 2.4 GHz" I never knew hams had lost 2.4ghz... I knew they didn't use it much. BTW, who are these "many others" that don't want hams to use 2.4ghz? Your the first one I have seen speak up about this. >using Amateur-specific implementations of 802.11b, is to >understand what significant differentiation can be offered by doing so. FYI... from what I have seen, the HSSM are just suggesting operating parameters, such as WLAN channel 6, antenna polarization, SSID's and the like. I think any firmware mods are some time away. But that is just my opinion. The "differentiation" they are seeking at this point is to make a good faith effort to keep part 15 users off of the part 97 networks. >One problem with operating under Part 97 (at least in theory... which >consumes WAY too much bandwidth, thoughts, angst, etc.) are the >Amateur Radio content restrictions. Huh? How does the content change between talking on a voice FM rig or ax.25 packet setup vs. spread spectrum? Its just a different modulation mode, same content rules apply to either one and spread spectrum is NOT held to a higher standard (for content) then any other mode. Oh, did you mean unrestricted connections to the internet? That is one of the many urban legends that has floated around for years. Totally false for anyone that has half a wit. In the Detroit area, back from 86-95, myself and two other hams ran three internet NOS gateways...completely unrestricted... smtp, ftp, http, gopher, whatever the user's wanted. We trusted our users (they were all control ops) and it was our licenses and we where not worried about it. FCC monitoring station just a few miles away and we even showed it to them. They where quite impressed. Today, the rules are even more relaxed and I see no reason anyone should not run a personal station on the air that is connected to the internet, assuming they take some precautions (firewalls and effort to keep unlicensed users off the link). Do personal business on the air, get e-mail, surf the web, experiment with Microwave's. I think most hams know enough not to run their business's under Part 97 or surf kiddie porn sites on part 97. >The bottom line to me in the "use 802.11b under Part 97" versus "use >802.11b >under Part 15" is that absent significant differentiation of Part 97 >operations, it's far simpler and easier to operate under Part 15 >rules. No issues with Internet interconnection, content, encryption, etc. I agree there is not a significant technical advantage the way the part 97 rules are crippled for spread spectrum now, but I understand there has been a rethinking of this by those past detractors. Plus, who am I (or you) to deny an amateur the chance to run his spread spectrum gear under part 97? I partipated for over a year in the TAPR STA running my spread spectrum equipment under part 97... it would have been far easier for me to run this under part 15. But I chose part 97. And as a direct result of this, we got the rules loosened up somewhat. The point being, if you don't have a significant reason to run under part 15, one SHOULD run under part 97 and please report it to this list, the ARRL HSMM or your local ARRL official. I've poo poo'ed the ARRL's efforts here in the past, but now the winds appear to be a changing. I support the ARRL's HSMM efforts 110%. >Here are some of the issues I would like to see touched upon by >whatever >group decides to advocate "Amateur Radio" use of 2.4 GHz / 802.11b/g >- be it >ARRL HSMM, TAPR, Very good points. Has TAPR signed on to any of this? You'll get my full support. But I do want to stress I think just "doing it" should be Job #1. BTW, I'm doing a higher performance POE for the WET11 and a amplified antenna as well. 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 Tue Nov 26 12:36:31 2002 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 MAA16093 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:36:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:34:14 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal 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 Jeff: "Amateurs should defer to WISPs" are YOUR words, not mine. Some WISPs are in blatant violation of Part 15 rules as currently written. A number of non-compliant WISPs have been cited by the FCC Enforcement Bureau (for issues unrelated to Amateur Radio.) As I indicated... the rules under which WISPs operate could easily change in the coming year now that there is very high-level interest in license-exempt wireless by influential Congresspersons and Senators. There may well be some potential for synergy between WISPs and hams. Indeed, there are many WISPs that are also hams, and they often see the two roles as highly complimentary. But for those WISPs that aren't, Amateur Radio "saber-rattling" talk, like "Well, I could just fire up a 2.4 GHz ATV transmitter to shut down that WISP", by a vocal minority of Amateur Radio Operators isn't conducive to that goal. What the vast majority of Amateur Radio Operators are missing in this discussion is a realistic understanding of the fundamental realities of their position within 2.4 GHz... at a time when license-exempt wireless is practically the only area of investment, innovation, and growth within the entire telecommunications industry. Now might not be the best time for Amateur Radio operators to be asserting themselves on the 2.4 GHz band. Also... the Darwin Networks episode hardly "gave WISPs a black eye". No more so than an individual Amateur Radio Operator being cited for deliberate interference or other rules violations "gives Amateur Radio as a whole a black eye." Darwin Networks was particularly clueless and the result was predictable. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 Editor - Focus on Broadband Wireless Internet Access newsletter http://www.strohpub.com/focus > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jeff King > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 09:21 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group > > > Huh?!? > > Short cited? Amateurs should defer to WISP's??... many of them who are in > blatant violation of Part 15 rules to begin with? Your kidding, right? > > I am drawing my own conclusions here. This is how the law is > written. And my > opinion is that WISP's have to be good RF citizens and that > includes working > with amateur radio operators, if the need arises. I made it very > clear that I > felt WISP's bring a needed service to america... there is no doubt about > that. But they have a requirement to follow the law just (IMHO) just as > amateur radio operator's have an obligation not to bring friveroius > complaints against them. > > Since you are so well connected to the part 15 WISP industry as well as a > TAPR board member, maybe you could serve as a conduit to them. We have > already had the Darwin Network's episode last February which gave > WISP's a > black eye. I think there is a potential for some synergy here > instead of a > adversarial relationship. > > -- > Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/26/2002 --- 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 Nov 26 12:41:08 2002 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 MAA16169 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:41:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Pinfold" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11 Modifactaions. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:38:08 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008F_01C295E7.EDF90860" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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: <009201c2957a$f7a79920$2901a8c0@co.nz> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01C295E7.EDF90860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Reid Just to push my own barrow I sell Acess points that are = configurable as bridges often mount them in a box next to the antenna, = cheers Mike ZL1BTB http://www.amalgamate2000.com/sales/products.htm ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Frosty6981@aol.com=20 To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:08 AM Subject: [ss] 802.11 Modifactaions. Are there any cards out there that are easy to modify for Amateur = radio, like increase the power output? Also are there any packages that = will let you mount the radio up on a tower next to the antenna? 73, Reid KC=D8IDI=20 ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01C295E7.EDF90860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Reid  Just to push my own barrow I sell Acess points that = are=20 configurable  as bridges  often mount them in a box next = to the=20 antenna, cheers Mike ZL1BTB http://www.amal= gamate2000.com/sales/products.htm
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Frosty6981@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, = 2002 2:08=20 AM
Subject: [ss] 802.11 = Modifactaions.

Are there any cards out there that are easy to = modify for=20 Amateur radio, like increase the power output?  Also are there = any=20 packages that will let you mount the radio up on a tower next to the=20 antenna?

73, Reid KC=D8IDI = ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01C295E7.EDF90860-- --- 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 Nov 26 13:41:35 2002 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 NAA18959 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:41:29 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Message-Id: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:40:30 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This always struck me as odd. The ARRL has been trying to obtain more primary amateur allocations in the 2.3-2.4 GHz area. I'm always for this kind of thing, but I guess since I can't think of alot any present ham activity on the band in my area, so it seems weird. My general rule of thumb thought on our microwave allocations is; lets start using them. Most of them are shared and under-used by ourselves so they/we stand the greatest chance of losing them, which would be a major loss. In the US amateurs have access to appoximately: 3.75 MHz of HF (160m-10m) spectrum 67 MHz of VHF/UHF (6m-33cm) spectrum 24.095 GHz of microwave (23cm-300GHz) spectrum "Content restrictions" apply to all FCC regulated radio. Technically the same stuff applies to Part 15. Technically dropping the F-bomb over a cell-phone is illegal. Which is more regulated and more enforced might be a valid concern. I'm still waiting for someone to quote these so called "content restrictions" from Part 97. All I found is Sec 97.101a "each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good amateur practice." I said this before: Unless your a business, or porno freak there shouldn't be any real problems assuming your a ham and you have an amateur interest in this Part 97 wireless concept. The (keep it) Part 15 look at this makes me think a person is either; 1)not a ham (or not interested) 2)are a ham but would like to capitalize on this 3)an extremely paranoid old school of thought ham. If all someone wants to do is distribute internet and not attempt to build a separate ham VPN (AMPRNet) network, yes keep it Part 15. If you want to experiment with other hams by trying to form a network or link using this technology, that's ham radio and should be Part 97. I guess what I see here is.. yes now there are many vehicles to communicate. Cellphones, the internet, paging services.. other licensed radio services; GMRS, Business radio's, unlicensed; FRS, MURS, Part 15 WLAN. What your interest in ham radio is (if any) determines its possible replacements. Many of the things we do (public service) as hams can be done through other means. As you point out our discussions/communications can also be done through other means. Our basis and purpose: Providing Emergency communications To advance the radio art Encouraging experimentation, advancing communication & technical skills Training/expanding the reservoir of operators/technicians and electronics Extending goodwill --- 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 Nov 26 14:08:34 2002 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 OAA19729 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:08:34 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] SSID/ Ham ID Message-Id: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:07:55 -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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk There was some discussion before about this. I suggested/suggest: Set the devices SSID to whatever you want, maybe something with your callsign in it But hide the SSID/network name (this is an option) for some security.. Change your MAC to your callsign in Hex. Multiple reasons. Chances are other hams sniffing may notice the unique MAC, it also is another way to fullfill the FCC identification requirement. It also helps map your MAC address registration / Radius authentication (further security) table back to a particular ham user. Any security breach attemps will be easier to notice, as they will more than likely have standard MAC's. MAC addresses may be burned into the hardware but when was the last time you tired to change one on your windows box let alone a unix box, its as easy as 1 2 3. 1. ifconfig eth0 down 2. ifconfig eth0 hw ether 4b:42:39:4d:57:52 3. ifconfig eth0 up The MAC/callsign deal has a catch. Converting a 6 char. callsign translates to the max Hex octets for a MAC. 5 char and less calls can append zero's Using the upper case and lower case conversions of the standard ASCII chart can yeild 2 possible MAC's for 6 char. callsigns. If you opperate more than 2 devices you may need to do something weird like leave your callsign numeral alone (don't convert it to hex), that way you have another digit to play with. If you understand what I'm getting at. --- 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 Nov 26 14:48:24 2002 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 OAA21237 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:48:21 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:46:54 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Thread-Index: AcKVg7jsRzemqxXYT8CdsqwFp8Va+gAXG7LQ From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A91AC22B@kosh.ARRLHQ.ORG> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id OAA21237 > "Content restrictions" apply to all FCC regulated radio. Technically > the same stuff applies to Part 15. Technically dropping the > F-bomb over > a cell-phone is illegal. Which is more regulated and more enforced > might be a valid concern. > > I'm still waiting for someone to quote these so called "content > restrictions" from Part 97. All I found is Sec 97.101a "each amateur > station must be operated in accordance with good amateur practice." 97.113(a)(4) prohibits the transmission of "obscene or indecent words or language." There are a number of other aspects of Part 97 that may make Part 15 networking look a bit more appealing in some ways than wireless done under Part 97. There are no arguments about whether it is legal to use Part 15 to order a pizza -- or to conduct out and out commerce, for that matter. I don't believe there are any Part 1 or Part 2 obscentity/indecency issues, so they are covered Part by Part; Part 15 doesn't contain any such prohibitions. If I network under Part 15, I can tell my non-ham neighbor to join me -- not allowed under Part 97. There are also restrictions in Part 97 on unattended digital operation. It is pretty evident that Part 97 rules may be hindering Amateur Radio's ability to make contributions to the state of the art. Of course, rules can be changed. Speaking entirely personally, I think it would be unlikely, IMHO, that ARRL would initiate any such requests for rulemaking in this area, though. :-) Just MHO. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI Internet: w1rfi@arrl.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Lampereur [mailto:kb9mwr@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:41 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz > > > This always struck me as odd. The ARRL has been trying to > obtain more > primary amateur allocations in the 2.3-2.4 GHz area. I'm always for > this kind of thing, but I guess since I can't think of alot > any present > ham activity on the band in my area, so it seems weird. > > My general rule of thumb thought on our microwave allocations is; > lets start using them. Most of them are shared and under-used by > ourselves so they/we stand the greatest chance of losing them, which > would be a major loss. > > In the US amateurs have access to appoximately: > 3.75 MHz of HF (160m-10m) spectrum > 67 MHz of VHF/UHF (6m-33cm) spectrum > 24.095 GHz of microwave (23cm-300GHz) spectrum > > "Content restrictions" apply to all FCC regulated radio. Technically > the same stuff applies to Part 15. Technically dropping the > F-bomb over > a cell-phone is illegal. Which is more regulated and more enforced > might be a valid concern. > > I'm still waiting for someone to quote these so called "content > restrictions" from Part 97. All I found is Sec 97.101a "each amateur > station must be operated in accordance with good amateur practice." > > I said this before: > Unless your a business, or porno freak there shouldn't be any real > problems assuming your a ham and you have an amateur interest in this > Part 97 wireless concept. The (keep it) Part 15 look at this makes me > think a person is either; > 1)not a ham (or not interested) > 2)are a ham but would like to capitalize on this > 3)an extremely paranoid old school of thought ham. > > If all someone wants to do is distribute internet and not > attempt to build a > separate ham VPN (AMPRNet) network, yes keep it Part 15. If > you want to > experiment with other hams by trying to form a network or > link using this > technology, that's ham radio and should be Part 97. > > I guess what I see here is.. yes now there are many vehicles > to communicate. > Cellphones, the internet, paging services.. other licensed > radio services; > GMRS, Business radio's, unlicensed; FRS, MURS, Part 15 WLAN. > What your > interest in ham radio is (if any) determines its possible > replacements. > Many of the things we do (public service) as hams can be done > through other > means. As you point out our discussions/communications can > also be done > through other means. > > Our basis and purpose: > Providing Emergency communications > To advance the radio art > Encouraging experimentation, advancing communication & > technical skills > Training/expanding the reservoir of operators/technicians and > electronics > Extending goodwill > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: W1RFI@ARRL.ORG > 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 Nov 26 15:01:06 2002 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 PAA21686 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:00:59 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:58:03 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal 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 To a large extent, I agree with you that the content issue is specious. But it's not just me... or you... or the small group of those of us that are enlightened about this issue. The problem is with the much larger pool of naysayers who constantly yipe and yap about non-Amateur traffic, third party content, ad nauseum. When they discover that it's even POSSIBLE to "abuse" Amateur Radio in this way, they want such activity halted, "protections" put in place, or they shout it down (like at club meetings), call attention to it in the press, write the FCC, etc. Amateur Radio is its own worst enemy at times. All that hue and cry is absolutely astonishing and a total turnoff to the young techie who might be interested in Amateur Radio, but only if she can use it to IM her pals, swap some new MP3s (perhaps even legal :-), surf the web, send and get some email, etc. It is flat out ASTONISHING to me that MANY years after the FCC WROTE THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE INTO ITS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS... that some Hams still say that you cannot order a pizza using an autopatch. You can, as long as you don't own the pizza business. But, that example happens all the time; I personally corrected someone not too long ago that actually cited "no ordering pizza via autopatch". "Going Part 15" largely avoids the Amateur Radio naysayers, nimrods, nitwits, the "no pizza ordering via autopatch" crowd, etc. My personal operating philosophy is that my use of Amateur Radio has evolved to be personal experimentation to extend the breadth and scope of the Internet via wireless... and I'm doing so on Amateur Radio frequencies because my Amateur Radio license gives me "license" to DO such experimentation. As long as my usage of the Internet via Amateur Radio frequencies is largely personal, content, decency, commercial use etc. is simply a non-issue. Thanks, Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Steve Lampereur > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:41 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz > > > This always struck me as odd. The ARRL has been trying to obtain more > primary amateur allocations in the 2.3-2.4 GHz area. I'm always for > this kind of thing, but I guess since I can't think of alot any present > ham activity on the band in my area, so it seems weird. > > My general rule of thumb thought on our microwave allocations is; > lets start using them. Most of them are shared and under-used by > ourselves so they/we stand the greatest chance of losing them, which > would be a major loss. > > In the US amateurs have access to appoximately: > 3.75 MHz of HF (160m-10m) spectrum > 67 MHz of VHF/UHF (6m-33cm) spectrum > 24.095 GHz of microwave (23cm-300GHz) spectrum > > "Content restrictions" apply to all FCC regulated radio. Technically > the same stuff applies to Part 15. Technically dropping the F-bomb over > a cell-phone is illegal. Which is more regulated and more enforced > might be a valid concern. > > I'm still waiting for someone to quote these so called "content > restrictions" from Part 97. All I found is Sec 97.101a "each amateur > station must be operated in accordance with good amateur practice." > > I said this before: > Unless your a business, or porno freak there shouldn't be any real > problems assuming your a ham and you have an amateur interest in this > Part 97 wireless concept. The (keep it) Part 15 look at this makes me > think a person is either; > 1)not a ham (or not interested) > 2)are a ham but would like to capitalize on this > 3)an extremely paranoid old school of thought ham. > > If all someone wants to do is distribute internet and not attempt > to build a > separate ham VPN (AMPRNet) network, yes keep it Part 15. If you want to > experiment with other hams by trying to form a network or link using this > technology, that's ham radio and should be Part 97. > > I guess what I see here is.. yes now there are many vehicles to > communicate. > Cellphones, the internet, paging services.. other licensed radio services; > GMRS, Business radio's, unlicensed; FRS, MURS, Part 15 WLAN. What your > interest in ham radio is (if any) determines its possible replacements. > Many of the things we do (public service) as hams can be done > through other > means. As you point out our discussions/communications can also be done > through other means. > > Our basis and purpose: > Providing Emergency communications > To advance the radio art > Encouraging experimentation, advancing communication & technical skills > Training/expanding the reservoir of operators/technicians and electronics > Extending goodwill --- 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 Nov 26 15:20:09 2002 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 PAA22369 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:19:59 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:19:14 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Thread-Index: AcKVDDx9Gn4bLBvFSj2n/SCeyK6n2AAHkY6A From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A91AC22C@kosh.ARRLHQ.ORG> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA22369 > And yes... Amateurs operating in their sections of 2.4 GHz > are technically > within their rights to request "cease and desist" to Wireless > ISPs using > Part 15 equipment on 2.4 GHz. I submit that such an approach > is extremely > short-sighted on the part of Amateur Radio as a whole, and > will be a case of > "win the battle, lose the war". Note that there is > significant momentum > building in, of all places, the US Congress and Senate for allocating > additional license-exempt spectrum. Wireless ISPs are > specifically mentioned > as users of that additional spectrum. Amateur Radio Operators are not > mentioned as users of that additional spectrum. Draw your own > conclusions. The conclusions I might draw is that the wireless stuff is becoming important enough that it may be given spectrum of its own. Would that be in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical bands (ISM), where ISM devices operating under Part 18 can radiate unlimited energy in that spectrum, with no protection offered to other users of that spectrum? IMHO, more than likely not, and if the Part 15 manufacturers were to seek their own spectrum, I would imagine that it would be better outside the ISM bands. Right now, there is a fair amount of 2.4 GHz ISM stuff running -- and it has to run somewhere -- and if the business model calls for unfettered spectrum, it isn't going to be found in the ISM bands. Maybe on the bands above 2.4 GHz, because to my knowledge, the ISM use there isn't so bad. Now, as to the "rights" of amateurs, do keep in mind that our rights begin only where there is actual harmful interference to amateur communications. Merely hearing a Part 15 signal in "our" bands is not harmful interference. There are many bands where Amateur Radio operates secondary wrt other services. How would we feel if the military heard us on 70 cm and said "we hear hams in our band, so they gotta' get out." Under the Part 15 rules, we are protected against harmful interference, but we also need to be sure that a particular case meets the definition of harmful interference before crying foul. Harmful interference is any disruption of certain emergency communications or the repeated disruption of other communications. Just MHO and personal O. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Stroh [mailto:lists@strohpub.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:23 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group > > > > Thanks for Darryl for highlighting this. I missed it when > first posted. > > I had a discussion with a large Wireless ISP in the Northeast > this morning, > and learned that he operates two parallel 2.4 GHz systems > from each tower. > His FHSS systems use sectorized vertical polarization > antennas, and the > 802.11b systems use omnidirectional horizontal polarization antennas. > > Many Wireless ISPs make use of both polarizations on 2.4 GHz > to increase > their density of coverage. Those that haven't done so to date > are now doing > so as the availability, quality, and cost-effectiveness of horizontal > polarization sectorized and omni antennas has increased dramatically. > > And yes... Amateurs operating in their sections of 2.4 GHz > are technically > within their rights to request "cease and desist" to Wireless > ISPs using > Part 15 equipment on 2.4 GHz. I submit that such an approach > is extremely > short-sighted on the part of Amateur Radio as a whole, and > will be a case of > "win the battle, lose the war". Note that there is > significant momentum > building in, of all places, the US Congress and Senate for allocating > additional license-exempt spectrum. Wireless ISPs are > specifically mentioned > as users of that additional spectrum. Amateur Radio Operators are not > mentioned as users of that additional spectrum. Draw your own > conclusions. > > > Thanks, > > Steve N8GNJ > > -- > Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org > > [mailto:bounce-ss-24593@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of John Champa > > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 22:19 > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Cc: kilo.mike@gte.net > > Subject: [ss] HSMM Experimenters Group > > > > > The ARRL 802.11b Standard protocol we are developing, > coupled with the > > exclusive use of horizontal polarization, keeps us out of > the way of the > > Part 15 vertically polarized users throughout the area, and > BTW, gets > > through the trees better than vertical polarization. > > > > > Vy 73, > > John - K8OCL > > Chairman, ARRL HSMM Working Group > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: W1RFI@ARRL.ORG > 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 Nov 26 15:32:36 2002 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 PAA22672 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:32:31 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Inputs on Amateur Radio usage of 2.4 GHz Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:31:48 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 A few thoughts here... :) > Here are some of the issues I would like to see touched upon > by whatever > group decides to advocate "Amateur Radio" use of 2.4 GHz / > 802.11b/g - be it > ARRL HSMM, TAPR, or "Part 15 hobbyists": > * Recommendation of a particular 802.11b/g card. In my > opinion, the best is > a "Lucent Silver" because it includes an antenna jack and it > is very widely > supported by both Windows and Linux I'd prefer to see a range of cards recommended. Here's another good excuse to recuit new hams from the wireless networking people. Guess who knows the hardware! :) In any case, over here, a predecessor of the Lucent cards has been the card of choice, because a large number (in the thousands) became available due to a "fire sale" some time back. I scored a few myself. > * Recommendation of a particular 802.11b/g access point. In > my opinion, the > "best" (most amenable to experimentation) is the Linksys WAP-11. Again, comments as above. D-Link seems to be emerging as more affordable/accessible here, and the hardware platform of the latest AP _may_ even support Linux (subject to confirmation). I seem to see a lot more reference to Linksys in the US than over here. > * Stocking of such cards, antenna pigtail adapters, and > external antennas > (including vehicular) from a traditional "Amateur Radio" supplier > (encouraged by the ARRL?) TAPR? Good idea. > * Research on the potential use of a non-TCP/IP networking protocol in > conjunction with ad-hoc use. Specifically... would the use of > Novell's IPX > instead of TCP/IP result in any significant benefits? It's supported > natively in Windows 95 and newer versions of Windows until (if memory > serves) Windows XP. Why? TCP/IP is the standard networking protocol. IPX/SPX is not as well supported by some systems (I know Windows and Linux support IPX/SPX, but do any of the BSD OSs support it?). If we're going to change protocols, might as well go for something more forward looking, like IPv6, which I would rather prefer than IPX/SPX. > * Research, standardization, and documentation for Amateur > Radio use of the > use of the (optional in the 802.11b standard) ad-hoc mode > where peer-to-peer > networking can be implemented without the need of an access > point. Specific > research should be conducted into how the ad-hoc mode of > Windows XP works, > and if there is potential for adapting its method of > operation to be used by > other operating systems. Could be useful,especially if the XP stuff can be ported to other OSs. > * Research, standardization, and documentation of automatic routing > solutions Another way to get wireless networking people interested in getting their ham ticket... :) > * Proxim has all but abandoned their work with HomeRF-based > systems, almost > completely ceding the home market to 802.11b/g. Perhaps > Proxim would be > willing to license the "obsolete" HomeRF technology for > Amateur Radio usage > (which, truth be told, is probably MUCH better suited for > Amateur Radio > usage than is 802.11b.) As with MeshNetworks, Proxim would need to be > approached at a high level by someone in an official capacity > to represent > Amateur Radio. The problem I have with these ideas is the use of low volume "proprietry" solutions. This equates to cost, and factor in the almost 2:1 currency difference between the US and Australia, the resulting figures don't look too good... Sure, play with them, but don't lock us in unless there can be reasonable cost and scope for experimentation. The FHSS vs DSSS argument is interesting, because of the technical scope, but for us here, cost is going to be an issue. $199 mightn't sound like much, but try almost $400 by the time it hits our shores... Anyway, just a few thoughts... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 26 15:53:57 2002 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 PAA23121 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:53:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SSID/ Ham ID Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:52:02 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA23121 > Using the upper case and lower case conversions of the > standard ASCII chart > can yeild 2 possible MAC's for 6 char. callsigns. If you Not necessarily,I could do something funky like vK3JeD Vk3jEd :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 26 16:07:03 2002 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 QAA23566 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:07:01 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:05:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id QAA23566 On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:34:14 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote: > >Jeff: > >"Amateurs should defer to WISPs" are YOUR words, not mine. Your right. I succiently paraphrased what I thought you where saying, which was: SS>Where I, and many others, depart from the ARRL's efforts to "take back 2.4 SS>GHz" using Amateur-specific implementations of 802.11b, is to understand SS>what significant differentiation can be offered by doing so. and.. SS>And yes... Amateurs operating in their sections of 2.4 GHz are technically SS>within their rights to request "cease and desist" to Wireless ISPs using SS>Part 15 equipment on 2.4 GHz. I submit that such an approach is extremely SS>short-sighted on the part of Amateur Radio as a whole, and will be a case of SS>"win the battle, lose the war" So, I'm sorry I mis-represented your position in any way. What war are amateur's fighting with WISP's? >Some WISPs are in blatant violation of Part 15 rules as currently >written. And if these same WISP's are causing interference to a legitimate amateur operation, what is your suggestion? Go to congress to get the hams kicked off 2.4ghz? > As I indicated... the rules under >which WISPs operate could easily change in the coming year now that >there is >very high-level interest in license-exempt wireless by influential >Congresspersons and Senators. I'm talking about the rules now. Part 15 WISP's have to get along with hams... if they cause a legitimate problem of interference. Very rarely happens but if it does, it should be properly addressed. >There may well be some potential for synergy between WISPs and hams. >Indeed, >there are many WISPs that are also hams, and they often see the two >roles as >highly complimentary. But for those WISPs that aren't, Amateur Radio >"saber-rattling" talk, like "Well, I could just fire up a 2.4 GHz ATV >transmitter to shut down that WISP", by a vocal minority of Amateur >Radio Operators isn't conducive to that goal. And those are your words Steve. FYI, this thread is about the HSMM which is doing spread spectrum tests in amateur radio. My specific comment was about RF ignorant WISP's (of which a significant portion are) who could be causing interference to legitimate amateur operations. I NEVER suggested or endorsed any kind of "Straw man" faked interference from amateur radio stations. 90% of WISP's would never cause a problem. But they have a secondary position on 2.4ghz as compared to hams. In area's that really need WISP's, rural area's, I think WISP's and hams can get along just fine... there just aren't enough hams that need 2.4ghz. >What the vast majority of Amateur Radio Operators are missing in this >discussion is a realistic understanding of the fundamental realities >of >their position within 2.4 GHz... at a time when license-exempt >wireless is >practically the only area of investment, innovation, and growth >within the entire telecommunications industry. Who are the "vast majority of amateur radio operators" you are speaking to? I'm on 3 different WISP lists and 5 more part 15 WLAN hacker lists. I'm well aware of the realities here. The fundamental reality is amateur radio (and yes TAPR and the ARRL) totally dropped the ball in exploiting 2.4ghz or any spread spectrum. But, that appears to be changing and I *will* be supportive of this effort. This is something that should have happened years ago. You, as a TAPR board member should be aware of this.... I am a firm believer that you have to walk before you can run. If some hams want to use part 97 for spread spectrum, I think TAPR and the amateur community should be behind them instead of this nitpicking BS/NIH on this SIG I have been seeing. Also, I think with some minor modifications to Part 97, spread spectrum use on amateur radio can be made very attractive to the Part 15 hackers (who can come over to part 97). >Now might not be the best time for Amateur Radio operators to be >asserting themselves on the 2.4 GHz band. I see.... we should fold then? >Also... the Darwin Networks episode hardly "gave WISPs a black eye". Yeah... right Steve. I followed that quite closely.... made the WISP industry look like a bunch of unorganized idiots.... and I am pro-WISP. Trying to claim he had an "exception" because he was running under part 18?!? His only chance would have been to demonstrate he wasn't causing those ham's interference and/or workit out with them. He chose neither route. The first thing we have to do is not lie to ourselves here. >Darwin Networks was particularly clueless and the result >was predictable. Yes, it gave the WISP industry a black eye. It was written up twice in the ARRL letter. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/02/15/2/ -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 Tue Nov 26 19:34:23 2002 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 TAA02034 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:34:22 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Steve vs Jeff - not Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:32:11 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal 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 Jeff: It's obvious that despite some similarities, including involvement with the Wireless ISP industry, we're coming at these issues from very different perspectives. I'm not claiming that my viewpoint is more valid than yours - just different, for what it's worth, your mileage may vary. >From long experience I'd rather not, and undoubtedly the other subscribers would rather I not, engage you in a point-by-point, tit-for-tat discussion on the issues at hand. Content that I've made my points, I'll let yours be the last words in our particular discussion. Thanks, Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 --- 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 Nov 26 20:04:55 2002 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 UAA03282 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:04:48 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:55:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Steve vs Jeff - not Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id UAA03282 Steve: I'm sorry to see you chose to make this personal (re: your title). I don't think our viewpoints are that different in a pragmatic sense, I'm just not ready yet to give up on amateur radio, in particular when I see real progress being made on a particular front. But you very well may have the last word here ultimately.... I just hope it is not so. 73 Jeff -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/26/2002 On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:32:11 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote: > >Jeff: > >It's obvious that despite some similarities, including involvement >with the >Wireless ISP industry, we're coming at these issues from very >different >perspectives. I'm not claiming that my viewpoint is more valid than >yours - >just different, for what it's worth, your mileage may vary. > >>From long experience I'd rather not, and undoubtedly the other >>subscribers >would rather I not, engage you in a point-by-point, tit-for-tat >discussion >on the issues at hand. Content that I've made my points, I'll let >yours be >the last words in our particular discussion. > > >Thanks, > >Steve N8GNJ > >-- >Steve Stroh steve@strohpub.com 425-481-0600 > > > > >--- >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 Wed Nov 27 00:13:03 2002 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 AAA12575 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:12:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:05:18 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18GvQe-0003Rs-00*IGcX6PiwbjQ* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <01cb01c295da$f9835c60$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day All... Steve Stroh is not the only TAPR board member on this list. I am also a TAPR board member, although the only time I need to worry about the FCC is when I come to the USA for a holiday or for work. Let me make one thing clear. I am in favour of Part 95 and Part 15 uses of 802.11. IN FAVOUR. >If some hams want to use part 97 for spread= spectrum, I >think TAPR and the amateur community should be behind them >instead of this nitpicking BS/NIH on this SIG I have been seeing. Just because I support the use of 802.11 by hams and non-hams in the same band does not mean that I aggree with the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard'. I believe that Hams have a lot to offer to the Community Wireless and WISP groups, and they have a lot to offer Ham Radio. I keep saying this and people are listening. Other people are saying this too. BUT, I believe that the HSMM is misguided in what they are attempting to do in terms of standardisation. Rear Admiral Grace Hooper once said that the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. This is the problem. Once you get more standards you reduce the availability of your equipment. The reason why the TAPR SS Radio failed was because parts became un-available. The reason that the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard' will untimately fail is that the parts will not be available to everyone who wants to use them. Change the PN code in the radio? I will not be able to use this radio. If the ARRL sells the radio to me as an ARRL member they will be in BIG trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential for a DMCA style court case over that one. Especially now that the Homeland Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC address could be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address of the station. Be careful... As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the ISM band here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one station that is running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio repeater licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a fight. There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so WISP's will not have to worry about it. --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 27 02:31:34 2002 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 CAA16683 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:31:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Make Ham 802.11 Illegal... Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:24:02 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18Gxas-0003sv-00*07T9qXdKSXo* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <01f701c295ee$5a650480$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk People... About a week ago I was at a talk by Australia's (and maybe the worlds) greatest living Ham - VK2DIK - Dick Smith - who was the first person to fly to the north pole, and round the world, in a helicopter. He suggested that the best way to make Ham Radio appealing was to make it illegal. When CB was illegal in Australia Dick sold a huge number of CB radios to teenage males. When he got it legalised, the number of sales dropped to almost nothing. So in Ham Radio what we need to do is make Spread Spectrum on ham bands illegal... That should encourage people to start playing with 802.11 Ham illegally... But it would be hams playing with ham technical standards. Darryl P.S. Who says that Ham Radio needs to be done on Ham Bands anyway... I do a lot of APRS on commercial bands... But it is still Ham Radio :-) --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- 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 Nov 27 05:18:26 2002 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 FAA20964 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:18:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:17:42 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal 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 The FCC shut down the the 72 mile experiment with an enforcement action. Bob N4HY --- 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 Nov 27 06:51:26 2002 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 GAA23313 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:51:24 -0600 (CST) From: Ron Schroeder Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: References: Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:47:04 -0500 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 V6.00.2800.1106 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <05b501c29613$16db21c0$da6cc782@cad.bnl.gov> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi Darryl, This is only true in free space. In buildings and often outside of buildings the polarization disruption eleminates most if not all of that seperation. Once the signal gets difracted by objects, all bets are off. When I try to get maximum range in buildings, I rotate the polarization of the remote antenna for maximum signal and it is hardly ever at it's peak with both antennas at the same polarization. Ron Schroeder WD8CDH Brookhaven National Lab Building 911A Upton NY 11973 631 344-4561 > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > > > polarized. > > > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > > be basically farcical. > > > > Darryl VK2TDS --- 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 Nov 27 07:21:36 2002 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 HAA24344 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:21:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Mike McCarthy, W1NR" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:20:48 -0500 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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: 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 Agere radios use horizontal polarization. Intersil based designs use vertically polarized antenna. Directional antenna used in Point-to-Point are mostly horizontal. Ron is also basically correct in that inside a building, with all of the reflection and multi-path, polarization becomes moot. If one wanted to really separate the HAM community from part 15, then just use different spread sequences. I saw a demonstration during the early days of the 802.11 committee meetings on how to stack up to 60 different users on a single channel using a method of different spread sequences. Of course, the IEEE in their infinite wisdom chose not to adopt it. Mike, W1NR -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-28630@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-28630@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Ron Schroeder Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:47 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Hi Darryl, This is only true in free space. In buildings and often outside of buildings the polarization disruption eleminates most if not all of that seperation. Once the signal gets difracted by objects, all bets are off. When I try to get maximum range in buildings, I rotate the polarization of the remote antenna for maximum signal and it is hardly ever at it's peak with both antennas at the same polarization. Ron Schroeder WD8CDH Brookhaven National Lab Building 911A Upton NY 11973 631 344-4561 > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > > > polarized. > > > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > > be basically farcical. > > > > Darryl VK2TDS --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: w1nr@eecorp.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 Wed Nov 27 13:19:56 2002 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 NAA07867 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:19:52 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:19:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA07867 Hi Darryl: I think you mean you are in favour of Part *97* and Part 15 use of 802.11b. Part 95 here in the U.S. is the 27mhz AM citizen band, FRS, GMRS and the new MURS service. Only ~20khz of bandwidth and the only one of the 4 that allows data is MURS. Having some of the "HSMM" stations in my neck of the woods, I can state that everything I have seen/heard about is just standard 802.11b stuff. No special protocols. Cisco's, Orinco's and Linksys cards make up the stable of RF gear. Some 1-3 watt amps and a assortment of omni and gain antennas. No rocket science here, just some hams dinking with 802.11b gear trying to see what they can do with it. I think the real intent here is just to foster some experimentation on amateur radio spread spectrum. I wouldn't read more then that into it at this point. The only real "standards" I have seen is the desire to standardize 802.11b channel 6 as the ham channel and suggest horizontal polarization. The "changing the protocol' is just talk, the former is action. Not to say it won't happen, but IMHO, the ARRL HSMM fully understands the concept of you have to walk before you can run. Understand, channel one of the 802.11b protocol is the weak signal part of 2.4ghz. Above channel 6 is not in then ham band. I'm referring to the U.S. allocations. Having fellow hams running 802.11b on the weak signal part of 2.4ghz would not be a good idea. Hence, I am in support of some standards here if we ever expect to become part of mainstream amateur radio. A additional benefit of channel 6, if we get a buy in, is next time we go back to the table, it will be that much easier to get spread spectrum as a primary user of the ham band on pare with other part 97 users, at least in that part of the band. Understand, in the U.S., Part 97 spread spectrum users are secondary to any other amateur radio operator. We are limited to 1 watt power output (unless we implement APC) and have to defer to any other amateur radio operator (including ATV as well as weak signal and FM/repeaters). I hope that removes some of the misconceptions. 73 Jeff -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/27/2002 On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:05:18 +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: >G'Day All... > >Steve Stroh is not the only TAPR board member on this list. I am >also a >TAPR board member, although the only time I need to worry about the >FCC >is when I come to the USA for a holiday or for work. > >Let me make one thing clear. I am in favour of Part 95 and Part 15 >uses >of 802.11. IN FAVOUR. > >>If some hams want to use part 97 for spread= spectrum, I >>think TAPR and the amateur community should be behind them >>instead of this nitpicking BS/NIH on this SIG I have been seeing. > >Just because I support the use of 802.11 by hams and non-hams in the >same band does not mean that I aggree with the 'ARRL 802.11 >Standard'. I >believe that Hams have a lot to offer to the Community Wireless and >WISP groups, and they have a lot to offer Ham Radio. I keep saying >this >and people are listening. Other people are saying this too. > >BUT, I believe that the HSMM is misguided in what they are >attempting to >do in terms of standardisation. Rear Admiral Grace Hooper once said >that >the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose >from. This is the problem. Once you get more standards you reduce the >availability of your equipment. > >The reason why the TAPR SS Radio failed was because parts became >un-available. The reason that the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard' will >untimately >fail is that the parts will not be available to everyone who wants to >use them. > >Change the PN code in the radio? I will not be able to use this >radio. >If the ARRL sells the radio to me as an ARRL member they will be in >BIG >trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential for a >DMCA >style court case over that one. Especially now that the Homeland >Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC address >could >be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address of the >station. Be careful... > >As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the ISM >band >here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one station >that is >running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio repeater >licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a >fight. >There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so WISP's >will not have to worry about it. > >--------- >Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia >Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] >Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > >--- >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 Wed Nov 27 13:36:58 2002 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 NAA08922 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:36:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Stephen Nichols" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ISP in a box Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:36:31 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal 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://news.com.com/2100-1033-959924.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 From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Nov 27 15:14:21 2002 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 PAA13471 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:14:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: HSMM Experimenters Group Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:13:43 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA13471 > trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential > for a DMCA > style court case over that one. Especially now that the Homeland > Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC > address could > be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address of the > station. Be careful... Hmm, I dunno, because the modified MAC address becomes station identification, and the modification can be software controlled (iwconfig on a Linux box anyone?). Besides, there is already a precedent set by packet radio, as effectively, the MAC address of packet is the callsign/SSID combination, similar to what's proposed here. And using the callsign DOES identify who is in control of the transmission, so if a closer inspection of the equipment is warranted, the authorities know which door to knock on... > As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the ISM band > here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one > station that is > running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio repeater > licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a fight. > There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so WISP's > will not have to worry about it. Which repeater's that? Just curious... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- 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 Nov 28 13:27:38 2002 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 NAA25208 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:27:25 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.199] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ARRL 802.11b Protocols Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:26:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2002 19:26:28.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CB231A0:01C29714] 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 Greetings! For all the folks out there on this webpage who would like to disagree with the changes being made by the adoption of the ARRL 802.11b Protocols at our HSMM Experimental Test Nodes, you may be disappointed to find that, at least at present, we have proposed no changes in adopting IEEE 802.11 standards to Part 97. Basically, what we have agreed on is standardized operational protocols: --exclusive use of horizontal polarization - mobile, portable and fixed. --exclusive use of 2437 MHz center frequency (Part 15's channel 6) --use of our callsigns in lower case for the SSID (beacon signal) --optional automatic link up with APRS on 144.39 MHz for HSMM station and/or node location identification(designated by a diamond shaped "access point" symbol with the number "8" inside)...Jeff King is still working out the details of that one with the APRS folks --local voice coordinating frequency when in the vicinity of an HSMM node. This is for "talk-in" help into-the-network-type assistance and sometimes even talk-in to the node (i.e., for directions...HI) to get a bit better throughput. We currently use 446.00 MHz FM (the National Simplex Calling Frequency) using low power 1-5 watt rigs at the node, for this purpose. HSMM Debates: Chief, at the moment among these internal debates, is the HSMM has determined how to best change the center frequency away from 2437 MHz, say to 2439 MHz. The League isn't in the hardware business, so somebody else would have to sell these modified cards. However, so far, most HSMM Working Group members have argued against doing changing the test node frequencies. Their main rationale is that the primary purpose of developing the ARRL 802.11b Protocols is to provide high speed multimedia networks for the support of emergency communications and other public service activities. Moving the nodes away from 2437 MHz may prevent a Ham equipped with a IEEE 802.11b standard Radio LAN (RLAN) card in an emergency situation from connecting to an HSMM node because he doesn't have one of the "special ARRL 802.11b cards" operating on 2439 MHz. That's probably good reasoning. Future development areas: --HSMM is opening an SS webpage in the next few days on the ARRL web, and yes, it will contain a link to TAPR, thank you, and other sites. --HSMM is planning to file an STA through the ARRL with the FCC in February requesting permission, among other things, to operate SS under Part 97 running up to 10 watts output before Automatic Power Control (APR) is required. Currently the level is set at 1 watt RF output. We have several HSMM test nodes wishing to operate with 1-4 watts output without having to design an APR system. Any other FCC SS regulations that need relaxing, in your opinions??? --HSMM link-up with ICOM's D-Star digital voice system on 1.2 GHz and 10 GHz when the product finishes its current testing in Japan and is released to the US. Any other SS areas the HSMM should be researching??? Let's hear from you. Thank you. Vy 73, John Champa - K8OCL ARRL Chairman HSMM Working Group k8ocl@arrl.net From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 27, 2002 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:00:31 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Wednesday, November 27, 2002. 1. RE: HSMM Experimenters Group 2. Make Ham 802.11 Illegal... 3. Re: Part 15 a very bad idea 4. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 5. RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... 6. RE: HSMM Experimenters Group 7. ISP in a box 8. RE: HSMM Experimenters Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: HSMM Experimenters Group From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:05:18 +1100 X-Message-Number: 1 G'Day All... Steve Stroh is not the only TAPR board member on this list. I am also a TAPR board member, although the only time I need to worry about the FCC is when I come to the USA for a holiday or for work. Let me make one thing clear. I am in favour of Part 95 and Part 15 uses of 802.11. IN FAVOUR. >If some hams want to use part 97 for spread= spectrum, I >think TAPR and the amateur community should be behind them >instead of this nitpicking BS/NIH on this SIG I have been seeing. Just because I support the use of 802.11 by hams and non-hams in the same band does not mean that I aggree with the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard'. I believe that Hams have a lot to offer to the Community Wireless and WISP groups, and they have a lot to offer Ham Radio. I keep saying this and people are listening. Other people are saying this too. BUT, I believe that the HSMM is misguided in what they are attempting to do in terms of standardisation. Rear Admiral Grace Hooper once said that the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. This is the problem. Once you get more standards you reduce the availability of your equipment. The reason why the TAPR SS Radio failed was because parts became un-available. The reason that the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard' will untimately fail is that the parts will not be available to everyone who wants to use them. Change the PN code in the radio? I will not be able to use this radio. If the ARRL sells the radio to me as an ARRL member they will be in BIG trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential for a DMCA style court case over that one. Especially now that the Homeland Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC address could be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address of the station. Be careful... As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the ISM band here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one station that is running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio repeater licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a fight. There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so WISP's will not have to worry about it. --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Make Ham 802.11 Illegal... From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:24:02 +1100 X-Message-Number: 2 People... About a week ago I was at a talk by Australia's (and maybe the worlds) greatest living Ham - VK2DIK - Dick Smith - who was the first person to fly to the north pole, and round the world, in a helicopter. He suggested that the best way to make Ham Radio appealing was to make it illegal. When CB was illegal in Australia Dick sold a huge number of CB radios to teenage males. When he got it legalised, the number of sales dropped to almost nothing. So in Ham Radio what we need to do is make Spread Spectrum on ham bands illegal... That should encourage people to start playing with 802.11 Ham illegally... But it would be hams playing with ham technical standards. Darryl P.S. Who says that Ham Radio needs to be done on Ham Bands anyway... I do a lot of APRS on commercial bands... But it is still Ham Radio :-) --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Part 15 a very bad idea From: Robert McGwier Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:17:42 -0500 X-Message-Number: 3 The FCC shut down the the 72 mile experiment with an enforcement action. Bob N4HY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: Ron Schroeder Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:47:04 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 Hi Darryl, This is only true in free space. In buildings and often outside of buildings the polarization disruption eleminates most if not all of that seperation. Once the signal gets difracted by objects, all bets are off. When I try to get maximum range in buildings, I rotate the polarization of the remote antenna for maximum signal and it is hardly ever at it's peak with both antennas at the same polarization. Ron Schroeder WD8CDH Brookhaven National Lab Building 911A Upton NY 11973 631 344-4561 > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > > > polarized. > > > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > > be basically farcical. > > > > Darryl VK2TDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... From: "Mike McCarthy, W1NR" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:20:48 -0500 X-Message-Number: 5 Agere radios use horizontal polarization. Intersil based designs use vertically polarized antenna. Directional antenna used in Point-to-Point are mostly horizontal. Ron is also basically correct in that inside a building, with all of the reflection and multi-path, polarization becomes moot. If one wanted to really separate the HAM community from part 15, then just use different spread sequences. I saw a demonstration during the early days of the 802.11 committee meetings on how to stack up to 60 different users on a single channel using a method of different spread sequences. Of course, the IEEE in their infinite wisdom chose not to adopt it. Mike, W1NR -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-28630@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-28630@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Ron Schroeder Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:47 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE:ARRL HSMM Working Group.... Hi Darryl, This is only true in free space. In buildings and often outside of buildings the polarization disruption eleminates most if not all of that seperation. Once the signal gets difracted by objects, all bets are off. When I try to get maximum range in buildings, I rotate the polarization of the remote antenna for maximum signal and it is hardly ever at it's peak with both antennas at the same polarization. Ron Schroeder WD8CDH Brookhaven National Lab Building 911A Upton NY 11973 631 344-4561 > >>Part 15 users are, for all practical purposes, all vertically > > > > polarized. > > > >>That provides a theoretical 20-25 dB separation between us and them. > > > > Once the ISP's realise that they can double the number of access points > > with horizontal polarisation, I think that the ability for hams to use > > Horizontal as a way to stay away from commercial interests is going to > > be basically farcical. > > > > Darryl VK2TDS --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: w1nr@eecorp.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: HSMM Experimenters Group From: Jeff King Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:19:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 Hi Darryl: I think you mean you are in favour of Part *97* and Part 15 use= of 802.11b. Part 95 here in the U.S. is the 27mhz AM citizen band, FRS, GMRS= and the new MURS service. Only ~20khz of bandwidth and the only one of the 4= that allows data is MURS. Having some of the "HSMM" stations in my neck of the woods, I can= state that everything I have seen/heard about is just standard 802.11b= stuff. No special protocols. Cisco's, Orinco's and Linksys cards make up the stable= of RF gear. Some 1-3 watt amps and a assortment of omni and gain antennas. No= rocket science here, just some hams dinking with 802.11b gear trying to= see what they can do with it. I think the real intent here is just to foster some= experimentation on amateur radio spread spectrum. I wouldn't read more then that= into it at this point. The only real "standards" I have seen is the desire to= standardize 802.11b channel 6 as the ham channel and suggest horizontal polarization.= The "changing the protocol' is just talk, the former is action. Not= to say it won't happen, but IMHO, the ARRL HSMM fully understands the= concept of you have to walk before you can run. Understand, channel one of the 802.11b protocol is the weak= signal part of 2.4ghz. Above channel 6 is not in then ham band. I'm referring to= the U.S. allocations. Having fellow hams running 802.11b on the weak= signal part of 2.4ghz would not be a good idea. Hence, I am in support of some= standards here if we ever expect to become part of mainstream amateur= radio. A additional benefit of channel 6, if we get a buy in, is next= time we go back to the table, it will be that much easier to get spread= spectrum as a primary user of the ham band on pare with other part 97 users, at= least in that part of the band. Understand, in the U.S., Part 97 spread= spectrum users are secondary to any other amateur radio operator. We are limited= to 1 watt power output (unless we implement APC) and have to defer to any= other amateur radio operator (including ATV as well as weak signal and= FM/repeaters). I hope that removes some of the misconceptions. 73 Jeff -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/27/2002 On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:05:18 +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: >G'Day All... > >Steve Stroh is not the only TAPR board member on this list. I= am >also a >TAPR board member, although the only time I need to worry about= the >FCC >is when I come to the USA for a holiday or for work. > >Let me make one thing clear. I am in favour of Part 95 and Part= 15 >uses >of 802.11. IN FAVOUR. > >>If some hams want to use part 97 for spread=3D spectrum, I >>think TAPR and the amateur community should be behind them >>instead of this nitpicking BS/NIH on this SIG I have been= seeing. > >Just because I support the use of 802.11 by hams and non-hams in= the >same band does not mean that I aggree with the 'ARRL 802.11 >Standard'. I >believe that Hams have a lot to offer to the Community Wireless = and >WISP groups, and they have a lot to offer Ham Radio. I keep= saying >this >and people are listening. Other people are saying this too. > >BUT, I believe that the HSMM is misguided in what they are >attempting to >do in terms of standardisation. Rear Admiral Grace Hooper once= said >that >the great thing about standards is that there are so many to= choose >from. This is the problem. Once you get more standards you= reduce the >availability of your equipment. > >The reason why the TAPR SS Radio failed was because parts= became >un-available. The reason that the 'ARRL 802.11 Standard' will >untimately >fail is that the parts will not be available to everyone who= wants to >use them. > >Change the PN code in the radio? I will not be able to use this >radio. >If the ARRL sells the radio to me as an ARRL member they will be= in >BIG >trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential for= a >DMCA >style court case over that one. Especially now that the= Homeland >Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC= address >could >be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address= of the >station. Be careful... > >As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the= ISM >band >here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one= station >that is >running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio= repeater >licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a >fight. >There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so= WISP's >will not have to worry about it. > >--------- >Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia >Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] >Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: jeff@aerodata.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to= leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ISP in a box From: "Stephen Nichols" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:36:31 -0700 X-Message-Number: 7 http://news.com.com/2100-1033-959924.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: HSMM Experimenters Group From: Tony Langdon Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:13:43 +1100 X-Message-Number: 8 > trouble. Changing the MAC address... I can see the potential=20 > for a DMCA > style court case over that one. Especially now that the Homeland > Security bill has been signed. The modification to the MAC=20 > address could > be shown to be a method of obscuring the real hardware address of the > station. Be careful... Hmm, I dunno, because the modified MAC address becomes station identification, and the modification can be software controlled = (iwconfig on a Linux box anyone?). Besides, there is already a precedent set by = packet radio, as effectively, the MAC address of packet is the callsign/SSID combination, similar to what's proposed here. And using the callsign = DOES identify who is in control of the transmission, so if a closer = inspection of the equipment is warranted, the authorities know which door to knock = on... > As and adjunct I did a search of frequency allocations in the ISM = band > here in Oz state wide. I found that there is exactly one=20 > station that is > running 150w PEP on 802.11b Channel 1. It is a Ham Radio repeater > licensed for ATV. I can see which would win if there was ever a = fight. > There is luck that the repeater is in the middle of nowhere so WISP's > will not have to worry about it. Which repeater's that? Just curious... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002 =20 This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = sender. --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --- 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 Nov 28 14:05:46 2002 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 OAA26386 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:05:45 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:03:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 a very bad idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id OAA26386 Bob: Do you have more info on this (like a link)? In light of their recent power reduction, I'd be interested in reading what rules they were in violation of. Thanks -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 11/28/2002 On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:17:42 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote: >The FCC shut down the the 72 mile experiment with an enforcement >action. > >Bob N4HY > > > >--- >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 Thu Nov 28 23:46:17 2002 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 XAA12883 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:46:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: ARRL 802.11b Protocols Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:38:33 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Scanner: exiscan *18Hdxs-00089Z-00*uoGrKq62BI6* on Astaro Security Linux 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: <000001c29769$91b73b20$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk John Champa - K8OCL noted >For all the folks out there on this webpage who would like to disagree with >the changes being made by the adoption of the ARRL 802.11b Protocols at our >HSMM Experimental Test Nodes, you may be disappointed to find that, at least >at present, we have proposed no changes in adopting IEEE 802.11 standards to >Part 97. Basically, what we have agreed on is standardized operational >protocols: I am interested, is this a change from the 17th of October. I am not wanting to get into any type of flame war or anything like that here... I just want to know exactly what is going to be proposed... You noted that you have not at present proposed changes to the underlying 802.11 protocols, but in the following quote from the 17th of October you basically said that you were calling papers 'development of a suitable protocol, exactly as the early AX.25 Team did years ago.' I have two sticking points with the HSMM proposal. 1. Horizontal Polarisation - although this is one I can live with because it will be ignored anyway 2. Protocol Changes. Protocol changes is the one thing that will in my mind determine if I promote the ARRL standard, or actively promote non-use of the standard. >From 17 October... >Well, it's not much, but that is about how far we have gotten...in writing, >at least. Additional constructive input to the protocol design would be >most welcomed. The ARRL HSMM WG member responsible for protocol development >is Kris Mraz, N5KM, [kilo.mike@gte.net]. Kris is working up a "Call for >Papers" to be published soon requesting specific design, software, etc. >input from the amateur community in the development of a suitable protocol, >exactly as the early AX.25 Team did years ago. So TAPR can take this as a >pre-call call for help! (HI). Also it is interesting to note that since that date the SSID has gone from UPPER CASE to LOWER CASE Darryl P.S. These are my views only. They are not TAPR's --- 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 Nov 30 08:56:29 2002 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 IAA11380 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:56:27 -0600 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [12.111.229.199] Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "John Champa" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ARRL HSMM Working Group Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:55:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2002 14:55:50.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[92C6E7A0:01C29880] 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 Darryl, Thanks for your comments. We will always try to quickly respond. 1. Use whatever polarization you want for your SS station. As I mentioned before, you can try to work 2M SSB DX using a vertical beam. You may even have some success. It's just not the accepted norm at this time but you can "ignore" the norm if you select to do so. Horizontal polarization really seems to work noticeably better, especially in amongst the trees. It's the test results that count in the end, right? 2. Keep in mind that the HSMM working Group has a research and educational function as well as a standards setting function. Kris is preoccupied with getting the April (?) QST article on SS finalized, as he should be. Many Hams don't have a clue as to what SS is at this time. So Kris has not yet issued a Call for Papers for an ARRL HSMM Protocol from TAPR, etc. Subsequently, we haven't made any formal recommendations yet in that regard. But it is coming. That's all I was stating. Your support of no changes or possible proposed changes, is your decision. For example, you can choose to "support" or not the ARRL HSMM Protocols, e.g., you can use FHSS instead of DSSS, etc. Back to my HSMM testing...we are getting ready to test circular polarization next week at one of the HSMM test nodes. Vy 73, John - K8OCL ARRL Chairman HSMM Working Group k8ocl@arrl.net From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: November 29, 2002 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:00:11 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Friday, November 29, 2002. 1. RE: ARRL 802.11b Protocols ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: ARRL 802.11b Protocols From: "Darryl Smith" Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:38:33 +1100 X-Message-Number: 1 John Champa - K8OCL noted >For all the folks out there on this webpage who would like to disagree with >the changes being made by the adoption of the ARRL 802.11b Protocols at our >HSMM Experimental Test Nodes, you may be disappointed to find that, at least >at present, we have proposed no changes in adopting IEEE 802.11 standards to >Part 97. Basically, what we have agreed on is standardized operational >protocols: I am interested, is this a change from the 17th of October. I am not wanting to get into any type of flame war or anything like that here... I just want to know exactly what is going to be proposed... You noted that you have not at present proposed changes to the underlying 802.11 protocols, but in the following quote from the 17th of October you basically said that you were calling papers 'development of a suitable protocol, exactly as the early AX.25 Team did years ago.' I have two sticking points with the HSMM proposal. 1. Horizontal Polarization - although this is one I can live with because it will be ignored anyway 2. Protocol Changes. Protocol changes is the one thing that will in my mind determine if I promote the ARRL standard, or actively promote non-use of the standard. >From 17 October... >Well, it's not much, but that is about how far we have gotten...in writing, >at least. Additional constructive input to the protocol design would be >most welcomed. The ARRL HSMM WG member responsible for protocol development >is Kris Mraz, N5KM, [kilo.mike@gte.net]. Kris is working up a "Call for >Papers" to be published soon requesting specific design, software, etc. >input from the amateur community in the development of a suitable protocol, >exactly as the early AX.25 Team did years ago. So TAPR can take this as a >pre-call call for help! (HI). Also it is interesting to note that since that date the SSID has gone from UPPER CASE to LOWER CASE Darryl P.S. These are my views only. They are not TAPR's --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k8ocl@hotmail.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org