From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 1 16:00:52 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA19426 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:00:51 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:58:39 +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 QAA19426 > Once again I see that the list processor for this group is > misconfigured. It's adding a "Reply-To:" header that points > to the list. > This makes it tedious in most mailers to compose replies to > the original > sender of an article (with or without a copy to the list). > > Can somebody please fix this by removing this header? Thanks. Hmm, trying to start a religious argument, are we? ;-) It's definitely a religious argument, and there's arguments both ways. I'm on other lists which have people of similar technical knowledge who are complaining that replies don't go to the list by default! Really, the best we can do is just accept what the list admin has setup, because either way, you're going to get people complaining. Introducing a change is the surest way to make that happen! :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002 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 Jan 1 16:40:25 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA21885 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:40:24 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:39:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers 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 QAA21885 It is mis-configured. Religion has nothing to do with it. There is supposed to be one standard for the TAPR lists, and as I recall, when there was a "religious war" on this very topic on the APRS-SIG sometime back (which, BTW, is configured correctly now), it was stated that there would be one standard for all the TAPR lists. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 1/1/2003 On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:58:39 +1100, Tony Langdon wrote: >> Once again I see that the list processor for this group is >> misconfigured. It's adding a "Reply-To:" header that points >> to the list. >> This makes it tedious in most mailers to compose replies to >> the original >> sender of an article (with or without a copy to the list). >> >> Can somebody please fix this by removing this header? Thanks. > >Hmm, trying to start a religious argument, are we? ;-) It's definitely a >religious argument, and there's arguments both ways. I'm on other lists >which have people of similar technical knowledge who are complaining that >replies don't go to the list by default! > >Really, the best we can do is just accept what the list admin has setup, >because either way, you're going to get people complaining. Introducing a >change is the surest way to make that happen! :-) > >--- >Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002 > > >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: 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 Jan 1 18:03:20 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA26439 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:03:20 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:02:36 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: <20030102000236.GA13319@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:58:39AM +1100, Tony Langdon wrote: > Hmm, trying to start a religious argument, are we? ;-) It's definitely a > religious argument, and there's arguments both ways. I'm on other lists It shouldn't be religious as there are good reasons not to munge reply-to. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > which have people of similar technical knowledge who are complaining that > replies don't go to the list by default! That's because they're using a poor MUA (mail user agent, or mail reader) or not using it properly. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 1 18:14:21 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA26787 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:14:14 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:13:21 +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 SAA26787 > It shouldn't be religious as there are good reasons not to munge > reply-to. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html There's also a counter to that page as well. Can't remember the URL... > That's because they're using a poor MUA (mail user agent, or mail > reader) or not using it properly. Most MUAs (especially Windoze ones) suck in this respect. There should be a "reply to list" function in them all. Reply to all doesn't cut it, ppl get peeved by getting the CC'd email (or having to delete the direct one to stop the other person getting peeved! :)). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002 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 Jan 1 23:25:58 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA08507 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:25:57 -0600 (CST) From: ss@ka9q.net To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: ss@lists.tapr.org Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-Id: Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:07:12 -0800 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 >>It shouldn't be religious as there are good reasons not to munge >> reply-to. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I wasn't aware of this page until now. It's outstanding. Says everything I'd say. >Most MUAs (especially Windoze ones) suck in this respect. There should be a >"reply to list" function in them all. Reply to all doesn't cut it, ppl get >peeved by getting the CC'd email (or having to delete the direct one to stop >the other person getting peeved! :)). That doesn't cut it. When I respond to a list message, as a courtesy I *want* to give that person an advance opportunity to respond. So in addition to sending to the list, I *specifically* want to send a courtesy copy direct to the person to whom I'm replying. The person to whom I'm replying might automatically sort (e.g., with procmail) mailing list traffic into a separate folder that he doesn't read as often as his regular email. Even if he he does read the list regularly, if it's high volume he might easily miss my message. Also, the list processor might be slow (especially if the list has many subscribers and a lot of traffic), so he might not get his copy for some time. On rare occasions, someone will ask me not to send them courtesy copies. In those cases, I honor the request. But most people seem to appreciate them, as I do when others send me courtesy copies of their replies to my list messages. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 2 00:57:46 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA11778 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:57:44 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:56:24 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: <20030102065624.GA15418@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:07:12PM -0800, ss@ka9q.net wrote: > On rare occasions, someone will ask me not to send them courtesy > copies. In those cases, I honor the request. But most people seem to > appreciate them, as I do when others send me courtesy copies of their > replies to my list messages. There's a mail header field called Mail-Followup-To which an MUA can use to control this, if you don't want to receive courtesy copies. In "Mutt", the group reply command uses the mail-followup-to if present. For example, the Mail-Followup-To on this post would give the list address only, indicating that I don't want courtesy copies. (I don't get too upset if I receive them anyway, though.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 2 09:19:25 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA25946 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:19:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconimobile.com Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 01/02/2003 04:17:19 PM 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 only issue with this is that the RF Front Ends on the 802.11 > > equipment is quite wide. I suspect that there will be some adjacent > > channel interference meaning that the overall network capacity is not > > quite double. How much less is not certain. > Do you have any numbers that could quantify this? I've long been > interested in just how good (or bad) 802.11b RF front ends are, on both > the TX and RX sides. What does the spectrum of a typical 802.11b card > look like -- is there any filtering at all, or do you see a typical > sin(x)/x spectrum? Tx modulation envelope is given in the 802.11 spec. Sidelobes must be suppressed so filtering is required. I did some co-site measurements on some 2.4GHz devices; although not WLAN they use common WLAN components and the same RF circuit arrangements. I needed to answer some basic questions for demonstrating a repeater at 2.4GHz. I measured the Tx noise level at channels far away from the carrier. I calculated (datasheet) values for the 1dB compression point of the receiver front-end LNA/mixer. Reciprocal mixing with Rx LO noise is also a performance limiting factor, but it was figured that the Tx LO was the same thing and with modulation and PA so the Tx noise would always be worse. These results both suggested attenuation of around 45dB would be needed between a near transmitter and a receiver so as not to degrade its sensitivity to a weak signal I constructed a test setup using a screened low-level "wanted" signal transmitter and a high-level "interferer" transmitter mixed at different levels and fed to a receiver. The low-level signal level was set so that it was just above receiver threshold and the interferer level increased until the wanted signal was lost. Measured results showed 50dB and on some channels 55dB isolation was required between the interfering transmitter and the receiver to avoid degraded Rx sensitivity. This translates into a horizontal separation of dipoles of the order of 10m. 40dB isolation was easily achieved by stacking 2 dipoles vertically with a horizontal metal plate between; 50dB is achievable with accurate positioning and with no reflecting objects nearby; only practical outdoors. Otherwise you're looking at cavity filters or directional antennas if you must put them close together. As the emissions of WLAN are broader-bandwidth, using sufficient channel separation may be more of an issue. But as a general rule to derive from this, keep your AP's or antennas at least 10m apart if you want them to work on different channels at the same time. These results were at 50mW; if you're jacking up the Tx power then isolation must be increased pro-rata. Some cards may be worse if they use lower levels in the Tx modulation chain or LNA's with lower compression points. When this transceiver was designed, we were paying attention to these issues; WLAN RF designers probably rate co-site of little importance. Also bear in mind the screening effectiveness of a WLAN card at 2.4GHz is not great and two WLAN cards in the same PC are likely to block one another irrespective of what kind of antennas you use. The bus-connector end of a PCMCIA card cannot be closed effectively, and is typically left open, leaving a nice slot-length for coupling RF in and out of the card. Keep at least 0.5m physical separation between cards, unless you build additional screening boxes effective at 2.4GHz. All this only matters if cards are on *different* channels; in a typical SOHO using one frequency the desks don't have to be 10m apart! 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 Thu Jan 2 15:32:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA26147 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:32:54 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Bogus Reply-To: headers Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 08:32:04 +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 PAA26147 > There's a mail header field called Mail-Followup-To which an > MUA can use > to control this, if you don't want to receive courtesy copies. In > "Mutt", the group reply command uses the mail-followup-to if present. I suspect only decent MUAs support this (i.e. what 90% of the population don't use). Would be a nice solution... > For example, the Mail-Followup-To on this post would give the list > address only, indicating that I don't want courtesy copies. > (I don't get > too upset if I receive them anyway, though.) I just delete the extra email, but they do tend to clutter things a bit. On my older setup,I used to have the problem of not knowing if the CC was really a CC or a direct reply, but that's not an issue now. Might have to try playing with the Mail-Followup-To: header... Anyway, back to SS. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002 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 Jan 3 08:04:20 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA23498 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 08:04:19 -0600 (CST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 08:52:25 -0500 Subject: [ss] Get Published and Extend Your TAPR Membership! From: Stan Horzepa To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk TAPR members: The editorial board of Packet Status Register (PSR, the quarterly Newsletter of TAPR) is now soliciting articles, news items, etc. for the next issue of the newsletter. Topics related to digital Amateur Radio will be given preference and the editorial board reserves the right to determine what is suitable for publication. As a bonus, if your contribution is published in PSR, your TAPR membership will be extended by 3 months. E-mail your contributions to wa1lou@tapr.org ASAP because the deadline for the next issue of the newsletter is January 26. 73, Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, PSR Editor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 3 12:12:00 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA06496 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:11:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconimobile.com Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 18:11:45 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 01/03/2003 07:10:00 PM 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 > > Do you have any numbers that could quantify this? I've long been > > interested in just how good (or bad) 802.11b RF front ends are, on both > > the TX and RX sides. What does the spectrum of a typical 802.11b card > > look like -- is there any filtering at all, or do you see a typical > > sin(x)/x spectrum? > Tx modulation envelope is given in the 802.11 spec. > Sidelobes must be suppressed so filtering is required. I've just been looking up the FCC ID of the Linksys WPC-11 DSSS card to see what the FCC has on it. FCC ID O7J-GL2411010700 (that's oscar seven juliet...) https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/oet/forms/reports/Search_Form.hts?mode=Edit&form=Exhibits&application_id=98545&fcc_id=O7J-GL2411010700 The grantee is "Global Sun Tech" or "Global Sun Communications Inc" Taiwan (who seem to make cards & APs for everybody). There is a spectrum analyser plot of the modulated output given for a test mode at Tx 100% duty. Tx power (of the sample tested) was: Ch1 16.6dBm Ch6 18.9dBm Ch11 17.2 dBm Hmm, the power levelling isn't very good. There are advantages to using the middle of the band. Full schematics for the WPC-11 are given. Schematics of the GL2411AP are also in there. 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 Sat Jan 4 18:44:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA25945 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:44:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Spectrum Analyser for 2.4 GHz Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 11:45:04 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Scanner: exiscan *18UytA-00021y-00*nQOHeqHuqBE* 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: <029201c2b453$b00f4070$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk People I see the need for a spectrum analyser for 2.4 Ghz for the people playing with 802.11 - Hams and Non-Hams. Something with a PIC processor that outputs the signal out a serial port to something like a palm pilot for display. Block Diagram VCO slightly higher in frequency Mixed with signal from antenna Filtered at 45MHz, 70MHz, etc band Energy Detect. I was thinking maybe 100 KHz bandwidth for the filter which should not be too hard. Energy detect with a Log Amp from Analog Devices. Possible other filter bandwidths too. As far as I can see this should not be to hard to do. Most of the components should be available cheap from MiniCircuits or Analog Devices. For instance Minicircuit have a couple of interesting VCO's JTOS-3000P 2300-2600 MHz 21.95 JTOS-3000 2300-3000 MHz 20.95 Anyone interested in taking this project on? 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 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 4 21:15:56 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA03433 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:15:56 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: res17bmr@incoming.verizon.net Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:14:39 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: DerekLassen Subject: [ss] Idea for Spectrum Analyzer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at out005.verizon.net from [4.47.48.129] at Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:15:10 -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: <5.1.0.14.2.20030104190605.021cb0c0@incoming.verizon.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Here is a pointer to a project that might provide useful pieces. As it currently stands, its for audio (slow A/D), but faster A/D devices abound. And, its USB hosted. http://www.sevenlands.co.uk/mscope --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 6 03:21:49 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA11640 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 03:21:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconimobile.com Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 01/02/2003 04:17:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio 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 X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: bounce-ss-29418@lists.tapr.org > > The only issue with this is that the RF Front Ends on the 802.11 > > equipment is quite wide. I suspect that there will be some adjacent > > channel interference meaning that the overall network capacity is not > > quite double. How much less is not certain. > Do you have any numbers that could quantify this? I've long been > interested in just how good (or bad) 802.11b RF front ends are, on both > the TX and RX sides. What does the spectrum of a typical 802.11b card > look like -- is there any filtering at all, or do you see a typical > sin(x)/x spectrum? Tx modulation envelope is given in the 802.11 spec. Sidelobes must be suppressed so filtering is required. I did some co-site measurements on some 2.4GHz devices; although not WLAN they use common WLAN components and the same RF circuit arrangements. I needed to answer some basic questions for demonstrating a repeater at 2.4GHz. I measured the Tx noise level at channels far away from the carrier. I calculated (datasheet) values for the 1dB compression point of the receiver front-end LNA/mixer. Reciprocal mixing with Rx LO noise is also a performance limiting factor, but it was figured that the Tx LO was the same thing and with modulation and PA so the Tx noise would always be worse. These results both suggested attenuation of around 45dB would be needed between a near transmitter and a receiver so as not to degrade its sensitivity to a weak signal I constructed a test setup using a screened low-level "wanted" signal transmitter and a high-level "interferer" transmitter mixed at different levels and fed to a receiver. The low-level signal level was set so that it was just above receiver threshold and the interferer level increased until the wanted signal was lost. Measured results showed 50dB and on some channels 55dB isolation was required between the interfering transmitter and the receiver to avoid degraded Rx sensitivity. This translates into a horizontal separation of dipoles of the order of 10m. 40dB isolation was easily achieved by stacking 2 dipoles vertically with a horizontal metal plate between; 50dB is achievable with accurate positioning and with no reflecting objects nearby; only practical outdoors. Otherwise you're looking at cavity filters or directional antennas if you must put them close together. As the emissions of WLAN are broader-bandwidth, using sufficient channel separation may be more of an issue. But as a general rule to derive from this, keep your AP's or antennas at least 10m apart if you want them to work on different channels at the same time. These results were at 50mW; if you're jacking up the Tx power then isolation must be increased pro-rata. Some cards may be worse if they use lower levels in the Tx modulation chain or LNA's with lower compression points. When this transceiver was designed, we were paying attention to these issues; WLAN RF designers probably rate co-site of little importance. Also bear in mind the screening effectiveness of a WLAN card at 2.4GHz is not great and two WLAN cards in the same PC are likely to block one another irrespective of what kind of antennas you use. The bus-connector end of a PCMCIA card cannot be closed effectively, and is typically left open, leaving a nice slot-length for coupling RF in and out of the card. Keep at least 0.5m physical separation between cards, unless you build additional screening boxes effective at 2.4GHz. All this only matters if cards are on *different* channels; in a typical SOHO using one frequency the desks don't have to be 10m apart! Ant M1FDE --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: yubingz@21cn.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 Mon Jan 6 07:24:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA17890 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:24:52 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:24:01 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1B8C@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Anthony, This is interesting and seems to bear out what I've seen regarding placement of .11x APs. I'm scheduled to run some coexistence tests, probably a little more than a month from now, with .11FH and .11b systems. The two would be used in the same spaces, overlapping each other. (A preliminary test, done before I got here, indicated a minimum separation of around 4 meters between APs was required.) Do you or anyone else know of similar tests having already been performed? This mixing of systems is currently being done at some other places, but no one seems to have done any measurements, at least that I know of. None of the others seem to be experiencing problems, but none of the systems are heavily loaded, according to the information I have. Rick Hampton Wireless Communications Manager Partners HealthCare Systems One Constitution Center, 2nd Floor Charlestown, MA 02129 Phone: 617-726-6633 > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconimobile.com > [SMTP:Anthony.N.Martin@marconimobile.com] > > This translates into a horizontal separation of dipoles of > the order of 10m. > > 40dB isolation was easily achieved by stacking 2 dipoles > vertically with a horizontal metal plate between; > 50dB is achievable with accurate positioning and with > no reflecting objects nearby; only practical outdoors. > Otherwise you're looking at cavity filters or directional > antennas if you must put them close together. > > As the emissions of WLAN are broader-bandwidth, using > sufficient channel separation may be more of an issue. > > But as a general rule to derive from this, keep your > AP's or antennas at least 10m apart if you want them > to work on different channels at the same time. > > > 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 Jan 6 09:04:32 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA22389 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:04:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Stroh" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:01:42 -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's not well known that MobileStar deployed Proxim RangeLAN II (FHSS) AP's for some time before adding 802.11b APs into public spaces. In an interview I did with MobileStar shortly before they went into bankruptcy, they stated that they would be continuing this dual AP policy as they began to deploy into Starbucks coffee shops. Like you have discovered, the major factor in successful coexistence between the two systems was physical separation, after which they worked fine (by MobileStar's account). Once VoiceStream / T-Mobile bought MobileStar's assets out of bankruptcy, I doubt that they had a contractual obligation to continue to support the RangeLAN II users as MobileStar did. You might be able to find someone at Proxim who could speak to this, though Proxim seems to have completely renounced their interest in FHSS with the acquisition of the Lucent / Agere / Orinoco 802.11b products and the corresponding large market share of 802.11b products. 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 Hampton, Rickey L. > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 05:24 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Linksys 802.11b signal amp > > > Anthony, > > This is interesting and seems to bear out what I've seen > regarding placement of > .11x APs. > > I'm scheduled to run some coexistence tests, probably a little > more than a month > from now, with .11FH and .11b systems. The two would be used in the same > spaces, overlapping each other. (A preliminary test, done before > I got here, > indicated a minimum separation of around 4 meters between APs was > required.) Do > you or anyone else know of similar tests having already been performed? > > This mixing of systems is currently being done at some other > places, but no one > seems to have done any measurements, at least that I know of. None of the > others seem to be experiencing problems, but none of the systems > are heavily > loaded, according to the information I have. > > Rick Hampton > Wireless Communications Manager > Partners HealthCare Systems > One Constitution Center, 2nd Floor > Charlestown, MA 02129 > > Phone: 617-726-6633 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 11 09:33:57 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA21608 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:33:55 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:33:17 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] ARRLWeb: High Speed Multimedia Hamming Could Be the Next Big Thing 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: <3E20393D.2C20C932@texas.net> Precedence: bulk http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/10/3/?nc=1 FYI. -- 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 Sun Jan 12 23:56:21 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA27701 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:56:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Pinfold" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: Qestion for readers Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:53:20 +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 V5.00.2615.200 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <004d01c2bac8$1514b7a0$2901a8c0@co.nz> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi All! just something on a slightly different tack .... I have a n HP 8445B preselector unit that goes with my HP8555A plug in of my HP141 Spec An but I don't have a connector lead !(so the ol preselector will track the 8555A while it sweeps it will save some on screen frequency selection headaches!) Does anyone out there have a cable to sell or know how they connect together? I think its all 'DC" no RF involved ,so I could hard wire them if a cant get the correct interconnecting cable !! cheers Mike ZL1BTB Rotorua New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: Walt DuBose To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 4:33 AM Subject: [ss] ARRLWeb: High Speed Multimedia Hamming Could Be the Next Big Thing > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/10/3/?nc=1 > > FYI. -- Walt/K5YFW > > --- > 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 Tue Jan 14 17:26:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA10501 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:26:04 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Stephen Nichols" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 1KM 802.11b link Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:24:20 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 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 X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk http://www.d128.com/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 Tue Jan 14 18:04:56 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA12635 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:04:53 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:03:38 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 1KM 802.11b 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: <3E24A55A.41836A9A@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Stephen Nichols wrote: > > http://www.d128.com/wireless/ > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org If nothing else, it proves that the LinkSys will take SOME heat. 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 Tue Jan 14 20:17:47 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA18885 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:17:46 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Stephen Nichols" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 802.11a range vs 802.11g range Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:17:17 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 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 X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk http://www.commsdesign.com/design_corner/OEG20030114S0008 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 15 12:19:55 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA26735 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:19:54 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: kb9mwr.ampr.org: kb9mwr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:22:40 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Lampereur X-Sender: kb9mwr@kb9mwr.ampr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Content Restrictions 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 Once again I feel the need to touch upon this area, as much confusion seems to exist. (Recently exhibited by a QRZ forum msg) Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary interest and may not be obscene or indecent. I have not found any special digital forwarding rules that would apply to reclassified Wi-Fi. Aside from the business communications deal, it's obscene or indecent. These are defined in the FCC rule book. In short: Obscenity & indecency is defined/measured by contemporary community standards for broadcast medium. Notice this applies to broadcast medium not just ham radio. So in theory if it's on TV it can be on ham radio. Broadcast medium includes Part 15 transmissions. In theory they are held to the same content restrictions we are. Or at least that how I view it. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 15 12:32:38 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA27159 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:32:34 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:31:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <20030115183141.RIUX28817.hughes-fe01@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 MAA27159 Not being familiar with the QRZ discussion you cite, possibly a explanation or link to it might help clear up my confusion. I ran my NOS gateway wide up back in the NOS days. Wasn't worried about it nor were the other two gateway op's who also ran their's wide open. I'd also not hesitate to run a part 97 802.11b gateway wide open, as long as I authenticated the users and they agreed to be a control operator. You can conduct personal business on amateur radio. You can not run your small business on it or run a WISP based on part 97 (but you should be able to recover your costs of the internet connection... aka similar to a autopatch). All that is missing is encryption to draw in mass the part 15 hacker's over. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 1/15/2003 On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:22:40 -0600 (CST), Steve Lampereur wrote: >Once again I feel the need to touch upon this area, as much confusion >seems to exist. (Recently exhibited by a QRZ forum msg) > >Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. >Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from >licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary >interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > >I have not found any special digital forwarding rules that would apply to >reclassified Wi-Fi. Aside from the business communications deal, it's >obscene or indecent. These are defined in the FCC rule book. > >In short: Obscenity & indecency is defined/measured by contemporary >community standards for broadcast medium. > >Notice this applies to broadcast medium not just ham radio. So in theory >if it's on TV it can be on ham radio. Broadcast medium includes Part 15 >transmissions. In theory they are held to the same content restrictions >we are. Or at least that how I view it. > > >--- >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 Jan 15 12:36:35 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA27262 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:36:28 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:35:35 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BD6@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve, With regard to station identification, how would you interpret that? I've heard some folks claim you would have to ID with CW every 10 minutes, as we currently do with SSTV and PSK. I've also heard others argue that you simply need to insert some ID text into the information stream as we do with packet. I tend to fall into the latter group, but I'm just curious as to what others think. Rick Hampton Wireless Communications Manager Partners HealthCare Systems One Constitution Center, 2nd Floor Charlestown, MA 02129 Phone: 617-726-6633 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Lampereur [SMTP:kb9mwr@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:23 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Content Restrictions > > Once again I feel the need to touch upon this area, as much confusion > seems to exist. (Recently exhibited by a QRZ forum msg) > > Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. > Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from > licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary > interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > > I have not found any special digital forwarding rules that would apply to > reclassified Wi-Fi. Aside from the business communications deal, it's > obscene or indecent. These are defined in the FCC rule book. > > In short: Obscenity & indecency is defined/measured by contemporary > community standards for broadcast medium. > > Notice this applies to broadcast medium not just ham radio. So in theory > if it's on TV it can be on ham radio. Broadcast medium includes Part 15 > transmissions. In theory they are held to the same content restrictions > we are. Or at least that how I view it. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: rhampton@partners.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 Jan 15 13:09:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA28922 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:09:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:04:48 -0500 From: Barry Groupp Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions 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 X-Priority: 3 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: <000b01c2bcc8$fa1115e0$6501a8c0@bg> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk It has been a long time since I originally subscribed to this reflector. I have a friend that would also like to subscribe, does anyone out there remember how he can subscribe to this remailer. Thank You n2hdw@optonline.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 Wed Jan 15 13:44:56 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA01387 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:44:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:43:55 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > > In short: Obscenity & indecency is defined/measured by contemporary > community standards for broadcast medium. > > Notice this applies to broadcast medium not just ham radio. So in theory > if it's on TV it can be on ham radio. Broadcast medium includes Part 15 > transmissions. In theory they are held to the same content restrictions > we are. Or at least that how I view it. A Federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that in a obscenity case involving an amateur radio operator on trial that community standards applied. The standards here are so low that almost anything goes. There is an article on slashdot.org today about high-speed multimedia hamming and the tone of the followups is not kind to amateur operators. 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 Wed Jan 15 13:54:20 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA01698 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:54:15 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <20030115195321.TFYA28817.hughes-fe01@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 NAA01698 On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:43:55 -0800 (PST), Bob Lorenzini wrote: >There is an article on slashdot.org today about high-speed multimedia >hamming and the tone of the followups is not kind to amateur operators. Turn the troll filter on and it gets alot better. (actually, it is on by default??) Fairly positive I'm seeing considering it is on slashdot. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/15/1337204&mode=thread&tid=95 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 15 14:14:31 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA03170 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:14:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Slashdot Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:12:48 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: <200301152012.h0FKCmB07015@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > > There is an article on slashdot.org today about high-speed multimedia > hamming and the tone of the followups is not kind to amateur operators. > > Bob - wd6dod > Yet the HSMM WG has received many favorable comments and questions about our operation than unkind E-Mail on Slashdot. Walt/K5YFW HSMM WG Member --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 11:53:58 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA08782 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:53:57 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: kb9mwr.ampr.org: kb9mwr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:50 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Lampereur X-Sender: kb9mwr@kb9mwr.ampr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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 Okay lets touch upon encryption then. I've notices alot of hams are concerned about eavesdroppers grabbing our passwords. This probably isn't much of an issue for a private network, but I can see it being an issue when porting traffic over the internet. Keep in mind how the FCC rules are stated: "An amateur station shall not intentionally obscure the meaning ..." Encrypting just login & password strings doesn't obscure the meaning does it? Also using encryption can be classified as an "unspecified" digital code, which is permitted as long as you provide public documentation for it. Which can be fulfilled by posting your encryption key on your internet webpage, for example. I'll admit I've used experimented with DES voice encryption using a Motorola MCX-100 on 2 meters. I did what I mentioned above, posted the encryption key on my internet webpage. Maybe that was a big no-no and I should of gotten a pink slip? --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 15:14:27 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA19739 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:14:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:13:45 +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 PAA19739 > With regard to station identification, how would you interpret that? > > I've heard some folks claim you would have to ID with CW > every 10 minutes, > as we currently do with SSTV and PSK. I've also heard others > argue that you > simply need to insert some ID text into the information > stream as we do with > packet. > > I tend to fall into the latter group, but I'm just curious as > to what others > think. Dunno what the situation is over there, but here, we can use an "internationally recocgnised code" for IDing. ASCII beacons in 802.11b frames are definitely internationally recognised and easily found with packet sniffers. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 16 15:15:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA19794 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:15:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:14:26 +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 > It has been a long time since I originally subscribed to this > reflector. I > have a friend that would also like to subscribe, does anyone out there > remember how he can subscribe to this remailer. > > Thank You n2hdw@optonline.net Have a look on the TAPR site, all the details are there, IIRC. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 16 16:49:01 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA24625 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:49:00 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:48:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions 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: <20030116224818.GOX28817.hughes-fe01@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 QAA24625 Rick: HSMM is doing it in the SSID -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 01/16/2003 On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:35:35 -0500, Hampton, Rickey L. wrote: >Steve, > >With regard to station identification, how would you interpret that? > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 16:53:05 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA25095 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:53:03 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:52:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <20030116225233.HDJ28817.hughes-fe01@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 QAA25095 Your point here? This I assume is what you responding to: JK>All that is missing is encryption to draw in mass the part 15 hacker's over. Was your point you agree a way around encryption is to post the key code publically? But then it really isn't encryption anymore? My thought was you log the key code in a logbook (once upon a time ham's use to have to log every contact in a logbook). A similar thing would be done with keycodes and dates/times they changed. Since ham's can conduct personal business on the air, then they should have all the protections that this demands. All that is in the way is the rules. -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 01/16/2003 On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:50 -0600 (CST), Steve Lampereur wrote: >Okay lets touch upon encryption then. I've notices alot of hams are >concerned about eavesdroppers grabbing our passwords. > >This probably isn't much of an issue for a private network, but I can >see it being an issue when porting traffic over the internet. Keep in >mind how the FCC rules are stated: "An amateur station shall not >intentionally obscure the meaning ..." Encrypting just login & password >strings doesn't obscure the meaning does it? Also using encryption can >be classified as an "unspecified" digital code, which is permitted as >long as you provide public documentation for it. Which can be fulfilled >by posting your encryption key on your internet webpage, for example. > >I'll admit I've used experimented with DES voice encryption using a >Motorola MCX-100 on 2 meters. I did what I mentioned above, posted the >encryption key on my internet webpage. Maybe that was a big no-no and I >should of gotten a pink slip? --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 17:43:00 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA27045 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:42:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: wa7nwp@pop.mail.yahoo.com Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:39:28 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions 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: <4.2.0.58.20030116152922.00ad18e0@pioneernet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 05:48 PM 1/16/03 -0500, Jeff King wrote: >HSMM is doing it in the SSID I went war driving once. Picked up 50 some access points. 4/5 were open. One of the 50 had a ham callsign for an SSID. If I was an educated bad boy looking to cause trouble, that would have been an opening to the exact name, address, phone and shoe size of that access point's owner. Thank you but I will continue to be use a generic group identifier. Any similar SS Part 97 activity would be ID'ed with something like the following PING packets From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pingid.html --- Example looped ID script: #!/bin/sh while true do /bin/ping -c 1 -s 21 -p 574952454C455353204E4F4445 44.92.20.35 # WIRELESS NODE /bin/ping -c 1 -s 24 -p 464343204152532043414C4C5349474E 44.92.20.35 # FCC ARS CALLSIGN /bin/ping -c 1 -s 22 -p 204B42394D575220464F52204944 44.92.20.35 # KB9MWR FOR ID sleep 600 done ---- 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 Jan 16 17:57:34 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA27615 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:57:31 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:55:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions 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: <20030116235523.LWT28817.hughes-fe01@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 RAA27615 On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:39:28 -0800, Bill Vodall - WA7NWP wrote: >At 05:48 PM 1/16/03 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > >>HSMM is doing it in the SSID > > >I went war driving once. Picked up 50 some access points. 4/5 were open. One >of the 50 had a ham callsign for an SSID. If I was an educated bad boy looking >to cause trouble, that would have been an opening to the exact name, address, phone >and shoe size of that access point's owner. Funny, I said the same thing about the APRS FINDU database. And you could do that sitting at home. Course, no-one believed me that someone might do this ;-) Anyways, was just saying how they ID because no-one answered the gentlemen's question. >Any similar SS Part 97 activity would be ID'ed with something like the following >PING packets > >From: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pingid.html Uppp.. there ya go. Another way to do it. Take your choice. 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 Thu Jan 16 19:26:55 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA02512 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:26:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:26:21 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk IIRC the use of crypto to protect passwords is legal. Please don't ask me to quote the source. 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 Thu Jan 16 20:39:28 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA06443 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:39:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:38:41 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BDE@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk DUH! Why didn't I think of that!?! If there is no such thing as a stupid question, I think I just came awful close to asking the first one. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff King [mailto:jeff@aerodata.net] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:48 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Rick: HSMM is doing it in the SSID -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 01/16/2003 On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:35:35 -0500, Hampton, Rickey L. wrote: >Steve, > >With regard to station identification, how would you interpret that? > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: rhampton@partners.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 Thu Jan 16 20:48:19 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA06683 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:48:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:47:09 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BDF@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yeah, but what's your point? I can simply take your call from your email address you've so kindly provided, or listen for you to make a call on the local repeater, look it up at any one of a dozen internet searchable databases, and accomplish the same thing. And I didn't even have to leave the comfort of my own home to go on a war drive. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP [mailto:wa7nwp@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:39 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions At 05:48 PM 1/16/03 -0500, Jeff King wrote: >HSMM is doing it in the SSID I went war driving once. Picked up 50 some access points. 4/5 were open. One of the 50 had a ham callsign for an SSID. If I was an educated bad boy looking to cause trouble, that would have been an opening to the exact name, address, phone and shoe size of that access point's owner. Thank you but I will continue to be use a generic group identifier. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 21:59:21 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA09896 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:59:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: wa7nwp@pop.mail.yahoo.com Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:58:24 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions - SSID 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: <4.2.0.58.20030116195241.00ad1d80@pioneernet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 09:47 PM 1/16/03 -0500, Hampton, Rickey L. wrote: >Yeah, but what's your point? I can simply take your call from your email It's no big deal. The callsign stood out amongst all the other SSIDs. That may even be a good thing. It was the only one where it was possible to directly gather personal information. 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 Jan 16 22:26:08 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA10643 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:26:07 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:25:46 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] 802.11b Identification 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: <3E2785CA.C7F8EE1D@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tonight some of us were talking about identification and I said that the SSID and secondary SSID (eSSID?) and node_name are or should be transmitted just like the SSID. Two of our guys set up two laptops and used TCPDump to look at the packets. You can see the SSID and MAC OK but didn't see the node_name which I assummed was also transmitted. I could be that the node name wasn't set. Can someone confirm or deny that the node_name (a.k.a. AP Name) is/is not transmitted so that a packet sniffer can see it? If it IS trasnmitted, and you can capture it in a text file, I would like a copy of the file. Thanks & 73, 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 Jan 16 22:35:32 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA10805 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:35:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: 802.11b Identification Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:33:43 +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 WAA10805 > Can someone confirm or deny that the node_name (a.k.a. AP Name) is/is > not transmitted so that a packet sniffer can see it? > > > If it IS trasnmitted, and you can capture it in a text file, I would > like a copy of the file. Well, Netstumbler does log AP names. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 16 22:43:51 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA11041 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:43:51 -0600 (CST) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:43:06 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030116214129.02946a60@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: >Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. >Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from >licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary >interest and may not be obscene or indecent. Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing e-commerce certainly would be. --Brett --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 16 23:08:27 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA11827 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:08:24 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:06:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <20030117050650.BEQU28817.hughes-fe01@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 XAA11827 One word: Pizza You can now conduct personal business on amateur radio, buy stuff on the web, even occasionally sell ham gear. Just can't telecommute to your employer or use it for your small business. ------------ 2) Phone patches or autopatches involving the pecuniary interest of the originator, or on behalf of the originator's employer, must not be conducted at any time. The content of any patch should be such that it is clear to any listener that such communications are not involved. Particular caution must be observed in calling any business telephone. Calls to place an order for a commercial product may be made such as the proverbial call to the pizza restaurant to order food, but not calls to one's office to receive or to leave business messages since communications on behalf of ones employer are not permitted. Calls made in the interests of highway safety, however, such as for the removal of injured persons from the scene of an accident or for the removal of a disabled vehicle from a hazardous location, are permitted. From: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/phone-patch.html -- Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 01/16/2003 On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:43:06 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: >At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >>Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. >>Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from >>licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary >>interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > >Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on >one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing >e-commerce certainly would be. > >--Brett > > >--- >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 Jan 16 23:19:49 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA12081 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:19:46 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:18:50 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <20030117051850.96486.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- Brett Glass wrote: > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a > digital ad on > one of the pages is probably a violation of the > regulations. How can it be that there are still hams that believe this baloney? > Doing e-commerce certainly would be. So - don't do E-Commerce, then. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.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 Jan 17 00:18:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA15144 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:18:51 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:17:50 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: 802.11b Identification 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: <3E27A00E.A695B8B6@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > > Can someone confirm or deny that the node_name (a.k.a. AP Name) is/is > > not transmitted so that a packet sniffer can see it? > > > > > > If it IS trasnmitted, and you can capture it in a text file, I would > > like a copy of the file. > > Well, Netstumbler does log AP names. > So since the node/AP name is "trasnmitted", then it can be used as the ID. If you have a text file showing this, I would appreciate having it for my files. Walt/K5YFW > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 > > > 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 Fri Jan 17 00:21:42 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA15266 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:21:39 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:20:54 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <3E27A0C6.D21F2C90@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Brett Glass wrote: > > At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > > >Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. > >Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from > >licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary > >interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > e-commerce certainly would be. > > --Brett > Nope, because you, though your computer, requested the data. Its like calling the the pizza place on your autopatch and getting a dating service by mistake. 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 Jan 17 08:09:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA28892 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:09:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:07:02 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions 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: <3E280E06.3010709@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a violation" ruling. We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' when he has so many idiots in violation these days. 73, gerry Brett Glass wrote: > At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >> Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. >> Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from >> licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary >> interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > e-commerce certainly would be. > > --Brett > > > --- > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 08:45:41 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA00209 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:45:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:44:05 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BE2@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > e-commerce certainly would be. So, my question is why are we even having this message thread at all? If I want to surf the internet, I don't need to pollute the spectrum as a Part 97 user to do it. Keep the stuff legal under Part 15 or, better yet, use CAT-5 and don't worry about it. I would like to see Part 97 operation used for things like repeater links and remote control so we could free up some UHF spectrum and perform other functions where Part 15 clearly has no use. Why recreate the wheel? Where is the innovation in that? Rick, WD8KEL --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 09:05:03 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA01238 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:04:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:02:28 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: <200301171502.h0HF2SQ24078@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hang on a minutem Gerry...lets carry this a bit more...we need to discuss this and look at what we can do what we can't do and what we want to do. When I call Pizza Hut on the 147.38 autopatch to place an order for Pizza that I am taking to the RC meeting, I'm not communicating with an amateur radio operator. (Sir, do you want fires with that?) So now let me really mess up your mind. So I'm sitting at home having a nice IRC or VoIP conversation with W5MLW down the street on channel 5...we both running under Part 97. I see a connect with my SSID and a node name of Bonnie. Bonnie starts up a VoIP connect to me. I am running Part 97 and 10 watts into a 15 db gain antenna and Bonnie is using her laptop under Part 15. Can I talk to her? Remember I am controlling my station just as I do when the Cub Scouts come over and I give them the mic to call CQ JOTA and make JOTA contacts...I just sit in the background and offer advice and can pull the plug at any time. Can I legally talk to Bonnie? What if I am away from my station and Bonnie connects? Is that legal? Walt/K5YFW > But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a violation" ruling. > We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect > Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' when he has > so many idiots in violation these days. > > 73, gerry > > Brett Glass wrote: > > At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > > > >> Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. > >> Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from > >> licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary > >> interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > > > > > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > > one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > > e-commerce certainly would be. > > > > --Brett > > > > > > --- > > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 > Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 > > > > --- > 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 Jan 17 09:25:29 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA03123 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:25:28 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:24:36 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BE7@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt, Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, so my interpretations are worth every cent you are paying for them. >>When I call Pizza Hut on the 147.38 autopatch to place an order for Pizza that I am taking to the RC meeting, I'm not communicating with an amateur radio operator. (Sir, do you want fires with that?)<< But here, YOU "own" the link. You can bring it up and you can take it down. The pizza guy can't. >>So I'm sitting at home having a nice IRC or VoIP conversation with W5MLW down the street on channel 5...we both running under Part 97. I see a connect with my SSID and a node name of Bonnie. Bonnie starts up a VoIP connect to me. >>I am running Part 97 and 10 watts into a 15 db gain antenna and Bonnie is using her laptop under Part 15. >>Can I talk to her?<< If you can communicate with Bonnie at Part 15 power levels, then I see no problem with communicating with her... at Part 15 power levels. If you have to run Part 97 levels to communicate, then no, you can't communicate with her. >>Remember I am controlling my station just as I do when the Cub Scouts come over and I give them the mic to call CQ JOTA and make JOTA contacts...I just sit in the background and offer advice and can pull the plug at any time.<< That's right. You are the control operator, and the Cubs are using YOUR equipment, in YOUR shack, under YOUR control. Bonnie is not. >>Can I legally talk to Bonnie?<< >>What if I am away from my station and Bonnie connects? Is that legal?<< Only if you have your station configured to operate under Part 15 rules. Rick Hampton, WD8KEL --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 09:34:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA03415 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:34:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:33:12 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: <200301171533.h0HFXCl27548@mail2.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Good....good Rick...here's some more. Back to the Pizza guy. What if the Pizza guy has a cellphone, no LandLine? Back to the Cub Scouts...what if I give them a wireless mic (assuming I have the rig set up with VOX). Walt PS, this is meant as a learning situation...no one is mad at anyone..we're all just trying to get it clear in our minds what we can and cannotdo. If only after we come to a "block", then we can perhaps go to the ARRL Legal guys for help. > Walt, > > Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, so my interpretations are worth every cent you are > paying for them. > > >>When I call Pizza Hut on the 147.38 autopatch to place an order for Pizza that > > I am taking to the RC meeting, I'm not communicating with an amateur radio > operator. (Sir, do you want fires with that?)<< > > But here, YOU "own" the link. You can bring it up and you can take it down. > The pizza guy can't. > > >>So I'm sitting at home having a nice IRC or VoIP conversation with W5MLW down > the street on channel 5...we both running under Part 97. I see a connect with > my SSID and a node name of Bonnie. Bonnie starts up a VoIP connect to me. > > >>I am running Part 97 and 10 watts into a 15 db gain antenna and Bonnie is > using > her laptop under Part 15. > > >>Can I talk to her?<< > > If you can communicate with Bonnie at Part 15 power levels, then I see no > problem with communicating with her... at Part 15 power levels. If you have to > run Part 97 levels to communicate, then no, you can't communicate with her. > > >>Remember I am controlling my station just as I do when the Cub Scouts come > over > and I give them the mic to call CQ JOTA and make JOTA contacts...I just sit in > the background and offer advice and can pull the plug at any time.<< > > That's right. You are the control operator, and the Cubs are using YOUR > equipment, in YOUR shack, under YOUR control. Bonnie is not. > > >>Can I legally talk to Bonnie?<< > > >>What if I am away from my station and Bonnie connects? Is that legal?<< > > Only if you have your station configured to operate under Part 15 rules. > > Rick Hampton, WD8KEL > > --- > 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 Jan 17 11:10:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA07704 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:10:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Hampton, Rickey L." To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:07:54 -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: <4CEA90C46E84D411B4F600805F9F0C81078F1BE9@phsexch15.mgh.harvard.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >>Back to the Pizza guy. >>What if the Pizza guy has a cellphone, no LandLine?<< I see no difference here, Walt. You're still connected to the same POTS and still in control of the Part 97 portion of the link. Whether he's using a wired phone, a wireless phone, or a cell phone, he is part of the regulated telephone system and you still have control of your end. >>Back to the Cub Scouts...what if I give them a wireless mic (assuming I have the rig set up with VOX).<< Again, as long as you maintain control of your station, everything is legit. Letting the kids run around with the mic in the back yard, unsupervised would not be legit, nor would allowing them to use the wireless mic from the comfort of their own bedroom. Further, I would say that should someone else gain the ability to access your station through the receiver of your wireless mic, you would need to pull the plug on your wireless mic. I don't see it so much an issue of what's connected to what, but an issue of who is really in control of your station. >>PS, this is meant as a learning situation...no one is mad at anyone..we're all just trying to get it clear in our minds what we can and cannotdo. If only after we come to a "block", then we can perhaps go to the ARRL Legal guys for help.<< Point taken. This wasn't my assumption either. Rick Hampton, WD8KEL --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 11:47:05 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA09945 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:47:04 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:46:15 -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: 64.9.221.44 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: <1042825575.3e284167285f9@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk As long as you don't order anchovies on the pizza, I don't think they would care. Quoting Gerry Creager : > But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a violation" ruling. > We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect > Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' when he has > > so many idiots in violation these days. > > 73, gerry > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 13:12:42 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA14097 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:12:37 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:04:15 EST Subject: [ss] ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <70.294bc9a4.2b59adaf@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi Rick et all.... My question is whether we as licensed amateurs are allowed to "communicate" with unlicensed services (ex. Part 15) within our assigned frequency bands. If so, are we allowed to "rebroadcast" unlicensed or even licensed services?. In the past there was much hullabaloo about accessing NOAA weather on repeaters. Has this been modified? The rules keep changing and the best I can find is 97.89(a)(3) which allows Amateurs to communicate "with any station which is AUTHORIZED by the Commission to communicate with Amateur Radio Stations" I don't have a copy of Part 15 rules but I don't think they address "authorization" to communicate at all.. Times they are a changing... Roger WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 13:55:21 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA16098 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:55:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:53:02 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: <200301171953.h0HJr2l14066@mail2.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The FCC Part 97 rules are at URL: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/ Part 97.111(a)(4) says... (4) Transmissions necessary to exchange messages with a station in a service not regulated by the FCC, but authorized by the FCC to communicate with amateur stations. An amateur station may exchange messages with a participating United States military station during an Armed Forces Day Communications Test. What this really says is that we can communicate with (some) government stations...we cannot exchange messages with a station in a service NOT regualted by the FCC. Part 15 IS regulated by the FCC. Walt/K5YFW > Hi Rick et all.... > > My question is whether we as licensed amateurs are allowed to "communicate" > with unlicensed services (ex. Part 15) within our assigned frequency bands. > > If so, are we allowed to "rebroadcast" unlicensed or even licensed services?. > In the past there was much hullabaloo about accessing NOAA weather on > repeaters. Has this been modified? > > The rules keep changing and the best I can find is 97.89(a)(3) which allows > Amateurs to communicate "with any station which is AUTHORIZED by the > Commission to communicate with Amateur Radio Stations" > > I don't have a copy of Part 15 rules but I don't think they address > "authorization" to communicate at all.. > > Times they are a changing... > > Roger > WA1KAT > > --- > 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 Jan 17 14:10:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA16682 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:10:32 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:09:18 EST Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <14b.1a76e8fb.2b59bcee@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 01/17/03 2:56:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, dubose@texas.net writes: > but authorized by the FCC to > communicate with amateur stations. Hi Walt... Not for disagreement, I assure you, just for discussion... Regulation and authorization are 2 different formalities.....are part 15 devices "authorized" to communicate with amateurs.....example...local kid puts his CB walkie talkie on 10 meters.....can we talk? assuming he is running his 100mw under part 15...? Simplistic I know not not clear to me... Roger WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 14:42:05 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA17607 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:42:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:40:52 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: <200301172040.h0HKeql08207@mail2.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Could be...I think someone is asking the FCC for clearification on this...maybe we all better wait for the word from on high. Walt/K5YFW > In a message dated 01/17/03 2:56:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dubose@texas.net writes: > > > but authorized by the FCC to > > communicate with amateur stations. > > Hi Walt... > > Not for disagreement, I assure you, just for discussion... > > Regulation and authorization are 2 different formalities.....are part 15 > devices "authorized" to communicate with amateurs.....example...local kid > puts his CB walkie talkie on 10 meters.....can we talk? assuming he is > running his 100mw under part 15...? > > > Simplistic I know not not clear to me... > > Roger > WA1KAT > > --- > 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 Jan 17 15:32:34 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA21494 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:32:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:31:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Lorenzini To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 dubose@texas.net wrote: > Could be...I think someone is asking the FCC for clearification on this...maybe > we all better wait for the word from on high. > The rule is *NEVER* ask the FCC. 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 Jan 17 18:37:01 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA00898 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:37:00 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:35:45 EST Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <186.149c732c.2b59fb61@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have to stand corrected on my example of a CBer transmitting in 10 meters using Part 15...it does not offer operation there...so let's move him to 80 meters AM...Part 15ers can use from 530KHz to 10 MHz...can we talk with them on those frequencies?? Just clarifying the question...Thanks! Roger WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 18:42:29 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01345 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:42:29 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:40:48 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Thread-Index: AcK+UGgIt64z6Zm3Sfe8003f1zkoiAAONJOA 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A9BFC05C@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 SAA01345 Hams can order a pizza using ham radio. The FCC doesn't permit operating for hire or pecuniary gain, or operating on behalf of one's employer (except for some bulletin station operation, defined in Part 97). As long as hams are not paid to do so, they can help the local parade, gather weather data for a local TV station. Is it expressly prohibited in the rules (music, obscentity, broadasting, some 3rd party traffic, etc.)? Is it transmitted for compensation? Does the control operator benefit financially? Does the control operator's employer benefit financially? If the answer to all 4 questions is no, it is permitted communication. 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: Jeff King [mailto:jeff@aerodata.net] > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:46 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions > > > As long as you don't order anchovies on the pizza, I don't > think they would > care. > > > Quoting Gerry Creager : > > > But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a > violation" ruling. > > We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect > > Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' > when he has > > > > so many idiots in violation these days. > > > > 73, gerry > > > > --- > 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 Jan 17 18:43:11 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01369 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:43:11 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: [ss] RE: Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:41:44 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Thread-Index: AcK+ia4PVmaETF1HR66ZEJmL3p54mwAAEMlg 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A9BFC05D@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 SAA01369 Actually, Part 15 operation can occur on any amateur frequency. The levels are high enough that if they are close, we can and will hear them. 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: RogerKola@aol.com [mailto:RogerKola@aol.com] > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:36 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) > > > I have to stand corrected on my example of a CBer > transmitting in 10 meters > using Part 15...it does not offer operation there...so let's > move him to 80 > meters AM...Part 15ers can use from 530KHz to 10 MHz...can we > talk with them > on those frequencies?? > > Just clarifying the question...Thanks! > > Roger > WA1KAT > > --- > 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 Jan 17 18:49:02 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01526 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:48:54 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:47:50 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Re: ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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: <3E28A436.110F3517@texas.net> Precedence: bulk RogerKola@aol.com wrote: > > I have to stand corrected on my example of a CBer transmitting in 10 meters > using Part 15...it does not offer operation there...so let's move him to 80 > meters AM...Part 15ers can use from 530KHz to 10 MHz...can we talk with them > on those frequencies?? > > Just clarifying the question...Thanks! > > Roger > WA1KAT > > No because they are "controlled" by the FCC. You can only talk to services, stations is you please, who are NOT controlled by the FCC. This would be government stations. And even then, you can only talk to the stations that the FCC says you can. In non emergency conditions you can talk to FEMA stations, CDC stations, FCC stations, MARS stations, NWS stations, NDMS stations, Nat. Health Service stations, FBI and Secret Service Stations, some National Guard Stations, Military stations, etc. There are all the types of stations I have talked to during non emergency stations. Oh, and experimental stations that ARE regulated by the FCC...put that under another set of rules. Someone told me that they talked to a Federal Reserve station and another to a Corp of Engineers station. Of course most of these agency stations will only come up during emergencies. Also you can talk to Forestry Service stations. 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 Jan 17 18:53:23 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA01683 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:53:18 -0600 (CST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Thread-Index: AcK96AEa9w32bIt4St+tPbpzp6EaYgAoyaqw 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: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A9BFC05E@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 SAA01683 Being a regular seller in e-commerce via Part 97 would be a rules violation. Being a regular buyer for personal use would not be. If one was buying to resell it would be a violation. Etc. Under the conditions described in the rules, we can order stuff via Part 97. 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: Stewart Teaze [mailto:horseshoe7@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:19 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions > > > > --- Brett Glass wrote: > > > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a > > digital ad on > > one of the pages is probably a violation of the > > regulations. > > How can it be that there are still hams that believe > this baloney? > > > Doing e-commerce certainly would be. > > So - don't do E-Commerce, then. > > - Stewart > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > --- > 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 Jan 17 21:07:22 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA05858 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:07:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:05:59 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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: <3E287037.4090404@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Now you've introduced a scenario which extends the original question. I responded directly to the original question; the pizza's legal. Bonnie's use talking to you appears questionable to me, and her use when no one is monitoring and controlling appears to be at odds with this use of the rules as I understand them. But I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I do enforcement for the FCC. Thus, my opinions are inconsequential. However, my recounting the "Pizza decision" is the recounting of a documented fact, and appeared to answer the specific question originally posed. 73, gerry dubose@texas.net wrote: > Hang on a minutem Gerry...lets carry this a bit more...we need to discuss this > and look at what we can do what we can't do and what we want to do. > > When I call Pizza Hut on the 147.38 autopatch to place an order for Pizza that > I am taking to the RC meeting, I'm not communicating with an amateur radio > operator. (Sir, do you want fires with that?) > > So now let me really mess up your mind. > > So I'm sitting at home having a nice IRC or VoIP conversation with W5MLW down > the street on channel 5...we both running under Part 97. I see a connect with > my SSID and a node name of Bonnie. Bonnie starts up a VoIP connect to me. > > I am running Part 97 and 10 watts into a 15 db gain antenna and Bonnie is using > her laptop under Part 15. > > Can I talk to her? > > Remember I am controlling my station just as I do when the Cub Scouts come over > and I give them the mic to call CQ JOTA and make JOTA contacts...I just sit in > the background and offer advice and can pull the plug at any time. > > Can I legally talk to Bonnie? > > What if I am away from my station and Bonnie connects? Is that legal? > > Walt/K5YFW > > >>But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a violation" ruling. >>We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect >>Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' when he has >>so many idiots in violation these days. >> >>73, gerry >> >>Brett Glass wrote: >> >>>At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. >>>>Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from >>>>licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary >>>>interest and may not be obscene or indecent. >>> >>> >>>Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on >>>one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing >>>e-commerce certainly would be. >>> >>>--Brett >>> >>> >>>--- >>>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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University >>Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 >>Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 >> >> >> >>--- >>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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 17 22:00:04 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA07496 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:00:02 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:58:46 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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: <3E28D0F6.AD88B2E2@texas.net> Precedence: bulk The real answer is found in part 97.111(a)(4)... Transmissions necessary to exchange messages with a station in a service not regulated by the FCC, but authorized by the FCC to communicate with amateur stations. An amateur station may exchange messages with a participating United States military station during an Armed Forces Day Communications Test. The key words are..."a station in a service not regulated by the FCC." Part 15 users are in a service regulated by the FCC...Part 15. So, hams can't talk to them. You can talk to hams as a few other stations IF they call you and most of us will never have that happen unless we're in an emergency. But IF you have a Linux box with two RICs, one operating under Part 15 and one operating under Part 97 and the server had smtp, ftp, web, IRC, VoIP, caching DSN, etc, both groups could share the server. E-mail would be retrieved by popmail. How about that Gerry? BTW, hope ya'll stay warm tonight. 73 & CUL, Walt/K5YFW Gerry Creager wrote: > > Now you've introduced a scenario which extends the original question. I > responded directly to the original question; the pizza's legal. > Bonnie's use talking to you appears questionable to me, and her use when > no one is monitoring and controlling appears to be at odds with this use > of the rules as I understand them. > > But I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I do enforcement for the FCC. Thus, my > opinions are inconsequential. However, my recounting the "Pizza > decision" is the recounting of a documented fact, and appeared to answer > the specific question originally posed. > > 73, gerry > > dubose@texas.net wrote: > > Hang on a minutem Gerry...lets carry this a bit more...we need to discuss this > > and look at what we can do what we can't do and what we want to do. > > > > When I call Pizza Hut on the 147.38 autopatch to place an order for Pizza that > > I am taking to the RC meeting, I'm not communicating with an amateur radio > > operator. (Sir, do you want fires with that?) > > > > So now let me really mess up your mind. > > > > So I'm sitting at home having a nice IRC or VoIP conversation with W5MLW down > > the street on channel 5...we both running under Part 97. I see a connect with > > my SSID and a node name of Bonnie. Bonnie starts up a VoIP connect to me. > > > > I am running Part 97 and 10 watts into a 15 db gain antenna and Bonnie is using > > her laptop under Part 15. > > > > Can I talk to her? > > > > Remember I am controlling my station just as I do when the Cub Scouts come over > > and I give them the mic to call CQ JOTA and make JOTA contacts...I just sit in > > the background and offer advice and can pull the plug at any time. > > > > Can I legally talk to Bonnie? > > > > What if I am away from my station and Bonnie connects? Is that legal? > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > >>But we come back to the "ordering a pizza is not a violation" ruling. > >>We can get over compulsed, or try to be reasonable. I suspect > >>Hollingsworth will not persecute (prosecute?) 'reasonable' when he has > >>so many idiots in violation these days. > >> > >>73, gerry > >> > >>Brett Glass wrote: > >> > >>>At 12:22 PM 1/15/2003, Steve Lampereur wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Reclassifying under Part 97, imposes the standard amateur restrictions. > >>>>Obviously the communications you make under Part 97 must be to and from > >>>>licensed amateurs. These communications cannot be made with a pecuniary > >>>>interest and may not be obscene or indecent. > >>> > >>> > >>>Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > >>>one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > >>>e-commerce certainly would be. > >>> > >>>--Brett > >>> > >>> > >>>--- > >>>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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > >>Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 > >>Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 > >> > >> > >> > >>--- > >>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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 > Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 > > --- > 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 Jan 17 22:44:14 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA08771 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:44:14 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:43:19 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Teaze Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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: <20030118044319.10067.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- Walt DuBose wrote: > The real answer is found in part 97.111(a)(4)... Oh, please! This stuff was written WAY before the existance of Part 15 wireless regs. Like the rest of digital ham radio - THE RULES ARE TOTALLY OUT OF DATE! I say stop being such a bunch of pussies - either ignore this silliness and join the wireless revolution, or get the FCC to change the stupid rules to allow intercommunication between Part 15 and Part 97 wireless devices on compatible frequencies (if you think it is required). As for myself, I don't have time for this garbage, and I would choose to take the former route. Digital ham radio is being LEFT IN THE DUST so fast, it isn't funny... and you fools just sit here doing the usual "ham thing"... endlessly debating the rules... I suddenly fell nauseous... maybe its all that leftover holiday turkey I've been consuming lately - but I don't think so. I'd be willing to petition the FCC myself, if I didn't already know that I'd have to do battle with a combination of anti-digital (ANALOG AND MORRIS CODE FOREVER!), self-flagulating (WE'RE NOT WORTHY!), and anti-change (IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH IN 1952, ITS GOOD ENOUGH NOW!) types. It simply ASTOUNDS ME... why WOULDN'T hams want to communicate with Part 15 users? And what's all this NONSENSE about debating endlessly about IDing on low-power short haul digital links... I mean, really! Think about it for a few seconds, and you will see how RIDICULOUS it sounds... and that it is simply a HAM THROWBACK to the HF days... This is the 21st century FOR CRYING OUT LOUD... change the way we think about IDing! Simply require that your station respond to a FINGER request, do a broadcast, or something similar. It's a different world... you can't SHOEHORN the new digital comms into old ham ways of doing things. I mean what REALLY CRACKS ME UP are the guys who think we ought to ID BY MORSE CODE! Yeah, right!... How many people would understand THAT! (and it would and illegal transmission, and interfering with the channel to boot!). - Stewart __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.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 Sat Jan 18 07:49:20 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA25124 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:49:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:48:01 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) References: In-Reply-To: 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: <3E295B11.2000607@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Stewart Teaze wrote: > This stuff was written WAY before the existance of > Part 15 wireless regs. ... > It simply ASTOUNDS ME... why WOULDN'T hams want to > communicate with Part 15 users? if I remember my history correctly, the reason for the separation between part 97 content and everybody else is competition. Specifically, competition between commercial carriers of information and amateur radio stations. The commercial interests did not want competition for either broadcast or message carrying (i.e. telegrams). the same tension exists today. Imagine the ruckus that would be raised by Comcast or Verizon if a combination of the amateur radio and part 15 community put together high-speed networks capable of serving communities, schools, etc. that started stealing revenue from the big boys. There would be a whole bunch of new regulations in place in a heartbeat. so, in the quest to eliminate content/interoperability restrictions, be careful. We need to define it so that we can carry anything, for anybody but not open up the door to commercial entities making use of our frequencies. I think some sort of restriction on getting paid for running the station(s) would be a place to start. By the way, history is why there is a residential/business distinction in data service as well. in voice service, business tariffs subsidize residential tariffs. In data, there is no subsidy. It's just the way for the bit stream suppliers to create artificial distinctions between classes of service. Business bits look exactly the same as residential bits. with some of the new services one can get over the net (peer-to-peer networks, voice over IP, etc.) even the usage differences between "residential" and "business" services are going away. ---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 Jan 18 09:05:32 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA27484 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:05:32 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:04:41 EST Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <198.14231689.2b5ac709@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Good Morning Stewart... This is not an endless debate...it is an open discussion and decision making process as to the evolution of AMATEUR data communications. We are deciding if we NEED a rule change without directly asking the FCC if we do. It has been learned in the past that the FCC prefers that we make our own intelligent decisions. We are trying to do this by consensus. Amateur Radio has the privileges we have today because we are perceived as a self governing, rule following, public service organization which occasionally spurs and provides technical advances. Many of our scientists were/are hams, it is a youth springboard to the sciences. (It's just that some of us don't find our "youth" until much later in life). Amateur Radio is the ultimate 1st amendment...everyone gets to express their opinion....not just the Press. Civil disobedience worked for the CBers in a sliver of a frequency band, it is doubtful that it will work in the vast expanse of our precious and now "valuable" frequencies. I vote to design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it! Off my soapbox, Roger WA1KAT "No Kids, no Lids, no Space Cadets" In a message dated 01/17/03 11:45:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, horseshoe7@yahoo.com writes: > This stuff was written WAY before the existence of > Part 15 wireless regs. > > Like the rest of digital ham radio - THE RULES ARE > TOTALLY OUT OF DATE! I say stop being such a bunch of > pussies - either ignore this silliness and join the > wireless revolution, or get the FCC to change the > stupid rules to allow intercommunication between Part > 15 and Part 97 wireless devices on compatible > frequencies (if you think it is required). --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 18 09:12:30 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA27639 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:12:21 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:11:55 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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: <3E296EBB.DC5F278F@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Well spoken Sir. Walt/K5YFW RogerKola@aol.com wrote: > > Good Morning Stewart... > > This is not an endless debate...it is an open discussion and decision making > process as to the evolution of AMATEUR data communications. We are deciding > if we NEED a rule change without directly asking the FCC if we do. > > It has been learned in the past that the FCC prefers that we make our own > intelligent decisions. We are trying to do this by consensus. > > Amateur Radio has the privileges we have today because we are perceived as a > self governing, rule following, public service organization which > occasionally spurs and provides technical advances. Many of our scientists > were/are hams, it is a youth springboard to the sciences. (It's just that > some of us don't find our "youth" until much later in life). Amateur Radio > is the ultimate 1st amendment...everyone gets to express their opinion....not > just the Press. > > Civil disobedience worked for the CBers in a sliver of a frequency band, it > is doubtful that it will work in the vast expanse of our precious and now > "valuable" frequencies. > > I vote to design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for > implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it! > > Off my soapbox, > > Roger > WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jan 18 09:36:11 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA28662 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:36:10 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:35:19 EST Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1c0.3a55706.2b5ace37@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 01/18/03 10:13:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, dubose@texas.net writes: > Well spoken Sir. > > Walt/K5YFW Thanks Walt....sometimes there is clarity in my thinking ;-) Roger --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jan 19 00:00:22 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA03084 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:00:17 -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: January 18, 2003 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:58:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2003 05:58:51.0768 (UTC) FILETIME=[D789CF80:01C2BF7F] 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 Greeting all, Finally, we are at the heart of the matter! I second Roger's motion (HI): "...design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it!" It is the mission I have instilled into the ARRL HSMM WG since being given the honor and privilege of chairing it! Thank you, Roger, and the other insightful commenters posting this day. Vy 73, John - K8OCL PS - Please check our web page on a DAILY basis for the latest developments: www.arrl.org/hsmm From: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest" Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" To: "ss digest recipients" Subject: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:01:16 -0500 TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Saturday, January 18, 2003. 1. Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 2. Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 3. Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 4. Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) From: "Eric S. Johansson" Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:48:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 Stewart Teaze wrote: > This stuff was written WAY before the existance of > Part 15 wireless regs. ... > It simply ASTOUNDS ME... why WOULDN'T hams want to > communicate with Part 15 users? if I remember my history correctly, the reason for the separation between part 97 content and everybody else is competition. Specifically, competition between commercial carriers of information and amateur radio stations. The commercial interests did not want competition for either broadcast or message carrying (i.e. telegrams). the same tension exists today. Imagine the ruckus that would be raised by Comcast or Verizon if a combination of the amateur radio and part 15 community put together high-speed networks capable of serving communities, schools, etc. that started stealing revenue from the big boys. There would be a whole bunch of new regulations in place in a heartbeat. so, in the quest to eliminate content/interoperability restrictions, be careful. We need to define it so that we can carry anything, for anybody but not open up the door to commercial entities making use of our frequencies. I think some sort of restriction on getting paid for running the station(s) would be a place to start. By the way, history is why there is a residential/business distinction in data service as well. in voice service, business tariffs subsidize residential tariffs. In data, there is no subsidy. It's just the way for the bit stream suppliers to create artificial distinctions between classes of service. Business bits look exactly the same as residential bits. with some of the new services one can get over the net (peer-to-peer networks, voice over IP, etc.) even the usage differences between "residential" and "business" services are going away. ---eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) From: RogerKola@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:04:41 EST X-Message-Number: 2 Good Morning Stewart... This is not an endless debate...it is an open discussion and decision making process as to the evolution of AMATEUR data communications. We are deciding if we NEED a rule change without directly asking the FCC if we do. It has been learned in the past that the FCC prefers that we make our own intelligent decisions. We are trying to do this by consensus. Amateur Radio has the privileges we have today because we are perceived as a self governing, rule following, public service organization which occasionally spurs and provides technical advances. Many of our scientists were/are hams, it is a youth springboard to the sciences. (It's just that some of us don't find our "youth" until much later in life). Amateur Radio is the ultimate 1st amendment...everyone gets to express their opinion....not just the Press. Civil disobedience worked for the CBers in a sliver of a frequency band, it is doubtful that it will work in the vast expanse of our precious and now "valuable" frequencies. I vote to design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it! Off my soapbox, Roger WA1KAT "No Kids, no Lids, no Space Cadets" In a message dated 01/17/03 11:45:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, horseshoe7@yahoo.com writes: > This stuff was written WAY before the existence of > Part 15 wireless regs. > > Like the rest of digital ham radio - THE RULES ARE > TOTALLY OUT OF DATE! I say stop being such a bunch of > pussies - either ignore this silliness and join the > wireless revolution, or get the FCC to change the > stupid rules to allow intercommunication between Part > 15 and Part 97 wireless devices on compatible > frequencies (if you think it is required). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) From: Walt DuBose Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:11:55 -0600 X-Message-Number: 3 Well spoken Sir. Walt/K5YFW RogerKola@aol.com wrote: > > Good Morning Stewart... > > This is not an endless debate...it is an open discussion and decision making > process as to the evolution of AMATEUR data communications. We are deciding > if we NEED a rule change without directly asking the FCC if we do. > > It has been learned in the past that the FCC prefers that we make our own > intelligent decisions. We are trying to do this by consensus. > > Amateur Radio has the privileges we have today because we are perceived as a > self governing, rule following, public service organization which > occasionally spurs and provides technical advances. Many of our scientists > were/are hams, it is a youth springboard to the sciences. (It's just that > some of us don't find our "youth" until much later in life). Amateur Radio > is the ultimate 1st amendment...everyone gets to express their opinion....not > just the Press. > > Civil disobedience worked for the CBers in a sliver of a frequency band, it > is doubtful that it will work in the vast expanse of our precious and now > "valuable" frequencies. > > I vote to design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for > implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it! > > Off my soapbox, > > Roger > WA1KAT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) From: RogerKola@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:35:19 EST X-Message-Number: 4 In a message dated 01/18/03 10:13:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, dubose@texas.net writes: > Well spoken Sir. > > Walt/K5YFW Thanks Walt....sometimes there is clarity in my thinking ;-) Roger --- 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 Sun Jan 19 15:13:33 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA05623 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:13:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: 802.11b Identification Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:12:44 +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 PAA05623 > So since the node/AP name is "trasnmitted", then it can be used as the > ID. > > If you have a text file showing this, I would appreciate having it for > my > files. I'd have to dig up a Netstumbler log. If you have 802.11b equipment, just go to http://www.netstumbler.com and download Netstumbler (it's a Windows based application), and then look around your own network. It doesn't sniff as such, just shows what APs are active and gives name, SSID, channel, whether WEP is in use or not, MAC address and other info. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 19 15:23:41 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA06059 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:23:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:21:50 +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 > I would like to see Part 97 operation used for things like > repeater links > and remote control so we could free up some UHF spectrum and > perform other > functions where Part 15 clearly has no use. Why recreate the > wheel? Where > is the innovation in that? I agree. The real attraction of 802.11b in the ham world is the ready availability of high speed data links. From there, you open up the possibility of many things - to name a few: High speed data links (now that'll get packet and APRS data moving!) IRLP/Echolink style oprtation over ham links (now the Echolink PC users can be truly playing ham radio via 802.11b). Multicast "virtual conferences" - allow PCs and repeaters/links to arbitrarily join multicast groups and conference with minimal use of bandwidth. Digital ATV repeater linking - now multicast here would really be something - the easiest way to get a dozen ATV repeaters linked... The sky's the limit, once we can get some serious bandwidth happening. :) Obviously, we're going to have to use much more than the 2.4 GHz band, which will require some "hands on" work to make the technologies work elsewhere. But hey, we're hams, some of us can do it - I'm no RF designer, but I can work with SMDs, given a set of instructions and a schematic. :-) Now, if we can coax 802.11a onto one or more of our bands and beef up the power.... :-) Or 802.11g (hey, we're getting out of SS here and into straight wideband digital, so the US hams shouldn't have power restrictions with these modes?). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 19 15:31:08 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA06263 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:31:05 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:29:56 +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 > Good....good Rick...here's some more. > > Back to the Pizza guy. > > What if the Pizza guy has a cellphone, no LandLine? But does the cellphone use 147 MHz? There is an intermediate gateway where control is passed from ham to commercial telco systems. The 802.11b situation is more like a situation that can arise here. There are licence free 434 MHz radios available in VK for the general public (OK, that's a long story of a stuffup, we won't go there... :) ). At 20 mW EIRP, they have been used by some hams as QRP rigs for experimentation and "to see how far one can get". Can a ham legally talk to "Joe Blow" who's using one of these things legally on 434 MHz? As it turns out, the answer is almost certainly "no", because when you get issued your licence here, it states that you can communicate with "amateur stations". However, there are ways around this, like "test transmissions" that the other user just happened to hear and comment on.... and the ham just happened to hear those mutterings... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 19 15:42:56 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA06862 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:42:50 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: kb9mwr.ampr.org: kb9mwr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:44:49 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Lampereur X-Sender: kb9mwr@kb9mwr.ampr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) 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 Can we legally talk to unlicensed Part 15 users on shared frequencies under part 97? At first I'd say no, because this is a form of broadcasting. But maybe one could pass some supervised Part 15 traffic as a third party communication? Just like using an autopatch to talk to an unlicensed person. Then there is the whole certification deal. But if you have an unmodifed Part 15 port and and Part 97 port... Just some more crazy thinking outloud from what I've been reading. Using Reclassified Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Devices for Ham Radio: 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 Sun Jan 19 17:32:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA10850 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:32:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:31:17 -0500 From: Alex Fraser Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en 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: <3E2B3545.FB73689B@comcast.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi Gang, my first post here, been listening for a couple of weeks. Hams must start thinking network and probably IP network if they want to stay relevant. I feel the reason to use 802.11b equipment is because it is here and easy to network. The terms router and switch must be as well known as amplifier or antenna tuner. 802.11 is cheap and available, of course we will move other bands once we reach critical mass and peoples expectations create a enough demand for ham devices on ham bands with equal of better technology than the part 15 devices. Skewed to the point, but I am promoting this; Our contests must use networking technology. Please view my ideas for Field day http://www.qsl.net/n3der/fd.html "Hampton, Rickey L." wrote: > > Browsing the Web over a Part 97 link and receiving a digital ad on > > one of the pages is probably a violation of the regulations. Doing > > e-commerce certainly would be. > > So, my question is why are we even having this message thread at all? If I > want to surf the internet, I don't need to pollute the spectrum as a Part 97 > user to do it. Keep the stuff legal under Part 15 or, better yet, use CAT-5 > and don't worry about it. > > I would like to see Part 97 operation used for things like repeater links > and remote control so we could free up some UHF spectrum and perform other > functions where Part 15 clearly has no use. Why recreate the wheel? Where > is the innovation in that? > > Rick, WD8KEL > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: beatnic@comcast.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ........ Alex Fraser N3DER ......... ......... beatnic@comcast.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 Sun Jan 19 19:15:50 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA15917 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:15:49 -0600 (CST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:54:53 -0500 Subject: [ss] PSR deadline coming soon! From: Stan Horzepa To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" 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 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Just a reminder: If you are interested in submitting an article for TAPR's newsletter, Packet Status Register, the deadline is the 26th, so send me your input ASAP. 73, Stan, WA1LOU, PSR Editor --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 07:29:43 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA15900 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:29:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Prism test software To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:27:25 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/20/2003 02:25:57 PM 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 Test software is available from intersil for prism that can be used to force the card into test modes. Set it for continuous unmodulated unspread Tx to measure the frequency with a counter. Set it for continous modulated Tx if you need to check sidebands, out-of-band emissions, or measure the power. You can also disable the spreading, although I doubt a pair of unspread prisms would sync! I have a legal obligation in my regs to test my station, and record the tests in the log. I think the authorities might be a little displeased if I used a WLAN card as a ham rig and didn't know how to measure it's frequency. This should help satisfy legal beagles who would be only too pleased to kick your ass. If you're going to argue your place in the band, you need to be squeaky-clean. http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe I thought this stuff was only available with a Prism chipset evaluation kit but no, the Prism Test Appliance is here on the web. Also Benchmark Pro - throughput test utility http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe More info on Prism developer's software here: http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ss/p2smtrx.asp#PRISM_Test_Utility_Suite Should be usable (from MS-windows platforms) with all cards that use Prism chipsets - incl. D-link, Linksys, SMC, etc Of course, this OS lark is a right pain in the butt. To run Prism tests, you need Windows. To run Ethereal on 802.11 level, you need Linux. It would be nice if we could come up with complete bootable CD-ROMs of each so we didn't need installs of both and we need not be experts in both to do these tasks. I'm careering up the learning-curve for FreeDOS at the moment & my brain's ready to explode! 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 Jan 20 09:41:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA21424 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:41:06 -0600 (CST) X-Internal-ID: 3E25B5CD00058190 From: "Marcelo Puhl" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:40:02 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Re: Prism test software 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: <3E2BFC32.6769.33CA89C@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Is there a similar test software for the Proxim Symphony FH cards? Thanks. Mark On 20 Jan 2003 at 13:27, Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselen wrote: > > Test software is available from intersil for prism that > can be used to force the card into test modes. Set it for > continuous unmodulated unspread Tx to measure the > frequency with a counter. Set it for continous modulated > Tx if you need to check sidebands, out-of-band emissions, > or measure the power. You can also disable the spreading, > although I doubt a pair of unspread prisms would sync! > > I have a legal obligation in my regs to test my station, and > record the tests in the log. I think the authorities might be > a little displeased if I used a WLAN card as a ham rig and didn't > know how to measure it's frequency. This should help satisfy > legal beagles who would be only too pleased to kick your > ass. If you're going to argue your place in the band, you > need to be squeaky-clean. > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe > > I thought this stuff was only available with a Prism chipset evaluation > kit but no, the Prism Test Appliance is here on the web. > > Also Benchmark Pro - throughput test utility > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe > > More info on Prism developer's software here: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ss/p2smtrx.asp#PRISM_Test_Utility_Suite > > > > Should be usable (from MS-windows platforms) with all cards that use > Prism chipsets - incl. D-link, Linksys, SMC, etc > > > Of course, this OS lark is a right pain in the butt. To run > Prism tests, you need Windows. To run Ethereal on 802.11 level, > you need Linux. It would be nice if we could come up with > complete bootable CD-ROMs of each so we didn't need installs > of both and we need not be experts in both to do these tasks. > I'm careering up the learning-curve for FreeDOS at the > moment & my brain's ready to explode! > > Ant M1FDE > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: mark@cpovo.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 Mon Jan 20 13:32:29 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA03855 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:32:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:31:41 -0500 From: Alex Fraser Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en 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: <3E2C4E9D.6B93740E@comcast.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I am impatient too. When the FCC handed out this privilege I was ecstatic. I really talked it up. Nobody I talked to in my local club even had lute warm interest, I thought I might have radio breath or something. Perhaps they were seeing a downside that I missed. Maybe this was a plot by the FCC to destroy ham radio, a poisen pill? Well I now believe my uninterested local group members were not seeing some evil machination of the FCC, but in fact just missing seeing the future. There is one thing part 15, 802.11 groups, both commercial and community based have not done and that is exist for over 10 years. It is all very new and you cannot predict what will happen (even given no external rule changes) to the WiFi groups in the next 10 years, perhaps they will choke in their own success. I see conflicts between community based groups and commercial interests. CAWnet (Capitol Area Wireless) which I belong to has structured it's bylaws to appeal to both camps. They promote ma and pa WISPs and encourage free access points. There is a mild internal tension which could be fanned to flame by, let's say a big company buying up the Ma and Pa WISPs on the one hand or a City wide Coop winning hearts and minds on the other. I see the community based side of the part 15 groups as being natural allies to ham radio. The commercial side will never see us as anything but potential customers. Since hams are the ones with a tradition of self discipline this is how I would like things to play out. Hams develop there own nets, part 97 only. We build a security fence around our nets (I'm trying to implement NOCAT authentication) while being very friendly, but firm with all. Once we have the fence and the skilled people to maintain it we then negotiate with the part 15 community groups for common access points or infrastructure with the proviso that we will shut off service to folks who just don't want to play ball. Perhaps some of our discipline will rub off on the community groups and perhaps some of their free spirit will rub off on the ham community. It would be a marriage made in heaven. I think the FCC would be relieved if we solve the problem nicely. Stewart Teaze wrote: > --- Walt DuBose wrote: > > The real answer is found in part 97.111(a)(4)... > > Oh, please! > > This stuff was written WAY before the existance of > Part 15 wireless regs. > > Like the rest of digital ham radio - THE RULES ARE > TOTALLY OUT OF DATE! I say stop being such a bunch of > pussies - either ignore this silliness and join the > wireless revolution, or get the FCC to change the > stupid rules to allow intercommunication between Part > 15 and Part 97 wireless devices on compatible > frequencies (if you think it is required). As for > myself, I don't have time for this garbage, and I > would choose to take the former route. > > Digital ham radio is being LEFT IN THE DUST so fast, > it isn't funny... and you fools just sit here doing > the usual "ham thing"... endlessly debating the > rules... I suddenly fell nauseous... maybe its all > that leftover holiday turkey I've been consuming > lately - but I don't think so. > > I'd be willing to petition the FCC myself, if I didn't > already know that I'd have to do battle with a > combination of anti-digital (ANALOG AND MORRIS CODE > FOREVER!), self-flagulating (WE'RE NOT WORTHY!), and > anti-change (IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH IN 1952, ITS GOOD > ENOUGH NOW!) types. > > It simply ASTOUNDS ME... why WOULDN'T hams want to > communicate with Part 15 users? > > And what's all this NONSENSE about debating endlessly > about IDing on low-power short haul digital links... I > mean, really! Think about it for a few seconds, and > you will see how RIDICULOUS it sounds... and that it > is simply a HAM THROWBACK to the HF days... This is > the 21st century FOR CRYING OUT LOUD... change the way > we think about IDing! Simply require that your > station respond to a FINGER request, do a broadcast, > or something similar. It's a different world... you > can't SHOEHORN the new digital comms into old ham ways > of doing things. I mean what REALLY CRACKS ME UP are > the guys who think we ought to ID BY MORSE CODE! > Yeah, right!... How many people would understand THAT! > (and it would and illegal transmission, and > interfering with the channel to boot!). > > - Stewart > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: beatnic@comcast.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ........ Alex Fraser N3DER ......... ......... beatnic@comcast.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 Mon Jan 20 13:41:13 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA04160 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:41:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:40:28 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/20/2003 08:39:01 PM 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 > Finally, we are at the heart of the matter! > I second Roger's motion (HI): > "...design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for > implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it!" At first this logic makes a lot of sense... BUT That's the right attitude for a commercial venture. Or a community service. This is amateur radio. We're here to experiment and learn, not provide a service. Therefore scope should exist for the experimentation with all designs of amateur radio network, whether they make practical sense at first sight or not. What tha ARRL HSMM deside to do may not be what others decide to do, and they're all entitled to their experimental systems, whether they have yet proved meritorious or not. We can compose an internet with many different transports; that's how it is. IP-over-ATM here, ADSL there, all linked up. Without all sorts of experiments you'll never discover anything interesting. In the commercial world we support well-engineered systems at minimum risk and specified availability; in an experimental world we must support even systems we believe are doomed to failure; the value of experiment being to demonstrate they fail! We believe in people's right & duty to experiment, rather than any need to deliver a service. If we are simply erecting the black-boxes the commercial companies make in the way they made them to operate, we become consumers, not experimenters. It does not make any engineering sense to change the rules to permit the performance limitation of cheap commercial gear. It is desirable to have some legal framework that allows us to keep amateur bands free of pollution. Callsigns being one tool to identify abusers, and power and bandwidth limits being another. Seems like some archaic pain-in-the-ass but we need it for a reason. It's OK to say "what's the point these days" but there *is* a point to it. The day we have to admit we are incapable of controlling our radios as we have handed control over to others who write the firmware will be a sad day for amateur radio. We need change & lots of it if we don't want ham radio to become the vintage radio operator's club, and if we don't want hamradio datacomms to die a death through being totally pale compared to the internet. But I don't think it's regulatory that's holding things back, and I don't think rules need liberating for the reasons that have been suggested. Authorities have always been seen as slow to change the rules. Expecting them to be 2 steps ahead of what is possible is unrealistic. They are proving resonably responsive these days to the needs of new radio services and changes to ham licensing; I don't have great complaints there. If there are problems with amateur radio, I don't think we should blame them. "It's illegal for you to carry telegrams by radio." Thus was Marconi's Newfoundland station shut down. I hesitate to condone Marconi's illegal transatlantic experiments; but if you're pushing the envelope, you're in good company! > It is the mission I have instilled into the ARRL HSMM > WG since being given the honor and privilege of chairing it! Mr Champa, It is not the task of the ARRL to design a network and then ensure it is the only one allowed in the band-plans. It is the task of the ARRL (& RSGB etc) to forsee changes necessary to facilitate datacomms in general and implement them, by listening to the broad spectrum of proposed experimental systems. It may be the task of the HSMM to provide leadership on advisory standards for interoperability, and to encourage with vision of future applications of multimedia. Your statement came very close to "the HSMM system will dictate new regs". And the next step looks like "Amateurs, your experimentation has been done for you. And this is what you will do..." Where links are short, or point-to-point, standards are *not* required at the link-level; each LAN can have it's own proprietary transport. Progress on 802.11 will outstrip any attempt by the ARRL to lock it down. All LANs can be interconnected at the IP level. HSMM should concentrate on getting worldwide interoperability & portability of applications ("eQSO software") that could run across a "hinternet", and the infrastructure (DNS, IPv6 etc). What we need is something to *do* with these networks that makes them differnet from "internet" and makes everyone else want to jump on-board. Also we need some creative thinking how we fund & manage continental and intercontinental backbones at the gigabit level for multimedia QSOs to work. We have lots of little ham WLANs; we can do that bit; but they're not joined up. Join them up and we have thousands of multimedia hams to contact instead of a dozen, and suddenly it's a new ballgame. Say we all 'phone John Champa tomorrow and say "Connect my WLAN to the hinternet"- can he do it? That is the $10M question. Do we need a new "hinternet" ISP with a mandate to experiment with bleeding-edge services and runs things how we like it - not with clauses to prevent subletting bandwidth, running servers, or kick you off for using it too much. Would such a body require a new kind of amateur license if they used amateur spectrum to the benefit of amateur members but was paid to do it, had shareholders, and made investment? It might even be funded as a research venture by multinational ISPs like "pipex". It's the last mile that's expensive for ISPs which is where amateur radio owns the ground. I can't get ADSL for love nor money but if I can get a 10Mb/s hinternet connection on the roof of an officeblock in the middle of town, I can sort the rest... that'll do niceley! When the "hinternet" exists it offers so much scope - one of the first things we can pioneer is real-time chat language translation servers. That would be one of the biggest moves on the "international understanding" aspect of hamradio that could ever be done and a long time coming it's been too. Not having to interoperate with non-amateurs and the internet should be seen as a clear road to pioneer IPv6; it makes no sense to use end-of-line IPv4 for a brand-new internet, and you need the QoS features for multimedia. Where's the fun in tired & tested old IPv4? You'd get a lot more WLAN developer mindshare if you featured on their IPv6 beta programme. Companies might even start throwing hardware at you. (802.11 gear should carry IPv6 already; it's just the config ports that are v4) If Mr John Champa et al can deliver the vision I'll look forward to being greatly honoured to meet the man, as he could change the face not only of amateur radio but the way the rest of the internet works. For it to happen I think he's now got to stop playing with the toys in the lab and get out there and wake up the international and commercial support that would make it happen. The HSMM press release is being forwarded again & again with major interest out here. It's been in the GB2RS news service. I've received it several times by e-mail. More please :-) 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 Jan 20 14:46:10 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA08295 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:46:09 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:46:42 -0600 From: Geoff Edmonson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020903 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.63.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3E2C6032.7040806@w5omr.shacknet.nu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: >>Finally, we are at the heart of the matter! > > >>I second Roger's motion (HI): > > >>"...design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for >>implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it!" > > > > At first this logic makes a lot of sense... > > BUT > > That's the right attitude for a commercial venture. > Or a community service. > > This is amateur radio. > > We're here to experiment and learn, not provide a > service. I respectfully disagree with that statement, Ant. If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, lots and lots more lives would have been lost. Wireless access for Hams would further enable us to provide our communication "service" to those in need, in times of trouble. The communication that hams provided after the the Twin towers in New York were attacked is but one of gazillion examples. -- 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 Mon Jan 20 15:14:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA09315 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:14:31 -0600 (CST) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:13:45 -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: 64.9.221.44 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: <1043097225.3e2c66899e81e@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com: > > > Finally, we are at the heart of the matter! > > > I second Roger's motion (HI): > > > "...design the network, apply for the "fixes" we deem necessary for > > implementation, allowing for growth, and then build it!" > > > At first this logic makes a lot of sense... > > BUT > > That's the right attitude for a commercial venture. > Or a community service. > > This is amateur radio. > > We're here to experiment and learn, not provide a > service. Actually, might want to browse U.S. FCC rules again: 97.1(a), (right at the very front) states: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. One could easily make the case that developing something useful that people like and use is the best way to comply with 97.1a, in the sense that the 99.99% of the time that we don't have an emergency, the system will get beat on, and any problems exposed when the .01% of the time it is a emergency, the system will work good since it is so well tested. This was proven time and time again in the 1980's with our packet networks and is not different now. You are allowed to have fun and do something useful with amateur radio, or at least I don't see a rule against it. > Therefore scope should exist for the experimentation > with all designs of amateur radio network, whether > they make practical sense at first sight or not. Go for it. > What tha ARRL HSMM deside to do may not be what others > decide to do, and they're all entitled to their > experimental systems, whether they have yet proved > meritorious or not. We can compose an internet with > many different transports; that's how it is. > IP-over-ATM here, ADSL there, all linked up. What was that Woody Allen saying? Oh, ya "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Like it or not, the HSMM is showing up when other groups are no-where to be seen in the spread spectrum scene. > Without all sorts of experiments you'll never discover > anything interesting. In the commercial world we > support well-engineered systems at minimum risk and > specified availability; in an experimental world we > must support even systems we believe are doomed to > failure; the value of experiment being to demonstrate > they fail! We believe in people's right & duty to > experiment, rather than any need to deliver a service. Who is stopping you from experimenting? > If we are simply erecting the black-boxes the commercial > companies make in the way they made them to operate, > we become consumers, not experimenters. So, your solution is for amateur radio collectively to do nothing with Spread Spectrum like they have for the last 6+ years? Granted, I'd love to see a utopia that you discuss, yet in reality it simply is not happening. In other words, sometimes you need to walk before you run. Walking means designing your own antennas, amplifiers, operating practices and accesory devices before you go designing a complicated radio. > It does not make any engineering sense to change > the rules to permit the performance limitation of cheap > commercial gear. This is a hobby, meaning Joey's milk money is being used to buy ham gear. If you want the effort to succeed, it has to cost less then a military budget to buy or design the gear. The only way to do this, at this point, is to coattail on the commercial designs. Yes, I think the process gain should be greater then the 10-11db 802.11b offers, yet that is the only cost effective solution at this point to introduce into amateur radio on a widespread basis. Sometimes in life you have to be pragmatic, and this is a good example of it. > It is desirable to have some legal > framework that allows us to keep amateur bands free of > pollution. Callsigns being one tool to identify > abusers, and power and bandwidth limits being > another. Seems like some archaic pain-in-the-ass but > we need it for a reason. It's OK to say "what's the > point these days" but there *is* a point to it. Yes, it would really be ashame if we use the amateur bands for something useful, wouldn't it? This Marxist utopia that some want is going the way of the cold war. We have to justify our use of the bands, and good forbid, that means we even have to consider doing something useful with them beyond DX stamp collecting and putting up unused voice repeaters. > The day we have to admit we are incapable of controlling > our radios as we have handed control over to others who > write the firmware will be a sad day for amateur radio. ???? Do you have any rig newer then 15 years old? Yes you say? OK go ahead and ask Kenwood, Icom, Yaseu or any other member of Japan Inc. for the source code. See how far you get. Yet, on the other hand, you *can* (sometimes for a price) get ahold of the source code for many SS cards such as the prism chip set and others. Further, many open source projects exist for use of these devices (such as Open-AP and others). > We need change & lots of it if we don't want ham radio > to become the vintage radio operator's club, When I was 13 in 1975 with my novice license, I would wander the hamfests. Lost interest, and came back into the hobby a few years ago. The hamfests don't look a whole lot different with regards to radio technology, I mean the type that hams experiment with. It already is a vintage radio operator's club by and large, both in 1975 and now. Most (all) of the guys in 1975 where older then me, and most of them are older then me in 2003. > and if we > don't want hamradio datacomms to die a death through > being totally pale compared to the internet. ???? It already did some years ago in the U.S. Look at how many tcp/ip NOS users groups there where 8-10 years ago compared to today. Or packet BBS'es. Only APRS has grown, and just because it offers something unique that the internet can not yet meet. But I > don't think it's regulatory that's holding things back, > and I don't think rules need liberating for the reasons > that have been suggested. I don't either. It is amateur radio that is holding amateur radio back. > > It is the mission I have instilled into the ARRL HSMM > > WG since being given the honor and privilege of chairing it! > > Mr Champa, It is not the task of the ARRL to design a network > and then ensure it is the only one allowed in the band-plans. No it is not. What other amateur groups are doing anything with Spread Spectrum that can be in a leadership position here? > Where links are short, or point-to-point, standards are > *not* required at the link-level; each LAN can have it's > own proprietary transport. Progress on 802.11 will outstrip > any attempt by the ARRL to lock it down. Huh? ARRL has nothing to do with 802.11b. This so called "ARRL 802.11b" is just operating practices, and to the best of my knowledge, has nothing to do with the protocol. Just suggestions of what 802.11b channels to avoid and what suggested ones to use... you know, like a ARRL bandplan? Actually, this brings a good point up, the term "ARRL 802.11b" is confusing, since it implies a new protocol, when in fact, at this point, it is not, nor have I seen any indications it will be. So far, this is the only disagreement I have gotten into with the group, and it was simply semantics. But your extreme response indicates to me that they may want to change it to more accurately reflect what it is. How about "ARRL 802.11b operating practices"? > Do we need a new "hinternet" ISP with a mandate to > experiment with bleeding-edge services and runs things > how we like it - not with clauses to prevent subletting > bandwidth, running servers, or kick you off for using it > too much. Don't confuse FCC regulations with contract law. If you subscribe to a ISP, and distribute the bandwidth, you may be in violation of your TOS (Terms of Service). This applies no matter if you under Part 97, Part 15 or running a ethernet cable down the fenceline. In closing I'd suggest you check out the burgeoning Part 15 WLAN hobbyist market. These are the guys doing the pringle can antennas and such. IMHO, this is the future of ham radio, and if we can offer these guys a significant reason to come to part 97, life will be good. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 15:36:15 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA10237 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:36:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:35:21 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/20/2003 10:33:54 PM 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 Second Tx attempt - bounced - server recalibrated > The rule is *NEVER* ask the FCC. He hee. There is one point in the UK Foundation licence that the UK authorities have advised amateurs *not* to ask for clarification of! :-) Making it clear would involve loads of work for both amateurs and the authorities so it's better nobody asks; we'll worry about it if there's ever a problem. It'll never be clarified. Sometimes these rules get put in just to get the document past the higher powers with no intention of enforcing any of it; they haven't got the money or the staff to do it. They'd rather spend it chasing the bad guys. I've just noticed another anomalous UK situation: the Foundation licensee is not given access to the 2.4GHz amateur band. But it seems reasonable that he could use licence-free equipment on that band to communicate with Full licensees. There is no question of them not both being amateurs. The problem occurs when he comes to give a callsign; using his "M3xxx" callsign would represent him, but misrepresent the station he was operating. He'd have to declare he was M3xxx operating at the station of a nocall! Whether a nocall has authority to let him use the station is a matter for mirth and merriment. 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 Jan 20 15:42:42 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA10609 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:42:36 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:41:22 +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 PAA10609 > Ma and Pa WISPs on the one hand or a City wide Coop winning hearts and > minds on the other. I see the community based side of the > part 15 groups > as being natural allies to ham radio. The commercial side > will never see > us as anything but potential customers. Agreed. Actually, there's quite a strong experimental element in the community wireless networking down here. A lot of people are playing with antenna designs (in fact, some of the guys in Melbourne Wireless discovered design flaws in one published design and corrected them), links and quite a few are learning a bit of RF theory. I'm sure some of these people will eventually become hams as the RF bug bites. > Since hams are the ones with a tradition of self > discipline this is > how I would like things to play out. Hams develop there own nets, part > 97 only. We build a security fence around our nets (I'm trying to > implement NOCAT authentication) while being very friendly, > but firm with Good idea. Ham nets will need some means of authentication on a shared band. However, there will always be the problem of determining if the other end is a ham, before issuing a NOCAT network logon. This is a similar problem to that faced by systems such as EchoLink in the VoIP world. However, since you are likely to be more local to the ham users, you have a better chance of meeting them fact to face and seeing their licence for yourself, if necessary. > all. Once we have the fence and the skilled people to maintain it we > then negotiate with the part 15 community groups for common access > points or infrastructure with the proviso that we will shut > off service > to folks who just don't want to play ball. Perhaps some of our Good idea. > discipline will rub off on the community groups and perhaps some of > their free spirit will rub off on the ham community. It would be a > marriage made in heaven. I think the FCC would be relieved if we solve > the problem nicely. Also, the community groups appreciate hams who are willing to help them and be a part of their cause. Another case of working together having mutual benefit. The long term effect is ham knowledge and goodwill spreads to the unlecenced people, and in the other direction, there's an increased awareness and interest in ham radio, more respect for hams, and the ultimate goal of more hams who come across to discover more about radio for themselves. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 20 15:43:27 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA10647 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:43:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:41:49 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/20/2003 10:40:21 PM 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 Attempting retrx - bounced message - server reconfigured - Ant > I went war driving once. Picked up 50 some access points. 4/5 were open. One > of the 50 had a ham callsign for an SSID. If I was an educated bad boy looking > to cause trouble, that would have been an opening to the exact name, address, phone > and shoe size of that access point's owner. What's the big deal about that? In some countries you have to post your callsign on you house and on your car. If some crook spots it down-town, they could zip round your house and nick your gear! The whole point of ham radio is that > Example looped ID script: > #!/bin/sh > while true > do > /bin/ping -c 1 -s 21 -p 574952454C455353204E4F4445 44.92.20.35 # > WIRELESS NODE > /bin/ping -c 1 -s 24 -p 464343204152532043414C4C5349474E 44.92.20.35 # > FCC ARS CALLSIGN > /bin/ping -c 1 -s 22 -p 204B42394D575220464F52204944 44.92.20.35 # > KB9MWR FOR ID > sleep 600 > done Explain what that's supposed to do. Remember, ping only tests the underlying IP transport. It makes no guarantee the given packet will leave your machine. IP will attempt to deliver the outgoing ICMP ECHO_REQUEST datagram the normal manner. This usually involves an ARP lookup to see if the target is on the local subnet, or if it is not, trying to locate a gateway (router), also using ARP request. The objective being to find a MAC address to send the packet to. So initially, what goes out is an ARP request packet from the protocol stack, not the ECHO_REQUEST. If ARP fails, because connectivity to other systems are down, your ping packet will never be sent. An IP packet cannot be sent if it doesn't have a MAC address to send it to. ie. ping is not solid enough as a station ID, and it's no good at all as a beacon. I'd suggest you need a little program that sends broadcast packets via SOCK_RAW; they should always be sent on-air. BUT... It might also be true that your WLAN won't send *any* user packets (including ARP and broadcast) until it has sucessfully joined a BSS or an IBSS, or in the case of an AP, has at least one client registered with it. Until that happens, the WLAN ethernet port may simply not be open for business. 802.11 standards are good on the interfaces but don't solidly define what the working innards of a WLAN MAC should do. One sort of infers that it might be a good idea to put received packets in a buffer and forward them in the direction of the destination. Whether a MAC should attempt to if it knows it's futile... "undefined". One might presume that WEP has the duty to protect any traffic on your wired network, including broadcast packets, and therefore even broadcast packets are encoded. They carry machine names, MAC addresses, and IP addresses, very useful to a cracker in the mood for a spoof. They should go to authenticated members of the BSS/IBSS, not to the universe. It would seem unlikely the system would leak clear broadcast packets up until the moment it joined a BSS or IBSS, and decided it should use WEP. This is why I suggest a WLAN won't emit any user packets at all until it has negotiated into a BSS or IBSS. In the unconnected state all a WLAN will send is probes from the 802.11 MAC to find a BSS or IBSS, responses to probes, refusals to inappropriate requests, the 802.11 beacon if it's an AP, and the 802.1D STP datagrams if it's a bridge. If you set the card in promiscuous mode, things might be different. It might leak stuff out just as much as in! Off-air packet sniffs with Ethereal are necessary to prove your ID message works. Don't assume. If your ping thing works I'll eat my hat - but you'll have to post the tcpdumps first. Who knows, the Linux drivers might be broke ,-) The dump on this page. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pingid.html is tracing an established link at the ethernet level (eth1) not the WLAN level (wlan0). And it's traced at one of the participants in the link, not by a 3rd party receive-only station. We know this is not a 3rd party station as such packets would never reach the ethernet level there. Even if the WLAN card were set promiscuous, the bridge will know it's unable to forward to MAC 6b:62:39:6d:77:72 . What needs to be demonstrated is that your ID is decoded by a 3rd party receive-only station when your station is up, beaconing and capable of responding to requests and no other stations are alive in the area. The only way for hams to do WLAN off-air sniffing at present (AFAIK) is Linux, Ethereal, a Prism card and "prism" drivers (not hostap). There are commercial Windows WLAN sniffers, but it's expensive software. Ethereal will run on Windows but won't do WLAN-level sniffing. IMO the only way to be sure you're not breaking the law is to test it. Use a receiver and receive your own ID. In my regs I have a legal obligation to test my station, and to record said tests in the log. Using the callsign is a legal requirement as much as being on-frequency, so should be tested. Usually we know our callsign goes out as it tends to be a brain function, not a function of hardware. The other hams would pipe up and bitch at us if it didn't. "CQ CQ mumble whisle buzz buzz click! This is cough cough standing by." 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 Jan 20 15:56:10 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA11029 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:56:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:55:24 +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 > But I > > don't think it's regulatory that's holding things back, > > and I don't think rules need liberating for the reasons > > that have been suggested. > > > I don't either. It is amateur radio that is holding amateur > radio back. You've hit the nail on the head here. Sometimes, we (as in hams in general) are our own worst enemy - too concerned about maintaining our comfort zone and political games to advance the art and do something _really_ useful. I hope I don't contribute to that problem as I get older, but human nature's not on my side, guess I'll have to periodically pinch myself and remain vigilant against getting to set in my ways > In closing I'd suggest you check out the burgeoning Part 15 > WLAN hobbyist > market. These are the guys doing the pringle can antennas and > such. IMHO, this > is the future of ham radio, and if we can offer these guys a > significant reason > to come to part 97, life will be good. Agreed, I believe this is where the next generation of ham is going to come from, if we play our cards right. These people will bring a fresh new approach to the hobby. It will be exciting, but it will also bring about a LOT of changes to the hobby. Even the changes brought about by IRLP, Echolink and the new digital modes will pale by comparison to the effects a new generation of network aware hams operating high speed data networks could have. There's going to be some big changes I feel (and hope), mostly for the better. Count me in! :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 20 16:01:38 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA11241 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:01:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Content Restrictions (& station control) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:59:05 +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 QAA11241 > Second Tx attempt - bounced - server recalibrated > > > The rule is *NEVER* ask the FCC. > > He hee. > > There is one point in the UK Foundation licence > that the UK authorities have advised amateurs > *not* to ask for clarification of! Same rule applies here, never ask the authorities, unless you know how to phrase the question so that a standard "no" type response means "yes" for what you want to do (which has successfully been done in the past! :) ). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 20 16:03:13 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA11289 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:03:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:00:50 -0500 From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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 Geoff: This discussion is typical of the disconnect between US hams and those elsewhere. In many countries, especially some European countries, it is not allowed for hams to do emergency communications. This is primarily a ITU Region 2 thing. Bob --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 16:08:42 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA11726 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:05:15 +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 QAA11726 > In some countries you have to post your callsign > on you house and on your car. If some crook spots > it down-town, they could zip round your house and > nick your gear! Well, they only have to look up an online database, even without 802.11b WLAN APs on the air... Any packet operator can already be found out by the bad guys armed with a copy of AGWPE and a scanner - Callsigns as MAC address is nothing new, Or there's the low budget approach. Drive around and note the addresses of any tower or mast you see, feed the addresses into an online database and Viola! Nothing new here... --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 20 16:50:22 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA13557 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:50:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:48:48 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/20/2003 11:47:19 PM 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 respectfully disagree with that statement, Ant. > If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, > lots and lots more lives would have been lost. I thought someone would come up with that one. In the UK dealing with emergencies is usually a matter for professionals, either full-time or reservists, amateurs are rarely if ever called on. Amateur status in UK spectrum allocations does not reflect any emergency service status; we are not a "protected service". It is not anticipated that a redundant infrastructure be created by amateurs but that whatever radio resources exist might be accesible at some time of need. Pre- planned service ammounts to little more than knowing the names & whereabouts of volunteers and the installation of an amateur radio station in local government buildings. Amateurs have been called upon to relay information in time of war; information was collected and fed back via amateurs. This was at the time that the Falkland islands were invaded by the Argentines. Whether this is emergency use or war intelligence is a matter of debate. I can't believe that's 20 years ago now - the British fleet went down there and the Royal Marines and the SBS kicked butt. The last serious event in the UK was a fuel shortage caused by truck-drivers blockading the oil refineries in objecting to transport taxation policy. Communications was unaffected, getting nurses to work and food to the shops was the main problem. And we had some problems with cattle diseases but that was hardly an emergency. In recent history there's not been a flood or fire that's affected more than a few dozen houses. Cars occasionally get blown up by terrorists particularly in Ireland but we're quite used to that. In an emergency, availability of fuel and electricity is a common problem and few amateurs are equipped with systems that will run for more than a few hours without. There's a lot of handhelds but few have mobile datacomms equipment - when I suggest packet in my car they look at me funny - "How can you use that when you're driving?" I get the impression that US citizens expect to have far more of a role in emergencies, and there are many organised groups that perform routine functions like monitoring the CB channel 9. 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 Jan 20 17:12:15 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA14814 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:12:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:09:05 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2C8191.5050305@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk You're right, someone WILL come up with this one. Here in the US, one of our reasons for existence is our assistance in emergencies. And such assistance is cyclic because periodically, the "professionals" decide they can do it better than the "amateurs" and go off on their own. Then they discover: FRS radios sans repeaters don't work well over distances exceeding a couple of hundred meters. Especially when all the sightseers are also using those channels. Cellphone emergency comms plans don't work well when the media are trying to report to their home offices, acquire a channel and camp on it because THEY realize that if they hang up and lose that channel, they may never get it back. Trunking systems fail because the traffic load went up and not only are the public safety services using their channels, but the public works folks are also mobilized to clean up the mess. Sequestered systems don't always work, because they haven't been looking at how well the hardware and network was constructed, and they've been blind to failures that occurred since the last time they used the system. People fail because they don't talk on the radio, don't know radio protocol, and don't understand that it's not always a full-duplex (telephone-like) system. For us, being prepared to go into the field is a reality. I realize that's not necessarily so in other countries, but that's why it so colors our thinking. Let me offer one real-world system example. I'm part of a large linked UHF repeater network, over 50 sites just in the State of Texas. If a communications emergency occurs, we can... and will make this system available for emergency traffic, and we can lock it in place so that it appears to be a single hop to the user from any site to the State capitol... and any other site. It doesn't generally participate in simulated emergency tests, but it and its control system are exercised every day. It's housed at commercial sites with emergency power. The antennas are commercial grade, as is the feedline, because an asset like this can't do too well if its Diammond Dualbander blew apart in the hurricane. We're known to the radio officers and emergency managers who count, and our contact info, commercial, PSTN, and amateur are well-known. Basically, we have an asset that's tested and used daily, and if it goes down, we fix it quickly for our own purposes, and don't delay it because it's a backup to something else. Therein lies the difference. We're prepared to assist, as a large number of hams in this country are in one form or another, without having to go through some permutation to get things up, retested, figure out how to make people work together. In a number of groups I'm involved with, crossing a large number of professional bounds, we're "Practicing like we'll play." 73, gerry Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: >>I respectfully disagree with that statement, Ant. > > >>If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, >>lots and lots more lives would have been lost. > > > > I thought someone would come up with that one. > > > In the UK dealing with emergencies is usually a matter > for professionals, either full-time or reservists, > amateurs are rarely if ever called on. > > Amateur status in UK spectrum allocations does not reflect > any emergency service status; we are not a "protected > service". > > It is not anticipated that a redundant infrastructure > be created by amateurs but that whatever radio resources > exist might be accesible at some time of need. Pre- > planned service ammounts to little more than knowing > the names & whereabouts of volunteers and the installation > of an amateur radio station in local government buildings. > > > Amateurs have been called upon to relay information in > time of war; information was collected and fed back via > amateurs. This was at the time that the Falkland islands > were invaded by the Argentines. Whether this is emergency > use or war intelligence is a matter of debate. I can't > believe that's 20 years ago now - the British fleet went > down there and the Royal Marines and the SBS kicked butt. > > > The last serious event in the UK was a fuel shortage caused > by truck-drivers blockading the oil refineries in objecting > to transport taxation policy. Communications was unaffected, > getting nurses to work and food to the shops was the main > problem. And we had some problems with cattle diseases > but that was hardly an emergency. In recent history there's > not been a flood or fire that's affected more than a few > dozen houses. Cars occasionally get blown up by terrorists > particularly in Ireland but we're quite used to that. > > In an emergency, availability of fuel and electricity is > a common problem and few amateurs are equipped with > systems that will run for more than a few hours without. > There's a lot of handhelds but few have mobile datacomms > equipment - when I suggest packet in my car they look at > me funny - "How can you use that when you're driving?" > > > I get the impression that US citizens expect to have far > more of a role in emergencies, and there are many organised > groups that perform routine functions like monitoring the > CB channel 9. > > Ant > > > > > --- > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 17:55:25 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA16166 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:55:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Emergency comms (was Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): R e: ss digest: January 18, 2003) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:54:20 +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 RAA16166 > In the UK dealing with emergencies is usually a matter > for professionals, either full-time or reservists, > amateurs are rarely if ever called on. > > Amateur status in UK spectrum allocations does not reflect > any emergency service status; we are not a "protected > service". Australia is more like the US than the UK in this regard, but the profile is much lower. There have been many cases of amateurs being used for emergency comms over the years - Cyclone Tracy, Newcastle earthquake, Ash Wednesday fires, just to name a few - and a number of us have been preparing our portable stations this summer in anticipation of a very severe fire season (which has already started in some parts, such as Sydney last December and Canberra last weekend). > The last serious event in the UK was a fuel shortage caused > by truck-drivers blockading the oil refineries in objecting > to transport taxation policy. Communications was unaffected, > getting nurses to work and food to the shops was the main > problem. And we had some problems with cattle diseases > but that was hardly an emergency. In recent history there's > not been a flood or fire that's affected more than a few > dozen houses. Cars occasionally get blown up by terrorists > particularly in Ireland but we're quite used to that. I guess it depends on the nature of your emergencies. Like the US, we get natural disasters that can affect wide areas - cyclones in the north, bushfires over much of the country that can destroy hundreds of houses (402 in Canberra, last I heard). We don't get the severe (F4, F5) tornadoes that the US gets in our populated areas, though weak tornadoes are surprisingly common near Melbourne and Sydney. The big ones go mostly unreported, due to the remote areas they tend to occur in. Bushfire remains the single biggest threat in this corner of Australia. > In an emergency, availability of fuel and electricity is > a common problem and few amateurs are equipped with > systems that will run for more than a few hours without. > There's a lot of handhelds but few have mobile datacomms > equipment - when I suggest packet in my car they look at > me funny - "How can you use that when you're driving?" Here, I'd call it a "significant minority" of amateurs who have portable comms independent of the mains. I can manage 6-12 hours on HF, or over a week on low power VHF/UHF without recharging the main standalone battery. A 6 hour portable HF operation last weekend hardly dented the battery's reserves.. Adding datacomms shouldn't be a problem, just need a suitable power supply for laptops. > > > I get the impression that US citizens expect to have far > more of a role in emergencies, and there are many organised > groups that perform routine functions like monitoring the > CB channel 9. Indeed,and again, we're middle of the road here as well, we have CREST to monitor the emergency CB channels in many parts of Australia. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 20 19:26:13 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA19739 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:26:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:26:53 -0600 From: Geoff Edmonson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020903 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.63.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3E2CA1DD.3000909@w5omr.shacknet.nu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Robert McGwier wrote: > > Geoff: > > This discussion is typical of the disconnect between US hams > and those elsewhere. In many countries, especially some > European countries, it is not allowed for hams to do emergency > communications. This is primarily a ITU Region 2 thing. Thanks for the clarification, Bob. Perhaps other ITU regions could learn something from US. ;-) -- Regards, -Geoff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 19:43:13 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA20290 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:43:12 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:42:45 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Prism test software 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: <3E2CA595.99B78CCA@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Intersil/PRISM-2 chipsets are used in LinkSys, DLink, SMC, Cisco Aironet, Nokia RLAN cards. Walt Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > > Test software is available from intersil for prism that > can be used to force the card into test modes. Set it for > continuous unmodulated unspread Tx to measure the > frequency with a counter. Set it for continous modulated > Tx if you need to check sidebands, out-of-band emissions, > or measure the power. You can also disable the spreading, > although I doubt a pair of unspread prisms would sync! > > I have a legal obligation in my regs to test my station, and > record the tests in the log. I think the authorities might be > a little displeased if I used a WLAN card as a ham rig and didn't > know how to measure it's frequency. This should help satisfy > legal beagles who would be only too pleased to kick your > ass. If you're going to argue your place in the band, you > need to be squeaky-clean. > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe > > I thought this stuff was only available with a Prism chipset evaluation > kit but no, the Prism Test Appliance is here on the web. > > Also Benchmark Pro - throughput test utility > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe > > More info on Prism developer's software here: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ss/p2smtrx.asp#PRISM_Test_Utility_Suite > > Should be usable (from MS-windows platforms) with all cards that use > Prism chipsets - incl. D-link, Linksys, SMC, etc > > Of course, this OS lark is a right pain in the butt. To run > Prism tests, you need Windows. To run Ethereal on 802.11 level, > you need Linux. It would be nice if we could come up with > complete bootable CD-ROMs of each so we didn't need installs > of both and we need not be experts in both to do these tasks. > I'm careering up the learning-curve for FreeDOS at the > moment & my brain's ready to explode! > > Ant M1FDE > > --- > 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 Mon Jan 20 20:19:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA21456 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:19:52 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: playstation.hb9jnx.ampr.org: sailer set sender to sailer@scs.ch using -f Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 From: Thomas Sailer To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 21 Jan 2003 03:19:49 +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: <1043115589.1819.29.camel@playstation> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 21:46, Geoff Edmonson wrote: > The communication that hams provided after the the Twin towers in New > York were attacked is but one of gazillion examples. Really? If so, the ARRL hasn't used this for publicity enough, as it's the first time I hear about this. On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 00:09, Gerry Creager wrote: > Cellphone emergency comms plans don't work well when the media are > trying to report to their home offices, acquire a channel and camp on it > because THEY realize that if they hang up and lose that channel, they > may never get it back. At least with GSM, you can prioritize terminals. And it works, there was no catastrophe where GSM proved to be a problem. Christmas, New Year and the Street Parade are probably more stressful to the GSM networks especially with the latter you cannot physically pack more people playing with a cellphone into a given area. > Let me offer one real-world system example. I'm part of a large linked > UHF repeater network, over 50 sites just in the State of Texas. If a > communications emergency occurs, we can... and will make this system What can you do? How many channels/simultaneous voice "calls" can you make? I doubt that any ham infrastructure can provide enough bandwidth. Besides, hams are only roughly 0.1% of the population, whereas more than 70% owns a mobile phone. Maybe the catastrophes in the US are different, but over here, communication tends not to be a problem. Furthermore, relying on amateur radio communications in emergencies was tried a few times but never really worked. So emergency communication is not something we can use to justify the amateur radio service. 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 Mon Jan 20 21:19:26 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA23654 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:19:22 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: X-Sender: wa7nwp@pop.mail.yahoo.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:18:37 -0800 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions 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: <4.2.0.58.20030120191400.00a967d0@pioneernet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 09:41 PM 1/20/03 +0000, Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > > /bin/ping -c 1 -s 24 -p 464343204152532043414C4C5349474E 44.92.20.35 > > > Explain what that's supposed to do. > > Remember, ping only tests the underlying IP transport. > > It makes no guarantee the given packet will leave your > machine. > > This usually involves an ARP lookup to see if the target is on the local subnet, or if it is not, trying to locate a gateway (router), also using ARP request. > The objective being to find a MAC address to send the packet to. So initially, what goes out is > an ARP request packet from the protocol stack, not the ECHO_REQUEST. > > If ARP fails, because connectivity to other systems > are down, your ping packet will never be sent. > > ie. ping is not solid enough as a station ID, and it's > no good at all as a beacon. Hard code the ARP entry pointing at the RF port to be identified. 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 Mon Jan 20 21:55:16 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA25499 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:55:14 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:54:53 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2CC48D.DD1B75A6@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Well spoken and as a user of the UHF linked system Gerry speaks of in a real emergency...there is nothing like it in the commercial world. Also note...and this is fact not bragging, our local weather service, one office, covers an area almost as larger than England. Its 200 miles wide and over 100 miles deep. Our local emergency management office is responsible for evacuation of the Texas Gulf Coast from the Rio Grande to Houston and 100 miles inland. Walt Gerry Creager wrote: > > You're right, someone WILL come up with this one. Here in the US, one > of our reasons for existence is our assistance in emergencies. And such > assistance is cyclic because periodically, the "professionals" decide > they can do it better than the "amateurs" and go off on their own. Then > they discover: > FRS radios sans repeaters don't work well over distances exceeding a > couple of hundred meters. Especially when all the sightseers are also > using those channels. > Cellphone emergency comms plans don't work well when the media are > trying to report to their home offices, acquire a channel and camp on it > because THEY realize that if they hang up and lose that channel, they > may never get it back. > Trunking systems fail because the traffic load went up and not only are > the public safety services using their channels, but the public works > folks are also mobilized to clean up the mess. > Sequestered systems don't always work, because they haven't been looking > at how well the hardware and network was constructed, and they've been > blind to failures that occurred since the last time they used the system. > People fail because they don't talk on the radio, don't know radio > protocol, and don't understand that it's not always a full-duplex > (telephone-like) system. > > For us, being prepared to go into the field is a reality. I realize > that's not necessarily so in other countries, but that's why it so > colors our thinking. > > Let me offer one real-world system example. I'm part of a large linked > UHF repeater network, over 50 sites just in the State of Texas. If a > communications emergency occurs, we can... and will make this system > available for emergency traffic, and we can lock it in place so that it > appears to be a single hop to the user from any site to the State > capitol... and any other site. It doesn't generally participate in > simulated emergency tests, but it and its control system are exercised > every day. It's housed at commercial sites with emergency power. The > antennas are commercial grade, as is the feedline, because an asset like > this can't do too well if its Diammond Dualbander blew apart in the > hurricane. We're known to the radio officers and emergency managers who > count, and our contact info, commercial, PSTN, and amateur are well-known. > > Basically, we have an asset that's tested and used daily, and if it goes > down, we fix it quickly for our own purposes, and don't delay it because > it's a backup to something else. > > Therein lies the difference. We're prepared to assist, as a large > number of hams in this country are in one form or another, without > having to go through some permutation to get things up, retested, figure > out how to make people work together. In a number of groups I'm > involved with, crossing a large number of professional bounds, we're > "Practicing like we'll play." > > 73, gerry > > Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > >>I respectfully disagree with that statement, Ant. > > > > > >>If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, > >>lots and lots more lives would have been lost. > > > > > > > > I thought someone would come up with that one. > > > > > > In the UK dealing with emergencies is usually a matter > > for professionals, either full-time or reservists, > > amateurs are rarely if ever called on. > > > > Amateur status in UK spectrum allocations does not reflect > > any emergency service status; we are not a "protected > > service". > > > > It is not anticipated that a redundant infrastructure > > be created by amateurs but that whatever radio resources > > exist might be accesible at some time of need. Pre- > > planned service ammounts to little more than knowing > > the names & whereabouts of volunteers and the installation > > of an amateur radio station in local government buildings. > > > > > > Amateurs have been called upon to relay information in > > time of war; information was collected and fed back via > > amateurs. This was at the time that the Falkland islands > > were invaded by the Argentines. Whether this is emergency > > use or war intelligence is a matter of debate. I can't > > believe that's 20 years ago now - the British fleet went > > down there and the Royal Marines and the SBS kicked butt. > > > > > > The last serious event in the UK was a fuel shortage caused > > by truck-drivers blockading the oil refineries in objecting > > to transport taxation policy. Communications was unaffected, > > getting nurses to work and food to the shops was the main > > problem. And we had some problems with cattle diseases > > but that was hardly an emergency. In recent history there's > > not been a flood or fire that's affected more than a few > > dozen houses. Cars occasionally get blown up by terrorists > > particularly in Ireland but we're quite used to that. > > > > In an emergency, availability of fuel and electricity is > > a common problem and few amateurs are equipped with > > systems that will run for more than a few hours without. > > There's a lot of handhelds but few have mobile datacomms > > equipment - when I suggest packet in my car they look at > > me funny - "How can you use that when you're driving?" > > > > > > I get the impression that US citizens expect to have far > > more of a role in emergencies, and there are many organised > > groups that perform routine functions like monitoring the > > CB channel 9. > > > > Ant > > > > > > > > > > --- > > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 > Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 > > --- > 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 Mon Jan 20 22:18:48 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA26246 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:18:44 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:17:09 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2CC9C5.D620B22A@texas.net> Precedence: bulk I say again...San Antonio's emergency management area extends from the Rio Grande on the Texas Gulf Coast to Houston and 100 miles inland. As I remember my geography, that's about the same land mass as England and maybe Germany. Also, it is illegal to prioritize tariffed communications in the United States. Walt/K5YFW Thomas Sailer wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 21:46, Geoff Edmonson wrote: > > > The communication that hams provided after the the Twin towers in New > > York were attacked is but one of gazillion examples. > > Really? If so, the ARRL hasn't used this for publicity enough, as it's > the first time I hear about this. > > On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 00:09, Gerry Creager wrote: > > > Cellphone emergency comms plans don't work well when the media are > > trying to report to their home offices, acquire a channel and camp on it > > because THEY realize that if they hang up and lose that channel, they > > may never get it back. > > At least with GSM, you can prioritize terminals. And it works, there was > no catastrophe where GSM proved to be a problem. Christmas, New Year and > the Street Parade are probably more stressful to the GSM networks > especially with the latter you cannot physically pack more people > playing with a cellphone into a given area. > > > Let me offer one real-world system example. I'm part of a large linked > > UHF repeater network, over 50 sites just in the State of Texas. If a > > communications emergency occurs, we can... and will make this system > > What can you do? How many channels/simultaneous voice "calls" can you > make? I doubt that any ham infrastructure can provide enough bandwidth. > Besides, hams are only roughly 0.1% of the population, whereas more than > 70% owns a mobile phone. > > Maybe the catastrophes in the US are different, but over here, > communication tends not to be a problem. Furthermore, relying on amateur > radio communications in emergencies was tried a few times but never > really worked. So emergency communication is not something we can use to > justify the amateur radio service. > > Tom > > --- > 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 Mon Jan 20 22:37:59 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA27011 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:37:55 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:36:05 EST Subject: [ss] RE; ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <112.1d9bfecf.2b5e2835@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 01/20/03 11:19:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, someone writes: > Besides, hams are only roughly 0.1% of the population, whereas more than > > 70% owns a mobile phone. The problem is when that 70% tries to use the cell or even the landline telephone system at one time....the system will fail or fail to deliver...if you need proof, try dialing a radio station during an on air "contest" We hams are "encouraged" to be brief and efficient in our emergency type communications... a controlled net can handle an amazing amount of voice traffic if it is prioritized. While a statewide "channel" will control the net, other frequencies are assigned to move the lesser priority communications. Manual traffic handling is a skill which we can offer the government in times of need. I guess the US is just good at having disasters and the hams have always been at the front line to bail out the communications SNAFUs. As of yet they haven't found anyone to replace us at a lower cost. Roger WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jan 20 23:05:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA27748 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:05:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: RE; ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:04:16 +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 XAA27748 > The problem is when that 70% tries to use the cell or even > the landline > telephone system at one time....the system will fail or fail > to deliver...if > you need proof, try dialing a radio station during an on air "contest" And you can't control end users that easily... Phone systems are designed along statistical assumptions which break down during an emergency situation (and the aforementioned radio contests :) ). > > We hams are "encouraged" to be brief and efficient in our > emergency type > communications... a controlled net can handle an amazing > amount of voice > traffic if it is prioritized. While a statewide "channel" Not just encouraged, but _trained_ to be clear, concise and brief, in much the same way the professionals are. For me, that wasn't hard to adjust to, because the amateurs use very similar procedures to the fire service (which I was involved with for some time before getting my han ticket). > will control the > net, other frequencies are assigned to move the lesser priority > communications. Manual traffic handling is a skill which we > can offer the > government in times of need. True, as well as being able to make the equipment work, without having to call someone in to prepare the infrastructure - extreme flexibility. Unfortunately, I don't have the time these days to keep my training current (i.e. do the pre-requisite number of exercises/year), but I still make myself and station available if needed. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 21 00:53:01 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA02755 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:52:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: "Pat Snyder" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Vendors Support Dedicated Wi-Fi Plan Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:44:58 +0800 Organization: SIL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000d01c2c110$748b02e0$1500a8c0@p3500> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk From: "Communications Today" January 21, 2003 Vol. 9, No. 13 Vendors Support Dedicated Wi-Fi Plan Some voices of support are emerging from the Wi-Fi equipment industry for the "Jumpstart Broadband Act." The newly introduced bill from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and George Allen (R-Va.) calls for dedicating 255 MHz of spectrum for wireless LAN applications in the 5 Ghz band. Equipment vendor Atheros Communications (Sunnyvale, Calif.) issued a statement of support for the bill, saying it would provide the growing wireless LAN market with "scalability" needed to ensure its long-term growth among different types of devices. Atheros also said the bill validates its belief that 5Ghz spectrum will ultimately be necessary for wireless LAN growth alongside the 2.4 Ghz band in primary use today. That unlicensed band contains only 83.5 Mhz of spectrum, and is used by a plethora of devices and applications other than Wi-Fi. A particular concern is 2.4 Ghz wireless lighting applications, which would power streetlights via RF. Such systems would effectively wipe out wireless LAN use in the vicinity. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 02:50:49 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA06493 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:50:49 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:49:34 -0800 From: Phil Karn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: <3E2D099E.2050501@ka9q.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Geoff Edmonson wrote: > If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, > lots and lots more lives would have been lost. Although ham radio has played important roles in US emergencies in the past, this role is now clearly dwindling into irrelevance. If I need to call the highway patrol, I pick up my cell phone. I don't even carry my 2m ham rig anymore. Those who say that the ham repeaters still work in the bigger disasters when the cellular system are overloaded should carefully consider what they're saying about our small numbers, restrictive rules and generous frequency allocations. Besides, the newer cellular networks *do* implement access priority schemes. And the real issue in any major disaster is capacity, something we still don't have despite our generous frequency allocations because our technology is so primitive and inefficient. There's only one reason left for ham radio's existence, and it has nothing to do with providing any operational service. It's EDUCATION. Ham radio is still totally unique in the hands-on educational opportunities it provides, and I'd really hate to see that disappear. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 03:43:38 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA07508 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:43:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:42:36 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Emergency comms (was Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): R e: ss digest: January 18, 2003) Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: <20030121094236.GA10359@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:54:20AM +1100, Tony Langdon wrote: > > In the UK dealing with emergencies is usually a matter > > for professionals, either full-time or reservists, > > amateurs are rarely if ever called on. > > > > Amateur status in UK spectrum allocations does not reflect > > any emergency service status; we are not a "protected > > service". > > Australia is more like the US than the UK in this regard, but the profile is > much lower. There have been many cases of amateurs being used for emergency > comms over the years - Cyclone Tracy, Newcastle earthquake, Ash Wednesday > fires, just to name a few - and a number of us have been preparing our > portable stations this summer in anticipation of a very severe fire season > (which has already started in some parts, such as Sydney last December and > Canberra last weekend). Actually I would say we are more like the UK. The ACA's description of the amateur service does not include any reference to emergency communications. And the three examples you gave are spread over 26 years! Thus qualifying as "rarely .. called on" IMHO. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 09:05:15 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA18261 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:05:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:04:16 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: <200301211504.h0LF4GD10008@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Phil, I rarely disagree with you, but this time you are dead wrong. Generally restrictive rules go out the window during emergency communications if they are preventing you from accomplishing your basic task. This does not mean that you blantely ignore them; but do bypass them as necessary to do your job. I don't think I have herd of a single case where the FCC has taken an amateur radio operator to task for "violation" of Part 97 rules in a valid communications emergency where the rules were preventing the successful completion of the communnications effort. I work in emergency communications with the City of San Antonio's Office of Emergency Management. When a hurricane of other severe weather "hits" the Texas Gulf Coast, amateur radio communications become just as important to the success of the relief effort as any other part of the effort. Not only do repeaters and especially linked repeater systems hold an important place; but, QRO HF stations become one of the most valuable assist an emergency manager has. It is true that we need to have a greater capability to handle volume traffic, and I think we as amateur radio operators are NOW addressing it. But the ARRL 802.11b is not enough. We need high bandwidth capability on UHF as well as VHF (if possible). We also desperately need a robust, high bandwidth, high data throughput capability on the HF bands. I think the amateur radio community owes deploying this technology to the nation. I must also admit that our function in providing an educational opportunity to the educational system is important; but to put one or above the other tends to make both weaker...at least that seems to be how human nature works. 73, Walt/K5YFW > Geoff Edmonson wrote: > > > If it weren't for the service that the HAM's provide in emergencies, > > lots and lots more lives would have been lost. > > Although ham radio has played important roles in US emergencies in the > past, this role is now clearly dwindling into irrelevance. If I need to > call the highway patrol, I pick up my cell phone. I don't even carry my > 2m ham rig anymore. > > Those who say that the ham repeaters still work in the bigger disasters > when the cellular system are overloaded should carefully consider what > they're saying about our small numbers, restrictive rules and generous > frequency allocations. Besides, the newer cellular networks *do* > implement access priority schemes. And the real issue in any major > disaster is capacity, something we still don't have despite our generous > frequency allocations because our technology is so primitive and > inefficient. > > There's only one reason left for ham radio's existence, and it has > nothing to do with providing any operational service. It's EDUCATION. > Ham radio is still totally unique in the hands-on educational > opportunities it provides, and I'd really hate to see that disappear. > > Phil > > > --- > 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 Jan 21 10:05:47 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA20345 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:05:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:04:46 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Prism test software 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: <3E2D6F9E.1090907@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk And on a different note: I've got to eval some 802.11a and g hardware (linksys) and I'm looking for any possible drivers for the WPC54G and WPC51AB PCCard NICs for Linux. Anyone got suggestions? TIA, gerry Walt DuBose wrote: > Intersil/PRISM-2 chipsets are used in LinkSys, DLink, SMC, Cisco > Aironet, Nokia RLAN cards. > > Walt > > Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > >>Test software is available from intersil for prism that >> can be used to force the card into test modes. Set it for >> continuous unmodulated unspread Tx to measure the >> frequency with a counter. Set it for continous modulated >> Tx if you need to check sidebands, out-of-band emissions, >> or measure the power. You can also disable the spreading, >> although I doubt a pair of unspread prisms would sync! >> >> I have a legal obligation in my regs to test my station, and >> record the tests in the log. I think the authorities might be >> a little displeased if I used a WLAN card as a ham rig and didn't >> know how to measure it's frequency. This should help satisfy >> legal beagles who would be only too pleased to kick your >> ass. If you're going to argue your place in the band, you >> need to be squeaky-clean. >> >> http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe >> >> I thought this stuff was only available with a Prism chipset evaluation >>kit but no, the Prism Test Appliance is here on the web. >> >>Also Benchmark Pro - throughput test utility >>http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/software-o/PrismTestUtil322.exe >> >>More info on Prism developer's software here: >>http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ss/p2smtrx.asp#PRISM_Test_Utility_Suite >> >>Should be usable (from MS-windows platforms) with all cards that use >>Prism chipsets - incl. D-link, Linksys, SMC, etc >> >>Of course, this OS lark is a right pain in the butt. To run >>Prism tests, you need Windows. To run Ethereal on 802.11 level, >>you need Linux. It would be nice if we could come up with >>complete bootable CD-ROMs of each so we didn't need installs >>of both and we need not be experts in both to do these tasks. >>I'm careering up the learning-curve for FreeDOS at the >>moment & my brain's ready to explode! >> >>Ant M1FDE >> >>--- >>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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 12:36:36 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA28421 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:36:36 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:35:41 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2D92FD.2060007@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Thomas Sailer wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 21:46, Geoff Edmonson wrote: > > >>The communication that hams provided after the the Twin towers in New >>York were attacked is but one of gazillion examples. > > > Really? If so, the ARRL hasn't used this for publicity enough, as it's > the first time I hear about this. I've talked to folks who were involved in this effort. Participants were from a lot of areas, even exceeding the Metro New york City area. Apparently, the efforts were significant enough to last well beyond the immediate first few days. Why the publicity hasn't been forthcoming, I'll probably never be able to divine. > On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 00:09, Gerry Creager wrote: > >>Cellphone emergency comms plans don't work well when the media are >>trying to report to their home offices, acquire a channel and camp on it >>because THEY realize that if they hang up and lose that channel, they >>may never get it back. > > At least with GSM, you can prioritize terminals. And it works, there was > no catastrophe where GSM proved to be a problem. Christmas, New Year and > the Street Parade are probably more stressful to the GSM networks > especially with the latter you cannot physically pack more people > playing with a cellphone into a given area. GSM rollout is just kicking into gear in the US. Our best efforts at 2.5 and 3G are fairly small, and limited to the larger markets, still. Analog and digital systems that lack channel prioritization are still what I find in the hinterlands of Texas. >>Let me offer one real-world system example. I'm part of a large linked >>UHF repeater network, over 50 sites just in the State of Texas. If a >>communications emergency occurs, we can... and will make this system > > > What can you do? How many channels/simultaneous voice "calls" can you > make? I doubt that any ham infrastructure can provide enough bandwidth. > Besides, hams are only roughly 0.1% of the population, whereas more than > 70% owns a mobile phone. The issue and concern is usually handling traffic for emergency management and public safety. In some cases, it's low priority traffic that frees them up for "more important" tasks. In others, it's handling higher priority traffic, including managing the requests for specific hardware, equipment, drugs, personnel, etc. You confuse "channel capacity" with emergency communications. While we may not handle more "channels," we can often handle a significant traffic load, in a conventional communications format. > Maybe the catastrophes in the US are different, but over here, > communication tends not to be a problem. Furthermore, relying on amateur > radio communications in emergencies was tried a few times but never > really worked. So emergency communication is not something we can use to > justify the amateur radio service. Our utility in emergency communications is embedded in our Federal charter. And while I suspect communications emergencies are similar the world over, your lack of a charter for such events would tend to make you less available to participate. It's, as much as anything, a cultural issue, and has been already raised, it's an "ITU 2" thing. In some ways, it's hard to explain to someone without that mandate and mindset. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 13:25:26 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA00910 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:25:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Joshua Davis, KD5LSX" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Prism test software Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:24:23 -0600 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 V6.00.2600.0000 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 802.11 cards [of the same chipset] are pretty much the same up until you get to the radio portion. If the orinoco driver works for the WPC11, I don't see why it wouldn't work for the WPC54G. But then again, it just a guess. Joshua/KD5LSX > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-31026@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-31026@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Gerry Creager > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:05 AM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Prism test software > > > And on a different note: I've got to eval some 802.11a and g hardware > (linksys) and I'm looking for any possible drivers for the WPC54G and > WPC51AB PCCard NICs for Linux. Anyone got suggestions? > > TIA, gerry --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 13:33:22 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA01496 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:33:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:32:39 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/21/2003 08:31:09 PM 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 Remember the military have signals divisions that can deploy a communications infrastructure in any location inside a day. I don't have the helicopters, amphibious vehicles & all-wheel-drive trucks to touch that. They can deploy the supply lines to maintain it in place for extended periods too. Replacement operators, fuel, mobile canteens, whatever. They have far more experience of having to do it for real in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan... Military radios are designed to be stuck on a hill and rained on, or bounced over rubble in the back of a truck, and operated by a man with frozen hands, dirty gloves, and a gas mask. They work automatically into bad temporary antennas without giving up. Most hams would be horrified to treat their pride & joy like this. The military would typically deploy a trunked line-of-sight microwave multiplex system with repeaters to serve a temporary HQ with telephones, FAX & datacomms, and use tactical 30-88MHz FM VHF vehicle & belt-packs in the field. HF would be used if the terrain required it. I was just thinking. I design these radios for solders out there in the dirt and under pressure saving people's ass. Here I am assuming they're not going to be there where people's asses need saving. Sure as hell they are. The military is a well-respected profession in the UK - they are prepared, they go into danger, and they deliver. They are trained to stay cool and take action when anyone else would run like hell. We don't normally need the military but the power is there. Ant Anyway, we've gone well OT I'll try and bring all this to a close. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 13:52:43 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA02352 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:52:41 -0600 (CST) From: RogerKola@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:51:54 EST Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <5f.33a7312d.2b5efeda@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 01/21/03 2:34:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com writes: > Remember the military have signals divisions that can > deploy a communications infrastructure in any location > inside a day. I don't have the helicopters, amphibious > vehicles & all-wheel-drive trucks to touch that. In the US the Military cannot be deployed inside our borders by law, the National Guard is controlled by the states to do that...but they are only poor cousins and I think since Kent State they even took ammunition away from them let alone give them decent communications equipment. All other communications, government, business, public safety are on a mish-mash of frequencies from 30MHz through NEXTEL at 1.8 GHZ and nobody but the hams can talk to each other. In the local area, during bad snowstorms, Hams have been dispatched along with National Guard drivers to provide communications because either the trucks had no radios, they couldn't keep th Lowband VHF radios on the same frequency or they just didn't know how to operate them. BTW...I'm gently trying to stay out of current Politics and the Military here. Roger WA1KAT --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 15:11:54 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA05919 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:11:53 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Emergency comms (was Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low ): R e: ss digest: January 18, 2003) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:11:11 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id PAA05919 > Actually I would say we are more like the UK. The ACA's description of > the amateur service does not include any reference to emergency > communications. And the three examples you gave are spread over 26 > years! Thus qualifying as "rarely .. called on" IMHO. I did say middle of the road. the European case sounded more like "almost never"... We're "rarely"... :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 21 15:15:53 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA06189 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:15:52 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:15:08 -0800 From: Phil Karn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: <3E2DB85C.6010604@ka9q.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk dubose@texas.net wrote: > Phil, > > I rarely disagree with you, but this time you are dead wrong. About what? I'm not sure. > Generally restrictive rules go out the window during emergency communications > if they are preventing you from accomplishing your basic task. I didn't say that; I know what the rules say about emergencies. I did not say that ham radio plays *no* role in emergency communications. I said that it plays a role that is rapidly dwindling into irrelevance. This is a fact. We're not just competing with cell phones that carry voice; we're talking about the rapid commercial deployment of a wide variety of Internet access services using both wired and wireless technologies, centralized and distributed. Among the wireless technologies, besides GPRS, there's CDMA2000 1x and 1xEV-DO. There's Ricochet (in some cities). Geostationary satellites by Echostar and DirecWay. LEO satellite service from Iridium and Globalstar (still). Point-to-point stuff on the MMDS bands. And as you well know there's plenty of ad-hoc 802.11, which as I understand was very widely deployed in lower Manhattan after 9/11. Then there's the cool stuff still on the drawing boards at my company and elsewhere that hasn't been announced yet. This is what you're competing with. What does ham radio have to offer here? 802.11 with higher power levels? That doesn't sound very creative or even terribly useful to me. People are already doing amazing things with stock Part 15 gear and clever antenna placement; they see no reason to saddle themselves with Part 97's restrictions that would make the service essentially useless to them. > I must also admit that our function in providing an educational opportunity to > the educational system is important; but to put one or above the other tends to > make both weaker...at least that seems to be how human nature works. When I use the word "education", I mean it in the broadest sense of the word. Yes, ham radio can support formal classroom education. But more importantly, it provides a unique hands-on opportunity for any interested individual to learn radio technology on his own and at his own pace, and to teach it to others. This can be something as simple as learning how to cut and tune a dipole; I don't care what they do as long as somebody is learning something they didn't know before. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jan 21 16:03:34 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA08993 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:03:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:02:33 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/21/2003 11:01:00 PM 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 > 97.1(a), (right at the very front) states: Not being 'merican, I'm not au-fait with the document in question... the UK one is a lot more terse. The only emergency pervision is words to the effect that you can pass messages from professionals in the emergency services, or supervise them using your station. ie. the normal rules about only amateur's traffic and only amateurs using your station are waived. There's no mandate to build systems that monitor police channels, repeaters for the ambulance service, or practise sending messages to fire trucks. These services already have networks that are readily proven daily and hourly and in continuous use. It also doesn't mean you can go out there, make a nuisance of yourself, and pass messages from survivors to their loved ones. > What was that Woody Allen saying? Oh, ya "Eighty percent of success is showing > up." Like it or not, the HSMM is showing up when other groups are no-where to > be seen in the spread spectrum scene. The important thing is that this is being done in places like the ARRL which has the power to change things and who others will take notice of. Playing with WLANs is something many of us on this group do, and many not on this group do. The ARRL don't need to do that work. They need to do it in the sense that they should convince themselves it's good stuff, and be able to demo it to others. > So, your solution is for amateur radio collectively to do nothing with Spread > Spectrum like they have for the last 6+ years? What I'd like to have is a decent rig like you can get commercially for HF, but for data. With buttons for modulation mode, data rate, filter BW etc. At the moment experiments are hard because flexible gear isn't there. Now if TAPR had planned to double packet data rates every 2 years since the TNC2, like happened with POTS modems, ham datacomms would be in a healthy position now. Unfortunately to get decent data equipment we now have to do massive leaps like the 900MHz FHSS project. That project is now stopped, but it's a serious problem as that leap still has to be done. We still have to find ways to push packet data rates up without breaking the piggy-bank. Remember packet is low data-rate but has cheap national & international connectivity. There are lots of places to go and you can get DX. If we push up client data rates, we also have to push up backbone data rates and that starts to cost real money. If we push clients to 802.11 data rates, we need GB/s datarates in the backbone which costs really huge amounts of money. It means renting fibre at least as even the millimetric bands are't big enough :-) >From 1200bps to 10Mbps is a massive leap to make. People will tire of multimedia QSOs if you can only reach the same 5 people in your street. It's got to match the international DX aspect of HF and the international reach of the internet to work. Hence the esteemed John Champa is damn right we need a "hinternet". I wait with bated breath his proposals on (a) how to interconnect the networks. (b) what it will cost. Without a better idea, we can plonk the problem in the lap of an Internet Provider who will extract fat wads of cash from our pockets. Daily. I can see it now... "pay-per-QSO" :-) > Yes, I think the process gain should be greater then > the 10-11db 802.11b offers, 802.11 DSSS is 10.5dB. 802.11 FHSS is 19dB. 802.11b is more like 1.3dB. Hardly worth having and IMO shouldn't count as SS. It's SS reading 9+ on the bogosity meter. It's merely a stitch-up of the FCC & ETSI that only allow SS in the 2.4GHz ISM band. "SS but not as we know it, Jim". Of course, 802.11a & 802.11g aren't SS at all, but they have better capability to overcome QRM compared to 802.11b because it has the FEC coding to replace blatted carriers. Perhaps our brief love-affair with FHSS and DSSS is over and we'll dump them in the annals of history. > Yes, it would really be ashame if we use the amateur > bands for something useful, wouldn't it? It's a shame to waste them so they can't be used for their intended purpose. There's lots of spectrum out there for business, telecoms, military, broadcast, emergency services, etc. Ham spectrum is set aside for the hobbyist. ... normally hams come down on pirates in the band like the proverbial ton of bricks. The hobby is itself useful in many ways. Don't suggest that "just using it for a hobby" is not. My concern is that the "experiment" and "education" aspects will get lost if we loose the capacity to construct and modify. At the moment UK radio authorities are supportive of hams as they see us as a pool of skilled resource that benefits the UK. If hams are de-skilled, what then? I get the vibe that today's new hams want to learn by being taught, rather than by trying things. That puts a bigger burden on clubs to serve up training on a plate. > ???? Do you have any rig newer then 15 years old? Dunno how old my radio is - my only voice set is a PMR mobile. Does it matter? I programmed the channels, I tested it, I calibrated the frequency, set the deviation, adjusted the output power, measured the sensitivity, wired up the hands-free, and it works. Some people experiment with antennas. I bought mine as antennas are cheap. It's radios that are expensive. > Yes you say? OK go ahead and ask Kenwood, Icom, > Yaseu or any other member of Japan Inc. for the > source code. See how far you get. I don't want to buy an expensive rig that's virtually useless for datacomms. Given the info it might be of value for modifying but without it I won't buy it at all. They might be nice-looking machines, ham rigs, but the datacomms facilities are stone-age, don't you think? I use a couple of ex-military sets that offer better datacomms. Data in, data out at 16k synch with interleave and FEC. Channels are only 25kHz though. Label said "test passed" 19 august 1987. I was thinking about an FT817 for christmas but I think I'll stick to datacomms and get a decent laptop to use for packet sniffing and portable WLAN demos. > Yet, on the other hand, you *can* (sometimes for a price) > get ahold of the source code for many SS cards such as > the prism chip set and others. You mean I wasted my time reverse-engineering it? :-( Well, it was an 802.11 FHSS card, not the prism. If anybody's got prism firmware source, pretty-please ??? My emailbox is always open, no questions asked. > Further, many open source projects exist for use of > these devices (such as Open-AP and others). I've got an OpenAP. It uses linux host-AP drivers. Linux host sourcecode for various cards is accessible, but there's another lot of code on the card. The card micro does all the time-critical things itself. > > and if we > > don't want hamradio datacomms to die a death through > > being totally pale compared to the internet. > ???? It already did some years ago in the U.S. Look at how many tcp/ip NOS > users groups there where 8-10 years ago compared to today. Or packet BBS'es. > Only APRS has grown, and just because it offers something unique that the > internet can not yet meet. Agreement. We all recognise this situation. In some areas APRS hasn't caught on at all, and DX-clusters are an enduring favourite with some. There seem to be quite a few keen on building new packet nodes though, but they've got no customers. Given high data rate "hinternet" availability, I think they'd be very keen to create the new infrastructure that people *want* to use. Our ham population is aging, which is one problem. Many have got into computers though, at a superficial level. New licensing in the UK means we are getting more youth involved, but for them, wireless datacomms will have to offer the attractions of the internet, or a new kind of turbo-QSO. Most new amateurs will go out and buy a rig, but typically datacomms features are pants. They'll explore the features they have for many years. They're little encouraged to go out and spend that money on datacomms gear. > Actually, this brings a good point up, the term "ARRL 802.11b" is confusing, .. > How about "ARRL 802.11b operating practices"? That sounds eminently sensible. "IEEE 802.11b" defines a protocol owned by the IEEE. That "ARRL 802.11b" isn't a protocol owned by the ARRL makes it misleading. What's most misleading is that no-one can tell me what's in it. If we knew, we'd all be clear. All I've heard is 2nd hand examples of what it might contain. I've asked... At this stage it's vapourware. I know it's not a protocol. It's recommendations, but we don't know how advisory or how hard & fast they are. John's statement that he wanted to influence regulations would make them hard as nails. The result may make it hard for amateurs to use other protocols on these channels or adjust practice to suit the system & application. It's easy to justify new rules, and hard to justify removing them. eg. the fact that commercial WLAN AP's beacon with the SSID could be used for callsign(s). But it would be unwise to make such use mandatory. In several ways it is flawed, so people will have to adopt workrounds. In future generations of WLAN the SSID might only be available on request or be encapsulated in an authentication process - we could thereby lock hams to an old 802.11 spec. It will also have to be quite clear whose callsign is given where; ie SSID might be the station owner, not the originator of the traffic. There's no power to get non-hams using 802.11 to respect the ARRL's plans. That may make the thing futile. eg. non-amateurs may freely use SSIDs that look callsign-ish, and may refuse to clear ch.6 for hams. So we might just straight-jacket the hams for nil benefit. I'd like to avoid a recurrance of that situation we have already inherited where a certain digital mode has become mandatory. (morse) The new UK foundation license has been a great success but I have one regret: it effectively makes "voice" mandatory. A bad thing for those that join up only interested in datacomms. Of course, I'm not american so to some extent it's none of my business, but the USA's ARRL and the UK's RSGB and these countries radio licensing rules are often copied in other countries. They don't operate in a vacuum; they influence one another a lot. > > Do we need a new "hinternet" ISP with a mandate to > > experiment with bleeding-edge services and runs things > > how we like it - not with clauses to prevent subletting > > bandwidth, running servers, or kick you off for using it > > too much. > Don't confuse FCC regulations with contract law. If you subscribe to a ISP, and > distribute the bandwidth, you may be in violation of your TOS (Terms of > Service). This applies no matter if you under Part 97, Part 15 or running a > ethernet cable down the fenceline. Indeed. We need ISPs that will give us acceptable contract terms! If I want to connect a WLAN to the net and share BW legally, I'd have to get a special commercial line and costs skyrocket. If I start charging people for broadband WLAN access to cover my leased-line costs, I would miself be seen as an ISP and become subject to telecoms regulatory bodies. Not a pleasant thought. What I'm suggesting is an ISP: wholly dedicated to amateurs. traffic never meets the rest of the internet contract T&Cs that allow sharing BW via WLAN etc. Able to use amateur spectrum for pt-to-pt & sat links Paid for by subscription service Investment from shares, venture capital etc. "we come to them" rather than they wire to your door. Amateurs use WLAN & LOS to do the last mile. By connecting up all the existing amateur WLAN users, and putting up some kind of "CQ" server the holy-grail multimedia QSO would become reality. How we do it is The Ultimate Question. > In closing I'd suggest you check out the burgeoning > Part 15 WLAN hobbyist market. Already on the UK scene; www.wlan.org.uk mailing list etc. It's half-run by hams. They have a very long page full of pictures of WLAN accessories. I've had to do a lot of RF teaching on the groups as they keep asking basic questions about EIRP, feeder loss, why 802.11a has lower sensitivity, and things like that. Maybe I should write a FAQ. Owing to the 100mW EIRP etsi power limits there's little scope for experiments for license-free users in Europe. I expect many have tried pringles-cans but they would get clobbered by the law if they had a rooftop installation. Hence amateur involvement in many of the groups - have they defected through disenchantment with the hamradio data scene? No doubt there's a bit of covert rule-bending going on. Major computer retail shops in the UK are well-stocked with WLAN hardware, and the mail-order and internet shops, but oddly not the computer fairs (where all the real geeks go). 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 Tue Jan 21 16:49:30 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA11820 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:49:28 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:48:21 +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 > Remember packet is low data-rate but has cheap national > & international connectivity. There are lots of places to > go and you can get DX. If we push up client data > rates, we also have to push up backbone data rates and > that starts to cost real money. If we push clients > to 802.11 data rates, we need GB/s datarates in the > backbone which costs really huge amounts of money. > It means renting fibre at least as even the millimetric > bands are't big enough :-) One of the reasons why the Internet needs so much bandwidth is because it uses antiquated methods for one - many datacasts. Streaming media over much of the Internet is very inefficient. One of the major ham aplications will be VoIP, I'm sure, and if we play our cards right, we could do it _much_ more efficiently than we can on the Internet. And as someone else has pointed out, there's nothing stopping us using IPv6. /48's are easy to get hold of these days. IPv6 also supports the stuff we'll be needing - multicast, mobile IP, etc better than IPv4, and as a new network running as part of an experimental hobbyist/self-learning service, there's no reason we can't go IPv6. It's even plug and play(ish) for those into that thing. You just need Windows XP... Another interesting technology for urban areas is the mesh network, which many of the WLAN groups are interested in building. > People will tire of multimedia QSOs if you can only > reach the same 5 people in your street. It's got to > match the international DX aspect of HF and the > international reach of the internet to work. Hence > the esteemed John Champa is damn right we need a > "hinternet". Agreed. > > I wait with bated breath his proposals on > (a) how to interconnect the networks. > (b) what it will cost. Terrestrially, we need to look at bandwidth conservation - making the one packet go further and do more. Internationally, the choices are to go it alone (i.e. satellite) or hitch a ride on the Internet using tunneling. At this time, the latter is by far the most practical technique, though there's always the attraction of an "all ham" solution. Again, even if we go IPv6, tunneling techniques are very well established, and many of the recent major OSs (Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, to name a few) support 6 in 4, 6 to 4 and other tunneling techniques. > I get the vibe that today's new hams want to learn > by being taught, rather than by trying things. That > puts a bigger burden on clubs to serve up training > on a plate. And when you do that, you create a generation of people dependent on educational handouts. I've already seen a lot of people (outside) ham circles like that, and they're frustrating to deal with, as they can't think for themselves. > > > > ???? Do you have any rig newer then 15 years old? > > Dunno how old my radio is - my only voice set is a > PMR mobile. Does it matter? I programmed the channels, > I tested it, I calibrated the frequency, set the > deviation, adjusted the output power, measured the > sensitivity, wired up the hands-free, and it works. I've got a bunch of mixed radio gear. Most has been modified - the VHF and UHF ex commercial gear has been modified to work with IRLP, I've tweaked things like pre-emphasis to suit the application. Also got one radio I converted from 70 MHz to 50 MHz, and another I plan to convert as a "rainy day" project (in the midst of a drought, there's not many of those :( ). > > Some people experiment with antennas. I bought mine > as antennas are cheap. It's radios that are expensive. I find home brew antennas even cheaper, purchasing is still expensive, so I only buy if I have to. Portable antennas are especially suited to homebrewing, especially if the wire is sitting in one's junkbox. :) > > In closing I'd suggest you check out the burgeoning > > Part 15 WLAN hobbyist market. > > Already on the UK scene; www.wlan.org.uk mailing list > etc. It's half-run by hams. They have a very long page > full of pictures of WLAN accessories. > > I've had to do a lot of RF teaching on the groups > as they keep asking basic questions about EIRP, > feeder loss, why 802.11a has lower sensitivity, > and things like that. Maybe I should write a FAQ. Much the same here, and a few RF aware people, some hams, others not (either serious hobbyists or work in the industry) have pitched in to help. Have a look at http://melbourne.wireless.org.au for a take on the local WLAN scene here. Various FAQs and documentation on subject areas such as RF and IPv6 can be found in the wiki. > Owing to the 100mW EIRP etsi power limits there's > little scope for experiments for license-free users > in Europe. I expect many have tried pringles-cans but In Australia, it's 4W EIRP, and the regulations were recently changed to allow the full 4W across the 83 MHz band, not just the lower 63 MHz. At these power levels, you can do useful things, if you construct your system carefully. > Major computer retail shops in the UK are well-stocked > with WLAN hardware, and the mail-order and internet > shops, but oddly not the computer fairs (where all the > real geeks go). Haven't been to the local swap meets for some time so I don't know what's happening there, but after some successful bulk buys of surplus WLAN gear in 2002 at very good prices (I managed to purchase a few PCMCIA cards myself out of these deals), Melbourne Wireless tends to use a web based system for procuring hardware and making availability of hardware known. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 21 17:07:03 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA12754 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:06:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:06:13 +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 > One of the reasons why the Internet needs so much bandwidth > is because it > uses antiquated methods for one - many datacasts. Streaming > media over much > of the Internet is very inefficient. I forgot to add, the ever popular packet DX clusters suffer from exactly the same problem and clog up user frequencies when a number of DX hunters get on. :-/ --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 21 19:34:44 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA20441 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:34:43 -0600 (CST) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:33:55 -0600 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2DF503.D805201C@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > > > Remember packet is low data-rate but has cheap national > > & international connectivity. There are lots of places to > > go and you can get DX. If we push up client data > > rates, we also have to push up backbone data rates and > > that starts to cost real money. If we push clients > > to 802.11 data rates, we need GB/s datarates in the > > backbone which costs really huge amounts of money. > > It means renting fibre at least as even the millimetric > > bands are't big enough :-) > > One of the reasons why the Internet needs so much bandwidth is because it > uses antiquated methods for one - many datacasts. Streaming media over much > of the Internet is very inefficient. > Perhaps we can cut some of that out and ping off (note the pun) 802.11b and cut out un-needed packets. > One of the major ham aplications will be VoIP, I'm sure, and if we play our > cards right, we could do it _much_ more efficiently than we can on the > Internet. And as someone else has pointed out, there's nothing stopping us > using IPv6. /48's are easy to get hold of these days. > Yahooo...someone else has seen the light. On any speed over 24 Kbps, you can run VoIP (i.e.NeetMeeting, Open H323, etc.) IPv6...I'm still behind the power curve on this but it sure looks good to me. One work of caution...general caution. We need to be careful what we impose on the general amateur radio population if we want their buy-in on anything we do. If it cost too much or is too complicated or too much out of the box, they won't bite. > IPv6 also supports the stuff we'll be needing - multicast, mobile IP, etc > better than IPv4, and as a new network running as part of an experimental > hobbyist/self-learning service, there's no reason we can't go IPv6. It's > even plug and play(ish) for those into that thing. You just need Windows > XP... > Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with 64 MB of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? This is just want I am talking about...we've got to go a little slow to get the general amateur radio population buy in. > Another interesting technology for urban areas is the mesh network, which > many of the WLAN groups are interested in building. > Yep, that's what makes this whole ball of wax so interesting. > > People will tire of multimedia QSOs if you can only > > reach the same 5 people in your street. It's got to > > match the international DX aspect of HF and the > > international reach of the internet to work. Hence > > the esteemed John Champa is damn right we need a > > "hinternet". > > Agreed. Me too, when you can do IRC, VoIP, smtp, http all at once, what's left? So we've got to find ways to hook up the world....that's what. > > > > I wait with bated breath his proposals on > > (a) how to interconnect the networks. > > (b) what it will cost. > > Terrestrially, we need to look at bandwidth conservation - making the one > packet go further and do more. Internationally, the choices are to go it > alone (i.e. satellite) or hitch a ride on the Internet using tunneling. At > this time, the latter is by far the most practical technique, though there's > always the attraction of an "all ham" solution. Again, even if we go IPv6, > tunneling techniques are very well established, and many of the recent major > OSs (Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, to name a few) support 6 in 4, 6 to 4 and > other tunneling techniques. > > > I get the vibe that today's new hams want to learn > > by being taught, rather than by trying things. That > > puts a bigger burden on clubs to serve up training > > on a plate. > Yep many and some of us OTs need to go a little slow. > And when you do that, you create a generation of people dependent on > educational handouts. I've already seen a lot of people (outside) ham > circles like that, and they're frustrating to deal with, as they can't think > for themselves. Not hams that are appliance operators or binary installers; but ones that are capable of hacking a program and compliing it and then making it run on their hardware and even electronically re-programming their hardware as well as perhaps microsurgery on the PCBs. > > > > I'm going to stop here and I hope you are hearing this old man's babbling. 73 all, Walt/K5YFW > > > ???? Do you have any rig newer then 15 years old? > > > > Dunno how old my radio is - my only voice set is a > > PMR mobile. Does it matter? I programmed the channels, > > I tested it, I calibrated the frequency, set the > > deviation, adjusted the output power, measured the > > sensitivity, wired up the hands-free, and it works. > > I've got a bunch of mixed radio gear. Most has been modified - the VHF and > UHF ex commercial gear has been modified to work with IRLP, I've tweaked > things like pre-emphasis to suit the application. Also got one radio I > converted from 70 MHz to 50 MHz, and another I plan to convert as a "rainy > day" project (in the midst of a drought, there's not many of those :( ). > > > > Some people experiment with antennas. I bought mine > > as antennas are cheap. It's radios that are expensive. > > I find home brew antennas even cheaper, purchasing is still expensive, so I > only buy if I have to. Portable antennas are especially suited to > homebrewing, especially if the wire is sitting in one's junkbox. :) > > > > In closing I'd suggest you check out the burgeoning > > > Part 15 WLAN hobbyist market. > > > > Already on the UK scene; www.wlan.org.uk mailing list > > etc. It's half-run by hams. They have a very long page > > full of pictures of WLAN accessories. > > > > I've had to do a lot of RF teaching on the groups > > as they keep asking basic questions about EIRP, > > feeder loss, why 802.11a has lower sensitivity, > > and things like that. Maybe I should write a FAQ. > > Much the same here, and a few RF aware people, some hams, others not (either > serious hobbyists or work in the industry) have pitched in to help. > > Have a look at http://melbourne.wireless.org.au for a take on the local WLAN > scene here. Various FAQs and documentation on subject areas such as RF and > IPv6 can be found in the wiki. > > > Owing to the 100mW EIRP etsi power limits there's > > little scope for experiments for license-free users > > in Europe. I expect many have tried pringles-cans but > > In Australia, it's 4W EIRP, and the regulations were recently changed to > allow the full 4W across the 83 MHz band, not just the lower 63 MHz. At > these power levels, you can do useful things, if you construct your system > carefully. > > > Major computer retail shops in the UK are well-stocked > > with WLAN hardware, and the mail-order and internet > > shops, but oddly not the computer fairs (where all the > > real geeks go). > > Haven't been to the local swap meets for some time so I don't know what's > happening there, but after some successful bulk buys of surplus WLAN gear in > 2002 at very good prices (I managed to purchase a few PCMCIA cards myself > out of these deals), Melbourne Wireless tends to use a web based system for > procuring hardware and making availability of hardware known. > > --- > Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 > > > 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 Tue Jan 21 21:16:27 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA24274 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:16:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:15:11 +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 > Perhaps we can cut some of that out and ping off (note the > pun) 802.11b > and > cut out un-needed packets. Indeed... :-) > > > One of the major ham aplications will be VoIP, I'm sure, > and if we play our > > cards right, we could do it _much_ more efficiently than we > can on the > > Internet. And as someone else has pointed out, there's > nothing stopping us > > using IPv6. /48's are easy to get hold of these days. > > > > Yahooo...someone else has seen the light. On any speed over 24 Kbps, > you can > run VoIP (i.e.NeetMeeting, Open H323, etc.) Indeed, and on multicast, adding hosts to the conference does NOT increase bandwidth (in most cases). FWIW, the examples youmention use unicast and are subject to bandwidth problems... :) > > IPv6...I'm still behind the power curve on this but it sure looks good > to me. > > One work of caution...general caution. We need to be careful what we > impose > on the general amateur radio population if we want their buy-in on > anything > we do. If it cost too much or is too complicated or too much > out of the > box, they won't bite. True, but then we bring in the next generation ham - the guys who play 802.11b are into this stuff, and ham radio can potentially offer it on a grand scale, at least on a regional basis. VoIP is one of the most popular activities we've had at Melbourne Wireless. :) > Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with > 64 MB > of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? Well, W98 is dead as far as this goes, I'm afraid. You could try the commercialware IPv6 stack from Trumpet, or hope some network and Windows guru writes a freeware one. Linux? Sure, most modern distributions only require a minor tweak or two to be able to support IPv6 in a basic form. In Red Hat, it's about 3 or 4 lines in /etc/sysconfig/network, and then setup your routing and tunneling (if you want to connect to the IPv6 Internet). Oh, instructions are on the melbourne Wireless site for that as a quickstart, or there's the How-To for the gory details. :-) It's only the "DOS"ish versions of Windows that are a real problem here. > This is just want I am talking about...we've got to go a > little slow to > get > the general amateur radio population buy in. To a point, but OTOH, we have to get enough of an interest group to attract newcomers who would quickly become part of the user base. It could be a good recruiting base. And these guys don't have to become hams initially to take part, as there will be a lot of networking stuff to do - stuff they're into. Obviously, the traffic would have to be easily "sniffed" without any ACKs being sent so SWLs (USWLs? :) ) can pick a data stream and watch or listen to the traffic in it, like they can tune around and listen with current ham radio. I'd like to see all this "cool" technology SWL accessible. > > > > Another interesting technology for urban areas is the mesh > network, which > > many of the WLAN groups are interested in building. > > > > Yep, that's what makes this whole ball of wax so interesting. indeed. :) > Me too, when you can do IRC, VoIP, smtp, http all at once, what's > left? So we've got to find ways to hook up the world....that's > what. Even on a regional level... How many ATV repeaters are linked? How about a whole network of them running on the digital network? We don't know the possibilities until we build the thing. One thing I'm sure of is bandwidth constraints at the back end will mean we will be lookinbg for the most efficient way to move as much data as possible. We can't throw a nother piece of fibre in the ground to meet escalating bandwidth demands - we have to be much more clever, but that's all back end stuff, not end user. > Yep many and some of us OTs need to go a little slow. Hehehe, well hopefully there will be a lot of young Elmers who can help the OTs with the technology, in return for some of the good oil on the radio art. :-) > Not hams that are appliance operators or binary installers; but ones > that are > capable of hacking a program and compliing it and then making > it run on > their > hardware and even electronically re-programming their hardware as well > as > perhaps microsurgery on the PCBs. Well, those kind of hams would be handy to have around. Fortunately, there's quite a lot of them in this area of all ages. > > > > > > > > I'm going to stop here and I hope you are hearing this old man's > babbling. And I hope you're seeing a younger perspective. :-) Good to have this discussion. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 21 23:54:41 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA00902 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:54:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:49:33 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Scanner: exiscan *18bDoo-0005My-00*6i24Q9w.8Dc* 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: <00b701c2c1da$0cf63ad0$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Phil Karn commented.... >I did not say that ham radio plays *no* role in emergency >communications. I said that it plays a role that is rapidly dwindling >into irrelevance. This is a fact. We're not just competing with cell >phones that carry voice; we're talking about the rapid commercial >deployment of a wide variety of Internet access services using both >wired and wireless technologies, centralized and distributed. Exactly... Perfect Example. I was in Australia's capital, Canberra on the Weekend, with John Ackerman, President of TAPR, showing him arround. On Saturday we had one of the worst natural disasters ever in this country to hit a capital city. We had about 420 homes totally destroyed by fire. Burned to the ground. This is in a city with a population of 300,000 and maybe 75,000 homes. So 420/75,000 is a lot of homes. And a lot of people homeless. This was caused by bushfires - which also destroyed Mt Stromlo observatory, and the Harvard-Yale telescope that has a sister on Boston from early last centurary... And Could easally have devastated Tidbinbilla Deep Space Tracking Station since the fires came very close to it. We also had blackouts for 24 hours for 25% of the city. We had burning sticks falling to the ground miles away. And all during this time WICEN (the Ham Radio emergency organisation) WAS NOT ACTIVATED. Probably 4000 in shelters for days, at least 1500 without homes in an area with a rental availability of 2%. And we were not even called in to answer telephones at the evacuation centers. You see, everything worked. Residents were advised to get more information on the net. It survived. The radio stations survived, although at least one had major problems and was obviously running on backup evidenced by the servere undermodulation. The TV stations remained on air, except when power was interruped when fire caused short circuits for a second or two. Communications is too reliable. I can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable 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 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 03:11:00 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA07350 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:10:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:09:48 -0800 From: Phil Karn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: <3E2E5FDC.2030000@ka9q.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Darryl Smith wrote: > I can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster > a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc > b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. > Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. > c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable I see a fourth: d) Initially hook and and educate interested members of the public in radio technology and electronics; prompt at least some of them to seek formal higher education in engineering and to choose careers in engineering and science; have them go forth and create, professionally or otherwise, new technologies for communications and other fields that can be deployed and used in emergencies; have them help educate the public and raise the general level of scientific literacy, so they won't irrationally oppose the cell sites and other facilities they'll need in emergencies; well, you get the picture. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 03:18:36 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA07539 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:18:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:17:58 -0800 From: Phil Karn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: <3E2E61C6.30409@ka9q.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Walt DuBose wrote: > Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with > 64 MB > of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? Linux support for IPv6 is excellent. I've been running it since last summer. IPv6 is already a very handy tool for NAT penetration, e.g., when you're trying to maintain a bunch of machines behind a NAT box on a cable modem. Microsoft, as usual, is a problem. W98/Me has no IPv6 and never will, I'm told. There's an unsupported IPv6 package for W2K, but it's broken on most machines. It's a trivial bug in duplicate address detection, easily fixable with source. When I complained, I was told "upgrade to XP". Well, **** that. Who needs them anyway when you have Linux, Open Office and Mozilla? Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 03:26:59 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA07625 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:26:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:25:57 +1100 From: Geoff User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-20mdk i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010409 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2E63A5.3090000@ozemail.com.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Darryl Smith wrote: snipped > > > Communications is too reliable. > > I can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster > a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc > b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. > Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. > c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable snipped Hi Darryl, Even (b) would not acheive much. In Victoria DSE fire management has state wide high speed data and voice comms independent of mains power and land lines. With this they can send IR line scan piccy's to anybody on the 'net (intranet only (policy issues)) within a few minutes of the aircraft finishing it's scan run (and the time is coming down). I can tell you that the line scan crews have been very busy in the last few days, my little brother has been getting home at 4 or 5 most mornings. They can track assets ('dozers to aircraft and anything in between) using a GPS, a "black box"(I didn't ask what was in it) and a trunk radio. etc etc.... 73 de Geoff vk2tfg TAPR #7511 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 07:09:59 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA14745 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:09:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] RE: Content Restrictions To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:09:27 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/22/2003 02:07:54 PM 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 > > If ARP fails, because connectivity to other systems > > are down, your ping packet will never be sent. > > Hard code the ARP entry pointing at the RF port to be identified. > Bill, WA7NWP Great idea. That should be arp -s on most systems to force an ARP entry On NT4 it's arp -s On sunos it's arp -s On my FreeDOS with XFS it's arp -i. is a bogus MAC for the machine you're pinging. must be the MAC of a port on the local machine, a LAN card connected to the AP or the MAC of your WLAN card. Not needed if you only have one. is a bogus hostname you're pinging, which can be in n.n.n.n format. If not you'd have to make an entry for it in the local "hosts" file. Bill, you're a star. I'll have to look on my OpenAP if it's got "arp"! And how to put it in the init scripts somewhere. Ideally I want the AP to send callsign without the help of other PCs. There remains a possible problem with bridges that are supposed to learn from arps which network segments to pass packets to for a given MAC and won't forward them unnecessarily. You should be OK if you associate a MAC that you know not to exist. As long as the bogus machine never responds, the bridges should forward packets everywhere in the hope it comes up somewhere. Hmm, now how do we stop someone else's pings being retransmitted by our own WLAN? Where you are deliberately bridging across several amateur's stations, isn't that exactly what will happen - your station will send everyone else's ID as well as your own? 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 Wed Jan 22 07:21:03 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA15003 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:21:01 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:20:07 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: <20030122132007.GC23567@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:49:33PM +1100, Darryl Smith wrote: > And all during this time WICEN (the Ham Radio emergency organisation) > WAS NOT ACTIVATED. Probably 4000 in shelters for days, at least 1500 Having said that, emails have just gone around looking for volunteers to help WICEN in alpine Victoria and NE NSW, where fires are still burning. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 07:23:07 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA15080 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:23:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:22:09 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/22/2003 02:20:38 PM 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 say again...San Antonio's emergency management area extends from the Rio Grande on the Texas Gulf Coast to Houston and 100 miles inland. As I remember my geography, that's about the same land mass as England That may be so, but I bet it contains far fewer people than England. We have a major problem with population density; it's probably the highest in Europe bar the vatican state. There are about 55 million people in the UK, the vast majority live in England. If you evacuated them, there would simply be nowhere for them to go. 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 Wed Jan 22 09:06:31 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA18624 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:06:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:56 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/22/2003 04:03:25 PM 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 > Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with > 64 MB > of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? Well, W98 is dead as far as this goes, I'm afraid. You could try the commercialware IPv6 stack from Trumpet, or hope some network and Windows guru writes a freeware one. Linux? Sure, most modern distributions only require a minor tweak or two to be able to support IPv6 in a basic form. In Red Hat, it's about 3 or 4 lines in /etc/sysconfig/network, and then setup your routing and tunneling (if you want to connect to the IPv6 Internet). Oh, instructions are on the melbourne Wireless site for that as a quickstart, or there's the How-To for the gory details. :-) It's only the "DOS"ish versions of Windows that are a real problem here. There is a "microsoft research" produced IPv6 module for earlier versions of windows. It's not "supported" and patches may also be needed to other apps that may conflict with other patches, so it's not a "mainstream" solution. I'm not clear how far v6 support goes in XP anyway; to some extent it affects the apps, as the API to sockets changes. IE6 handles it but will Microsoft Networking now run over v6? Will the IIS servers run on v6? Hmm. The whole internet will have to migrate to v6 anyway over the next 10 years; I don't know how painful it will be. That depends how easily they coexist in parallel. If our ISPs will start routing v6 protocol as well as v4 from our dialup lines it could be quite easy. You'll type a URL and the nameserver will give you a v4 or v6 IP address and your system will use the appropriate protocol stack. It's best to avoid migration issues for a new network by going v6 from day one. I've been thinking about switching my home LAN to find out what the issues are. My freeware DOS PCNFS thing that I just set up, XFS, definitely would have problems - it's not open source but some negotiations with the author might get a result. Ant There may be more important considerations like whether BIND 9 supports IPv6 as you can't have an internet without nameservers. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 09:06:46 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA18643 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:06:44 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:05:16 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: <200301221505.h0MF5GI29283@mail2.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Sorry about that, I was puling your virtual leg...FYI I have NEVER run MS at home...I've been running Linux since Aug 1991('92?) and before that IBM and DrDOS. Used DrDOS (I think) with the KA9Q NOS. I have only used MS NT in the job I am in now since Aug. 1999 and between Unix/Linux and MS, MS is BAD. Walt/K5YFW PS, I am going to have to take a picture of my Office Door and post it on the web...its very anti-MS. (Duck and cover...duck and cover...incoming) > Walt DuBose wrote: > > > Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with > > 64 MB > > of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? > > Linux support for IPv6 is excellent. I've been running it since last > summer. IPv6 is already a very handy tool for NAT penetration, e.g., > when you're trying to maintain a bunch of machines behind a NAT box on a > cable modem. > > Microsoft, as usual, is a problem. W98/Me has no IPv6 and never will, > I'm told. There's an unsupported IPv6 package for W2K, but it's broken > on most machines. It's a trivial bug in duplicate address detection, > easily fixable with source. When I complained, I was told "upgrade to > XP". Well, **** that. Who needs them anyway when you have Linux, Open > Office and Mozilla? > > Phil > > > --- > 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 Jan 22 09:45:44 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA20725 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:45:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:44:42 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2EBC6A.8040904@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I did a hands-on IPv6 routing workshop a couple of months ago. Things are getting a little old (I expected to come back and immediately implement some IPv6 on our campus and it just didn't seem to work out...) BUT... In Win95, IPv6 is just not there. Supposedly, there's a patch somewhere for Win98SE, unsupported by, but available from M$. I'll ask the appropriate folks where. WinNT4 is unsupported, supposedly, and Win2k is less than complete but pretty usable. XP "just works." Coming from me, this is high praise... IPv6 comes as a module in most linux distros. It requires 'modprobe ipv6' to get things up in the rudimentary form Ant mentions below. Routing is best done with 'zebra' IMHO, or a Juniper M5. Setting up the Ciscos capable of ipv6 is not intuitive and may require tequila. 6to4 tunnelling is 2 more commands in RedHat and is well documented across the net. Google-search '6to4' and 'ipv6'... I'm setting up IPv6 here at home (well, it's running on 2 computers so far, dual stack IPv4 and IPv6). I'll be experimenting with IPv6 across a couple of WAP-11 APs, with a 6to4 conversion prior to things going back to the campus (currently ISDN, soon, real soon, 5 mile [legal per 36dBm restrictions maths] 802.11a or b link). Later, as I get the campus IPv6 network running I'll be native therein, and we'll convert at the campus edge. And sometime in 2003, I hope to extend the native IPv6 network all the way to Internet2 at our Gigapop connector in Houston, Tx. A few more comments inline below... gerry Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: >> Ah ha, I need to buy XP...but I just have W98 and a PIII 566 MHz with >>64 MB >>of RAM and 5 GB HDD. Oh, and what about the hams running Linux? > > > Well, W98 is dead as far as this goes, I'm afraid. You could try the > commercialware IPv6 stack from Trumpet, or hope some network and Windows > guru writes a freeware one. > > Linux? Sure, most modern distributions only require a minor tweak or two > to > be able to support IPv6 in a basic form. In Red Hat, it's about 3 or 4 > lines in /etc/sysconfig/network, and then setup your routing and tunneling > (if you want to connect to the IPv6 Internet). Oh, instructions are on the > melbourne Wireless site for that as a quickstart, or there's the How-To for > the gory details. :-) It's only the "DOS"ish versions of Windows that are > a > real problem here. A largish number of Linux apps, including Apache, handle IPv6 well. Mozilla's fine, there's also parallel apps: traceroute6, tracepath6, ping6, ssh6, etc. > There is a "microsoft research" produced IPv6 module > for earlier versions of windows. It's not "supported" and > patches may also be needed to other apps that may > conflict with other patches, so it's not a "mainstream" > solution. > > I'm not clear how far v6 support goes in XP anyway; > to some extent it affects the apps, as the API to > sockets changes. IE6 handles it but will Microsoft > Networking now run over v6? Will the IIS servers > run on v6? Hmm. Do we really WANT IIS running IPv6? Or IPv4? > The whole internet will have to migrate to v6 anyway over > the next 10 years; I don't know how painful it will be. > That depends how easily they coexist in parallel. Pretty well... > If our ISPs will start routing v6 protocol as well as v4 > from our dialup lines it could be quite easy. You'll > type a URL and the nameserver will give you a > v4 or v6 IP address and your system will use the > appropriate protocol stack. On this side of the pond, we're expecting the ISPs to be some of the last to go. Several of the carriers are experimenting with backbone IPv6 or have implementation plans. Internet2's Abilene Network backbone has migrated already. (Did I mention that Abilene's going to 10GBE as a backbone?) Getting the ISPs to handling addressing for IPv6 will be a major pain. Worse yet will be the paradigm shift in static routing a lot of them want to enjoy. Dynamic discovery is a key to IPv6 nirvana, but a lot of 'em over here use static routes for paths to customers. That's great when you're assigning static CIDR blocks, but starts to fail when someone can implement IPv6 and mobility. > It's best to avoid migration issues for a new network > by going v6 from day one. I've been thinking about > switching my home LAN to find out what the issues are. See above... > My freeware DOS PCNFS thing that I just set up, > XFS, definitely would have problems - it's not open > source but some negotiations with the author might > get a result. ... > There may be more important considerations like > whether BIND 9 supports IPv6 as you can't have an > internet without nameservers. Non-issue. It does, with AAAA records and automagic incorporation of results. gerry n5jxs -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Network Engineering -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 10:04:08 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA21364 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:04:06 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:03:33 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E2EC0D5.6050202@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I suspect that if we had 55 million people in that region of Texas, those of us who really call this place home would lobby to relocate as many as possible to California, where they apparently ENJOY crowding! :-) gerry Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > I say again...San Antonio's emergency management area extends from the > Rio Grande on the > Texas Gulf Coast to Houston and 100 miles inland. As I remember my > geography, that's about the same land mass as England > > That may be so, but I bet it contains far fewer people than England. > We have a major problem with population density; it's probably > the highest in Europe bar the vatican state. > > There are about 55 million people in the UK, the vast majority > live in England. If you evacuated them, there would simply > be nowhere for them to go. > > Ant > > > > --- > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 10:11:17 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA22046 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:11:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January18, 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:10:37 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: <200301221610.h0MGAbp08335@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Different problems require different solutions. So you don't need amateur radio operators in EU for emergency comms. We need them in the U.S. Apples and oranges. Walt/K5YFW > > I say again...San Antonio's emergency management area extends from the > Rio Grande on the > Texas Gulf Coast to Houston and 100 miles inland. As I remember my > geography, that's about the same land mass as England > > That may be so, but I bet it contains far fewer people than England. > We have a major problem with population density; it's probably > the highest in Europe bar the vatican state. > > There are about 55 million people in the UK, the vast majority > live in England. If you evacuated them, there would simply > be nowhere for them to go. > > Ant > > > > --- > 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 Jan 22 15:09:29 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA07366 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:09:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:08:05 +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 PAA07366 > And all during this time WICEN (the Ham Radio emergency organisation) > WAS NOT ACTIVATED. Probably 4000 in shelters for days, at least 1500 > without homes in an area with a rental availability of 2%. And we were > not even called in to answer telephones at the evacuation centers. You > see, everything worked. FWIW, WICEN has been activated for the Victorian bushfires. WICEN volunteers are being used as a pool of trained operators who can free up other resources for other purposes (e.g. a trained firefighter can be re-deployed at the fire front, while a ham looks after the comms). The VK3 callout specifically says that no equipment is needed, just operators. > Communications is too reliable. In general, yes. > > I can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster > a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc Or acting as a trained pool of operators, freeing other respurces for re-deployment. > b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. > Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. This could be useful. > c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable LOL :-) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 22 15:16:49 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA07798 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:16:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:16:00 +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 PAA07798 > Linux support for IPv6 is excellent. I've been running it since last > summer. IPv6 is already a very handy tool for NAT penetration, e.g., > when you're trying to maintain a bunch of machines behind a > NAT box on a > cable modem. Hehe, I'm doing exactly that. My network is visible on IPv6. The NAT box is a Linux machine while also acts as an IPv6 router. Oh, I've got IPv6 connectivity here via some development boxes, but it's not "official" yet. However, IPv6 support is one thing I want to ensure for any new infrastructure. > Microsoft, as usual, is a problem. W98/Me has no IPv6 and never will, > I'm told. There's an unsupported IPv6 package for W2K, but > it's broken > on most machines. It's a trivial bug in duplicate address detection, > easily fixable with source. When I complained, I was told "upgrade to > XP". Well, **** that. Who needs them anyway when you have Linux, Open > Office and Mozilla? Hmm, there are some uses for Windows, though Linux has been rapidly gaining ground on the desktop application front. I'd like another machine, purely as a Linux desktop (already got the Linux firewall and Windows desktop). As for Win2k, there are actually two IPv6 packages from Microsoft. I've been running one of them for some time without any hassles on a few machines (including this one). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 22 16:06:17 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA09447 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:06:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:04:31 +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 QAA09447 > I'm not clear how far v6 support goes in XP anyway; > to some extent it affects the apps, as the API to > sockets changes. IE6 handles it but will Microsoft > Networking now run over v6? Will the IIS servers > run on v6? Hmm. Apps written to use IPv6 will work fine. I have run IPv6 enabled apps such as Apache under Windows 2000 with the IPv6 stack applied. Windows networking itself hasn't been written to run over IPv6 at this stage. One thing of interest will be what .Net supports, since this will have the first production IPv6 stack from MS. > > The whole internet will have to migrate to v6 anyway over > the next 10 years; I don't know how painful it will be. > That depends how easily they coexist in parallel. They coexist fine. This was one of the design goals ofIPv6. > > If our ISPs will start routing v6 protocol as well as v4 > from our dialup lines it could be quite easy. You'll > type a URL and the nameserver will give you a > v4 or v6 IP address and your system will use the > appropriate protocol stack. This already works if you have IPv6 connectivity. Only caveat is if you're using an IPv4 only proxy, you will not be able to access IPv6 sites. However, if you use a dual stack proxy (even if you're on an IPv4 only network), you will be able to access both IPv4 and IPv6 sites. > > It's best to avoid migration issues for a new network > by going v6 from day one. I've been thinking about > switching my home LAN to find out what the issues are. Grab a /48 from freenet6.net and have a play! :) > > My freeware DOS PCNFS thing that I just set up, > XFS, definitely would have problems - it's not open > source but some negotiations with the author might > get a result. Good luck there. > > > Ant > > There may be more important considerations like > whether BIND 9 supports IPv6 as you can't have an > internet without nameservers. BIND does, from memory. Many of the UNIX daemons support IPv6 to some extent (may need patches in some cases). Have a look at http://www.hs247.net http://www.ipv6.org http://www.freenet6.net (grab a static /48 from here :) ). --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 22 16:15:13 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA10148 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:15:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:14:16 +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 QAA10148 > IPv6 comes as a module in most linux distros. It requires 'modprobe > ipv6' to get things up in the rudimentary form Ant mentions below. Red Hat 7.2 and later is easy, just add a couple of lines to /etc/syconfig/network and you have IPv6 on the box. Configure a tunnel or hook up to an already IPv6 enabled network and you're away. > Routing is best done with 'zebra' IMHO, or a Juniper M5. > Setting up the > Ciscos capable of ipv6 is not intuitive and may require > tequila. 6to4 > tunnelling is 2 more commands in RedHat and is well documented across > the net. Google-search '6to4' and 'ipv6'... Easy peasy :) > > I'm setting up IPv6 here at home (well, it's running on 2 > computers so > far, dual stack IPv4 and IPv6). I'll be experimenting with > IPv6 across I'm running IPv6 at home as well. I also have IPv6 running here, though it's mostly firewalled out. The more interesting bit is I have this machine on IPv6 with its own tunnel to the nearest IPv6 router (the path goes through a couple of IPv4 only routers and a VPN link). > a couple of WAP-11 APs, with a 6to4 conversion prior to things going > back to the campus (currently ISDN, soon, real soon, 5 mile > [legal per > 36dBm restrictions maths] 802.11a or b link). Later, as I get the > campus IPv6 network running I'll be native therein, and we'll > convert at > the campus edge. And sometime in 2003, I hope to extend the IPv6 here is one of my unofficial experiments, but I am also looking to ensure any future purchases of networking equipment can handle IPv6, as it may become important towards the end of the working life of new gear, and certainly be an issue for the following generation of equipment. > A largish number of Linux apps, including Apache, handle IPv6 well. > Mozilla's fine, there's also parallel apps: traceroute6, tracepath6, > ping6, ssh6, etc. I just use OpenSSH. Recompile on an IPv6 enabled machine and you're away. > On this side of the pond, we're expecting the ISPs to be some of the > last to go. Several of the carriers are experimenting with backbone > IPv6 or have implementation plans. Internet2's Abilene > Network backbone > has migrated already. (Did I mention that Abilene's going to > 10GBE as a There's not a lot of activity in IPv6 circles here. Some of the major carriers have allocations, but none advertise them. The research institutes are starting to conduct seminars and offer tunnels, but the most active area seems to be the wireless experimenters. IPv6 is like a magnet to a bunch of geeks. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 22 22:32:37 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA26803 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:32:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:31:52 -0800 From: Phil Karn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: <3E2F7038.60104@ka9q.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Tony Langdon wrote: > I just use OpenSSH. Recompile on an IPv6 enabled machine and you're away. Yes, OpenSSH really supports IPv6 well. Not only is it my single most important network application, its TCP tunneling scheme lets you carry many other TCP apps whether they know anything about IPv6 or not. Along the same lines, TCP servers that can talk over an already-opened socket stream (which is most of them) can be blissfully unaware that they're using IPv6. Only the xinetd daemon that spawns them has to know about IPv6, which it does. That said, most of the important Linux apps already have direct support for IPv6. About the only major remaining exception is the Squid web proxy cache. There are IPv6-enabled forked versions, but last time I looked it's not in the main production version yet. Phil --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jan 22 23:10:15 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA28755 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:10:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:09:19 +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 XAA28755 > That said, most of the important Linux apps already have > direct support > for IPv6. About the only major remaining exception is the Squid web > proxy cache. There are IPv6-enabled forked versions, but last time I > looked it's not in the main production version yet. That's my main frustration. I like Squid as a proxy cache, been using it in IPv4 land for years, but IPv6 support isn't standard, and I haven't been able to get the CVS IPv6 version to compile. Also hear that version has a number of bugs as well. :-( And yes, agreed on the direct IPv6 support. I've found the same thing - it's readily available in most apps. --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 23 07:41:55 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA16868 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:41:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:41:01 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/23/2003 02:39:27 PM 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 can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster > a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc > b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. > Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. > c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable > Darryl > d) Initially hook and and educate interested members of the > public in radio technology and electronics; > Phil e) Early warning systems. We have people with remote-sensing satellite receivers and packet weather stations. I doubt we're doing anything with the data. We could deploy huge numbers of field telemetry devices to monitor river water levels, seismology, pollutants etc, and packet infrastructure could get that data back to base for processing and presenting fancy maps & graphs on the web. I bet there's a lot more that can be inferred about the environment through measuring radio propagation that we're not thinking about. Experimental systems have been set up to detect and locate lightening strikes which could be used as severe weather predictors, warnings to aviation, etc. f) Non-communication uses Our millimetric bands could be used to build scanning & imaging devices. There's never been anything to stop hams building radars & metal-detectors, and microwave imaging is a great area for growth and research. In can be used to detect concealed weapons, or to locate people in a building. Radio can also be used for security ID tag systems. Detection of buried hazards like cables & mines by radio. Detection of unauthorised entry to harbours, airports, wildlife reserves. Detection of medical conditions like heart attack. (this is a biggie as the biggest killers are medical; not accident or disaster.) Experimenting with collision avoidance systems. There's a need for positioning systems to augment GPS; if you've ever used one, you'll know it all falls over when you meet a few trees or go in a building. It's not bad for vehicles but for tracking people like rescue workers it's useless. We still have communication problems that need solving for underground and underwater applications; diving and mining being the most dangerous occupations. Our low-signal low-bandwidth modes like PSK31 might be applied to pocket status beacons for LF etc. g) Low-cost (lo-tech?) systems for developing world We may see our own western countries as well-equipped for emergency; there may be more need elsewhere. Much lower-cost solutions may be needed; solutions economical in sparsely-populated areas; tailored to places with no mains electricity, no phones, no maintenance facilities or installation skills... We could also help charities operating abroad; flying doctors, aid agencies etc. Many are using ham radio rigs and ham packet datacomms; but don't seem to be using the hams! IMO it's preferable to predict and prevent disaster rather than pick up the corpses afterwards. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on whether it is a suitable use of amateur bands; ie security, environmental monitoring, hazard alerting. Sure as hell I'd rather build a system that finds unexploded mines than a system that rescues children with no legs. 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 Thu Jan 23 09:51:33 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA22083 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:51:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:50:42 -0600 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Organization: AATLT -- TAMU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 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: <3E300F52.7070405@tamu.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Interesting concept... gerry Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com wrote: > >>I can see three ways that Ham Radio can help in the average disaster > > > a) Clerical work such as answring phones etc > > b) Get some of the Ham technologies into the emergency services. > >>Get APRS onto fire trucks and water bombers. > > > c) Convince people like phil to make their phones less reliable > > >>Darryl > > >>d) Initially hook and and educate interested members of the >>public in radio technology and electronics; > > >>Phil > > > e) Early warning systems. > > We have people with remote-sensing satellite receivers and > packet weather stations. > > I doubt we're doing anything with the data. > > We could deploy huge numbers of field telemetry devices > to monitor river water levels, seismology, pollutants etc, > and packet infrastructure could get that data back to base > for processing and presenting fancy maps & graphs on the > web. > > I bet there's a lot more that can be inferred about > the environment through measuring radio propagation > that we're not thinking about. > > Experimental systems have been set up to detect and locate > lightening strikes which could be used as severe weather > predictors, warnings to aviation, etc. > > f) Non-communication uses > > Our millimetric bands could be used to build scanning > & imaging devices. There's never been anything to stop > hams building radars & metal-detectors, and microwave > imaging is a great area for growth and research. In can > be used to detect concealed weapons, or to locate people > in a building. > > Radio can also be used for security ID tag systems. > > Detection of buried hazards like cables & mines by radio. > > Detection of unauthorised entry to harbours, airports, > wildlife reserves. > > Detection of medical conditions like heart attack. > (this is a biggie as the biggest killers are medical; > not accident or disaster.) > > Experimenting with collision avoidance systems. > > There's a need for positioning systems to augment GPS; > if you've ever used one, you'll know it all falls over > when you meet a few trees or go in a building. It's > not bad for vehicles but for tracking people like rescue > workers it's useless. > > We still have communication problems that need solving > for underground and underwater applications; diving and > mining being the most dangerous occupations. Our low-signal > low-bandwidth modes like PSK31 might be applied to pocket > status beacons for LF etc. > > g) Low-cost (lo-tech?) systems for developing world > > We may see our own western countries as well-equipped for > emergency; there may be more need elsewhere. Much > lower-cost solutions may be needed; solutions economical > in sparsely-populated areas; tailored to places with > no mains electricity, no phones, no maintenance > facilities or installation skills... > > We could also help charities operating abroad; flying > doctors, aid agencies etc. Many are using ham radio > rigs and ham packet datacomms; but don't seem to be > using the hams! > > IMO it's preferable to predict and prevent disaster > rather than pick up the corpses afterwards. I'd be > interested to hear your thoughts on whether it is > a suitable use of amateur bands; ie security, > environmental monitoring, hazard alerting. > > Sure as hell I'd rather build a system that finds > unexploded mines than a system that rescues children > with no legs. > > > Ant > > > > > --- > 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 -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 Cell: 979.229.5301 Pager: 979.228.0173 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 23 12:06:32 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA28222 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:06:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:05:20 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/23/2003 07:03:48 PM 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 > As for Win2k, there are actually two IPv6 packages from Microsoft. I've > been running one of them for some time without any hassles on a few machines > (including this one). ... > One thing of interest will be what .Net supports, since this will have the > first production IPv6 stack from MS. So if I install .Net, like Windows Update wants me to, I might get IPv6 support on Windows ME? Win-ME is newer than Win2000 If they're gonna do this .net thing they've gotta do the full monty. I shall be sending questions to ISPs to see which one I should support in future. If we all do it that should focus their minds a little. It's really just a matter of turning on the right switch on their router instead of dumping IPv6 packets in the bit-bucket, and claiming their wedge of address space. Their PAP/CHAP/DHCP may need a tweak - if you ask for an IPv6 address (or some) it should hand it over. In fact isn't fixed addressing back on the menu? It'll be nice not to need NAT; that makes v6 easier than suffering on with IPv4. v6 is the fix; NAT is the kludge. Kludges always come with grief inexplicable to average users. You have a good point to check anything you buy will at least be forward-compatible. We don't want people buying WLAN-DSL-routers and have to dump them in the bin. The standards are well-established; compliance isn't a problem. Some devices can be firmware-updated if your supplier is still in business, and is still talking to his supplier, etc. 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 Thu Jan 23 15:27:43 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA08036 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:27:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:25:58 +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 PAA08036 > So if I install .Net, like Windows Update wants me to, > I might get IPv6 support on Windows ME? No, that line of Windows is dead, ME was really only put out for domestic use, after concerns abut the suitability of Windows2000 for things like game playing. > If they're gonna do this .net thing they've gotta > do the full monty. Yep. > > I shall be sending questions to ISPs to see which one > I should support in future. If we all do it that should > focus their minds a little. > > It's really just a matter of turning on the right switch > on their router instead of dumping IPv6 packets in the > bit-bucket, and claiming their wedge of address space. > Their PAP/CHAP/DHCP may need a tweak - if you ask for an > IPv6 address (or some) it should hand it over. In fact > isn't fixed addressing back on the menu? IPv6 is intended to be provider based addressing. Yes, you will get static IP addresses, but ONLY if you stick with the one ISP. Change ISPs and your address prefix WILL change. > It'll be nice not to need NAT; that makes v6 easier > than suffering on with IPv4. v6 is the fix; NAT is > the kludge. Kludges always come with grief inexplicable > to average users. Agreed. It's nice to have a bunch of static addresses... > > You have a good point to check anything you buy will at > least be forward-compatible. We don't want people > buying WLAN-DSL-routers and have to dump them in the bin. > The standards are well-established; compliance isn't a > problem. Some devices can be firmware-updated if your > supplier is still in business, and is still talking > to his supplier, etc. Yes, purchase carefully, or roll your own - Linux and *BSD can be turned into nice IPv4/IPv6 router/firewalls. I believe FreeBSD has one of the more mature IPv6 stacks. It will be interesting to see what goodies the Linux 2.6 kernel has when it comes out. :) --- Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 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 Jan 24 07:31:45 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA16988 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:31:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:31:01 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] [Fwd: [IP] Spectrum Allocation Conference] 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: <3E314015.30209@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Spectrum Allocation Conference Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:48:40 -0500 From: Dave Farber Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip Spectrum Policy: Property or Commons? Stanford Law School March 1-2, 2003 Sponsored by: Thomas Hazlett, the Manhattan Institute, and Lawrence Lessig of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society Full conference details and registration at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/spectrum/ Highlights: **A moot court where "property" proponents Thomas Hazlett and Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber will debate "commons" proponents Professor Lawrence Lessig and Professor Yochai Benkler about which architecture most effectively promotes efficiency and innovation. This moot court will honor Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase, who criticized the FCC's spectrum policy in 1959, arguing that rules preempting private ownership of spectrum led to catastrophic inefficiencies in the market. The Judges will include FCC Chairman Michael Powell, renowned economist Harold Demsetz, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski. **Professor Yochai Benkler, from NYU Law School, presenting a proposal to treat spectrum as a commons with comments by Professors Gerald R. Faulhaber, former FCC Chief economist, Professor David Farber, former FCC technologist, Professor Howard Shelanski, former FCC Chief Economist, and J. Gregory Sidak, Director of AEI's Telecommunications Deregulation Project. **Presentations of two property based proposals for regulating spectrum, including "A Proposal for a Rapid Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum" from the FCC Office of Plans and Policy and a paper by Thomas Hazlett of the Manhattan Institute, with comments by Dewayne Hendricks, CEO of the The Dandin Group, Tim Shepard, and Kevin Werbach, former Counsel for New Technology Policy at the FCC. **Dr. David P. Reed explaining what's different about emerging spectrum technologies? Why do they present new regulatory issues? what's new, and just why that should matter. **Lunch panel with presentations on a number of business models for utilizing spectrum under both property and commons regulatory regimes including mesh networks and Community wireless networking. ** Sunday Workshop on "Spectrum Etiquette" where participants will explore whether the unlicensed spectrum band needs etiquette rules at this time? Or should the FCC leave the space alone? Full conference details and registration at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/spectrum/ Registration: Corporate ($695) Academic/Non-Profit/Government ($195) Student ($50) Press (free, but must register) CLE credit available -- Lauren Gelman, Esq. Assistant Director Center for Internet and Society Stanford Law School Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 (ph) 650-724-3358 (fax) 650-723-4426 gelman@stanford.edu ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 24 08:38:53 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA21735 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:38:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: January 18, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:37:05 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/24/2003 03:35:33 PM 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 > IPv6 is intended to be provider based addressing. Yes, you will get static > IP addresses, but ONLY if you stick with the one ISP. Change ISPs and your > address prefix WILL change. So what happens to mobile or roaming users? Those that connect to company networks at work, an ISP at home, an ISP which you use when the other is belly-up, a different ISP when abroad on business, and another one when they connect via a mobile phone? OK there's "mobile IP" which forces packets to transit the network unnecessarily, adds delay, and assumes one has a "home base" network. When do you think we'll get the holy grail of "an IP address fixed for life"? It seems a retrograde step, composing user numbers mainly of routing info. We had that problem with the 'phone system in the early days, but we've long since gone to lookup tables so that your phone number isn't fixed by the terminals on the exchange the wires are attached to. Phone number prefixes seem to be tied to tariffs these days, although the rest of the numbers are portable across service providers. In theory, users reference machines by name so what matters is getting the name-to-IP translation right in DNS. I've messed with BIND a little and allowing clients to update their own entry is an option (if they had software which did it.) It is possible to give every client a key to enable access to their BIND entry, although this isn't the normal intent. On a DNS server with 1000 entries it would get very slow as the config files would be massive and impossible to maintain unless you wrote some tools. If you can trust all the users in your domain with one key it would be OK. Typical BIND setups cache for long periods and there isn't a good mechanism for propagating change across cached data. I think that's the real problem with using DNS to support dynamic IP addresses. It would be nice if you could set the lifetime of your own entry, I wonder if that's allowed? --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 24 09:07:51 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA24371 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:07:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:06:44 -0500 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] [Fwd: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture] 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: <3E315684.2030309@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:16:03 -0500 From: Dave Farber Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip ------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture By Ron Wilson, EE Times Jan 22, 2003 (11:16 AM) URL: SAN JOSE, Calif. - Intel Corp. provided the first details of its reconfigurable radio architecture this week at the Software-Defined Radio Forum, where the company described an array of processors that will implement a range of physical layer and media-access control combinations. In its first public discussion of its plans since Intel's chief technology officer Patrick Gelsinger revealed an intent to pursue reconfigurable radio at last year's Intel Developer Forum, Intel made it clear that its approach will differ from most other companies at the workshop. Rather than relying on programmable logic, Intel researcher Jeffrey Schiffer said Monday (Jan. 20) that the company's architecture will use a heterogeneous array of processors. Some will be general-purpose DSPs, and others will be tuned to process particular algorithms. Schiffer said the individual processors will be of intermediate complexity, between an FPGA and a modest CPU. The processors are not bused, but rather are connected through a mesh that emphasizes nearest-neighbor relationships. This both offers a natural implementation for data flow organizations and reduces the power and signal integrity issues that come with long interconnect lines. The mesh of processors is terminated on two sides by an array of I/O engines, with one array serving as an input device and the other serving as output. In front of the input processors resides a switchable array of analog front-ends - and, presumably, antennas - allowing the entire system to hop gracefully between frequency bands. Different analog front-ends provide different pre-filtering and signal capture/conversion. Behind the output array lives a collection of various media-access controller (MAC) devices. Transparent configuration Intel conceives the architecture as a solution to the problem of highly mobile digital appliances that must move not only from cell to cell, but from protocol to protocol and band to band in order to maintain connectivity. In operation, the proposed Intel device would continually query its environment to determine what services were available. It would then switch on the appropriate antenna and analog front-end combination to connect to the service, and configure out of the processor array an appropriate PHY/MAC layer implementation for that standard. This process would be transparent to the user, except for permission and billing issues. Intel researchers have estimated that such a configurable array approach would be considerably less efficient, in both real estate and power, than a hard-wired PHY/MAC solution, or even two of them. But when the number of PHY/MAC combinations that must be supported reaches three, the Intel approach breaks even with dedicated engines. Above that number, the array is more efficient. Thus Intel suggested that reconfigurable radio devices of the future will not challenge single-provider terminals. Rather, they would have a major role when the terminal is mobile and must move freely between numerous incompatible wireless network services. Archives at: Weblog at: ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jan 24 09:19:14 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA25233 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:18:56 -0600 (CST) Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [ss] RE: [Fwd: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture] Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:23:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Thread-Topic: [ss] [Fwd: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture] Thread-Index: AcLDuy3/+u9lQ3zFTgyvhoFqtVTWAQAACwxg From: "Paul Mcinnish" 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: <5D8BF3B2ECA4C74E9F673D8C8A258F7A02653C@exchange.digital> 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 JAA25233 Heck... this ain't anything new! We have had software reconfigurable radios for years! How about over 100+ parameters? All frequency hopping, of course; in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and just announced our 5.8 GHz radios! No direct sequence in our bag of tricks! Does not lend itself very well to noise, interference and jamming immunity! NOPE! NOT 802.11x -- too many bullet holes in the 802.11 standards for the applications our products are used in! Our customers like security without having to invest in extensive encryption techniques! Very best regards, Paul McInnish - K4BET Business Development Manager Cirronet, Inc. 5375 Oakbrook Parkway Norcross, GA 30093 USA Direct Pho: +678.684.2011 Fax: +678.684.2001 Web URL: http://www.cirronet.com E-mail: k4bet@cirronet.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric S. Johansson [mailto:esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:07 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] [Fwd: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:16:03 -0500 From: Dave Farber Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip ------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture By Ron Wilson, EE Times Jan 22, 2003 (11:16 AM) URL: SAN JOSE, Calif. - Intel Corp. provided the first details of its reconfigurable radio architecture this week at the Software-Defined Radio Forum, where the company described an array of processors that will implement a range of physical layer and media-access control combinations. In its first public discussion of its plans since Intel's chief technology officer Patrick Gelsinger revealed an intent to pursue reconfigurable radio at last year's Intel Developer Forum, Intel made it clear that its approach will differ from most other companies at the workshop. Rather than relying on programmable logic, Intel researcher Jeffrey Schiffer said Monday (Jan. 20) that the company's architecture will use a heterogeneous array of processors. Some will be general-purpose DSPs, and others will be tuned to process particular algorithms. Schiffer said the individual processors will be of intermediate complexity, between an FPGA and a modest CPU. The processors are not bused, but rather are connected through a mesh that emphasizes nearest-neighbor relationships. This both offers a natural implementation for data flow organizations and reduces the power and signal integrity issues that come with long interconnect lines. The mesh of processors is terminated on two sides by an array of I/O engines, with one array serving as an input device and the other serving as output. In front of the input processors resides a switchable array of analog front-ends - and, presumably, antennas - allowing the entire system to hop gracefully between frequency bands. Different analog front-ends provide different pre-filtering and signal capture/conversion. Behind the output array lives a collection of various media-access controller (MAC) devices. Transparent configuration Intel conceives the architecture as a solution to the problem of highly mobile digital appliances that must move not only from cell to cell, but from protocol to protocol and band to band in order to maintain connectivity. In operation, the proposed Intel device would continually query its environment to determine what services were available. It would then switch on the appropriate antenna and analog front-end combination to connect to the service, and configure out of the processor array an appropriate PHY/MAC layer implementation for that standard. This process would be transparent to the user, except for permission and billing issues. Intel researchers have estimated that such a configurable array approach would be considerably less efficient, in both real estate and power, than a hard-wired PHY/MAC solution, or even two of them. But when the number of PHY/MAC combinations that must be supported reaches three, the Intel approach breaks even with dedicated engines. Above that number, the array is more efficient. Thus Intel suggested that reconfigurable radio devices of the future will not challenge single-provider terminals. Rather, they would have a major role when the terminal is mobile and must move freely between numerous incompatible wireless network services. Archives at: Weblog at: ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: k4bet@digital-wireless.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 Fri Jan 24 13:52:22 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA15687 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:52:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] RE: [Fwd: [IP] Intel tips plans for reconfigurable radio architecture] To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:51:35 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/24/2003 08:50:02 PM 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 > Heck... this ain't anything new! We have had software reconfigurable > radios for years! How about over 100+ parameters? Software adjustable parameters are hardly the same as the reprogrammable waveform processors suggested by Intel. Could your wireless adapt to comply with 802.11 standards where public access exists? Or GSM? What Intel is proposing isn't just support for 802.11, but GSM, PCS, GPRS, EDGE, 3G, CDMA, Iridium, GPS, Bluetooth COFDM broadcast radio & TV etc from one baseband chipset. Plus modems like DOCSIS, ADSL, VDSL.. The article makes the leap to suggest direct connection to antennas but it's more likely that the RF sections are off-chip; Intel is not an RF chip company. As such it's comparable to other signle-chip basebands. The logic is that your need for a comms link is generally satisfied by one modulation & protocol at a time, although it varies by location. Remember this thing isn't limited to LAN data applications or even to data modulation. Think: Why shouldn't this chip appear in your next ham rig? It would be perfectly capable of doing SSB, NBFM, AFSK, FSK, MSK, PSK, QPSK, ATV, 802.11FH, 802.11DS, STANAG4285 etc etc etc Uh, I suppose we've had DSP chips perfectly capable of all the above bar 802.11 for years and nothing's happened... Duh, high time fingers were pulled out. You could, of course, implement Cirronet solutions on Intel's chip, so everyone can have the benefit of roaming into Cirronet wireless networks. > All frequency hopping, of course; in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and just > announced our 5.8 GHz radios! No direct sequence in our bag of tricks! > Does not lend itself very well to noise, interference and jamming > immunity! I agree FH is preferable, 802.11FH offers more protection than 802.11 DS, especially 802.11b which has none. To some extent the behaviour of FH and DS is a consequence of parameters to fit them within the regulatory box rather than inherent in the technology. ie. the parameters of DS could be set so it had similar QRM characteristics to FH, but would it comply with FCC part15 / EN300-328 limits? I don't know if turning the ISM spectrum into a war-zone is an optimal way to go... I think it's better not to have independent fighting factions but to have common protocols for negotiating contention-free access to get best spectrum utilisation. 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 Sun Jan 26 06:22:21 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA08963 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 06:22:21 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] New List - ham-80211@lists.tapr.org Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 23:17:33 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18clkX-0003kL-00*R6X.KYTm0pQ* 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: <007901c2c534$eb057590$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Given the increased interest in Amateur applications for 802.11b, we have decided to add another mailing list for discussions specifically on its implementation in the Ham Radio world. The list is designed to be a meeting place for all 802.11b experimenters - regardless of where in the world they are located, or what protocol changes are being advocated. If you wish to join this mailing list the best way is probably to visit the following URL http://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ham-80211&text_mode=0 To post to this mailing list send an email to ham-80211@lists.tapr.org Darryl TAPR Board Member. --------- 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 Jan 29 04:51:45 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA06511 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 04:51:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] Re: New List - ham-80211@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/29/2003 11:49:06 AM 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 > Given the increased interest in Amateur applications for 802.11b, we > have decided to add another mailing list for discussions specifically on > its implementation in the Ham Radio world. Sensible move, Daryl. Does this mean 802.11 standards not 802.11b (the bravo version) stay here? Please clarify. I suggest the new list be for all 802.* wireless-related standards, owing to substantial commonality and necessity of other 802 protocols as part of WLAN gear. In my humble opinion, it would be desirable if *this* SS list mutated to cover all high-rate UHF/microwave packet and data interests, be they SS or not. It's gonna get dead otherwise - which it seems to have already! The current set of listserv groups have somewhat orthogonal overlapping subjects - eg. HFSIG is a frequency split, whereas SS-SIG is a modulation split that cuts across frequency. Realistically I'd discuss FHSS at HF on HFSIG anyhow, if people were interested. 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 Wed Jan 29 23:51:59 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA22467 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:51:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: ss digest: January 29, 2003 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:51:13 +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 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan *18e7bF-0002sU-00*IbVXb23flV.* 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: <004f01c2c823$9bf8ce60$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >> Given the increased interest in Amateur applications for 802.11b, we >> have decided to add another mailing list for discussions specifically >> on its implementation in the Ham Radio world. > >Does this mean 802.11 standards not 802.11b (the bravo version) stay here? 802.11{abc....xyz} standards can be discussed on the new list... We called it the 802.11b list just to focus attention... >I suggest the new list be for all 802.* wireless-related standards, owing to substantial commonality and necessity of other >802 protocols as part of >WLAN gear. > >In my humble opinion, it would be desirable if *this* SS list mutated to cover all high-rate >UHF/microwave packet and data interests, be they SS or not. > >It's gonna get dead otherwise - which it seems to have already! > >The current set of listserv groups have somewhat orthogonal overlapping subjects - eg. >HFSIG is a frequency split, whereas SS-SIG is a modulation split that cuts across >frequency. Realistically I'd discuss FHSS at HF on HFSIG anyhow, if people were interested. > >Ant The Spread Spectrum list is a great place to discuss any issue with data communications, but really it should be focused on Spread Spectum if possible. Due to the nature of SS experimentation I sort of hope that this SIG will expand into a SS, RF and High Speed Networking SIG. But that is not my choice to make. It is the choice of the participants. The users make up the list. It really is up to the users to decide what becomes of it. One mailing list I belong to is for a computer - the Applix 1616 - which we are pretty sure is extinct. The list has just changed topic over time... Does this help explaining things? Darryl P.s. I didn't get the parcel sent. The person who was going to send it was in the UK for 24 hours, and that was a Sunday so he realised he would not get a chance. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jan 30 04:41:44 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA01439 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:41:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] TAPR List Sponsorship Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:38:19 +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 *18eC4W-0008BP-00*6EBhRD9cH42* 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: <005201c2c84b$b7ee5ef0$4601a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk People Most of you would be aware that TAPR hosts this and other mailing lists. You may not be aware of some of the other things that TAPR does, such as Sponsoring the development of 'Enabling Technologies' such as * High speed AD interfaces * New PIC-Encoder Sponsoring new projects Producing kits Running the annual Digital Communications Conference Providing the TAPR.ORG WWW site with software archive Providing the PSR magazine free to members and non-members All of these things cost money. One way you can support TAPR in what it is doing is to become a member of the organisation. Membership only costs US$20 per year and provides support to all these activities. You can find More information on www.tapr.org If you cannot afford the annual membership, we would be happy for you to Contribute in other ways. If you cannot find a project to assist with Please contact me and I will find one for you. Darryl Smith, VK2TDS TAPR Board Member --------- 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 Thu Jan 30 11:20:40 2003 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA16778 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:20:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ss] RE: ss digest: January 29, 2003 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Anthony.N.Martin@marconiselenia.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:20:00 +0000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mgeg01/S/EXT/MM1(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/30/2003 06:18:21 PM 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 > 802.11{abc....xyz} standards can be discussed on the new list... We > called it the 802.11b list just to focus attention... Keep an eye on the 802.15 WPAN group http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/ I have seen rumours that TG3a may standardise a high-rate UWB mode for a wireless equivalent to USB2.0 (ie 500Mb/s) 802.16 is the standardisation effort on WMAN aka broadband wireless access ("last-mile") systems. There is an interesting "Mobile Wireless MAN study group" looking at MBWA (mobile broadband wireless access) standards. Compare & contrast with 3G! MBWA looks very much what 3G should have been - packet-switched, IP-based, PC-client rather than handset. And someone has finally recognised the necessity of adaptive antennas for high-rate low-power systems - antenna gain is necessary in the link budget. Looks like low-cost steerable antenna technology will be a major R & D effort over the next 5 years. > P.s. I didn't get the parcel sent. The person who was going to send it > was in the UK for 24 hours, and that was a Sunday so he realised he > would not get a chance. Righto. I'll pay the postage. Things I want to do real soon: Become a paid-up member of TAPR! Write down some proposals for new kits/projects, publish & get comments Subscribe to the new 802.11 list Probably have to subscribe to APRS list and other lists too - but I'm already drowning in lists, spam, etc. 2nd thoughts - I may stay off the 802.11 list as it was consuming rather a lot of my time. I need to get this packet router box I'm building off the bench first - I don't want to shelve half-done projects & being able to monitor, log & generate all kinds of packet traffic will be necessary for testing future packet data projects. 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