From bm@hydra.carleton.ca Mon Jan 01 12:39:47 1996 Received: from hydra.carleton.ca (hydra.carleton.ca [134.117.12.18]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id MAA17298 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 1996 12:39:44 -0600 (CST) Received: (from bm@localhost) by hydra.carleton.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) id NAA06672 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 1 Jan 1996 13:39:41 -0500 From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199601011839.NAA06672@hydra.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [SS:18] Re: SS Questions To: ss@tapr.org Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 13:39:40 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Dewayne Hendricks" at Dec 31, 95 09:41:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text > I would try the following site, WIRELESS WORLD By Tim Cocklin: > > > > It has pointers to most commercial wireless product sites on the Web and > lots of other useful info. It really is a first class effort and where I > first go when I'm researching a wireless topic!! Thanks - that one's a keeper! I actually had Tim's wireless hardware page buried amongst my bookmarks, but missed it when I took a quick look before posting my message. So, how many folks on the list actually have some experience with using WLAN hardware? Any stories to relate? Barry ps: some of you may have noticed that TAPR also has a WLAN mailing list. It was a false start which has now been made redundant by this list, so it should be disappearing... -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | FreeNet: aa187@freenet.carleton.ca From rwhiting@winternet.com Mon Jan 01 17:03:56 1996 Received: from icicle (root@icicle.winternet.com [198.174.169.5]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id RAA26113 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 1996 17:03:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp-66-54.dialup.winternet.com [204.246.66.54]) by icicle (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA00656 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 1996 17:03:48 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 17:03:48 -0600 Posted-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 17:03:48 -0600 Message-Id: <199601012303.RAA00656@icicle> X-Sender: rwhiting@mail.winternet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: rwhiting@winternet.com (Rick Whiting) Subject: More SS Web Sites Here are a couple of SS sites: http://teleport.com/~nts is Northwest Technical Services which has info on a number of commercial SS products. http://olt.et.tudelft.nl/~glas/ssc/techn/techniques.html is a short tutorial on spread spectrum (with illustrations). 73/Rick W0TN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Richard A. (Rick) Whiting Phone: + 1 612 550 1213 | | 5780 Rosewood Ln. N. E-mail: rwhiting@winternet.com | | Plymouth, MN 55442-1411 Packet: W0TN @ WB0GDB.MN.USA.NOAM | | U.S.A. Fax: Number on request | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Tue Jan 02 14:39:33 1996 Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with ESMTP id OAA01542 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:39:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA083036592; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:16:33 -0800 Received: from hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (n6gn.sr.hp.com) by srmail.sr.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA192286591; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:16:32 -0800 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA071026590; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:16:31 -0800 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199601021816.AA071026590@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:19] Re: SS Questions To: ss@tapr.org (Barry McLarnon VE3JF) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:16:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199601011839.NAA06672@hydra.carleton.ca> from "Barry McLarnon VE3JF" at Jan 1, 96 12:50:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > So, how many folks on the list actually have some experience with using > WLAN hardware? Any stories to relate? > Barry We have a little experience here with Metricom Part 15 devices. One of the ports on redwood.ampr.org is connected by way of Metricom stuff to the 44.4.44.x subnet here in northern CA. Wb6eqo is the main user at the northern end but has multiple hosts on it. I'm not sure of the total count of Metricom radios involved, to a degree it is dynamic, but the radios are the newer 100 kbps (ricochet?) version and are all FH at 900 MHz. Since one of them is also at the site of redwood, there is a little QRM and the result is that redwood(which is not presentlly SS) loses about 2% of packets going through it. As long as there isn't a lot of loss elsewhere in a connection, this doesn't usually get noticed. Performance to wb6eqo isn't nearly so good as to other 230 kbps hosts. This is certainly no surprise. The hardware seems to work but isn't particularly more reliable than our amateur stuff. In fact, the recent rain, wind and lightning storm that took out so much still has the Part 15 devices to wb6eqo down completely. The 230 stuff is at least limping. During warmer weather, wb6eqo reported copying another Metricom radio from downtown silicon valley; about 80 miles to the south and definitely not LOS. This is an aberration though and normally only radios within 25-40 miles make it in I think. Throughput and latency are not as good as the 230 kbps hardware, and worse by much more than a factor of 2. I'm not sure of the causes, I believe that the Metricom's do FEC and have their own link protocol. In any case, ping results from santarosa.ampr.org to k6hsj.ampr.org over 230 kbps are under 40 mx rtt but more like 300 ms rtt to wb6eqo. Similarly, ftp throughput to k6hsj is on the order of 6 kbytes/sec but I don't think I see much more than 1/10th of that to wb6eqo. This is with no other users on the Part 15 network. It could be that some of this is due to too few Metricoms or other installation problems. I really don't know. These are just some observations. One thing I do like about the Metricoms is their remote diagnostic capabilities. They can report signal strength and I believe spectrem occupancy remotely. It is becoming obvious that remote network monitoring and control is going to be a big deal if amateur networks are ever going to get serious. Glenn n6gn From bm@hydra.carleton.ca Sun Jan 07 21:14:37 1996 Received: from hydra.carleton.ca (bm@hydra.carleton.ca [134.117.12.18]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id VAA25312 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 21:14:31 -0600 (CST) Received: (from bm@localhost) by hydra.carleton.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA24459 for ss@tapr.org; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:14:25 -0500 From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199601080314.WAA24459@hydra.carleton.ca> Subject: WLAN stuff To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:14:25 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text My first cut at compiling some info on wireless LAN modem products is available for your perusal at: http://hydra.carleton.ca/info/wlan.html This is a work in progress, so there's still lots of info missing. Comments, additional info, and constructive criticism welcome! Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | FreeNet: aa187@freenet.carleton.ca From wd5ivd@tapr.org Sun Jan 07 22:49:19 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) id WAA28451 for ss@tapr.org; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:49:18 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199601080449.WAA28451@sys1.tapr.org> Subject: American Microsystems ? To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:49:18 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Has anyone seen a S20043 from American Microsystems ? I saw an add of theirs in one of the trade journals. Seems they offer a SS component as low as $25 in qty . Maybe someone can call them and find out what they had -- it looked interesting. (208) 234-6711. Greg From srbible@mindport.net Thu Jan 11 17:10:01 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id RAA06242; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:09:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from polaris.mindport.net (synapse-34.mindport.net [205.219.167.53]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16246; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:09:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:09:52 -0500 Posted-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:09:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199601112309.SAA16246@polaris.mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mail.mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org, hfsig@tapr.org From: srbible@mindport.net (Steven R. Bible) Subject: SS, Digital Comms, and DSP Books - a bibliography Recently I was looking for textbooks on the topics of Spread Spectrum, Digital Communications, and Digital Signal Processing. I turned to the World Wide Web in search for these and technical book stores advertising on the Web. Here's what I found. http://www.mindport.net/~srbible/biblio.html The books listed on this page are recent, in-print books. Hyperlinks on titles will take you to the publishers web page that will describe the books in more detail. At the end of the book list are some book stores that specialize in technical books and publishers. Let me know how you like this format. Let me know if there's a book to add to the list. Perhaps what would be even more useful to hams is a short description by a ham on the fitness of the book toward our work. I would like to rate the books either by stars (1 to 5 stars) or catogorize them as theoretical, practical, recommended reading, mandatory read, a most have. Other bibliograph web pages I have authored are: Spread Spectrum - http://www.tapr.org/ss/biblio.html Packet Radio - http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/biblio.html - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From k4umi@widomaker.com Sun Jan 14 21:32:26 1996 Received: from widomaker.com (root@wilma.widomaker.com [204.17.220.5]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id VAA17641 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 21:32:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from pm1-09.wmbg.widomaker.com by widomaker.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0tbfeQ-0000HMC; Sun, 14 Jan 96 22:32 EST Received: by pm1-09.wmbg.widomaker.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BAE2D0.29F66B00@pm1-09.wmbg.widomaker.com>; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 22:32:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BAE2D0.29F66B00@pm1-09.wmbg.widomaker.com> From: "Dave Holmes................." To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Subject: Pansat equipment Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 22:31:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there anyone out there that knows what equipment will be required to = access the Pansat when it goes up? I am very much interested in that = mode and would like to build some hardware to get familiar with spread = spectrum. From jeff@mich.com Tue Jan 16 22:20:06 1996 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id WAA27732 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:20:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from aerodata.mich.com (aerodata.mich.com [198.108.16.32]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with SMTP id XAA23970 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:19:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:19:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199601170419.XAA23970@merit.edu> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: jeff@mich.com (Jeff King) Subject: Back issues Are there any back issues of this mailing list available? Didn't see anything on the TAPR web site. BTW, my link to the internet is via a 1.5 mile spread spectrum link (full time) using FreeWave radios on both ends. Regards, Jeff King "Real men do the internet via spread spectrum" From n5lyt@tapr.org Tue Jan 16 22:51:41 1996 Received: from harpo.n5lyt.datarace.com (ppp.n5lyt.datarace.com [204.96.214.88]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id WAA28570 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:51:38 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:52:41 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Ziegenhals To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Back issues X-Sender: n5lyt@tapr.org In-Reply-To: <199601170445.WAA28227@sys1.tapr.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Back issues were supposed to be available but got left out because of a technical problem; to wit: my brain wasn't working right when I set up the list :-). They'll be online in a few days, complete back to November. Lee > Are there any back issues of this mailing list available? > > Didn't see anything on the TAPR web site. > > BTW, my link to the internet is via a 1.5 mile spread > spectrum link (full time) using FreeWave radios on > both ends. > > Regards, > > Jeff King > "Real men do the internet via spread spectrum" From wd5ivd@tapr.org Wed Jan 17 03:30:16 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) id DAA10208 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 03:30:15 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199601170930.DAA10208@sys1.tapr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:26] Back issues To: ss@tapr.org Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 03:30:15 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199601170419.XAA23970@merit.edu> from "Jeff King" at Jan 16, 96 10:42:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text The archives should be on-line shortly. Have been working on that and several other issues in the past two weeks. It will be in ftp.tapr.org/tapr/ss/mail_archive Cheers - Greg > > Are there any back issues of this mailing list available? > > Didn't see anything on the TAPR web site. > > BTW, my link to the internet is via a 1.5 mile spread > spectrum link (full time) using FreeWave radios on > both ends. > > Regards, > > Jeff King > "Real men do the internet via spread spectrum" > > From hansen@ait.fredonia.edu Wed Jan 17 10:40:42 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (WA8DZP@odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with ESMTP id KAA20202 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 10:40:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from [204.118.182.22] by warpspeed.com with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:40:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:40:14 -0800 To: ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) Subject: New Mailing List Info - FYI From: "John A. Hansen" Subject: List Opened for Those Interested in High Speed Spread Spectrum Digital Communications Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: usenet@news.zippo.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nntp-Posting-Host: 141.238.20.175 Organization: SUNY-Fredonia Message-ID: <30F9CE23.7F0A@ait.fredonia.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 03:46:43 GMT Lines: 23 Hi, A week or so ago I posted some preliminary results of experimental part 15 3 mbit/sec digital links that we have been playing with at SUNY-Fredonia. Since then I've received quite a number of inquiries about the equipment and its performance. Interestingly enough, most of the replies came from folks who were not necessarily hams, but were interested in specific commercial applications of this technology. In order to facilitate communication between those who are interested in this stuff, I've initiated a list on my own listserver. I will post the results of our experiments there and I hope that others will do the same. We are expecting this week to receive some higher gain antennas which should let us stretch the range a bit. If you are interested in participating (or eavesdropping) you may join this list by sending a message to: listserv@ait.fredonia.edu with a text (not subject, but text) of join wireless Thanks for the bandwidth. -- John Hansen, WA0PTV Director, Academic Information Technology State University of New York - Fredonia hansen@ait.fredonia.edu From hansen@ait.fredonia.edu Wed Jan 17 22:33:40 1996 Received: from oak.ait.fredonia.edu (oak.ait.fredonia.edu [141.238.20.4]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id WAA19676 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:33:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from KIDS by oak.ait.fredonia.edu (NTMail Server 2.11.23 - ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) id aa007224 Wed, 17 Jan 96 23:23:23 +0000 (EST) Message-ID: <30FDCEA9.FE1@ait.fredonia.edu> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 23:38:01 -0500 From: "John A. Hansen" Organization: SUNY-Fredonia X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wireless@ait.fredonia.edu CC: ss@tapr.org, hansen@ait.fredonia.edu Subject: My Experiences With Part 15 Spread Spectrum Equipment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Trip So Far in High Speed Digital Communication Via Spread Sprectrum "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Clarke's Third Law. I've been following developments in high speed data transmission via spread spectrum radio devices for a number of years. However, since I was intially interested in it as a hobbyist and since the prices were considerably more than my toy budget, about all I did was read and wonder. A couple of things happened in the last year to change this dramatically. First I became Director of Academic Information Technology at a local college, which put me in charge of bringing connectivity to campus. This also provided me with a significant budget allegedly for connectivity, but also, to more limited extent for research and development. Secondly, I attended this year's Networld+Interop in Atlanta. There I ran into a company called BreezeCom (formerly Lannair) which seemed to be selling 2.4 Ghz spread sprectrum devices that could push 3 mbits/sec over distances (they claimed) of over 3500 feet. They were actually demonstrating this equipment and it did appear to work. There were a number of places on campus where I thought this technology had potential, though I wasn't exactly sure where it would go in first. So I figured the next step was to acquire some of it and cart around campus to see how it would perform over various paths. The Breezecom product is not designed to be a bridge. A number of companies have products out like this. The theory is you put up an "access point" that is hooked directly into the ethernet network and then you buy a "station adapter" for each of the computers that you want to have access the system. A campus could have multiple access points and users could cruise between them, essentially the way cellular telephones do. What you are not supposed to be able to do with this type of technology is provide lan to lan links. A number of manufacturers I talked to, in fact, insisted it was impossible to hook a hub up to the station unit and have it work. This is a key point, because while I have some uses that will clearly involve the single unit access paradign, I also have some pressing needs for point to point, lan to lan links. On our campus, this would often involve very low data rates. An example would be a group of 30 computers set up in one room to submit registration information for students. Very very little data is involved, but I would not want to buy a "station unit" for each of the 30 computers. The cheapest vendor of equipment that is designed as a "wireless bridge" that I could find would cost close to $5000 for one link. While this would be cheaper than buying a "station unit" for each of the computers, it still was more than I really wanted to pay. I got to talking with the President of Breezecom about this and he said they were about to come out with firmware that would allow bridging, but that it wasn't available yet. He offered to let me beta test it. In the meantime, I asked if the bridging function was all that was required, wouldn't it be possible to use and outboard bridge or perhaps even a Windows NT box that had routing functions built in. He paused for a moment and allowed that it might work. That was enough for me to want to try it. Access units from Breezecom come in two flavors but the price is the same in either case. The AP-10 is a unit with two integrated antennas in the transmitter that look a bit like rubber duck antennas. These are designed for distribution of ethernet within buildings. The second flavor is the AP-10D. It has no antennas, but comes with a pair of SMA connectors on it for installing external antennas. The company makes several external antennas. The simplest is a patch antenna in a plastic case somewhat larger than a pack of cigarrettes. The company initially recommended hooking up two of these to the AP-10D. Only one of the two antennas is actually used at a time and the unit samples to see which provides the best connection. In practice, I have found virtually no difference in performance between using one and two antennas. Thus I would recommend using one. This is now the company's recommendation as well, unless you are in a place with lots of buildings and multipath problems. The patch antenna claims to have an h-plane beamwidth of 165 degrees and a gain of 8.5dBi. It is clearly directional, but I have means of verifying this claim. My experimentation leads me to think it may be somewhat narrower. The company also makes an omni antenna that has (if I remember correctly), a gain of about 6 dBi). If you are contemplating putting the antenna in a high location (We have a building in the center of campus that is 9 stories tall.. . the next tallest building is 3 stories), there is a potential problem with the omni because it does not radiate down (or up) well. The retail list price of the AP-10 or 10D is $1295, and the retail on the patch antenna and feedline (it comes with about 8 feet of cable) is $125. I asked about educational discounts (as I always do) and was told to check with their distributors. At that time, they had very few distributors and Breezecom agreed to sell to me for 10% off list. Since then, one of their distributors, GBC Technologies, has quoted me a price of just over $1000 for the access point and $78 for the patch antenna (though it is not clear whether that includes feedline). The station units come in three flavors. First, there is a 1 port adapter (SA-10 and SA-10D, depending on whether it has integrated antennas or SMA connectors). This unit has one RJ-45 twisted pair connector. Second, there is a four port adapter (SA-40 and SA-40D) which has 4 RJ-45 twisted pair connectors. There is also a very interesting PCMCIA card for laptops. This is a really cute device that sticks out of a PCMCIA slot only about 1/2 inch and lets you cruise while being connected. The antenna is embedded in the card, and its range is rather limited (something like 300-400 feet) and its top data rate is 1 mbit/sec. Noneless, if one had an appropriate application it would be truly cool. The list prices are 995, 695 and 395 respectively for these adapters. GBC has quoted me prices of something like $770 for the 4 port adater and $540 for the one port adapter. I didn't ask about the PCMCIA card, but since the rest of their prices seem to be about 25% off list, I would suspect that it will be in the range of $300. I bought a 4 port adapter directly from the company. It took a long time (like 2 1/2 months) for me to actually get my hands on this equipment. Part of this is due to the fact that it is all imported from Israel (and this was about the time of the asassination there, though I have no idea whether this disrupted business enterprises or not) but part of it appears to be related to FCC approval. This is only my guesswork here based on indirect statements I've gotten from Breezecom and GBC. It appears, however, that the FCC isn't keen on the SMA connector approach. I have heard from a number of manufacturers that the FCC is requiring "proprietary" connectors on this type of unit so people won't buy them and hook up Big Kahuna antennas and violate the law. As I understand it (my reference here is Steve Bible's excellent article ... see www.tapr.org) you can run 4 watts erp from one of these stations without violating the law. Since the Breezecom unit has a power output of 50 milliwatts, you could legally get away with something around 19-20 dBi gain in the antenna system without violating the law. However, even a modest sized dish can generate more gain than this. Breezecom is trying a number of approachs to pacify the FCC... apparently one being to require a "professional" antenna installer, whatever that means. Anyway, right now it is possible to get "sample units" but larger quantities are unlikely to be available until this gets worked out with the feds. My equipment showed up just after Christmas (how nice!). We got it up and running very quickly. There is a serial port on each of the units and you connect it to your PC running a terminal program to manage it. Start by putting an IP address in it, beyond that there is little to manage, at least initially. We first set up both units in the same room, but then moved them progressively further and further apart. Finally, we mounted the access point on the 9th floor of the tallest building on campus and taped the antennas to the inside of the window with McGuiver Tape. Further experimentation leads me to believe this system will perform better if we can get the antenna outside (it is really designed to be mounted on the exterior of a building. We carted the station unit around campus with my laptop (which has an ethernet card in it) to test various paths. This was interesting because the unit runs off a 5 volt cube tap. If we had had a good sized 5 volt battery we could have literally gone anywhere and had a truly portable internet browser. Testing from several locations on campus led me to conclude that we simply would not be able to find a clear path on campus that was far enough to really tax the capabilities of the unit. So the next step was to move off campus. Fortunately my house is located on a street that is adjacent to campus on the same side of the 9 story building that we put the antenna (gee, what a coincidence). It is close to a half mile away from the access point. We took the equipment to my kitchen and taped the antenna to my glass patio door. There are pine trees in my back yard that block the line of site path to the access point, but it worked anyway. A note or two on signal strength and speed is probably in order. There are six lights on the station adapter. One is for power. One lights up when you have a link to an access point. One flickers as data moves over the link. The other three show you the speed at which data is moving. One of the nice things about Breezecom's units is that if the path is not good enough to support 3 mbit/sec it will ratchet down to 2 mbit/sec. If that's no good it will go to 1 mbit/sec and if that doesn't work it will fall back to .5 mbit/sec. If all three lights are lit you have 3 mbit/sec. Two lights and one light represent 2 and 1 mbit/sec respectively. If the link light is on and there is one signal strength light flashing, that means you are at .5 mbit/sec. With the setup described above, I get 1 light solidly on and a second one flashing. Breezecom advised me that if I went in through the serial link and locked the speed at 1 mbit/sec under these circumstances, throughput would actually go up, since it would no longer be switching back and forth between one and two mbit/sec. In fact when I did this throughput rose by about 20 percent. Over this path I can pass a 1 MByte file in under 9 seconds. When I take the antennas outside (just beyond the glass door) I get 2 lights. I took them to my attic, and after I peeled back the metal backing on the insulation, I got one light even though there was about 8 inches of snow on the roof. We've had some pretty serious snowstorms during this testing period (on occasion I can't even see the building that has the access point on it) and I've not seen any degredation in throughput as a result. So we come to the bridging issue. I bought a small hub and hooked two computers to it and ran the uplink port to the transciever. It performed flawlessly even when I downloaded large files on both computers at the same time. Clearly the only barrier to lan to lan connections with this is that the unit will choke on too much data. I wouldn't want to try this on a lan with an application server running, certainly. BTW, the unit contains 8 megs of memory for buffering. Frankly, the results astound me (hence the Clarke quote). I sit at home and treat my office machine hard drive as if it were just any other network asset. The campus link to the Internet is a T-1 connection (my first act as Director of Academic Information Technology was to upgrade this) and I cruise the net at a very respectable speed on this system from my home. When I used to dial up with a 28.8 modem and download a file, Netscape would report in the vicinity of 2.8 K/ sec. Now I see numbers like 35k/sec. The bottleneck is clearly no longer between me and campus. Are we having fun yet? Well, 8.5 dBi gain on 50 milliwatts is considerably below the legal limit. So the next step was to look into higher gain antennas. I called Breezecom about it and they said they were coming out with a parabolic antenna shortly for just this purpose. One of their employees said they tested this successfully at a range of 20 miles. The president of the company later claimed 5-6 miles. They offer a 2 by 3 foot dish that has about 23 dBi gain for $395 list. They put 30 feet of RG-8 coax on it to bring the gain down to the legal limit. However, I am aware of other sources of antennas. The company that was formerly DownEast Microwave sells loop yagis and claims they have actually sold some for precisely this purpose. They make a 1 foot yagi with 11 dB gain for about $50, a 3 foot yagi with 17 dB gain for $85 and a 6 foot loop yagi with 20 db gain (I don't have the price handy). These might be good choices for use with this system. However, I also knew that Bob Myers Communications was marketing an S band 2 by 3 foot parabolic antenna that sounds extremely similar to the Breezecom unit (except I believe Breezecom said their's was Magnesium). Advertised mostly as an Oscar 13 mode S downlinke antenna, Bob says the gain of his unit is 25 dB and the price is only about $75 including shipping ... so I ordered one. I also had to order some SMA to N adapters (does anyone know a cheap source for these??) I expect this antenna to show up in the next day or two. At that point I'll push the envelope and see how far we can get. I think I will also probably order one of the loop yagi's as well and see what can be accomplished with higher gain antennas at both ends. Since my initial posting on this subject many folks have asked where I got this stuff and how it performed. I'm hoping this posting will answer many of those questions. The phone numbers for the companies involved are: BreezeCom (formerly Lannair) 2195 Faraday Ave Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 619-431-9880 voice 619-431-2595 fax If you like you may mention my name. GBC Technologies 609-767-2500 I've been dealing with Scott Haines at this company. Be advised that while this firm clearly has better prices, they are just a reseller and they know virtually nothing about the products themselves. If you want an SA-10D be sure you are adament about it because their initial thought was that it was just a minor revision of the SA-10. Please also understand that I am in no way affiliated with either of these companies and I don't know them well enough to personally vouch for their solvency or integrity. My initial impression is quite favorable, but please understand that it is my initial impression based on a relatively short relationship thus far. All of this has led me to think considerably more broadly about the applications for this technology both as a pure part 15 device (I've contemplated selling really high speed internet access to local companies and individuals, for example) and as in the amatuer radio service. I'll address this in another posting. -- John Hansen, WA0PTV Director, Academic Information Technology State University of New York - Fredonia hansen@ait.fredonia.edu From jerryn@ici.net Wed Jan 17 23:00:41 1996 Received: from tiny.sprintlink.net (tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.55.90]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id XAA20782 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 23:00:35 -0600 (CST) From: jerryn@ici.net Received: from ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tiny.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA06454 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:31 -0500 Received: from innovative.tech.com (dialupS13.ici.net) by ici.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27347; Thu, 18 Jan 96 00:01:38 EST Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:27:38 -0500 (EST) Sender: root@innovative.tech.com Reply-To: jerryn@ici.net Subject: Re: [SS:29] New Mailing List Info - FYI To: ss@tapr.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII How much are these radios? Do you support TCP/IP? DO you support X.25? Is it spread spectrum? Can I put a 10 WATT am an YAGI antenea on it? What's the range? I built up some 19.2k spread spectrum modem that operate in the 902-925MHZ range. they kick out 10 watts each and with a YAGI I can get 15miles or so out of them with a YAGI. I running them in X.25 mode. I'm working on a modified version of X.25 that compresses the data packets. for it right now! From dgibbs@ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 18 08:35:54 1996 Received: from ix13.ix.netcom.com (ix13.ix.netcom.com [199.182.120.13]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id IAA09764 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:35:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from ix-col1-16.ix.netcom.com by ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id GAA29560; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:35:14 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:35:14 -0800 Message-Id: <199601181435.GAA29560@ix13.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: dgibbs@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: Doug Gibbs join wireless From ve9dx@mi.net Sun Jan 21 14:16:12 1996 Received: from itchy.mi.net (itchy.mi.net [198.164.250.5]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id OAA04065 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 14:16:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from ve9dx.mi.net (ve9dx.mi.net [198.164.242.119]) by itchy.mi.net (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA28303 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:16:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:16:01 -0400 Comments: MiNet - Maritime Internet Services - 506-652-3624 Message-Id: <199601212016.QAA28303@itchy.mi.net> X-Sender: ve9dx@mi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: ve9dx@mi.net (ve9dx) unaubacribe Best regards... de Andy (VE9DX) Ex: VE1ASJ, VE1DX, VE1SPI, VE8CW, VO2AB, CI8CW, CY0SPI, HP9FC, ZD9BP etc... Paket: VE9DX@VE9BBS.#SNB.NB.CAN.NA Internet: ve9dx@mi.net Ph: 506-847-5656 From srbible@mindport.net Tue Jan 23 11:03:02 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id LAA25256 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:02:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from polaris.mindport.net (synapse-22.mindport.net [205.219.167.41]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA25522; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:02:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:02:37 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:02:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199601231702.MAA25522@polaris.mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mail.mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: srbible@mindport.net (Steven R. Bible) Cc: wireless@ait.fredonia.edu Here are three messages from a thread I captured from the newsgroup comp.std.wireless. The discussion is DS vs FH spread spectrum. I thought that this group would be interested in reading this. Sorry, I missed the first part of the thread. For those of you wondering, comp.std.wireless occasionally has discussions on SS topics. It's a good newsgroup to keep an ear on. - Steve, N7HPR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cjm@world.std.com (Craig J Mathias) wrote: >Jonathan sawyer (jfsawyer@freewave.com) wrote: >: The FCC has allowed some adaptive hopping strategies for frequency >: hoppers. There are limitations (i. e changes no faster than 30 >: seconds) but considerable improvement in avoiding interference can be >: achieved. > >Part 15 rules do not allow adaptive or coordinated hopping. If constant >noise exists in a portion of the band, the radio still has to hop into >it and suffer the consequences. In addition, two radio subnets cannot >coordinate their hopping patterns so as to avoid one another all the >time. If such situations were allowed, frequency hopping would suddenly >look a lot like continuous, high-amplitude, wideband noise, thereby >causing interference to everyone else and not being a good "spectrum >citizen". The objective of Part 15, after all, is *sharing*. Sorry Craig but you are wrong. The FCC has allowed hopping patterns to change with the following conditions: (1) The hopping pattern must still meet the rules for average occupancy, number and dwell time. (2) Changing to a different hopping pattern is no more frequent than once every 30 seconds. In the case of our radios, we start hopping a pattern which has much more than the minimum. As we see frequencies which are blocked, we delete those frequencies up to the point of having the minimum number. Meanwhile the blocked frequencies are monitored and are reused if they become unblocked. All this occurs no faster than once every 30 seconds. We are a manufacturer of FHSS and as such are in constant communication with the FCC. In short we got it from the horse's mouth. Synchronous hopping where multiple radios avoid each other has been allowed on a rare occasion by the FCC. As an example, we have supplied thousands of radios to a medical information company which do hop synchronously to avoid each other. and is specifically allowed by the FCC. We were able to obtain a waiver by showing the resultant spectrum did not produce any more interference to others than an "Aloha" type of unsynchronized system. Furthermore, we have seen other companies obtain waivers as well with various restrictions. Additionally having radios which synchronize their transmit times are allowed. Also radio systems are allowed which are synchronized and use different hopping as long as the level of self generated radio interference is no less than uncoordinated hopping. >Note that DS does not have any such restrictions, since it's >low-amplitude. DS can also use only portions of a band, thereby >avoiding noisy areas. Wrong again. A DS must by its very nature occupy a contiguous band i. e a DSSS occupying 910 to 914 MHz cannot split its signal to two bands of 908-911 and 913-914 to avoid a signal at 912 MHz. A Frequency hopper can do this. In fact we have supplied radios with such a split band to avoid colocated DSSS radios. A DSSS must contend with any interference which occurs within its band or it has to move. When you have common situation where there are multiple interfering signals it is relatively improbable to find a contiguous segment in that band where there are no signals. Compare this to a FHSS which can use all the "nooks and crannies" in a band which do not contain interference. These "nooks and crannies" only has to be the size of the narrow instantaneous bandwidth of the FHSS. >I don't understand this at all. In fact, I would argue that the >essential redundancy is DS makes it much more reliable in typical >situations. But, as I've noted in this thread before, I would not claim >that one technique is essentially better than the other. Craig, in a previous posting I have given a real and common scenerio in which our FHSS radio works reliably. I issued a challenge to anyone to show hows a reasonably priced DSSS radio could work at all in that scenerio. So far I haven't received any responses. For your edification, I suggest you evaluate that scenerio. I am sure you will come to the same conclusion as I. Jonathan Sawyer FreeWave Technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cjm@world.std.com (Craig J Mathias) wrote: >If you are saying that you don't have to hop to a given frequency (i.e., >you can leave out noisy parts of the the band), that's news to me. I have >heard of wavers being issued under rare cases, but my reading of Part 15 >does not include selective hopping. Granted, you can change the hopping >pattern, but maximum dwell time is a requirement. >Like I said, waivers have been issued. But this is not the general case. >Again, if you're saying that you can hop around the noise without a waiver, >that's news to me. This doesn't correspond to my reading of Part 15. But, >I am prepared to stand corrected. Pls. cite specific wording in the Rules. Part 15.247 of the FCC rules states that frequency hoppers operating in the 902 to 928 MHz band must: (1) have at least hopping 50 frequencies separated by at least the RF bandwidth of the radio. (2) average dwell time at each frequency should be equal and not exceed 0.4 seconds over a 20 second period. Note that nothing is stated about whether those frequencies are contiguous, how they are derived and for that matter if synchronization with other radios can be done. The FCC under the "for the public good" statute has further imposed some restrictions in the general case of synchronization with other radios. There are no other restrictions set. Every manufacturer must, in their certification process describe to the FCC the hopping algorithm used. The FCC can, for each application, approve or deny this algorithm. Seeking clarification regarding the changing of hopping patterns we asked the FCC what general guidlines they use to allow selective hopping. They gave us the restrictions which I mentioned in my previous posting. Note that this applies to all manufacturers and not just us so that a "waiver" is not required, In the case of our radios we start with 112 hopping frequencies, much more than the minimum 50. We can throw out as much as 62 frequencies which are blocked, noisy, or what ever. Hopping on the remainder meets all FCC guidelines. This changing of hopping patterns cannot occur faster than the 30 second FCC limit. >Multiple DS-based sub-bands could, in fact, be used by a single radio. Doesn't this make the radio a hopper too ? I have already stated the best radio may be a combo of both technologies. >Also, multiple chipping codes could be used simultaneously in a single >band. DS can therefore split the band in multiple ways if so desired. Wrong as far at that interference I talked about is concerned. Using multiple chipping codes still does does not "split" the band around the interference signal. >I don't recall your specific scenario, but check out Dixon's book, >_Spread-Spectrum Communications with Commercial Applications_, for a good >discussion of this issue. I think you will find that no such bias, in the >general case, exists in favor of FH. As I have said in this forum many >times, both systems work. One is not universally "better" than the other. About 9 years ago, after that text was published, I converted Dixon over to the superiority of FHSS to plain old DSSS. This happened when his company and mine independently developed an indoor communications product for a client. Mine was FHSS, his was DSSS. Guess which one didn't work when there was interference. He suggested a workaround is to make his DSSS frequency agile at higher cost and complexity. Needless to say, that client used our simpler and cheaper FHSS radio. They still do. You will note Dixon's present proposed system for the PCN band does use some hopping. I will repeat the scenerio: Two points, 10 miles apart, non line of sight, with a measured path loss including antenna gain of 135 dB. Present in the band are multiple interfering ( at least 20) signals averaging at least 20 dB above the noise with varying modulations and bandwidths. You must spread or hop at least 6 MHz to overcome frequency selective fading of the non line of sight path. You must maintain an average of 38KB full duplex communication with any down time unacceptable. What I am describing is exactly what I see going from my house to the office. In fact I am using this link right now as I type. This path and spectrum occupency is typical for any urban environment (and its gonna get worse). A DSSS WILL NOT WORK IN THIS CASE, PERIOD. Care to prove me wrong? Jonathan Sawyer FreeWave Technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Like I said in my little piece at our website, I shall never get into a >duel of "propagation" at forty paces. I guess I like to offer a more >academic view point that a specific example does not prove a theory. > >Let me also offer a more generic counter example that does not go from >someone's particular window to a particular office. Take Qualcomm's >CDMA which is a bona fide DSSS, it allows at least 20 (I apologize if >this is a low ball estimate. OK, no flames from Qualcomm) simultaneous >non-line of sight links of 9.6 Kbps over a cell's diameter usually >several miles. CDPD is also a bona fide adaptive frequency hopper >system that carries 19.2 KHz airlink with 9.6 Kbps throughput. Do they >work? you bet! HNS introduced a ETDMA which is a big time frequency >hopper using a scheme similar to TASI, does it work? you bet! > Jonathan, The question is what is the best technology to use in the Part 15 unlicensed bands where you do not have ANY control of the location, type , or use of other devices in the same band. All of the above systems do not pertain at all to this question. Coming from someone as academically skilled as yourself, I find these statements particularly disengenuous. I would suppose that after spending thousands of dollars on a Solectek wireless bridge for a 10 mile wireless link, I would not expect that it would be shut down by somebody's cordless phone operating 500 feet away. This has happened with DSSS radios. Can it happen with Solectek? As a user, I would prefer a wireless system which has a more graceful degradation with interference than one which dies completely. >There are 15.247 10 Mbps DSSS radios that are in the process of being >productized by a number of companies, and I am not just about to ask >FHSS to do the same.... Absolutely correct . The FCC has limited the bandwidth of FHSS so that data rates above 2 Mbps become impracticable. However there is no free lunch here. Operating DSSS at such data rates imposes sever penalties in range and the already limited interference protection. >In this arena, there more newly minted PhDs than you can wave a stick >at, and I have lost count of the journal articles since I left HNS. Not me. I'm just a good'ol boy who barely got his BSEE but who has spent the last 20 years playing with radio. Jonathan Sawyer FreeWave Technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From hansen@ait.fredonia.edu Wed Jan 24 08:51:56 1996 Received: from oak.ait.fredonia.edu (oak.ait.fredonia.edu [141.238.20.4]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id IAA20081 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:51:50 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199601241451.IAA20081@sys1.tapr.org> Received: from MAPLE by oak.ait.fredonia.edu (NTMail Server 2.11.23 - ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) id aa007981 Wed, 24 Jan 96 09:41:39 +0000 (EST) X-Sender: hansen@141.238.20.4 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wireless@ait.fredonia.edu From: hansen@ait.fredonia.edu (John A. Hansen) Subject: Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS Cc: ss@tapr.org, w1xt@amsat.org Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 09:41:39 +0000 (EST) Hi Folks, Here is some more information on our experiments with the BreezeCom wireless equipment. First the bad news. I talked to the folks at BreezeCom yesterday and they have been unable to get the FCC to go along with their putting SMA connectors on their equipment. As a result, they will be going to a "proprietary" connector. The only way to get one of these connectors legally will be to buy one of their antennas. As yet I have know idea what the thing will look like. I presume that if one wanted to stay with the rules of Part 15 one could not modify the unit to replace the connector with something else since it would violate type acceptance. If we ever start using this kind of equipment on the amateur bands, that will be a different matter, of course. As I mentioned sometime ago, I bought one of Bob Myer's S-band dishes to test with this equipment. We took the dish to a hillside about 6 miles outside of town (by car... a bit less as the crow files) to a place that overlooks the Village of Fredonia. We were able to sustain a 1 megabit/sec data link over the path from here to the college in the center of town. Furthermore, conditions were less than optimal. The antenna for the access point on our campus is still indoors and while it is pointed in the general direction of the hillside we went to, we have not made any attempt to "aim" it at the distant site. Furthermore, there are some trees (though not a lot) in this path, including some evergreens. Finally, there was a light rain the day we tried this (yeah, I know what you're thinking, why did he try this in the rain?... the answer is the antenna and connectors had come in and I was dying to see if it would work.). I was frankly surprised at how well it worked. Signal strength is extremely sensitive to the location of the antenna. We received no signal at all while holding the antenna when we were standing on the ground, but moving to the roof (only about 10-12 feet up) resulted in a solid link. The Myers antenna appears very well constructed and goes together quite easily despite the fact that there are no instructions. Considering its low price, it would seem to be a clear winner for applications like this. The only problem is that something will have to be done to lower the gain slightly in order to stay within the legal limit of Part 15. BreezeCom's approach is to add 25 foot of RG-8, but I hate to loose this on receive as well as transmit. As it turns out, our college just happens to have lying around some smaller 2.4 ghz dishes. We expect to press those into service for shorter range applications. JAH From ATVQ@aol.com Wed Jan 24 10:33:21 1996 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id KAA24362 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:33:18 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06807 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:32:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: <960124113244_205546027@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:35] Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS can you send me info on breezecom and the equipment source for the SS units you are using? Also for TX loss and no RX loss, you can use a "preamp" relay but instead of a preamp for RX its keyed in TX and there is a loss pad or coax etc to drop the signal level on TX. 73 Henry KB9FO From srbible@mindport.net Wed Jan 24 15:13:36 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id PAA06669 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:13:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from polaris.mindport.net (synapse-87.mindport.net [205.219.167.146]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA28079 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:13:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:13:30 -0500 Posted-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:13:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199601242113.QAA28079@polaris.mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mail.mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: srbible@mindport.net (Steven R. Bible) Subject: Part 15 Rules Was: Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS Henry KB9FO said: >Also for TX loss and no RX loss, you can use a "preamp" relay but instead of >a preamp for RX its keyed in TX and there is a loss pad or coax etc to drop >the signal level on TX. For everyones information, here is the exact wording of 47 CFR Sec. 15.247, aka Part 15 for spread spectrum. In it you will see the power restrictions placed on Part 15 SS devices. It is very true that if you break type acceptance that you no longer fall into these rules. Many hams then feel that they enter Part 97 automatically. This is not the case! However, one way to surpass Part 15 and enter Part 97 legally is to join the STA of K6KGS. Also the ARRL filed in December a PRM to change the Amateur SS rules. Here are some web sites that reference the above: Code of Federal Regulations - http://www.pls.com:8001/his/cfr.html K6KGS STA - http://www.tapr.org/ss/sta.html Part 97 Amateur SS Rules - http://www.tapr.org/ss/rules.html - Steve, N7HPR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 CFR Sec. 15.247 Title 47 CHAPTER I SUBCHAPTER A PART 15 Subpart C Sec. 15.247 Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz. (a) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to frequency hopping and direct sequence spread spectrum intentional radiators that comply with the following provisions: (1) Frequency hopping systems shall have hopping channel carrier frequencies separated by a minimum of 25 kHz or the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel, whichever is greater. The system shall hop to channel frequencies that are selected at the system hopping rate from a pseudorandomly ordered list of hopping frequencies. Each frequency must be used equally on the average by each transmitter. The system receivers shall have input bandwidths that match the hopping channel bandwidths of their corresponding transmitters and shall shift frequencies in synchronization with the transmitted signals. (i) Frequency hopping systems operating in the 902-928 MHz band shall use at least 50 hopping frequencies. The maximum allowed 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is 500 kHz. The average time of occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 20 second period. (ii) Frequency hopping systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands shall use at least 75 hopping frequencies. The maximum 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is 1 MHz. The average time of occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 30 second period. (2) For direct sequence systems, the minimum 6 dB bandwidth shall be at least 500 kHz. (b) The maximum peak output power of the transmitter shall not exceed 1 Watt. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, the power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. (c) If any 100 kHz bandwidth outside these frequency bands, the radio frequency power that is produced by the modulation products of the spreading sequence, the information sequence and the carrier frequency shall be either at least 20 dB below that in any 100 kHz bandwidth within the band that contains the highest level of the desired power or shall not exceed the general levels specified in Sec. 15.209(a), whichever results in the lesser attenuation. All other emissions outside these bands shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits specified in Sec. 15.209(a). (d) For direct sequence systems, the transmitted power density averaged over any 1 second interval shall not be greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz bandwidth within these bands. (e) The processing gain of a direct sequence system shall be at least 10 dB. The processing gain shall be determined from the ratio in dB of the signal to noise ratio with the system spreading code turned off to the signal to noise ratio with the system spreading code turned on, as measured at the demodulated output of the receiver. (f) Hybrid systems that employ a combination of both direct sequence and frequency hopping modulation techniques shall achieve a processing gain of at least 17 dB from the combined techniques. The frequency hopping operation of the hybrid system, with the direct sequence operation turned off, shall have an average time of occupancy on any frequency not to exceed 0.4 seconds within a time period in seconds equal to the number of hopping frequencies employed multiplied by 0.4. The direct sequence operation of the hybrid system, with the frequency hopping operation turned off, shall comply with the power density requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. Note: Spread spectrum systems are sharing these bands on a noninterference basis with systems supporting critical Government requirements that have been allocated the usage of these bands, secondary only to ISM equipment operated under the provisions of Part 18 of this chapter. Many of these Government systems are airborne radiolocation systems that emit a high EIRP which can cause interference to other users. Also, investigations of the effect of spread spectrum interference to U. S. Government operations in the 902-928 MHz band may require a future decrease in the power limits allowed for spread spectrum operation. (54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 28762, Jul. 13, 1990) From k1vdz@usa.nai.net Wed Jan 24 16:49:12 1996 Received: from usa.nai.net (usa.nai.net [204.71.21.10]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id QAA10769 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:49:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from naiwp3.nai.net (naiwp3.nai.net [205.139.0.252]) by usa.nai.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA12798 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:41:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199601242241.RAA12798@usa.nai.net> X-Sender: k1vdz@mailhost.nai.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:50:19 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: Joe Lanoue Subject: Re: [SS:35] Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS At 09:06 AM 1/24/96 -0600, you wrote: >Hi Folks, > > Here is some more information on our experiments with the BreezeCom >wireless equipment. > >First the bad news. I talked to the folks at BreezeCom yesterday and they >have been unable to get the FCC to go along with their putting SMA >connectors on their equipment. As a result, they will be going to a >"proprietary" connector. The only way to get one of these connectors >legally will be to buy one of their antennas. As yet I have know >idea what the thing will look like. I presume that if one wanted to stay >with the rules of Part 15 one could not modify the unit to replace the >connector with something else >since it would violate type acceptance. If we ever start using this kind of >equipment on the amateur bands, that will be a different matter, of course. > If Breezecom is using what's known as a "Reverse Polarity SMA" our company sells Low Loss Coax (LMR-240) and Reverse Polarity SMA Plug connectors that fit the cable. Many Wireless Data (Part 15) people are using it since the cable loss is about half that of the RG58 commonly used on these systems. Let me know if you (or anyone else) would like information on the cable and connectors. Best Regards....Joe @ Times Microwave Systems (203-949-8424) From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Wed Jan 24 21:59:53 1996 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org [44.135.96.100]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id VAA21898 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:59:47 -0600 (CST) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04109 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 03:59:09 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199601250359.DAA04109@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: JNOS with wireless LAN (fwd) To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 03:59:09 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text I'm forwarding this posting from the nos-bbs mailing list, since most of you probably don't read it. There's some interesting info on this web site in Latvia... well worth a look. -Barry Forwarded message: > From nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca Wed Jan 24 17:11:15 1996 > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:55:13 -0500 > Message-Id: > Reply-To: nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca > Originator: nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca > Sender: nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca > Precedence: bulk > From: Guntis Barzdins > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: JNOS with wireless LAN > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > X-Comment: The KA9Q NOS-BBS Mailing List > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <9601241604.AA12385@omega.nbed.nb.ca> > > Hi, > > I just finished a paper about using JNOS for Internet access over > wireless LAN adapters (what we have been doing in Riga for 3 years now). > It is primarilly intended for those not familiar with the technology, but > might be of interest also to general JNOS community (running ax25 over > wireless with double tunneling, etc.) The paper is available at URL: > > http://www.latnet.lv/LATNET/RADIOLink/ > > Any comments bout the paper are welcome :-) > > Regards, > > -- Guntis Barzdins > _________________________________________________________________________ > Institute of Math. and Comp.Sc. Internet: guntis@mii.lu.lv > University of Latvia phone: +371-2-212427 > Rainis blvd. 29, Riga LV1459, Latvia fax: +371-7-820153 > mob.phone: +371-9-206943 > > > -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP Ottawa Amateur Radio Club Packet Working Group Email: bm@hydra.carleton.ca or bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org From ATVQ@aol.com Thu Jan 25 14:24:10 1996 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.37]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id OAA03069 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 14:24:08 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17381 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 15:23:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 15:23:36 -0500 Message-ID: <960125152333_127016632@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:38] Re: Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS Joe at Times Microwave: I have tried to buy some of the TMR 500, 600, 1200 etc, bu none of the distributers I contacted would give me any where near the price I see in Mobile Radio Technology write up last year. Local vendor Joseph and Gepco wanted about twice what Andrew 7/8" cost, so I had to buy Andrew HJ7-50 and connectors which is a lot harder to work with! Any suggestions on where I could get a couple of 140 foot pieces that wont blow my ham budget to smithereens?? 73 henry KB9FO, publiaher ATVQ Magazine. From arutz@adsnet.com Thu Jan 25 19:26:19 1996 Received: from alice.adsnet.com (alice.adsnet.com [206.158.2.1]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id TAA15361 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:26:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from ads2-ts14.adsnet.com (ads2-ts14.adsnet.com [206.158.2.246]) by alice.adsnet.com (8.6.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA07660 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:36:22 -0600 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:36:22 -0600 Message-Id: <199601260136.TAA07660@alice.adsnet.com> X-Sender: arutz@mail.adsnet.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: arutz@adsnet.com (alan rutz) Subject: Re: [SS:40] Re: Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS >I have tried to buy some of the TMR 500, 600, 1200 etc, bu none of the >distributers I contacted would give me any where near the price I see in >Mobile Radio Technology write up last year. 73 henry KB9FO, publiaher ATVQ Magazine. Henry: If the "TMR" you ask about above is the same as "LMR" Times cable, I get it from TESSCO, at 1-800-472-7373, 24hrs/day/7days/wk.... In their catalog (the best in the two-way business, I think) they offer: TIMES LMR-240 1/4" foam, good to 31 Ghz, loss at 450 = 5.28 db, $0.33/ft TIMES LMR-500 1/2" foam, good to 12 Ghz, loss at 450 = 2.15 db, $0.70/ft TIMES LMR-600 1/2" foam, good to 10 Ghz, loss at 450 = 1.72 db, $0.94/ft TIMES LMR-900 5/8" foam, good to 7 Ghz, loss at 450 = 1.12 db, $2.64/ft TIMES LMR-12007/8" foam, good to 5 Ghz, loss at 450 = .89 db, $3.46/ft TIMES LMR-17001.25"foam, good to 3 Ghz, loss at 450 = .63 db, $5.60/ft I think common "N" connectors (and even UHF connectors) work on selected cables of this family, such as the LMR-240 or the LMR-500...... With my tongue in my cheek, may I suggest that even folks who still work on the D.C. bands around 450 Mhz such as you do would like this performance? Alan Rutz, Telecom Engineer SHF Microwave Parts Co. 7102 W. 500 S. La Porte, IN, 46350 arutz@shfmicro.com or arutz@adsnet.com "Snailmail flyer available" From ATVQ@aol.com Thu Jan 25 22:13:46 1996 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.37]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id WAA21150 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 22:13:44 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15388 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:13:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:13:12 -0500 Message-ID: <960125220303_406600010@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:41] Re: Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS Thanks. By the way, I am on 900, 1296 and 2441 MHz. My biggest problem is not frequency, but power handling ability. I can now muster a full 1.5 KW+ CQ 100% on 6, 2, 440, (of course the DC bands 160-10) and soon 400 watts + on 900 and 1200 and 60 watts on 2441. all TPO. Plus quad or bigger arrays on each 2 and up. Can't hardly wait for spring to get the antennas on the tower top! The arrays are full az-el. Moon bounce here I come! From jerryn@ici.net Thu Jan 25 22:47:07 1996 Received: from tiny.sprintlink.net (tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.55.90]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id WAA23214 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 22:47:04 -0600 (CST) From: jerryn@ici.net Received: from ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tiny.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA14666 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:46:59 -0500 Received: from innovative.tech.com (pic024.pictac.com) by ici.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17611; Thu, 25 Jan 96 23:48:06 EST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 00:14:27 -0500 (EST) Sender: root@innovative.tech.com Reply-To: jerryn@ici.net Subject: Re: [SS:35] Further Experimentation with Part 15 SS To: ss@tapr.org In-Reply-To: <199601241451.IAA20081@sys1.tapr.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII How much $$$$$$$ From wd5ivd@tapr.org Fri Jan 26 16:55:45 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) id QAA09593; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:55:44 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199601262255.QAA09593@sys1.tapr.org> Subject: ARLB007 FCC changes hearing date (fwd) To: ss@tapr.org, pcs@tapr.org (TAPR PCS Project) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:55:43 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From w1aw-daemon@arrl.org Fri Jan 26 16:53:37 1996 Subject: ARLB007 FCC changes hearing date X-Mailing-List: w1aw-list To: QST@tapr.org From: w1aw@arrl.org Organization: American Radio Relay League Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:35:05 EST Message-ID: <$arlb007.1996@arrl.org> SB QST @ ARL $ARLB007 ARLB007 FCC changes hearing date ZCZC AG86 QST de W1AW ARRL Bulletin 7 ARLB007 >From ARRL Headquarters Newington CT January 26, 1996 To all radio amateurs SB QST ARL ARLB007 ARLB007 FCC changes hearing date The FCC has changed the date of its en banc hearing on spectrum policy and management to March 5, 1996, and the ARRL hopes to participate. The original hearing date of January 31 had to be rescheduled because of the Federal furloughs triggered by the congressional budget deadlock and heavy snow which extended the shutdown. The FCC will hear oral presentations and ''allow a direct exchange of viewpoints'' among individuals and representatives of affected industries. The commission will select panelists from among those who have submitted letters of interest. Panelists will address future spectrum demand and user needs, trends in technology, and approaches to spectrum allocation and assignment, including licensing and uses. NNNN /EX From dewayne@warpspeed.com Sun Jan 28 08:04:48 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (WA8DZP@odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with ESMTP id IAA29580 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 1996 08:04:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.160.122.15] by warpspeed.com with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Sun, 28 Jan 1996 06:04:36 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 06:04:28 -0800 To: ss@tapr.org From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) Subject: Re: [SS:39] JNOS with wireless LAN (fwd) Greg: The URL for this paper should be added to the TAPR SS page. -- Dewayne At 10:10 PM 1/24/96, Barry McLarnon VE3JF wrote: >I'm forwarding this posting from the nos-bbs mailing list, since most of >you probably don't read it. There's some interesting info on this web >site in Latvia... well worth a look. > >-Barry > [snip] >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: JNOS with wireless LAN >> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >> X-Comment: The KA9Q NOS-BBS Mailing List >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> In-Reply-To: <9601241604.AA12385@omega.nbed.nb.ca> >> >> Hi, >> >> I just finished a paper about using JNOS for Internet access over >> wireless LAN adapters (what we have been doing in Riga for 3 years now). >> It is primarilly intended for those not familiar with the technology, but >> might be of interest also to general JNOS community (running ax25 over >> wireless with double tunneling, etc.) The paper is available at URL: >> >> http://www.latnet.lv/LATNET/RADIOLink/ >> >> Any comments bout the paper are welcome :-) >> >> Regards, >> >> -- Guntis Barzdins >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Institute of Math. and Comp.Sc. Internet: guntis@mii.lu.lv >> University of Latvia phone: +371-2-212427 >> Rainis blvd. 29, Riga LV1459, Latvia fax: +371-7-820153 >> mob.phone: +371-9-206943 >> >> >> > > >-- >Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP >Ottawa Amateur Radio Club Packet Working Group >Email: bm@hydra.carleton.ca or bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10 AppleLink: D6547 Warp Speed Imagineering ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com 43730 Vista Del Mar ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! AOL: HENDRICKS Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! WWW: http://www.warpspeed.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From srbible@mindport.net Sun Jan 28 17:13:30 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by sys1.tapr.org (8.7.3/8.7.2) with SMTP id RAA17821 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 1996 17:13:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from polaris.mindport.net (synapse-47.mindport.net [205.219.167.66]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA10703 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:13:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:13:25 -0500 Posted-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:13:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199601282313.SAA10703@polaris.mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mail.mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: srbible@mindport.net (Steven R. Bible) Subject: Re: [SS:45] Re: JNOS with wireless LAN (fwd) Working on it... - Steve >Greg: > > The URL for this paper should be added to the TAPR SS page. > >-- Dewayne > > >At 10:10 PM 1/24/96, Barry McLarnon VE3JF wrote: >>I'm forwarding this posting from the nos-bbs mailing list, since most of >>you probably don't read it. There's some interesting info on this web >>site in Latvia... well worth a look. >> >>-Barry >> >[snip] > >>> To: Multiple recipients of list >>> Subject: JNOS with wireless LAN >>> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >>> X-Comment: The KA9Q NOS-BBS Mailing List >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >>> MIME-Version: 1.0 >>> In-Reply-To: <9601241604.AA12385@omega.nbed.nb.ca> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just finished a paper about using JNOS for Internet access over >>> wireless LAN adapters (what we have been doing in Riga for 3 years now). >>> It is primarilly intended for those not familiar with the technology, but >>> might be of interest also to general JNOS community (running ax25 over >>> wireless with double tunneling, etc.) The paper is available at URL: >>> >>> http://www.latnet.lv/LATNET/RADIOLink/ >>> >>> Any comments bout the paper are welcome :-) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -- Guntis Barzdins >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Institute of Math. and Comp.Sc. Internet: guntis@mii.lu.lv >>> University of Latvia phone: +371-2-212427 >>> Rainis blvd. 29, Riga LV1459, Latvia fax: +371-7-820153 >>> mob.phone: +371-9-206943 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP >>Ottawa Amateur Radio Club Packet Working Group >>Email: bm@hydra.carleton.ca or bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10 AppleLink: D6547 >Warp Speed Imagineering ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com >43730 Vista Del Mar ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM >Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! AOL: HENDRICKS >Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! WWW: http://www.warpspeed.com/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >