From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Tue Jul 02 22:38:21 1996 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org [44.135.96.100]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id WAA15334 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:38:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08368 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:39:08 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199607030339.DAA08368@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:39:08 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sure is quiet on this list... maybe I can stir something up. :-) I was recently at the IEEE MTT Microwave Symposium in San Francisco, and while there, attended a workshop called "Wireless LAN - What's Next?". Here's a few tidbits I picked up... The market for WLANs has been very slow to develop - one speaker estimated that the current market is less than 10% of what had been projected in 1992, and the market has turned out to be "vertical" rather than "horizontal". Although cost and performance issues are certainly factors, there was general agreement that lack of user education on what WLANs are all about has been a major impediment to expanding the market. The 802.11 standardization effort continues to lurch along... latest estimate is that the committee will get down to serious voting around November. In general, I got the sense that the outlook for 802.11 is pretty gloomy. Most insiders seem to be convinced that the standard won't result in hardware from different vendors that will inter-operate. About the best that can be hoped for is that the common air interface will result in "RF coexistence" between different products, i.e., they will share the spectrum gracefully - but even this objective is undermined by the fact that the standard will allow both DS and FH products. One person involved in the process said 802.11 was "not a good standard", "not technically great", "complicated", and "hard to implement". Sounds good, eh? There was quite a bit of discussion about the prospects for higher-speed products. A representative of Clarion in Japan said that they will soon introduce a 10 Mbps 2.4 GHz DS product in the US... no details on pricing, etc yet. Harris is also working on a 10 Mbps chipset. There was some mention of the developing HIPERLAN 20 Mbps (some documents say 25) standard in Europe (see http://www.etsi.fr/ecs/reports/stateart/bourin.htm). The FCC NII/SUPERNet NPRM (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/nii5ghz.html) may pave the way for HIPERLAN at 5.2 GHz in the US. A scheduled speaker from Xircom was a no-show... apparently Xircom is scrapping its Netwave product and getting out of the WLAN business. Elsewhere at the conference, there was an interesting keynote address from FCC chairman Reed Hundt (videotaped, since he was called to some hearings and couldn't make it to the conference), who talked about the FCC's "flexible, market-oriented approach to the use of spectrum". His talk was peppered with phrases like "no government micromanagement" and "let the market pick the technologies". Also speaking (in person) was Mike Marcus of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, who I'm told was the prime mover behind establishing unlicenced ISM band operation in the US. An audience member attacked the FCC's declining interest in enforcement, stating that the ISM bands were becoming a shambles because the rules were being openly flaunted. He gave an example of a company in Nevada who is advertising a digital video WLAN product for unlicenced ISM band operation which has 2W into a 27 dBi gain antenna - 1KW ERP! Marcus replied that "enforcement doesn't make friends", and that increased enforcement wasn't likely to happen unless there was a strong push from the grassroots level for it... he did mention that an 800 number was being established to field complaints, though. I suppose that this atmosphere of deregulation bodes well for increased use of SS in the amateur bands... on the other hand, a "market-oriented" approach to spectrum management doesn't sound too encouraging for the future of amateur radio, does it? Anyhow, there's my report... discussion, anyone? Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | Web: http://hydra.carleton.ca From buaas@wireless.wdc.net Wed Jul 03 09:46:23 1996 Received: from wireless.wdc.net (wireless.wdc.net [204.140.136.28]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id JAA17719 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:46:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from buaas@localhost) by wireless.wdc.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23371; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:53:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:53:04 -0700 From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: <199607031453.HAA23371@wireless.wdc.net> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea Cc: buaas@wireless.wdc.net It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards are soon to be available. Not much chance of negotiating the price lower than this. Pls email direct if you're interested. best regards/bob K6KGS From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Wed Jul 03 09:56:46 1996 Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id JAA18175 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:56:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA205865792; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:56:32 -0700 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 AA196755791; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:56:31 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA084705789; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:56:29 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607031456.AA084705789@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:365] Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org (Barry McLarnon VE3JF) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:56:29 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199607030339.DAA08368@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> from "Barry McLarnon VE3JF" at Jul 2, 96 10:53:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry writes: > I was recently at the IEEE MTT Microwave Symposium in San Francisco, and > while there, attended a workshop called "Wireless LAN - What's Next?". > Here's a few tidbits I picked up... > Thanks for your "trip report" and comments, Barry. I sure wish I had known you were coming out and we could have gotten together. I didn't make any of the workshops but I went down and wandered the exhibition on Wednesday. Seemed like it wasn't as large or as busy as other MTTs in years past. I agree with you that the situation in WLANs isn't matching the previous hype. I also found your comments about the FCC response interesting. I think that all of this points out the need for amateurs to do something on our own and not wait for chip sets or solutions from commercial providers, however desirable they might be. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot of amateur design and construction activity, at least as I perceive from those I email with as a result of my web pages and activity here. Has anyone compiled a list of individuals and groups operating >=56Kbps amateur hardware, other than the Ottawa pages that is? I'm not sure what the impediment to building and testing simple RF SS hardware is for so many. Perhaps there is some way to encourage this. I'm pretty sure that we amateurs are going to have to put some hardware on the air and do a lot of testing in order to even correctly understand the best solution(s) for moderate speed networking. We need to somehow work together more effectively. Do we need an AMSAT-like body for ss and higher speed information systems? Or is getting a "quorum" of hardware and developer types together impossible? Glenn Elmore n6gn amateur IP: glenn@SantaRosa.ampr.org Internet: glenne@sr.hp.com |--------------- N6GN's Higher Speed Packet WWW Page -------------------| | | | http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/index.html | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Wed Jul 03 10:01:25 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA18301 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:01:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA19632; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:47:43 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1DA8B480; Wed, 3 Jul 96 11:01:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:45:03 -0400 Message-Id: <1DA8B480.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:365] Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >I suppose that this atmosphere of deregulation bodes well for increased >use of SS in the amateur bands... on the other hand, a "market-oriented" >approach to spectrum management doesn't sound too encouraging for the >future of amateur radio, does it? No, it doesn't. Whats also a concern is the consternation of the LEO people - they don't want to rule out the use of 2m band for satellite use! I was afraid this was going to happen someday...Big Money has a VERY Big Voice!! >Anyhow, there's my report... discussion, anyone? >Barry 73s de Tony, KE4ATO From elyle@fcc.gov Wed Jul 03 10:09:05 1996 Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@gatekeeper.fcc.gov [192.104.54.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA18865 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:09:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA02141; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.fcc.gov(165.135.30.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1) id xma002125; Wed, 3 Jul 96 11:09:55 -0400 Received: from FCCMAIL-Message_Server by fcc.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Jul 1996 11:13:56 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 11:04:47 -0400 From: Elizabeth Lyle To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:365] Some news from the WLAN front... -Reply Thanks ....by the way, the article that you gave me from B&C yesterday should go in the weekly clips -- please send it over to Ira also. Thanks. From jfields@cisco.com Wed Jul 03 13:05:19 1996 Received: from harrier.cisco.com (harrier.cisco.com [171.69.1.173]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id NAA28680 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:05:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (jfields@localhost) by harrier.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id LAA01279 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:04:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:04:47 -0700 From: Julian Fields Message-Id: <199607031804.LAA01279@harrier.cisco.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:365] Some news from the WLAN front... > than "horizontal". Although cost and performance issues are certainly Cost is an issue. Look at the cordless spread spectrum phones. Most cost $250. I just don't know why the price is so high. Are the components that much more? I saw a 900Mhz refurb advertised for $99, but are all 900Mhz phones required by law to be spread spectrum or is this cheap because it's non-SS? > standard in Europe (see http://www.etsi.fr/ecs/reports/stateart/bourin.htm). > The FCC NII/SUPERNet NPRM (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/nii5ghz.html) may > pave the way for HIPERLAN at 5.2 GHz in the US. There is a danger that US companies will be left out of the wireless lan market if HIPERLAN works out. > product for unlicenced ISM band operation which has 2W into a 27 dBi I hope the FCC will lower the power limit and require directional antennas in this new band. No need in broadcasting 360 degrees when WLANs would work with directional antennas. Even if you had a 90 degree rather than 360 degree transmitter antenna, you would cut down on interference in the remaining 270 degrees. This would also help portables power consumption. From jeff@mich.com Wed Jul 03 18:23:49 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id SAA12634 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:23:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ubbKh-0002fGC; Wed, 3 Jul 96 19:27 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960703233703.006ee58c@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 19:37:03 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:366] 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea At 09:52 AM 7/3/96 -0500, you wrote: >It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards >are soon to be available. Not much chance of >negotiating the price lower than this. Pls >email direct if you're interested. > >best regards/bob K6KGS > > > Yes, in more then a few. What drivers/accessories come with them? wb8wka Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From wd5ivd@tapr.org Thu Jul 04 02:10:03 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id CAA10952; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:10:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607040710.CAA10952@tapr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:367] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:10:02 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199607031456.AA084705789@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> from "Glenn Elmore" at Jul 3, 96 10:42:02 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Hi Glenn, > I'm not sure what the impediment to building and testing simple RF SS > hardware is for so many. Money, time, and energy. The folks interested in doing this are already doing it to some extent. Yourself, Barry, Dewayne, Robert, and others. This is no different from 56K technology or 9600 baud stuff (both of which have been available to be done since 1985). Most don't have time to make the effort to tackle a new area, without having some initial hand holding. > Perhaps there is some way to encourage this. Yes -- we have to offer something to those interested in playing a starting place. Telling them what to read and showing them what has been done will have some impact, but if past experience is an indication -- more has to be done. Things that can be placed in the hand will have more impact. Then, many will take the additional effort to do other things. We can't forget that typically only a very small handful of people lead a new technology. Transferability is what this is about. We have to get the opinion leaders involved -- now that we have the change agents in place and doing things. Without the opinion leaders being involved -- we will not see much change in this area. > I'm pretty sure that we amateurs are going to have to put some hardware > on the air and do a lot of testing in order to even correctly understand > the best solution(s) for moderate speed networking. I agree here. The Part 15 WLAN people don't have incentive to do anymore than what they are already doing. Why ? Because they are able to sell units with the technology they have. Why do better and higher cost units when you can sell the stuff you are making now. Take the money and run ? > work together more effectively. I agree here totally. That is one reason TAPR has this list setup and I hope with the effort of some, we can eventually use TAPR to disseminate information further into the radio community via the PSR, DCC, and eventually semi-kits -- to kick start the middle ground amateur. RF stuff can't be done as kits if we want more than the people doing it now to be a part of the process (i.e. semi-kits). Items that are built and tuned and can then be tested and played with. Building blocks for getting individuals hands on the technology -- that then leads to more study. This again ties into the lack of test equipment and knowledge to make a lot of this stuff work. > Do we need an AMSAT-like body for ss > and higher speed information systems? Or is getting a "quorum" of > hardware and developer types together impossible? Not sure what you are getting at here Glenn ? Is TAPR not supporting this effort now that could not be further enhanced in the future ? Please let me know if you see TAPR missing something in this area -- the organization is hanging it hats on doing and promoting SS into the amateur services. I would hate for a group within TAPR to go off and start another organization for this purpose when one is already here and set up -- maybe just due to a lack communications. Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- President -- Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corp ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAPR Office (817) 383-0000 | Internet: wd5ivd@tapr.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From barefeet@ns.awanet.com Thu Jul 04 20:19:24 1996 Received: from ns.awanet.com (barefeet@[205.216.78.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA21266 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:19:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from barefeet@localhost) by ns.awanet.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id UAA08582; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:23:23 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:23:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Thomas Barefoot To: "Robert A. Buaas" cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:366] 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea In-Reply-To: <199607031453.HAA23371@wireless.wdc.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would like to know if you have drivers available for these cards when run under BSDI unix. On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Robert A. Buaas wrote: > It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards > are soon to be available. Not much chance of > negotiating the price lower than this. Pls > email direct if you're interested. > > best regards/bob K6KGS > > From barefeet@ns.awanet.com Thu Jul 04 20:23:48 1996 Received: from ns.awanet.com (barefeet@[205.216.78.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA21411 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:23:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from barefeet@localhost) by ns.awanet.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id UAA09106; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:27:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:27:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Thomas Barefoot To: Jeff King cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:371] Re: 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960703233703.006ee58c@mich.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would like to know more about how you are linked to the internet by ss, Jeff. Please e-mail me more info at barefeet@ns.awanet.com On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Jeff King wrote: > At 09:52 AM 7/3/96 -0500, you wrote: > >It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards > >are soon to be available. Not much chance of > >negotiating the price lower than this. Pls > >email direct if you're interested. > > > >best regards/bob K6KGS > > > > > > > > Yes, in more then a few. What drivers/accessories come with them? > > wb8wka > > Regards, > > Jeff King > jeff@mich.com > Linked to the internet via spread spectrum > > > From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Sun Jul 07 10:20:14 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA08167 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 10:20:01 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Sun, 07 Jul 96 09:03:53 UTC Message-Id: <10628@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:367] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... In-Reply-To: your message of Wed Jul 03 10:42:02 1996 <199607031456.AA084705789@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Hi Barry, Glenn and Greg, Here s my take on the Ham Radio developement. Hams are end-users. They have something in mind they want to do, and they pretty much develope, and build for that purpose only. If they do not see that the effort is going to imediately result in the goal they have set, they don t do it. Of course this is a generality, and is flawed in the ways all generalities are. But, on average, I think its true. So, how does this effect SS development? With SS, I don t think we have layed down a specific usage, other than simplex style station to station communication. This can be done with a variety of NBFM gear. There needs to be a something that SS does, that is not served by NBFM technigues, or not served well by NBFM technigues. Another impediment to SS technigues is spectrum usage. But, we ve been thru that already, on this group. Suffice it to say, that Microwave bands would be better place to start, to avoid problems. And, other than Glen, i believe, on here, people cannot walk down a hallway, and into a room with synthesized sweeper, and vector network analyzer. These two items really make Microwave developement time efficient. Microwave bands demand RAKE recievers, and its unclear if RAKE recievers are practical in TTL IC level developement, or if they are built into any but proprietary chip sets out there. That is, access level Microwave radios would require RAKE technigues. Here s an idea that might be a SS icebreaker in Ham Radio. Its not packet, its just digital voice. FEC Packet would be needed to use the technigue for packet. The band - 6 meters - them middle 2 Mhz of the band. Why is 6 meters not used as much as other bands. It interferes with TV, the duplexors are massive physically and economically, the antennas are large for mobile in- sallation, Mobiles in an urban enviorment experience strong noise, and de sense (channel 2 tv) sources. It seems to me that SS can improve on all these problems. Broadband signals would not interfere with TV 2 receivers nearly as no- ticably. Indeed, most TV 2 viewers accept broadband power line interferance. Matched Filter DSSS technigues could be used to impliment a TDD (time domain duplex) technigue, eliminating duplexors from the system. Can t do much about antennas, with SS, tho, but HF ers use larger antennas anyway. FEC technigues could be used to reduce impulse noise problems. With modern first mixer technology, and processing gain reducing the desensing signal levels, desense from TV could be improved allot. With 2 Mhz, the IS-95 system could be done. Or we could come up with our own. I like the STEL-2000a, myself. Its cheap, u could put one in a HT, and it has variable amount of processing gain, allowing for area selectable processing gain. That is, procssing gain coordinated on the level of user ship in a geographical area. But, i m no expert on DSSS. This technigue would allow for repeaters to operate in the same spectrum, and even do hand-off. They would probably need Tom Clark's TAC (totally accur- ate clock), to do this, but hey, we have the technology. 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu From jeff@mich.com Sun Jul 07 12:48:13 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id MAA13567 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:48:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ucxxR-0002fFC; Sun, 7 Jul 96 13:49 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960707180137.006f1414@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 14:01:37 -0400 To: Thomas Barefoot From: Jeff King Subject: FreeWave (was Wavelan cards...) Cc: ss@tapr.org At 08:27 PM 7/4/96 -0500, Thomas Barefoot wrote: >I would like to know more about how you are linked to the internet by ss, >Jeff. Please e-mail me more info at barefeet@ns.awanet.com > I'm using a set of FreeWave DGR-115 presently in a point to point configuration. These are frequency hopping spread spectrum radios on the 902-928mhz band. Power output is +25dBm (400mw) and RX sensitivity is -110 dBm@10-4 raw BER. Over the air speed is 173 kbaud which spools down to 115 kbaud RS-232 connector. There are 115 frequencies it hops to, and dwell time is on the order of 35ms. I'm running PPP through them now. Measured latency of the radios is around 40ms. Presently, I'm operating them under Part 15 rules. My link consists of the following hardware. At the ISP (mich.com) I have a DGR-115 connected to a vertical antenna at about 35 feet. The radio is connect to a LINUX box running the PPP damon. I've also used it with a Livingston Port Master in the past. At my office end, I have a 6 element Yagi at about 40 feet. I'm presently just using Winsocks on a WIN95 box but plan on linking my LINUX and/or my CISCO in. The link distance is about 2 miles and is not line of site due to the 60-80 foot trees that are between us. My throughput with a FTP (to the local host at the other end of the link) is about 8.1 kbytes a second. I've done some demos at computer clubs around the area also. With a 'back of set' antenna I can get about a 1 mile range inside buildings (to the ISP). To a car, about 3-4 miles. I've not done to many point to point tests but the manufactuer claims 20 miles range. I think Dewayne Hendricks has run a set of them 25 miles, but he has mountains :-). I'll be putting in a 11.7 mile K-12 link for dial-ups later this month in the thumb area of Michigan and can report back on that (its flat, wooded and with some hills). We've also used them on both the Ann Arbor hamgate (wb8tkl) and the Oakland County hamgate (wb8wka). Worked well at the Ann Arbor hamgate but had some problems at the Oakland County hamgate due to low antenna and terrain. You need good coax, and a close to line of site path. They will penetrate trees fairly well but won't go through the side of a hill (although if the hill to were bare, you might get some knife edge). I've also operated them in a multipoint configuration using a Livingston Port master as the hub going to 4 different radios hooked to Macs and PC's all running various flavors of Netscape. Performance seemed good. BTW, I've spoken with the manufacturer about arranging a group buy of there OEM board ( http://www.freewave.com/dgro.html ) which is almost the same as what I have save the case and RS-232 level conversion. Depending on the number interested, pricing could be $500 or less. Please e-mail be if your interested. Hope that answers your questions. Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From dewayne@warpspeed.com Mon Jul 08 08:27:50 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (WA8DZP@odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id IAA07849 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:27:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [204.118.182.22] by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1); Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:27:41 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960707180137.006f1414@mich.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:27:28 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:376] FreeWave (was Wavelan cards...) At 13:02 -0500 7/7/96, Jeff King wrote: >I've done some demos at computer clubs around the area also. With a 'back of >set' antenna I can get about a 1 mile range inside buildings (to the ISP). >To a car, about 3-4 miles. I've not done to many point to point tests but >the manufactuer claims 20 miles range. I think Dewayne Hendricks has run >a set of them 25 miles, but he has mountains :-). I'll be putting in a >11.7 mile K-12 link for dial-ups later this month in the thumb area of >Michigan >and can report back on that (its flat, wooded and with some hills). That is correct. I have also been using the FW units in the SFO Bay area and have one link up that is 25 miles (Fremont to San Mateo). This result to me is quite impressive due to the greater amount of interference in the Bay Area on the 902-928 MHz band as compared to our test sites in Colorado. -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10 AOL: HENDRICKS Warp Speed Imagineering ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com 43730 Vista Del Mar ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! WWW: Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Mon Jul 08 09:52:46 1996 Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id JAA11413 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 09:52:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA154297554; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:52:34 -0700 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 AA061977553; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:52:34 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA165327552; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:52:32 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607081452.AA165327552@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:372] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org (Greg Jones) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:52:32 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199607040710.CAA10952@tapr.org> from "Greg Jones" at Jul 4, 96 02:23:40 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg writes (in part), > We can't forget that typically only a very small handful of people lead a > new technology. Transferability is what this is about. We have to get the > opinion leaders involved -- now that we have the change agents in place and > doing things. Without the opinion leaders being involved -- we will not see > much change in this area. I'm not sure I understand the specifics of this. Who are the change agents, are they the handful? Who are some representative opinion leaders? Are they local or nationally observed? > > I agree here totally. That is one reason TAPR has this list setup and I > hope with the effort of some, we can eventually use TAPR to disseminate > information further into the radio community via the PSR, DCC, and > eventually semi-kits -- to kick start the middle ground amateur. > > RF stuff can't be done as kits if we want more than the people doing it now > to be a part of the process (i.e. semi-kits). Items that are built and > tuned and can then be tested and played with. Building blocks for getting > individuals hands on the technology -- that then leads to more study. > > This again ties into the lack of test equipment and knowledge to make a lot > of this stuff work. This seems a likely flow to me as well, but it certainly is a big task. Because the task (nebulous though it may be) is by nature less incremental than previous changes to amateur radio, it requires a great deal more to be in place before a critical mass is reached. Even then, I suspect that there is likely to be much less 'building' with the pieces than there is using. And there won't even be that using unless the available pieces really do sufficiently and economically solve the problem. > > Do we need an AMSAT-like body for ss > > and higher speed information systems? Or is getting a "quorum" of > > hardware and developer types together impossible? > > Not sure what you are getting at here Glenn ? > > Is TAPR not supporting this effort now that could not be further enhanced in > the future ? > > Please let me know if you see TAPR missing something in this area -- the > organization is hanging it hats on doing and promoting SS into the amateur > services. This was probably worded poorly on my part. I was considering the size of the task (mentioned above) and trying to think of a parallel for how or where large (and non-incremental) projects have been accomplished within amateur radio. AMSAT was the only one I could think of. Amateur packet radio, generically, has ended up becoming large but it has been possible to grow it slowly. I think that wide area mid/high speed amateur networking along with satellites tend to require a lot to be in place before there is any payback at all. As Don mentioned, that kind of sustained effort and attention to a goal hasn't historically been a strength of the hobby. It is my understanding that even with the "flash" of satellite communications to focus contributiors (of all kinds) AMSAT has had a struggle to keep things moving. I am very appreciative of the effort that TAPR is making toward promoting SS and amateur networking. I don't see any other organization doing better or even as well. However, there appears to be a huge task here and I think it is essential that a common view of the goal be developed in order to avoid wasted and parallel effort. There have been several particular projects suggested already but where do they fit? I'm still not sure of TAPR's goal. Is it just to use SS, per se, for some/any kind of amateur communication? Or is it to build an economic information delivery system for amateurs using whatever it takes? Does it even have to be by radio? Is it to develop a new area for amateurs to experiment in? Is it a blend of these and other reasons and if so, which ones and what sort of blend? I am definitely too far off in the corner to have a clear perspective of what the goal should be so I'm not suggesting, I'm just trying to sort it out! Glenn n6gn From ccdapple@wtpprod1.wtp.net Mon Jul 08 10:17:24 1996 Received: from mailsrv1.pcy.mci.net (mailsrv1.pcy.mci.net [204.71.0.43]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA12514 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:17:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wtpprod1.wtp.net by MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-7 #10045) id <01I6TTUXMQT2934PEN@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET> for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 08 Jul 1996 11:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wtprl-6.wtp.net by wtpprod1.wtp.net; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0853PM) id AA03385; Mon, 08 Jul 1996 09:16:21 -0600 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 09:16:21 -0600 From: Chris Dapples Subject: Re: [SS:375] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: SS-Tapr , SS-Tapr Message-id: <9607081516.AA03385@wtpprod1.wtp.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: PROCOMM PLUS 3.0 for Windows Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Guys, > Hams are end-users. They have something in mind they want to > do, and they > pretty much develope, and build for that purpose only. If they > do not see > that the effort is going to imediately result in the goal they > have set, they > don t do it. Don is right here. I know very little about Spread Spectrum except for what I have read in the ARRL Source Book. So far, the messages on this mailing list I find very intimidating. The jargon you guys throw around is like a foreign language to me for the most part. I think most hams would be turned away from SS because of this. Another point. Several years ago I started to work with 9600 baud packet satellites (goal orientated) and suceeded, because there were kits to make the components needed, ie, modems and trakbox. Some simple kits to get beginners started might be good for SS. I am pretty much focused on TCP/IP packet networks and could see where SS might be very helpful in this area. Multi connects to a central hub, each transparent to the others, would be very useful. Finally, with technology getting more sophisticated every day, the average ham is being left farther and farther behind. Building equipment requires such expensive test equipment that hams like me are ruled out from doing anything useful. For example, I was interested is working on DSP techniques of analyzing weak signals from satellites and other extra- terrestrial sources. However, to be able to do this would require more than $35,000 worth of test equipment, plus a state of the art computer to handle the data. So, the ideas died on the vine so to speak. The fortunate hams who have access to universities and/or companies willing to let them use some of their lab equipment can probably make a go of such projects, while the rest of us can only sit and dream. Chris Dapples ccdapple@mail.wtp.net From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 08 10:51:34 1996 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA14177 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:51:32 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29164 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:50:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:50:58 -0400 Message-ID: <960708115057_429611383@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:375] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... AMen. I suggest you take the top 2 MHz of 6 meters, since the FM boys want 52.525, and the SSB/CW ends about 50.2. 73 Henry KB9FO From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 08 10:51:37 1996 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA14193 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:51:35 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13371 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:50:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:50:52 -0400 Message-ID: <960708115051_429611413@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:377] Re: FreeWave (was Wavelan cards...) I can provide a site at the top of Sears tower Chicago, if you want to experiment (provide your own equipment) 73 Henry KB9FO From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Mon Jul 08 11:53:23 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id LAA17338 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:53:05 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Mon, 08 Jul 96 11:04:46 UTC Message-Id: <10641@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:380] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... In-Reply-To: your message of Mon Jul 08 11:05:24 1996 <960708115057_429611383@emout07.mail.aol.com> Hi Henry, I don t think its technically practical to go right to the band edge, next to a megawatt erp tv station allocation. Besides, the SS sidebands would cause reception interferance, too. For Megabaud packet(data, voice, video, etc) 440 is a must. 6 meters would only be easy to use for low data rate voice, video, due to the voice. Its not acceptable for data. Except in the mountains, away from power lines, and spark ignition generators/vehicles. 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 08 20:29:40 1996 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA07276 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:29:38 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10223 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:30:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:30:14 -0400 Message-ID: <960708213003_151574127@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:382] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... channel 2 TV is 100 KW ERP, typically a 10-25 KW TX and low gain antenna. The TV set IF filter would not pass your signal, as the rolloff on the lower side is quite sharp to avoid adjacent channel (3 and up) interference. There is usually also a lowerside adjacent sound reject filter which adds to this. The most likely source of QRM would be signal strength, and since SS so far is low power, not likely to be a problem. Also since it is an itinerent albiet repetitive signal, at worst case it would be the appearance of ignition noise if it was above the noise floor of the TV. Try it! 73 Henry KB9FO From fperkins@onramp.net Mon Jul 08 20:38:28 1996 Received: from mailhost.onramp.net (mailhost.onramp.net [199.1.11.3]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA07951 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:38:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 199.184.212.129 (turnpike30.onramp.net [199.184.212.129]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA21614 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:38:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:38:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199607090138.UAA21614@mailhost.onramp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: fperkins@onramp.net Subject: Re: [SS:379] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org In-Reply-To: <9607081516.AA03385@wtpprod1.wtp.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Hi Chris, I was able to get a dozen or so DSP-93 modems developed with a $750 o'scope (which I already had), a $25 shareware assembler, and a $200 - $300 worth of DSP development SW and text books. (And, of course, Bob Stricklin's DSP-93 kit.) It does not cost a fortune to do interesting DSP, RF, or SS amateur experiments. Yes, things are more complex than they used to be. However, there is a lot more technology integration and support information around to help ... I got a lot of help on modem concepts from friends such as Tom McDermont, Ron Parsons, Johan Forrer, etc. The common denominator - they are all TAPR members. SS has some interesting and unique properties. It is time for amateurs to explore this communication mode. It is not magic. In the year 1996, it is much less of a tehnology "jump" from FM to SS than it was from AM to SSB in 1956. Let the chips fly!!! 73 Frank WB5IPM From kevin_williams@eee.org Tue Jul 09 00:13:19 1996 Received: from omail.eee.org (omail.eee.org [163.150.1.3]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id AAA21063 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:13:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199607090513.AAA21063@tapr.org> Received: from LOCALNAME (vvuser1.eee.org) by omail.eee.org with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA100809103; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 22:11:43 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 22:11:43 -0700 X-Sender: ke314256@omail.eee.org 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: Kevin Williams Subject: Re: [SS:366] 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea At 09:52 AM 7/3/96 -0500, you wrote: >It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards >are soon to be available. Not much chance of >negotiating the price lower than this. Pls >email direct if you're interested. > >best regards/bob K6KGS > > I have tried to call you a couple of times, but no luck yet. If you get a chance give me a call at (619) 946-0288. I am interested in more than a few of the cards, and would like more details. I hope to talk to you soon! 73 Kevin -- Kevin Williams KN6UO Internet - kevin_williams@eee.org AX25 - KN6UO@KE6TXE.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM From lfry@mindspring.com Tue Jul 09 15:17:33 1996 Received: from itchy.mindspring.com (itchy.mindspring.com [204.180.128.6]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id PAA24951 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lfry.mindspring.com (user-168-121-136-107.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.136.107]) by itchy.mindspring.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA02295; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:17:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960709201802.00690778@mindspring.com> X-Sender: lfry@mindspring.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:18:02 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Lee W. Fry" Subject: Re: [SS:367] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... At 10:42 AM 7/3/96 -0500, Glenn Elmore wrote: > >I think there is the possibility of something interesting being built out of >the commercial networking products that are being developed. There are interesting products at both the component and board/box level. In December 93, W7SX (Robert Zavrel) gave a presentation to our company club on the potential application of the Plessy DE6003 2.4GHz SS tranciever to an amateur digital network at 625 Kbps. At the time he was an engineer at Plessey in Scotts Valley. He had done his homework, but apparently didn't get enough interest to gain momentum. Looked real neat to me. 625Kbps would make ISDN look sick. The DE6003 was just sampling at the time, and I don't know if it really became available. I know that there is much more out there, for example the 900 MHz modules that ALFA Inc. offers. In March of 95 someone at Thorne EMI LPRS gave me some information on a RS-485 serial interface tranciever they have developed operating at 2.45GHz and capable of up to 1Mbps. It conformed to European Standard ETS 300 328. Price was given as 488 UK pounds sterling (ex vat) in quantities 1 - 10. Info can be found at Thorne EMI With gain antennae these types of units could be good for several kilometers point-to-point. There is a possibility, if you get enough players, of putting together a fairly high performance network across a regional area. How about we get together some sort of survey of what's available out there in the commercial marketplace as chip sets, trancievers, and also interesting R&D reports etc. and create a central set of pointers so potentially interested people can get some inspiration? If someone wants to add it to their existing web page that's great, or maybe someone can hang something up at TAPR, or I'll even volunteer to try to put up something on my mindspring account. Any takers? Lee W. Fry lfry@mindspring.com AA0JP From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Tue Jul 09 18:04:28 1996 Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id SAA01214 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:03:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA266683430; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:03:51 -0700 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 AA187303430; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:03:50 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA230643429; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:03:49 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607092303.AA230643429@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:386] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org (Lee W. Fry) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:03:48 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960709201802.00690778@mindspring.com> from "Lee W. Fry" at Jul 9, 96 03:27:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee W. Fry wrote: > > At 10:42 AM 7/3/96 -0500, Glenn Elmore wrote: > > > >I think there is the possibility of something interesting being built out > of >the commercial networking products that are being developed. Not to be too picky but actually, I don't think *I* wrote that. At least I don't remember it or have it in my out file. What I *did* say on that day was: I think that all of this points out the need for amateurs to do something on our own and not wait for chip sets or solutions from commercial providers, however desirable they might be. > How about we get together some sort of survey of what's available out there > in the commercial marketplace as chip sets, trancievers, and also > interesting R&D reports etc. and create a central set of pointers so > potentially interested people can get some inspiration? If someone wants to > add it to their existing web page that's great, or maybe someone can hang > something up at TAPR, or I'll even volunteer to try to put up something on > my mindspring account. > > Any takers? > I think that there are already some pages listing the offerings from wireless vendors. http://snapple.cs.washington.edu:600/mobile/mobile.html#providers comes to mind. Perhaps this is what amateurs will and should end up doing; forget the radio and construction part, buy hardware and put it on. If our goal is simply to run SS, this could no doubt do it. If we're trying to do something with *radio* ourselves then maybe we should be looking elsewhere. If we only want to network information in an amateur manner (whatever that means) and don't care *how* we do it, maybe we should be talking about how to string optical fiber. I'm still interested to hear what people think the goal is. Glenn n6gn From xbrucex@popmail.mcs.net Tue Jul 09 20:03:20 1996 Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA05116 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 20:03:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from xbrucex (xbrucex.pr.mcs.net [205.164.12.165]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06365 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 20:03:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199607100103.UAA06365@Kitten.mcs.com> X-Sender: xbrucex@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 20:02:42 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: xbrucex Subject: Re: [SS:384] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... Gang - I totally agree with the 1956 SSB remark. I wish I'd said that. HAM RADIO IS ABOUT LEARNING WHILE HAVING FUN. Bruce At 20:52 7/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Chris, > >I was able to get a dozen or so DSP-93 modems developed with a >$750 o'scope (which I already had), a $25 shareware assembler, >and a $200 - $300 worth of DSP development SW and text books. >(And, of course, Bob Stricklin's DSP-93 kit.) It does not cost >a fortune to do interesting DSP, RF, or SS amateur experiments. > >Yes, things are more complex than they used to be. However, there >is a lot more technology integration and support information >around to help ... I got a lot of help on modem concepts from >friends such as Tom McDermont, Ron Parsons, Johan Forrer, etc. > >The common denominator - they are all TAPR members. > >SS has some interesting and unique properties. It is time >for amateurs to explore this communication mode. It is not >magic. In the year 1996, it is much less of a tehnology "jump" >from FM to SS than it was from AM to SSB in 1956. > >Let the chips fly!!! > >73 Frank WB5IPM > > > > > > > From jeff@mich.com Tue Jul 09 21:14:22 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id VAA08021 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 21:14:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0udopQ-0002fkC; Tue, 9 Jul 96 22:16 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960710022753.006b52ac@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:27:53 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:387] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... At 06:05 PM 7/9/96 -0500, Glenn n6gn wrote: >comes to mind. Perhaps this is what amateurs will and should end up >doing; forget the radio and construction part, buy hardware and put it >on. If our goal is simply to run SS, this could no doubt do it. If >we're trying to do something with *radio* ourselves then maybe we should >be looking elsewhere. The highest band I operated before I started experimenting with wireless SS lan equipment was 440mhz. Since I have started doing this, I now own UHF (900+2.4ghz) test gear, I have designed and built antennas for 900 mhz and have worked with topo maps and link analysis programs for these same bands. So I wouldn't totally dismiss using 'off the shelf' equipment as no gain to the service. I've learned alot about RF engineering expermenting with this equipment. Granted, I'm not yet at the stage were I can design a SS radio, I'm certainly closer then if I'd not done anything. Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From rw@txcc.net Tue Jul 09 22:45:38 1996 Received: from mail.txcc.net (mail.txcc.net [205.218.183.156]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA11111 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:45:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from quercus1 (port10.txcc.net [205.218.183.140]) by mail.txcc.net (8.7.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA03886 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:44:11 -0500 Message-ID: <31E32779.2ECB@txcc.net> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:46:01 -0500 From: Ralph Ward Reply-To: rw@txcc.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:386] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... References: <2.2.32.19960709201802.00690778@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can archive and sponsor the page on a host available to me. Ralph Ward KB5UAA Lee W. Fry wrote: > my mindspring account. > > Any takers? > > Lee W. Fry > lfry@mindspring.com > AA0JP From jeff@mich.com Wed Jul 10 19:16:35 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id TAA27336; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:16:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ue9Qj-0002g2C; Wed, 10 Jul 96 20:16 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960711003018.006fd9f8@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:30:18 -0400 To: Rick Whiting From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Link Analysis Cc: ss@tapr.org, netsig@tapr.org At 06:51 PM 7/10/96 -0500, Rick W0TN wrote: >Jeff, > >What link analysis program do you use? > >73/Rick W0TN The topo 'program' I use is a excel spread sheet I got off of http://www.gate.net/~dlung/indexftp.html . Its got versions for lotus also. I've used various link analysis programs but around here (Michigan) its often hard to get a line of site path. With the graph function of EXCEL, I can get a good idea of the fresnel zones and I can play "what if's" with antenna heights. Note, you do need a topographical map to enter the data. I understand there are CD-ROM databases with all the topographical data already in them but I believe they are expensive ($2000+ ??). Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From jerryn@ici.net Wed Jul 10 19:52:59 1996 Received: from kirk.ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id TAA28518 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:52:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from innovative.tech.com (pmfr1ip29.ici.net [206.231.69.29]) by kirk.ici.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA10228 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Sender: root@kirk.ici.net Message-ID: <31E44B49.4803FD8B@ici.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:31:05 -0400 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:371] Re: 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea References: <1.5.4.32.19960703233703.006ee58c@mich.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff King wrote: > > At 09:52 AM 7/3/96 -0500, you wrote: > >It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards > >are soon to be available. Not much chance of > >negotiating the price lower than this. Pls > >email direct if you're interested. > > > >best regards/bob K6KGS > > > > > > > > Yes, in more then a few. What drivers/accessories come with them? > > wb8wka > > Regards, > > Jeff King > jeff@mich.com > Linked to the internet via spread spectrum What speed are these cards... are they 2MBS??????? From sia@nest.org Thu Jul 11 18:40:36 1996 Received: from eagle.nest.org (root@eagle.nest.org [199.1.242.41]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id SAA23884 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:40:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from sia@localhost) by eagle.nest.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) id SAA23675 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:40:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199607112340.SAA23675@eagle.nest.org> Subject: Re: [SS:366] 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:40:30 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199607031453.HAA23371@wireless.wdc.net> from "Robert A. Buaas" at Jul 3, 96 09:52:18 am From: Igor Sviridov Reply-To: sia@nest.org Return-Receipt-To: sia@nest.org Precedence: airmail X-Class: Fast X-NIC-Handle: IS39 X-Work-Email: sia@jriver.net X-Work-Phone: +1 612 3392521 x214 X-Work-Fax: +1 612 3394445 X-Work-Snail: 125 1st North Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55401 X-Home-Email: sia@nest.org X-Home-Phone: +1 612 4042553 X-Home-Snail: 18100 Breezy Point Rd, Wayzata, MN, 55391-2715 X-Pager-Phone: +1 612 2992455 X-Pager-Email: sia@interpage.net X-Cell-Phone: upon request X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Quoting Robert A. Buaas letter: > It's come to my attention that 100+ of these cards > are soon to be available. Not much chance of > negotiating the price lower than this. Pls > email direct if you're interested. hi, i would like to purchase 2 of those. i'm TAPR member, if it matters. > best regards/bob K6KGS ps. i understand there is a ka9q driver and i've seen MACH :) driver. do you know about any others? it seems i'll be willing to write a FreeBSD driver... -- igor From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Thu Jul 11 21:31:36 1996 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org [44.135.96.100]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id VAA00493 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:31:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19044 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 02:31:35 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199607120231.CAA19044@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:393] Re: 915 MHz WaveLAN cards avail $199 ea To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 02:31:34 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <199607112340.SAA23675@eagle.nest.org> from "Igor Sviridov" at Jul 11, 96 06:52:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text > ps. i understand there is a ka9q driver and i've seen MACH :) driver. > do you know about any others? it seems i'll be willing to write a > FreeBSD driver... I don't think there is a KA9Q driver as such, but there are NDIS and ODI drivers, so you can use the packet driver interface with a suitable shim. There is a WaveLAN driver for Linux which is included in the kernel distribution, and the WaveLAN ftp site has drivers for a few other flavors of UNIX. Ref: http://wavelan.netland.nl/. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | Web: http://hydra.carleton.ca From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Fri Jul 12 15:20:12 1996 Received: from relay.hp.com (relay.hp.com [15.255.152.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id PAA13767 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:19:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by relay.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA081312757; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:19:17 -0700 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 AA246732756; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:19:17 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA038702755; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:19:15 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607122019.AA038702755@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:389] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:19:15 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960710022753.006b52ac@mich.com> from "Jeff King" at Jul 9, 96 09:27:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff King wrote: > The highest band I operated before I started experimenting with wireless > SS lan equipment was 440mhz. Since I have started doing this, I now own > UHF (900+2.4ghz) test gear, I have designed and built antennas for 900 mhz > and have worked with topo maps and link analysis programs for these same > bands. So I wouldn't totally dismiss using 'off the shelf' equipment as > no gain to the service. I've learned alot about RF engineering expermenting > with this equipment. Granted, I'm not yet at the stage were I can design a > SS radio, I'm certainly closer then if I'd not done anything. Jeff, Thanks for the thoughts. I'm particularly glad to hear of your growing interest and experimenting in RF. Growth in previously unvisited areas is pretty much at the core of what I personally most value about amateur radio, though it is definitely not the only aspect of the hobby. I came from the RF side, vhf SSB (1960's), weak signal, meteor scatter, EME and 10 GHz DX into the computer and networking realms where I've learned a lot. I'm not a network or computer scientist but, like you, I have some tools and knowledge and I am closer now than if I'd not done anything. Amateur radio is certainly a great 'playground'. In my previous post, I wasn't dismissing using off-the-shelf hardware at all. Rather I meant to list it as one possible means to a goal. If we are not particularly focussed on building radio/RF, per se, then using existing Part 15 equipment might be a reasonable approach. But it is, I think, a very different approach from designing and implementing our own system and I think there are some pretty profound differences in what we would or could achieve, depending on our approach and our goals. That was what I was trying to say in the previous post. In addition to (1) doing our own RF and system design (2) using Part 15 or other commercial implementations there is the additional possibility of (3)punting RF entirely and figuring out how to get *lots* of bandwidth with, say, fiber. (3) wouldn't be radio but it might offer a result that is still relevant to the time and culture. Building an effective, efficient higher performance information infrastructure is a serious task. I don't believe it can be accomplished without pretty high level design and a concerted effort by a large number of amateurs. A good number of wireless startups have already failed in a similar attempt. I don't believe that amateur radio is going to fare much better without clear goal setting and high level attention to implementation. If we are content with a "me too" approach; adapting commercial hardware and architectures for amateur use, I don't think the result can be particularly competetive with the commercial wireless systems which will eventually result. Maybe this is OK, it does still let hams "play" in the wireless networking arena, to a degree, but it is different from what might happen if we all worked together to build something of our own. Perhaps this degree of cooperative effort isn't even possible. It seems to me that many hams are primarily looking for a lower cost and more flexible alternative to an ISP, rather than desiring to create something new/better within amateur radio. From that viewpoint, any solution, Part 15 or amateur-created will probably suffice. However, I don't believe that those individuals are likely to be "in it for the long haul" that a roll-our-own system requires. And if there isn't sufficient support for more than incremental changes on what currently exists, I don't think we can expect to ever have a "competetive" system for amateur use. It seems to me that amateur reuse/modification of h/w and s/w designed for a commercial system isn't likely to provide a better/faster/cheaper system than the one from which it was spawned. This is particularly true of a distributed resource like a wide area network where much of the value is in the system design. If amateurs are to be successful in building hardware, software and systems that are meaningful in the present 'information age', I think it will be because we've cooperated and harnessed our strengths. One strength I believe we have which perhaps many of the commercial ventures haven't had is our physical diversity. Potentially we have site and skill resources spread over a lot of the world. Harnessing this could be a great advantage. If we don't take advantage of our strengths I have a hard time seeing how we can do anything better than any other consumer, even if we do mild adaptation of existing systems. I find it interesting that I have consistently had more 'hits' on my web pages associated with building 800-950 MHz antennas than in all the other highspeed uhf and microwave, FSK or spread hardware combined. I don't know for sure but I suspect this is from people wanting to extend cell phone range. Somehow I doubt that these are all hams. If all we as amateurs are able to do to with SS is adapt existing systems I don't expect we will be able to offer anything which is particularly attractive in the context of of other systems which are available. That doesn't sound like a formula for success for amateur radio even though it might be interesting to a few of us. I expect to continue work on L3TNCRF just because I'm interested in making a lowcost general purpose transceiver for moderate information rates and in using SS to mitigate multipath QRM. But perhaps neither this nor other amateurs' projects like it, h/w or s/w, will ever amount to much more than fun local projects. Thanks again for your thoughts. Glenn n6gn From clearbrook_technical@mindlink.bc.ca Fri Jul 12 17:57:29 1996 Received: from linux.clrtech.com (excel0.jumppoint.com [204.191.232.125]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id RAA19020 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:57:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [204.174.238.2] (fred-mac.clrtech.com [204.174.238.2]) by linux.clrtech.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA27324 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:02:32 -0700 X-Sender: clearbrook_technical@linux.clrtech.com. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:56:10 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: clearbrook_technical@mindlink.bc.ca (Fred Kehler (ve7ipb)) Subject: Re: WaveLan drivers -was 915 MHz WaveLAN Hi, i do have a dos based packet driver for the wavelan card that i have used with jnos and seemed to work ok, i got it from AT&T tech support, about 1-1/2 yrs ago, if anyone needs it mail me and i can ftp it up somewhere..... > >> ps. i understand there is a ka9q driver and i've seen MACH :) driver. >> do you know about any others? it seems i'll be willing to write a >> FreeBSD driver... > >I don't think there is a KA9Q driver as such, but there are NDIS and ODI >drivers, so you can use the packet driver interface with a suitable >shim. There is a WaveLAN driver for Linux which is included in the >kernel distribution, and the WaveLAN ftp site has drivers for a few >other flavors of UNIX. Ref: http://wavelan.netland.nl/. > >Barry > From wd5ivd@tapr.org Sat Jul 13 18:10:09 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id SAA06519 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:10:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607132310.SAA06519@tapr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:378] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:10:08 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199607081452.AA165327552@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> from "Glenn Elmore" at Jul 8, 96 10:05:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Are you sitting down with a cool one -- get ready, this is a long one :-) > Glenn writes, > >> Greg writes (in part), > > > We can't forget that typically only a very small handful of people > lead a > new technology. Transferability is what this is about. We > have to get the > opinion leaders involved -- now that we have the > change agents in place and > doing things. Without the opinion leaders > being involved -- we will not see > much change in this area. > > I'm not sure I understand the specifics of this. Who are the change > agents, are they the handful? Who are some representative opinion > leaders? Are they local or nationally observed? This is all based on theory regarding how change is brought about in information and technology societies. Everett Rogers (1982), published a land mark book on the subject that deals with how innovation precipitates in what we term a 'society.' The phrases above are the one used in this book and in the field of study now. After you read the materials, it makes a lot of sense. Let me give some definitions: Before I start, keep in mind, that people can be all different aspects of the following categories. No one is just one or another. Depends entirely on the context the person is involved in. Change Agent: A person who is at the leading (or better yet bleeding) edge. Takes the time and effort to understand, develop, design, create, learn, etc the new 'technology'. This person then actively promotes the new 'technology' at conferences and anywhere else someone will stop and listen :-). Opinion Leaders. These are the people that buy into what the Change Agents are saying and doing. The person that attends the conference and goes home with some new concept that can be passed along or used with their group (i.e. tribe/clan). To be an opinion leader others must also listen and hopefully follow. Some, very few, are both Change Agents and Opinion Leaders. As the name implies, the Opinion Leaders lead. However, the information or technology presented buy the Change Agent has to be in a form that is both usable and portable in nature -- while also being relevant to something the Opinion Leader wants to accomplish (i.e. motivation and attention = learning). Once they think that the new 'technology' can be done and they can get their hands on the technology, they will then do something with it. 'Buying into the technology' is a phrase that comes to mind. Everyone else :-) There is a better definition here, but I am not in Austin, so I don't have the book handy to look it up. Basically everyone else follows the Opinion Leader's vision or what they are doing. The entire point of this theory is that there is a flow to the introduction of new technology. You can either plug away and hope that in time you win and the technology you were working on gets adopted and used. Or, you can understand the dynamics of change and work on getting others to buy into what you are doing so that change is precipitated in a quicker manner. 5% of the battle is the development of the new technology, the other 95% is technology transfer into the community as a whole. Since we are involved in the up front development work, it appears to us that 90% of the work is in the new technology development :-) To date, while a lot of the SS stuff has been 'nifty keen', the typical Opinion Leaders in their areas have not seen it to be realistic to do. That is changing and is apparent from the activity in the overall amateur radio community and on this list. This is changing because several of us are talking and working with national and regional Opinion Leaders explaining what could be happening. As Change Agents we are painting a picture of the future. Telling stories about the perfect future -- where we all set on a national network using SS local loop access along with wireline networking for regional connectivity -- which is one possible future. What SS voice systems could be doing in our over occupied and under utilized amateur radio frequencies. Etc. Opinion Leaders fill another important niche. Take for instance all the flak related to SS on the amateur radio bands any number of us get (weak signal operators, EME, repeaters, etc). While, we as Change Agents, can turn blue in the face trying to convince certain individuals in the hobby, it only takes one Opinion Leader who turns out to be a friend of the person against the technology to convince them that maybe it is not all that bad after all. Like the ability to operate even weaker signals or get EME with a lot less antennas and power. Opinion Leaders change opinion. Not just a small group, but at different stages everyone is an Opinion Leader. Enough of Roger stuff :-) I hope it makes a little more sense. > > > I agree here totally. That is one reason TAPR has this list setup > and I > hope with the effort of some, we can eventually use TAPR to > disseminate > information further into the radio community via the PSR, > DCC, and > eventually semi-kits -- to kick start the middle ground > amateur. > > RF stuff can't be done as kits if we want more than the > people doing it now > to be a part of the process (i.e. semi-kits). > Items that are built and > tuned and can then be tested and played with. > Building blocks for getting > individuals hands on the technology -- > that then leads to more study. > > This again ties into the lack of test > equipment and knowledge to make a lot > of this stuff work. > > This seems a likely flow to me as well, but it certainly is a big > task. Because the task (nebulous though it may be) is by nature less > incremental than previous changes to amateur radio, it requires a great > deal more to be in place before a critical mass is reached. Even then, > I suspect that there is likely to be much less 'building' with the > pieces than there is using. And there won't even be that using unless > the available pieces really do sufficiently and economically solve the > problem. Yes Price is everything. Amateurs by nature or frugal (might I say cheap :-) But like any project, you have to start some place. Nothing every really starts big. You have to start small and if it is good and the process is done correctly many will buy into it. Critical mass is the tricky thing. Really we only need a handful of sites and individuals to generate the necessary critical mass. I have already been working on this informally. We can easily agree without the necessary infrastructure or philosophy in place, that people can 'buy' into, then there is no purpose for the radios we are talking about doing. Chicken and Egg problem. I have already begun to stir the coals on this issue. While I don't have an answer, what I am doing is starting to collect a group of interested Individuals (Opinion Leaders in their own areas) who understand the issues and who might be interested in developing and implementing the guidelines for the delivery of high-speed local loop access with regional/national connectivity. A regional/national network scheme based on High-Speed SS radios is dependent on a philosophy that others can see in place and one that they can feel good about being a part of. > > > Do we need an AMSAT-like body for ss > > and higher speed > information systems? Or is getting a "quorum" of > > hardware and > developer types together impossible? > > Not sure what you are getting > at here Glenn ? > > Is TAPR not supporting this effort now that could > not be further enhanced in > the future ? > > Please let me know if you > see TAPR missing something in this area -- the > organization is hanging > it hats on doing and promoting SS into the amateur > services. > > This was probably worded poorly on my part. I was considering the > size of the task (mentioned above) and trying to think of a parallel for > how or where large (and non-incremental) projects have been accomplished > within amateur radio. AMSAT was the only one I could think of. Amateur > packet radio, generically, has ended up becoming large but it has been > possible to grow it slowly. Project management is the issue here -- the size of the task can either be made manageable or kill you trying to manage it. I don't think we can compare what we are talking about here to the likes of building a satellite. What size task do you see this as Glenn ? If we break up the tasks correctly, the actual implementation falls as part of the regional responsibility. Thus, we don't really need a large body of support at the national level. The concept is Retail vs Wholesale knowledge distribution. If we try to manage anything other than the creation of the technology at the national level -- we are in for problems. The development of hardware and software, while a daunting task -- will be a small part of an entire integration of some set of technology into the amateur community -- that is if we are successful at all in doing something. It could easily be the case -- where something else comes along -- that gets implemented instead of the project(s) that were in the works. Say for example, NI2 5 gig equipment that everyone begins using ... because of price...who knows. The entire approach has to be unstructured to some degree to allow the flow of new concepts and approaches to be accepted into the plan, not excluded. I see this as a series of small events: Like getting RM-8737 concluded to allow us to use existing Part 15 units in the bands and to allow real SS codes to be used and all the other reasons that RM-8737 was started. Like getting the already done testing published Near/Far, Noise Floor, etc. Like getting OEM units into the hands of amateurs Like creating a national/regional networking philosophy for groups to be a part of and buy into the vision of SS Like spreading the word more (at least 60db process gain :-) and much more education like Steve Bible's book on SS he is working on while is at sea (USS Maryland) Like eventually having someone mfg radios that meet our needs within the amateur community Like ..... As we bring in the regional groups wanting to participate in doing stuff, we make sure that the mechanism is in place to allow growth at the regional level. Many of the issues past those of a few hardware and software issues, become very local and regional in scope anyway. All these are small projects that lead to a vision. The point to this approach is that it is flexible to meet the demands of amateur radio. That is to say -- things happen unpredictably at times. You have to have a very open management style and good communications to take advantage of the events that appear. Like someone showing up with a design ready to go. > I think that wide area mid/high speed amateur networking along with > satellites tend to require a lot to be in place before there is any > payback at all. As Don mentioned, that kind of sustained effort and > attention to a goal hasn't historically been a strength of the hobby. It > is my understanding that even with the "flash" of satellite > communications to focus contributors (of all kinds) AMSAT has had a > struggle to keep things moving. I don't agree with this. Again, this is a perspective issue. In certain parts of the hobby and in certain areas of the US there has been sustained effort to do things. Like I always try to point out -- amateur radio is different (at least on the VHF/UHF/SHF bands) in every 50 mile radius. It really does depend on where you are and what your local resources are. We have the infrastructure in place now for regional/national intra-networking to happen. It is just a matter of choosing a few critical sites to grow and design a philosophy that can be spread further -- 1) provide a common and low-cost solution for high-speed user radio interface and 2) provide a philosophy for buying/participating in a national intra-network strategy. Amateur radio has been living, in many areas, off of network resources deployed in the mid 80's. It is time to either rebuild the infrastructure with new technology or allow the stuff we have now, old as it may be, to be replaced with commercial Internet and Part 15 devices. Why use Part 97 ? Well -- my answer is easy. To either be learning something or having fun. Up till now, the education issue regarding SS under Part 97 has been where most of the activity has been, which is typically much smaller these days then the having 'fun' group. Thus, we have to move the technology we have available to us from the 'takes a lot of skill, knowledge, and equipment to make it work stage' to something as simple as plugging an ethernet connection into one side and having RF coming out the other end. Pete Eaton, in the 80's, had the right package in mind with the Packet Radio project. Just that the project team never really materialized to make it happen -- plus 9600 even then was probably not enough of a jump in performance to make it look attractive in price. > I am very appreciative of the effort that TAPR is making toward > promoting SS and amateur networking. I don't see any other organization > doing better or even as well. > > However, there appears to be a huge task here and I think it is > essential that a common view of the goal be developed in order to avoid > wasted and parallel effort. There have been several particular projects > suggested already but where do they fit? Parallel effort is not all that bad. Yes - there is a lot to do, but again this is amateur radio. Having parallel things happening means there are alternatives and additional research that can happen to back other systems up. Parallel development also means that if someone has to actually work for a living, changes jobs, or gets married then we still have a potential for conclusion. We want to make sure everyone is communicating about what they are doing, so research and knowledge can be pooled, but when learning something -- sometimes the only way to learn it is to do it yourself. So, I expect a lot of duplication with people experimenting with different commercially available radios, I expect people to be redundant in networking combinations and testing, and I expect people to not communicate about what they are doing. The last one is the one that always worries me the most. Amateurs hardly ever publish what they have done after they do it -- so others can at least build on that knowledge. I believe Web pages are changing that somewhat --- but it sure doesn't hurt to put stuff in the ARRL/TAPR DCC and other places and to attend the major amateur conferences. For as much e-mail and other communications going on -- having those face-to-face meetings and working in person once or twice a year just can't be replaced. All the research regarding electronic communications still shows that periodic face-to-face meetings help to heighten the overall communications. Anyway, we shouldn't be approaching this like a Fortune 500 company, but like people trying to have fun and learn something along the way. I have always felt that if you meet those two goals then what ever you have spent your time working on has been successful. I probably would go nuts as TAPR President if I tried to do anything else. If you set your goals to changing the face of amateur radio -- then I would get prepared for failure. There is just to much inertia in the current hobby to make a lot of wide spread changes. However, we can effect what we do within the hobby and over time we might be able to add a lot to an area of amateur radio that does not get a lot of attention, 'That of improving the radio art.' SS brings that to the table in Spades. We have a real opportunity to make a contribution to the science that many of the Part 15 and other companies are not focusing on because they are focused on profit....not research. We can really bring this back up with a little work. > I'm still not sure of TAPR's goal. Is it just to use SS, per se, for > some/any kind of amateur communication? Or is it to build an economic > information delivery system for amateurs using whatever it takes? Does > it even have to be by radio? Is it to develop a new area for amateurs > to experiment in? Is it a blend of these and other reasons and if so, > which ones and what sort of blend? TAPR has several short and long term goals. Many of these will be appearing in the statement of purpose that the Board will be reviewing shortly and discussing regarding the direction of TAPR and SS. Short term is to get deliverables targeted and into production. This process began last October in Washington DC with the FCC regarding SS issues (if you hadn't read we have placed a top law firm in DC on retainer). Getting Steve Bible's intermediate level book written, reviewed, and published. Get TAPR working with Part 15 mfgs about OEM possibilities via TAPR into the amateur radio community. And there are several others...like helping this SIG grow, working on additional information dissemination in the future at the DCC and other events, etc etc. Long range -- we are really talking about a paradigm shift in the way amateur radio operators and other users of the spectrum operate. I am sure you realize this. We have to develop communications systems within the amateur hobby that don't interfere where we are secondary users (i.e 219 and other frequencies) as well as don't interfere with other devices where we are primary. Can you imagine what the FCC will do one day if we start using older technology that could wreak havoc with the existing Part 15 stuff? How many grandmas does it take complaining that they can't use their phones before we become secondary on those frequencies, so that we would have to worry about the interference issues. We are going to be living in an age of spectrum crowding -- if everyone can make money with RF devices -- thus if we don't develop system that can allow us to do our thing without interfering, then amateur radio will be further displaced from chunks of frequencies over the course of the future. There is the possibility in this area of research that breaks the old paradigm mold. Limited spectrum becomes a thing of the past -- hate to hear when Congress others figure out that technology could take away there current cash cow -- however full access for education and the public citizen at low affordable cost becomes a reality with inexpensive non-crowded spectrum. We start with making SS technology for high-speed data affordable as a long range goal and because that is something people are now prepared to buy into --- they have gotten a taste with their dial-up Internet access. There is nothing stopping amateurs from being able to have networks that provide much higher-bandwidth operations than capable over bandwidth limited telephone circuits. The only thing stopping us is ourselves. Thus, to make this happen the radios are not the only part of the equation. A solution has to be made available that most any amateur radio operate can 'buy into' as a part of the whole. We can't get everyone, so we at least target the people we want to talk to -- most of us that are on here as well as other regional groups that are hanging on by a thread waiting for something to kick start them again as groups. Once we have been successful there, we begin to look at voice system and other SS systems than can really benefit amateur radio in other areas. That is -- if someone hasn't already done something. We are all aware of the problems with voice repeater coordination. In places in the US, you have to wait years to get a repeater. Why ? Because we live in a paradigm that says that the freqs are occupied, thus that means that they are all utilized. But we know that this is not the case. I am preaching to the choir here -- so I'll skip the rest of this thought :-) Who knows what the basic building blocks will enable other amateurs to do -- once something is out there to get them started. In the end though -- it all comes down to money. If we could afford to purchase all the necessary components to do testing and then cost-optimization, we could do a hell of a system with the knowledge we have on tap from the last 10+ years of trying to make our other systems work. If we can't purchase the development -- then we look at individuals bringing technology to the table to be done...which is a much longer development cycle. Thus, what TAPR brings to the game is an organization dedicated to moving forward on the issue of SS within amateur radio. That is important. As many of us know -- the overhead of disseminating information can now be done pretty easily with the Internet -- that is to the 50% or so of amateurs currently on (50% might be high also). However, doing technology transfer in the way of equipment is a lot more difficult. Breaking out of local/regional perception (NIH) is difficult. All these requires an organization that bring the diverse regions and individuals together and fosters development and communications. > I am definitely too far off in the corner to have a clear perspective > of what the goal should be so I'm not suggesting, I'm just trying to > sort it out! > No problem Glenn. If anything, we have goals and plans but they are so new we are still developing them and making sure the word gets out. It has only been over a year since I felt that TAPR should be hanging its hat on SS research, development, and education. I knew it for a fact when I attended the Long Beach meeting a year ago Sept. The TAPR Board began to buy into the concept at the Fall BoD meeting in Dallas last Sept. Then really making the commitment at the Dayton BoD meeting just a few weeks ago. It takes time and effort to generate new directions within an organization and then be in a position to articulate them meaningfully. That process has begun and I feel certain will continue for some time to come. The critical mass to makes things happen is active within TAPR now. I see some big things on the horizon both short term and long term and the future looks exciting from where I am sitting. I would hope what many started years ago and what TAPR is taking active steps towards now can all come together to work towards common goals -- that of making practical SS operations a reality in the amateur radio bands. I hope this message has not drug out to long. Lots to discuss in the one message. Back to my dissertation now. Cheers - Greg P.S. As a side note to everyone reading this -- are you an ARRL member ? Have you sent e-mail or called your ARRL Director and let him/her know you are in favor of the league proposal on RM-8737. Do so! They really need to hear from some of the people that think that the RM is a good thing, instead of what they hear a lot of -- it is EVIL :-) As a mode, SS interested amateurs are falling down on petitioning our local leadership within the ARRL about the issue we are discussing here. Anyway .... From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Sat Jul 13 20:19:24 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA10826 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:18:44 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Sat, 13 Jul 96 18:27:47 UTC Message-Id: <10662@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Some news from the WLAN front... Hi Barry, Jeff, Glenn, Greg, and ? The Internet's success is a plus and minus. It draws many people out of packet radio, and wireless commercial WAN's for that matter. But, its also a challenge for us to start doing what the old wireless microwave people did, but with a ham radio versatility. Without near total information capa- city from the antenna/radio/time/Bandwidth/area resource, the capacity of packet radio is insuficient for what is rapidly becoming the everyday ex- pectation of data communication. The keyword is "versatility". Without a versatile radio system, Anyham has a big hill to climb, and Anynonham can not even get his questions answered by Anyham. Lets use 9600 as an example. Right now, D4-10s are not readily available, and the other cheap alternative is 2 watts. This is not too useful for omnigain UHF. And even if one goes out and buys this equipment, most packet infrastructure is useless to it, since 9600 baud user access has not been a general policy of packet clubs. Not very versatile, and yet this is about the absolute minimun that s useful for networked peer to peer communications. We have to avoid this in the next system. We have to have a system that allows Anyham to buy it, and be networked. It has to be HF like in its imediate useability. Even more imediately useable than VHF voice. Organisationally implimented infrastructure can only add to network performance, not be the make or break of networkability. Greg, even a good system doesn t always get a chance in Ham Radio. So, allot of what ur saying doesn t neccassarily work in Ham Radio. For those idea to work, the new and different method has to be for an existing goal. In Ham radio, the goals we are after are too new to be permitted by everybody who can have an effect on our systems. Within a group, with ham radio, say packet radio, a better way to do something will win out, as long as it stays within the packet radio group. But, if it is objectionable to somebody out- side of packet radio, it really doesn t have much of a chance, in Ham Radio. Its this "non-linearity" for want of a better term, which has held back allot of technically successful , better ways. I think we need to straddle the Part 15 / Ham Radio fence. If somebody in Ham Radio starts to sand bag, we just become Part 15 ers. And if the Part 15 rules change, we are back to being hams. Its usually just a matter of a small qsy for SS gear. A good freind of mine , who runs a buisness selling 9600 baud stuff, had a large order from a guy in Indianapolis. Almost ime- diately arriving back home from the hamfest where he had sold the equipment, this guy in Indianapolis had shipped the stuff back, demanding a refund. His reasoning was that Indianapolis it was not useable. If my freind would not have had the cash on hand to cover this, it would have been a problem. Indeed, he could have sold the equipment to other people, as well. And thus the ep- isode was a lost profit. This to me, seems to have been the real goal of the guy from Indianapolis. A versatile system avoids allot of this. One just operates around trouble. I do not think that there is a band wide enuf to impliment 60 dB processing gain, for near 1 MB data rates. Also, somebody said a while ago, that the prevailing opinion is that for 600 dollars, 56 KB was not fast enuf. My guess is that for 1000, ten times 56 kb, or a little more, would be. Using QPSK for modulation, the 10 Ghz band is limited to 500 baud, or thereabouts, with 60 dB processing gain, right ? This would be great for weak signal work, but what about WMAN Ham networks? 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu From jeff@mich.com Sat Jul 13 22:17:38 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id WAA14841 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:17:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ufHgW-0002hMC; Sat, 13 Jul 96 23:17 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960714033131.006fa570@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:31:31 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: The 'WAVE' Has anyone on the list ever worked with some Part 15 equipment from a company out of Florida called "The Wave"? It appears to be ATT Wavelan 2.4ghz cards. I need to run some performance tests on a link next week using this gear, and was wondering if anyone had some hints on this specific model (Wavelan 2.4ghz). Any problems found with these boards would also welcomed. Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From ssampson@othello.tinker.af.mil Sun Jul 14 08:20:36 1996 Received: from othello.tinker.af.mil (othello.tinker.af.mil [137.240.38.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id IAA07665 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 08:20:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Cust9.Max4.Dallas.TX.MS.UU.NET by othello.tinker.af.mil (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA03180; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 08:20:26 -0500 Message-Id: <31E8F207.79A1@othello.tinker.af.mil> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 08:11:35 -0500 From: Steve Sampson Organization: TRW Space & Electronics Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Cc: postmaster@arrl.org Subject: Re: [SS:397] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... References: <199607132310.SAA06519@tapr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg Jones wrote: [book deleted] > P.S. As a side note to everyone reading this -- are you an ARRL member ? > Have you sent e-mail or called your ARRL Director and let him/her know you > are in favor of the league proposal on RM-8737. Do so! They really need to > hear from some of the people that think that the RM is a good thing, instead > of what they hear a lot of -- it is EVIL :-) As a mode, SS interested > amateurs are falling down on petitioning our local leadership within the > ARRL about the issue we are discussing here. Anyway .... As I read it, the ARRL membership is voting for standing still. They remind me of a deer in the road, confronted by a bright light. I believe they are taking the attitude of Codeless-1. That is, they are fat enough with money to sustain themselves and their PAC issues. The issue that caused Codeless-2 was the FCC chopped off some spectrum. The deer in the road moved an inch. Listening to the ARRL told us that the world was going to end if Codeless heathen were allowed licenses. We all bought that and replied Amen. Then when the FCC chopped off spectrum, we saw that the ARRL position was wrong. That this government agency has the power and will to reallocate spectrum of a dying or non-progressive user base, requires that we not make that mistake again. If the ARRL blocks SS, or limits it to a narrow segment, I think it will turn out to be another Codeless-1 fiasco. There are no sacred modes in my book. Those members who vote for standing in the road are just being selfish (I got my frequency--to hell with everyone else). I predict that we will still be using 1.2 kbps 10 years from now, and the ARRL will then be ready for Spread-Spectrum-2 after the FCC chops off all of UHF and above. I think the rules should read: No station shall transmit on any frequency for more than 500 ms, unless operating Spread Spectrum Direct Sequence. What that means is that all other transmissions will be Morse Code or Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum. This rule shall apply to all Part 97 band segments. Use of AM or FM is strictly forbidden (AM includes SSB, DSB, etc). That's my position. I think TAPR should produce a protocol paper on how this system would work. For next years scholorship competition, the candidate will write a thesis on the protocol and operating techniques for a spectrum allocation in which 90% of the users will operate in FH or DS (the rest supposedly working CW or jamming). -- Steve "Shall we Jump, or move an inch, we will probably be killed in any case." From jerryn@ici.net Sun Jul 14 16:12:04 1996 Received: from kirk.ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id QAA20933 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:12:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from innovative.tech.com (pmfr2ip24.ici.net [206.231.69.54]) by kirk.ici.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA27564 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Sender: root@kirk.ici.net Message-ID: <31E95D43.21A561BE@ici.net> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:49:07 -0400 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:400] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... References: <31E8F207.79A1@othello.tinker.af.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some mentioned: > > As I read it, the ARRL membership is voting for standing still. They > remind > me of a deer in the road, confronted by a bright light. I believe they > are > taking the attitude of Codeless-1. That is, they are fat enough with > money > to sustain themselves and their PAC issues. The issue that caused > Codeless-2 > was the FCC chopped off some spectrum. The deer in the road moved an > inch. > Listening to the ARRL told us that the world was going to end if > Codeless > heathen were allowed licenses. We all bought that and replied Amen. > Then > when the FCC chopped off spectrum, we saw that the ARRL position was > wrong. > That this government agency has the power and will to reallocate > spectrum of > a dying or non-progressive user base, requires that we not make that > mistake > again. If the ARRL blocks SS, or limits it to a narrow segment, I think > it > will turn out to be another Codeless-1 fiasco. There are no sacred > modes in > my book. Those members who vote for standing in the road are just being > selfish (I got my frequency--to hell with everyone else). I predict > that we > will still be using 1.2 kbps 10 years from now, and the ARRL will then > be > ready for Spread-Spectrum-2 after the FCC chops off all of UHF and > above. > > I think the rules should read: No station shall transmit on any > frequency for > more than 500 ms, unless operating Spread Spectrum Direct Sequence. > What that > means is that all other transmissions will be Morse Code or Frequency > Hopped > Spread Spectrum. This rule shall apply to all Part 97 band segments. > Use > of AM or FM is strictly forbidden (AM includes SSB, DSB, etc). That's > my > position. I think TAPR should produce a protocol paper on how this > system > would work. For next years scholorship competition, the candidate will > write > a thesis on the protocol and operating techniques for a spectrum > allocation > in which 90% of the users will operate in FH or DS (the rest supposedly > working CW or jamming). > > -- > Steve > "Shall we Jump, or move an inch, we will probably be killed in any > case." Well.... That's why I never bothered getting my ticket. In order to use the frequency I wanted I had to pass 150 words per minute on morse code.... imagine that. Sure it's nice to know morse code, it could help you if your in a bind, but also the person on the other end needs to know it as well. When you are in an emergency situation are you going to signal an airplane with a mirror at 150wpm? Hell no! You will send ... _ _ _ ... at 5wpm or slower! Anayway I have been experimenting with spread spectrum ever since I have graduated from college. I have 4 rf modems that are good at 19.2k baud. they work fine in the yard. I use the Linux operating system and a modified version of the AX.25 protocol. Now I would like to get a amplifier for them and have been reading up on the FCC rules... man even if I transmit at the legal 4 watts they limit your dB gain on your antennea. So I say, hell, go for it. Right now I am working on a high speed packet wireless connection to the net. I have an ISP interested now I need to find a backer. I'm going to set up a cell stucture and each cell will have one digipeater. Right now I just have three packet modems spread apart line of site in a straight line over a mile. (low power). I wish I had 5 of these so I can set up a cell. Anyway they are Proxim Spread Spectrum modules. I had to design a PC interface ... no bid deal. Anyway now I'm looking at the WavLAN cards for the next project. I would like to continue to use AX.25 protocol because 802.2 & 802.3 protocol will not detect data collision since wireless spread spectrum is half duplex. From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Mon Jul 15 12:06:38 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id MAA05865 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:06:19 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 11:16:10 UTC Message-Id: <10669@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:401] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... In-Reply-To: your message of Sun Jul 14 16:24:34 1996 <31E95D43.21A561BE@ici.net> Hi Jerry, I think u are overreacting. No country in the world requires a "150 words per mminute on morse code" operator proficientcy. The maximun the U.S. re- quires is 20 wpm, and u can use many HF frequencies with as little as 5 wpm, and all of the VHF/UHF/Microwave bands without any code proficientcy at all. Ham Radio is not all bad. We would not have this news group without it. True, some hams in positions to make technological developement on ham radio misreable, for any one who would dare it, are. Even the FCC has an anti- technological rules base , even tho in the first paragraph of those same rules, it says that the rules are suppose to foster technological development usage of the Ham Radio allocations. So, its not supprising, that some hams fall on the side of the "spirit" of the law, and others on the "letter" of the law. BTW, Isn t there a company in San Francisco area that is doing what ur are planning, already? 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Jul 15 13:56:12 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id NAA10518 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:56:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA11775; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:53:55 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1EA94750; Mon, 15 Jul 96 14:56:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:48:53 -0400 Message-Id: <1EA94750.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:400] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Steve, I agree with most of what you said, however one point needs to be addressed further: the fear that SS will cause widespread interference. Apparently, the ARRL has enough reservation about SS to put restrictions in place. I would like to hear from ANYONE who knows of ANY major SS interference test conducted, past or present. I firmly believe that without this type of data in hand, the hysteria over SS will continue. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:400] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/14/96 8:21 AM Greg Jones wrote: [book deleted] > P.S. As a side note to everyone reading this -- are you an ARRL member ? > Have you sent e-mail or called your ARRL Director and let him/her know you > are in favor of the league proposal on RM-8737. Do so! They really need to > hear from some of the people that think that the RM is a good thing, instead > of what they hear a lot of -- it is EVIL :-) As a mode, SS interested > amateurs are falling down on petitioning our local leadership within the > ARRL about the issue we are discussing here. Anyway .... As I read it, the ARRL membership is voting for standing still. They remind me of a deer in the road, confronted by a bright light. I believe they are taking the attitude of Codeless-1. That is, they are fat enough with money to sustain themselves and their PAC issues. The issue that caused Codeless-2 was the FCC chopped off some spectrum. The deer in the road moved an inch. Listening to the ARRL told us that the world was going to end if Codeless heathen were allowed licenses. We all bought that and replied Amen. Then when the FCC chopped off spectrum, we saw that the ARRL position was wrong. That this government agency has the power and will to reallocate spectrum of a dying or non-progressive user base, requires that we not make that mistake again. If the ARRL blocks SS, or limits it to a narrow segment, I think it will turn out to be another Codeless-1 fiasco. There are no sacred modes in my book. Those members who vote for standing in the road are just being selfish (I got my frequency--to hell with everyone else). I predict that we will still be using 1.2 kbps 10 years from now, and the ARRL will then be ready for Spread-Spectrum-2 after the FCC chops off all of UHF and above. I think the rules should read: No station shall transmit on any frequency for more than 500 ms, unless operating Spread Spectrum Direct Sequence. What that means is that all other transmissions will be Morse Code or Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum. This rule shall apply to all Part 97 band segments. Use of AM or FM is strictly forbidden (AM includes SSB, DSB, etc). That's my position. I think TAPR should produce a protocol paper on how this system would work. For next years scholorship competition, the candidate will write a thesis on the protocol and operating techniques for a spectrum allocation in which 90% of the users will operate in FH or DS (the rest supposedly working CW or jamming). -- Steve "Shall we Jump, or move an inch, we will probably be killed in any case." From buaas@wireless.wdc.net Mon Jul 15 17:24:42 1996 Received: from wireless.wdc.net (wireless.wdc.net [204.140.136.28]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id RAA20288 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:24:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ir.wdc.net (ir.wdc.net [198.147.74.35]) by wireless.wdc.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA13479 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:24:09 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:24:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199607152224.PAA13479@wireless.wdc.net> X-Sender: buaas@wireless.wdc.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: buaas@wireless.wdc.net (Robert A. Buaas) Subject: group purchase of WaveLAN 915 MHz cards ***LAST CALL*** If you're interested in purchasing any of these $200 cards, and you've sent me email and did not just receive an announcement from me, please email directly to me. I'm away from home and doing this by remote control. I must commit to quantity and payment tomorrow morning. Newcomers, email accepted. best regards/bob K6KGS From jerryn@ici.net Mon Jul 15 21:38:32 1996 Received: from kirk.ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA28925 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:38:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from innovative.tech.com (pmfr1ip19.ici.net [206.231.69.19]) by kirk.ici.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA24182 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Sender: root@kirk.ici.net Message-ID: <31EAFB9A.5F2B8617@ici.net> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:16:58 -0400 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:402] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... References: <10669@wb9mjn.ampr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org wrote: > > BTW, Isn t there a company in San Francisco area that is doing what ur are > planning, already? > > 73, Don. > > Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA > AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] > Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Maybe ... I am on the east coast. NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING A DSS NETWORK HERE! Anyway the contest is on to see who can write the best protocol for wireless. I am using my version of X.25. I use LZW compression on the Data packets and also have added packet types.... such as router table update information. It minimizes the "hops" the data takes. The "Router table" information packet gets transmitted to every station and gets updated on a regular interval. I am very surprised no one has router route table for wireless communications. Everyone ends up digipeating the packet without it. Oney the digipeaters in the path od the route are used. This reduces traffic big time. I am using my modified X.25 protocol because 802.2 and 802.3 can't detect packet collisions since the NECWaveLan cards are half duplex. Remember... I am not a mega huge company. I am starting this on the experimentation level as a hobbyist. When I went to College I took analog and digital design, programming I picked up on the job. Now I am combining all I learned in college and aon the job to pull this project off. I am using the Linux Operating system in the routers. Now I just need the money to pick up the amplifiers and the additional NECWavelan cards. Have the computers. Anyway I wish you guys luck. The ARRL doesn't figh enough to save spectrum. Man..... If we all get pissed aoff enough we can make a broad spectrum jammer to show the governemnt what we can do... Man the commercial frequencies are too expensive... If we can establish a wireless internet frequency allotment for hobbyists that will be cool.... almost like Packet... the Gnu Generation. The target for us is 2.4Ghz DSS , The NEC WaveLAN Cards I found so far go for about $695.00 , have you found any for less $$$ ?? From jerryn@ici.net Mon Jul 15 21:43:29 1996 Received: from kirk.ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA29039 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:43:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from innovative.tech.com (pmfr1ip19.ici.net [206.231.69.19]) by kirk.ici.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA24546 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:43:21 -0400 (EDT) Sender: root@kirk.ici.net Message-ID: <31EAFCC4.3DA73D72@ici.net> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:21:56 -0400 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:404] group purchase of WaveLAN 915 MHz cards References: <199607152224.PAA13479@wireless.wdc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert A. Buaas wrote: > > ***LAST CALL*** > > If you're interested in purchasing any of these $200 cards, > and you've sent me email and did not just receive an announcement > from me, please email directly to me. I'm away from home and > doing this by remote control. I must commit to quantity and > payment tomorrow morning. Newcomers, email accepted. > > best regards/bob K6KGS I am interested in a pair... need more info!!!!!!!!!!!! Need model # so I can check if it's compatible with Linux (My OS of Choice)! From Marcel.Z@lxe.nl Tue Jul 16 02:37:12 1996 Received: from sun4nl.NL.net (sun4nl.NL.net [193.78.240.12]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id CAA15844 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:37:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lxe.nl by sun4nl.NL.net with SMTP id AA11822 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:03:37 +0200 Received: by lxe.nl with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <01BB72F5.5CC810F0@lxe.nl>; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:01:23 +0200 Message-Id: From: Marcel van de Zande To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Subject: RE: 386] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:26:18 +0200 Return-Receipt-To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You could also try to use the PROXIM 2.4Ghz PCMCIA/ISA SS cards. they start at USD700 or so and will have a speed of 1.6Mbps! >---------- >From: Lee W. Fry[SMTP:lfry@mindspring.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 1996 10:27 PM >To: ss@tapr.org >Subject: [SS:386] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... > >At 10:42 AM 7/3/96 -0500, Glenn Elmore >wrote: >> >>I think there is the possibility of something interesting being built out >of >the commercial networking products that are being developed. > >There are interesting products at both the component and board/box >level. > >In December 93, W7SX (Robert Zavrel) gave a presentation to our company >club >on the potential application of the Plessy DE6003 2.4GHz SS tranciever >to an >amateur digital network at 625 Kbps. At the time he was an engineer at >Plessey in Scotts Valley. He had done his homework, but apparently >didn't >get enough interest to gain momentum. Looked real neat to me. 625Kbps >would make ISDN look sick. The DE6003 was just sampling at the time, >and I >don't know if it really became available. > >I know that there is much more out there, for example the 900 MHz >modules >that ALFA Inc. >offers. > >In March of 95 someone at Thorne EMI LPRS gave me some information on >a >RS-485 serial interface tranciever they have developed operating at >2.45GHz >and capable of up to 1Mbps. It conformed to European Standard ETS 300 >328. >Price was given as 488 UK pounds sterling (ex vat) in quantities 1 - >10. >Info can be found at Thorne >EMI > >With gain antennae these types of units could be good for several >kilometers >point-to-point. There is a possibility, if you get enough players, of >putting together a fairly high performance network across a regional >area. > >How about we get together some sort of survey of what's available out >there >in the commercial marketplace as chip sets, trancievers, and also >interesting R&D reports etc. and create a central set of pointers so >potentially interested people can get some inspiration? If someone >wants to >add it to their existing web page that's great, or maybe someone can >hang >something up at TAPR, or I'll even volunteer to try to put up something >on >my mindspring account. > >Any takers? > >Lee W. Fry >lfry@mindspring.com >AA0JP > > > From bad@uhf.wdc.net Tue Jul 16 06:21:33 1996 Received: from uhf.wdc.net (uhf.wdc.net [198.147.74.44]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id GAA21068 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 06:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA00835; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:406] Re: group purchase of WaveLAN 915 MHz cards In-Reply-To: <31EAFCC4.3DA73D72@ici.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > best regards/bob K6KGS > I am interested in a pair... need more info!!!!!!!!!!!! > Need model # so I can check if it's compatible with Linux (My OS of > Choice)! > I am just about to head out the door.. For whoever is interrested in these Wavelan cards, check out: http://www.wavelan.com. I found this to be the most descriptive (in terms of specifications). Bernie From bad@uhf.wdc.net Tue Jul 16 06:22:37 1996 Received: from uhf.wdc.net (uhf.wdc.net [198.147.74.44]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id GAA21100 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 06:22:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA00842; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:26:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Linux / wavelan In-Reply-To: <31EAFCC4.3DA73D72@ici.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > I am interested in a pair... need more info!!!!!!!!!!!! > Need model # so I can check if it's compatible with Linux (My OS of > Choice)! > Forgot to mention.. Late Linux kernels have direct support for Wavelan. Bernie From radiobit@bernia.dragonet.es Tue Jul 16 10:06:59 1996 Received: from bernia.dragonet.es (dragonet.es [194.179.92.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA00910 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:06:40 -0500 (CDT) From: radiobit@bernia.dragonet.es Received: from mail.dragonet.es ([194.179.92.66]) by bernia.dragonet.es (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA06169 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:05:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:05:00 +0200 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960716164535.2237e1e2@mail.dragonet.es> X-Sender: radiobit@mail.dragonet.es X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Subject: Atmel SS chips - Any one testing them ? Hi All, I have just being looking at ATMEL www page and found that they are producing some products aparently dedicated to SS applications. Have no idea about how all this SS technology really works so this is just a question to the *gurus* in order to know if this Atmel's chips are of any use for amateurs. All the products state as *Preliminary* and have no idea about pricing and delivery time (samples ?). You can get the full data sheet info from the www at: http://www.atmel.com then look for Products/Microcontrollers They have a very nice *Fax on demand* service I have used (abused). You give your fax number and select up to five products. Then they fax you the requested data sheets. It took nearly one hour to receive the complete data sheets of the selected SS products. Load your fax with a new paper roll ! The SS products are: AT48801 - 8 bit Spread Spectrum Microcontroller Apparently this is a *standard* 87C52/16MHz CPU. No idea why they call it SS Microcontroller (?) AT48802 - Spread Spectrum Signal Processor Integrated Circuit Reading the data seems like the chip is oriented to SS cordless telephone applications. Interfaces to a 8051 family CPU AT48810 - 900MHz Spread Spectrum Module 1mW Narrowband Operation, or 1 and 50mW Spread-Spectrum Operation So what can one do with this (specially AT48802) ?. Can it be an experimenting platform for amateurs or this is just a waste of time/money ? 73s de Luis, EA5DOM From ronen@netmanage.co.il Tue Jul 16 11:52:28 1996 Received: from nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il (nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il [194.90.33.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id LAA08818 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:52:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ronen.netmanage.co.il (ronen.netmanage.co.il [194.90.33.36]) by nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA02405; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:53:54 +0300 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 19:47:15 PDT From: Ronen Pinchook Subject: Wireless Lan card question To: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: Chameleon - TCP/IP for Windows by NetManage, Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello all I'm new in this group I saw a forwarded message few days ago talking on a 900 MHZ wireless lan that someone use , My question is as follows , 1)can it be used with JNOS software and 2) if I want to use this station as a router (i.e pass one network from one place (via radio) to other Place (again via radio ) ) can it be done with only one card or I need to put two cards ??? Please Advice Ronen - 4Z4ZQ From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Fri Jul 19 13:55:20 1996 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org [44.135.96.100]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id NAA13417 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:55:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01898 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:59:20 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199607191859.SAA01898@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: Amateur SS Outside of NA? To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:59:20 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text I'm interested in finding out whether any forms of spread spectrum experimentation in the amateur bands are permitted in countries other than the US and Canada. If so, I'd like to get some details about the rules and regulations involved, and about any experimental work actually taking place. I'd also like to hear comments about the prospects for amateur radio SS in other countries, and about any initiatives taking place towards obtaining the necessary permission. Please reply to bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org, and cc the list if you think your comments may be of general interest. This info is being sought for a paper I'm working on... Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | Web: http://hydra.carleton.ca From lapid@netvision.net.il Sat Jul 20 15:29:37 1996 Received: from nvsgi1.netvision.net.il (nvsgi1.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.31]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id PAA07823 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:29:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dialup.netvision.net.il (ts005p2.pop4a.netvision.net.il [194.90.3.94]) by nvsgi1.netvision.net.il (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA18065 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:28:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 23:12:24 PDT From: "Peleg L. Lapid" Subject: RE: [SS:412] Amateur SS Outside of NA? To: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: Chameleon V0.05, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello Barry The administration in Israel do not see any reason to go into the way you modulate your signals, as long as you are within the band, do not cause interference in the band, and the communication is within what is allowed to Radio Amateurs. The administration agrees on any kind of experimentation, but eventually askes the Radio Amateurs to comply with IARU region I Band Plan. As much as I know we have SS experiments only in the 2300-2450 MHz. band and it is done by me. 73 Peleg 4X1GP ------------------------------------- Name: Peleg L. Lapid E-mail: lapid@Netvision.net.il lapid@tx.technion.ac.il 4x1gp@4x4ac.ampr.org Date: 07/20/96 Time: 23:12:24 ------------------------------------- From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Jul 23 22:31:38 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id WAA09605; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:31:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607240331.WAA09605@tapr.org> Subject: SS Comments from AMRAD To: ss@tapr.org (Spread Spectrum) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:31:36 -0500 (CDT) Cc: 70323.2750@compuserve.com (Bill Tynan), clark@tomcat.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Clark) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text The following is an article which appeared in the May-June 1996 issue of the AMRAD Newsletter. Submitted by: Andre Kesteloot N4ICK I'll be putting this up on the TAPR SS Web Pages Shortly http://www.tapr.org/ss Cheers - Greg ---- Spread Spectrum Update by Andre Kesteloot N4ICK Spread-Spectrum continues to be a source of lively technical discussions at the AMRAD Taco meetings (every Saturday lunch, see the back of this Newsletter for details) but this time, I would like to reprint portions of written communications by two non-Taco attendees. On March 11, 1996, Bill Tynan W3XO submitted his comments to the FCC, and you will find below what I consider the most relevant technical passages. [...] I (writes Bill Tynan) have major reservations concerning the Petition for Rule Making filed by the American Radio Relay League last December. Although I am in favor of developing new technology in the Amateur and Amateur Satellite bands, including Spread Spectrum (SS) techniques, I am concerned that SS's widespread use, with no frequency restrictions, will cause major interference to satellite operation as well as to weak signal terrestrial and EME work. Therefore, I strongly suggest that any relaxation of the spread spectrum rules that the Commission may decide upon, should be accompanied by restrictions limiting it to specific frequency segments within the Amateur and Amateur Satellite bands. Otherwise, it has the potential to make reception of the relatively weak signals from amateur satellites, distant terrestrial stations and signals reflected from the Moon, all but impossible in many parts of the country, particularly in urban areas. In support of this contention, I cite both calculations made relative to potential SS signal levels and the ARRL's own statements with regard to potential interference which Spread Spectrum might cause. To obtain a measure of the possible interference that could result from only a single spread spectrum station, the following parameters are assumed: Spread spectrum station with an effective power of 100 W ERP = +20 dBW If spread over 10 MHz ( -50 dBW / Hz Free-space attenuation at 20 km from the spread spectrum station in the 70 cm (420 - 450 MHz) band = -110 dB Spread spectrum signal at 20 km = -160 dBW / Hz A receiver with a 1 dB NF (common in satellite & weak signal work) = -210 dBW / Hz This results in the spread spectrum signal causing as much as a 50 dB increase in the noise floor existing without it. Even if the SS station has a power of only 1 Watt ERP (20 dB less), the noise floor would still be as much as 30 dB higher because of its presence. Similar calculations for other distances can also be done. For example, the spread spectrum signal would be 20 dB stronger at a 2 km distance. As another example, a 100 Watt transmitter and 10 dB gain antenna could create 10 dB more interference. Obviously, if the spread spectrum station is in close proximity to the satellite, terrestrial weak signal or EME, station, the degradation from the spread spectrum station's operation would be much greater. The effect of automatic power control for SS stations using transmitters over 1 Watt is difficult to assess, but one can envision situations in which interference from other SS stations, as well as non-SS stations, might cause the SS station(s) to increase their power in order to retain the desired signal to noise ratio. In such a case, power control would do nothing to alleviate interference for other users of the band. It might be said that antenna directivity would provide protection. I believe that, with increases in noise floor as great as these cited above, antenna directivity will not help much. If the increases were in the order of 5 to 10 dB antenna directivity might be of some benefit, but not for the cases noted. The reason for this is that few amateur satellite ground stations, or even terrestrial weak signal operators, have antennas with side lobes down 30 dB. I am not sure that even EME operators have antennas that good. In addition, there are many instances in which antennas being used to receive amateur satellites, or signals reflected from the Moon are pointed, near the horizon rather than being elevated. For example, LEO satellites are typically below 10 degrees elevation approximately half the time during which they are within range of a given location. Of course, antennas for terrestrial work are always pointed at the horizon. In these cases, there is no improvement from using directive antennas if an interfering spread spectrum station happens to be in the same direction as the desired satellite, terrestrial station; or even the Moon. The received signal strength for EME stations on 70 cm is in the order of -150 dBm, many times even less. Obviously, because of such extremely low received signal strengths, ANY increase in noise floor would be sufficient to render successful EME work impossible. Therefore, significant use of SS, which might include 432 MHz would probably spell the death knell for EME as a viable mode on that band. [...] I believe that spread spectrum operation should be encouraged. I think that it will eventually prove to be a valuable mode for both terrestrial and satellite applications, and maybe even EME. However, I believe that it should be restricted to certain frequency segments so as to offer minimal interference to other modes, while still allowing experimentation. The Commission has done this in other amateur rules. For example, voice operation is limited to certain segments in the HF and VHF amateur bands. Unattended digital operation is restricted to certain small segments in the HF bands and unattended beacons are limited to specific segments on 10 meters through 70 cm. To alleviate the kinds of interference cited, I believe that spread spectrum should not be allowed below 450 MHz. I know that the current rules allow it in the 420 - 450 MHz band, It may be argued that this proves that spread spectrum poses no threat to other types of operation, since no reports of interference have been registered in the ten years since it was authorized. However, the ARRL admits in their Petition that SS operation has not been widespread. This is probably an understatement. I am not aware of the results of any SS operation. None were reported to me when I was writing The World Above 50 MHz and no papers on amateur SS experiments have been given at AMSAT's annual Space Symposiums. Specifically, I know of no reports of tests showing the potential interference to other modes of operation including weak signal modes, by SS operation even though SS operation has supposedly been taking place since 1985. I would like to see spread spectrum develop and become a major factor in Amateur Radio, especially on the microwave bands. But, I do not think it should be allowed to do so to the detriment of other modes of operation. It has not been demonstrated that it won't. In order to allow it to fulfill its potential and still protect these other types of operation, I believe that spread spectrum should be authorized only in certain band segments beginning in the 33 cm (902 - 928 MHz) band. Specifically it should be placed in segments that provide protection for weak signal terrestrial and EME operation which occur in fairly narrow segments at 432, 902, 1296, 2304, 3456, 5760 and 10,368 MHz. Such an approach will also protect amateur satellite operation in the 435 - 438 MHz band. It might be possible to allow SS in the 1260 - 1270 MHz (uplink only) and 2400 - 2450 MHz satellite bands, but that should be studied prior to doing so. Certainly, SS should be allowed in some satellite bands, as it will probably prove useful for satellite work in the future. Possibly restricting it in the lower 5 or 10 MHz portion of the 2400 - 2450 MHz band, but permitting it in the upper portion, would protect existing, and near-term future, amateur satellite operation and still permit the use of Spread Spectrum with satellites designed for it in the years to come. - - - - - I brought the above comments by Bill Tynan to the attention of Alan Eynon N3IRL who, on 13 May 1996, offered the following observations: Hi Andre, Thanks for forwarding Bill's comments. I found them well-reasoned and thoughtful, and it is certainly a relief to read a discussion about spectrum allocation that crosses the "this is mine and you can't have it" threshold and actually goes on to concrete proposals about sharing the resource. I won't argue with Bill's numbers, but I don't believe their application corresponds to how those of us who design spread systems actually intend to use them. In short, I don't think his receiver is going to see us. Here's why: I prefer to work backwards from Bill's numbers. Let us assume that I, too, have a receiver with a noise floor of -210 dBW / Hz over a 10 MHz reception bandwidth. Let us assume the main lobe of my spread signal fills the 10 MHz. That is a 5 Mchip/sec signal. So far, this is straight from what Bill said. I am going to assume that I can get 30 dB processing gain from that 5 Mchip / sec signal, so I'm either operating at 5 kbps BPSK, or 10 kbps QPSK. I can normally demodulate a BPSK signal and get a decent bit error rate at an output (de-spread) SNR of 15 dB. This gives me a processing margin of (30-15) = 15 dB In other words, my signal can be 15 dB below the noise floor of my receiver, and I'll still get enough de-spread SNR for good BER performance. That's a received signal of -225 dBW / Hz. Assuming the same path loss at 20 km (-110 dB), that means my transmitter power density is -115 dBW / Hz. The signal is spread over 10 MHz (70 dBHz), so my transmitter EIRP must be -45 dBW, or about 32 (W. If I have done the math right, that's where I would be operating, at a level that won't even break the noise floor of Bill's receiver. In fact, that 15 dB processing margin equates to a factor of roughly 30 in signal power, and since signal power is inversely related to the square of the distance, his station can be over 5 times closer (no more than 4 km away), and my spread signal still won't interfere with his receiver. Alternately, there could be 30 of us on the same 10 MHz band, all 20 km from Bill, and he won't detect our presence. Even in the Baltimore / Washington area, I can't imagine there will be enough hams doing SS to cause grief. Rather than allocating discrete portions of spectrum for spread operations, wouldn't it be better to open all bands above HF to SS, but as a secondary user on a not-to-interfere basis? Certainly the FCC could set power levels, spreading rates, and suitably long sequences (to provide adequate spectral content for the signal, viz.: it wouldn't make sense to use a 15 chip spreading sequence at 5 Mchip/sec, since the spread carrier tones would then be 333 KHz apart) to satisfy even the most discriminating EME and weak signal enthusiasts. And this would also give them access to all the bands, instead of (potentially) blocking portions with needlessly powerful SS transmissions. I encourage further discussion on how both user communities can share the entire spectrum. Alan N3IRL From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Jul 23 22:58:44 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id WAA10530 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:58:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607240358.WAA10530@tapr.org> Subject: Re: SS Comments from AMRAD To: ss@tapr.org (Spread Spectrum) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:58:43 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199607240331.WAA09605@tapr.org> from "Greg Jones" at Jul 23, 96 10:53:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Just in case you didn't see it -- the message from Andre had new content at the end :-) Check it out -- Alan Eynon takes a shot at disproving Bill Tynan numbers in his RM-8737 reply comments. Cheers - Greg From kevin_williams@eee.org Tue Jul 23 23:18:06 1996 Received: from omail.eee.org (omail.eee.org [163.150.1.3]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id XAA10993 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:18:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199607240418.XAA10993@tapr.org> Received: from REDSKIN (vvuser10.eee.org) by omail.eee.org with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA163721777; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:16:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:16:17 -0700 X-Sender: ke314256@omail.eee.org 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: Kevin Williams Subject: WaveLAN 915 MHz cards received To all who ordered the cards through Bob they are on there way. I received my order today, and now have 2 computers networked using the cards. As a test I transfered 11MB. It took 5 1/2 minutes. Bob, thank you for taking the time to put together the group purchase. I am looking forward to hearing more success stories. 73 and good luck Kevin -- Kevin Williams KN6UO Internet - kevin_williams@eee.org AX25 - KN6UO@KE6TXE.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM From ssampson@othello.tinker.af.mil Wed Jul 24 04:59:58 1996 Received: from othello.tinker.af.mil (othello.tinker.af.mil [137.240.38.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id EAA25890 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:59:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Cust62.Max4.Dallas.TX.MS.UU.NET by othello.tinker.af.mil (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA15130; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:59:53 -0500 Message-Id: <31060EAE.1C35@othello.tinker.af.mil> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 04:49:18 -0600 From: Steve Sampson Organization: TRW Space & Electronics Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:414] SS Comments from AMRAD References: <199607240331.WAA09605@tapr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > [...] I (writes Bill Tynan) have major reservations concerning the > Petition for Rule Making filed by the American Radio Relay League last > December. Although I am in favor of developing new technology in the Amateur > and Amateur Satellite bands, including Spread Spectrum (SS) techniques, I am > concerned that SS's widespread use, with no frequency restrictions, will > cause major interference to satellite operation as well as to weak signal > terrestrial and EME work. Oh dear. I often wonder how many people really work EME? Probably about 1% of the licensee's (is that too large an estimate?). So on that account, the other 99% should be relegated to secondary status. While the response letter was written well, its major thesis is that "1930's technology should outweigh any 1990's technology in spectrum management." I've been a Republican all my life, so I've never really had the motivation that drives people to regulation and law writing which places the federal over the local. Do we really want to be "allowed" to do this or that, or do we want to have fun? The rules should be written to err on the side of experimentation. The rules should say "here's the limits of the spectrum, here's the international rules we have treaties to abide, but inside that space you can do whatever you want." The anti-thesis of that, is to specify in tiny print and wonderous volume, the top down federally mandated rules that allow you to do nothing really (what we have now). Let's be serious. Should the part-97 rules be written to the lead child level, or should they be written for the local user. If Nebraska has zero EME enthusiasts, should it be federally restricted to any mode, just because some schmuck in Florida likes that mode? If there are no Satellites in Alaska, should the rules prevent using the frequencies for something else locally? Steve, N5OWK "Local over Federal" From ssampson@othello.tinker.af.mil Thu Jul 25 07:42:35 1996 Received: from othello.tinker.af.mil (othello.tinker.af.mil [137.240.38.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id HAA07729 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 07:42:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Cust26.Max4.Dallas.TX.MS.UU.NET by othello.tinker.af.mil (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA12232; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 07:06:21 -0500 Message-Id: <31077DB3.36E7@othello.tinker.af.mil> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 06:55:15 -0600 From: Steve Sampson Organization: TRW Space & Electronics Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: ARRL reasoning Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's just a guess on my part, but the reason I don't think there'll be SS on UHF and below, is that the ARRL is trying to become the national frequency coordinator. If you need a frequency to put up a repeater, you will go to the ARRL first (non-members need not apply). Given this role, it would be pretty dumb to shoot yourself in the foot by allowing SS in these allocations. Best to relegate that mode to microwave. The .001 percent chance that a Ham operating SS will trigger the (30's technology) repeater, would produce the same response as someone using anothers credit card without previous approval. Once you know where the ARRL is headed (low technology), you can better understand the position they are taking. There's big money in being the national frequency coordinator. Better than that, there's power. Again, you can see where local coordination is much to be desired over federal coordination. If you are a PAC and give plenty of money to the right Congressperson, then the reward is power. But what kind of power is this? It might have been potent 20 years ago, today being a repeater frequency coordinator, is like being a policeman who stands in an intersection and controls traffic. Wouldn't it be better to just increase technology and automate it? Now I agree you can go to far! Witness these "intelligent" signals that have ruined our lives. I remember the days you could drive from 12 Mile Corner to downtown Portland and never get stopped by a light. They were all synchronized! Much like spread spectrum. Hey! Synchronicity(sp?)... Steve, N5OWK "Socialism is just plain evil" - The Tick From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Thu Jul 25 08:39:20 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id IAA09722 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:39:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA30968; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:29:26 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1F775380; Thu, 25 Jul 96 09:23:04 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:40:26 -0400 Message-Id: <1F775380.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:417] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Steve, I like your style!! 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:417] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/24/96 5:14 AM > [...] I (writes Bill Tynan) have major reservations concerning the > Petition for Rule Making filed by the American Radio Relay League last > December. Although I am in favor of developing new technology in the Amateur > and Amateur Satellite bands, including Spread Spectrum (SS) techniques, I am > concerned that SS's widespread use, with no frequency restrictions, will > cause major interference to satellite operation as well as to weak signal > terrestrial and EME work. Oh dear. I often wonder how many people really work EME? Probably about 1% of the licensee's (is that too large an estimate?). So on that account, the other 99% should be relegated to secondary status. While the response letter was written well, its major thesis is that "1930's technology should outweigh any 1990's technology in spectrum management." I've been a Republican all my life, so I've never really had the motivation that drives people to regulation and law writing which places the federal over the local. Do we really want to be "allowed" to do this or that, or do we want to have fun? The rules should be written to err on the side of experimentation. The rules should say "here's the limits of the spectrum, here's the international rules we have treaties to abide, but inside that space you can do whatever you want." The anti-thesis of that, is to specify in tiny print and wonderous volume, the top down federally mandated rules that allow you to do nothing really (what we have now). Let's be serious. Should the part-97 rules be written to the lead child level, or should they be written for the local user. If Nebraska has zero EME enthusiasts, should it be federally restricted to any mode, just because some schmuck in Florida likes that mode? If there are no Satellites in Alaska, should the rules prevent using the frequencies for something else locally? Steve, N5OWK "Local over Federal" From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Thu Jul 25 08:39:37 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id IAA09739 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:39:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA22616; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:29:24 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1F775340; Thu, 25 Jul 96 09:23:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:32:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1F775340.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:414] SS Comments from AMRAD To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part I still haven't been convinced that SS will become a major form of interference among the amateur community. SS has been used by the military and NASA for years and to the best of my knowledge, no interference has been recorded. Also, how many hams will actually use SS anyway? The only people I hear talk about it are the homebrew types. I think to really put this issue to rest, a major test should be conducted using all possible situations that interference could occur. I would like to do a limited test in my area (Orlando, FL), but first I need to construct a SS transmitter! 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:414] SS Comments from AMRAD Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/23/96 10:45 PM Hi Andre, Thanks for forwarding Bill's comments. I found them well-reasoned and thoughtful, and it is certainly a relief to read a discussion about spectrum allocation that crosses the "this is mine and you can't have it" threshold and actually goes on to concrete proposals about sharing the resource. I won't argue with Bill's numbers, but I don't believe their application corresponds to how those of us who design spread systems actually intend to use them. In short, I don't think his receiver is going to see us. Here's why: I prefer to work backwards from Bill's numbers. Let us assume that I, too, have a receiver with a noise floor of -210 dBW / Hz over a 10 MHz reception bandwidth. Let us assume the main lobe of my spread signal fills the 10 MHz. That is a 5 Mchip/sec signal. So far, this is straight from what Bill said. I am going to assume that I can get 30 dB processing gain from that 5 Mchip / sec signal, so I'm either operating at 5 kbps BPSK, or 10 kbps QPSK. I can normally demodulate a BPSK signal and get a decent bit error rate at an output (de-spread) SNR of 15 dB. This gives me a processing margin of (30-15) = 15 dB In other words, my signal can be 15 dB below the noise floor of my receiver, and I'll still get enough de-spread SNR for good BER performance. That's a received signal of -225 dBW / Hz. Assuming the same path loss at 20 km (-110 dB), that means my transmitter power density is -115 dBW / Hz. The signal is spread over 10 MHz (70 dBHz), so my transmitter EIRP must be -45 dBW, or about 32 (W. If I have done the math right, that's where I would be operating, at a level that won't even break the noise floor of Bill's receiver. In fact, that 15 dB processing margin equates to a factor of roughly 30 in signal power, and since signal power is inversely related to the square of the distance, his station can be over 5 times closer (no more than 4 km away), and my spread signal still won't interfere with his receiver. Alternately, there could be 30 of us on the same 10 MHz band, all 20 km from Bill, and he won't detect our presence. Even in the Baltimore / Washington area, I can't imagine there will be enough hams doing SS to cause grief. Rather than allocating discrete portions of spectrum for spread operations, wouldn't it be better to open all bands above HF to SS, but as a secondary user on a not-to-interfere basis? Certainly the FCC could set power levels, spreading rates, and suitably long sequences (to provide adequate spectral content for the signal, viz.: it wouldn't make sense to use a 15 chip spreading sequence at 5 Mchip/sec, since the spread carrier tones would then be 333 KHz apart) to satisfy even the most discriminating EME and weak signal enthusiasts. And this would also give them access to all the bands, instead of (potentially) blocking portions with needlessly powerful SS transmissions. I encourage further discussion on how both user communities can share the entire spectrum. Alan N3IRL From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Thu Jul 25 09:08:33 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id JAA10668 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:07:49 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 08:08:48 UTC Message-Id: <10725@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: [SS:414] SS Comments from AMRAD Hi, At quick reading, i find flaws in both the W3XO and N4ICK(AMRAD) comments. First, W3XO puts the SS transmitter at 20 km away. Then the AMRAD comments take advantage of this. The SS transmitter could be next door. But, lets make it 1 KM away , for arguements sake. The closest Ham qth to my QTH is about 1 KM from here. Next, the 110 db path loss was used by W3XO to increase the apparent SS noise floor, and by the AMRAD guys to reduce it. Hi. Hi. Hi.:-). So, there is apparently something wrong with that 110 dB path loss for 20 km. The problem with it is that there is no Fresnel Loss. This is free space loss. In terrestrial application, on 440, we need to add about 20 dB to this figure. A proper way to judge this problem would be to have the SS transmitter 1 km away from the Satellite/EME station, and for the path loss to the intended DSSS receiption station at 20 km (12.8 miles) be 130 dB. And advantage of Microwaves, is that its much easier to get Fresnel clearance paths. In which instead of a 20 dB Fresnel loss, the path has a 6 dB Fresnel gain! Or a difference of 26 dB (factor of 40) in required power/signal band- width!!!! 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu From ATVQ@aol.com Thu Jul 25 09:48:28 1996 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id JAA12383 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:48:26 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02883 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:47:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:47:50 -0400 Message-ID: <960725104749_245418952@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:418] Re: ARRL reasoning ARRL has had more secret meetings with NBFM coordinators...lots of luck folks...time to take up internet surfing ont he twisted pair. From jeff@mich.com Thu Jul 25 20:24:33 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA14836 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 20:24:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ujbdm-0002cPC; Thu, 25 Jul 96 21:24 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960726013905.0070a4b8@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:39:05 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: RE: SS Comments from AMRAD At 09:24 AM 7/25/96 -0500, Don wrote: > > Hi, > > At quick reading, i find flaws in both the W3XO and N4ICK(AMRAD) comments. > > First, W3XO puts the SS transmitter at 20 km away. Then the AMRAD comments >take advantage of this. > SNIP > > The problem with it is that there is no Fresnel Loss. This is free space loss. >In terrestrial application, on 440, we need to add about 20 dB to this figure. > The other flaw, at least for EME and Satellite stations, is they are assuming a line of site path. How many (sane) amateurs put a EME or OSCAR array on top of a 100 foot tower? It offers no advantage in this application, just raises the EME/Sat ops noise floor (non SS noise that is). Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From jeff@mich.com Thu Jul 25 20:26:55 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA14869 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 20:26:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ujbg8-0002cKC; Thu, 25 Jul 96 21:26 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960726014130.00709adc@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:41:30 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:422] Re: ARRL reasoning At 10:03 AM 7/25/96 -0500, ATVQ@aol.com wrote: >ARRL has had more secret meetings with NBFM coordinators...lots of luck >folks...time to take up internet surfing ont he twisted pair. > First, take some time to write your congressman. Most of them have E-mail addresses. Look on http://www.house.gov I don't disagree with your opinion, I do disagree (at this point) with your conclusion. Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Jul 26 05:30:46 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id FAA08626 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:30:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA14481 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:30:05 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA001366811; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:26:51 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 11:27:17 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1F7C79C0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Subject: Re: [HFSIG:1385] This is more SS related Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org I wrote: > I'm actually in favour of SS, but only where appropriate, ie above > 2GHz, in exclusive SS bands maybe 10 to 100MHz wide, in a celular > style high speed random access HAM-LAN digital network. I think you > would find a lot of support for this, inspiring enthusiastic > developemnt, but on HF you'll always be swimming against the current, > fighting a loosing battle, where either you or ham radio in general > must loose. Tony wrote: > The only arguement I can find valid for having SS in the upper bands > (UHF+) is for a wider spread bandwidth. I STILL haven't heard a valid > arguement AGAINST SS only that so many people think that SS will > "raise the noise floor." If every ham will use SS, maybe, but I > contend this will never happen. I estimate the number of hams using > this modulation scheme might grow to possibly 10%. And that's being > liberal with the figures. Its the near-far problem. The problem of what happens when they guy down the road trys to work someone at a distance much greater than the seperation between him and you. The local interference swamps the DX wipes out all the advantages of processing gain, since it must all be used to overcome your neighbours transmission. However there are solutions. A celular network structure works very well, and is ideal for a HAM-LAN network. In this case nobody listens on the transmit band except the hub stations. The hubs control the power of the connected stations and thus cures the near-far problem. Nobody communicates further than the nearest hub, and allows the hub to act as a repeater to enable long distance contacts. You only listen to the nearest hub so near-far is not a problem in that direction either. Massive processing gain will help and several ways. This is why you need enormous bandwidths. 10-100MHz is really needed, giving around 40 dB of processing gain. This allows you to use more power without upsetting your SS/narrow band neighours. 1mW at 1km would be acceptable, and useable provided there are no higher power narrow band users. A 1 watt narrow band station (or ss station) would kill your contact. An exclusive SS allocation is essential. Directional antennas and well controlled propagation are nessesary, only going to the intended station, no further and no wider. Hence the need for the high gain antennas of the microwave bands. Directional antennas would probably be mandatory for simplex contacts. The TX should use the TX band in a celular system and the RX must null local interference from local celular TXs with high gain antennas. The simplex TX should be a good distance from the local hub or use a directional antenna and or hub controlled power to ensure the hub does not get too much interference. This makes the simplex operators the only people to suffer interference and gives them the ability to overcome it. CQ's could go through the network. This is what I believe is nessesary for SS to work (on a large scale) in an amateur enviroment, and this is only possible above 2GHz. Of course a few experimental SS stations on lower bands, taking great care not to cause interference, would be acceptable, but you would have to be very carefull not to use DX frequencies (to the extend of notching your output). Repeater input frequencies are probably a good bet (nobody listens to DX on repeater inputs! - except repeaters which are miles away), just notch the frequency of the local repeater if there is a chance there might be interference. Thats easy to monitor. A notch on the RX side will also be usefull to oviod problems with local 1 Watt repeater users interfering with your RX. > Lets encourage SS experimentation, and IF > interference occurs, THEN lets do something about it. Only until we > have conclusive interference tests will this issue be put to rest. I agree, although there are simple things we can do now to prevent SS getting a bad name. We dont want to prove the opponents 'right' (in their eyes) through by not taking simple precautions. Best of luck with your experimentation. Rob, G0VTQ From lfry@mindspring.com Fri Jul 26 09:50:29 1996 Received: from answerman.mindspring.com (answerman.mindspring.com [204.180.128.8]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id JAA17185 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:50:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lfry.mindspring.com (user-168-121-136-107.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.136.107]) by answerman.mindspring.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10012; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:50:23 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960726145104.0070a340@mindspring.com> X-Sender: lfry@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:51:04 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Lee W. Fry" Subject: Part 15 Devices Web Page Cc: rw@txcc.net Earlier in [SS:386] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... I wrote: >How about we get together some sort of survey of what's available out there >in the commercial marketplace as chip sets, trancievers, and also >interesting R&D reports etc. and create a central set of pointers so >potentially interested people can get some inspiration? If someone wants to >add it to their existing web page that's great, or maybe someone can hang >something up at TAPR, or I'll even volunteer to try to put up something on >my mindspring account. So here's a start. Its at http://www.mindspring.com/~lfry/part15.htm I wanted to get this up to see if there is any interest. I'll be adding more over the next few days and weeks as I get caught up with all my various notes and chase down all the references I can find. My intent is to be only a jump away from "real" information, rather than just being pointed to the top of some site where you can only start to search. If you have any inputs, corrections, or comments e-mail them. Enjoy. Lee W. Fry AA0JP lfry@mindspring.com From dsp@nbn.net Fri Jul 26 10:12:18 1996 Received: from users.nbn.net (root@nbn.net [199.234.116.15]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA17976 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:12:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dsp (access20.nbn.net [199.234.116.119]) by users.nbn.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA12635 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:06:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:06:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199607261506.LAA12635@users.nbn.net> X-Sender: dsp@nbn.net 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: Steve Dove Subject: Re: [SS:423] RE: SS Comments from AMRAD > >The other flaw, at least for EME and Satellite stations, is they are assuming >a line of site path. How many (sane) amateurs put a EME or OSCAR array on >top of a 100 foot tower? It offers no advantage in this application, just raises >the EME/Sat ops noise floor (non SS noise that is). > Hi Jeff, Not really true. I have to, just to clear 80/90 foot trees and am simply creative about where the amps/preamps live. There are plenty of others who do similar even though none of us really want to, sanity or otherwise notwithstanding; I'd rather have my 3 ele 40m beam back up there, thank you. The horizon (or close to it) is where the better dx possibilities lie and, as I believe someone has previously mentioned, is where satellites (leo or Molniya) spend most of their visibility. Similarly, many big-time EME'ers have big towers to gain better horizons; their more interesting opportunities occur there, too. Obviously these horizon conditions equate to a terrestrial line-of-path to somewhere. Like many I have a foot in both the weak-signal and SS camps and am getting a bit fed up of being made out to be the fount of all evil; either a reactionary Luddite or inconsiderate propellor-head, and on occasion both. Anecdotal, inferred from the military, third hand and paper proofs on estimations of compatibility or otherwise simply don't cut it; until hard data are available from tests performed to the satisfaction of all interested parties, the divisiveness will grow and fester, the polarisation become total. There is the looming danger that the SS community could do a grand job of completely alienating the elements of the hambone community - the kindred tinkerers / envelope-pushers / doers / thinkers - that should be among their greatest supporters, all without even turning a SS radio on! Probably the most constructive thing that should be under discussion here presently is the definition of the scope and parameters and logistics of such a test or tests. 73 Steve NM2Y / G3YDV From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Fri Jul 26 12:37:06 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id MAA24179 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:37:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA20215; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1F9026F0; Fri, 26 Jul 96 13:37:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:32:33 -0400 Message-Id: <1F9026F0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Comments on SS To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >Like many I have a foot in both the weak-signal and SS camps and am >getting a bit fed up of being made out to be the fount of all evil; either >a reactionary Luddite or inconsiderate propellor-head, and on occasion >both. I'm about fed up with the raising the noise floor crap. Unless we have a massive pileup of SS users, this can never happen. And I don't hear that many hams discussing SS. >Anecdotal, inferred from the military, third hand and paper proofs on >estimations of compatibility or otherwise simply don't cut it; until hard >data are available from tests performed to the satisfaction of all >interested parties, the divisiveness will grow and fester, the polarisation >become total. There is the looming danger that the SS community could do a >grand job of completely alienating the elements of the hambone community - >the kindred tinkerers / envelope-pushers / doers / thinkers - that should >be among their greatest supporters, all without even turning a SS radio on! I agree: the best way to put this issue to rest is to conduct a massive series of tests, in all frequency bands, in all possible (practical) situations. What do I mean by practical? Well, transmitting SS near a repeater for one thing. The distance wouldn't have to be no more than a few hundred feet (or less if you really want to be sure). Next, transmitt near an EME station, during a DX pileup, etc. Again, the same distance can be used. All that would be required is a simple SS transmitter transmitting a simple test pattern (CQ CQ CQ de KE4ATO ...). Of course, we need a spectrum analysizer for this to look at the different signals on the bands and have cooperation from a large group of hams in different areas of the country. I can't think of anything else we can do. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Jul 26 12:48:37 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id MAA24684 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:48:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA07898 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:48:03 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA210283088; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:44:48 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 18:45:12 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1F775380.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Subject: [SS:419] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org Steve writes: > Oh dear. I often wonder how many people really work EME? Probably > about 1% of the licensee's (is that too large an estimate?). So on > that account, the other 99% should be relegated to secondary status. Tony writes: > Steve, > > I like your style!! Dangerous teritory here. 90% of 2m/70cm users use FM repeaters. Does that mean the majority should rule, and the band should be filled with repeaters, and no-one else should be alowed to do anything more exciting than chatter on handhelds? How many people work SS, what was that about secondary status? This is amateur radio, not a lynch mod. You have as much right to work EME as anyone else. Would you give that right up? We must find a cooperative solution, not just cast aside anyone that doesn't agree with us. Rob From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Jul 26 14:14:17 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id OAA29998 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:14:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA11409 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:13:42 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA237448226; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:10:26 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 20:10:49 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <10725@wb9mjn.ampr.org> Subject: Guidlines for SS experimentation Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org There is quite understandibly a considerable amount of skepticism within the amateur community regarding the effects of spread spectrum in the amateur service. Most of this is a fear of the *potential* of SS to cause massive interference to amateurs within a mile or two of a spread spectrum transmitter, and the *potential* for intereference at a distance to weak signal modes. The longer these fears are left unchecked the more this concern will escalate into outright rejection of SS on a wide scale before SS techniques have even had a change to develop into a form compatible with existing users. Therefore we must act NOW to prepare guidelines for SS experimentation that will address the concerns of the amateur community in general, assuring them that SS experimentation will not cause them interference. That will mean starting off on a small scale, well away from any areas of contention. Much can be achieved with even modest experimentation, not least of which will be the developemnt of techniques that will allow the amateur community in general to feel more comfortable about SS operation and that the potential for interference is reduced to an acceptable level (acceptable to even EME folks). With this milestone passed SS can expand further with the approval of the general amateur community. There is little doubt that if everybody runs 100W into a colinear in suberbia, and spreads over the entire 70cm band, then there will be serious interference. This is what people are afraid of (in the extreem case). Guidelines are the best way to satisfy people that their operations will not be interfered with, and thus defuse something that is already begining to get out of hand, and let folks carry on experimenting with SS. Only when techniques are proven and interference potential is well and truely delt with can we expand beyond what should be quite restrictive experimental guidelines. Here's a few ideas on what these guidlines should look like, but I'm no expert, and others may have other concerns so lets develop these into something that would really work. SUGGESTED GUIDLINES Experimental SS operation must be on a strict non-interference basis. Any reported interference must be quickly delt with. Solutions may include immediatly switching the apperatus off, using notch filters for specific frequencies, reducing power, and using directional antennas. Experimental SS station must accept interference from other non-SS users sharing the same spectrum. (the SS experimentor should devise techniques to reduce the effect of high power, eg 1 watt, narrow band stations on their receiver. This may include increasing the processing gain, or using filtering techniques). Experimentation should be only on bands above 450MHz. (yes it could be done on lower bands without interference, but we need to reassure folks that there will be no interference, so the best bet is to stay well away.) SS transmitters must provide filters on their outputs (or TX IF) to ensure no energy is transmitted that may cause interference on the weak signal portions of any band. Power should be the minimum required for communication. The receive antenna and receiver should be of good sensitivity. eg a colinear, a high vertical, or a beam, and better than 10dB noise figure in the RX. (this enures minimum required power really is the minimum required power) Transmit power spectral density should be under 0.1mW per MHz (allowing 1mW over a 10MHz band) Processing gain should be at least 30dB. (ie 1000:1 spreading factor) (again ensuring minimum TX power, and also reducing the effect of other users on the SS receiver) Total spread should be less than 10MHz on bands above 2GHz and less than 1MHz on lower bands. (wide spreading will allow a lower PSD, so its a trade off between bandwith *potentially* suseptible to interference and the potential for interference.) Power outside the spreading bandwidth must be filtered out with filters on or before the output of the transmitter. SS stations should operate on frequencies that are likely to be clear of any other stations in the local area. (this is to prevent much higher power non-SS station nearby causing interference to the SS receiver which may require the SS transmitter to increase his power to compensate - a 1 watt station at the same distance as a 1mW SS station in the same band will require 30dB processing gain to get even a SNR of 0dB, and 40dB will be needed to make contact.) Experimental spread spectrum stations should adhere to the following band plan: 32cm: ???-??? 23cm: ???-??? 12cm: ???-??? etc (these may include more than one 1 or 10MHz segment) --------------------------- These guidelines are obviously restrictive, and will involve considerably more effort to be put into reducing interference potential, but this is essential if SS experimentation is to be accepted and if SS is to be proven in the amateur enviroment in the longer term. The argument that it works in other services is not sufficent to alay fears about the use of SS. Amateur radio has many unique charactistics that *may* invalidate this argument, we don't know untill we try. The above numbers are back-of-the-envelope figures that I think a SS experimenter can work with, and at the same time will satisfy concerns about the interference potential of SS operation in their area on their favorite mode. If you have better ones lets hear them. This is a gently-gently approach to give SS experimenters the chance to prove the techniques, and is probably way over the top in terms of what is actually nessesary, but its a good start we can work with for now. Once techniques are developed and proven to the amateur community in general then these guidelines could be relaxed to allow SS to fulfil its rightful place as a mature no-interference or considerate band sharing mode offering great opertunities to amateur radio in general. Cheers, Rob From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Jul 26 14:29:49 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id OAA01645 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:29:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA11922; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:29:13 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA242669159; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:25:59 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 20:26:30 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1F9026F0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Subject: [SS:428] Comments on SS Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com, ss@tapr.org Tony wrote: > I agree: the best way to put this issue to rest is to conduct a > massive series of tests, in all frequency bands, in all possible [snip] > All that would be required is a simple SS transmitter > transmitting a simple test pattern (CQ CQ CQ de KE4ATO ...). Of > course, we need a spectrum analysizer for this to look at the > different signals on the bands and have cooperation from a large > group of hams in different areas of the country. I can't think of > anything else we can do. I believe there is another way Tony. (Read my suggested guidelines for SS experimentation). If we can convince people of the *much easier* task that a *very limited* type of SS operation will not hurt them, then we will encourage many operator to take up the mode, relax peoples fear of the worst and let them see what real spread spectrum is capable of. It also gives us a chance to work out the best techniques to oviod any potential problems and delelop this technology to maturity. Something this controvercial must be done very carefully, takeing every precaution not to interfere with anybody. Blazing guns will never further this cause. It's unrealistic to actually do as you suggest as a small band of hard core 'extreemists' as some might see us. Many hands make light work! Cheers, Rob From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Jul 26 15:11:46 1996 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id PAA03622 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:11:43 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18718 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:13:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:13:35 -0400 Message-ID: <960726161335_442757554@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:424] Re: ARRL reasoning the conclusion was sarcasm, not factual. From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Jul 26 15:11:48 1996 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id PAA03623 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:11:45 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19061 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: <960726161249_442757567@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:423] RE: SS Comments from AMRAD my eme/oscar array consists of 4 33' boom 2 meter M2 antennas, plus 8 on 432 plus 4 on 1296, and a few assorted single yagis on a complete az/el mount at the top of my 80 foot tower. So I'm one! (most of the time it is for terrestrial DX with full legal power output amplifiers at the other end of the 1 5/8" nitrogen filled heliax. 73 Henry KB9FO A megawatt is just enough! From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Jul 26 15:11:49 1996 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id PAA03637 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:11:47 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15657 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:29 -0400 Message-ID: <960726161228_442757499@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:419] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD there are about 70 EME users inthe world. From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Jul 26 15:11:51 1996 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id PAA03658 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:11:49 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15863 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960726161238_442757643@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:428] Comments on SS SS looks like ignition interference on video mode, and there is an increase in noise floor, I can see it on the S meter of my Yaesu 736. looks like power line arc QRM 73 Henry From wd5ivd@tapr.org Fri Jul 26 16:12:30 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id QAA06028 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607262112.QAA06028@tapr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:435] Re: Comments on SS To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:12:29 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960726161238_442757643@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "ATVQ@aol.com" at Jul 26, 96 03:14:06 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Maybe you can clarify this -- "I can see it on the S meter of my Yaesu 736" Maybe you can explain in detail what you are hearing (or think you are hearing) and what SS it is ? Who is operating SS in your area that would be causing this ? Greg, WD5IVD > > SS looks like ignition interference on video mode, and there is an increase > in noise floor, I can see it on the S meter of my Yaesu 736. looks like power > line arc QRM 73 Henry > > From gerry@cs.tamu.edu Fri Jul 26 17:43:09 1996 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id RAA09723 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:43:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from solar.cs.tamu.edu (2961@solar.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.132.1]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id RAA22723 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:41:45 -0500 From: Gerald J Creager Received: (gerry@localhost) by solar.cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) id RAA13217 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:41:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199607262241.RAA13217@solar.cs.tamu.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:418] Re: ARRL reasoning To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:41:36 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <31077DB3.36E7@othello.tinker.af.mil> from "Steve Sampson" at Jul 25, 96 07:48:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Sampson sez: > > It's just a guess on my part, but the reason I don't think there'll > be SS on UHF and below, is that the ARRL is trying to become the > national frequency coordinator. If you need a frequency to put up > a repeater, you will go to the ARRL first (non-members need not > apply). Given this role, it would be pretty dumb to shoot yourself > in the foot by allowing SS in these allocations. Best to relegate > that mode to microwave. The .001 percent chance that a Ham operating > SS will trigger the (30's technology) repeater, would produce the > same response as someone using anothers credit card without previous > approval. Not quite true. Interesting, but not quite true. The NBFM coordinators, along with some few others involved in coordination and spectrum management, have formed a new group. the Memorandum of Understanding with ARRL is not complete: ARRL has not signed it. One of the paramoount things about the MOU is that it does not allow ARRL to dictate anything about coordiation. The technology issue may be in doubt, but I tend to share your feelings here. > Once you know where the ARRL is headed (low technology), you can better > understand the position they are taking. There's big money in being > the national frequency coordinator. Better than that, there's power. Ahem. Guess again. > Again, you can see where local coordination is much to be desired over > federal coordination. If you are a PAC and give plenty of money to the > right Congressperson, then the reward is power. But what kind of power > is this? It might have been potent 20 years ago, today being a repeater > frequency coordinator, is like being a policeman who stands in an > intersection and controls traffic. Wouldn't it be better to just > increase technology and automate it? Now I agree you can go to far! > Witness these "intelligent" signals that have ruined our lives. I > remember the days you could drive from 12 Mile Corner to downtown > Portland and never get stopped by a light. They were all synchronized! > Much like spread spectrum. Hey! Synchronicity(sp?)... Coordination will remain at the local level. NFCC will be a single point of contact for the FCC, and as such, will determine a mechanism, common for all, to be recognized as a coordinator in a given area. And a mechanism to decertify a non-responsive coordinator. the issue of SS vs. coordination has no place here, despite Henry's attempts to inject something into this discussion. gerry n5jxs n5jxs@tamu.edu From jeff@mich.com Fri Jul 26 18:56:14 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id SAA13567 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:56:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ujwjt-0002cUC; Fri, 26 Jul 96 19:56 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960727001054.00704374@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:10:54 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:427] RE: SS Comments from AMRAD At 10:15 AM 7/26/96 -0500, Steve NM2Y wrote: >> >>The other flaw, at least for EME and Satellite stations, is they are assuming >>a line of site path. How many (sane) amateurs put a EME or OSCAR array on >>top of a 100 foot tower? It offers no advantage in this application, just >raises >>the EME/Sat ops noise floor (non SS noise that is). >> > >Hi Jeff, > Not really true. I have to, just to clear 80/90 foot trees and am >simply creative about where the amps/preamps live. OK, point well taken. My thoughts were to C band earth station installations, for clark belt satellites. > 73 Steve NM2Y / G3YDV > > > >Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Jul 29 08:43:08 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id IAA27568 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:43:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA01396; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:41:40 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1FCBFD10; Mon, 29 Jul 96 09:42:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:44:28 -0400 Message-Id: <1FCBFD10.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:429] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >Dangerous teritory here. 90% of 2m/70cm users use FM repeaters. Does >that mean the majority should rule, and the band should be filled with >repeaters, and no-one else should be alowed to do anything more >exciting than chatter on handhelds? How many people work SS, what was >that about secondary status? My comment about 'how many people will work SS' was intended to show that, in my opinion, SS will not become a major form of interference because not many hams will use SS. I also do not believe SS will raise the noise floor of a communication receiver. >This is amateur radio, not a lynch mod. You have as much right to work >EME as anyone else. Would you give that right up? We must find a >cooperative solution, not just cast aside anyone that doesn't agree with >us. I'm not forming a lynch mob, Rob. I don't intend to cast anyone aside. I do feel that others in the amateur community want SS cast aside (1GHz+) because they feel that SS will become a major source of interference. I haven't been involved in ham radio since "the early days," but I do know that some people reguard certain bands as 'their own' and the anamosity towards SS could be steming from this. >Rob 73s de Tony, KE4ATO From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Jul 29 08:46:33 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id IAA27656 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:46:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA13080; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:45:06 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1FCC0410; Mon, 29 Jul 96 09:44:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:19:50 -0400 Message-Id: <1FCC0410.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Comments on SS To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Rob, I don't think conducting 4 or 5 tests is unrealistic. I guess massive was too strong a word. All I am suggesting is build the transmitter and turn it on. The transmitter will automatically transmit the sequence, so no operator is needed. Next you would need to find a few hams who are up to the task (I'm sure you can find some at a local radio club). Getting the spectrum analyzer is the tricky part, though. I do have some plans for building one for the PC, although I have never used them. In my opinion, hard facts will beat out ignorance any day. I feel this is the best way to relax people's fear. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:428] Comments on SS Author: at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/26/96 8:26 PM Tony wrote: > I agree: the best way to put this issue to rest is to conduct a > massive series of tests, in all frequency bands, in all possible [snip] > All that would be required is a simple SS transmitter > transmitting a simple test pattern (CQ CQ CQ de KE4ATO ...). Of > course, we need a spectrum analysizer for this to look at the > different signals on the bands and have cooperation from a large > group of hams in different areas of the country. I can't think of > anything else we can do. I believe there is another way Tony. (Read my suggested guidelines for SS experimentation). If we can convince people of the *much easier* task that a *very limited* type of SS operation will not hurt them, then we will encourage many operator to take up the mode, relax peoples fear of the worst and let them see what real spread spectrum is capable of. It also gives us a chance to work out the best techniques to oviod any potential problems and delelop this technology to maturity. Something this controvercial must be done very carefully, takeing every precaution not to interfere with anybody. Blazing guns will never further this cause. It's unrealistic to actually do as you suggest as a small band of hard core 'extreemists' as some might see us. Many hands make light work! Cheers, Rob From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Mon Jul 29 10:22:18 1996 Received: from relay.hp.com (relay.hp.com [15.255.152.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA02555 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:22:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by relay.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA047793731; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:11 -0700 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 AA129243730; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:10 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA217083729; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:09 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607291522.AA217083729@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:397] Re: Some news from the WLAN front... To: ss@tapr.org (Greg Jones) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:09 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199607132310.SAA06519@tapr.org> from "Greg Jones" at Jul 13, 96 06:11:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg wrote: > > Are you sitting down with a cool one -- get ready, this is a long one :-) > Greg, Thanks for taking the time to put all that down. You're right, it is long and there are multiple topics. I've completed my third reading of it and I'm still not quite sure where to continue from. I think we need to get more bandwidth over which to discuss this. I'm signed up and have airline tickets for DCC in September, see you there! Glenn n6gn From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Jul 29 10:29:56 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA02716 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:29:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA27546; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:27:40 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 1FCD90D0; Mon, 29 Jul 96 11:30:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:22:53 -0400 Message-Id: <1FCD90D0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:432] Re: ARRL reasoning To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part If you are going to comment on something posted to this list, please include the portion of the message you are responding to. We have no idea what your comment is related to. Thanks, Tony KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:432] Re: ARRL reasoning Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/26/96 3:13 PM the conclusion was sarcasm, not factual. From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 29 10:31:57 1996 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA02808 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:31:55 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14494 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:33:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:33:15 -0400 Message-ID: <960729113313_372229084@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:440] Comments on SS you need an analyzer with a storage scope otherwise you have the porlbem of intercept...the analyzer isnt looking where you are transmitting because of its frequency sweep. Science Workshop has the working of a spectrum analyzer for about $200 inkit form. It works nicely with any scope, and if you have a storage scope, your in like flint. I use an HP 8500 series SA. (yig oscillator) 73 Henry KB9FO From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 29 10:31:55 1996 Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id KAA02796 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:31:53 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13672 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:33:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:33:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960729113342_372229077@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:439] Re: SS Comments from AMRAD SS will become popular when the major manufacturers include it intheir equipment. That is the place to start. And not as an add on accessory. Kantronics and other Packet companies should offer the stuff too. 73 Henry KB9FO From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Jul 29 14:13:26 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id OAA13868 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 14:13:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199607291913.OAA13868@tapr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:440] Comments on SS To: ss@tapr.org Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 14:13:24 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <1FCC0410.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> from "LANIER.R.A-" at Jul 29, 96 09:11:55 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text On the issue of testing. Robert Buass and his STA has done considerable testing over the last several years. Maybe Robert can discuss what has been done and post some of his results from the tests. That was one reason for the STA. Robert is on the list. Anyway -- while the amateur community might not have done extensive testing, industry sure is and has. The folks that want 2/440 already have experimental licenses on those bands to show that SS can be done on our bands as secondary users in order to get into our spectrum. Dewayne can comment more on this issue. As amateurs we can nick-pick at either other over the mode or start getting equipment fielded so that we can start to develop methods our self. As amateur radio operators we must start to develop modes that will not interfere with other users (including ourselfs) and be interference resistance to others that will eventually be allowed access to our bands. Maybe not this year, or next year, but within the next 5-10 years -- yes. Cheers - Greg > > Rob, > > I don't think conducting 4 or 5 tests is unrealistic. I guess massive > was too strong a word. All I am suggesting is build the transmitter and > turn it on. The transmitter will automatically transmit the sequence, > so no operator is needed. Next you would need to find a few hams who > are up to the task (I'm sure you can find some at a local radio club). > Getting the spectrum analyzer is the tricky part, though. I do have > some plans for building one for the PC, although I have never used > them. > > In my opinion, hard facts will beat out ignorance any day. I feel this > is the best way to relax people's fear. > > 73s de > Tony, KE4ATO > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: [SS:428] Comments on SS > Author: at BALT.SMTP > Date: 7/26/96 8:26 PM > > > Tony wrote: > > > I agree: the best way to put this issue to rest is to conduct a > > massive series of tests, in all frequency bands, in all possible > [snip] > > All that would be required is a simple SS transmitter > > transmitting a simple test pattern (CQ CQ CQ de KE4ATO ...). Of > > course, we need a spectrum analysizer for this to look at the > > different signals on the bands and have cooperation from a large > > group of hams in different areas of the country. I can't think of > > anything else we can do. > > I believe there is another way Tony. (Read my suggested guidelines for > SS experimentation). If we can convince people of the *much easier* task > that a *very limited* type of SS operation will not hurt them, then we > will encourage many operator to take up the mode, relax peoples fear of > the worst and let them see what real spread spectrum is capable of. It > also gives us a chance to work out the best techniques to oviod any > potential problems and delelop this technology to maturity. > > Something this controvercial must be done very carefully, takeing every > precaution not to interfere with anybody. Blazing guns will never > further this cause. > > It's unrealistic to actually do as you suggest as a small band of hard > core 'extreemists' as some might see us. Many hands make light work! > > Cheers, > > Rob > > From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Jul 29 19:32:49 1996 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id TAA00441 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:32:46 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00266 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 20:33:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 20:33:56 -0400 Message-ID: <960729203331_444909396@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:442] Re: ARRL reasoning i guess you dont follow the conversation thread well. From rw@txcc.net Mon Jul 29 20:45:54 1996 Received: from mail.txcc.net (mail.txcc.net [205.218.183.156]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA03413 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 20:45:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from quercus1 (port4.txcc.net [205.218.183.134]) by mail.txcc.net (8.7.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id UAA02689 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 20:44:24 -0500 Received: by quercus1 with Microsoft Mail id <01BB7D86.8938A0A0@quercus1>; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:45:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BB7D86.8938A0A0@quercus1> From: Ralph Ward To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Subject: RE: 443] Re: Comments on SS Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:40:04 -0500 Return-Receipt-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit where do I find science workshop? Ralph Ward rw@txcc.net ---------- From: ATVQ@aol.com[SMTP:ATVQ@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 1996 5:56 AM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:443] Re: Comments on SS you need an analyzer with a storage scope otherwise you have the porlbem of intercept...the analyzer isnt looking where you are transmitting because of its frequency sweep. Science Workshop has the working of a spectrum analyzer for about $200 inkit form. It works nicely with any scope, and if you have a storage scope, your in like flint. I use an HP 8500 series SA. (yig oscillator) 73 Henry KB9FO From ATVQ@aol.com Tue Jul 30 09:38:28 1996 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id JAA02782 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:38:27 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21701 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:36:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:36:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960730103652_588199970@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:447] RE: 443] Re: Comments on SS science workshop: 55 wilson lane, bethpage ny 11714. From gabe@nortel.ca Tue Jul 30 11:01:43 1996 Received: from bnr.ca (x400gate.bnr.ca [192.58.194.73]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id LAA05095 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:01:27 -0500 (CDT) X400-Received: by mta bnr.ca in /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:00:32 -0400 X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:32:44 -0400 X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:28:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:28:00 -0400 X400-Originator: /dd.id=0130036/g=gabe/i=g/s=nemeth/@bnr.ca X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/;bcars520.b.418:30.06.96.15.32.44] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: re:[SS:446] R... From: "gabe (g.) nemeth" Sender: "gabe (g.) nemeth" Message-ID: <"11543 Tue Jul 30 11:40:05 1996"@bnr.ca> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: re:[SS:446] Re: ARRL reasoning A very good point. How can I get information on this thread? Once a Thread has lapsed how do newcomers get the information that seems to already be a part of the sub-culture? '73 Gabe Nemeth From lfry@mindspring.com Tue Jul 30 14:35:06 1996 Received: from answerman.mindspring.com (answerman.mindspring.com [204.180.128.8]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id OAA13101 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:35:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lfry.mindspring.com (user-168-121-136-107.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.136.107]) by answerman.mindspring.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA24241 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 15:35:02 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960730193520.00727eb0@mindspring.com> X-Sender: lfry@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 15:35:20 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Lee W. Fry" Subject: Interference Testing (Was Comments on SS) I realize that most of the concern is over the "lower" bands, but I'm wondering if there something to learn on 900MHz. Metricom has done a pretty good job of blanketing the Bay Area with their 900 MHz FHSS system. A large part of the area has at least 4 or 5 wired access points per square mile. See http://www.metricom.com/ricochet/coverage/mmap0701.gif for the covered areas. According to their second quarter report, they have about 3000 subscribers to generate activity. The Bay Area also has a few 900 Mz repeaters and a fair amount of ATV activity. The question is, has there been anything detectable happening on the ATV or FM repeaters in the area? Is anybody looking? Lee Fry AA0JP lfry@mindspring.com See my Part 15 Device info at http://www.mindspring.com/~lfry/part15.htm From bob.hansen@bdk.com Tue Jul 30 14:37:00 1996 Received: from cleo.fabrik.com ([205.162.124.242]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id OAA13211 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:36:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from portia.fabrik.com ([205.162.124.20]) by cleo.fabrik.com (post.office MTA v1.9.3 evaluation license) with ESMTP id AAA128 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:36:31 -0700 Received: by banquo.fabrik.com (Fabrik F05.4-002) id Megw.1737169 ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:21:34 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:51:00 -0700 From: "Bob Hansen" Subject: Re: Info. on Thread To: ss@tapr.org Message-ID: >A very good point. How can I get information on this thread? >Once a Thread has lapsed how do newcomers get the information >that seems to already be a part of the sub-culture? > >'73 >Gabe Nemeth All messages to the list are archived on the TAPR server (monthly, I think), and are accessible by ftp or the web. -Bob H. From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Wed Jul 31 11:33:58 1996 Received: from relay.hp.com (relay.hp.com [15.255.152.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id LAA03782 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:33:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (n6gn.sr.hp.com) by relay.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA249320824; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:33:45 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA031470823; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:33:43 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199607311633.AA031470823@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:450] Interference Testing (Was Comments on SS) To: ss@tapr.org (Lee W. Fry) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:33:43 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960730193520.00727eb0@mindspring.com> from "Lee W. Fry" at Jul 30, 96 02:35:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee Fry writes: > I realize that most of the concern is over the "lower" bands, but I'm > wondering if there something to learn on 900MHz. Metricom has done a pretty > good job of blanketing the Bay Area with their 900 MHz FHSS system. A large > part of the area has at least 4 or 5 wired access points per square mile. > See http://www.metricom.com/ricochet/coverage/mmap0701.gif for the covered > areas. According to their second quarter report, they have about 3000 > subscribers to generate activity. The Bay Area also has a few 900 Mz > repeaters and a fair amount of ATV activity. > > The question is, has there been anything detectable happening on the ATV or > FM repeaters in the area? Is anybody looking? Well, living somewhat on the northern edge of that region I can only comment with limited relevance, but... We have quite a few FHSS Metricomm radios in the vicinity. Santa Rosa (north edge of the Metricomm map mentioned above) is supposed to get blanket coverage soon. I'm not sure how many operating Ricochets there are at the moment but there are at least some. To make matters worse, the 44.4.44/24 portion of .ampr.org (net-44) up on the north coast of California is actually connecting to the 230 kbps 904 MHz FSK hardware with hardware at some of the our sites, both with Ricochet and previous versions of Metricom FH h/w. To my knowledge, there is not a *any* other amateur use of the 902 MHz band locally. I have never worked anyone there on narrowband modes that I did not schedule in advance. There are quite a few Part 15 users of the band and the number has grown in the last five years. I can't even identify all the transmissions but there are certainly quite a number of FH and DS SS signals. The DCD light on our 230 kbps radios will fairly routinely show activity. I suspect that one or more of my neighbors have 900 MHz telephones, some of which hop. Even so, I've almost never seen any serious QRM problem as a result of these Part 15 devices. To be sure, our system which runs under Part 97 has a lot more ERP, ~300 Watts compared to probably no more than ~4 watts for Part 15. We are also using the same antenna directivity on receive which helps us even more. In the past some of our high level sites have had problems with Part 15 "junk" QRM when pointed over heavily populated regions but this really hasn't been too much problem recently. One of our previous gateway locations had Part 15 (not Metricomm) in the same building on which our antenna was mounted that caused some problems but even these weren't insurmountable. The only longstanding source of major (but fortunately relative infrequent) QRM is not Part 15 or even coming from the near vicinity. It is AN-SPS-49/V or some close cousin of it. This is a military shipboard radar with ~270 Megawatt peak ERP (yes, 1/4 giga-watt) in the main lobe. We tend to see it a couple of times a year, particularly from high level sites that can see the Pacific Ocean and particularly when there is significant ducting going on. This was the situation last weekend. Hawaiian hams were reported headed for hilltops and various California hams were trying to QSO on vhf-microwave via the California-Hawaii tropospheric duct. Soon after this we experienced radar signals strong enough that the 230 kbps network began to get erratic. When k6hsj hooked a spectrum analyzer to a mid-sized yagi pointed to the SW (ocean) and widened the resolution bandwith all the way out to 3 MHz to receive the ~8 MHz wide radar, he found >+10 dBm at the antenna! That's 10 milliwatts received which is an incredibly large signal off of almost any antenna. I figured that with a moderate size TVRO dish it should have been possible to capture on the order of 1 watt. The tcp/ip host at the nearest coastal hilltop site quit working soon after this, not because of any RF damage but because the tremendous number of interrupts generated by the radar pulses on the DCD (not data derived) brought the software down. Unfortunately our hardware reset (running off contact closure from a Metricomm radio) also failed (:>) Things are now down until the site gets a personal visit. So, compared to radar QRM, the multitude of Part 15 SS signals we find here on 900 MHz are pretty insignificant and by and large have not caused too much problem to even our 1 MHz wide non-SS network. I know of no reported interference with what little amateur use of the band exists here. Glenn Elmore n6gn amateur IP: glenn@SantaRosa.ampr.org Internet: glenne@sr.hp.com |--------------- N6GN's Higher Speed Packet WWW Page -------------------| | | | http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/index.html | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From dewayne@warpspeed.com Wed Jul 31 20:30:12 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA21513 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:30:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.160.122.115] by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:29:44 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199607291913.OAA13868@tapr.org> References: <1FCC0410.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> from "LANIER.R.A-" at Jul 29, 96 09:11:55 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:27:19 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:445] Re: Comments on SS At 2:25 PM -0500 7/29/96, Greg Jones wrote: >Anyway -- while the amateur community might not have done extensive testing, >industry sure is and has. The folks that want 2/440 already have >experimental licenses on those bands to show that SS can be done on our >bands as secondary users in order to get into our spectrum. Dewayne can >comment more on this issue. A case in point. On June 10th, a company named DSC Communications Corporation in Plano, TX, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission for the creation of a Wireless Fixed Access Local Loop service. They plan to use CDMA technology to deliver wireless local loop services in rural and urban areas and would like the Commission to give them 'protected' access to the following frequencies: A. 1668-1700.0/1723.5-1755 MHz B. 2037.5-2076.0/2111.5-2150.0 MHz C. 2110.0-2145.0/2165.0-2200.0 MHz D. 2160.0-2198.5/2310.0-2348.5 MHz E. 2400.0-2438.5/2160.0-2198.5 MHz F. 2401.0-2439.5/2310.0-2348.5 MHz For those of you who aren't up on current events, frequency pairs E and F, are right in the middle of the current amateur radio allocation at 2.4 GHz (2390-2450 MHz). DSC is a $1.5 Billion/yr company who markets communications products all over the world. The Commission put their petition out for public comment on July 10th and assigned it RM-8837. Comments are due on August 10th. Now there is little technical detail in their petition as to how DSC intends to make all of this work and still share the spectrum with the incumbants without causing chaos. However, you can rest assured that they have done their homework and will be able to produce the requisite sharing studies, etc., etc., etc. when the time comes. These people are very professional and are going to be a tough act to beat. A lot of you who don't follow comings and goings at the Commission like I do, would not know that in the last year, a number of these sorts of petitions have been filed at the Commission. All of them from well heeled commercial firms, who are using some form of spread spectrum to allow them to share whatever spectrum they're going after with the incumbants. The little LEO companies who are after the 2m/70cm amateur spectrum allocations fall into this category. You can expect more of the same in the future from others. So with all of this activity going on at the FCC with its negative implications as regards to the future of amateur radio spectrum allocations, I find that I usually have to be tranquilized & restrained everytime I read some of the postings on this mailing list with all of the constant bickering about things like 'the noise floor being raised' and how many spread spectrum users can dance on the head of a pin!! The bottom line is that if you people don't stop fighting amongst yourselves, you are going to wake up one fine day and find that the spectrum you were fighting over for your own particular use (EME, weak signal, etc.) will at best have a new sharing partner (which isn't another ham), and at worst be given to someone else. The choice is yours. You can either continue to fight and bicker or you can spend some time to find out just why the commercial companies are embracing SS technologies and spin it to your own advantage. -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10 AOL: HENDRICKS Warp Speed Imagineering ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com 43730 Vista Del Mar ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! WWW: Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kevin_williams@eee.org Wed Jul 31 21:51:22 1996 Received: from omail.eee.org (omail.eee.org [163.150.1.3]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA24526 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:51:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608010251.VAA24526@tapr.org> Received: from LOCALNAME (vvuser0.eee.org) by omail.eee.org with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA289067756; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:49:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:49:16 -0700 X-Sender: ke314256@omail.eee.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Robert A. Buaas" From: Kevin Williams Subject: Re: WaveLan setup Cc: ss@tapr.org At 06:46 AM 7/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Kevin-- > >thanks for the success story. > >since the rest of the gang is still waiting to receive their cards >(and I'm not home), would you consider describing the system >configurations you used: hardware platforms, software you used >(out-of-box driver, or one you got somewhere else; JNOS, what?), >distance between test units... that kind of stuff. So that >the rest of the group can benefit by reproducing your tests. >Also, your speculation on how you plan to replace the patch >antennas supplied with ext. antennas to increase range, if >that's in your plan. > >thanks/bob > > First off, let me apologize for taking so long to get this out. I have been busy with a move and got way behind on reading my E-Mail. I hope everyone has received there cards!!!!!!!!!! The configuration which I used for the test was just two Windows for Workgroups boxes. I was able to set them up in short order from the instructions in the manual. They worked with no headaches. The distance between the test units was about 15 feet. I wanted a quick and dirty test. I am impressed with the diagnostics which came with the cards. It gives you a lot of useful information. The only draw back is that both systems must be running the diagnostic software. Now on to the good stuff. Which I haven't had time to do. First is to connect a directional antenna to the cards. Some discussion on this has go on previously. Here is what was discussed. 1. Replacing the connector on the card 2. Cutting the coax to the antenna and putting a BNC connector on both ends. When I find the time I am going to try the coax cutting method. This method should not void the warranty, and you can try various antennas with the cards, including the antenna which came with the card. Now to get the cards talking to something which speaks to other hams. I am planning on first trying to get two JNOS boxes talking to each other. Then I'll see if I can get a TNOS box in there. The packet driver should work with both JNOS and TNOS. I already have the cards working on a NetWare 4.1 network. Next I plan to talk to the NetWare server from xNOS via the WaveLAN cards. I need to find an economical 900MHz antenna to use with the cards. Is there anyone out there who knows of a good source? Another subject which needs attention is the need to ID so that a narrow band receiver can recognize it. I plan on contacting one of the software gurus in ham radio an see if he can be of any assistance. Is there anyone out there with any other suggestions? Well that is what I have had the time to do, and where I am headed. I would like to read what others are doing, or plann to do. 73 Kevin -- Kevin Williams KN6UO Internet - kevin_williams@eee.org AX25 - KN6UO@KE6TXE.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM From jeff@mich.com Wed Jul 31 22:52:16 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id WAA26634 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:52:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0uloo0-0002cfC; Wed, 31 Jul 96 23:52 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960801040652.0071cf44@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:06:52 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: WaveLAN Card purchase > >At 04:22 PM 7/31/96 +0000, Barry McLarnon VE3JF wrote: > >>So what are you guys doing about antennas? Has anyone managed to >>scrounge or kludge a compatible connector for the one on the board, or >>are you planning to cut the cable on the supplied antenna and splice in >>some standard connectors? > >Check out page 65 of the July/August DigiKey catalog (http://www.digikey.com). >They sure look like SMB connectors to me. Worst case, is you could replace >the current connector on the board with a SMA connector. I'd not recommend >any type of splicing at 900mhz. > > >> >>I'd like to compile some info on 915 MHz gain antenna sources... here's >>the few I have so far: >> > >>Swiech Communication Systems (619-748-0708): >> >>COY33CM9EL 9 el. rear mount yagi, 12 dBi gain, 3 ft. boom ($90) >> >> > >> >> >>More info, anyone? >> >>Barry > >Gain on that one is 10.0 dBd. > >Thats what I am using at this end of my internet link. Swiech makes a really nice >antenna. Stainless steel hardware, RF isolated elements, real class >act. I've had one on the tower here for a year and it hasn't fallen >down yet! I'm putting some more of these up in the thumb area of >Michigan for a K-12 project I am working on also. > >----- > >Comet also makes a gain 900mhz omni verticle. I've got one at a local >ISP here in town. Its about $120. Fiberglass and nice looking. Been up >a year and still working. I'd, however, not recommend a omni unless >you have a compelling reason to. (I've got a community network here >for our city) > >------- > >'Olde Antenna Lab of Denver" (actually Littleton CO, 1-303-798-5926) makes >a interesting line of antennas. I've got one of there corner reflectors, >$79.95, and it seems to work. I bought it because it had a much more >predictable pattern then a yagi and had a F/B of 23db. Forward gain is >10dBd. Its flat across the band. Dave actually did a sweep of the antenna >he sent me and photographed the results! > >They also make helix's and horizontal omnis (big wheel arrays). Here is >what his most current catalog says: > >33cm Horizontally Polarized Omni, 8.15dbi gain, in radome $359.95 >33cm Helix antenna, 10 turn, 15dbi gain $105.95 > >They also make power dividers, I'm ordering one so I'll let the >group know how good they work. > >If you happen to call, tell Dave I said hi. > >-------- > >Also I know CushCraft and Larsen are big in 900 mhz antennas. > >BTW, make your links horizontal polarization. You'll avoid alot of >problems with pagers and cell phones. > > >Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From jeff@mich.com Wed Jul 31 23:05:38 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id XAA27183 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:05:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ulp0h-0002cdC; Thu, 1 Aug 96 00:05 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960801041959.00714694@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:19:59 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:454] Re: WaveLan setup At 09:55 PM 7/31/96 -0500, Kevin Williams wrote: > >I need to find an economical 900MHz antenna to use with the cards. Is there >anyone out there who knows of a good source? > See Barry's post and the post I just forwarded to the group. >Another subject which needs attention is the need to ID so that a narrow >band receiver can recognize it. I plan on contacting one of the software >gurus in ham radio an see if he can be of any assistance. Is there anyone >out there with any other suggestions? I wonder if you could just gate the TX? You'd be sending CW with a wideband "noise" signal, but it might suffice. I.E. if the narrow band recievers can detect your SS signal, they should be able to detect the 'CW' that is being sent by the 'noise' disappearing and reappearing. One other alternative, while possibly not 'politically correct' for this mailing list, is to just stay within Part 15 regulations. The Wavelans I think are only +25dBm, and your allowed +36dBm under Part 15. With a typical coax run of 9913 (100 feet or so) you should be able to put any Yagi on it and still comply technically with Part 15. You also don't need to worry about content and third party restrictions with this approach either. Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From jeff@mich.com Wed Jul 31 23:34:22 1996 Received: from server1.mich.com (root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id XAA28159 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:34:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0ulpSh-0002cSC; Thu, 1 Aug 96 00:34 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960801044855.00726aa4@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:48:55 -0400 To: dewayne@warpspeed.com From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:453] Re: Comments on SS Cc: ss@tapr.org At 08:37 PM 7/31/96 -0500, Dewayne Hendricks wrote: > The bottom line is that if you people don't stop fighting amongst >yourselves, you are going to wake up one fine day and find that the >spectrum you were fighting over for your own particular use (EME, weak >signal, etc.) will at best have a new sharing partner (which isn't another >ham), and at worst be given to someone else. And I'd say that day is fast approaching. >The choice is yours. You can >either continue to fight and bicker or you can spend some time to find out >just why the commercial companies are embracing SS technologies and spin it >to your own advantage. > >-- Dewayne I don't think that 'ham' radio, in its current state, will be able to embrace Spread Spectrum. There simply are to many entrenched special interests that have tunnel vision. I've done demos in my area, to both computer clubs and ham radio clubs. I've been overwhelmed by the intellegence of questions and interest I have recieved by the computer club members. The ham clubs, by and large, gave me blank stares. Sure, a few were interested but at least here in the Detroit area, its mostly DX and repeater operation that interests the 'hams'. The computer clubs have a 'vision' (read application) for spread spectrum... the hams just considered it another 'mode'. Presently, amateur radio has a tremendous resource in its microwave bands. Unless we start to use them effectivly, we will surely lose them. A few narrowband FM repeaters is not enough to justify our continued exclusive use of these band segments. In my opinion, I think the only way to save the microwave bands will be to get fresh blood with a vision into the hobby. Your going to find these people in some of the computer clubs. They want high speed internet access. Many of them are also fasinated by radio but were discouraged by the slow speed of packet radio and had no interest in talking on 2m repeaters. How to do this? Step one would be to remove the restrictions on chip sequences so the Part 15 equipment could be converted. Step two would be to get some of the Part 15 manfacturers interested in the amateur market. I've actually spoken with some of them regarding this, however its a real chicken and egg scenario. They want to see a market (that doesn't exist now) before they put there resources into offering equipment to the amateur market. One thing we that purchased the WaveLan boards could do is demo them at the computer clubs. Put one at your local library so hams in the area can tie into the internet. (At least here in Michigan, I've had good luck getting permission to put ham gateways up at the libraries). As the saying goes, 'build it and they will come'. Just some thoughts. I know this will rub some people the wrong way but I feel that unless we show some real activity on our microwave bands, we will lose them as Dewayne suggests. -Jeff King WB8WKA