From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Thu Aug 01 08:20:57 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 IAA17151 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:20:53 -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 QAA14912 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:20:15 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA285995408; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:16:48 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 14:17:17 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960801044855.00726aa4@mich.com> Subject: [SS:457] Re: Comments on SS Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org Hi Jeff, > 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. I agreed. This is exactly what we need. Lets stop threatening other hams (at least in their eyes) and move into a band and application that everyone can get behind and become enthusiastic about, without fearing the loss of their other interests on other bands. Sure SS could be done there, but why provoke people? We want cooperation here, the Microwave bands are better suited to out purposes anyway, and we need to show the authorities that we are capable of using them in a way that warrents these bands being allocated to the experimental amateur service. I agree about packet too. I cant be bothered with that when I have a telephone modem. But a high speed SS HAM-LAN, thats something to get interested in, as is the experimentation that will lead to its development (even more interesting). > How to do this? Step one would be to remove the restrictions on chip > sequences so the Part 15 equipment could be converted. Not being in the US, I dont have quite the same direct interest in what the FCC does, but it seems to me that if they are happy to allow many chip sequences for part 15, they should have no problems with hams. Another possibility would be to transmit a CW/RTTY/PACKET ID every 10-30 minutes or so giving callsign and generator polynomial. Along with a regulation requiring a transmission each time the polynomial is changed. I gather here in the UK the authorities are uncertian about SS and are presently in negotiations with the RSGB regarding its legality here. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding the part 15 bands, but is it possible for amateurs to experiment here with home built equipment or is type apporval/licences required? > 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'. An excelent idea! and without stepping on the toes of fellow hams either. We need to build up interest, and this may well do the trick. The next step is to get it on the ham bands so we can really get stuck in and develop something for hams. I reckon if we can get some sort of guidelines (see my previous post) agreed amounst experimenters, then the ham population in general will support us, rather than getting defensive. We may be able to bridge the gap with manufacturers with transverter kits - create a market and we're away! Cheers, Rob From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Thu Aug 01 08:42:55 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 IAA17768 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:42:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA25428; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:41:06 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 200B45F0; Thu, 1 Aug 96 09:42:55 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:40:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200B45F0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:453] Re: Comments on SS To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part I couldn't agree more, Dewayne. Its really frustrating when you want a particular technology to move forward, but ignorance blocks its path. Its obvious that spread spectrum technology is a realiable modulation scheme; why would so many companies pour millions of dollars into research and development? Remember, these companies want to make money and they wouldn't spend their money on something that won't make them more money. One thing hams will have to get use to is the constant invasion of the ham bands by commerical companies. No matter how loud we complain, some of the bands will used up by competting companies, LEO's and the like. With so much money to be made in the communications market, its inevitable. Brace yourselves - its going to be a rough ride. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:453] Re: Comments on SS Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 7/31/96 8:37 PM 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 bad@uhf.wdc.net Thu Aug 01 10:48:48 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 KAA21975 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:48:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA02682; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:53:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: trough reflectors Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Jeff: Thanks for posting the pointers on 900 MHz. antennas. But: Does any know of any suppliers of 900 MHz. and 1.2 GHz. trough reflectors? (for the same footprint trough reflectors get you another 2 dB of gain over a corner reflector). Bernie From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Thu Aug 01 11:46:07 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 LAA23511 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:46:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by relay.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA030257959; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:45:59 -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 AA176737958; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:45:58 -0700 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA031057957; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:45:57 -0700 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199608011645.AA031057957@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: 900 MHz antenna information To: ss@tapr.org (Bernie Doehner) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:45:57 -0800 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Bernie Doehner" at Aug 1, 96 10:52:43 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case any one wants to *build* a 900 MHz antenna rather than buy one there is information on my web pages at: http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/antenna/antenna.html There is information there on the ~13 dbd yagi we are currently using on the 230 kbps backbone radios. I will now excercise extreme restraint and not make more than this single commente about the low liklihood of amateurs building *anything*. Glenn n6gn From bad@uhf.wdc.net Thu Aug 01 16:32:46 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 QAA04361 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:32:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA00272; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:37:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:461] 900 MHz antenna information In-Reply-To: <199608011645.AA031057957@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Glenn Elmore wrote: > > In case any one wants to *build* a 900 MHz antenna rather than buy one > there is information on my web pages at: > > http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/antenna/antenna.html > > There is information there on the ~13 dbd yagi we are currently using on > the 230 kbps backbone radios. Thanks for posting the information. > I will now excercise extreme restraint and not make more than this > single commente about the low liklihood of amateurs building *anything*. I knew that was coming from miles away. Just keep in mind that not everyone owns test equipment necessary to properly build/adjust antennas for 900 MHz, unless you care to loan me a Bird + slugs? Bernie From jeff@mich.com Thu Aug 01 17:24:36 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 RAA06502 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:24:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0um6AL-0002cfC; Thu, 1 Aug 96 18:24 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960801223910.0070b34c@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 18:39:10 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:460] trough reflectors At 10:52 AM 8/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jeff: > >Thanks for posting the pointers on 900 MHz. antennas. > >But: >Does any know of any suppliers of 900 MHz. and 1.2 GHz. trough >reflectors? (for the same footprint trough reflectors get you another 2 >dB of gain over a corner reflector). > >Bernie Call up Dave. He seems willing to make what you want. > > > Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From jeff@mich.com Thu Aug 01 19:08:39 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 TAA09761 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:08:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0um7n3-0002cgC; Thu, 1 Aug 96 20:08 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960802002313.007177d8@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 20:23:13 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:462] Re: 900 MHz antenna information At 04:35 PM 8/1/96 -0500, Bernie Doehner wrote: >On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Glenn Elmore wrote: > >> >> In case any one wants to *build* a 900 MHz antenna rather than buy one >> there is information on my web pages at: >> >> http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/antenna/antenna.html >> >> There is information there on the ~13 dbd yagi we are currently using on >> the 230 kbps backbone radios. > >Thanks for posting the information. > >> I will now excercise extreme restraint and not make more than this >> single commente about the low liklihood of amateurs building *anything*. > >I knew that was coming from miles away. Just keep in mind that not >everyone owns test equipment necessary to properly build/adjust antennas >for 900 MHz, unless you care to loan me a Bird + slugs? > >Bernie My bird wattmeter was one of the best invests I've made. Decent test equipment can really make a difference. Its not that hard to build antennas for 900mhz, I've built a number of helical antennas for my 440 and 900mhz data experiments. Nice thing about a helical is that it tends to cancel (to a degree) any multipath. I bought my Bird new for $265 and a 800mhz-1ghz 1 watt slug was (I think) $80. You can get Bird 43's used in the $150 range. The problem I have had with my homemade antennas is they generally don't last a through the winter. A antenna that can withstand 1 inch ice loads in 40-60 mile an hour winds is less a electronics project and more of a mechnical project. -Jeff WB8WKA From dewayne@warpspeed.com Thu Aug 01 20:11:31 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 UAA11814 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:11:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.160.122.115] by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:11:11 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960801044855.00726aa4@mich.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:10:49 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:457] Re: Comments on SS At 11:35 PM -0500 7/31/96, Jeff King wrote: >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. Alas, I don't think that trying to increase ham activity in the microwave bands in either the short or the long term is going to stem this tide. There are currently actions at various stages of the rulemaking process at the Commission that effect amateur radio allocations in the 0.9, 1.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 5.7 GHz bands. So in about a year to eighteen months, you can expect the status of those bands to change in some way with a probable negative impact on the amateur radio service. The really sad thing is that most hams are not even aware that these actions are currently in progress. I would say that some may have heard of the Supernet/NII Band NPRM action at 5.7 GHz, but thats probably about it (correct me if I'm wrong about this). In any case, you're talking about a hell of a lot of spectrum that could very well change hands when you add up all of the amateur radio allocations in those bands (exercise left to the reader). So while I like a lot of what you had to say Jeff, I think that we are going to need a lot more then 'fresh blood with a vision' to get the service out of the spectrum whirlpool that it is descending into. We recently witnessed a great hue and cry whipped up by the ARRL over the 2m/70cm Little LEO companies actions. Where may I ask, is the same level of effort and support to prevent the loss of our precious microwave spectrum allocations? Believe me, your action can make a difference in these matters. Your silence sure as hell won't!!! -- 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 ssampson@othello.tinker.af.mil Thu Aug 01 21:04:57 1996 Received: from edsokc04.tinker.af.mil (edsokc04.tinker.af.mil [137.240.38.163]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id VAA13648 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:04:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Cust31.Max21.Dallas.TX.MS.UU.NET by edsokc04.tinker.af.mil (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA06502; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:05:09 -0500 Message-Id: <32015F5D.3E4E@othello.tinker.af.mil> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 20:52:29 -0500 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:465] Re: Comments on SS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dewayne Hendricks wrote: > > Alas, I don't think that trying to increase ham activity in the > microwave bands in either the short or the long term is going to stem this > tide. Nor should they. There is a fear in this country that change is bad. In this case I disagree. The microwave bands are completely empty of activity. The allocation is a relic of the socialist era. Would you rather hold on to the empty band, or use the band to generate new jobs and applications? The theory is, that we would lose the band (bad, bad) and some other segment of "The People" would then get it. Well those other people turn out to be us again. If I lose 3 GHz to commercial "People" who generate jobs and sell me a product that makes my life better (good, good), then I feel it's worth it. The ARRL in most spectrum cases sounds like any big city Mayor when confronted with the Welfare Bill in Congress. That is, we should keep our spectrum because it was given to us by FDR, (as most socialism started back then) and LBJ and that's that, it's a right. If Hams lose spectrum, then they will starve as much as the unwed teen without a handout... We've been discussing Spread Spectrum, and in most cases we are now grabbing commercial gear from Part 15 and thinking we can use that in Part 97. Well, that's absurd, why not just use it as a Part 15 device? In most cases, the power is good enough, and I can use it to order a pizza without causing my fellow Hams to call their Congressman or the ARRL :-) The whole idea with SS is reutilization, and I think some repeater on the hill that everyone aims at, is not where we should be headed. Low power LAN use is more appropriate. Every neighborhood should have a Server, and Servers should be "backboned." That sort of topology. My favorite design by a high school student for his Engineering competition was a LED Laser device that everyone puts on their roof. All homes in the neighborhood are linked together this way for phone and computers. The device on the roof looked like a prism with many cut sides to handle all the angles between homes. Only one home would be tied to the "Backbone" trunk. That's more what I think is needed. I think as speed goes up, then latency becomes more of the percentage, but still insignificant in the big picture. Steve, N5OWK "Socialism is just plain evil" - The Tick From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Aug 02 06:59:24 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 GAA05869 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:59:21 -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 OAA10571 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:58:40 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA113786912; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:55:12 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 12:56:20 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1FCBFF10.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Subject: Friendly SS tests Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="Friendly" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> 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 > 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! > I don't think conducting 4 or 5 tests is unrealistic. All I am > suggesting is build the transmitter and turn it on. The > transmitter will automaticly 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 I was thinking along the lines of a massive series of test'. While a small number of tests may convince the SS community, and maybe even the members of that local club involved, this falls well short of what is required to convince the general amateur community at large. What we need is lots people doing 'friendly' experiments in their local area worldwide. This way people many people will come into contact with real spread spectrum, and can be much more easily satisfied that it does not effect them. Something like this does not happen over night. What is needed is for the path to be made a little smoother, and the waters to be made considerably calmer, so people will be encouraged to try it rather than oppose it. If people can see that experimenters are taking extreem care NOT to cause interfrence of any type, actual or potential, and respect the rights of the other users of the band, then they will be more agreeable to spread spectrum. > 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. Cheers, Rob From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Fri Aug 02 08:19:58 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 IAA08352 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 08:19:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA21446; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:05:29 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 201FFA40; Fri, 2 Aug 96 09:16:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:02:47 -0400 Message-Id: <201FFA40.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:466] Re: Comments on SS 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 social commentary. You also sound like a Republican - another reason to like you :) Politics aside, the agrument over spread spectrum use in the amateur bands is amazing to watch. There are definitely groups of hams who see the ham bands as their own and don't want this "foreign" modulation method to invade "their" turf. As to this date, I have yet to read a convincing argument that SS will cause anymore interference than a narrowband modulation method. Its very simple guys (and gals): is SS interference occurs, we correct the problem. The same way we do if it occurs with a narrowband modulation method. 73 de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:466] Re: Comments on SS Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 8/1/96 9:06 PM There is a fear in this country that change is bad. In this case I disagree. The microwave bands are completely empty of activity. The allocation is a relic of the socialist era. Would you rather hold on to the empty band, or use the band to generate new jobs and applications? The theory is, that we would lose the band (bad, bad) and some other segment of "The People" would then get it. Well those other people turn out to be us again. If I lose 3 GHz to commercial "People" who generate jobs and sell me a product that makes my life better (good, good), then I feel it's worth it. The ARRL in most spectrum cases sounds like any big city Mayor when confronted with the Welfare Bill in Congress. That is, we should keep our spectrum because it was given to us by FDR, (as most socialism started back then) and LBJ and that's that, it's a right. If Hams lose spectrum, then they will starve as much as the unwed teen without a handout... We've been discussing Spread Spectrum, and in most cases we are now grabbing commercial gear from Part 15 and thinking we can use that in Part 97. Well, that's absurd, why not just use it as a Part 15 device? In most cases, the power is good enough, and I can use it to order a pizza without causing my fellow Hams to call their Congressman or the ARRL :-) The whole idea with SS is reutilization, and I think some repeater on the hill that everyone aims at, is not where we should be headed. Low power LAN use is more appropriate. Every neighborhood should have a Server, and Servers should be "backboned." That sort of topology. My favorite design by a high school student for his Engineering competition was a LED Laser device that everyone puts on their roof. All homes in the neighborhood are linked together this way for phone and computers. The device on the roof looked like a prism with many cut sides to handle all the angles between homes. Only one home would be tied to the "Backbone" trunk. That's more what I think is needed. I think as speed goes up, then latency becomes more of the percentage, but still insignificant in the big picture. Steve, N5OWK "Socialism is just plain evil" - The Tick From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Fri Aug 02 08:39:56 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 IAA08887 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 08:37:46 -0500 (CDT) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Fri, 02 Aug 96 07:19:33 UTC Message-Id: <10785@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: Re: Comments on SS. Hi Steve and Dwayne. Steve, Come ON! That s a real stretch now isn t it. FDR may have had socialist goals in a time when a complete change to comunism was a problem. But, its been the lack of retuning by the government, in the time since FDR that has caused allot of the problems. Besides, NOBODY can call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist! And he was responsible for the thinking in government that really resulted in our microwave allocations. He set up the national park system, as a enjoyable recreation place, today, and a RESERVE of the natural resources for the future. All the possible uses for radio spectrum will NEVER be known, and having none in reserve prevents future experimentation. Locks in what was. This really sounds allot like what u are complaining about, now doesn t it? Allot of the more socialist things that FDR did have been locked in since then. If we let the spectrum get converted, are we not going down the SAME road that the government has since FDR? Right now, all the applications are strickly along the lines of the Cellular Telephone model. But there are other architectures out there. Directivity Division, for one, that has been proposed on other news groups, is only used in Space Comunication, to date. The ham data application is an idea place to put Directivty Division to its full use, in terrestrial radio networks. NONE of the people that want the ham bands are doing this. The lack of moneyed groups to know all the future possible architectures, and radio technology is the main reason the ham radio spectrum should be maintained as a reserve. The Directivty Division technigues is an example of this. Its overlooked today. If one performance enhancing technigue is over- looked, there are probably others as well. Its time the government abandoned its socialistic practices, and KICKED some of the locked in WELFARE MOTHER commercial services off the dole. Rather than take away resources from the working middle class whole. Time for allot of these inefficient 2-way systems to go to cellular. Time for TV to use less spectrum. 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 gabe@nortel.ca Fri Aug 02 09:58:54 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 JAA11396 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:58:47 -0500 (CDT) X400-Received: by mta bnr.ca in /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:57:55 -0400 X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:35:05 -0400 X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:35:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:35:00 -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.256:02.07.96.14.35.05] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: re:[SS:464] R... From: "gabe (g.) nemeth" Sender: "gabe (g.) nemeth" Message-ID: <"16274 Fri Aug 2 10:35:10 1996"@bnr.ca> To: ss@tapr.org Cc: "gabe (g.) nemeth" Subject: re:[SS:464] Re: 900 MHz antenna information In message "900 MHz antenna information", ss@tapr.org writes: > ..CLIP... > The problem I have had with my homemade antennas is they generally don't > last a through the winter. A antenna that can withstand 1 inch ice loads > in 40-60 mile an hour winds is less a electronics project and more of a > mechnical project. > > -Jeff WB8WKA A very good point. This may open an interesting area of discussion. How does one protect home-brew antennas from the environment? I have most of my antennas north of Orillia Ontario. Canadian winters can get reasonably fierce. I silicon ALL the soldered parts and spray the metal with clear shellac spray - one that is not water based. My antenna mast is painted with Armor-all paint, and all bolts are stainless steel mated with stainless aircraft nuts/washers. This seems to make antennas last a bit longer. Does any one else at TAPR have any input? I would like to hear how people protect antennas from salty sea-side conditions as well. Thanks for reading, '73 VE3-SLJ Gabe. .. > > From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Aug 02 11:48:39 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 LAA15271 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:48:37 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25357 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:47:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:47:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960802124739_375870226@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:469] RE: Re: Comments on SS. Maybe you didnt notice, but broadcast digital TV wll take the same spectrum (thanks to a lot of digital crunching to make it fit, cause it is 8 times less efficient in baseband than analog). Digital, cellular, etc is not the cure all panacea for spectrum useage. The application determins the most desireable modulation scheme. Digital radio flunked out because of drop outs when you go between buildings, where analog FM still works fine. Figure it out...digital is not for everyting. 73 henry kb9fo From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Fri Aug 02 11:53:35 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 LAA15428 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:53:26 -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 TAA01057; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:52:53 +0300 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA013404564; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:49:24 +0300 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 17:50:06 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <201FFA40.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Subject: [SS:468] Re: Comments on SS Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com, ss@tapr.org Tony wrote: > Its very simple guys (and gals): is SS interference occurs, we > correct the problem. The same way we do if it occurs with a > narrowband modulation method. Not quite that simple, but its the right approach. For a few experimenters doing very occasional tests, yip thats fine. But if we want SS to become more popular we need to consider the effects of many users, and how this adhoc system may fall over if there is interference and the guys suffering dont know where it is comming from, or feel a little intimidated, dispondent, or overwhelmed buy the idea of confonting a number of people regarding the inetrference. Once something gets established, and if it does cause interference, the camps will be fixed into a nasty battle for the spectrum, with nobody wanting to give up what they have gained, dispite the two not being compatible (if thats how it turns out) We must ensure that this does not happen. For this reason, we need something a little more than an adhoc intention to correct any interference. We must *ensure* it does not happen in the first place. Only this will reassure people that we will not cause them interference. This means starting small and slowly growing to a point where everyone is happy with the situation. SS (like any new technology) is going to grow slowly any way, so why take more than we need? We can develope and prove this technology with very low power, well filtered outputs, microwave frequencies, directional antennas, and high processing gain, without causeing any interference to anyone. We can use ISM bands where appropriate too. So lets spell this out in guidelines, and get on with it with the support of other hams. Rob From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Aug 02 19:05:21 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 TAA03546 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:05:18 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01048 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:07:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:07:15 -0400 Message-ID: <960802200714_170584989@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:457] Re: Comments on SS Tell that to the MACC idiots! (or spoc or NFCC or whatever) From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Aug 02 19:05:21 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 TAA03547 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:05:18 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12889 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:06:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:06:13 -0400 Message-ID: <960802200613_170584975@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org, TOMSMB@aol.com Subject: Re: [SS:455] Re: WaveLAN Card purchase Have you seen the latest super circuits catalogue? It chuck full of equipment being sold/marketed to non hams that is in the ham bands. Not part 15 stuff for 900, but powerful stuff for 70 cm, 33 cm, 23 cm, 13, cm advertised for police survelience, employee spying, etc, and not one mention of a ham license is required, or the units may experience interference from hams and other LICENSED users. Just another case...... 73 Henry From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Fri Aug 02 20:55:19 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 UAA07180 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:55:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15426 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:58:20 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199608030158.BAA15426@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:471] RE: Re: Comments on SS. To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:58:20 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <960802124739_375870226@emout13.mail.aol.com> from "ATVQ@aol.com" at Aug 2, 96 12:03:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text > Maybe you didnt notice, but broadcast digital TV wll take the same spectrum > (thanks to a lot of digital crunching to make it fit, cause it is 8 times > less efficient in baseband than analog). Digital, cellular, etc is not the > cure all panacea for spectrum useage. The application determins the most > desireable modulation scheme. Digital radio flunked out because of drop outs > when you go between buildings, where analog FM still works fine. Figure it > out...digital is not for everyting. 73 henry kb9fo The fact that digital radio (I assume you're speaking in the context of broadcasting) "flunked out" will come as a nasty surprise to the numerous countries which are busily implementing it. The fact that the USA is not one of them has a lot more to do with politics and economics than technical issues. Analog FM has lots of problems in multipath environments, and digital techniques can solve them. However, the real point to be made here is that an enormous amount of prime VHF and UHF spectrum is squandered on TV. It doesn't matter whether it's analog or digital, it's still a misuse of the spectrum when there are alternate forms of delivery (cable, satellite, short-range microwave) available. The bandwidth allocated to terrestrial TV transmission should be reduced substantially, and given over to the mobile services which really need it - the so-called "Negroponte flip". All of which has little to do with the subject matter of this list, but what the hell - it's Friday. :-) Come to think of it, maybe it is relevant - if the broadcasters would cough up some of their spectrum (not likely, but the top 23 or so UHF TV channels did go to make room for cellular telephone), maybe there'd be less pressure from commercial interests to suck up the ham bands. 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 ATVQ@aol.com Sun Aug 04 08:14:33 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 IAA16691 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 08:14:31 -0500 (CDT) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05217 for ss@tapr.org; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 09:15:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 09:15:35 -0400 Message-ID: <960804091534_252437473@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:475] RE: Re: Comments on SS. Well Barry, it was the top 13 channels, not 23. There is no alternative to over-the-air broadcasts for many reasons. Top most is there is a multi-billion dollar business attached to over-the-air broadcasts, because there is still a substantial audioence which will never have cable, and doesn't now, there are 220 individual TV markets which make billions more on local programming, plus local news, etc. The UHF spectrum will be condensed if HDTV broadcasting replaces NTSC broadcasting, but the spectrum saved is only the "taboo" spectrum, which could have been recovered if TV set maufacturers had used 300 MHz IF frequency instead of a 45 MHz IF frequency. So in 20 or 30 years, if NTSC replaces digital, the rich fat cats at Motorola will get richer and fatter selling cellular phones, personal computer wirelss modems and a host of non essessntial 2-way radio stuff to ma and pop businesses. Meanwhile the Japanese electronics firms will get fat and rich selling digital TV sets, VCR's etc. Oh by the way Barry, you are going to pay the hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for all this. I aint! 'cause I'm keeping my NTSC video stuff and have a large collection of NTSC video recorders etc to last till I'm dead and buried. In case you hadn't heard, it is estimated that the switch to digital TV broadcasting will cost each and every consumer over $15,000 during their lifetime. Hope your piggy bank is full. As for me, I can have a lot more fun with that $15 grand than waste it on hocus pocus BS HDTV digital. The final determiner of video quality is the human eye, which has a finite limit to resolution, which is met by a properly working NTSC signal at a normal viewing distance. HDTV will not change that, and digital forms all have less resolution, not more. A lot will be missing from ditigal TV, including smooth motion and anti-aliasing for edge artifacts. But heck, if you are happy with blocky game boy graphics, you'll love digital HDTV....forget abot texture, graceful blending and shading, get ready for sharp contours and jagged edges and block movement. If you want an advance preview, go rent the movie, Lawrence of Arabia. There is a scene where the army is marching on horse/camel back through the valley, Lawrence is on a hill top observing from behind a well. There are other hills/mountains int he background. There is a white painted top edge to the well. Now slow the tape down to where you can watch every frame. What you will notice is that the well sides appear and disapear in sets on alternate frames. The rocks move left and right, some there and then not there in each frame, and the horses/camels only have two or three legs, as they are left out of every other frame. Yep digital sure is neat. Only half the information per picture, flicker, 2 legged horses, hillsides that move, and a well that comes and goes. There is visible flicker in the picture at regular speed, and its obnoxious at slower speeds and rediculous frame by frame. And that is a slow action scene. In faster motion, the effect is even worse. This was not some cheap film transfer, it was a letter box state of the art digital transfer, with digital noise reduction etc at enormous cost. I know becuase I was the manager in charge of video duplication of a hundred million movies a year and more. And it wasn't the VHS tapes, this effect is on the digital D1 masters. You can chop a lot out of voice information to digitize it, because ears are not sensitive to drop outs, digital holes, etc. Our brains fill in a lot in sound and pictures. Persistance of vision permits motion with limited frame rate, and persistance of hearing allows us to hear tiny fractions of a sound as a complete sound, but sooner or later you get tired of the flicker, and sooner or later you realize your CD is gritty and the vynal record isn't. If you don't notice these...too bad, if you do, then you recognize that you are getting 30 cents value for your dollar. Digital is best on limited bandwidth delivery systems like phone lines and papercup/string applications. The rest of us want all Rembrandt and Motzart had to offer. Its too bad you think it is a waste of spectrum to enjoy it in a faithfull reproduction. Good luck on your minimum communication wire line/narrowcasting system. 73 Henry KB9FO From bad@uhf.wdc.net Sun Aug 04 11:16:31 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 LAA23340 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:16:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA00280; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:21:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:476] RE: Re: Comments on SS. In-Reply-To: <960804091534_252437473@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 4 Aug 1996 ATVQ@aol.com wrote: [ deleted long/irrelevant text that has nothing to do with Spread Spectrum] Enough is enough! Can we please get back to the topic of this mailing list? I subscribed to this list for the purpose of learning about and discussing spread spectrum and SS system installation/implementation and NOT for reading how wonderful Henry things that NTSC is. If I wanted to discuss ATV, I would either join an ATV mailing list or sponsor my own ATV mailing list, but it certainly has no place on this mailing list. Thanks... Now, that that's off my chest - could we please have some more Wavelan system implementation descriptions? I know that more than the couple of people that posted descriptions bought Wavelan cards in the recent group purchase (thanks Jeff/Kevin). What I am especially interested in are wavelan systems that use one or more intermediate repeaters. Because of the distance/terrain involved in my "proposed" system, I will need at least one Wavelan repeater system, and I would very much like to hear from people who have already set up such systems. My intended OS is FreeBSD (preferably) or Linux. Thanks. Bernie nu1s From bbaker@microagewny.com Sun Aug 04 13:14:01 1996 Received: from microagewny1.microagewny.com (root@microagewny1.microagewny.com [206.99.165.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id NAA28160 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:13:59 -0500 (CDT) From: bbaker@microagewny.com Received: from [206.99.165.125] (ppp26.microagewny.com [206.99.165.125]) by microagewny1.microagewny.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA18340 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:09:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:09:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199608041809.OAA18340@microagewny1.microagewny.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Wireless Firmware To: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.21 Is anyone working on developing a multi-point to multi-point firmware for serial wireless lan devices ? So far it would seem most companys I've confronted with this subject are flooded with requests for firmware with this capability, yet there is no serious signs of progress. Multipoint to multipoint with multi-connect is the goal. If anyone in the TAPR forum is working on this for amateur applications I'd welcome any feed back. Thanks. Brian Baker kd2dl bbaker@microagewny.com From jerryn@ici.net Sun Aug 04 20:03:26 1996 Received: from uhura.ici.net (uhura.ici.net [204.97.252.6]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA15555 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 20:03:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from innovative.tech.com (pmfr4ip6.ici.net [206.231.69.96]) by uhura.ici.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA01605 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 21:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Sender: root@uhura.ici.net Message-ID: <32054392.60756161@ici.net> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 20:42:58 -0400 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:478] Wireless Firmware References: <199608041809.OAA18340@microagewny1.microagewny.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bbaker@microagewny.com wrote: > > Is anyone working on developing a multi-point to multi-point firmware > for serial wireless lan devices ? So far it would seem most companys > I've confronted with this subject are flooded with requests for firmware > with this capability, yet there is no serious signs of progress. > > Multipoint to multipoint with multi-connect is the goal. > > If anyone in the TAPR forum is working on this for amateur applications > I'd welcome any feed back. > > Thanks. Brian Baker kd2dl bbaker@microagewny.com > > What I do for Serial Multipoint to Multipoint is purchase wireless modems with the "passthrough" capability. This will allow you to have the radio to listen to all traffic. Your software will do the work. I have modified the AX.25 code for Linux to support my Proxim Modems I gor cheap. The code isn't 100% yet but it's almost there. I have NO PLANS to port the code to Miscrosoft. I am very anti microsoft now. I developed code 7 years ago thatfixed an interrupt latenct time problem in windows and allowed you to play sound files from your soundblaster without heating the pooping noises .... well I was promised many things, they even signed a non-disclosure. I never got any cash. Microsoft Suck and they only steal from people. I didn't sue... I don't believe in it. Instead I am designing code for the Linux Operating System. I hope one day it will take a massive bite out od there market share! Anyway the Proxim Modems support pass-though mode.. any modem that supports pass-through will get your job done! From admin@marconi.crompton.com Sun Aug 04 23:22:08 1996 Received: from marconi.crompton.com (admin@[204.183.201.32]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id XAA21769 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 23:22:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from admin@localhost) by marconi.crompton.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id AAA01458; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:21:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:21:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Doug Crompton (Administrator)" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: WaveLAN Card purchase In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960801040652.0071cf44@mich.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I have not been paying attention! Since this is one of about 50 groups I get. I suspect it is way to late to get in on this? Will there be another one? Doug ********************************* * Doug Crompton * * Richboro, PA 18954 * * 215-355-5307 * * * * doug@crompton.com * * wa3dsp@wa3dsp.ampr.org * * http://www.resuba.com/wa3dsp * ********************************* From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Aug 05 00:43:26 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) id AAA29159 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:43:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199608050543.AAA29159@tapr.org> Subject: [HFSIG:1428] Re: Advantages of SS (fwd) To: ss@tapr.org (Spread Spectrum) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:43:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text This was posted by Phil on the HF SIG -- thought that several on here might like to see it. There is a discussion on the HF SIG about SS on HF. :-) Greg Forwarded message: >From hfsig@tapr.org Mon Aug 5 00:34:30 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:21:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608050500.WAA01008@unix.ka9q.ampr.org> Reply-To: hfsig@tapr.org Originator: hfsig@tapr.org Sender: hfsig@tapr.org Precedence: bulk From: Phil Karn To: hfsig@tapr.org Subject: [HFSIG:1428] Re: Advantages of SS X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio HF Special Interest Group >1) If assumed that the center frequency of different DS SS operations are >randomly chosen, what would that do to the near-far problem, i.e., if you >use DS SS and experiencing interference from your neighbor DS SS operator, >why not QSY out of harm's way of the offending signal envelope? This assumes >that contacts are initially established on some known frequency. Am I right >in assuming that if only two parties are involved in DS SS, that the PSD >does have a maxima somewhere, even though it is a wideband, i.e, not quite >white over the full bandwidth? Johan, You assume that there's little if any filtering after the spreading operation. Most real systems I know do in fact filter, both to flatten the in-band spectrum and to knock off the sin(x)/x sidelobes. Qualcomm CDMA uses a particularly sharp FIR filter because of cellular carrier requirements. To get the sharp skirts we let the passband ripple somewhat. The resulting display on a spectrum analyzer closely resembles the top of Bart Simpson's head, so around here we often call each composite CDMA waveform a "Bart's head". >2) How many SS particpants does it take to start raising the noise floor to >a point where it becomes objectionable? 2, 10, 100, 1000 ? If the number is >1000, would it be realistic, given a comparable narrow-band situation, to >expect anyone to be able to conduct a QSO with that occupancy? Like a >contest with 1000 RTTY operators calling simultaneously in the 14.090 - >14.065 20 meter segment. This depends on the process gain, required Eb/N0s and relative signal strengths. The math is actually pretty straightforward. Consider a DS/SS system with coding and spreading such that an Eb/N0 of 6 dB is required and the ratio of RF bandwidth to user data rate is 128:1. (These are the approximate parameters of Qualcomm CDMA). The process gain is 10*log10(128) ~= 21 dB. For a required Eb/N0 of 6 dB, the overall SNR required is 6 - 21 = -15 dB. This figure is sometimes referred to as Ec/I0, the ratio of the energy per chip to the interference spectral density. If everyone's power is matched at the receiver, you can tolerate as many as 31.6 other users before their aggregate interference brings the Eb/N0 down to 6 dB. Note this is less than the 128 users you could theoretically support by just dividing up the total bandwidth into 128 equal size pieces. But that assumes no thermal noise, i.e., that it would be easy to operate at the higher Eb/N0 that's required without bandwidth-expanding coding, especially on a fading channel. It also ignores any savings from better dynamic sharing, and it ignores the benefits from being able to geographically reuse frequencies more densely because of the far greater resistance to co-channel interference. Phil From bruce@cascade.com.au Mon Aug 05 07:23:26 1996 Received: from opera.iinet.net.au (opera.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.7]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id HAA10797 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 07:23:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from grunge.iinet.net.au (grunge.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.9]) by opera.iinet.net.au (8.7.4/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA17937 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 20:23:20 +0800 Received: from rapid.cascade.com.au (rapid.cascade.com.au [203.61.165.55]) by grunge.iinet.net.au (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02057 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 20:23:18 +0800 Received: from river.cascade.com.au (river.cascade.com.au [203.61.165.15]) by rapid.cascade.com.au (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id UAA05524 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 20:28:03 +0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960805122229.0074b970@rapid.cascade.com.au> X-Sender: huntb@rapid.cascade.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 20:22:29 +0800 To: ss@tapr.org From: Cascade Communications Pty Ltd Subject: Re: [SS:478] Wireless Firmware At 13:32 4/08/96 -0500, you wrote: >Multipoint to multipoint with multi-connect is the goal. > Brian, What nibbles have you had back? What applications do you see for this mode of operation. 73's Bruce, VK6XZ From bbaker@microagewny.com Mon Aug 05 15:39:21 1996 Received: from microagewny1.microagewny.com (root@microagewny1.microagewny.com [206.99.165.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id PAA01424 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:39:20 -0500 (CDT) From: bbaker@microagewny.com Received: from [206.99.165.115] (ppp16.microagewny.com [206.99.165.115]) by microagewny1.microagewny.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09435 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:35:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:35:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199608052035.QAA09435@microagewny1.microagewny.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [SS:479] Re: Wireless Firmware To: ss@tapr.org In-Reply-To: <32054392.60756161@ici.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.21 On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Jerry Normandin wrote: >bbaker@microagewny.com wrote: >> >> Is anyone working on developing a multi-point to multi-point firmware >> for serial wireless lan devices ? So far it would seem most companys >> I've confronted with this subject are flooded with requests for firmware >> with this capability, yet there is no serious signs of progress. >> >> Multipoint to multipoint with multi-connect is the goal. >> >> If anyone in the TAPR forum is working on this for amateur applications >> I'd welcome any feed back. >> >> Thanks. Brian Baker kd2dl bbaker@microagewny.com >> >> >What I do for Serial Multipoint to Multipoint is purchase >wireless modems with the "passthrough" capability. This will >allow you to have the radio to listen to all traffic. Your >software will do the work. I have modified the AX.25 code for Linux >to support my Proxim Modems I gor cheap. The code isn't 100% yet >but it's almost there. I have NO PLANS to port the code to Miscrosoft. >I am very anti microsoft now. I developed code 7 years ago thatfixed an >interrupt latenct time problem in windows and allowed you to play >sound files from your soundblaster without heating the pooping noises >... well I was promised many things, they even signed a non-disclosure. >I never got any cash. Microsoft Suck and they only steal from people. >I didn't sue... I don't believe in it. Instead I am designing code for >the Linux Operating System. I hope one day it will take a massive bite >out od there market share! > > >Anyway the Proxim Modems support pass-though mode.. any modem that >supports pass-through will get your job done! > > > Ok on the proxim modems I'll check into the them. I think I did once before but they probably didn't support the range we need or FH vers. Direct Sequence there was some stickey wicket about them. In particular I'm looking for a serial device eg. Freewave, Gina etc... type modem that supports multiconnect/multipoint to multipoint. thanks for your input Brian From jeff@mich.com Mon Aug 05 16:46:20 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 QAA03642 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:46:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server1.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0unXTa-0002caC; Mon, 5 Aug 96 17:46 EDT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960805220117.0070ac00@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: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 18:01:17 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:483] Re: Wireless Firmware At 03:40 PM 8/5/96 -0500, bbaker@microagewny.com wrote: >In particular I'm looking for a serial device eg. Freewave, Gina etc... >type modem that supports multiconnect/multipoint to multipoint. > >thanks for your input > >Brian > > I've used the FreeWave's in multipoint mode. Most I had going was 4 of them with 1 master and 4 slaves. Hooked into various PC's running Winsock's and Mac powerbooks running (I guess) the same. The master was hooked to a Livingston portmaster talking 115200 to the FreeWave. All units were running Slip. They seemed to hold up fairly well. The FreeWave in master in multipoint acks the slaves packets but the slaves don't ack the master packets. I was depending on the IP transport layer for this. This is the 'broadcast' mode. There is also a mode that allows specific slaves to be addressed (there mode 6) but never have used this. > >Regards, Jeff King jeff@mich.com Linked to the internet via spread spectrum From hg@penny.n2wx.ampr.org Mon Aug 05 17:04:33 1996 Received: from bbs.mpcs.com (root@bbs.mpcs.com [204.215.226.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id RAA04664 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:04:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from penny.n2wx.ampr.org (root@penny.south.mpcs.com [204.215.226.90]) by bbs.mpcs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/MPCS) with ESMTP id SAA07379 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:04:28 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by penny.n2wx.ampr.org (8.7.3/8.6.12/n2wx) id SAA00335 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:04:26 -0400 Received: (from hg@localhost) by penny.n2wx.ampr.org (8.7.3/8.7.3/n2wx) id SAA00329; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:04:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:04:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199608052204.SAA00329@penny.n2wx.ampr.org> From: Howard Goldstein To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:483] Re: Wireless Firmware In-Reply-To: <199608052035.QAA09435@microagewny1.microagewny.com> References: <32054392.60756161@ici.net> <199608052035.QAA09435@microagewny1.microagewny.com> Organization: disorganization bbaker@microagewny.com writes: > In particular I'm looking for a serial device eg. Freewave, Gina etc... > type modem that supports multiconnect/multipoint to multipoint. O'Neill Connectivities From buaas@wireless.wdc.net Tue Aug 06 12:27:41 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 MAA22272 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:27:38 -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 KAA27772 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:30:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:30:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199608061730.KAA27772@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: Re: [SS:484] Re: Wireless Firmware Hi Gang-- I'd like to expand slightly on Jeff King's valuable observations: (a) The FreeWave product described here is a FH system, whose radio throughput is on the order of 128 KBPS using simple FM FSK. The AT&T WaveLAN is a 2 MBPS DS system using DQPSK modulation. (b) The FreeWave contains software that provides varying degrees of agressive link layer throughput/flow control/error recovery when operated in the point-to-point mode. This software is substantially disabled in the point-to-multipoint mode, as slave units do NOT acknowledge receipt of transmissions from the master unit. The WaveLAN software contains no such link layer support (though modifications to the driver could provide similiar features). Point-multipoint operations are only currently supported through the use of higher-layer protocols (such as NOS or UNIX). Phil Karn correctly points out that agressive error correction is often required in radio systems at the link layer, whereas it is much less required in wired systems. (c) FreeWave receivers, by virture of their lower channel bandwidth, are significantly more sensitive than the WaveLAN. The FreeWave's I've measured operate in the range of -100 to -107 dBm, whereas the WaveLAN is specificied at -78 dBm (not yet measured). Jeff-- since you have working systems, might you publish some user-level (say, FTP) throughputs, contrasting both systems using an apples-to-apples benchmark? I'm sure everyone would find this information useful. best regards/bob From bbaker@microagewny.com Tue Aug 06 22:46:39 1996 Received: from microagewny1.microagewny.com (root@microagewny1.microagewny.com [206.99.165.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id WAA15624 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:46:37 -0500 (CDT) From: bbaker@microagewny.com Received: from [206.99.165.100] (ppp1.microagewny.com [206.99.165.100]) by microagewny1.microagewny.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06208 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 23:42:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 23:42:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199608070342.XAA06208@microagewny1.microagewny.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Wireless modem firmware To: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.21 So far I've got some interesting responses for multipoint to multipoint and multiconnect firmware. Most of the serial ported hardware is made for point to point applications. While some have come up with very clever ways to trick these modems into doing multiconnect with some elaborate tcpip routing and PC's. The bottom line is Point to multipoint with the use of a central UNIX box comes close but it's still *NOT True* multi-connect and multipoint firmware! Besides I wonder who in the amateur world is going to Sponsor PC/UNIX boxes at repeater sites to act as fancy repeater router hub's ? Thus offering the same multiconnect capability that could of been burnt into a $1.00 27c512 EPROM had the firmware only been engineered with smart multiconnect routing option in the first place! The sad fact is that many of the spread spectrum modem processors are based on an 80x processor anyway, so plenty of source code is already out there. GINA for example use a 80c188 which is basically a stand alone 8088 processor with (yup you guessed it) a 27c512 to hold the x.25 firmware. Sigh.... On the brighter side, I spoke with Utilicom Inc. today and they have subcontracted a true multipoint to multipoint firmware development. They tell me it's due to be added to their product line in October or later this year. Their "Long Ranger" modem already has some interesting features including software selectable power output and selectable DS P/N codes, and CSMA/Collision Avoidance for efficient collision-free operation in systems containing multiple transceivers operating at the same RF frequency and with the same P/N code. As an alternative, pairs of transceivers can be programmed to use different RF channels and P/N codes, allowing simultaneous operation without reduction of data throughput. This to me is the meat and potato of control over the modem and critical toward future standardization. Certainly not something that is hard coded in firmware and tossed aside to fit a pretty (but useless) software option. While Utilicom modems only go to about 64Kb I still applaud them for their firmware engineering and they are working on a T1 or higher speed modem for their product line. They also said that some changes relaxing FCC antenna regulations for part 15 wireless devices may be in the works soon. From djk@tobit.co.uk Wed Aug 07 13:32:53 1996 Received: from dirku.tobit.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id NAA21306 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:32:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (djk@localhost) by dirku.tobit.co.uk (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA00505 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 19:48:28 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 19:48:28 +0100 (BST) From: Dirk-Jan Koopman Reply-To: djk@tobit.co.uk To: ss@tapr.org Subject: New (?) chipset? In-Reply-To: <199608061730.KAA27772@wireless.wdc.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Check out the Z87200 part on Zilog's web site (http://www.zilog.com/) I ask for prices $36 for slow part $50 for the fast part. Dirk From kleber@magiclink.com.br Thu Aug 08 22:12:13 1996 Received: from ruby.magiclink.com.br (ruby.magiclink.com.br [200.254.29.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id WAA24038 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 22:12:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from slip3.magiclink.com.br (slip3 [200.254.29.72]) by ruby.magiclink.com.br (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id AAA26671 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 00:14:54 -0300 Message-ID: <320AE48F.1EDC@magiclink.com.br> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:11:11 -0700 From: Kleber Almeida Reply-To: kleber@magiclink.com.br Organization: Arrow Sistemas X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Network point to multipoint Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi !!! Where i find informations about building a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) using wireless tecnology (specialy spread spectrum radio/modems) at high speed (up 33 kbps or more) with access for internet, roaming, etc. ? From 0007367829@mcimail.com Fri Aug 09 05:26:03 1996 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com (gatekeeper.mcimail.com [192.147.45.5]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id FAA14395 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 05:26:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.40.135.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA18186; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:22:47 GMT Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id ab01942; 9 Aug 96 10:25 WET Date: Fri, 9 Aug 96 05:24 EST From: TJ OBRIEN <0007367829@mcimail.com> To: ss Subject: RE: [SS:489] Network point to multipoint Message-Id: <80960809102408/0007367829PJ2EM@MCIMAIL.COM> You ca start with From bad@uhf.wdc.net Fri Aug 09 08:31:54 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 IAA20868 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:31:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bad@localhost) by uhf.wdc.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA02372; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:37:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: TJ OBRIEN <0007367829@mcimail.com> cc: kleber@magilink.com.br, ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:490] RE: Network point to multipoint In-Reply-To: <80960809102408/0007367829PJ2EM@MCIMAIL.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, TJ OBRIEN wrote: > You ca start with Area Networks by W. Stallings , Fourth > Edition, IBSN 0-02-415465-2 > 73 > tj > K2CPF > Alternate address > Hi: You've got to be kidding! We used this book in a local area networks course and we all (instructor included) found it to be poorly written. Furthermore, Stallings doesn't know much (anything?) about wireless networking. Kleber is clearly looking for a book on wireless network. How about those books that Steve Bible recommended several months ago as "required reading" for wireless networking? I'll try to dig his old message out if I still have it. 73 Bernie nu1s From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Fri Aug 09 21:35:35 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 VAA01292 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 21:35:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23754 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 02:37:59 GMT From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199608100237.CAA23754@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Subject: Re: [SS:486] Re: Wireless Firmware To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 02:37:59 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <199608061730.KAA27772@wireless.wdc.net> from "Robert A. Buaas" at Aug 6, 96 12:32:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Bob said: > (c) FreeWave receivers, by virture of their lower channel bandwidth, > are significantly more sensitive than the WaveLAN. The FreeWave's I've > measured operate in the range of -100 to -107 dBm, whereas the WaveLAN > is specificied at -78 dBm (not yet measured). > > Jeff-- > > since you have working systems, might you publish some user-level > (say, FTP) throughputs, contrasting both systems using an apples-to-apples > benchmark? I'm sure everyone would find this information useful. I haven't had time to try the WaveLAN cards yet, but I'm currently looking at some Proxim RangeLAN2 units (2.4 GHz FH)... not surprisingly, they're in the same ballpark as WaveLAN as far as receiver sensitivity goes. According to my measurements, the BER hits 10E-6 at about -80 dBm (which is the same figure given in Lucent's specs for "receiver sensitivity" of 2.4 GHz WaveLANs). At this signal level, the RangeLANs are in the fallback BFSK mode at 0.8 Mbps. It takes another 10 dB or so for the 4FSK 1.6 Mbps mode to kick in. FTP throughput was measured between two 486s running JNOS (TCP MSS = 1460)... it averaged 42.3 Kbytes/s at -80 dBm and 67.3 Kbytes/s at -70 dBm. Throughput topped out at just over 70 Kbytes/s. This is not too shabby (about 20 times what we get on our 56 Kbps MAN!), but clearly there is quite a bit of overhead in Proxim's MAC layer implementation... apparently their RangeLink product, based on the same hardware, is more optimized for point-to-point and has higher throughput. I hope to get some field tests done this weekend. 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 crlbyers@garlic.com Sat Aug 10 17:42:21 1996 Received: from garlic.com (root@garlic.com [165.227.35.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id RAA14194 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 17:42:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from v.sm1.garlic.com by garlic.com (8.7.5/4.03) id PAA08910; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:42:14 -0700 Message-ID: <320E4A75.5E59@garlic.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 14:02:45 -0700 From: Carol AByers Organization: no1no's X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org CC: crlbyers@garlic.com Subject: Re: [SS:492] Re: Wireless Firmware References: <199608100237.CAA23754@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry McLarnon VE3JF wrote: > > Bob said: > > (c) FreeWave receivers, by virture of their lower channel bandwidth, > > are significantly more sensitive than the WaveLAN. The FreeWave's I've > > measured operate in the range of -100 to -107 dBm, whereas the WaveLAN > > is specificied at -78 dBm (not yet measured). > > > > Jeff-- > > > > since you have working systems, might you publish some user-level > > (say, FTP) throughputs, contrasting both systems using an apples-to-apples > > benchmark? I'm sure everyone would find this information useful. > > I haven't had time to try the WaveLAN cards yet, but I'm currently > looking at some Proxim RangeLAN2 units (2.4 GHz FH)... not surprisingly, > they're in the same ballpark as WaveLAN as far as receiver sensitivity > goes. According to my measurements, the BER hits 10E-6 at about -80 > dBm (which is the same figure given in Lucent's specs for "receiver > sensitivity" of 2.4 GHz WaveLANs). At this signal level, the RangeLANs > are in the fallback BFSK mode at 0.8 Mbps. It takes another 10 dB or so > for the 4FSK 1.6 Mbps mode to kick in. > > FTP throughput was measured between two 486s running JNOS (TCP MSS = > 1460)... it averaged 42.3 Kbytes/s at -80 dBm and 67.3 Kbytes/s at -70 > dBm. Throughput topped out at just over 70 Kbytes/s. This is not too > shabby (about 20 times what we get on our 56 Kbps MAN!), but clearly > there is quite a bit of overhead in Proxim's MAC layer implementation... > apparently their RangeLink product, based on the same hardware, is more > optimized for point-to-point and has higher throughput. > > I hope to get some field tests done this weekend. > > 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.caHi Barry, Have been working with these unit at work, and would link to know how you are testing...i.e., test equipment, software, test procedures, etc. Would also, like to set up an amateur radio network too... any help would be greatly appreciated. 73's, de Carol W9HGI From crlbyers@garlic.com Thu Aug 15 23:24:47 1996 Received: from garlic.com (root@garlic.com [165.227.35.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id XAA10397 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:24:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from d.sm1.garlic.com by garlic.com (8.7.5/4.03) id VAA13630; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 21:24:38 -0700 Message-ID: <32153206.3427@garlic.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:44:22 -0700 From: Carol AByers Organization: no1no's X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org CC: crlbyers@garlic.com Subject: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would like to either build or buy a SS XCVR. Am not sure where to start. Can anyone offer help? Are there any kits, plans, etc. ? TNX, Carol, W9HGI From lfry@mindspring.com Fri Aug 16 09:59:53 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 JAA04384 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:59:49 -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 KAA22657 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 10:59:47 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960816150040.00748140@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, 16 Aug 1996 11:00:40 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Lee W. Fry" Subject: Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers In [SS:494] Carol, W9HGI wrote: >Would like to either build or buy a SS XCVR. Am not sure where to start. >Can anyone offer help? Are there any kits, plans, etc. ? > >TNX, > >Carol, W9HGI > For commercial and OEM devices, and links to chip makers, take a look at my web page http://www.mindspring.com/~lfry/part15.htm - Not everything I have found is there yet, but I am updating it every couple of days or so. Check back & reload. As previous postings have pointed out, you can operate approved devices under part 15, or if you want to experiment (with non-approved antennas, power levels etc.) you will have to join Buass' STA - see http://www.tapr.org/ss/. Lee - AA0JP lfry@mindspring.com From dewayne@warpspeed.com Sat Aug 17 10:15:42 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 KAA06943 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 10:15:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [204.118.182.22] by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:15:29 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:15:12 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List), fccreg@tapr.org (TAPR FCC Regulatory List) From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: More on threats to amateur radio spectrum with SS A couple of weeks ago I made a posting to this list about the current threats to amateur radio spectrum in the UHF and microwave bands. One of the things that I pointed out was that various commercial companies were making use of SS technology in order to build a case to the FCC that they could co-exist without interferrence with the incumbants in the band. One company that I mentioned was DSC Communications, which has submitted a petition for rulemaking to the FCC to obtain spectrum in our 2.4 GHz band. I thought that members of this list would be interested in seeing a followup in the form of a bulletin that Brad Wyatt K6WR, the ARRL Pacific Division Director just put out this morning on this issue. As you can see, at least someone in the ARRL infrastructure is working on this problem. -- Dewayne ============================== Latest news as of 7AM PDT, Aug. 17, 1996, on another 2400 Mhz. potential reallocation and related matters -- To those of you on the Pacific Division 2400 MHz Alert List --- This bulletin and the rest of the information should also be found on the ARRL Pacific Division Home Page on WWW at pdarrl.org --- Latest news -- Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP, sent me a very interesting story involving yet another company now selling a wireless local loop product using spread spectrum technology in the unlicensed Part 15 bands!!!! As Dewayne puts it, "So here we are, the DSC WLL petition isn't even cold yet and we have another company shipping a SS WLL product that operates in the ham radio spectrum allocation." Here is the story --- Tadiran delivers first wireless local loop system in U.S. Source: Business Wire CLEARWATER, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE) via Individual Inc. -- Tadiran Telecommunications Ltd. (NASDAQ: TTELF) today announced MultiGain Wireless (MGW), the first wireless local loop system to be made available in the United States. Tadiran's new wireless system delivers all the basic and enhanced voice and data services of today's wired POTS network with none of the costs for maintenance of copper or fiber optic connections. Installation of the entire MultiGain Wireless system into a neighborhood can be accomplished in a few days. Tadiran's MultiGain Wireless local loop system provides local and long distance carriers, Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) and Competitive Access Providers (CAPS), with a state-of-the-art, cost-effective telecommunications alternative to conventional copper plants. The MGW delivers an exceptionally clear and secure wireless telephone service that can be installed practically anywhere from new housing developments, where no current copper infrastructure is present, to remote communities, where cable would be impossible or extremely expensive to install. In addition, since there are no physical transmission lines to the subscriber, interruption of service due to cable failure is nearly impossible. "Since copper connectivity is not needed, Tadiran's MultiGain Wireless is the perfect communications solution in areas throughout the U.S. where the existing feeder or distribution cables are fully loaded, of questionable quality, or where the repair of faults in existing cable is simply impractical," said Mark Vida, Vice President and General Manager of Tadiran Telecommunications Network Systems in Clearwater, Florida. "MGW is also an ideal solution for applications that require quick, but temporary installations -- such as providing service during major public events or natural disasters, where it is not feasible to lay copper cables." Spread Spectrum Frequency Hopping Through the use of Tadiran's spread spectrum frequency hopping digital radio technology, MGW provides subscribers with the same Toll Quality that they are used to with copper lines and allows for seamless connectivity to all the local switch services they may be currently using -- from POTS to ISDN. By constantly switching frequencies within its operating band, the MGW avoids interference to a subscriber's call. In addition, the MGW Radio Port Unit may use either omnidirectional or sectorized antennas, allowing for flexible radio coverage and optimal deployment. The use of the unlicensed ISM frequency band saves the operator the need to pay for costly frequency allocation. Subscriber Benefits Tadiran's MultiGain Wireless system provides subscribers with: - Toll Quality voice, data, facsimile, modem, BR-ISDN, CLASS and CENTREX communications not available with cellular service; - Complete, seamless connectivity with all current communications from POTS to ISDN; - An extremely cost-effective wireless access solution; - Secure communications through its frequency hopping features; and - Easy and quick installation and maintenance, minimizing subscriber downtime. MultiGain Wireless Architecture Three basic units are used to bring wireless local loop telephone service to the subscriber. 1. The Radio Port Control Unit (RPCU) is the interface between the central office and the Radio Port Units. It may operate over digital lines or be combined with the Analog Interface Unit (AIU) to provide the interface over analog lines. 2. The Radio Port Unit (RPU) provides the radio links between the local switch and the Fixed Access Unit located at the subscriber's home or business. 3. The Fixed Access Unit (FAU) is installed at the subscriber's location and completes the wireless radio link to the RPU. The FAU also provides a standard wired interface to each customer for a variety of equipment, such as telephone, facsimile, or modem. These wired devices can then send information - voice or data - over the wireless system. Customer Record The MGW system is operating successfully in numerous countries around the world. Domestic trials are currently being performed with U.S. West, and other selected customers in the United States. Pricing and Availability The Tadiran MultiGain Wireless system is available and is priced between $500 to $1,500 per line, depending on the number of subscribers and the terrain of the given installation. Tadiran Telecommunications, Ltd. (NASDAQ: TTELF) designs, develops, manufactures and markets a wide range of sophisticated wired and wireless telecommunications equipment, such as Wireless Local Loop products, Digital Cross-Connect systems, Digital Pair Gain systems, Multiplexers, ADPCM transcoders, PBX and Key systems, ACD systems, Computer Telephony Integration, and Wireless PBX. Tadiran Telecommunications, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Tadiran Ltd. (NYSE:TAD). T::DAX is a trademark of Tadiran Telecommunications, Ltd. CONTACT: Tom O'Boyle | Tadiran Telecommunications, Inc. | Tadiran Electronic Industries, Inc. | (813) 523-0000 | or | Jack Varley/Peter Gorman | Copithorne & Bellows | (617) 450-4300 | peterg@ca.cbpr.com [08-15-96 at 08:47 EDT, Business Wire] NOTE: The Reply Comment Date on RM 8837 is Tuesday, Aug. 27. Thanks to Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP, Assistant Director, Pacific Division for this information. We will need all those interested in retaining 2390-2450 MHz to develop Reply Comments by the deadline date of Tuesday, Aug. 27. More details will be sent to the Pacific Division 2400 MHz Alert List and posted on the Pacific Division Home Page as soon as they are known. Contact Brad Wyatt, K6WR, Pacific Division Director at k6wr@arrl.org or (408) 395-2501 if you can help in any way. 73, Brad Wyatt K6WR ARRL Pacific Division Director From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Sat Aug 17 11:59:58 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 LAA12665 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:59:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA27468; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:44:11 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 215FAC20; Sat, 17 Aug 96 13:00:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:58:02 -0400 Message-Id: <215FAC20.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:494] Spread Sprectrum Transceivers To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Carol, Some of us are working on just such a thing. No one makes a DSSS xcvr for amateur radio use, to the best of my knowledge. I am working on a basic SS radio and I hope to have it computer controlled as well. I am going to make it modular; I want to use different plug-in modules for the various ham bands. Check out the Spread Spectrum Sourcebook from ARRL. It is a good start. 73 de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:494] Spread Sprectrum Transceivers Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 8/15/96 11:38 PM Would like to either build or buy a SS XCVR. Am not sure where to start. Can anyone offer help? Are there any kits, plans, etc. ? TNX, Carol, W9HGI From djk@tobit.co.uk Sat Aug 17 12:33:13 1996 Received: from dirku.tobit.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id MAA14424 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:33:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (djk@localhost) by dirku.tobit.co.uk (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA23908 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:33:49 +0100 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:33:49 +0100 (BST) From: Dirk-Jan Koopman Reply-To: djk@tobit.co.uk To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:497] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers In-Reply-To: <215FAC20.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, LANIER.R.A- wrote: > Carol, > > Some of us are working on just such a thing. No one makes a DSSS xcvr > for amateur radio use, to the best of my knowledge. > > I am working on a basic SS radio and I hope to have it computer > controlled as well. I am going to make it modular; I want to use > different plug-in modules for the various ham bands. > > Check out the Spread Spectrum Sourcebook from ARRL. It is a good > start. > > 73 de Tony, KE4ATO > I don't know whether anybody noticed but Zilog make a complete SS modem for $36 (20Mhz) and $50 (40Mhz) which essentially requires an RF frontend and some TX hardware - all the 'hard' part appears to be done on chip. It is called a Z87200 and can be viewed (with a PDF aware Browser) on www.zilog.com. Does this interest anybody other than me? Dirk -- Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 Computer Consultant Email: djk@tobit.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Aug 19 08:54:03 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 IAA05885 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 08:54:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA26512; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:13:27 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 21872390; Mon, 19 Aug 96 09:55:05 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:52:09 -0400 Message-Id: <21872390.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:498] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part A few companies are coming out with SS chip sets; I haven't heard of the one from Zilog. I chechk out there web site today. I still haven't come across a SS xcvr kit...yet, but I'm working on it. Actually, I am working on a "simple" version and a more complex, PC-based version. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:498] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 8/17/96 12:50 PM I don't know whether anybody noticed but Zilog make a complete SS modem for $36 (20Mhz) and $50 (40Mhz) which essentially requires an RF frontend and some TX hardware - all the 'hard' part appears to be done on chip. It is called a Z87200 and can be viewed (with a PDF aware Browser) on www.zilog.com. Does this interest anybody other than me? Dirk -- Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 Computer Consultant Email: djk@tobit.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde From crlbyers@garlic.com Mon Aug 19 17:18:06 1996 Received: from garlic.com (root@garlic.com [165.227.35.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id RAA26680 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:18:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from no1nos2 by garlic.com (8.7.5/4.03) id PAA67302; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:17:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3218E768.6C35@garlic.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:15:04 -0700 From: Carol Byers Organization: No1nos X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org CC: crlbyers@garlic.com Subject: Re: [SS:497] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers References: <215FAC20.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LANIER.R.A- wrote: > > Carol, > > Some of us are working on just such a thing. No one makes a DSSS xcvr > for amateur radio use, to the best of my knowledge. > > I am working on a basic SS radio and I hope to have it computer > controlled as well. I am going to make it modular; I want to use > different plug-in modules for the various ham bands. > > Check out the Spread Spectrum Sourcebook from ARRL. It is a good > start. > > 73 de Tony, KE4ATO > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: [SS:494] Spread Sprectrum Transceivers > Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP > Date: 8/15/96 11:38 PM > > Would like to either build or buy a SS XCVR. Am not sure where to start. > Can anyone offer help? Are there any kits, plans, etc. ? > > TNX, > > Carol, W9HGI > Hi Tony, Will get a copy of the book. Sounds like a great project ... how far have you gotten ? What IC are you using ? When will you have it up and running ?? Carol From crlbyers@garlic.com Mon Aug 19 17:19:59 1996 Received: from garlic.com (root@garlic.com [165.227.35.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id RAA27068 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:19:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from no1nos2 by garlic.com (8.7.5/4.03) id PAA32134; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:19:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3218E7E4.4F3@garlic.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:17:08 -0700 From: Carol Byers Organization: No1nos X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org CC: crlbyers@garlic.com Subject: Re: [SS:498] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dirk-Jan Koopman wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, LANIER.R.A- wrote: > > > Carol, > > > > Some of us are working on just such a thing. No one makes a DSSS xcvr > > for amateur radio use, to the best of my knowledge. > > > > I am working on a basic SS radio and I hope to have it computer > > controlled as well. I am going to make it modular; I want to use > > different plug-in modules for the various ham bands. > > > > Check out the Spread Spectrum Sourcebook from ARRL. It is a good > > start. > > > > 73 de Tony, KE4ATO > > > > I don't know whether anybody noticed but Zilog make a complete SS modem > for $36 (20Mhz) and $50 (40Mhz) which essentially requires an RF frontend > and some TX hardware - all the 'hard' part appears to be done on chip. It > is called a Z87200 and can be viewed (with a PDF aware Browser) on > www.zilog.com. > > Does this interest anybody other than me? > > Dirk > > -- > Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 > Computer Consultant Email: djk@tobit.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU > "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than > the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar WildeThanks for the information...I'm off to check it out... Carol From jef@novagate.com Fri Aug 23 20:40:12 1996 Received: from novagate.com (pm-gh225.novagate.net [205.138.138.74]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA04418 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:40:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by novagate.com id AA04815 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ss@tapr.org); Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:39:48 -0500 From: "\"Jeffrey D. Spears\"" Message-Id: <199608240139.AA04815@novagate.com> Subject: SS and public service To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:39:46 -0500 (GMT-0500) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings all; Although I am not at the level of typical discussions that flow through this SIG, am tremendously interested, and working toward EE degree. I have a suggestion for you all, and will depend on you all to make a determination as to whether or not it has merit. I was driving down the freeway the other day thinking how nice it would be to have local NWS product in text format available to me in the car. What I dreamed of was a little box which could be stuck to the dashboard with an LCD display. This display would, when within range of a transmitting site, allow the user to scroll through the NWS text. Somewhere in part 97 there is a clause that says that we cannot "broadcast" things such as weather. I believe this is a very weak clause, and that it could easily be changed. Now, being a Coast Guard Radioman (they call us Telecommunications Specialist (TC) now), I have experience working with the US Navy's TDMA/DAMA system. It seems to me that SS would work nicely for a system similiar to this. I see a flexible system where different data modes could be stacked upon each other in a TDM format, using SS as the 'link level?'. Users of such a system would be asked to have NWS product available on the first--or lowest--level of the TDM transmissions. This could become a standard. Then, users could customize the rest of the TDM space with other services such as digital voice, packet radio, whatever. Imagine if every ax.25 node had this sort of service available. A driver motoring down the expressway might come into contact with a transmitting site every hour or so depending on the area being travelled through. Make the reciever design for such a thing public domain. If there were wide enough demand, and good enough coverage, than the thing would become a viable product for Rip-Off Shack to market. I would pay $100 for such a thing--wouldn't you? What say you? ciao...jef (N8LZE) From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Tue Aug 27 08:05:36 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 IAA21931 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:05:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA02543; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:51:07 -0400 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 222F2CC0; Tue, 27 Aug 96 09:06:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:29:50 -0400 Message-Id: <222F2CC0.1858@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:500] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part I'll have it up and running as soon as I can find a suitable chip set. Alot of them are very expensive right now, but as soon as production kicks in, they will get cheaper. My intention is to have a radio that most hams can build. The modular RF portion is borrowed from a QRP radio project in the '96 Handbook. I will let you know how things progress. Tony ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:500] Re: Spread Sprectrum Transceivers Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 8/19/96 5:40 PM LANIER.R.A- wrote: > > Carol, > > Some of us are working on just such a thing. No one makes a DSSS xcvr > for amateur radio use, to the best of my knowledge. > > I am working on a basic SS radio and I hope to have it computer > controlled as well. I am going to make it modular; I want to use > different plug-in modules for the various ham bands. > > Check out the Spread Spectrum Sourcebook from ARRL. It is a good > start. > > 73 de Tony, KE4ATO > Will get a copy of the book. Sounds like a great project ... how far have you gotten ? What IC are you using ? When will you have it up and running ?? Carol