From Marius.Hauki@datarespons.no Tue Sep 01 01:44:38 1998 Received: from drmail.datarespons.no ([195.159.61.15]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id BAA18059 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:44:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from datarespons.no ([192.168.1.53]) by drmail.datarespons.no (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id 192 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:45:16 +0200 Message-ID: <35EB97FE.BD245302@datarespons.no> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:45:18 +0200 From: "Marius Hauki" Organization: Data Respons X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2026] Re: Starting on N6GN's microwave project References: <35EB053B.5839@amsat.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The SRA-1 is a Mini Circuits part. Check www.minicircuits.com - they accept Master/VISA to my knowledge and will accept relatively small orders for "prototyping". Best regards LA9EEA Marius Hauki James Clay French KD4DLA wrote: > Looking at the N6GN project and can't locate these parts: > > MC13055 FSK RECEIVER IC > SRA-1 MIXER > MC10116 LINE RECEIVER IC > > Can anyone help out locating these parts and how much they cost? > > James KD4DLA From dewayne@warpspeed.com Sat Sep 05 01:02:13 1998 Received: from warpspeed.com (c443742-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.1.67.207]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id BAA07862 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:02:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (192.168.1.7) by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2b5); Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:00:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:55:07 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems Here is a pointer to a study that examines the effect of Metricom's Ricochet system on WaveLAN units: -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com Warp Speed Imagineering ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM 43730 Vista Del Mar ! WWW: Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kc5goi@infospeedway.net Sat Sep 05 02:22:59 1998 Received: from pacecar.infospeedway.net (pacecar.infospeedway.net [207.43.207.96]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id CAA11185 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:22:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from guy- (ppp12.infospeedway.net [207.43.207.108]) by pacecar.infospeedway.net (8.8.7/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA16982 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:22:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01e001bdd89e$00e6ccc0$73cf2bcf@guy-> From: "Guy Story, KC5GOI" To: Subject: digest 514 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:22:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Hello group. I have finished a quick reading of hte article that Dewayne sent to us. I found it to be very interesting and completely believe what was found. I say this because we have had a simular discovery in Denton. When we originally setup the SS gear in Denton the antenna's were setup vertically due to the easy of equipment avalabilty. We found out that as the day went on and people came home from work the throughput would drop off to an unusable rate. We ahve since moved the antennas to a horizontal polartity and that helped. The reasoning behind why this occured was that when people came home and got onto their cordless 900 MHz phones, it cause the channel avalabilty to dramaticlly drop. This was found using 1 watt radios at each location on directional antenna's. It is not clear yet who's end had the problem but it is suspected that it was at the home site not the host site. From what I have read and seen it looks like that 2 different SS modulation schemes may not co-exist as easily as we thought. The short term solution is that we carfully consider what scheme is used in what enviroment. I am not very impressed with Metricom's "crank it up till it gets through" actions. This is one reason why I feel that we as amatuer need to work towards producing inteligent gear. I fully support TAPR's current project on the SS radio and hope others do to. Guy Story, KC5GOI Silver Dome Mobile Pk. # 79 Denton Texas, 76208 940.243.0754 kc5goi@infospeedway.net www.infospeedway.net/~kc5goi/home.htm From atlas@quiknet.com Sun Sep 06 20:50:35 1998 Received: from oldmail.quiknet.com (oldmail.quiknet.com [207.183.249.80]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA16122 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 20:50:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from quiknet.com ([207.183.241.202]) by oldmail.quiknet.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-12335) with ESMTP id AAA11932 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:52:51 -0700 Message-ID: <35F33B8B.405E1E11@quiknet.com> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 18:48:59 -0700 From: Robb Greathouse X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ss@tapr.org" Subject: Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? I'll let you know what I find inside Robb GreatHouse From ssampson@usa-site.net Sun Sep 06 22:53:26 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA21856 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:53:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA18957 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:53:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdda12$cdd50c40$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Proxim Symphony Product Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:51:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Proxim has begun taking orders for their new 2.4 GHz consumer grade SS line. Price is quite a bit cheaper than their RangeLAN products. See: http://www.proxim.com Steve From ssampson@usa-site.net Sun Sep 06 23:02:45 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id XAA22157 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:02:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19004 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:02:48 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bdda14$1dc9afc0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:00:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 I think you'll find a splash of surface mount components much like the 900 MHz phones, and custom chips galore. You might try hooking up a couple of those AntennaVision dishes, and you will probably have a superior product than with a Gunn. Gunn's are pretty much dead outside of local oscillators and CW radars... Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robb Greathouse To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sunday, September 06, 1998 9:50 PM Subject: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone >Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I >was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides >could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? > >I'll let you know what I find inside > >Robb GreatHouse From djk@tobit.co.uk Mon Sep 07 05:48:54 1998 Received: from dirku.tobit.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id FAA14220 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 05:48:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 28934 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1998 10:48:42 -0000 Received: from dirk1.tobit.co.uk (djk@192.168.80.98) by dirku.tobit.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Sep 1998 10:48:42 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <000301bdda12$cdd50c40$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 11:48:41 +0100 (BST) Reply-To: djk@tobit.co.uk Organization: Tobit Computer Co Ltd Sender: djk@dirk1.tobit.co.uk From: Dirk Koopman To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: [SS:2033] Proxim Symphony Product On 07-Sep-98 Steve Sampson wrote: > Proxim has begun taking orders for their new 2.4 GHz > consumer grade SS line. > > Price is quite a bit cheaper than their RangeLAN products. > > See: http://www.proxim.com How much is that? --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. From ssampson@usa-site.net Mon Sep 07 10:17:11 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA02365 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:17:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA21846 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:17:09 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bdda72$56d57ac0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:2035] RE: Proxim Symphony Product Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:15:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >> Price is quite a bit cheaper than their RangeLAN products. >> >> See: http://www.proxim.com > >How much is that? The RangeLAN's are in the $600 price class, the Symphony is @ $150 for an ISA card or PCMCIA. Call for exact price. I'm not affiliated with Proxim in any way, and do not know if the product is a good value. Steve From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Mon Sep 07 10:52:01 1998 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 KAA03582 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:42:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19052 ; Mon, 07 Sep 98 07:55:46 UTC Message-ID: <35F3FDE5.10DD@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 10:38:13 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re:[SS:2030] Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dewayne, I guess the thing here is that WaveLAN radios were designed for use in indoor LAN systems. In such systems, the computers are relatively close, by radio standards and interferers are relatively far away. Ricochet' is a system designed for the outdoor interferance intense radio enviorment. So, its not suprising that it comes out ahead in this comparison. Does anybody know the WaveLAN radio line-up? Is it using the wide-banded IF to A/D converter to ASIC ? The IF in this type of radio can be overloaded when its used in an agressive interferance enviorment. The advantage is that indoors, shielded somewhat from interferers, Digital Matched Filter rapid lockup is possible. One way around these problems is antenna directivity. Stations can route signals around the interfering transmitters. In the Laramie, WY test, the one WaveLAN station was pointing at one Ricochet transmitter, and the other at another. Or at least that is the way i read it. So, either WaveLAN would be clobbered in a two-way communication. It would be interesting to see if the cross pattern would work. That is have the two beams point thru the midpoint of the line between the two Ricochet' sites. And also at close enuf range that the beams reject the Ricochet signals, by directivity. With an interfering system such as Ricochet, this would need to be done dynamically, tho. As interfering transmitters may be mobile. This experience is the usual problem when technology paired down to the commercially profitable, is used beyond its intent. If we wish to do such things, careful reengineering of network architecture is a requirement. -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From brett@lariat.org Mon Sep 07 22:49:36 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA13507 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:49:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA00455; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:49:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809080349.VAA00455@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 21:49:00 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:2037] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems In-Reply-To: <35F3FDE5.10DD@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:55 AM 9/7/98 -0500, Donald V. Lemke wrote: > I guess the thing here is that WaveLAN radios were designed for use >in indoor LAN systems. Not so! Lucent specifically recommends WaveLAN for outdoor applications at a range of 3-6 miles. See their literature! >Ricochet' is a system designed for the outdoor interferance intense >radio enviorment. So, its not suprising that it comes out ahead in this >comparison. It depends on the conditions. A pair of WaveLAN units would not fare too badly against one pair of Ricochet "modems" in point-to-point mode, because direct sequence spread spectrum can tolerate small "holes" in the band. The problem is that in the Ricochet SYSTEM, many transmitters join forces to force other units off the band. I have dubbed this phenomenon "swarming," because is analogous to a swarm of bees ganging up on another animal. All of the Metricom units in the same area will all increase their power to "drown out" another system, slowing it at best and disabling it at worst. And the coordination of frequency hopping patterns makes matters worse. (I'm given to understand that the FCC has recently prohibited this, but it's already present in all the units that were manufactured up until that time, which may be QUITE a large inventory.) > One way around these problems is antenna directivity. Stations can >route signals around the interfering transmitters. Unfortunately, because the Ricochet system is deployed widely, it can be very hard to do this. > In the Laramie, WY test, the one WaveLAN station was pointing at one >Ricochet transmitter, and the other at another. Or at least that is the >way i read it. This is incorrect. As stated in the paper, we intentionally pointed our antennas east/west, while the WAP (Metricom hub) was to the south of one end of the path and the nearest visible pole-top unit was to the north of the other. Both were several blocks away. --Brett Glass From rlanier@harris.com Tue Sep 08 08:18:34 1998 Received: from corpmx3.CORP.HARRIS.COM (corpmx3.corp.harris.com [137.237.103.9]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id IAA19603 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:18:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: by corpmx3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:18:31 -0400 Message-ID: <275399FB18C4D111871300805FBEB72F01215B2E@corpmx6.ess.harris.com> From: "Lanier, Robert" To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Subject: RE: 2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:18:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Robb, Where did you see this phone at? Target? Wal Mart? KMart? Sears? Would like to know. Tony KE4ATO -----Original Message----- From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 8:57 PM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? I'll let you know what I find inside Robb GreatHouse From atlas@quiknet.com Tue Sep 08 21:56:03 1998 Received: from oldmail.quiknet.com (oldmail.quiknet.com [207.183.249.80]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA00178 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:56:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from quiknet.com ([207.183.241.174]) by oldmail.quiknet.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-12335) with ESMTP id AAA21622 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:58:18 -0700 Message-ID: <35F5EDE2.57FFA339@quiknet.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 19:54:26 -0700 From: Robb Greathouse X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2039] RE: 2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone References: <275399FB18C4D111871300805FBEB72F01215B2E@corpmx6.ess.harris.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the Sacramento area it is for sale at Frye's. Probably any large electronics store would carry it. Lanier, Robert wrote: > Robb, > > Where did you see this phone at? Target? Wal Mart? KMart? Sears? > > Would like to know. > > Tony KE4ATO > > -----Original Message----- > From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 8:57 PM > To: ss@tapr.org > Subject: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone > > Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I > was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides > could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? > > I'll let you know what I find inside > > Robb GreatHouse From compuman@eecs.umich.edu Tue Sep 08 22:59:51 1998 Received: from vulture.eecs.umich.edu (vulture.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.12.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA03050 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:59:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost by vulture.eecs.umich.edu (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA05751 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:59:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Glover To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2040] RE: 2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone In-Reply-To: <35F5EDE2.57FFA339@quiknet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Check out: http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/telephone/giga.htm Aparently, it uses TWO separate bands, only from the base unit to the phone is 2.4 Ghz, the phone to base is 900 Mhz...They *claim* twice the range of std 900 Mhz DSS phones... If someone gets this please let me know, I am very curious as to the price, and quality. Thanks, Eric - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...an enormous body of information science literature is based on work that *uses* relevance, without throughly understanding what it *means* ... without an understanding of what relevance means *to* users, it seems difficult to imagine how a system can retrieve relevant information *for* users. -- Schamber, 1990 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Eric Glover -- compuman@eecs.umich.edu Grad student hoping to finish before the year 2000! On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Robb Greathouse wrote: > In the Sacramento area it is for sale at Frye's. Probably any large electronics > store would carry it. > > Lanier, Robert wrote: > > > Robb, > > > > Where did you see this phone at? Target? Wal Mart? KMart? Sears? > > > > Would like to know. > > > > Tony KE4ATO > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] > > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 8:57 PM > > To: ss@tapr.org > > Subject: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone > > > > Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I > > was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides > > could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? > > > > I'll let you know what I find inside > > > > Robb GreatHouse > > From hburford@airmail.net Wed Sep 09 06:45:34 1998 Received: from mail.airmail.net (mail.airmail.net [206.66.12.40]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id GAA02646 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:45:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from harryport from [207.136.46.133] by mail.airmail.net (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.252) with smtp for sender: id ; Wed, 9 Sep 98 06:45:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Harry Burford" To: Subject: RE: 2039] RE: 2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:46:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01bddbe7$763bc9c0$716f6f6f@harryport> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <275399FB18C4D111871300805FBEB72F01215B2E@corpmx6.ess.harris.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Circuit City here in TX had a spot for it advertised on the shelf last weekend, but they didn't have any to show. Hb KAØTTY -----Original Message----- From: ss@tapr.org [mailto:ss@tapr.org] On Behalf Of Lanier, Robert Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 8:24 AM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:2039] RE: 2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Robb, Where did you see this phone at? Target? Wal Mart? KMart? Sears? Would like to know. Tony KE4ATO -----Original Message----- From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 8:57 PM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:2032] Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum telephone Panasonic has just come out with a 2.4 ghz spread spectrum telephone. I was wondering if anyone has tried taking it apart to see if the insides could be used to modulate a gunn microwave transmitter? I'll let you know what I find inside Robb GreatHouse From dewayne@warpspeed.com Thu Sep 10 00:07:36 1998 Received: from warpspeed.com (c443742-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.1.67.207]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id AAA22462 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:07:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (192.168.1.7) by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2b6); Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:05:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:05:21 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission =46OR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 09, 1998 MURRAY HILL, N.J. - Lucent Technologies today announced scientists at Bell Labs, the company's research and development arm, have developed a breakthrough technology that may potentially boost the capacity of certain wireless links by 10 to 20 times. This innovation, known as BLAST, may allow so-called "fixed" wireless technology to rival the capabilities of today's wired networks, while also providing faster and more cost-effective deployment. One potential application would be for businesses, where wires no longer would be necessary to transmit data between desktop computers, notebook computers and hand-held devices. Another possible use would be providing phone service to remote and rural areas, where wireless networks would connect homes and businesses to copper-wired public telephone service providers. "Technologies that provide a 10-fold improvement in wireless capacity come along once a decade," said Bell Labs President Dan Stanzione. "This is a very significant scientific development with long-term potential impact on our wireless business." The BLAST technology is not well suited for mobile wireless applications, such as hand-held and car-based cellular phones, because multiple antennas - both transmitting and receiving -- are needed. In addition, tracking signal changes in mobile applications would increase the computational complexity. The inspiration for BLAST (Bell Labs Layered Space-Time) can be traced to a challenge from Rich Gitlin, chief technical officer and Data Networking Technology Vice President in Lucent's Data Networking Systems business unit. Gitlin asked the researchers to take a fresh look at a 50-year-old mathematical theory developed at Bell Labs, which is the theoretical foundation of today's high-speed communications systems. The end result was cramming roughly 10 to 20 times more information on the same frequency band by developing new signal processing techniques. "The breakthrough results prove the feasibility of a technology which leapfrogs what we assumed about the limitations of radio communications," said Jim Brewington, president of Lucent's Wireless Networks Group. "While there is still a great deal of applied research required before we apply this discovery, we are very excited about its potential implications for our future wireless systems." The BLAST technology essentially exploits a concept that other researchers believed was impossible. The prevailing view was that each wireless transmission needed to occupy a separate frequency, similar to the way in which FM radio stations within a geographical area are allocated separate frequencies. Otherwise, the interference is too overwhelming for quality communications. The BLAST researchers, however, theorized it is possible to have several transmissions occupying the same frequency band. Each transmission uses its own transmitting antenna. Then, on the receiving end, multiple antennas again are used, along with innovative signal processing, to separate the mutually interfering transmissions from each other. Thus, the capacity of a given frequency band increases proportionally to the number of antennas. The BLAST prototype, built to test this theory, uses an array of eight transmit and 12 receive antennas. During its first weeks of operation, it achieved unprecedented wireless capacities of at least 10 times the capacity of today's fixed wireless loop systems, which are used to provide phone service in rural and remote areas. "This new technology represents an opportunity for future wireless systems of extraordinary communications efficiency," said Bell Labs researcher Reinaldo Valenzuela, who headed the BLAST research team. "This experiment, which was designed to illustrate the basic principle, represents only a first step of using the new technology to achieve higher capacities." The advanced signal-processing techniques used in BLAST were first developed by researcher Gerard Foschini from a novel interpretation of the fundamental capacity formulas of Claude L. Shannon's Information Theory, first published in 1948. While Shannon's theory dealt with point-to-point communications, the theory used in BLAST relies on "volume-to -volume" communications, which effectively gives Information Theory a third, or spatial, dimension, besides frequency and time. This added dimension, said Foschini, is important because "when and where noise and interference turn out to be severe, each bit (of data) is well prepared to weather such impairments." Remarkably, the initial BLAST experiment designed by researchers Glenn Golden and Peter Wolniansky did not use the technology of error correction coding to correct signal errors, nor did the transmitter have prior knowledge of which signal components would propagate easily and which would be severely impaired. Also, BLAST research by Michael Gans includes determining the optimal placement and number of transmitting and receiving antennas. If, for instance, the distance between antennas on each end were further reduced, the number of potential applications, such as mobile communications, might increase. In addition, researchers are trying to boost capacity even further and exploring how to enhance BLAST for all wireless formats. Technical background Information about BLAST is available at http://www.bell-labs.com/news/1998/september. More information about the BLAST research project is available at http://www.bell-labs.com/projects/blast . For technical information on the BLAST architecture, see Gerard J. Foschini, "Layered Space-Time Architecture for Wireless Communication in a Fading Environment when Using Multiple Antennas," Bell Labs Technical Journal, Volume 1, Number 2 Autumn 1996, pp 41-59 (or: http://www.lucent.com/ideas2/perspectives/bltj/autumn_96/paper04/main.html. =46or more information on Claude Shannon's Information Theory, see http://www.lucent.com/informationtheory . Lucent Technologies (LU) designs, builds, and delivers a wide range of public and private networks, communications systems and software, consumer and business telephone systems and microelectronics components. Bell Labs is the research and development arm of the company. For more information about Lucent Technologies, headquartered at Murray Hill, N.J., visit our web site at www.lucent.com. Technical Background BLAST is a wireless communications technique, which uses multi-element antennas at both transmitter and receiver to permit transmission rates far in excess of those possible using conventional techniques. In wireless systems, radio waves do not propagate simply from transmit antenna to receive antenna, but bounce and scatter wildly off objects in the environment. This scattering is known as "multipath", as it results in multiple copies ("images") of the transmitted signal arriving at the receiver via different scattered paths. In conventional wireless systems, multipath represents an impairment to accurate transmission, because the images arrive at the receiver at slightly different times and can thus interfere destructively, canceling each other out. For this reason, multipath is traditionally viewed as a serious impairment. Using the BLAST approach however, it is possible to exploit multipath -- that is, to use the scattering characteristics of the propagation environment to enhance, rather than degrade, transmission accuracy by treating the multiplicity of scattering paths as separate parallel subchannels. BLAST accomplishes this by splitting a single user's data stream into multiple substreams and using an array of transmitter antennas to simultaneously launch the parallel substreams. All the substreams are transmitted in the same frequency band, so spectrum is used very efficiently. Since the user's data is being sent in parallel over multiple antennas, the effective transmission rate is increased in roughly in proportion to the number of transmitter antennas used. At the receiver, an array of antennas is again used to pick up the multiple transmitted substreams and their scattered images. Each receiving antenna "sees" all of the transmitted substreams superimposed, not separately. However, if the multipath scattering is sufficient, then the multiple substreams are all scattered differently, since they originate from different transmit antennas that are located at slightly different points in space. Using sophisticated signal processing, these differences in scattering of the substreams allow the substreams to be identified and recovered. In effect, the unavoidable multipath in wireless communication offers a very useful spatial parallelism that is used to greatly improve bit-rates. Thus, when using the BLAST technique, the more multipath, the better, just the opposite of conventional systems. The BLAST signal processing algorithms used at the receiver are the heart of the technique. At the bank of receiving antennas, high-speed signal processors look at all the signals from all the receiver antennas simultaneously, first extracting the strongest substream from the morass, then proceeding with the remaining weaker signals, which are easier to recover once the stronger signals have been removed as a source of interference. Again, the ability to separate the substreams depends on the differences in the way the different substreams propagate through the environment. Under the widely used theoretical assumption of independent Rayleigh scattering, the theoretical capacity of the BLAST architecture grows roughly linearly with the number of antennas, even when the total transmitted power is held constant. In the real world of course, scattering will be less favorable than the independent Rayleigh distributed assumption, and it remains to be seen how much capacity is actually available in various propagation environments. Nevertheless, even in relatively poor scattering environments, BLAST should be able to provide significantly higher capacities than conventional architectures. A laboratory prototype has already demonstrated spectral efficiencies of 20 to 40 bits per second per Hertz of bandwidth, numbers that are simply unattainable using standard techniques. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ =46or more information, reporters may contact: Steve Eisenberg Lucent Technologies 908-582-7474 (office) Email:seisenberg@lucent.com Dick Muldoon Lucent Technologies 908-582-5330 (office) Email:rpmuldoon@lucent.com KEYWORDS: none Copyright =A9 1998 Lucent Technologies. All rights reserved. Please contact Lucent with any technical comments or questions about this site. From adnan@itb.ac.id Thu Sep 10 02:11:24 1998 Received: from merdeka.itb.ac.id (students.ITB.ac.id [167.205.22.114]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id CAA00331 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:06:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (adnan@localhost) by students.itb.ac.id (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07728 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:03:52 +0700 (JAVT) X-Authentication-Warning: students.itb.ac.id: adnan owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:03:51 +0700 (JAVT) From: Adnan Basalamah To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2043] Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read at the "Applied microwave & wireless " magazine, may 1998 edition, a modulation methods known as VMSK , Very Minimum Shift Keying. It seems that modulation scheme has similar capabilities with this "blast". the bandwidth effieciency achieved by VMSK is 15 to 27 bits/sec/hz. measured C/N ratio for 10E-6 BER with bandwidth efficiency 16 bits/sec/hz was 5 to 6 dB -adnan- On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Dewayne Hendricks wrote: > Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission > > =46OR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 09, 1998 MURRAY HILL, N.J. - Lucent > Technologies today announced scientists at Bell Labs, the company's > research and development arm, have developed a breakthrough technology that adnan-imuts@itb.ac.id http://xxx.itb.ac.id/~adnan From wpns@compusmiths.com Thu Sep 10 10:01:54 1998 Received: from mail2.mailsorter.net (mail2.mailsorter.net [209.132.1.32]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA21787 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:01:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from compusmiths.com ([24.128.114.23]) by mail2.mailsorter.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA29543 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:01:14 -0700 Message-ID: <35F7E869.87B358D8@compusmiths.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:55:37 -0400 From: "William P.N. Smith" Organization: ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2043] Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dewayne Hendricks wrote: > Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission [...] > accuracy by treating the multiplicity of scattering paths as separate > parallel subchannels. BLAST accomplishes this by splitting a single user's > data stream into multiple substreams and using an array of transmitter > antennas to simultaneously launch the parallel substreams. All the > substreams are transmitted in the same frequency band, so spectrum is used > very efficiently. Since the user's data is being sent in parallel over > multiple antennas, the effective transmission rate is increased in roughly > in proportion to the number of transmitter antennas used. At the receiver, > an array of antennas is again used to pick up the multiple transmitted > substreams and their scattered images. Each receiving antenna "sees" all of > the transmitted substreams superimposed, not separately. However, if the > multipath scattering is sufficient, then the multiple substreams are all > scattered differently, since they originate from different transmit > antennas that are located at slightly different points in space. Using > sophisticated signal processing, these differences in scattering of the > substreams allow the substreams to be identified and recovered. In effect, Sounds like an interesting hack, let's see if it works in the real world. I'd suspect that in an environment where the multipath varies (IE, the real world) it may not work as well (or it may more heavily task the "high speed DSP", as it'll have to pick out the multipath stuff faster... -- William Smith wpns@compusmiths.com N1JBJ@amsat.org ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com From lfry@mindspring.com Thu Sep 10 17:46:18 1998 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id RAA14112 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:46:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from glory (user-38lc1ia.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.6.74]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14238 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980910224637.00af3cf8@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: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:46:37 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Lee W. Fry" Subject: Re: [SS:2045] Re: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission At 10:11 AM 9/10/98 -0500, N1JBJ wrote: >Sounds like an interesting hack, let's see if it works in the real >world. I'd suspect that in an environment where the multipath varies >(IE, the real world) it may not work as well (or it may more heavily >task the "high speed DSP", as it'll have to pick out the multipath stuff >faster... Any more signal processing, and you won't need RF. The processor will predict the result with no input. Lee AA0JP lfry@mindspring.com From akent@bga.com Thu Sep 10 20:07:19 1998 Received: from mail1.realtime.net (mail1.realtime.net [205.238.128.217]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with SMTP id UAA29750 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:07:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 33044 invoked from network); 11 Sep 1998 01:07:15 -0000 Received: from zoom.realtime.net (HELO zoom.bga.com) (root@205.238.128.40) by mail1.realtime.net with SMTP; 11 Sep 1998 01:07:15 -0000 Received: from akent (max2-71.ip.realtime.net [205.238.153.71]) by zoom.bga.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27662 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:07:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:07:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199809110107.UAA27662@zoom.bga.com> X-Sender: akent@bga.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: Kent Farnsworth Subject: Re: [SS:2044] Re: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless Yeah but: VMSK is not what these guys are talking about. I also saw the VMSK article, and thought it was cute. If I had time, I would play with VMSK, as it sounds like a really nice modulation technique. It would be relatively easy (not really, but to make it sound better, bear with me), to take a known multipath area, say downtown Anywhere, and setup a mutiple directional antenna transmitter, say some horizontally polarized, and some vertically, and aim them at different buildings in the area. Then, do the same on the receiver. Humm.... Not an easy task, but I can see where they could design a receiver algorithm such that the reflections that are the same data are indeed multipath, and the ones that are different by some amount are real data on a multipath channel. The data encoding format would be critical, I would think. This would require an enormous DSP sample history, with enormous computing power, to do this in realtime. In a point to point environment in a really crowded area, I could see how this could be amazing in data throughput. The initial training time could be a problem, I would think. It would perhaps be analgous, but almost infinitely more difficult than say land line modem equilization. In the real world, who knows. It sounds like it could work, albeit in a non-mobile environment. Kent - KC5WPW -------------- At 02:12 AM 9/10/98 -0500, Adnan Basalamah wrote: > >I read at the "Applied microwave & wireless " magazine, may >1998 edition, a modulation methods known as VMSK , Very Minimum Shift >Keying. It seems that modulation scheme has similar capabilities with this >"blast". the bandwidth effieciency achieved by VMSK is 15 to 27 >bits/sec/hz. measured C/N ratio for 10E-6 BER with bandwidth efficiency >16 bits/sec/hz was 5 to 6 dB > >-adnan- > > > >On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Dewayne Hendricks wrote: > >> Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission >> >> =46OR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 09, 1998 MURRAY HILL, N.J. - Lucent >> Technologies today announced scientists at Bell Labs, the company's >> research and development arm, have developed a breakthrough technology that > > adnan-imuts@itb.ac.id > http://xxx.itb.ac.id/~adnan > > > --- Kent Farnsworth (akent@bga.com) From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Thu Sep 10 21:50:27 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA06100 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:50:23 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA10372 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:50:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199809110250.WAA10372@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:50:13 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2038] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems In-Reply-To: <199809080349.VAA00455@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > At 10:55 AM 9/7/98 -0500, Donald V. Lemke wrote: > > > I guess the thing here is that WaveLAN radios were designed for use > >in indoor LAN systems. > > Not so! Lucent specifically recommends WaveLAN for outdoor applications > at a range of 3-6 miles. See their literature! True. I'm running a couple of 10 mile WaveLAN links with good success. However, it's 2.4 GHz WaveLAN, where you have a choice of 6 different center freqencies to help dodge interference, and you can muster up more directivity than at 900 MHz with reasonably-sized antennas. You also need a healthy dose of luck, and there's no guarantee that the guy next door won't fire something up tomorrow that will put you out of commission. The problem with WaveLAN (and virtually all of the other Part 15 direct sequence systems) is that it is very vulnerable to narrowband interference. With a spreading factor of only 11, it has minimal processing gain and barely qualifies for the term "spread spectrum". This is not what the military folks had in mind when they first developed the spread spectrum concept. :-) But the market demands speeds approaching ethernet in wireless LANs, so robustness is compromised in favor of speed. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Thu Sep 10 22:20:03 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA07571 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:19:49 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA12718 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:19:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199809110319.XAA12718@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:19:38 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2044] Re: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Adnan Basalamah wrote: > > I read at the "Applied microwave & wireless " magazine, may > 1998 edition, a modulation methods known as VMSK , Very Minimum Shift > Keying. It seems that modulation scheme has similar capabilities with this > "blast". the bandwidth effieciency achieved by VMSK is 15 to 27 > bits/sec/hz. measured C/N ratio for 10E-6 BER with bandwidth efficiency > 16 bits/sec/hz was 5 to 6 dB I've seen similar articles about amazing breakthroughs in the past. The thing is, you never see such articles in refereed technical journals. They are always in those trade mags that mainly print material submitted by their advertisers - application notes, thinly-disguised ads, etc. Then, strangely enough, you never hear about the amazing breakthrough again. I remember seeing the article you mention, and if I remember correctly, the author is associated with a company which has been making exaggerated claims for a wireless Internet service which is based on CDPD. Given its source, I'd put more credence in the Lucent development, but it's bound to have its own limitations. It sounds like a variation on the RAKE receiver idea, but instead of resolving the multipath components and using them as diversity branches to improve the error rate of a single bit stream, the components carry independent bit streams. As someone else mentioned, the success of this technique would be very dependent on the propagation environment, and it doesn't seem to have any potential in mobile applications. Life's full of tradeoffs, ain't it? ;-) Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 11 00:00:25 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id AAA16267 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA09277; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:00:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809110500.XAA09277@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:55:44 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:2045] Re: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission In-Reply-To: <35F7E869.87B358D8@compusmiths.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:11 AM 9/10/98 -0500, William P.N. Smith wrote: >Sounds like an interesting hack, let's see if it works in the real >world. It's does. It's called a "phased array." ;-) --Brett From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 11 00:00:28 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id AAA16268 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA09280; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:00:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809110500.XAA09280@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:59:49 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:2048] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems In-Reply-To: <199809110250.WAA10372@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809080349.VAA00455@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:52 PM 9/10/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >The problem with WaveLAN (and virtually all of the other Part 15 direct >sequence systems) is that it is very vulnerable to narrowband interference. >With a spreading factor of only 11, it has minimal processing gain and >barely qualifies for the term "spread spectrum". This is not what the >military folks had in mind when they first developed the spread spectrum >concept. :-) But the market demands speeds approaching ethernet in >wireless LANs, so robustness is compromised in favor of speed. The funny thing is that it's plenty good enough in most cases. It does well with a single hopper close by, because it's got sufficient diversity to handle the hole in the spectrum (I believe it also has forward error correction built in). It's multiple coordinated hoppers that drive it bonkers. Especially if they gang up by increasing their power to kill it. --Brett From ettus@earthlink.net Fri Sep 11 02:54:45 1998 Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id CAA00245 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:54:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from earthlink.net (1Cust93.tnt1.sfo3.da.uu.net [153.36.254.93]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA16759 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: matt@earthlink.net Message-ID: <35F8D813.95059928@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:58:11 -0700 From: Matt Ettus Organization: Sun Microsystems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.1.120 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2051] SS digest 520 References: <199809110627.BAA27334@tapr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit measured C/N ratio for 10E-6 BER with bandwidth efficiency 16 bits/sec/hz was 5 to 6 dB Is it me, or does that not make any sense. C/N is meaningless unless we know the noise bandwidth. Assuming a reasonable noise BW of bitrate/16 then this violates Shannon's theorem. I'd doubt these claims unless they cheat in some way. Matt N2MJI From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Fri Sep 11 09:04:16 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id JAA20265 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:04:14 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA32519 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:04:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199809111404.KAA32519@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:04:16 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2051] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems In-Reply-To: <199809110500.XAA09280@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > At 09:52 PM 9/10/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: > > >The problem with WaveLAN (and virtually all of the other Part 15 direct > >sequence systems) is that it is very vulnerable to narrowband interference. > >With a spreading factor of only 11, it has minimal processing gain and > >barely qualifies for the term "spread spectrum". This is not what the > >military folks had in mind when they first developed the spread spectrum > >concept. :-) But the market demands speeds approaching ethernet in > >wireless LANs, so robustness is compromised in favor of speed. > > The funny thing is that it's plenty good enough in most cases. It does > well with a single hopper close by, because it's got sufficient > diversity to handle the hole in the spectrum (I believe it also has > forward error correction built in). It's multiple coordinated hoppers > that drive it bonkers. Especially if they gang up by increasing their > power to kill it. I'm not sure what you mean by a "hole in the spectrum". Other than the limited protection provided by its minimal processing gain, WaveLAN has no tolerance for a single narrowband interfering signal (i.e., nothing along the lines of an adaptive notch filter or something of that ilk). But keep in mind that WaveLAN doesn't use the full ISM band - it uses about 42% at 915 MHz and 13% at 2.4 GHz - whereas the hopper typically will use the full band. So a single hopper will not be in-band to your WaveLAN signal the majority of the time, and when you factor in the duty cycle of the hopper, it leaves quite a bit of time for you to slip those WaveLAN packets through unmolested. But when you add more hoppers, you rapidly reach the point where there is almost always in-band interference, and your throughput goes in the toilet. I don't think WaveLAN has any FEC... and if you're using directional antennas, you won't have the antenna diversity feature that's built into the indoor printed circuit antennas either. Those features probably wouldn't buy you much in a strong interference environment anyway. I think the bottom line is that it's going to become more and more difficult to build MANs based on Part 15 devices, especially if you want high speed. That's the downside of using "free" spectrum. Hams aren't in much better shape, since we don't have any exclusive access to suitable spectrum. Of course, we can sometimes use brute force (power) to overcome interference, but this is expensive and leads to conflicts with other users of the bands. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 11 10:16:45 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA22840 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:16:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id JAA12819; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:16:41 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809111516.JAA12819@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:16:11 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:2053] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems In-Reply-To: <199809111404.KAA32519@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809110500.XAA09280@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:09 AM 9/11/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >I'm not sure what you mean by a "hole in the spectrum". By "hole in the spectrum," I mean a small area of the spectrum on which it cannot communicate. (If there's a hopper present, that area moves as it hops.) >But keep in mind that WaveLAN doesn't use the full ISM band - it uses >about 42% at 915 MHz and 13% at 2.4 GHz - whereas the hopper typically >will use the full band. So a single hopper will not be in-band to your >WaveLAN signal the majority of the time, and when you factor in the duty >cycle of the hopper, it leaves quite a bit of time for you to slip those >WaveLAN packets through unmolested. But when you add more hoppers, you >rapidly reach the point where there is almost always in-band interference, >and your throughput goes in the toilet. This is a plausible explanation. Of concern, then, is the fact that Metricom has patents on the coordination of hoppers so that they do not interfere with one another but do monopolize the band. The FCC recently passed a rule prohibiting real-time coordination, but the rule doesn't prevent setting up coordination during the design and deployment of the network. It's a huge loophole large enough to drive a whole network through. >I think the bottom line is that it's going to become more and more >difficult to build MANs based on Part 15 devices, especially if you >want high speed. That's the downside of using "free" spectrum. Exactly. Metricom should really be using the licensed bandwidth they discussed in their corporate report at http://www.metricom.com/news/news970729.html --Brett From dewayne@warpspeed.com Fri Sep 11 10:41:11 1998 Received: from fw.com21.com (firewall-user@fw.com21.com [209.19.79.21]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA23864 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:41:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by fw.com21.com; id LAA23419; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(192.168.40.92) by fw.com21.com via smap (3.2) id xma023400; Fri, 11 Sep 98 11:40:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809111404.KAA32519@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809110500.XAA09280@lariat.lariat.org> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:38:05 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:2053] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems At 9:09 -0500 9/11/98, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >I think the bottom line is that it's going to become more and more >difficult to build MANs based on Part 15 devices, especially if you >want high speed. That's the downside of using "free" spectrum. Hams >aren't in much better shape, since we don't have any exclusive access >to suitable spectrum. Of course, we can sometimes use brute force (power) >to overcome interference, but this is expensive and leads to conflicts >with other users of the bands. o I agree with you that it will be more and more difficult over time to deploy and operate MAN's with Part 15 devices. Certainly with the current crop of products that are available. o Hams do have some exclusive spectrum in the 2 GHz range in the US that gets forgotten: - 2300-2305 MHz, we are primary there since early '97. - 2390-2400 MHz, we are primary there since about the same time. Our actual allocation there is 2390-2450 MHz, but we drop to secondary status from 2400-2450 MHz. -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com Warp Speed Imagineering ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM 43730 Vista Del Mar ! WWW: Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From bret@infowest.com Fri Sep 11 12:34:52 1998 Received: from infowest.com (ns1.infowest.com [204.17.177.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id MAA00586 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:34:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from henry (dialup6-69.infowest.net [207.49.60.222]) by infowest.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA27480 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:34:13 -0600 (MDT) From: "Bret Berger" To: Subject: Source for 2.4 Gig WaveLan Gear? Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:34:12 -0600 Message-ID: <01bdddaa$641f65c0$0201a8c0@henry> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Can anyone suggest a supplier with good prices on 2.4 Gig WaveLan gear? thanks in advance, bret Bret Berger bret@infowest.com www.infowest.com/b/bret (435) 673-3763 (435) 652-8417 FAX StoneFly Technology 225 North Bluff Street, Suite 16 St. George, UT 84770-4552 From dickrb@lsid.hp.com Fri Sep 11 13:15:42 1998 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id NAA02568 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:15:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hplssa.lsid.hp.com (hplssa.lsid.hp.com [15.1.217.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id LAA19872 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lsid.hp.com (lkseast.lsid.hp.com) by hplssa.lsid.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA174707709; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:15:09 -0700 Message-Id: <35F968A1.25AF03F2@lsid.hp.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:14:57 -0700 From: Dick Bingham Reply-To: dickrb@lsid.hp.com Organization: Hewlett - Packard Co (Lake Stevens Division) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Observations Supporting Barry's (VE3JF) Comments Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------57CA0CAFAE611948E1F9E014" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------57CA0CAFAE611948E1F9E014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------57CA0CAFAE611948E1F9E014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="reply2dsss-ve3.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply2dsss-ve3.txt" Greetings Everyone Immediately below the appended comments of Barry - ve3jf - are some observations I have regarding a simple DSSS system operating on 80-Meters. ************************************************************************** Brett Glass wrote: > At 10:55 AM 9/7/98 -0500, Donald V. Lemke wrote: > > > I guess the thing here is that WaveLAN radios were designed for use > >in indoor LAN systems. > > Not so! Lucent specifically recommends WaveLAN for outdoor applications > at a range of 3-6 miles. See their literature! True. I'm running a couple of 10 mile WaveLAN links with good success. However, it's 2.4 GHz WaveLAN, where you have a choice of 6 different center freqencies to help dodge interference, and you can muster up more directivity than at 900 MHz with reasonably-sized antennas. You also need a healthy dose of luck, and there's no guarantee that the guy next door won't fire something up tomorrow that will put you out of commission. The problem with WaveLAN (and virtually all of the other Part 15 direct sequence systems) is that it is very vulnerable to narrowband interference. With a spreading factor of only 11, it has minimal processing gain and barely qualifies for the term "spread spectrum". This is not what the military folks had in mind when they first developed the spread spectrum concept. :-) But the market demands speeds approaching ethernet in wireless LANs, so robustness is compromised in favor of speed. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca **************************************************************************** My observations of the following system: - 10MHz OCXO Timebase at RX/TX sites - 50KHz Chip Clock (10,000KHz/200 = 50KHz) - PRN code length = 127 (2^7 - 1) - 25KHz PLL reference clock (10,000KHz/400 = 25KHz) - 3575KHz DSSS center frequency derived from 25KHz ref. - +10dBm max power at 1st comb-line (next to supressed carrier) - 90 mile path - dipole antennae at ~35 feet This is an FCC authorized experimental DSSS system being operated as a low- power "beacon" on a non-interference basis. My intent was to locate the main "lobe" and 1st nulls such that the DSSS signal would not interfere with weak-signal "DX'ers" at 3500-to-3525 KHz AND to be at a sufficiently low level in the peak power region near the supressed carrier so it would be unlikely any co-users of the spectrum would notice its presence. What I found supports Barry's last paragraph where he says "...that it is very vulnerable to narrowband interference". Once the system was initially locked, I adjusted the receiving system's 10MHz OCXO to match the TX system clock. Once this was done it was possible to watch the amplitude of the despread DSSS signal fade into the noise-floor of the in-town Seattle site. The QSB effects can cause the signal to be "gone" for tens-of-minutes but it reappears like a standard signal as the signal builds in strength. The co-user signal - "jammers" in effect present in the form of CW, packet, and PACTOR users - energy present in the same spectrum space occupied by the DSSS signal was spread, as expected, and visible on the spectrum analyzer. These unwanted comb-elements often exceeded the recovered level and caused the system to unlock in the first-generation system that used a PLL to derive the local chip-clock. The VCXO would try to "lock" on one of the "jammer" comblines during the period of time it was present. The improved system uses the same search VCXO-PLL at ~3575KHz and automatically switches over to the 10,000KHz OCXO derived chip-clock once sync is achieved and remains there until reset manually. It looks to me like DSSS will not be acceptable on 80-Meters at the power levels I would need to maintain a useful link over the 90-mile path. It looks like another 10-to-20dB of TX power will be needed and that WILL definitely be heard by other local users. FHSS looks like a very good candidate for use on the lower bands over LONG distances affected by ionospheric propagation. My next experiment will be a FHSS system. I have developed a FHSS local oscillator that uses the same PRN code generator (2^7 - 1) to generate 127 frequency steps across nearly 200KHz of spectrum. It operates around 5MHz so that experiments on 75/80-Meters and 20-Meter SSB can be performed when the LO is mixed with a 9MHz LO that is also derived from the same 10,000KHz OCXO. These tests should be interesting and fun. I will report my results when they become available. 73 de dick - w7wkr --------------57CA0CAFAE611948E1F9E014-- From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Fri Sep 11 18:45:49 1998 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 SAA27534 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:45:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19136 ; Fri, 11 Sep 98 16:00:51 UTC Message-ID: <35F9B643.743@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:46:11 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:2053] Re:Study on Metricom effects on WaveLAN systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dewayne, Barry etal Barry, I think your thinking too narrowly. Antenna Directivity is analogous to process gain. They are the same thing, as far as the signal at the output is concerned. A -13 dB rejection of an interfering signal by antenna pattern, and a -11 by DSSS Gp gives a Gps (system Gp) of 23 dB. Additionally, 20 dB increase in desired signal by the transmitting antenna pattern makes up for the difference in signal bandwidths. Its not practicle to put antenna directivity to good work in an urban enviorment on 900 MHz. One has to go up in frequency. The beamwidths have to be too narrow in the metro enviorment for reasonably sized 900 MHz antennas. -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Fri Sep 11 19:01:18 1998 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 TAA28183 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:00:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19138 ; Fri, 11 Sep 98 16:15:37 UTC Message-ID: <35F9B9BD.6D13@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:01:01 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re:[SS:2043] Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dewayne, HO-HUM...this is the DDMA-WAN idea applied to the commercialy viable point to point radios. Rather than using the other radio enviorment resource to support more stations, its uses the capacity between two stations. Old Hat , conceptually, one would have thought they would have been more inovative, for Bell Labs. Like how to seperate 3 or 4 stations from the same direction and different ranges with precisely timed DSSS. Maybe the anouncement is really about something like this, as they mention the volume to volume concept in the announcment. But, getting back to antenna side of things, and multipath, apparently not! The antennas neccassary to do this in theory, but probably not quite there in practice yet, which is where Bell probabaly has had some real inovative success, have been around for at least 2 decades. They are not phase arrays. Time-Delay arrays would be a more precise name. Now whether u do this at RF or in the IF with signal processors really is just an implimentation engineering problem. -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 11 21:02:47 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id VAA03409 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:02:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA03648; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:02:42 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809120202.UAA03648@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:01:44 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:2059] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed wireless transmission In-Reply-To: <35F9B9BD.6D13@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:06 PM 9/11/98 -0500, Donald V. Lemke wrote: > The antennas neccassary to do this in theory, but probably not quite >there in practice yet, which is where Bell probabaly has had some real >inovative success, have been around for at least 2 decades. They are not >phase arrays. Time-Delay arrays would be a more precise name. Well, phase and time are essentially the same thing. Time delays create the differences in phase that allow the antennas to pick out a particular sender and reject others. You can pick out a particular sender (or at least make that sender's signal stand out) by telling your DSP, "Emphasize that component of the signal which arrives at this antenna this much out of phase relative to the way it arrives at the other antenna." Of course, that's a loose, non-mathematical way of thinking about it, but it's actually fairly easy to translate into something that can be done by a simple DSP. I hard-wired something like it in college to pick out audio sources from a specific part of a room given a stereo signal as input. It used hybrid "bucket brigade" devices. > Now whether u do this at RF or in the IF with signal processors >really is just an implimentation engineering problem. There are lots of ways to do it with fairly primitive circuitry. This is the fun part of RF circuit design. --Brett From jeff@wa1hco.mv.com Fri Sep 11 22:55:42 1998 Received: from mercury.mv.net (root@mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id WAA07012 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:55:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wa1hco (bnh-1-08.mv.com [199.125.99.8]) by mercury.mv.net (8.8.8/mem-971025) with SMTP id XAA27609 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809120349.XAA27609@mercury.mv.net> X-Sender: wa1hco-jm@pop.mv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:54:15 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff Millar Subject: Re: [SS:2060] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed In-Reply-To: <199809120202.UAA03648@lariat.lariat.org> References: <35F9B9BD.6D13@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:06 PM 9/11/98 -0500, Brett wrote: >Well, phase and time are essentially the same thing. Time delays >create the differences in phase that allow the antennas to pick out a >particular sender and reject others. A beamformer can use phase shifters or delay lines as you point out. However, they differ in that a phase shifter has constant phase over frequency and a delay line has constant delay over frequency (approximately). So, designers prefer to use delay elements when the antenna must form a beam over a range of frequencies. jeff From ehare@arrl.org Sat Sep 12 05:46:38 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id FAA00372 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 05:46:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:04:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: SS vs narrowband users on HF Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:04:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Colleagues, I have been receiving this reflector for a while, to help me learn more about the fascinating subject of SS. I was recently involved in a discussion about SS on rec.radio.amateur.policy. In the course of that discussion, I did some analysis of the interference potential of DSSS on HF to narrowband users. I used a few simplifications, such as assuming that the power density of the spread signal would be uniform, but I wanted to share this with my colleagues on this forum and get feedback and "peer review." Thanks, 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab EMC/RFI - out of his element with SS. :-) Carl R. Stevenson wrote: > Here I disagree strongly ... I don't believe that any such "inherent > incompatibility" exists ... on the contrary, I'm convinced that SS > systems could be overlaid on top of the existing NB users with little > or no adverse effects. Let me explain why I think that there would be incompatibility between narrowband and DSSS users. Although I readily accept that under ideal conditions, transcontinental HF SS QSOs can take place with powers in the tens of milliwatts, I will also add that under similar, ideal conditions, I have personally done the same with CW, using modest antennas (there are currently 30 states on my 10 milliwatt worked-all-states map). This does not mean that either mode can always be done by those power levels -- in some cases, 1500 watts is not quite enough. However, I do not think that you would offer that SS stations be limited in power any more than any other amateur station and that, more often than not, more "normal" amateur powers would be required. As a minimum, I would expect that, if SS becomes "mainstream," average hams would obey the "minimum necessary power" rule on SS about as much as they do on narrowband -- not! First, lets look at a few situations. First, I have measured typical sensitivities of amateur stations, with local man made noise, as ranging from -125 dBm down to -135 dBm. Let's take -130 dBm as a typical number. (This is the noise floor of the station when connected to its receive antenna.) Now, let's put a 100 milliwatt (20 dBm) DSSS station, speading over 100 kHz on 21 MHz. This will give us 0 dBm/kHz transmitted power. Now, let's conservatively assume that this station is using an isotropic radiator and is located 10 km away. Using the formula for path loss (assuming isotropic antennas on each end): path loss (dB) = 32.45 + 20log(km) + 20log(FreqMHz), I calculate the free-space path loss would be 78.9 dB. Zpply this to the 0 dBm transmitter power and this results in a receive power in 1 kHz of -78.9 dBm. Into 50 ohms, a 50 microvolt signal, S9, is -73 dBm, and assuming 6 dB/S unit, this is an S8 noise level, from a single 100-milliwatt SS station located in a good location, with a tall antenna, 10 kM away. Now, even if we give away 20 dB for attenuation by trees and buildings that may or may not be in the way, we have a signal -98.9 dBm. That single SS station raising the noise floor across an entire town by 40 dB *across most of the 15 M CW/digital band -- IMHO, this is clearly harmful internferenc and the results are at odds with your conclusion. It can, of course, get much worse. If one is a km away, the noise is increased to a total of 60 dB above the ambient noise. If you then raise the power to 1 kW, the noise is increased to 100 dB above the noise floor that would apply to that second station. Add 10 dBi antenna gain on each end, and it goes to 120 dB! Now, Zack Lau lives about 1 kM from W1AW. Zack can easily work the lower part of a band with W1AW doing its thing farther up the band, with perhaps a few dB of degradation, at best. If W1AW were running 1 kW DSSS, he probably couldn't even hear a single station. IMHO, a difference in interference potential from DSSS signals and narrowband signals of almost 100 dB is "incompatible" by any stretch of the word. Here in Newington, there are probably at least 10 active hams within 10 kM of W1AW -- in major cities, the numbers could be much higher. How many hams would be effectively put off the air by how many DSSS stations before you would consider it incompatible? How many hams would have their noise floors increased by 6 S units before you would consider it incompatible? Okay, it gets even worse. I will grant that only a relatively few hams would be affected by that single station within 10 kM. But, of course, that single station was a 100 milliwatt station. Unless you would stipulate that SS is only good under ideal conditions, I think we can both agree that most SS operation would take place under higher power. In a busy band, filled with SS signals, we can certainly expect that at least one of them would be running higher power to communicate over a marginal path -- let's give him 100 watts (+50 dBm) and see what happens. That 100 watts is again spread over 100 kHz. This one is easy -- 1 watt per kHz. That would mean that every single other user in the band would be hearing a 1 watt QRP station everywhere he or she tuned. Well, QRP is easy to QRM, I guess, but I have heard a lot of loud 1 watt stations. Let's see how loud. The free-space formula won't help here, so I relied on ICEPAK, a Windows version of IONCAP. On 21 MHz, at 1900 Z, I put a 1-watt station at Hartford CT, using an isotropic radiator, and asked ICEPAK to predict the average signal level expected to be received by a receiver connected to an isotropic antenna across the US. Over about 20% of the country, the receive signal level was about -105 dBm -- an increase of about 20 dB from the -125 dBm measured at a typical HF station. IMHO, a 20 dB increase in noise floor for 1/5 of the country from a single SS user is going to be "harmful interference" for at least some of those users. Admittedly, those who operate with signals that are tens and tens of dB louder than they need to be will not be affected, but my QRP work will be a thing of the past, many DX contacts will be harmed and many users will have to put up with orders of magnitude more noise than they otherwise would have -- across an entire band. That 20 dB, BTW, is best case, not worst case. We started with isotropic radiators. Add real antennas, say 3-element Yagis, with 12.5 dBi gain (over ground) on each end, and end up wiht 45 dB increase in noise, to about S8. Up the SS station power to 1 kW, and it goes over S9. From a single station, on the entire CW band on 15 meters. This says nothing about the near/far problem that will cream DSSS users who try to share the band with each other. As I tune across HF, I hear differences in signal levels between narrowband users of at least 100 dB between the weak ones and the ones who are pounding in (and some of them may have excellent propagation to me and poor propagation to the station being worked). In DSSS, you can copy other DSSS stations that are below the total power received from the strongest DSSS station in your passband. These are not even worst case assumptions; I have selected some conditions I both consider to be typical and that I believe would cause problems. Are the conditions I used unlikely? I don't think so. If there are flaws in my assumptions, please supply me with corrections -- I am willing to have my mind changed. And, keep in mind that, even with the results I have seen, I do not offer that SS, even DSSS, should not be permitted on HF. I do offer that the effects I have cited need to be considered as we develop rules changes for SS and narrowband users that will help move Amateur Radio forward. I have noted that most SS proponents offer that their should be no restrictions on SS at all. Based on the results I have seen in my brief, and admittedly incomplete, analysis, I do not agree with that position. 73, Ed, W1RFI ARRL Lab From janovetz@ews.uiuc.edu Sat Sep 12 14:03:41 1998 Received: from eesn16.ews.uiuc.edu (janovetz@eesn16.ews.uiuc.edu [130.126.161.200]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id OAA15810 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:03:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from janovetz@localhost) by eesn16.ews.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA18444 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:03:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Jacob W Janovetz Message-Id: <199809121903.OAA18444@eesn16.ews.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:2061] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:03:48 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199809120349.XAA27609@mercury.mv.net> from "Jeff Millar" at Sep 11, 98 10:58:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > At 09:06 PM 9/11/98 -0500, Brett wrote: > >Well, phase and time are essentially the same thing. Time delays > >create the differences in phase that allow the antennas to pick out a > >particular sender and reject others. > > A beamformer can use phase shifters or delay lines as you point out. > However, they differ in that a phase shifter has constant phase over > frequency and a delay line has constant delay over frequency > (approximately). So, designers prefer to use delay elements when the > antenna must form a beam over a range of frequencies. Don't you mean they prefer phase shifters? A constant delay element would produce varying phase over frequency and therefore move the beam over frequency. Am I wrong? Cheers, Jake -- janovetz@uiuc.edu | Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with University of Illinois | your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, | there you long to return. -- da Vinci PP-ASEL | http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~janovetz/index.html From ssampson@usa-site.net Sat Sep 12 20:41:56 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA00336 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:41:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23221 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:30:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bdde9c$ac2963a0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:2062] SS vs narrowband users on HF Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:28:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Ed, You offer an excellent argument, and based on the technical merits, I believe you have outlined the problem very well. What I noticed right away, was your defining SS as a DS system only. Your second paragraph needs to include why FH is harmful as well. My one gripe about US law, is that it gets too technical and specific. I think that the ARS law should be much less specific then it already is. I find the Part 97 law to be over designed, and restricts experimentation without first getting a Temporary permit. Just give me the treaty law, the band limits, and let the fraternity/sorority determine how the hobby should progress. I wasn't around when SSB took over the AM bands, or when CW took over from spark gaps, but maybe we can use the same method in SS. I for one, don't think SS will ever succeed until it is given a band to operate in. The ARRL and other digital groups need to decide on a band segment to experiment with HF SS. Only then can we deploy it across the board (say 10 years down the road). The 440 allocation was a good start, but it has zero worth in experimenting with SS on HF. We should do the same thing we did for SS on 440, but remove all the technical restrictions that cripple any endeavor. What is more important, a "net" that's been on frequency since 1967, or a growing hobby? I don't think it has to be that large. If we assume that the first SS units will be for voice and data, then how about a band where 5 voice or 5 data channels can reside? Using 3 kHz per hopping channel, that would be less than a 20 kHz segment to experiment in. The argument that says "We were here first, and you will interfere with me" is a good one, but how are we to ever experiment or grow? I can give you 24 reasons why SS is bad, but I can also give you 24 reasons why Linear Amplifiers are bad, or AFSK is bad, etc. Your technical treatise on the merits of SS is all very nice, but it is based on the principle that CW and SSB will continue to be prime modes. As the English teachers always do, your treatise should also cover the opposite perspective to be complete. How would CW and other modes affect the SS noise floor, or its operation. It may be a lose-lose, win-lose, or lose-win? Which is it :-) Best Regards, Steve, N5OWK -----Original Message----- From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI To: ss@tapr.org Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 1:45 PM Subject: [SS:2062] SS vs narrowband users on HF >Colleagues, > >I have been receiving this reflector for a while, to help me learn more >about the fascinating subject of SS. I was recently involved in a >discussion about SS on rec.radio.amateur.policy. In the course of that >discussion, I did some analysis of the interference potential of DSSS on >HF to narrowband users. I used a few simplifications, such as assuming >that the power density of the spread signal would be uniform, but I >wanted to share this with my colleagues on this forum and get feedback >and "peer review." From buaas@wireless.net Sat Sep 12 20:53:45 1998 Received: from wireless.net (wireless.4d.net [207.137.156.159]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id UAA01000 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:53:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from uv.wireless.net (uv.wireless.net [207.137.157.130]) by wireless.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA20906 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 13:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from buaas@localhost) by uv.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA08374 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 13:49:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from buaas) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 13:49:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: <199809122049.NAA08374@uv.wireless.net> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: reply to Ed Hare, W1RFI, re 15M DSSS examples Hi Ed-- As a member of the "proponent" side of this discussion, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism. It would seem that the examples you've chosen are designed to inflame the casual, inexperienced reader, rather than to inform. It seems to me that responsible members of the ARRL Labs might want to conduct realistic experiments and take actual data, rather than conjecture about the consequences. Since when is it (a) permitted by the Rules, and/or (b) dictated by Good Amateur Practice to intentionally interfere, perhaps by needlessly running the "legal limit?" Yes, it happens all the time; but should it be encouraged? Those of us that advocate unlimited SS also feel that far better observance of ALL the Rules are needed, particularly the seldom-observed Rule about using minimum power. In choosing your examples, you said nothing about WHY you selected DSSS, 100 KHz spreading bandwidth, and the power levels. You didn't say what you were trying to accomplish. Inappropriate design and operating choices lead to interference generation in all radio modes, not just SS. Certainly, each choice you made exemplified the case for causing wideband interference. To me, that is not an indictment of SS, nor a valid argument for preventing its authorization. To cite a more widely understood example, an equivalent choice would be to attach a nonlinear power amplifier to an SSB exciter and radiate the resulting signal. The difference in the two cases is that almost everyone understands the consequences of the latter, while as a result of so little understanding and experience with SS, almost no one recognizes the inadvisibility of the former. As I've said many times in my lectures on the subject, SS is a significantly complicated digital system. Unfortunately, the level of that complexity exceeds the level of expertise and/or enthusiasm of most Amateurs. Those of us who have built real systems know that it can easily take a year or more to build one. One criteria that I apply to the systems I've built is that I expect to get performance that I couldn't otherwise get from a conventional system, as payback for the amount of work involved. For example, at HF, an attractive project is an SS system that combines the process gain of a hybrid of Frequency Hop (FHSS) and "narrow spread" Direct Sequence (DSSS) using spreading codes that yields both Forward Error Correction (FEC) and natural coherence for very low data rates (CW/Morse equivalent) at very low transmitted power levels. A less than optimal system that moves in this direction could be realized by using a PACTOR TNC with a synthesized transceiver referenced to a very high quality timebase, synchronized using FHSS very-slow hop rate of 1-hop per transmission, and hopping over the entire width of the band in use. This makes the additional requirement for a correspondingly wideband antenna system. Such a system could then be used to experimentally determine the relationship between transmitted power level and BER (bit error rate) of received data. The next (more complicated) iteration, prototyped using the DSP on a soundcard in a PC, would add modulation and demodulation coherence and also reduce the system bitrate to that corresponding to Morse CW (about 5 baud, from the 100/200 baud used in PACTOR). One would expect to achieve a truly QRP system, virturally jam-free. Combining the DSP and CPU into single, low-power chips produces a system suitable for emergency/portable operation from minimal power sources. Doing all this requires a huge amount of effort and dedication from a team of uniquely talented implementers, which explains why it hasn't yet been done. What happened to Amateur Radio's obligation to contribute to advancing the state of the art, which is one of the justifications for giving us the spectrum we occupy? What about attracting young people into Ham Radio and into the art of Radio Engineering? Amateur Radio as we know it is dying, and little we're doing is changing that direction. The Internet is a powerful draw for today's students and budding engineers, providing much more simply than we, a means to communicate globally with much less effort. SS (in all its many and varied forms), at least, has the intellectual and practical challenge that might interest newcomers otherwise lost. best regards/bob K6KGS (buaas@wireless.net) From wpns@compusmiths.com Mon Sep 14 20:09:42 1998 Received: from mail2.mailsorter.net (mail2.mailsorter.net [209.132.1.32]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00821 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:09:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from compusmiths.com ([24.128.114.23]) by mail2.mailsorter.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA2900 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:11:22 -0700 Message-ID: <35FBE029.761457C7@compusmiths.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:09:29 -0400 From: "William P.N. Smith" Organization: ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2047] Re: Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed References: <199809110107.UAA27662@zoom.bga.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kent Farnsworth wrote: > It would be relatively easy (not really, but to make it sound better, bear > with me), to take a known multipath area, say downtown Anywhere, and setup a [...] > be critical, I would think. This would require an enormous DSP sample > history, with enormous computing power, to do this in realtime. In a point But don't forget that the multipath environment is constantly changing, as trucks, cars, and planes move around, buildings sway in the wind, and new buildings are built. -- William Smith wpns@compusmiths.com N1JBJ@amsat.org ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Mon Sep 14 20:14:35 1998 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA01247 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:13:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19168 ; Sun, 13 Sep 98 05:23:48 UTC Message-ID: <35FBC389.318C@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:07:21 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re:[SS:2063] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jake, I didn t write the comment u replied too, but i wrote the comment he was replying to. The problem with phase shifters is that the signal arriving at any element , versus another element in an array from a particular direction is not constant in phase over frequency. If the angle is 30 degrees from the boresite to the right, then the elements to the left recieve the wave thru an additional distance of sin(30) times the distance between the element, and the furthest right elements. This is a fixed distance difference. Distances are constant in delay, not phase, versus frequency. If between two elements at a particular frequency, the difference needs to be 100 degrees, then at another frequency that distance represents a different phase. For large array antennas, phase shifting is the only economical way to go. Additionally, they have the the capability of being easily computer controlled. For smaller array antennas with broad bandwidths, time delay phasing is practical. Additionally, its possible to have an array antenna with a port for every beam direction, and these ports can be used simultaneously. -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Mon Sep 14 20:15:48 1998 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA01322 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:14:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19170 ; Sun, 13 Sep 98 05:46:30 UTC Message-ID: <35FBC958.1838@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:32:08 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re:[SS:2062] SS vs narrowband users on HF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ed, Well, one can always pick a question somebody else does not want to answer, hi. Kinda like "Have you ever driven over the speed limit?" or "Have you ever had consentual sex in the oval office?" , ;-). Lets ask this question instead: Its 6 pm, Its 40 meters, and you are east of the Missippi River in North America. What mode would you want to use for voice? SSB, or DSSS spread over 7.100 to 7.300? -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From buaas@wireless.net Mon Sep 14 20:23:04 1998 Received: from wireless.net (wireless.4d.net [207.137.156.159]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA02189 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:23:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from uv.wireless.net (uv.wireless.net [207.137.157.130]) by wireless.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA23958; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from buaas@localhost) by uv.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13025; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:36:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from buaas) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:36:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: <199809142136.OAA13025@uv.wireless.net> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Re: SS on HF Cc: buaas@uv.wireless.net, ehare@arrl.org Ed-- For the record, my interest in radio goes back to before I started school. I was fascinated by radio for radio's sake. My interest was in experimenting, not communicating. One of the wonderful things about Ham Radio is that it can be a vehicle for many different interests/goals. I built my first regen at age 6, got my novice at age 9 (or 10, I haven't seen my original license for many years, and the records at the FCC are long gone, or so I'm told), my extra at 17 when I could copy the 20 WPM code. I built my first SSB transmitter at age 13, though I must confess I had little idea what made it work, work it did. I had the benefit of some of the world's expert radio engineers for Elmers, staff members at the Navy Electronics Lab in San Diego, and a school teacher who was himself an avid DX fan (and who helped me understand and then clean up the key clicks I was generating). It's also obvious that we are completely opposite in some of our views and philosphies about both the technology and about the future of Ham Radio. With regard to the practice of SS, I claim the preemption of experience, and with that, the assertion that the parameter choices used in the DSSS HF assessment were absurdly poor ones. I took the liberty of showing your posting to several SS-unknowledgable hams, and asked their conclusions. They agreed with your conclusions. Then I explained the errors in the assumptions, and they left with different conclusions, and with a better understanding of the art. This is my point about education, and the lack thereof, about SS. That said, I propose that we could constructively change our conversation to address the system that I hypothesized: 15M PACTOR FHSS using the entire 15M band. I choose PACTOR for it's 1.5-sec xmit time, 0.5-sec ACK time (yes, I know the time for the ACK is shorter, but lets use this to simplify the arithmetic that coming), and that the propogation vs. performance characteristics are pretty well known to most readers. 15M, because you chose it, becuase it's a nice long-haul band, making a wideband antenna is not hard, and low power is entirely usable (1KW seldom gets through when 10-100W won't almost as well). If it isn't obvious yet, the purpose of this exercise is: (a) education, and (b) hopefully, to generate some enthusiasm for trying this... Lets say that we divide the 15M band into 150 3KHz-wide "channels". The PACTOR signal is only 300 Hz wide, but if we're using the entire band, our signal hitting anywhere up against an SSB signal means that in interference terms, we have to consider the wider signal. If we hop once per transmission, and we use a hopping pattern that uses all 150 freqencies exactly once before repeating, and since a "transmission" occurs for either 1.5 seconds or 0.5 seconds every 2 seconds, 300 seconds will elapse between reuse of any one given frequency channel. 300-seconds is 5-minutes. Say that you are the receiver in the SSB QSO, and there is this distant FHSS PACTOR system running continuously (what real system does this? Even very active BBS's don't run continuously!)--you're going to (maybe) loose 1.5 seconds of your QSO at some random instant inside each 5-minute window. You can't predict the instant, so you can't even be prepared to listen for it. If you're in the 2/3 of the country that can't hear the FHSS, or if his signal is weaker than your SSB QSO, then even if you do hear it, you didn't loose any information. What if your QSO partner is in between sylables, so he really isn't transmitting any information at the instant the FHSS comes by, even with a blasting signal? That's what I mean by "maybe." So, what about all the other SSB QSO's that are going on simultaneously? How recently have you studied a spectrum analyzer frame of the 15M band? (Just one frame, once scan of the band, set so that you can resolve the energy in each 3 KHz channel in the band) How many of those channels are occupied? The highest I've seen lately is about 15, which is about 10% utilization. I've done a fair amount of listening; I've published my findings about 2M and 450, in the most recent round of comments on the NPRM to change the SS Rules. It would be nice for someone else to do a similar study. What is important is, if there's no signal on a channel, then the FHSS isn't interfering by hopping there. That's roughly 90% of the time. Statistically, the FHSS station is seeing the 10% hit situation, not the 0.66% hit that the SSB station sees. Because of the "maybe" multipliers discussed earlier, the 10% drops to about 2% real data corruptions. The digital nature of PACTOR will either successfully use the builtin FEC to correct the error resulting from the hit, or will use a retransmission to get the good data. All entirely acceptable. All of the above is theoretical. The proof of all this is in the EXPERIENCE of it. Building a sample interference generator is fairly easy: use a PC to key a signal generator into a nearby antenna while listening to some SSB QSO. See if you can detect the 1.5-sec burst, not knowing when it will happen, unless the generator completely overpowers the receiver AGC (thus lengthening the signal outage to much longer than the actual collision). Until you've actually heard this demo LIVE, the above is all just talk. Change the demo so that the PC "warns" you that the collision is about to occur, so you can assess the impact of the collision. Then see what you think. Try counting all the other time QRN interference blocks the channel you're listening to. Around here, the number gets pretty large in a 5-minute interval. I'd be interested to hear your reaction to this experience. best regards/bob K6KGS From jeff@wa1hco.mv.com Mon Sep 14 20:44:32 1998 Received: from mercury.mv.net (root@mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04159 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:44:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Pwa1hco (bnh-2-40.mv.com [199.125.99.104]) by mercury.mv.net (8.8.8/mem-971025) with SMTP id JAA09431 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 09:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809131355.JAA09431@mercury.mv.net> X-Sender: wa1hco-jm@pop.mv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:02:29 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff Millar Subject: Re: [SS:2063] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed In-Reply-To: <199809121903.OAA18444@eesn16.ews.uiuc.edu> References: <199809120349.XAA27609@mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:07 PM 9/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >> At 09:06 PM 9/11/98 -0500, Brett wrote: >> >Well, phase and time are essentially the same thing. Time delays >> >create the differences in phase that allow the antennas to pick out a >> >particular sender and reject others. >> >> A beamformer can use phase shifters or delay lines as you point out. >> However, they differ in that a phase shifter has constant phase over >> frequency and a delay line has constant delay over frequency >> (approximately). So, designers prefer to use delay elements when the >> antenna must form a beam over a range of frequencies. > > >Don't you mean they prefer phase shifters? A constant delay >element would produce varying phase over frequency and therefore >move the beam over frequency. Am I wrong? Imagine two antennas with a wave front coming in from an angle. To form a beam, the two waves must be aligned in phase. But the phase shift comes from the speed of light delay between the arrival times to the two antennas. This delay value doesn't depend on frequency. So to form a wide band beam, use delay elements in the beam former. jeff From ehare@arrl.org Mon Sep 14 21:02:03 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA05938 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:02:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:12:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Cc: "Robert A. Buaas" Subject: RE: 2065] reply to Ed Hare, W1RFI, re 15M DSSS examples Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:12:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, Bob, Thanks for the feedback. Let me offer a bit of background. I do hope you would understand that I do not intend at all to be obstructionist, but do want to see these issues considered as we, as a service, determine how to proceed. >As a member of the "proponent" side of this discussion, I'd like to >offer some constructive criticism. It would seem that the examples >you've chosen are designed to inflame the casual, inexperienced reader, >rather than to inform. It seems to me that responsible members of the >ARRL Labs might want to conduct realistic experiments and take actual >data, rather than conjecture about the consequences. I, too, consider myself a proponent of SS, although not without some reservations. I personally believe that the ARS has NOT explored this mode of operation in as much as it has other modes (the important work of you and your colleagues is a notable exception!) and, in not doing so, is falling behind the power curve wrt other radio services. This discussion on RRAP started wrt DSSS, so I continued the discussion in that vein. Admittedly, DSSS on HF probably does represent the worst case wrt interference to narrowband users, but that was chosen for this discussion as part of the ongoing discussion, certainly not to inflame. OTOH, within that context, I don't think that the examples I chose, although chosen to demonstrate that there could be significant potential for interference to narrowband users, are really atypical. How many stations are located line of sight within 10 kM of other stations? Could it not be proposed that SS be allowed on 21 MHz with 100 W power? What percentage of communications using SS on 21 MHz NEED 100 W to be completed? If only a small percentage needed to run that power level on 21 MHz, the result would be significant, would it not? I am just coming off of two long projects - ARRL's involvement with the FCC RF-exposure regulations and a rewrite of the ARRL RFI book, both now complete. Not that I have a lot of time on my hands, but I have been interested in SS and want to study it and determine just what role I can play (personally and ?professionally) in the processes under hand. I would like to do some actual testing (the Lab does have access to a bit of test equipment), but, as you note later in your post, building a complicated SS system does take a bit of time. (Perhaps you and I could have some discussion about how I could help.) >Since when is it (a) permitted by the Rules, and/or (b) dictated by >Good Amateur Practice to intentionally interfere, perhaps by >needlessly running the "legal limit?" Yes, it happens all the time; >but should it be encouraged? Those of us that advocate unlimited SS >also feel that far better observance of ALL the Rules are needed, >particularly the seldom-observed Rule about using minimum power. You are preaching to the choir on this on, Bob - my current major HF activity is to work 10 milliwatt QRP (30 states worked so far, all in the CW Sweepstakes - hey, that is SS, too, is it not? :-) ) But let's face it, Bob, most hams do NOT seem to obey the minimum power rule, and probably never will. The ARRL had encouraged hams to do so, at least in spirit, although there is little the League can do, practically, about the power use of hams. I have little doubt that the current spate of SS experimenters will follow the minimum necessary power rules, due in part to the fact that they are trying to assess the interference potential from SS to narrowband users and this is not done by running as much power as possible. I also have little doubt that once SS moves out of the experimental realm (within the ARS), and becomes a mainstream mode, it will be in use by the same hams who do not follow the minimum-power rules and, sans automatic power control, would probably operate pretty much as usual. And the analysis I offered does not presuppose that anyone is using more power than necessary; we certainly can't say that about the 100-milliwatt station and, in many cases, 100 watts IS the necessary power on marginal paths. >In choosing your examples, you said nothing about WHY you selected >DSSS, 100 KHz spreading bandwidth, and the power levels. You didn't >say what you were trying to accomplish. As stated, most of this stemmed from a discussion about DSSS and HF on RRAP. I selected the power levels arbitrarily, wanting to select what I believed to be a reasonable minimum power level and a probable "high power" level that would be used by two stations communicating under marginal propagation conditions. After all, if we do populate HF with SS stations, I think it reasonable to assume that they will want to do the same types of communicating as are done now on narrowband, and that would include a significant amount of marginal-path QSOs. The 100-spread was chosen to represent a balance between a minimal spread in the tens of kHz (offered by some to be too small to be beneficial on HF) and a spread across an entire ham band (or even multiple bands). It, too, allowed me to do the math in my head. :-) >Inappropriate design and >operating choices lead to interference generation in all radio modes, >not just SS. Certainly, each choice you made exemplified the case >for causing wideband interference. To me, that is not an indictment >of SS, nor a valid argument for preventing its authorization. To >cite a more widely understood example, an equivalent choice would >be to attach a nonlinear power amplifier to an SSB exciter and radiate >the resulting signal. The difference in the two cases is that almost >everyone understands the consequences of the latter, while as >a result of so little understanding and experience with SS, almost >no one recognizes the inadvisibility of the former. I don't agree that the two cases are equivalent. The case of the non-linear amplifier is indeed well understood, as something that should NOT be done. My analysis was not done to state categorically that HF SS should not be allowed on HF (and, I will add, that my role in the ARRL Lab does not lend any weight to my ideas on that as a policy matter), but as an attempt for me to begin my understanding of the interference potential of SS on HF. >As I've said many times in my lectures on the subject, SS is a >significantly complicated digital system. Unfortunately, the >level of that complexity exceeds the level of expertise and/or >enthusiasm of most Amateurs. Those of us who have built real >systems know that it can easily take a year or more to build one. This is certainly why there are so few experimenters on SS. Until such time as manufacturers start making ham gear to do turnkey SS, that will probably be the case. That is why, IMHO, it is necessary that we do carve out space on ham bands and start to demonstrate the benefits of SS. >What happened to Amateur Radio's obligation to contribute to >advancing the state of the art, which is one of the justifications >for giving us the spectrum we occupy? What about attracting >young people into Ham Radio and into the art of Radio Engineering? >Amateur Radio as we know it is dying, and little we're doing >is changing that direction. The Internet is a powerful draw >for today's students and budding engineers, providing much more >simply than we, a means to communicate globally with much less effort. >SS (in all its many and varied forms), at least, has the intellectual >and practical challenge that might interest newcomers otherwise lost. I agree wholeheartedly; it is important that Amateur Radio continue its tradition of making contributions to the radio arts. While I do not feel that our contributions over recent years have been zero, I would agree that there is plenty more that could and should be done. I don't agree that ham radio is dying; why, if you factor in the effect on our numbers caused by the transition from 5-year to 10-year licenses, I think that we have more hams now than at any other time in amateur history. But the large influx of newcomers have not yet had time to explore new technology and have, in general, not had a lot of Elmering (more newcomers than Elmers, I fear). The fact that some new technologies might take over a year for a ham to implement does not help. What does attract hams to radio is not internet, not communications, but radio. When I was licensed in 1963, I could talk to Ohio, or Australia, any time I wanted, by picking up the telephone. But I found a love of electronics and radio, and thus was WN1CYF born. And back then, I wasn't making state-of-the-art advances; I, like the new hams of today, was too busy learning the basics of communicating on ham radio. I think that, with encouragement, the new hams of today can learn the finer technical traditions of amateur radio, and perhaps a few of them will help us all move things steadily forward. 73, Ed, W1RFI From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Sep 14 21:10:09 1998 Received: from [207.8.125.53] (greg-jones-pc4.customer.jump.net [207.8.125.53]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA07059; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:10:04 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:09:36 -0500 To: "HF SIG list mailing", " Spread Spectrum ", " TAPR/AMSAT DSP ", "APRS SIG list mailing", "NETSIG list mailing", "BBS SIG list mailing", " tacgps ", aprsnews, mic-e, TAPR Regional Freq From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: TAPR.ORG Down and now Back TAPR.ORG was down on Saturday for a system upgrade. We installed a new processor board as well as added more memory and a new 9G HD. Sunday morning very early, the root drive crashed and burned. Lee spent Sunday and today (Monday) recovering from the crash on root. We had backed up the system just before the upgrade, so we didn't get hit very hard. We took this time to also upgrade the OS on the system, which we had planned to in the future. Lee got the system back operational about 6pm tonight and all aspects of the system should be operational by this posting. We will be spending the rest of tonight doing checks on various automatic operations to make sure that everything is running correctly. Cheers - Greg ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD President TAPR (http://www.tapr.org) PhD Candidate, Instructional Technology, UT Austin email: wd5ivd@tapr.org web: http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else. From jbloom@mgate.arrl.org Tue Sep 15 11:11:22 1998 Received: from www.arrl.org (root@[209.140.206.201]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01868 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:11:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from arrl.org (jbloom.connix.com [205.246.105.188]) by www.arrl.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA27349 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:31:11 -0400 Message-ID: <35FE409F.87BD3F53@arrl.org> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:25:35 -0400 From: Jon Bloom Organization: American Radio Relay League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2069] Re: Re: SS on HF References: <199809142136.OAA13025@uv.wireless.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert A. Buaas wrote: > > Say that you are the receiver in the SSB QSO, and there is this > distant FHSS PACTOR system running continuously (what real system > does this? Even very active BBS's don't run continuously!)--you're > going to (maybe) loose 1.5 seconds of your QSO at some random > instant inside each 5-minute window. You can't predict the instant, > so you can't even be prepared to listen for it. If you're in the > 2/3 of the country that can't hear the FHSS, or if his signal is > weaker than your SSB QSO, then even if you do hear it, you didn't > loose any information. What if your QSO partner is in between > sylables, so he really isn't transmitting any information at the > instant the FHSS comes by, even with a blasting signal? That's > what I mean by "maybe." Almost any useful system you examine will be okay if you postulate only one SS station. But what if there are 100 such FHSS transmitters that the SSB station can hear at a significant signal level -- not an outrageous number for a popular HF mode when the band is open. How many seconds of SSB reception does the station lose, and does that constitute harmful interference? As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. > nice for someone else to do a similar study. What is important is, > if there's no signal on a channel, then the FHSS isn't interfering > by hopping there. That's roughly 90% of the time. That's not what's important to the station being interfered with. What's important is that if the FHSS stations are hopping across the entire band, and if the narrowband station is experiencing troublesonme interference from them, there is no recourse; the narrowband station is off the air, period. It doesn't matter how many narrowband channels are unoccupied -- they are all equally unusable by the narrowband station. Knowing that only a few stations are experiencing that degree of interference is no comfort to those who are experiencing it! I still don't see how a significant amount of SS activity can share spectrum with narrowband signals. One or two SS stations, yes. But if SS is ever to be anything more than a curiosity we need to figure out how to accommodate significant numbers of SS stations without precluding narrowband activity. Ay UHF and above we have more flexibility; we can segregate SS and narrowband operations by frequency. At HF that's problematic. 73, Jon -- Jon Bloom, KE3Z jbloom@arrl.org Electronic Publications Manager (CD-ROM publications, software products and Web site) From n5jxs@tamu.edu Tue Sep 15 11:14:07 1998 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (0@clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA02154 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:14:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gjc (pvme35 [128.194.136.66]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA09372 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:45:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35FDE295.6C35@tamu.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:44:21 -0500 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: gerry@cs.tamu.edu Organization: Da House X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2069] Re: Re: SS on HF References: <199809142136.OAA13025@uv.wireless.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert A. Buaas wrote: > > Ed-- > > For the record, my interest in radio goes back to before I started ... Bob, We spoke several years ago, and you gave me the telephone and e-mail SS-101 tutorial. I still follow this list, occasionally as a spy for the frequency coordination commmunity (not really, but someone in the commuity MUST have a working knowledge of new technologies...) and also as an interested party. I'm not sure why Ed made what amounts to an inflammatory review on a biased list. It is uncharacteristic of him, and an unusual show of dissent within the HQ ranks at the League. That said, a question: What is the real story with FHSS on the amateur bands, with regard to sequences, adaptive algorithms, length of the PN code, dwell time, etc? In other words, in my copious free time ('bout as much as when we last talked, divided by 4) could I generate a 420-450 FHSS system to test susceptability in my local area (pleasantly down on the occupany scale) and still fall within the rules, if I wanted to chip at, say, 25 MHz, with a long sequence? Thanks, & 73, Gerry Creager n5jxs@tamu.edu From janovetz@ews.uiuc.edu Tue Sep 15 11:44:50 1998 Received: from eesn15.ews.uiuc.edu (root@eesn15.ews.uiuc.edu [130.126.161.199]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA06651 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:44:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from janovetz@localhost) by eesn15.ews.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA05500 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:05:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Jacob W Janovetz Message-Id: <199809151305.IAA05500@eesn15.ews.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:2070] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed To: ss@tapr.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:05:56 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199809131355.JAA09431@mercury.mv.net> from "Jeff Millar" at Sep 14, 98 09:04:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Jeff (and to Donald) for their correction. "I get it now..." Cheers, Jake > > At 02:07 PM 9/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >> > >> At 09:06 PM 9/11/98 -0500, Brett wrote: > >> >Well, phase and time are essentially the same thing. Time delays > >> >create the differences in phase that allow the antennas to pick out a > >> >particular sender and reject others. > >> > >> A beamformer can use phase shifters or delay lines as you point out. > >> However, they differ in that a phase shifter has constant phase over > >> frequency and a delay line has constant delay over frequency > >> (approximately). So, designers prefer to use delay elements when the > >> antenna must form a beam over a range of frequencies. > > > > > >Don't you mean they prefer phase shifters? A constant delay > >element would produce varying phase over frequency and therefore > >move the beam over frequency. Am I wrong? > > Imagine two antennas with a wave front coming in from an angle. To form > a beam, the two waves must be aligned in phase. But the phase > shift comes from the speed of light delay between the arrival times to > the two antennas. This delay value doesn't depend on frequency. So > to form a wide band beam, use delay elements in the beam former. > > jeff > -- janovetz@uiuc.edu | Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with University of Illinois | your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, | there you long to return. -- da Vinci PP-ASEL | http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~janovetz/index.html From buaas@wireless.net Tue Sep 15 12:02:51 1998 Received: from wireless.net (wireless.4d.net [207.137.156.159]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA09387 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:02:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from uv.wireless.net (uv.wireless.net [207.137.157.130]) by wireless.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA25214 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from buaas@localhost) by uv.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14346 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:02:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from buaas) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:02:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: <199809151702.KAA14346@uv.wireless.net> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2] Re: Re: SS on HF In-Reply-To: <35FDE295.6C35@tamu.edu> Hi Gerry-- yes, we all are busy... the Rules are The Rules, until they are changed. Regards sequences, the current 97.311 gives you 3 sequences, none of which are "long". You can do anything you want under the STA(s), so that's the vehicle you probably want to use, especially if you want an adaptive sequence (M-sequences are very fixed, as you know). Do you really mean "chip at, say, 25 MHz"... the term "chip" most often refers to DS, whereas "hop" refers to FH. Most FH is "slow-FH," defined as hopping slower that 1-bit-time (assuming digital modulation). Fast hop is now possible with the advent of DDS (direct digital frequency synthesizers). Prior to DDS, very fancy comb generators were used to synthesize. So, if you'll tell me a little more about what you'd like to accomplish, I'd be happy to make a more concrete recommendation.... You might just want to start with an ordinary FM system, program it using your favorite general-purpose PC to hop at whatever rate the VCO/PLL in the radio will move, and see what you learn. If you want an RF module "off the shelf," try using FT-741 mobile modules (avail from AES/Las Vegas). It has a very mediocre synth, but it works, and it fairly easy to get going... And you learn a lot in the process. replacing the internal synth with dual/external synths really causes the gadget to "come to life"... best regards/bob K6KGS From ehare@arrl.org Tue Sep 15 12:51:12 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17837 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:51:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:50:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:49:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello, Gerry, >I'm not sure why Ed made what amounts to an inflammatory review on a >biased list. It is uncharacteristic of him, and an unusual show of >dissent within the HQ ranks at the League. I trust that my followup posts explained things a bit. I did note that tapr.org was having some computer difficulties, so just to be sure, let me add to what I said. Actually, when I posted that to the reflector, I didn't intend at all to be inflammatory. The discussion on rrap that started all this was started when someone offered that DSSS on HF would not cause any harmful interference to narrowband users. I offered my analysis to demonstrate to myself that, at least under some circumstances, it would. The general consensus I seem to read here is that SFHSS would be the best choice for HF, so I don't think that we are in any serious disagreement wrt DSSS on HF. I am not at all sure what you mean by an "unusual show of dissent within the ranks at the League." Perhaps you could explain a bit. As a person interested in SS, for the same reasons as anyone else here - it IS the cutting edge of technology and, IMHO, hams can make a difference and advance the state of the art. However, SS would not exist in a vacuum and I do believe that it IS appropriate, and necessary, to evaluate the effect on other users of the spectrum. A major strength of the ARS is its diversity and any change would need to be evaluated by analyzing the benefits of that change vis a vis the effect on other users and modes. That is, IMHO, good engineering, not inflammation or dissent. I did offer this to this list because I found the results to be a bit unexpected to me, and somewhat disturbing. I felt that this list would be the best "sanity" check I could find, and that if I had made any errors in my assumptions or calculations, my peers on this list would be glad to call them to my attention. :-) I must admit I was a bit surprised to see some of what was read into what I had to say and what I was trying to accomplish. Perhaps some here don't know me well enough to know that I always strive to have my participation be constructive and add to the discussions at hand (I don't always succeed, but I do try.) IMHO, the issues I raised must be considered as SS technology is developed and implemented in the Amateur Radio Service. Yes, they are tough questions, and they may apply to more than simply HF. I think, for example, that my 100 mW DSSS example from a station 10 kM away might very well apply to VHF and up, as well. I invite discussion, and I invite criticism of the technical merits (or demerits) of what I put forth. And, if the result is that systems are proposed that do NOT have the effect I described, even if to show that what I offered was doom and gloom, I would think that my raising this issue would have a very positive end result. :-) 73, Ed, W1RFI ARRL Lab From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Sep 15 13:28:41 1998 Received: from [128.83.74.103] (edb536j-2.edb.utexas.edu [128.83.74.103]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22086 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:28:40 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:16:44 -0500 To: " Spread Spectrum " From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Discussion Please lets keep the politcal over tones out of some of the exchanges. We are all here to try to make SS work in the hobby. The technical dscussion and concept exchange thus far has been very good quality. If we can continue the educational aspects of the flow, then we are all ahead of the game. Cheers - Greg ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From dewayne@warpspeed.com Tue Sep 15 13:42:12 1998 Received: from fw.com21.com (firewall-user@fw.com21.com [209.19.79.21]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA23876 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:42:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by fw.com21.com; id OAA13514; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(192.168.40.92) by fw.com21.com via smap (3.2) id xmaa13376; Tue, 15 Sep 98 14:41:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:41:28 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:5] RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF At 12:52 -0500 9/15/98, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote: >I trust that my followup posts explained things a bit. I did note that >tapr.org was having some computer difficulties, so just to be sure, let >me add to what I said. Nothing but your original posting has shown up on the list so far. If you replied to anything that Bob Buaas posted, it has yet to show up. You are correct about the tapr.org problems. Things still seem to be a bit sluggish!! -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com Warp Speed Imagineering ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM 43730 Vista Del Mar ! WWW: Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From ehare@arrl.org Tue Sep 15 14:27:45 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28252 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:27:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:26:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: 7] RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:26:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Dewayne Hendricks [SMTP:dewayne@warpspeed.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 2:47 PM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:7] RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF At 12:52 -0500 9/15/98, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote: >I trust that my followup posts explained things a bit. I did note that >tapr.org was having some computer difficulties, so just to be sure, let >me add to what I said. Nothing but your original posting has shown up on the list so far. If you replied to anything that Bob Buaas posted, it has yet to show up. You are correct about the tapr.org problems. Things still seem to be a bit sluggish!! * Dewayne Thanks, Dewayne, If this is a duplicate, please forgive me, but it may help ensure that I, too, can be a constructive participant on this reflector. This reflected back to me, but if distribution was spotty, I will resend. 73, Ed Repost: Hi, Bob, Thanks for the feedback. Let me offer a bit of background. I do hope you would understand that I do not intend at all to be obstructionist, but do want to see these issues considered as we, as a service, determine how to proceed. >As a member of the "proponent" side of this discussion, I'd like to >offer some constructive criticism. It would seem that the examples >you've chosen are designed to inflame the casual, inexperienced reader, >rather than to inform. It seems to me that responsible members of the >ARRL Labs might want to conduct realistic experiments and take actual >data, rather than conjecture about the consequences. I, too, consider myself a proponent of SS, although not without some reservations. I personally believe that the ARS has NOT explored this mode of operation in as much as it has other modes (the important work of you and your colleagues is a notable exception!) and, in not doing so, is falling behind the power curve wrt other radio services. This discussion on rec.radio.amateur.policy started wrt DSSS, so I continued the discussion in that vein. Admittedly, DSSS on HF probably does represent the worst case wrt interference to narrowband users, but that was chosen for this discussion as part of the ongoing discussion, certainly not to inflame. OTOH, within that context, I don't think that the examples I chose, although chosen to demonstrate that there could be significant potential for interference to narrowband users, are really atypical. How many stations are located line of sight within 10 kM of other stations? Could it not be proposed that SS be allowed on 21 MHz with 100 W power? What percentage of communications using SS on 21 MHz NEED 100 W to be completed? If only a small percentage needed to run that power level on 21 MHz, the result would be significant, would it not? I am just coming off of two long projects - ARRL's involvement with the FCC RF-exposure regulations and a rewrite of the ARRL RFI book, both now complete. Not that I have a lot of time on my hands, but I have been interested in SS and want to study it and determine just what role I can play (personally and ?professionally) in the processes under hand. I would like to do some actual testing (the Lab does have access to a bit of test equipment), but, as you note later in your post, building a complicated SS system does take a bit of time. (Perhaps you and I could have some discussion about how I could help.) >Since when is it (a) permitted by the Rules, and/or (b) dictated by >Good Amateur Practice to intentionally interfere, perhaps by >needlessly running the "legal limit?" Yes, it happens all the time; >but should it be encouraged? Those of us that advocate unlimited SS >also feel that far better observance of ALL the Rules are needed, >particularly the seldom-observed Rule about using minimum power. You are preaching to the choir on this on, Bob - my current major HF activity is to work 10 milliwatt QRP (30 states worked so far, all in the CW Sweepstakes - hey, that is SS, too, is it not? :-) ) But let's face it, Bob, most hams do NOT seem to obey the minimum power rule, and probably never will. The ARRL had encouraged hams to do so, at least in spirit, although there is little the League can do, practically, about the power use of hams. I have little doubt that the current spate of SS experimenters will follow the minimum necessary power rules, due in part to the fact that they are trying to assess the interference potential from SS to narrowband users and this is not done by running as much power as possible. I also have little doubt that once SS moves out of the experimental realm (within the ARS), and becomes a mainstream mode, it will be in use by the same hams who do not follow the minimum-power rules and, sans automatic power control, would probably operate pretty much as usual. And the analysis I offered does not presuppose that anyone is using more power than necessary; we certainly can't say that about the 100-milliwatt station and, in many cases, 100 watts IS the necessary power on marginal paths. >In choosing your examples, you said nothing about WHY you selected >DSSS, 100 KHz spreading bandwidth, and the power levels. You didn't >say what you were trying to accomplish. As stated, most of this stemmed from a discussion about DSSS and HF on RRAP. I selected the power levels arbitrarily, wanting to select what I believed to be a reasonable minimum power level and a probable "high power" level that would be used by two stations communicating under marginal propagation conditions. After all, if we do populate HF with SS stations, I think it reasonable to assume that they will want to do the same types of communicating as are done now on narrowband, and that would include a significant amount of marginal-path QSOs. The 100-kHz spread was chosen to represent a balance between a minimal spread in the tens of kHz (offered by some to be too small to be beneficial on HF) and a spread across an entire ham band (or even multiple bands). It, too, allowed me to do the math in my head. :-) >Inappropriate design and >operating choices lead to interference generation in all radio modes, >not just SS. Certainly, each choice you made exemplified the case >for causing wideband interference. To me, that is not an indictment >of SS, nor a valid argument for preventing its authorization. To >cite a more widely understood example, an equivalent choice would >be to attach a nonlinear power amplifier to an SSB exciter and radiate >the resulting signal. The difference in the two cases is that almost >everyone understands the consequences of the latter, while as >a result of so little understanding and experience with SS, almost >no one recognizes the inadvisibility of the former. I don't agree that the two cases are equivalent. The case of the non-linear amplifier is indeed well understood, as something that should NOT be done. My analysis was not done to state categorically that HF SS should not be allowed on HF (and, I will add, that my role in the ARRL Lab does not lend any weight to my ideas on that as a policy matter), but as an attempt for me to begin my understanding of the interference potential of SS on HF. >As I've said many times in my lectures on the subject, SS is a >significantly complicated digital system. Unfortunately, the >level of that complexity exceeds the level of expertise and/or >enthusiasm of most Amateurs. Those of us who have built real >systems know that it can easily take a year or more to build one. This is certainly why there are so few experimenters on SS. Until such time as manufacturers start making ham gear to do turnkey SS, that will probably be the case. That is why, IMHO, it is necessary that we do carve out space on ham bands and start to demonstrate the benefits of SS. >What happened to Amateur Radio's obligation to contribute to >advancing the state of the art, which is one of the justifications >for giving us the spectrum we occupy? What about attracting >young people into Ham Radio and into the art of Radio Engineering? >Amateur Radio as we know it is dying, and little we're doing >is changing that direction. The Internet is a powerful draw >for today's students and budding engineers, providing much more >simply than we, a means to communicate globally with much less effort. >SS (in all its many and varied forms), at least, has the intellectual >and practical challenge that might interest newcomers otherwise lost. I agree wholeheartedly; it is important that Amateur Radio continue its tradition of making contributions to the radio arts. While I do not feel that our contributions over recent years have been zero, I would agree that there is plenty more that could and should be done. I don't agree that ham radio is dying; why, if you factor in the effect on our numbers caused by the transition from 5-year to 10-year licenses, I think that we have more hams now than at any other time in amateur history. But the large influx of newcomers have not yet had time to explore new technology and have, in general, not had a lot of Elmering (more newcomers than Elmers, I fear). The fact that some new technologies might take over a year for a ham to implement does not help. What does attract hams to radio is not internet, not communications, but radio. When I was licensed in 1963, I could talk to Ohio, or Australia, any time I wanted, by picking up the telephone. But I found a love of electronics and radio, and thus was WN1CYF born. And back then, I wasn't making state-of-the-art advances; I, like the new hams of today, was too busy learning the basics of communicating on ham radio. I think that, with encouragement, the new hams of today can learn the finer technical traditions of amateur radio, and perhaps a few of them will help us all move things steadily forward. 73, Ed, W1RFI From fspinner@hotmail.com Tue Sep 15 15:40:00 1998 Received: from hotmail.com (f278.hotmail.com [207.82.251.169]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA04780 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:39:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 22472 invoked by uid 0); 15 Sep 1998 20:39:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19980915203925.22471.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.175.225.5 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:39:25 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.175.225.5] From: "Frederick M. Spinner" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:5] RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:39:25 GMT I also monitor this list, and don't post much. In the past, we have had people like Bill Tynan, try to cause regulation to stop SS development because of his fear that SS would interfere with his weak signal pursuits. Although I respect him greatly, I think that we should be very careful to regulate against emerging technologies until the proper amount of experimentation has been caried out to determine if the technology is "bad"! It's difficult to get back privledges that have been taked away from uncle sam. His direct suggestions on the behalf of AMSAT, and the Central States VHF society in the past have alienated some of us more technically oriented hams. It literally caused my to let my AMSAT membership lapse for a year. I'll do it again if attitudes like that are sustained. I still never heard what happened to the proposal at CSVHF 98. It was presented but never voted on by the general membership. I certainly don't support it, and I do weak signal work! Though you didn't directly state this in your message, it sounded heavily like an implication that we should ban SS on HF. I think on the contrary, SS on HF could be another amateur radio technical breakthrough. Most commercial SS is FHSS for ECCM (Electronic Counter-Counter Measures) and not for actually improving HF comm. So, no I didn't think your message was so bad, and in fact I joined the ARRL due to its recent wave of forward thinking-- both about SS and the licensing issues. But there has been a history of AMSAT, Repeater Coordinators, etc. with their NIMBY statements...... 73, Fred KA9VAW/0 (See you all at CSVHF '99 in my home QTH of Cedar Rapids -- I'm the "publicity" chairman, so you'll hear more from me in the future) >Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:52:28 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: ss@tapr.org >From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" >To: ss@tapr.org >Subject: [SS:5] RE: 2] Re: Re: SS on HF > >Hello, Gerry, > >>I'm not sure why Ed made what amounts to an inflammatory review on a >>biased list. It is uncharacteristic of him, and an unusual show of >>dissent within the HQ ranks at the League. > >I trust that my followup posts explained things a bit. I did note that >tapr.org was having some computer difficulties, so just to be sure, let >me add to what I said. > >Actually, when I posted that to the reflector, I didn't intend at all to >be inflammatory. The discussion on rrap that started all this was >started when someone offered that DSSS on HF would not cause any harmful >interference to narrowband users. I offered my analysis to demonstrate >to myself that, at least under some circumstances, it would. The >general consensus I seem to read here is that SFHSS would be the best >choice for HF, so I don't think that we are in any serious disagreement >wrt DSSS on HF. > >I am not at all sure what you mean by an "unusual show of dissent within >the ranks at the League." Perhaps you could explain a bit. As a person >interested in SS, for the same reasons as anyone else here - it IS the >cutting edge of technology and, IMHO, hams can make a difference and >advance the state of the art. However, SS would not exist in a vacuum >and I do believe that it IS appropriate, and necessary, to evaluate the >effect on other users of the spectrum. A major strength of the ARS is >its diversity and any change would need to be evaluated by analyzing the >benefits of that change vis a vis the effect on other users and modes. >That is, IMHO, good engineering, not inflammation or dissent. > >I did offer this to this list because I found the results to be a bit >unexpected to me, and somewhat disturbing. I felt that this list would >be the best "sanity" check I could find, and that if I had made any >errors in my assumptions or calculations, my peers on this list would be >glad to call them to my attention. :-) I must admit I was a bit >surprised to see some of what was read into what I had to say and what I >was trying to accomplish. Perhaps some here don't know me well enough to >know that I always strive to have my participation be constructive and >add to the discussions at hand (I don't always succeed, but I do try.) > >IMHO, the issues I raised must be considered as SS technology is >developed and implemented in the Amateur Radio Service. Yes, they are >tough questions, and they may apply to more than simply HF. I think, >for example, that my 100 mW DSSS example from a station 10 kM away >might very well apply to VHF and up, as well. I invite discussion, and >I invite criticism of the technical merits (or demerits) of what I put >forth. And, if the result is that systems are proposed that do NOT have >the effect I described, even if to show that what I offered was doom and >gloom, I would think that my raising this issue would have a very >positive end result. :-) > >73, Ed, W1RFI >ARRL Lab > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 15 16:16:12 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06838 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:16:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA25951; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:16:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.1.0.52.19980915132730.03fff450@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:46:47 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Help! Small community network trying to deal with Big Guys In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" LARIAT (http://www.lariat.org), a small, non-profit community network, is trying to deal with the potentially disastrous interference that would be caused by the introduction of Metricom's Ricochet system in our town by K N Energy. Here's an update on what some of the more flamboyant in town are calling the "Radio Range War," though I personally hope it doesn't escalate into any kind of war at all before it's resolved. A white paper at http://www.lariat.org/metricom.html describes the overall situation. It provides references to prior tests demonstrating interference, and also documents tests we ourselves performed in a city where the Metricom system had been deployed. K N Energy's local manager (who admits that he is not a ham or an engineer and does not know how to use the Web) nonetheless claims that there will be NO interference, or that his transmitters can be placed to avoid it. (I've tried to explain that transmitter placement is unlikely to be a good solution. We use some omnidirectional antennas. LARIAT's members change, and some move between buildings from time to time. Also, the Metricom transmitters ratchet up their power to blot out other units even if they're farther away.) The manager asked that we do ANOTHER interference test, in which he would secure a "temporary" permit from the City to mount about 6 pole-top units. We see at least three problems with this. First of all, only 6 units -- as opposed to the 80 or more that would be deployed when the system was fully rolled out -- would not be enough for a good test. And if a directional antenna that's pointed at our omni eventually looks past it at one of their pole-top units (or if it's even near the middle of the front lobe), it won't work. That pole-top unit might not be one that's installed at the time of the test. Second, it would be a trick to generate representative traffic that would simulate a production environment. One or two nodes couldn't simulate the effects of many customers scattered about town, so dozens of Ricochet "modems" would need to be deployed in the test area and attached to computers. Finally, we're concerned about the camel's nose being allowed into the tent. It's easy to imagine that, having mounted 6 pole-top units and turned on its hub, K N Energy would go back to the City Council and say, "Well, we've already mounted these transmitters at X thousand dollars apiece. So what if there's interference! do you want to waste that investment?" Our counter-proposal was to take WaveLAN equipment to a nearby city where K N had already installed the Metricom system, and set it up on rooftops this time. This would allow for a real-life test in an area where there was significant network activity and a large number of transmitters were deployed. The manager balked at this idea, saying, "it has to be tested in a PERMANENT installation." At the end of our conversation, the only agreement I could secure from this manager was that he would let me talk to some of his "engineers." I do not know if these will be engineers from his company or from Metricom, or if there will in fact be follow-through on this. What concerns me, however, is that this manager is still operating entirely under the assumption that there will be NO interference with our network. (We don't believe that this is possible if the two systems are on the same band, given the huge amounts of interference we've seen before.) But he has not yet proposed any effective measure to be taken if we DO demonstrate interference in a mutually agreed-upon test. He says that he WILL NOT exchange his equipment for anything that operates in another band, nor will he subsidize OUR move to another band. And he keeps saying, "According to Federal law, we can do whatever we want to." One of our group's most, er, outspoken members wrote me in e-mail that "K N is just a huge mega-corporation with a monopoly; they don't care and they'll find a way to kick us off the band. They think it's thier [sic] property. Their offer to cooperate on a test is a sucker bet." I hope he's not right, but I cannot exclude what he says as a possibility. What do we do? --Brett Glass From wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.ampr.utah.edu Tue Sep 15 17:35:24 1998 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA11519 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:34:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wb9mjn-1.ampr.org.44.0.0.0 by wb9mjn.ampr.org (JNOS1.10i) with SMTP id AA19233 ; Tue, 15 Sep 98 14:51:10 UTC Message-ID: <35FEEC13.7FF0@uugate.aim.utah.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:37:07 -0500 From: "Donald V. Lemke" Reply-To: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Organization: Ant-Panel Products X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: [SS:2063] Re:Bell Labs scientists shatter limit on fixed] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The first send of this apparently got eaten by the root crash, so here it is again Donald V. Lemke wrote: > > Hi Jake, > > I didn t write the comment u replied too, but i wrote the comment > he was replying to. > > > > The problem with phase shifters is that the signal arriving at any > element , versus another element in an array from a particular > direction is not constant in phase over frequency. If the angle is 30 > degrees from the boresite to the right, then the elements to the left > recieve the wave thru an additional distance of sin(30) times the > distance between the element, and the furthest right elements. This is a > fixed distance difference. Distances are constant in delay, not phase, > versus frequency. If between two elements at a particular frequency, the > difference needs to be 100 degrees, then at another frequency that > distance represents a different phase. > > For large array antennas, phase shifting is the only economical > way to go. Additionally, they have the the capability of being easily > computer controlled. > > For smaller array antennas with broad bandwidths, time delay > phasing is practical. Additionally, its possible to have an array > antenna with a port for every beam direction, and these ports can be > used simultaneously. > -- -- 73, Don. AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@uugate.aim.utah.edu Website: http://www.qth.com/antpanel From jeff@wa1hco.mv.com Tue Sep 15 20:48:16 1998 Received: from mercury.mv.net (root@mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21240 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:48:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Pwa1hco (bnh-1-40.mv.com [199.125.99.40]) by mercury.mv.net (8.8.8/mem-971025) with SMTP id VAA23208 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809160141.VAA23208@mercury.mv.net> X-Sender: wa1hco-jm@pop.mv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:00 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff Millar Subject: Spread Spectrum Interference to Narrow Signals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Spread spectrum works because of energy - bandwidth duality. If you increase the spreading bandwidth by 10, then the energy per kHz can drop by 10. A 3 kHz SSB signal at 100 W has 33 W/kHz at the transmitter. If it spreads to 100 kHz, then the power can drop to 1 W/kHz and achieve the same level of effectiveness. Many people assume that spreading reduces the power density to levels that won't cause interference. However, the amount of dynamic range in the environment greatly exceeds the amount of spreading. For example, lets assume we want to avoid interference to stations at 10 km range while communicating with stations at 1000 km range. Setting aside ground effects, the 10 km distant station will receive a signal 40 dB stronger than the distant station. So to be polite, we need to reduce broad band interference by more than 40 dB to allow our neighbor to also communicate with stations at 1000 km. To achieve a 40 dB reduction in W/kHz, we need to spread by a factor of 10,000, the 3 kHz SSB signal must occupy 30 MHz of spectrum. From what I know of SS systems, this level of performance is just about at the bleeding edge. I have some opinions based on this simple analysis: - SS on the HF bands must avoid the weak signal sections of the band - SS will inevitably cause interference to your neighbors attempting moderate signal operations - Frequency hopping and Direct Sequence modulation techniques don't really fit ham requirements, we need get out of the 60's and into the 90's. My suggestions...apologies if people already have it working :-) SS should use adaptive modulation techniques that measure power required for each frequency bin and use the minimum power necessary on a per-bin basis, avoid bins with strong signals, and map out weak signal areas entirely. The information about signals per bin comes from the receive end of the link and passes to the transmitting end in a closed loop process. jeff, wa1hco From priya@students.itb.ac.id Tue Sep 15 21:10:26 1998 Received: from students.itb.ac.id (root@students.ITB.ac.id [167.205.22.114]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA22481 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:10:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (priya@localhost) by students.itb.ac.id (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA01908 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:10:21 GMT (envelope-from priya@students.itb.ac.id) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:10:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Basuki E Priyanto To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Doppler Effect . In-Reply-To: <35FBE029.761457C7@compusmiths.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII We've already know if spread spectrum communication use very wide bandwidth transmission. I've read in many refference, the advantage of wider bandwidth will be reduce doppler efect or there is no doppler effect in mobile spread spectrum comm. Is there anyone know, the maximum doppler shift accepted for mobile spread spectrum communication using 2 GHz freq ? and the correlation between maximum doppler shift and bandwidth used in mobile SS-Comm ? Thanks. Basuki E. Priyanto, From jbloom@mgate.arrl.org Tue Sep 15 22:35:14 1998 Received: from www.arrl.org (root@[209.140.206.201]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA28133 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:35:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from arrl.org (jbloom.connix.com [205.246.105.188]) by www.arrl.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05061 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:35:00 -0400 Message-ID: <35FF3092.1DEBA136@arrl.org> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:29:22 -0400 From: Jon Bloom Organization: American Radio Relay League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:2069] Re: Re: SS on HF References: <199809142136.OAA13025@uv.wireless.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [Posted this earlier but I think the server ate it.] Robert A. Buaas wrote: > > Say that you are the receiver in the SSB QSO, and there is this > distant FHSS PACTOR system running continuously (what real system > does this? Even very active BBS's don't run continuously!)--you're > going to (maybe) loose 1.5 seconds of your QSO at some random > instant inside each 5-minute window. You can't predict the instant, > so you can't even be prepared to listen for it. If you're in the > 2/3 of the country that can't hear the FHSS, or if his signal is > weaker than your SSB QSO, then even if you do hear it, you didn't > loose any information. What if your QSO partner is in between > sylables, so he really isn't transmitting any information at the > instant the FHSS comes by, even with a blasting signal? That's > what I mean by "maybe." Almost any useful system you examine will be okay if you postulate only one SS station. But what if there are 100 such FHSS transmitters that the SSB station can hear at a significant signal level -- not an outrageous number for a popular HF mode when the band is open. How many seconds of SSB reception does the station lose, and does that constitute harmful interference? As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. > nice for someone else to do a similar study. What is important is, > if there's no signal on a channel, then the FHSS isn't interfering > by hopping there. That's roughly 90% of the time. That's not what's important to the station being interfered with. What's important is that if the FHSS stations are hopping across the entire band, and if the narrowband station is experiencing troublesonme interference from them, there is no recourse; the narrowband station is off the air, period. It doesn't matter how many narrowband channels are unoccupied at any instant -- they are all equally unusable by the narrowband station. Knowing that only a few stations are experiencing that degree of interference is small comfort to those who are experiencing it! I still don't see how a significant amount of SS activity can share spectrum with narrowband signals. One or two SS stations, yes. But if SS is ever to be anything more than a curiosity we need to figure out how to accommodate significant numbers of SS stations without precluding narrowband activity. Ay UHF and above we have more flexibility; we can segregate SS and narrowband operations by frequency. At HF that's problematic. 73, Jon -- Jon Bloom, KE3Z jbloom@arrl.org Electronic Publications Manager (CD-ROM publications, software products and Web site) From bb@wv.com Wed Sep 16 20:06:58 1998 Received: from kansas.pn.com (kansas.pn.com [204.96.36.40]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00540 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:06:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from battleship (auntiem.wv.com [205.136.66.19]) by kansas.pn.com (8.9.1/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA13648; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bb@localhost) by battleship (8.8.5/8.6.12) id BAA04823; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:55:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:55:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199809160555.BAA04823@battleship> From: Brian Bartholomew To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:10] Help! Small community network trying to deal with Big Guys > What do we do? You've uncovered plausible evidence that your opponent will do or say anything to advance their agenda. Now they are leading you along to distract you while they catch up. To win you must fight a battle using political rules. So fight one. League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA From ehare@arrl.org Wed Sep 16 20:20:07 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA01508 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:20:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:11:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: 14] Re: Re: SS on HF Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:11:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jon Bloom wrote: >As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would >be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen >there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing >narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no >additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not >be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a >reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) >of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. I will take this a bit farther than Jon. It is important that we (we meaning the amateur community) accurately assess the potential for SS signals to interfere with narrowband users. That interference potential should be weighed vis a vis the expected benefits of SS (also accurately assesses) and the best balance between all factors reached. I expect that the balance will probably have to include some level of interference to narrowband users. I think the key words are "extreme" and "disruptive." >I still don't see how a significant amount of SS activity can share >spectrum with narrowband signals. One or two SS stations, yes. But if SS >is ever to be anything more than a curiosity we need to figure out how >to accommodate significant numbers of SS stations without precluding >narrowband activity. Ay UHF and above we have more flexibility; we can >segregate SS and narrowband operations by frequency. At HF that's >problematic. Of course, Jon's "not seeing" does not necessarily mean that such sharing cannot take place. He, like I, and hopefully all of us, want to see the necessary engineering and studied done, and see system designs (and rules, as necessary and appropriate) that will achieve the balance point between SS and other users where they will share the same bands. At HF, it may indeed be problematic, but that does not translate to impossible. Looking at 80 and 10 meters, for examples, I can certainly see room where SS (even DSSS) could operate without being completely disruptive (although probably not spread across the entire band . . .). IMHO, if we are to have a viable SS operation on HF and useful experimentation, such room must be made. After all, when the digital modes first started appearing on the "CW" bands, I can recall some discussion about how disruptive it was, and how it was displacing CW users, etc. IMHO, it is important that those of us who would like to see SS become a significant part of the Amateur Radio Service (and I do) analyze and discuss these issues. As more SS allocations, and fewer restrictions, are proposed, don't think for a minute that others will not raise these issues as part of the rulemaking process. I can almost guarantee that if SS were proposed to be legal across the weak-signal part of the VHF and up bands, the weak-signal folks can do the same analysis that I did, and WOULD present it in their context to the FCC. Yes, asking these questions can be painful, but they are not obstructive when raised here; they are realistic, trying to have answers to the inevitable questions ready before they are raised in a context that WOULD be obstructive - as reply comments to the NPRM that someday will seek to expand the horizons of SS activity. 73, Ed, W1RFI ARRL Lab From buaas@wireless.net Wed Sep 16 20:22:43 1998 Received: from wireless.net (wireless.4d.net [207.137.156.159]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA01758 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:22:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from uv.wireless.net (uv.wireless.net [207.137.157.130]) by wireless.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id XAA26282 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from buaas@localhost) by uv.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA15393 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:26:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from buaas) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:26:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Robert A. Buaas" Message-Id: <199809160626.XAA15393@uv.wireless.net> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: More, SS on HF... Hi Jon-- Glad you're joining the conversation... If memory serves me, quite some time ago, all there was was AM. In fact there were a 100 AM stations when the band was open. But one day, there was 1 SSB QSO, and only 99 on AM. In a few days, there were 2 SSB QSO heard, and 98 AM. A bit later, there was 5 SSB/ 95 AM, then 10 SSB/ 90 AM... until there were 99 SSB and a lone AM.... And now, it's REALLY HARD to find AM on the band. Anywhere. Back then, it took a couple of weeks to build an SSB rig. It's only a year's worth of work today to build a SS rig. That's why you haven't heard one yet. One that you recognize, that is. And it will be a while before there are enough to stir up any significant frequency of collisions with occupied fixed-frequency QSOs that one could call it "interference." One possibility for a "smart radio" is, while it's hopping, it could figure out where the fixed-freq action is, and remove it from the hopping pattern it's using, letting the other end know in the process. The other day when I was "listening" to 15M during the band opening, I "heard" the usual 10% spectral utilization--we're a long way from any problems... Have you forgotten: history has a way of repeating itself... By the way, what was your EXPERIENCE of the interference generator I described. You want to know what it would be like for 10 FHSS stations transmitting simultaneously, well, program it up... best regards/bob K6KGS From brett@lariat.org Thu Sep 17 10:42:36 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA00321 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:42:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA09427; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:47:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809170547.XAA09427@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:46:22 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:15] Help! Small community network trying to deal with Big Guys In-Reply-To: <199809160555.BAA04823@battleship> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" How would you suggest that one do this? What sort of "political rules" pertain to this sort of battle? --Brett Glass At 09:26 PM 9/16/98 -0500, Brian Bartholomew wrote: >> What do we do? > >You've uncovered plausible evidence that your opponent will do or say >anything to advance their agenda. Now they are leading you along to >distract you while they catch up. To win you must fight a battle >using political rules. So fight one. > > >League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA > From jeff@aerodata.net Thu Sep 17 22:41:09 1998 Received: from aerodata.net (aerodata.mich.com [198.108.18.17]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08382 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:41:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alfalfa (alfalfa.aerodata.net [198.108.18.18]) by aerodata.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA20930 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:59:38 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980917234103.03564510@aerodata.net> X-Sender: jeff@aerodata.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:41:03 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:14] Re: Re: SS on HF In-Reply-To: <35FF3092.1DEBA136@arrl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I wonder if its to far of a stretch to replace references to spread spectrum with "CW" and SSB/Narrowband users with "spark gap"? While the technical issues are different, I'm willing to bet the same emotional issues/arguments were discussed back in the amateur rags in the 1915-1920 era. Some things never change... -Jeff At 10:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, Jon Bloom wrote: > >As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would >be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen >there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing >narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no >additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not >be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a >reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) >of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. ------------------------------------ | Jeff King Aero Data Systems | | jeff@mich.com P.O. Box 510895 | | (248)471-1787 Livonia, MI 48151 | |F(248)471-0279 United States | ------------------------------------ From bb@wv.com Fri Sep 18 00:22:32 1998 Received: from kansas.pn.com (kansas.pn.com [204.96.36.40]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA12556 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:22:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from battleship (auntiem.wv.com [205.136.66.19]) by kansas.pn.com (8.9.1/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA14391; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bb@localhost) by battleship (8.8.5/8.6.12) id BAA05953; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:25:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:25:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199809180525.BAA05953@battleship> From: Brian Bartholomew To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:18] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal with > How would you suggest that one do this? I am not a political expert, and I do not play one on the net. But for starters, I'd stop talking to the K N Energy manager. All that does is divulge your lobbying strategy to him. Meet with the city council, or whoever will be making the actual approval decision. This works better if the city council will actually be spending their own money when they commit to a plan. Dust off your best salesman, and have him rewrite the LARIAT mission statement plus the business impact sections of your webbed report into a presentation. You want to show the city council why Laramie will be a better place if they go with your plan. It is not immoral to use sales techniques like a little pizzaz and flash, and some optimistic predictions; you will be competing against others who do. Assume they don't care if LARIAT or their small handful of users are hurt; the city council's job is to optimize the environment for the majority of businesses in the whole city. If KN tries to derail you by claiming you haven't done your engineering homework, fight back by assuming the benefit of the doubt is on your side. Assume KN will invent arbitrary claims without basis in fact to counter your well-researched claims. Do not be baited into a time-delaying contest of disproving their claims. Disproving their false statements with solid engineering experiments is not the goal. The goal is to convince the city council that your plan is to be preferred over KN's. As always, the only thing anybody cares about is money. If your plan makes better financial sense (higher bitrate + more users + less price), you have a shot at winning. But if LARIAT only intends to serve 100 users and KN will serve 10,000, then I would probably vote for KN myself. > What sort of "political rules" pertain to this sort of battle? Machiavelli. League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA From bb@wv.com Fri Sep 18 01:26:27 1998 Received: from kansas.pn.com (kansas.pn.com [204.96.36.40]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA21412 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:26:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from battleship (auntiem.wv.com [205.136.66.19]) by kansas.pn.com (8.9.1/8.8.0) with ESMTP id CAA15546; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bb@localhost) by battleship (8.8.5/8.6.12) id CAA06004; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:29:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:29:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199809180629.CAA06004@battleship> From: Brian Bartholomew To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:18] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal with > It is not immoral to use sales techniques like a little pizzaz and > flash Such as bringing in a laptop with your radio modem, and showing how fast web pages come up. Then point out how the city commissioners could buy this very same service for home and get it delivered by Tuesday for the low, low, low price of whatever. If you're feeling gutsy you could challenge KN to meet you with a side-by-side demo, where of course your system is much faster. League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 18 01:58:40 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA22622 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:58:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA19132; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:58:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809180658.AAA19132@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:55:55 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:21] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal with In-Reply-To: <199809180629.CAA06004@battleship> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Our system doesn't use laptop radio modems. It uses fixed nodes on rooftops. --Brett At 01:31 AM 9/18/98 -0500, Brian Bartholomew wrote: >> It is not immoral to use sales techniques like a little pizzaz and >> flash > >Such as bringing in a laptop with your radio modem, and showing how >fast web pages come up. Then point out how the city commissioners >could buy this very same service for home and get it delivered by >Tuesday for the low, low, low price of whatever. > >If you're feeling gutsy you could challenge KN to meet you with a >side-by-side demo, where of course your system is much faster. > > >League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA > From n8gnj@tapr.org Fri Sep 18 02:52:12 1998 Received: from rgate.ricochet.net (rgate.ricochet.net [204.179.143.6]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA24723 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:52:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from igor.strohpub.ricochet.net (mg-20664222-135.ricochet.net [206.64.222.135]) by rgate.ricochet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA15891 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:52:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199809180752.CAA15891@rgate.ricochet.net> X-Sender: n8gnj@tapr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:56:15 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Steve Stroh N8GNJ Subject: Re: [SS:20] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal with In-Reply-To: <199809180525.BAA05953@battleship> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This subject isn't exactly germane to the stated purpose of SS, but I'll leave that chore to the ListAdmin of SS. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not speaking on behalf on any organization or person. I'm very clearly labelling this as personal opinion. The bottom line is that both Ricochet and WaveLAN are Part 15 devices, and both must accept interference from other Part 15 devices and licensed services in the same band. I'm ignoring, for the moment, Brett's contention that Ricochet isn't compliant with Part 15 rules. Until that is proven to the satisfaction of the FCC and it makes a ruling, deployment of Ricochet is legal and as I understand it, cannot be pre-empted on RF technical issues by local governments. When that's been attempted, the FCC rightfully has claimed preemption in such matters. What decides if you got your money's worth is if the device continues to function when interference inevitably comes- which could be wireless patio speakers, a television "extender" (how'd you like a handful of those each running 1W occupying 6 MHz each), a swarm of cordless phones, Amateur Radio operators running wideband data at 155 Mbps or something at 25W. Will you be taking political action to have THOSE devices "disallowed" by local fiat in Laramie because they could potentially interfere with LARIAT? It seems to me that your only course of action at this point is to try to get your equipment vendor (Lucent) to make the case with the FCC that a Ricochet System isn't compliant with Part 15, and because of that a Ricochet System causes other Part 15 devices that ARE compliant, not to function. If your vendor won't stand behind their equipment not functioning, then you have few options (and if they don't take action, then it seems to me that they're open to market criticism and lost sales). Anything short of the vendor getting involved seems to be a political solution to a techical problem, and the subscribers to this list know only TOO well how ineffective THAT approach is. Steve Stroh N8GNJ At 00:28 9/18/98 -0500, Brett Glass wrote: > How would you suggest that one do this? From gwyn@paccomm.com Fri Sep 18 06:17:17 1998 Received: from mail2.mailsorter.net (mail2.mailsorter.net [209.132.1.32]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA28607 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:17:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mgr ([12.70.78.242]) by mail2.mailsorter.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA9373 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:16:35 -0700 From: "Gwyn Reedy" To: Subject: Re: SS on HF Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:42:32 -0400 Message-ID: <01bde2f1$0a8c3b40$c04f460c@mgr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Jeff, I disagree with you because times have changed. I highly doubt that there was organized discussion about CW - people just acted individually as they saw best. (Or maybe that is just my romantic view of the past). I prefer the way I imagine it was to the way it is now.... I don't mean to enter this discussion. I have no technical opinion to offer. It is just my observation that the ground rules of the game seem to be that there can be little or no interference to existing modes. What that means to me is a fear of or reluctance to change. Jon and other enlightened ARRL folk look forward to new technology but are struggling to use it without impacting existing modes. That is partly because they are 'good guys' and partly a job requirement. It is just a sign of the times. When SSB came along there were no environmental impact statements and much more of an individualistic attitude compared to the group awareness which prevails now. Guess I'm just getting old. It is natural to think things were better in one's youth. There are no more frontiers open to the average person and (unfortunately) no frontier spirit left. I hold little hope for a planned, coordinated introduction of any new technology in amateur radio (in the short term). Too many vested interests that resist change. It is noble that discussions of the 'right' way to do SS are held, but in my opinion 'permission' will never be obtained. It will either be done via the back door, or it won't be done at all. I don't know which is better. Gwyn Reedy W1BEL -----Original Message----- From: Jeff King To: ss@tapr.org Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 12:20 AM Subject: [SS:19] Re: Re: SS on HF >I wonder if its to far of a stretch to replace references to >spread spectrum with "CW" and SSB/Narrowband users with "spark >gap"? While the technical issues are different, I'm willing to >bet the same emotional issues/arguments were discussed back >in the amateur rags in the 1915-1920 era. > >Some things never change... > >-Jeff > > > >At 10:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, Jon Bloom wrote: >> >>As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would >>be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen >>there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing >>narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no >>additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not >>be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a >>reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) >>of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. > >------------------------------------ >| Jeff King Aero Data Systems | >| jeff@mich.com P.O. Box 510895 | >| (248)471-1787 Livonia, MI 48151 | >|F(248)471-0279 United States | >------------------------------------ > From ehare@arrl.org Fri Sep 18 07:56:02 1998 Received: from mail_serv.arrl.org (mail.arrl.org [209.140.206.216]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA02898 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:56:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL_SERV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:55:03 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: RE: 19] Re: Re: SS on HF Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:54:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >I wonder if its to far of a stretch to replace references to >spread spectrum with "CW" and SSB/Narrowband users with "spark >gap"? While the technical issues are different, I'm willing to >bet the same emotional issues/arguments were discussed back i>n the amateur rags in the 1915-1920 era. I am sure those conversations took place, and they were probably just as "enthusiastic" as some of the ones going on today. :-) There are some differences, however. For the most part, the broadband nature of spark, with its energy distributed across spectrum, was the interferer, with the new mode being the interferee. The issue was finally decided on two issues. One was communications effectiveness, with narrowband offering such significant advantages over spark. It was also decided on the basis of incompatibility - spark was deemed so incompatible with narrowband use that its use was outright banned. >Some things never change... I agree, but if you are suggesting that SS vs narrowband should be decided in the same way that it was decided in the teens, the solution would be to ban SS or narrowband on various bands or band segments, isolating each mode from mutual problems. I have seen some on the narrowband side propose this as a solution; why, that is part of what this discussion is all about anyway. :-) 73, Ed, W1RFI ARRL Lab I will add a note about my participation on this reflector. I am following the normal USENET conventions in that my participation is personal. I do not speak for any ARRL policy outside the activities of the ARRL Lab. I will add that I am personally interested in SS and want to explore what I can do to learn more about it and perhaps contribute some to the processes at hand. Of course, like anyone who works for anyone, one should expect that I will not act in ways that would undermine the policies and activities of my employer. For that reason, I add my job title to my posts to allow people to decide for themselves to what extent my employment at ARRL HQ might influence what I have to say. In the "professional" arena, the line between personal and professional, especially in the ham-radio field, is often blurred. If anyone ever has questions about the extent to which my personal views might affect ARRL, or the other way around, please ask. Thanks. - Ed At 10:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, Jon Bloom wrote: > >As far as I'm concerned -- and I know Ed feels the same way -- it would >be great to see SS make its way into HF use. But before that can happen >there has to be a reasonable consideration of the effect on existing >narrowband users. By which I do *not* mean that those users must see no >additional interference from SS, only that such interference should not >be extreme or entirely disruptive of narrowband communications. Such a >reasonable consideration has to be based on a reasonable number (not 1) >of SS transmitters in simultaneous operation. ------------------------------------ | Jeff King Aero Data Systems | | jeff@mich.com P.O. Box 510895 | | (248)471-1787 Livonia, MI 48151 | |F(248)471-0279 United States | ------------------------------------ From brett@lariat.org Fri Sep 18 09:39:26 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05745 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:39:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA21104; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:39:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809181439.IAA21104@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.52 (Beta) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:38:31 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:23] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809180752.CAA15891@rgate.ricochet.net> References: <199809180525.BAA05953@battleship> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:56 AM 9/18/98 -0500, Steve Stroh N8GNJ wrote: >What decides if you got your money's worth is if the device continues to >function when interference inevitably comes- which could be wireless patio >speakers, a television "extender" (how'd you like a handful of those each >running 1W occupying 6 MHz each), a swarm of cordless phones, Amateur Radio >operators running wideband data at 155 Mbps or something at 25W. > >Will you be taking political action to have THOSE devices "disallowed" by >local fiat in Laramie because they could potentially interfere with LARIAT? Steve, I think you are being disingenuous here. None of these interferes with LARIAT or is ever likely to do so. It is saturation of the band with hundreds of outdoor transmitters so arranged as to "take over" the spectrum that's the problem. They coordinate frequency hopping sequences to produce wideband interference, and power levels to drown out other units. >It seems to me that your only course of action at this point is to try to >get your equipment vendor (Lucent) to make the case with the FCC that a >Ricochet System isn't compliant with Part 15, and because of that a >Ricochet System causes other Part 15 devices that ARE compliant, not to >function. If your vendor won't stand behind their equipment not >functioning, then you have few options (and if they don't take action, then >it seems to me that they're open to market criticism and lost sales). Lucent has already stated its desire that such devices be required to conform to the IEEE 802.11 protocol. The FCC has not taken action on this yet, to my knowledge. Steve, it appears that you're recommending a futile approach. Are you really that much of a "Metricom uber alles" fan that you're willing to be hostile to our community's well-being? Your remarks so far certainly make it sound that way. --Brett From fuchs_@evc.net Fri Sep 18 09:58:31 1998 Received: from factorix.sdv.fr (factorix.sdv.fr [194.206.196.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06570 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:58:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from evc.net (ipdyna37.evc.net [195.101.131.37]) by factorix.sdv.fr (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA09315 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:07:10 +0200 Message-ID: <360274D9.948DE4F3@evc.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:57:29 +0200 From: Philippe Fuchs X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:24] Re: SS on HF References: <01bde2f1$0a8c3b40$c04f460c@mgr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm monitoring this list for a few months now, and I felt I had to give my own opinion on SS and HF. First, let us recal why SS was designed for, and what the main advantages are to use this technique. SS is inted to: 1) Make efficient use of bandwidth, mainly for high data speeds. 2) Alow sharing the same bandwidth with other users. This assumes other users also using SS 3) Be less sensitive to single/narrow band interferences. What "less sensitive" really means is that the degradations in signal quality will not be as important as with conventionnal FSK/PSK systems. 4) Multipath resolving possibilities, and even combining for better signal quality (see RAKE receiver) 5) Encryption and transmission hiding with a signal level wich is under the noise floor (military applications) etc Taking these points, but looking at them with a HF-amateur point of view: 1) Using SS would mean increased data rate i.e. largre bandwidth (if not, why don't we stay with the slow FSK). At least 50 to 100 kHz whould be required to provide a normal quality service, where SS would show its qualities. This leaves us the choise on the 3.5, (14), 21 and 28 MHz bands, assuming co-existance with narrowband users. 2) and 3) This seems to be the main worry in the last messages. The problem was well defined: SS WILL cause interferences to SSB/CW users if using they use the same frequencies. But remember that HF goal is DX contacts, using the lowest power necessary. At least, this is my point of view. What then shall we do with DX QRP stations, when we have S7 noise due to SS? Most wealthy hams would say "buy him a Kilowatt"! The point is SS should not interfere with existing modulation types, wich most of us enjoy, by respect. 4) and 5) are less relevent to this discussion. My conclusion: SS was not intended to be/ is not an interresting mode for HF as it would probably require band segments, as it is already the case between SSB, CW and FSK. The benefits of SS are more convincing in VHF/UHF, where local high speed links would be welcomed, due to low cost and avalability of parts. In HF, hams may use or improve techniques such as adaptive filters with FSK/PSK techniques to improve quality/speed. This implies more use of DSP. Note that I'm not against SS at all, since I engineer SS systems for mobile phones in Europe! But I can simply not see the reasons or the benefits SS would bring on HF, considering HF is for long distance contacts and we have so much unused bands up there in the GigaHertz. I'm open to all comments, corrections and suggestions. -------------------------------------------------------------- Philippe Fuchs F8CND fuchs_@evc.net (Anti-spam protection. Remove '_' for correct address) -------------------------------------------------------------- From jeff@aerodata.net Fri Sep 18 20:42:01 1998 Received: from aerodata.net (aerodata.mich.com [198.108.18.17]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00727 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:41:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alfalfa (alfalfa.aerodata.net [198.108.18.18]) by aerodata.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA21780 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:00:28 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918214155.00977760@aerodata.net> X-Sender: jeff@aerodata.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:41:55 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:24] Re: SS on HF In-Reply-To: <01bde2f1$0a8c3b40$c04f460c@mgr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:20 AM 9/18/98 -0500, Gwyn Reedy wrote: >Jeff, > >I disagree with you because times have changed. What exactly do you disagree with? Reading your post it seems you mostly agree with my (unwritten) thoughts.... fear of change. >I highly doubt that there >was organized discussion about CW - people just acted individually as they >saw best. (Or maybe that is just my romantic view of the past). I prefer the >way I imagine it was to the way it is now.... People really don't change that much... > >I don't mean to enter this discussion. I have no technical opinion to offer. >It is just my observation that the ground rules of the game seem to be that >there can be little or no interference to existing modes. What that means to >me is a fear of or reluctance to change. Right. >Guess I'm just getting old. It is natural to think things were better in >one's youth. There are no more frontiers open to the average person and >(unfortunately) no frontier spirit left. I hear what you are saying, and often any organized involvement with amateurs leads to this. But just go out and do you own thing and make your own frontiers.... don't let the collective amateur radio curse drag you down. > >I hold little hope for a planned, coordinated introduction of any new >technology in amateur radio (in the short term). Too many vested interests >that resist change. It is noble that discussions of the 'right' way to do SS >are held, but in my opinion 'permission' will never be obtained. It will >either be done via the back door, or it won't be done at all. I don't know >which is better. It's been my observation its easier to say "opps, I'm sorry" then ask permission. > >Gwyn Reedy >W1BEL Jeff King wb8wka From ssampson@usa-site.net Fri Sep 18 20:50:43 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (ssampson@access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA01013 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:50:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from ssampson@localhost) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA00292 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:50:45 -0500 From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: <199809190150.UAA00292@access.usa-site.net> Subject: Re: [SS:27] Re: SS on HF To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:50:45 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <360274D9.948DE4F3@evc.net> from "Philippe Fuchs" at Sep 18, 98 10:00:04 am Content-Type: text Philippe Fuchs writes: [snip] > Note that I'm not against SS at all, since I engineer SS systems for > mobile phones in Europe! But I can simply not see the reasons or the > benefits SS would bring on HF, considering HF is for long distance > contacts and we have so much unused bands up there in the GigaHertz. > > I'm open to all comments, corrections and suggestions. Spectrum: Could the argument be changed around, that since there is so much spectrum "in the GigaHertz" that CW and SSB be moved there? Radio Relay: 1) How many UHF stations does it take to cross the Continental US? 2) How many HF stations? 3) Which would be more likely achieved. Experiment: I think spectrum needs to be allocated, either new spectrum (go to WARC), or current spectrum. You can debate with numbers and theory all you want, but until you have two prototypes testing the theory, it's all hypothetical. How many UPS trucks are using 220 MHz with their fancy new mode? Steve From jeff@aerodata.net Fri Sep 18 21:01:22 1998 Received: from aerodata.net (aerodata.mich.com [198.108.18.17]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01436 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:01:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alfalfa (alfalfa.aerodata.net [198.108.18.18]) by aerodata.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA21803 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:19:50 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918220119.03680240@aerodata.net> X-Sender: jeff@aerodata.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:01:19 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:25] RE: 19] Re: Re: SS on HF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Ed: I think you see my point, I re-wrote your paragraph possibly as a ham reflecting back to these debates might write in 2020. First your original comment: At 07:59 AM 9/18/98 -0500, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote: (regarding spark vs cw (wide vs. narrow) >The issue was finally decided on two issues. One was communications >effectiveness, with narrowband offering such significant advantages over >spark. It was also decided on the basis of incompatibility - spark was >deemed so incompatible with narrowband use that its use was outright >banned. Looking at bit into the future.... At 07:59 AM 1/1/2020 -0500, Ham, Joe, W8ABC wrote: (regarding SS vs narrowband (wide vs. narrow) >The issue was finally decided on two issues. One was communications >effectiveness, with spread spectrum offering such significant advantages over >narrowband. It was also decided on the basis of incompatibility - narrowband was >deemed so incompatible with spread spectrum use that its use was outright >banned. > >>Some things never change... > >I agree, but if you are suggesting that SS vs narrowband should be >decided in the same way that it was decided in the teens, the solution >would be to ban SS or narrowband on various bands or band segments, >isolating each mode from mutual problems. I have seen some on the >narrowband side propose this as a solution; why, that is part of what >this discussion is all about anyway. :-) Its a start... narrowband could be relegated to a small portion at the edge of the bands giving spread spectrum users a larger contiguous portion of the band. This would allow the advantages of spread spectrum to be realized. Eventually the whole concept of "band" could be disposed of. At this point narrowband use could be outlawed much as spark was. I really don't have much more to offer, so thanks for replying. 73 Jeff wb8wka ------------------------------------ | Jeff King Aero Data Systems | | jeff@mich.com P.O. Box 510895 | | (248)471-1787 Livonia, MI 48151 | |F(248)471-0279 United States | ------------------------------------ From n5jxs@tamu.edu Sat Sep 19 13:37:09 1998 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (0@clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA14355 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:37:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gjc (pvme20 [128.194.136.51]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA20438 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:36:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3603F976.235B@tamu.edu> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:35:34 -0500 From: Gerry Creager Reply-To: gerry@cs.tamu.edu Organization: Da House X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:29] Re: SS on HF References: <199809190150.UAA00292@access.usa-site.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Sampson wrote: > > Spectrum: > > Could the argument be changed around, that since there is so much > spectrum "in the GigaHertz" that CW and SSB be moved there? No. Consider for a moment, the case of the Gulf Coast. We use a *lot* of HF communication this time of year for hurricaine communications. Wire antennas are easy to string after the winds calm a bit and easy to move to the new command post. The SS assets do not yet exist to supplant this activity. Further, NBFM at VHF and UHF are not sufficient to cover the work done on HF. But they have their uses. Nope, we're not there yet. We need to have a product that will do everything the uses need (*NOTE*: _need_ rather than want) before we try to relegate established practices to less than desirable bands. > Radio Relay: > > 1) How many UHF stations does it take to cross the Continental US? > 2) How many HF stations? > 3) Which would be more likely achieved. Inconsequential: If you distrupt current, conventional users even with a better product the initial view will be negative. If your better idea is not actually realized in volume and then you claim spectrum for it, displacing other, existing technology, there'll be anarchy. > Experiment: > > I think spectrum needs to be allocated, either new spectrum (go to WARC), > or current spectrum. You can debate with numbers and theory all you want, > but until you have two prototypes testing the theory, it's all > hypothetical. How many UPS trucks are using 220 MHz with their fancy > new mode? I strongly support this thought train. We would benefit from the new experimental spectrum. Who wants to write it up? I may be able to get some support from soem federal assets on this... 73, gerry From ssampson@usa-site.net Sat Sep 19 15:53:14 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (root@access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18860 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:53:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05912 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:53:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bde40f$3ba5b5c0$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:31] Re: SS on HF Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:51:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Listening for the military stuff I used to be part of 10 years ago, I find that almost all of it is gone. Since we were using more and more satellite gear, and JTIDS, I think spectrum is available, and if we don't apply for it, the Church will. I'd rather see more HF for Hams, then HF for churches. They've already taken over the AM broadcast band. We may be better off going to the Southern Baptists for spectrum, rather than the ARRL?? The other option is to take over the Novice bands, but keep the power limit. Since there will be no more Novices (I hope) there is no more need for the CW allocation. There's sufficient CW spectrum on HF. 15 meters and 21.1 to 21.2 is a good candidate. The 50 kHz on 40 meters is another, and 3.5 to 3.6 MHz on 80 is another. 10 meters is so unused, I mostly hear CB radio ops going on locally, as there is no Ham activity. I think HF is one of those areas where intelligent hoppers can be deployed. A good application, would be internet or VHF/UHF connections, where radios can use band activity from all over the US to map frequencies from. My radio could take the data from another radio in town over UHF or the internet, to determine the next 10 hopping frequencies, or a code that selects the next band to hop to. Something that can't be done locally, as the mapping receiver would be overpowered. Another idea is a common channel on HF using FSK to distribute hopping data. Very low baud rates needed. I don't think each radio must operate as a single entity, but with technology today, could work in a LAN or WAN type network. We can't do anything if the Church takes over, or 10 moonbounce operators control the HF spectrum. Time to move on and clean up the rules. We're not going to be able to do anything unless they are modified. The STA route is a dead end. People spend more time shuffling paper than burning solder, or writing code. Steve From fspinner@hotmail.com Sun Sep 20 12:37:44 1998 Received: from hotmail.com (f51.hotmail.com [207.82.250.62]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA22016 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:37:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 16636 invoked by uid 0); 20 Sep 1998 17:37:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19980920173712.16635.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.175.225.5 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:37:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.175.225.5] From: "Frederick M. Spinner" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:26] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:37:12 GMT Actually I do feel sorry for your organization, but he has a valid point- Part 15 devices legally get no protection from interference from other devices, and must accept interference from other devices. LARIAT was aware of this in the past, and decided to go ahead with their network anyway. Maybe the real problem is that LARIAT should have gone with licensed spectrum in the past. There is a definate implication there that both organizations are at fault. There was a risk with going with the ISM band equipment. So, if you guys get QRMed off the band, you knew this was a possibility at deployment. So, I can see this issue with both points. I think the FCC wasn't too smart on letting pole top mounted antennas still fall under Part 15... I see definate bad systems engineering in both camps... Fred KA9VAW >Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:39:39 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: ss@tapr.org >From: Brett Glass >To: ss@tapr.org >Subject: [SS:26] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal > >At 02:56 AM 9/18/98 -0500, Steve Stroh N8GNJ wrote: > >>What decides if you got your money's worth is if the device continues to >>function when interference inevitably comes- which could be wireless patio >>speakers, a television "extender" (how'd you like a handful of those each >>running 1W occupying 6 MHz each), a swarm of cordless phones, Amateur Radio >>operators running wideband data at 155 Mbps or something at 25W. >> >>Will you be taking political action to have THOSE devices "disallowed" by >>local fiat in Laramie because they could potentially interfere with LARIAT? > >Steve, I think you are being disingenuous here. None of these interferes >with LARIAT or is ever likely to do so. It is saturation of the band with >hundreds of outdoor transmitters so arranged as to "take over" the spectrum >that's the problem. They coordinate frequency hopping sequences to produce >wideband interference, and power levels to drown out other units. > >>It seems to me that your only course of action at this point is to try to >>get your equipment vendor (Lucent) to make the case with the FCC that a >>Ricochet System isn't compliant with Part 15, and because of that a >>Ricochet System causes other Part 15 devices that ARE compliant, not to >>function. If your vendor won't stand behind their equipment not >>functioning, then you have few options (and if they don't take action, then >>it seems to me that they're open to market criticism and lost sales). > >Lucent has already stated its desire that such devices be required to conform >to the IEEE 802.11 protocol. The FCC has not taken action on this yet, to my >knowledge. > >Steve, it appears that you're recommending a futile approach. Are you really >that much of a "Metricom uber alles" fan that you're willing to be hostile >to our community's well-being? Your remarks so far certainly make it sound >that >way. > >--Brett > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From brett@lariat.org Sun Sep 20 13:19:46 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA24537 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:19:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA10288; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:19:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809201819.MAA10288@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:17:18 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:33] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <19980920173712.16635.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:39 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Frederick M. Spinner wrote: >Actually I do feel sorry for your organization, but he has a valid >point- Part 15 devices legally get no protection from interference from >other devices, and must accept interference from other devices. "Must accept" as in "the equipment will not blow up." There is nothing that says the OWNER must accept the interference. >LARIAT was aware of this in the past, and decided to go ahead with their >network anyway. Maybe the real problem is that LARIAT should have gone >with licensed spectrum in the past. We don't monopolize the band. Metricom's Ricochet system is designed to do so, with hundreds of radios coordinating to blot out all other Part 15 users. >There is a definate implication >there that both organizations are at fault. There was a risk with going >with the ISM band equipment. So, if you guys get QRMed off the band, >you knew this was a possibility at deployment. We did not anticipate that anyone would mount a strategy so directly aimed at blowing everyone else off the band. We were shocked when we found out about the way in which Metricom's equipment works. If it's legal, it certainly should not be. We are preparing to enter a request for expedited rulemaking, if we can find someone to help us with the legalities. >So, I can see this issue with both points. I think the FCC wasn't too >smart on letting pole top mounted antennas still fall under Part 15... It goes farther than that. No one should be allowed to monopolize the band by deploying hundreds of transmitters that coordinate to prevent others froom using it. >I see definate bad systems engineering in both camps... The WaveLAN equipment is designed very well, and has sufficient process gain to overcome quite a lot of interference (See our paper at http://www.lariat.org/metricom.html). No other system would cause QRM that our current engineering design could not overcome. The Metricom system is a pathological case, in that it does not conform to IEEE 802.11 and acts aggressively to drown out all others. This is why we are preparing to propose to the FCC that the aggregate field strength of the transmitters in a coordinated system such as Metricom's be limited to that of a 1 watt ERP omnidirectional transmitter. If there's more, the transmitter power must be scaled back. We will also propose a maximum transmitter density to prevent saturation of an area in which another system is operating. --Brett Glass From brett@lariat.org Sun Sep 20 13:30:44 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA25147 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:30:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA10342; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:30:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809201830.MAA10342@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 12:28:40 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Additional comment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:39 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Frederick M. Spinner wrote: >LARIAT was aware of this in the past, LARIAT was aware that there would be (and are!) other users of the band. We've lived with them just fine. We were not aware that an out-of-state mega-corporation would attempt to steamroll us without warning. >and decided to go ahead with their >network anyway. Maybe the real problem is that LARIAT should have gone >with licensed spectrum in the past. The cost of the equipment, not to mention of the spectrum, would have been prohibitive. (Just TRY to obtain reasonably priced, commercially manufactured spread spectrum equipment for a licensed band.) Remember, LARIAT is a non-profit, grass roots community organization that cannot (by law!) keep any more of its income than is required to maintain a modest cash reserve. Metricom and K N Energy, on the other hand, have deep pockets, are for-profit, are engaged in entrepreneurial activities. What's more, theyseem to feel a need to monopolize the spectrum on which they operate. (They have even sought to limit the power output of hams -- who are primary users -- on that band.) Therefore, THEY should obtain licensed spectrum -- just like a cellular telephone company or paging service. LARIAT should not need to. --Brett Glass From n8gnj@tapr.org Sun Sep 20 17:26:33 1998 Received: from rgate2.ricochet.net (rgate2.ricochet.net [204.179.143.3]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05280 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:26:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from igor.strohpub.ricochet.net (mg-20664222-135.ricochet.net [206.64.222.135]) by rgate2.ricochet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13515 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:26:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199809202226.RAA13515@rgate2.ricochet.net> X-Sender: n8gnj@tapr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:32:24 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Steve Stroh N8GNJ Subject: Re: [SS:33] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <19980920173712.16635.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Brett Glass wrote: > Steve, it appears that you're recommending a futile approach. Are you > really that much of a "Metricom uber alles" fan that you're willing to be > hostile to our community's well-being? Your remarks so far certainly > make it sound that way. I thought about your remarks for a few days. This will be my final posting on this topic in SS. There are more relevant venues to continue this discussion if that's desired. To answer your question, No, I'm not that big a fan of Metricom (although, for full disclosure, I am a [paying] Ricochet customer using a Ricochet unit/system in the Seattle area as my Internet connection). I'm certainly not hostile to LARIAT- I've referred to it in print as a good example of Wireless Internet Access. Again, the reality is in Part 15 vs Part 15 disputes, both "sides" must accept the other's interference. There's a label somewhere on or with your WaveLAN equipment with words to that effect. AT&T (later Lucent) was required to get FCC certification for compliance with Part 15 rules before they could ship the WaveLAN units that LARIAT uses. Metricom was required to get FCC certification for compliance with Part 15 rules before they could deploy Ricochet units and systems. This says to me that as far as the FCC is concerned, Ricochet units and systems ARE compliant with Part 15. If you can get the FCC to agree with you that Ricochet system operations aren't in compliance with Part 15, then you would have a reasonable case. But, that will take years, lawyers, money, and lots more technical data than a user-based orgainization like LARIAT can likely afford. Steve Stroh N8GNJ From brett@lariat.org Sun Sep 20 19:03:37 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA18322 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:03:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id SAA12431; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:03:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809210003.SAA12431@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:01:35 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:36] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809202226.RAA13515@rgate2.ricochet.net> References: <19980920173712.16635.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:28 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Steve Stroh N8GNJ wrote: >Again, the reality is in Part 15 vs Part 15 disputes, both "sides" must >accept the other's interference. This is incorrect. The EQUIPMENT must accept the interference -- in other words, while it may not work, it shouldn't catch fire, blow up, or do anything else destructive. The OWNER need not live with the interference, and in fact can sue for interference with contract, interference with business prospects, etc. in civil court. The FCC regulations do not override this. >AT&T (later Lucent) was >required to get FCC certification for compliance with Part 15 rules before >they could ship the WaveLAN units that LARIAT uses. Metricom was required >to get FCC certification for compliance with Part 15 rules before they >could deploy Ricochet units and systems. This says to me that as far as >the FCC is concerned, Ricochet units and systems ARE compliant with Part 15. The Ricochet system appears to slide through an unaddressed "loophole" which the FCC should close via proper interpretation of the rules and/or by rulemaking. >If you can get the FCC to agree with you that Ricochet system operations >aren't in compliance with Part 15, then you would have a reasonable case. >But, that will take years, lawyers, money, and lots more technical data >than a user-based orgainization like LARIAT can likely afford. You just don't get it, do you, Steve? THIS IS OUR EXISTENCE ON THE LINE HERE. Would you have us just "roll over and play dead?" Should we say, "Ooooh, the gas company and Metricom have sooooo much money and soooooo much power that they can do anything they damn please; our whole city had better just give up on having a wireless community network, and certainly on doing anything with wireless networking in THEIR band." And then, of course, Metricom will take over the next Part 15 band, and the next, and the next.... I think it's important to take strident and immediate action to prevent one company from taking over spectrum that's supposed to be available to all. It's clear that Steve won't give up his beloved Ricochet modem, but hopefully the rest of the participants in this list can see where things are headed. Who can help us write the proposal for rulemaking? --Brett Glass From Vodall@bigsky.com Sun Sep 20 20:59:36 1998 Received: from eagle.bigsky.com (root@mg-20664222-68.ricochet.net [206.64.222.68]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA23913 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:59:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from defiant (hyperwall [209.20.148.70]) by eagle.bigsky.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA30890 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:59:47 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980920185940.009ba2a0@wa7nwp.dynip.com> X-Sender: vodall@wa7nwp.dynip.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:59:40 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Bill Vodall Subject: Re: [SS:37] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809210003.SAA12431@lariat.lariat.org> References: <199809202226.RAA13515@rgate2.ricochet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Brett Glass wrote: > >And then, of course, Metricom will take over the next Part 15 band, and the >next, and the next.... FYI. Metricom has purchased spectrum at public auction for their next generation system. It's higher frequency (2G?) and is not shared. Bill - WA7NWP From brett@lariat.org Sun Sep 20 21:30:05 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA25999 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:30:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA13418; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:29:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809210229.UAA13418@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:27:54 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:38] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980920185940.009ba2a0@wa7nwp.dynip.com> References: <199809210003.SAA12431@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, Bill -- and I was quite hopeful about this. However, according to Tim Dreisbach, CEO of Metricom, the licensed spectrum is used IN ADDITION TO taking over Part 15 spectrum. It's used for communications between the hub, or Wired Access Point (WAP), and the pole-top units, while the 915 MHz band is STILL monopolized for communications between the pole-top units and the consumer radios. (It's unclear which band the pole-top units use to communicate with one ANOTHER.) So, Metricom still insists on "owning" Part 15 spectrum even in situations where it's licensed more. In short, it's still singing, "This band is my band, and only my band...." --Brett Glass At 09:00 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Bill Vodall wrote: >At 07:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Brett Glass wrote: >> >>And then, of course, Metricom will take over the next Part 15 band, and the >>next, and the next.... > >FYI. Metricom has purchased spectrum at public auction for their >next generation system. It's higher frequency (2G?) and is not shared. > >Bill - WA7NWP > From wd5ivd@tapr.org Sun Sep 20 21:59:27 1998 Received: from [207.8.125.53] (greg-jones-pc4.customer.jump.net [207.8.125.53]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA27563 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809210229.UAA13418@lariat.lariat.org> References: <3.0.5.32.19980920185940.009ba2a0@wa7nwp.dynip.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:58:55 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:39] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal They might say that they want to rule whatever band they are on,but Part 15 is not a service and amateur radio is. This is not an issue for us. So, what is the point of this debate again ? Greg >Yes, Bill -- and I was quite hopeful about this. However, according to >Tim Dreisbach, CEO of Metricom, the licensed spectrum is used IN ADDITION >TO taking over Part 15 spectrum. It's used for communications between the >hub, or Wired Access Point (WAP), and the pole-top units, while the 915 MHz >band is STILL monopolized for communications between the pole-top units >and the consumer radios. (It's unclear which band the pole-top units use >to communicate with one ANOTHER.) > >So, Metricom still insists on "owning" Part 15 spectrum even in >situations where it's licensed more. In short, it's still singing, "This >band is my band, and only my band...." > >--Brett Glass ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From brett@lariat.org Sun Sep 20 23:02:12 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA00912 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:02:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA14054; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:02:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809210402.WAA14054@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:00:06 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:40] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: References: <199809210229.UAA13418@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The point -- and I'm not sure it's a debate, by the way -- is that LARIAT needs help proposing expedited rulemaking that will rein in Metricom. Metricom is a threat to hams, too; you can expect them to keep on going back to the FCC with requests to keep hams from using the bandwidth they want to "own." They've already done it once, in 1996-7. At that time, they sought to limit hams to 1 watt ERP on the bands they wanted, because they KNEW that by deploying hundreds of transmitters they could then knock the hams off the band the way they're threatening to knock LARIAT off the band. The appropriate thing is for them to use licensed spectrum, just like the paging and cellular phone companies they resemble. We need support from hams, who are also threatened, to rein in Metricom's attempts to take over public spectrum for their own exclusive use. Hams are more familiar with the FCC rule making process than anyone; that's why we're appealing to them for help. We'd like to see your group get on board.... --Brett Glass At 10:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: >They might say that they want to rule whatever band they are on,but Part 15 >is not a service and amateur radio is. This is not an issue for us. > >So, what is the point of this debate again ? > >Greg From wd5ivd@tapr.org Sun Sep 20 23:59:47 1998 Received: from [207.8.125.53] (greg-jones-pc4.customer.jump.net [207.8.125.53]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA05907 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:59:45 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809210402.WAA14054@lariat.lariat.org> References: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:59:33 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:41] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal >The point -- and I'm not sure it's a debate, by the way -- is that LARIAT >needs help proposing expedited rulemaking that will rein in Metricom. > >Metricom is a threat to hams, too; you can expect them to keep on going >back to the FCC with requests to keep hams from using the bandwidth they >want to "own." They've already done it once, in 1996-7. At that time, they >sought to limit hams to 1 watt ERP on the bands they wanted, because they >KNEW that by deploying hundreds of transmitters they could then knock the >hams off the band the way they're threatening to knock LARIAT off the band. I know very much about this since I am one of the two TAPR SS STA holders and work with Dewayne on all the TAPR filings regarding SS issues to the FCC. But this is only affecting spread specturm rule changes, not any current or traditional modes. I don't see the FCC placing power limits on traditional modes on the shared part 15 bands. At least not yet. They obviously made their point to the FCC, since a discussion over a year ago with people who talk with the FCC indicated that they were leaning towards some type of power limit for amateur SS operations on the bands that have Part 15 activity under the new rules under writing. With luck and more FCC writing on our part we will only have to place power control limits on things over 1 watt, which would be good practice for us anyway. >The appropriate thing is for them to use licensed spectrum, just like the >paging and cellular phone companies they resemble. Well, that is one way to look at it. Unfortunately for your frame of mind they have meet the requirements of Part 15 and can thus do their thing on that band. That is what Part 15 was all about. The real force will kick in when users of cordless phone and other thing start to have problems and the word gets out what is causing it and they start calling thier congressional rep. >We need support from hams, who are also threatened, to rein in Metricom's >attempts to take over public spectrum for their own exclusive use. Hams >are more familiar with the FCC rule making process than anyone; that's >why we're appealing to them for help. We'd like to see your group get >on board.... Well, if Metricom is really threatening 'public spectrum' then I think AT&T and other Part 15 mfgs will be well ahead of us in taking care of this issue, since they depend on it more than we do in order to make money. We can always raise power limits on traditional modes on any Part 15 bands to correct any problems. We can yell to the havens all we want, but complaining to the FCC about this issue will do little to further our cause. What we have to focus on is generating technology that will handle the fact that one day we will be on bands that we are not primary on, thus we can't interfere and have to take interference all the time. Until we have that technology in place, then our hobby is under a sword for the distant future. Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From brett@lariat.org Mon Sep 21 02:27:37 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA17556 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 02:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA00456; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:27:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809210727.BAA00456@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:25:25 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:42] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: References: <199809210402.WAA14054@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:00 AM 9/21/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: >Well, if Metricom is really threatening 'public spectrum' then I think AT&T >and other Part 15 mfgs will be well ahead of us in taking care of this >issue, since they depend on it more than we do in order to make money. We >can always raise power limits on traditional modes on any Part 15 bands to >correct any problems. The problem, with these guys, is that in order to complain they have to admit that they're being interfered with. Which they don't want to; it discourages customers. I'm trying to urge them on, though. >We can yell to the havens all we want, but complaining to the FCC about >this issue will do little to further our cause. It's the ONLY thing that will further our cause. There's a player out there who's not playing fair; the ref needs to blow the whistle and threaten to kick him out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct. >What we have to focus on >is generating technology that will handle the fact that one day we will be >on bands that we are not primary on, thus we can't interfere and have to >take interference all the time. And then you get an endless escalation, with each technology trying to beat up on the other. Not good. Better to have rules that force them to cooperate. >Until we have that technology in place, then our hobby is under a sword for >the distant future. For LARIAT, it's more than a hobby. We do important things for our community. See our white paper and news bulletin. --Brett Glass From gwyn@paccomm.com Mon Sep 21 05:50:18 1998 Received: from mail2.mailsorter.net (mail2.mailsorter.net [209.132.1.32]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA21487 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 05:50:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mgr ([12.70.77.55]) by mail2.mailsorter.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAC15252 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 03:49:44 -0700 From: "Gwyn Reedy" To: Subject: Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 06:44:15 -0400 Message-ID: <01bde54c$c74e13e0$234f460c@mgr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 It appears that there will be either an endless escalation of technology or of restrictive regulations. I much prefer the former as we have an excess of regulation as it is. I don't think non-profit vs for-profit has much to do with it but this is certainly not the forum to discuss that. I have no doubt you really do good things for your community, but does that entitle you to special treatment by regulatory bodies? Why don't you approach Metricom or the local utility with an offer - that they cut you a good deal to replace your wavelan equipment with their equipment. Each side comes out ahead (even the SS group who don't have to be drawn into this any farther.) Gwyn Reedy W1BEL -----Original Message----- From: Brett Glass To: ss@tapr.org Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 4:18 AM Subject: [SS:43] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal >And then you get an endless escalation, with each technology trying to >beat up on the other. Not good. Better to have rules that force them to >cooperate. > >For LARIAT, it's more than a hobby. We do important things for our community. > From rlanier@harris.com Mon Sep 21 08:04:57 1998 Received: from corpmx1.ess.harris.com (corpmx1.ess.harris.com [130.41.65.49]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA04539 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:04:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: by corpmx1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:04:53 -0400 Message-ID: <275399FB18C4D111871300805FBEB72F01215B77@corpmx6.ess.harris.com> From: "Lanier, Robert" To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Subject: RE: 32] Re: SS on HF Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:55:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain What does church and the Southern Baptists have to do with ham radio? -----Original Message----- From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 3:57 PM To: ss@tapr.org Subject: [SS:32] Re: SS on HF Listening for the military stuff I used to be part of 10 years ago, I find that almost all of it is gone. Since we were using more and more satellite gear, and JTIDS, I think spectrum is available, and if we don't apply for it, the Church will. I'd rather see more HF for Hams, then HF for churches. They've already taken over the AM broadcast band. We may be better off going to the Southern Baptists for spectrum, rather than the ARRL?? The other option is to take over the Novice bands, but keep the power limit. Since there will be no more Novices (I hope) there is no more need for the CW allocation. There's sufficient CW spectrum on HF. 15 meters and 21.1 to 21.2 is a good candidate. The 50 kHz on 40 meters is another, and 3.5 to 3.6 MHz on 80 is another. 10 meters is so unused, I mostly hear CB radio ops going on locally, as there is no Ham activity. I think HF is one of those areas where intelligent hoppers can be deployed. A good application, would be internet or VHF/UHF connections, where radios can use band activity from all over the US to map frequencies from. My radio could take the data from another radio in town over UHF or the internet, to determine the next 10 hopping frequencies, or a code that selects the next band to hop to. Something that can't be done locally, as the mapping receiver would be overpowered. Another idea is a common channel on HF using FSK to distribute hopping data. Very low baud rates needed. I don't think each radio must operate as a single entity, but with technology today, could work in a LAN or WAN type network. We can't do anything if the Church takes over, or 10 moonbounce operators control the HF spectrum. Time to move on and clean up the rules. We're not going to be able to do anything unless they are modified. The STA route is a dead end. People spend more time shuffling paper than burning solder, or writing code. Steve From fspinner@hotmail.com Mon Sep 21 08:11:02 1998 Received: from hotmail.com (f298.hotmail.com [207.82.251.190]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA04786 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:11:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 15046 invoked by uid 0); 21 Sep 1998 13:10:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19980921131028.15042.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.175.225.5 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 06:10:27 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.175.225.5] From: "Frederick M. Spinner" To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:41] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:10:27 GMT Okay, so send a proposal to the FCC to do this. This is more appropriate than trying to go to civil court! I'm not too worried as I can put 40W (at 902) out on top of them anytime I want! :-) Grin. Theres a solution: Get as many hams on the band as you can, and drive them off! We're licensed, they are not, they lose! :-) Fred KA9VAW >Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:02:36 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: ss@tapr.org >From: Brett Glass >To: ss@tapr.org >Subject: [SS:41] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal > >The point -- and I'm not sure it's a debate, by the way -- is that LARIAT >needs help proposing expedited rulemaking that will rein in Metricom. > >Metricom is a threat to hams, too; you can expect them to keep on going >back to the FCC with requests to keep hams from using the bandwidth they >want to "own." They've already done it once, in 1996-7. At that time, they >sought to limit hams to 1 watt ERP on the bands they wanted, because they >KNEW that by deploying hundreds of transmitters they could then knock the >hams off the band the way they're threatening to knock LARIAT off the band. > >The appropriate thing is for them to use licensed spectrum, just like the >paging and cellular phone companies they resemble. > >We need support from hams, who are also threatened, to rein in Metricom's >attempts to take over public spectrum for their own exclusive use. Hams >are more familiar with the FCC rule making process than anyone; that's >why we're appealing to them for help. We'd like to see your group get >on board.... > >--Brett Glass > >At 10:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: > >>They might say that they want to rule whatever band they are on,but Part 15 >>is not a service and amateur radio is. This is not an issue for us. >> >>So, what is the point of this debate again ? >> >>Greg > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Sep 21 09:24:28 1998 Received: from [207.8.125.53] (greg-jones-pc4.customer.jump.net [207.8.125.53]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09265 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:24:27 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980921131028.15042.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:23:23 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:46] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal You hit the point Fred right on. We can increase power, put more antennas in the air and so on. We are a service they are not. To go to the FCC or sue them makes little sense. To me, it sounds like Brett and his group just need to invest a little more money or build additional equipment to solve this problem. Technology will be much cheaper and much more time efficient then trying to pursue legal means. It is to easy for amateurs to call for legal help when a technical challenge needs to be used to solve a problem. When we have to use and talk to the FCC is when the rules are so restrictive that change is needed to allow the ability of new experimentation and technical pursuits to happen. Like RM-8737. Brett, not sure if you are going to see much more sympathy from this group, since this group is very much aimed toward building systems that don't require legal means to make amateurs happy. If you are having a problem using your WaveLan equipment then you have choices that other Part 15 users don't. Unless you are operating them as Part 15 devices and not under Part 97 ? I think if you have technical questions on how to improve your network design to overcome this issue, I am sure there will be people on this list that can help you with link design issue, getting information on buying or building 900Mhz amps, finding better antennas and the like. I had a simple question I don't think I saw answered. Are you using vertical or horz polarity ? As amateurs, we need to focus on the technical and experimentation issues of the hobby to continue to prove that we deserve the frequencies we are allocated. Going to the FCC and complaining is what they don't want to see. Ever time we go to them, they just add it up to the many other times and figure out ways in the future that will lower the number of times we do it in the future. We are low on the food chain. Cheers - Greg >Okay, so send a proposal to the FCC to do this. This is more >appropriate than trying to go to civil court! > >I'm not too worried as I can put 40W (at 902) out on top of them anytime >I want! :-) Grin. > >Theres a solution: Get as many hams on the band as you can, and >drive them off! We're licensed, they are not, they lose! :-) > >Fred KA9VAW > > >>Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:02:36 -0500 (CDT) >>Reply-To: ss@tapr.org >>From: Brett Glass >>To: ss@tapr.org >>Subject: [SS:41] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal >> >>The point -- and I'm not sure it's a debate, by the way -- is that >LARIAT >>needs help proposing expedited rulemaking that will rein in Metricom. >> >>Metricom is a threat to hams, too; you can expect them to keep on going >>back to the FCC with requests to keep hams from using the bandwidth >they >>want to "own." They've already done it once, in 1996-7. At that time, >they >>sought to limit hams to 1 watt ERP on the bands they wanted, because >they >>KNEW that by deploying hundreds of transmitters they could then knock >the >>hams off the band the way they're threatening to knock LARIAT off the >band. >> >>The appropriate thing is for them to use licensed spectrum, just like >the >>paging and cellular phone companies they resemble. >> >>We need support from hams, who are also threatened, to rein in >Metricom's >>attempts to take over public spectrum for their own exclusive use. Hams >>are more familiar with the FCC rule making process than anyone; that's >>why we're appealing to them for help. We'd like to see your group get >>on board.... >> >>--Brett Glass >> >>At 10:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: >> >>>They might say that they want to rule whatever band they are on,but >Part 15 >>>is not a service and amateur radio is. This is not an issue for us. >>> >>>So, what is the point of this debate again ? >>> >>>Greg >> >> > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From jausten@tntech.edu Mon Sep 21 11:56:35 1998 Received: from tntech.edu (SYSTEM@gemini.tntech.edu [149.149.11.7]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16747 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:56:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [149.149.39.26] ("port 2065"@cookie-monster.ece.tntech.edu) by tntech.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #D3068) with ESMTP id <01J22FSBW3GE8XD8BP@tntech.edu> for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:55:53 CDT Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:55:49 -0600 From: Jeffrey Austen Subject: Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-reply-to: <199809210003.SAA12431@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: jausten@gemini.tntech.edu To: ss@tapr.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <199809202226.RAA13515@rgate2.ricochet.net> >>Again, the reality is in Part 15 vs Part 15 disputes, both "sides" must >>accept the other's interference. > >This is incorrect. The EQUIPMENT must accept the interference -- in other >words, while it may not work, it shouldn't catch fire, blow up, or do anything >else destructive. The OWNER need not live with the interference, and in fact >can sue for interference with contract, interference with business prospects, >etc. in civil court. The FCC regulations do not override this. By my understanding of the rules this does not make sense. Please explain why the owner can sue over the interference. References to relevant statutes and court decisions will help justify the answer. If you can do this, I think you will have found the solution to your problem! Jeff, k9ja --- Jeffrey Austen | Tennessee Technological University jausten@tntech.edu | Box 5004 +1-931-372-3485 | Cookeville Tennessee 38505 U.S.A. From johan@unixville.com Mon Sep 21 13:06:22 1998 Received: from capsela.expressweb.com ([199.76.199.206]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20162 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:06:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from snoopdogg (snoopdogg.expressweb.com [199.76.199.237]) by capsela.expressweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA02622 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:07:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Johan S. Sosa" To: Subject: FHSS radio project Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:05:57 -0400 Message-ID: <001501bde58a$7b976990$edc74cc7@snoopdogg.expressweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980920185940.009ba2a0@wa7nwp.dynip.com> Does anyone know the status of the FHSS radio project ? '73 -Johan From brett@lariat.org Mon Sep 21 13:18:15 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20888 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:18:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA04201; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:18:11 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809211818.MAA04201@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:08:53 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:48] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, as you know, it's possible to sue someone locally for fraud or libeleven though the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech at the Federal level. Why? Because you're free to speak, but if you use that right to accomplish something that hurts someone, you're still liable for hurting that person. I think the same thing is true here. (I don't have access to the case law, but I'm trying to find a law student who can help me get it.) If a company uses its unencumbered access to the airwaves via Part 15 to wreck someone else's business knowingly and wantonly, it may be liable under "unfair competition" statutes or for interference with contract or business prospects (common law). We are researching this. Nonetheless, I think that rule making is important here. We have one particular greedy corporation here that's violating the spirit (and possibly the letter; we're not sure but are researching it) of the regulations. I think the regs should address the problem directly. --Brett Glass At 12:02 PM 9/21/98 -0500, Jeffrey Austen wrote: >>>Again, the reality is in Part 15 vs Part 15 disputes, both "sides" must >>>accept the other's interference. >> >>This is incorrect. The EQUIPMENT must accept the interference -- in other >>words, while it may not work, it shouldn't catch fire, blow up, or do anything >>else destructive. The OWNER need not live with the interference, and in fact >>can sue for interference with contract, interference with business prospects, >>etc. in civil court. The FCC regulations do not override this. > >By my understanding of the rules this does not make sense. Please explain >why the owner can sue over the interference. References to relevant >statutes and court decisions will help justify the answer. > >If you can do this, I think you will have found the solution to your problem! > >Jeff, k9ja > >--- >Jeffrey Austen | Tennessee Technological University >jausten@tntech.edu | Box 5004 >+1-931-372-3485 | Cookeville Tennessee 38505 U.S.A. > > From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Sep 21 14:23:55 1998 Received: from [128.83.74.103] (edb536j-2.edb.utexas.edu [128.83.74.103]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA25613 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:23:51 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501bde58a$7b976990$edc74cc7@snoopdogg.expressweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980920185940.009ba2a0@wa7nwp.dynip.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:15:34 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:49] FHSS radio project Yes. The digital board is being completed. The team has completed the porting of the router and I got an e-mail yesterday that it was funtioning on the digital board with no problems. A major milestone. Now comes the finsih to the RF board and getting the digital board and RF board interoperating. As on the web page, the VCOs are hopping correctly, but more than that is requitred. Tom, N5EG, will be making a full report at the DCC this weekend and the audio will be available shortly after that. Cheers - Greg >Does anyone know the status of the FHSS radio project ? > >'73 >-Johan ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From brett@lariat.org Mon Sep 21 15:24:36 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA29066 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:24:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA05156; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:24:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809212024.OAA05156@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:19:19 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:51] Re: FHSS radio project In-Reply-To: References: <001501bde58a$7b976990$edc74cc7@snoopdogg.expressweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is this hopper suitable for Part 15 use? --Brett Glass At 02:27 PM 9/21/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: >Yes. > >The digital board is being completed. The team has completed the porting >of the router and I got an e-mail yesterday that it was funtioning on the >digital board with no problems. A major milestone. > >Now comes the finsih to the RF board and getting the digital board and RF >board interoperating. As on the web page, the VCOs are hopping correctly, >but more than that is requitred. > >Tom, N5EG, will be making a full report at the DCC this weekend and the >audio will be available shortly after that. > >Cheers - Greg > >>Does anyone know the status of the FHSS radio project ? >> >>'73 >>-Johan > >----- >Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas >wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd > > From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Sep 21 15:52:21 1998 Received: from [128.83.74.103] (edb536j-2.edb.utexas.edu [128.83.74.103]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA00484 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:52:19 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809212024.OAA05156@lariat.lariat.org> References: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:52:10 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:52] Re: FHSS radio project Let me suggest you read the on-line paper and listen to the audio from the two conference presentations. http://www.tapr.org/ss Cheers - Greg >Is this hopper suitable for Part 15 use? > >--Brett Glass ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From LNUSSAT.JMALMBER@eds.com Mon Sep 21 18:38:12 1998 Received: from ns1.eds.com (ns1.eds.com [192.85.154.78]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17049 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:38:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nnsa.eds.com (nnsa.eds.com [192.85.154.30] (may be forged)) by ns1.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00262 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DNET.EDS.COM (dnet.eds.com [130.174.18.173]) by nnsa.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA29918 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DNET.EDS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 2.0) with snapi via DMNCEC id 0095000018442711; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:37:39 -0400 From: JOHN MALMBERG To: SS Subject: Re: [SS:51] Re: FHSS radio project Message-ID: <0095000018442711000002L012*@MHS> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:37:39 -0400 As a fund raiser, has TAPR considered cash advances on future purchases of the equipment, and are you close to determining what the final cost will be? Locally, two hams have said that they would get a SS radio if I got one. I am looking for material to send to the club's newsletter editor on drumming up interest. Local hams are cheap, so I need material to let them know how much setting up a network would cost, also what impact the local terrain of rolling hills will cause. -John WB8TYW @ K4HRY.#MIDTN.TN.USA.NA E-Mail: LNUSSAT.JMALMBER@GMEDS.COM From ssampson@usa-site.net Mon Sep 21 20:13:18 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (root@access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21719 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:13:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dodge (dodge.usa-site.net [209.140.34.135]) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21317 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:13:17 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bde5c5$dd31fa40$87228cd1@dodge.usa-site.net> From: "Steve Sampson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:54] Re: FHSS radio project Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:11:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Whatever the cost... One thing to keep in mind, is that it won't be just a TNC. That is, it will be a complete solution. Add power, antenna, and Ethernet. So comparison wise, they won't be buying just a TNC to use with a current radio, but another radio/modem combo. I notice that M^2 antennas have a pretty good price on 900 MHz beams. (at least the 10 El). I have their 430 MHz model and it is very high quality. http://www.m2inc.com Steve -----Original Message----- From: JOHN MALMBERG To: ss@tapr.org Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 7:40 PM Subject: [SS:54] Re: FHSS radio project >As a fund raiser, has TAPR considered cash advances on future purchases of the >equipment, and are you close to determining what the final cost will be? > >Locally, two hams have said that they would get a SS radio if I got one. > >I am looking for material to send to the club's newsletter editor on drumming >up interest. > >Local hams are cheap, so I need material to let them know how much setting up a >network would cost, also what impact the local terrain of rolling hills will >cause. From glg@balrog.k8lt.ampr.org Mon Sep 21 22:03:45 1998 Received: from balrog.k8lt.ampr.org (balrog.mv.com [207.22.43.24]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA26823 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:03:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from k8lt.ampr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balrog.k8lt.ampr.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA27525 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:03:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from glg@balrog.k8lt.ampr.org) Message-Id: <199809220303.XAA27525@balrog.k8lt.ampr.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:03:12 -0400 From: "Gary L. Grebus" >This is incorrect. The EQUIPMENT must accept the interference -- in other >words, while it may not work, it shouldn't catch fire, blow up, or do anything >else destructive. The OWNER need not live with the interference, and in fact >can sue for interference with contract, interference with business prospects, >etc. in civil court. The FCC regulations do not override this. The general flavor of this argument is familiar, although I don't know its legal merits. It's the same argument by which operators of fully legal amateur stations have been sued for interference to poorly designed consumer electronics. If this is part of your legal strategy, you may not find much sympathy in the amateur community. /gary K8LT From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Sep 21 23:13:05 1998 Received: from [207.8.125.53] (greg-jones-pc4.customer.jump.net [207.8.125.53]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA01143 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:13:03 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0095000018442711000002L012*@MHS> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:12:53 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: Re: [SS:54] Re: FHSS radio project >As a fund raiser, has TAPR considered cash advances on future purchases of the >equipment, and are you close to determining what the final cost will be? We are a bit away from taking money for equipment. We do have an on going fund raiser. If anyone wants to donate money -- we can always use it. As of right now the goal will be to get the first pair of radio operational. A major milestone was reached this past week when the computer/digital board saw the Comer TCP/IP stack and OS operational and sending packets to and from over the Ethernet interface. Now to focus on the RF parts of the unit. >Locally, two hams have said that they would get a SS radio if I got one. That is great. it is going to take groups of people to make this fun and interesting. Much will change between now and the final choices, but I see us doing a sort of TNC-1 beta distribution when the time comes. What this would mean that in order to get radios, groups of amateurs would have to come forward to purchase beta radios in order to make sure that enough critical mass was available in their local area to make something happen. Don't get your hopes up. This is a ways off. See my suggestions below for doing something in the mean time. >I am looking for material to send to the club's newsletter editor on drumming >up interest. The place is to start on the TAPR web page. Either my Pres columns or the DCC papers on the SS project. >Local hams are cheap, so I need material to let them know how much setting >up a >network would cost, also what impact the local terrain of rolling hills will >cause. Cheap is no longer a defense or an excuse these days. Cheap means that our hobby is going down. I see hams at every hamfest dropping tons of money on stuff and computers. People don't seem to think twice about spending money on computers, Internet access, or whatever over a year. Personally I think many of the current Part 15 devices like Breezecom and the rest at $1000-$2000 a unit are inexpensive for what they do. Cheap is a relative term. Typically a matter of understanding what something is worth. Our goal has always been to shot for something around $500 a unit, but I wouldn't be surprised that the beta units will cost more until production increases and cost decline per unit. Until we have something to run real production numbers around for a final unit, who knows. I don't see setting up a SS network different then setting up any other type of amateur networking. Figure $1000-$2000 a network node site to get started. Antennas, coax, radios, supplies, etc. This number seems to be the same for a long time now. I know I have that much or more in at least two systems I have in operations. I think what people need to start thinking about is how to build networks. Putting up a central site that covers everyone to share the resource (like has been done forever) is not one of the best solutions. Old paradigms of networking is not going to work in many cases. The TAPR SS radio is really a solution for high-speed local access from your home to a site were it can go elsewhere and allow many users to share the resource without seeing a lot of single channel congestion. At the DCC TAPR BoD meeting will be discussing a potential project that someone has going now that would provide backbone linking from 56K to 1Mbps on something other than 900Mhz. Once you get these local SS nodes up, we have to link them in such a way that allows us to communicate between and among it other. The 900Mhz radio is justa first step on many levels. Let's get something back in the hands of amateurs that is an enabling tool. You can start doing something today with existing SS STAs. No one should be waiting for us (TAPR) to hand them a radio. The TAPR SS STA is open to anyone that wants to go out and get equipment and start experimenting with might work and get some RF on the air. There is plenty of opportunity for doing stuff. We will be showing off the TALnet radio at the DCC and taking names of those who want access to the router/radio sets. Just visit Barry's (VE3JF) site on wireless radio solution and you can see what might be possible to being to experiment with. I started purchasing my own SS equipment over a year ago and putting it up to see what it would do and wouldn't do in stationary and mobile environments. It has been interesting to see how these things work and what kind of environment is really out there. Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From janovetz@ews.uiuc.edu Mon Sep 21 23:41:54 1998 Received: from eesn26.ews.uiuc.edu (janovetz@eesn26.ews.uiuc.edu [130.126.161.210]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA04605 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:41:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from janovetz@localhost) by eesn26.ews.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA20760 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:41:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Jacob W Janovetz Message-Id: <199809220441.XAA20760@eesn26.ews.uiuc.edu> Subject: WaveLAN? To: ss@tapr.org Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Howdy all... I've been watching for a while and have seen references to the WaveLAN devices here. I've recently been interested in setting up a wireless ethernet connection to my house (from school). Assuming I have access to all the ethernet jazz on the school side of things, I'm wondering what I need to setup this connection. I'd prefer to not have something PC-based because of the typical lack of support for Linux. It would also be nice to not require a PC at all (just have a hub that looks like a regular hub). Any ideas for what are the recommended solutions and what sort of costs I'm looking at? (128kbps would be nice. Faster the better) Thanks! Cheers, Jake -- janovetz@uiuc.edu | Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with University of Illinois | your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, | there you long to return. -- da Vinci PP-ASEL | http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~janovetz/index.html From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 22 08:49:14 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA08011 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:49:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id HAA11830; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:49:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809221349.HAA11830@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:07:27 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:56] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809220303.XAA27525@balrog.k8lt.ampr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:05 PM 9/21/98 -0500, Gary L. Grebus wrote: >The general flavor of this argument is familiar, although I don't know its >legal merits. It's the same argument by which operators of fully legal >amateur stations have been sued for interference to poorly designed consumer >electronics. If this is part of your legal strategy, you may not find much >sympathy in the amateur community. Well, I think the amateur community OUGHT to be sympathetic, as we have here a user of the spectrum that wants to keep ANYONE else -- hams included -- from using it. If the legal argument has merit, they certainly should support it. --Brett From ronen@ronen.netmanage.co.il Tue Sep 22 11:59:23 1998 Received: from ronen.netmanage.co.il ([156.27.241.36]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15893 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:59:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 98 18:58:30 EDT Message-Id: <288990@ronen.netmanage.co.il> From: Pinchook Ronen To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:58] WaveLAN? In-Reply-To: your message of Mon Sep 21 23:47:36 1998 <199809220441.XAA20760@eesn26.ews.uiuc.edu> try the www.breezecom.com they might solve your problem Ronen --------************----------**********-------******* Home of Chameleon , TCP/IP applications for Windows Ronen Pinchook (4Z4ZQ) Phone: 972-4-8550123 NetManage Israel, Ltd. Fax: 972-4-8550122 E-Mail: ronen@netmanage.co.il ********------------**********----------*******------- From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 22 12:35:24 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17385 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:35:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA14171; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:35:21 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809221735.LAA14171@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:33:08 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom In-Reply-To: <288990@ronen.netmanage.co.il> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Breezecom's equipment operates at 115.2 Kbps. Our member organizations are running Web servers and cannot operate at this slow a speed. Incidentally, WaveLAN equipment fared BETTER than Breezecom's in the face of interference from a nearby link in tests performed by a California school district. See http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/WIRETEST.HTM for details. --Brett Glass At 12:00 PM 9/22/98 -0500, Pinchook Ronen wrote: >try the www.breezecom.com >they might solve your problem >Ronen > >--------************----------**********-------******* > Home of Chameleon , TCP/IP applications for Windows >Ronen Pinchook (4Z4ZQ) Phone: 972-4-8550123 >NetManage Israel, Ltd. Fax: 972-4-8550122 >E-Mail: ronen@netmanage.co.il >********------------**********----------*******------- > From john@web-cycat.com Tue Sep 22 12:52:55 1998 Received: from portal.dx.net (portal.dx.net [199.190.65.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17878 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:52:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cycat.com.cycat.com (s165.cycat.com [206.162.42.165]) by portal.dx.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA10530 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980922134642.00817e30@web-cycat.com> X-Sender: john@web-cycat.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:46:42 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: John Rauch Subject: Re: [SS:46] Re: Help! Small community network trying t In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, you may have just "hit" on a temporary solution to help. Contact your local ham club and suggest that they have a "field day" type test of their 902 equipment at the same time that a demonstration of the systems are to be made. Clearly, ALL parties will see that type 15 systems are not dependable under such frequency use. At 10:01 AM 9/21/1998 -0500, you wrote: >Okay, so send a proposal to the FCC to do this. This is more >appropriate than trying to go to civil court! > >I'm not too worried as I can put 40W (at 902) out on top of them anytime >I want! :-) Grin. > >Theres a solution: Get as many hams on the band as you can, and >drive them off! We're licensed, they are not, they lose! :-) > >Fred KA9VAW > > >>Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:02:36 -0500 (CDT) >>Reply-To: ss@tapr.org >>From: Brett Glass >>To: ss@tapr.org >>Subject: [SS:41] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal >> >>The point -- and I'm not sure it's a debate, by the way -- is that >LARIAT >>needs help proposing expedited rulemaking that will rein in Metricom. >> >>Metricom is a threat to hams, too; you can expect them to keep on going >>back to the FCC with requests to keep hams from using the bandwidth >they >>want to "own." They've already done it once, in 1996-7. At that time, >they >>sought to limit hams to 1 watt ERP on the bands they wanted, because >they >>KNEW that by deploying hundreds of transmitters they could then knock >the >>hams off the band the way they're threatening to knock LARIAT off the >band. >> >>The appropriate thing is for them to use licensed spectrum, just like >the >>paging and cellular phone companies they resemble. >> >>We need support from hams, who are also threatened, to rein in >Metricom's >>attempts to take over public spectrum for their own exclusive use. Hams >>are more familiar with the FCC rule making process than anyone; that's >>why we're appealing to them for help. We'd like to see your group get >>on board.... >> >>--Brett Glass >> >>At 10:04 PM 9/20/98 -0500, Greg Jones, WD5IVD wrote: >> >>>They might say that they want to rule whatever band they are on,but >Part 15 >>>is not a service and amateur radio is. This is not an issue for us. >>> >>>So, what is the point of this debate again ? >>> >>>Greg >> >> > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------ John Rauch, N4YXS APRS Active 144.39, 442.075 Seminole County Florida N28 41.128 W081 26.155 From hansen@fredonia.edu Tue Sep 22 12:53:57 1998 Received: from oak.ait.fredonia.edu (oak.ait.fredonia.edu [141.238.20.4]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17947 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:53:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [141.238.20.14] by oak.ait.fredonia.edu (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba833691 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:50:57 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980922135347.0070eda4@oak.ait.fredonia.edu> X-Sender: hansen@oak.ait.fredonia.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:53:47 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: John Hansen Subject: Re: [SS:61] WaveLAN vs. Breezecom In-Reply-To: <199809221735.LAA14171@lariat.lariat.org> References: <288990@ronen.netmanage.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:41 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >Breezecom's equipment operates at 115.2 Kbps. Our member >organizations are running Web servers and cannot operate >at this slow a speed. > I wonder which Breezecom model you are referring to. We've been using Breezecom here for almost 3 years now with great success. Speed is up to 3 Mbits/sec that steps down to 2 and 1 and .5 as signal deteriorates. This stuff is way faster than our T-1 connection off-campus. John Hansen, W2FS From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 22 13:29:17 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21332 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:29:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA14766; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:29:14 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809221829.MAA14766@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:26:17 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:63] Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980922135347.0070eda4@oak.ait.fredonia.edu> References: <199809221735.LAA14171@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" As I understand it, there is a faster Breezecom hopper, but its stated range is 3000 feet. Also, remember: our schools are at one end of the 2.4 GHz band. Breezecom's equipment, last time I checked, used the WHOLE band; we couldn't restrict their hoppers to keep them from potentially bringing down the schools. --Brett At 01:01 PM 9/22/98 -0500, John Hansen wrote: >At 12:41 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Breezecom's equipment operates at 115.2 Kbps. Our member >>organizations are running Web servers and cannot operate >>at this slow a speed. >> > >I wonder which Breezecom model you are referring to. We've >been using Breezecom here for almost 3 years now with great >success. Speed is up to 3 Mbits/sec that steps down to 2 and 1 and >.5 as signal deteriorates. This stuff is way faster than our T-1 connection >off-campus. > >John Hansen, W2FS > From hansen@fredonia.edu Tue Sep 22 14:15:14 1998 Received: from oak.ait.fredonia.edu (oak.ait.fredonia.edu [141.238.20.4]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23739 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:15:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [141.238.20.14] by oak.ait.fredonia.edu (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa833790 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:12:15 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980922151505.007173d0@oak.ait.fredonia.edu> X-Sender: hansen@oak.ait.fredonia.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:15:05 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: John Hansen Subject: Re: [SS:64] Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom In-Reply-To: <199809221829.MAA14766@lariat.lariat.org> References: <3.0.3.32.19980922135347.0070eda4@oak.ait.fredonia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:35 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >As I understand it, there is a faster Breezecom hopper, but its >stated range is 3000 feet. Yeah, but slap one of Bob Myer's dish antennas on them (nice fo Breezecom to use SMA connectors) and we've gone several miles. Also, remember: our schools are at >one end of the 2.4 GHz band. Breezecom's equipment, last time >I checked, used the WHOLE band; we couldn't restrict their >hoppers to keep them from potentially bringing down the schools. > Youre right about that. Also, we never used more than two station adapters at a time. John From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Sep 22 17:41:57 1998 Received: from [128.83.74.103] (edb536j-2.edb.utexas.edu [128.83.74.103]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01721; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:41:55 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:41:08 -0500 To: "TAPR-BB list mailing" From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: 1998 ARRL and TAPR DCC this coming weekend ! Cc: "HF SIG list mailing", " Spread Spectrum ", " TAPR/AMSAT DSP ", "APRS SIG list mailing", "NETSIG list mailing", "BBS SIG list mailing", " tacgps ", aprsnews, mic-e, TAPR Regional Freq Just as a reminder the 1998 ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference in Chicago, IL is happening this weekend! The conference schedule and information is on-line at http://www.tapr.org/dcc The abstract page should be on-line shortly. Hope to see you in Chicago this weekend! Cheers - Greg Jones, WD5IVD ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 22 18:49:33 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA15065 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:49:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA17548; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:49:27 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809222349.RAA17548@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:47:11 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:44] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <01bde54c$c74e13e0$234f460c@mgr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:51 AM 9/21/98 -0500, Gwyn Reedy wrote: >It appears that there will be either an endless escalation of technology or >of restrictive regulations. I much prefer the former as we have an excess of >regulation as it is. In some places, we certainly do. On the other hand, this is a case where the regulations are not working. We have here one player that "conquers" an entire band wherever it goes via this loophole: deploy a gazillion LITTLE transmitters and drive everyone off the band. And I mean everyone; even cordless phone users have trouble. >I don't think non-profit vs for-profit has much to do with it but this is >certainly not the forum to discuss that. I agree. I don't think it's fair to drive other for-profit users off the band either! >I have no doubt you really do good >things for your community, but does that entitle you to special treatment by >regulatory bodies? Isn't this the rationale for hams having special treatment? >Why don't you approach Metricom or the local utility with an offer - that >they cut you a good deal to replace your wavelan equipment with their >equipment. Each side comes out ahead (even the SS group who don't have to be >drawn into this any farther.) We have. First, the local manager says he won't give us ONE RED CENT to relocate us to another band. (We're hoping that higher-level managers will be more sympathetic.) Second, we CANNOT use their equipment; the data rate is too low. It's the speed of a modem; ours is the speed of a T1 line. --Brett From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Tue Sep 22 22:49:45 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA29095 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:49:44 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA14133 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:49:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199809230349.XAA14133@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:49:42 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:67] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809222349.RAA17548@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > We have. First, the local manager says he won't give us ONE RED CENT to > relocate us to another band. (We're hoping that higher-level managers will > be more sympathetic.) Second, we CANNOT use their equipment; the data > rate is too low. It's the speed of a modem; ours is the speed of a T1 line. This of course puts you at a fundamental disadvantage with respect to the Ricochet system - the price you pay for 20 times the speed is ~20 times less immunity from interference. However, I'm not entirely convinced that your problem has no technical solution. According to your web pages, the prediction of catastrophic interference from Ricochet seems to be mainly based on one field test - one in which small yagis were aimed at each other down a city street. The height of the antennas is not stated, but it seems to have been quite low. Horizontal polarization was better than vertical, but still badly interfered with. This is not surprising, given the multipath environment that will exist at such a height in the city. Signals will typically be coming from many directions, and be severely depolarized. In the LARIAT network, on the other hand, I would assume you have the antennas at rooftop levels (at least). These paths could look quite different: less multipath, and I would expect that horizontal polarization in this case would give you much better protection against Ricochet. Increasing the directivity of your links with higher-gain antennas (or stacking multiples of your existing ones) could improve things further. I'll bet that there are folks who are successfully operating WaveLANs in Ricochet country, in the SF Bay area and elsewhere. While, I'm here, a correction on something I said earlier... I stated that the bandwidth of WaveLAN is 11 MHz. This is clearly stated several times in an article by Bruce Tuch, principle designer of WaveLAN, published in the AT&T Tech Journal in 1993. However, Bob Buaas told me he thought the bandwidth was actually 22 MHz, so I took a close look with a spectrum analyzer, and he was absolutely right. The spectrum has some minor nulls at +/- 5.5 MHz, but the main lobe of the signal is 22 MHz wide, null-to-null. This certainly explains why the 915 MHz WaveLANs have no choice of center frequency. :-) It's a mystery to me why Tuch's article states otherwise, but if I can ever track down his email address, I intend to ask him. -Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From brett@lariat.org Tue Sep 22 23:23:32 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA01563 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:23:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA19721; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:23:27 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809230423.WAA19721@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:21:16 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:68] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809230349.XAA14133@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809222349.RAA17548@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:55 PM 9/22/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >However, I'm not entirely convinced that your >problem has no technical solution. According to your web pages, the >prediction of catastrophic interference from Ricochet seems to be mainly >based on one field test Two, actually. >- one in which small yagis were aimed at each other >down a city street. The height of the antennas is not stated, but it seems >to have been quite low. Horizontal polarization was better than vertical, >but still badly interfered with. This is not surprising, given the multipath >environment that will exist at such a height in the city. Well, we've got some indications that there may be problems at higher levels, too. You see, the Metricom transmitters are laid out in a grid. No matter which way you point a directional antenna on a rooftop (it's not so bad at ground level), you're likely to get at least one of their transmitters in the front lobe and one in the back. Maybe more. We don't know for sure, but we suspect that a spate of interference in June that hurt our network might have been the result of this. We got bursts of noise about once a second -- very much like the Ricochet system "heartbeat." They severely impacted one of our links. There was a directional antenna, but the Ricochet hub, or WAP (Wired Access Point), was in the front lobe of the affected node. Now, K N Energy says they only recently set up their transmitter, but I wonder: could they have installed the WAP and turned it on briefly to test it? They won't admit it, and we have no proof, but I do wonder. The pattern looked just like Ricochet. Also, I talked to a Metricom engineer today. I described our system, and he put it quite bluntly: "We WILL interfere. Absolutely." >While, I'm here, a correction on something I said earlier... I stated that >the bandwidth of WaveLAN is 11 MHz. This is clearly stated several times in >an article by Bruce Tuch, principle designer of WaveLAN, published in the >AT&T Tech Journal in 1993. However, Bob Buaas told me he thought the bandwidth >was actually 22 MHz, so I took a close look with a spectrum analyzer, and he >was absolutely right. The spectrum has some minor nulls at +/- 5.5 MHz, but >the main lobe of the signal is 22 MHz wide, null-to-null. This certainly >explains why the 915 MHz WaveLANs have no choice of center frequency. :-) It's >a mystery to me why Tuch's article states otherwise, but if I can ever track >down his email address, I intend to ask him. Yep, it's 22 MHz. There's only one "channel" in the 915 MHz band. There are six in the 2.4 GHz band, because it's bigger. --Brett From cip@roedu.net Wed Sep 23 09:27:07 1998 Received: from bigfoot.Bucharest.roedu.net ([192.129.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08300 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:27:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from cip@localhost) by bigfoot.Bucharest.roedu.net (8.9.0.Beta5/8.8.8) id RAA28252; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:26:55 +0300 (EET DST) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:26:55 +0300 (EET DST) From: cip@roedu.net To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:64] Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom References: <3.0.3.32.19980922135347.0070eda4@oak.ait.fredonia.edu> <199809221829.MAA14766@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <13833.1052.778190.478207@romsys-sun.Bucharest.roedu.net> Reply-To: cip@roedu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > As I understand it, there is a faster Breezecom hopper, but its > stated range is 3000 feet. Also, remember: our schools are at > one end of the 2.4 GHz band. Breezecom's equipment, last time > I checked, used the WHOLE band; we couldn't restrict their > hoppers to keep them from potentially bringing down the schools. We are using Breeezecom equipment for links as long as 15km. The hopping sequence can be changed. The data rate of the equipment is 3MBPS but the actual throughput is around 1.8Mbps... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ciprian Cosma YO3GHC CC5980 CC467-RIPE cip@roedu.net cip@pub.ro cip@lbi.ro "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From bad2@rfc.comm.harris.com Wed Sep 23 11:27:16 1998 Received: from rfc.comm.harris.com (adm01.rfc.comm.harris.com [147.177.128.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13753 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:27:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from fep01.rfc.comm.harris.com (fep01.rfc.comm.harris.com [147.177.0.9]) by rfc.comm.harris.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA119444 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:26:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:26:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernard A Doehner To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:68] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809230349.XAA14133@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Baseband 11 MHz (chip rate)... Times two bandwidth expansion when you heterodyne it to the transmission frequency... Same thing that happens with a 3 KHz. audio signal when it is AM'ed (~6 khz transmitted BW). 73 Bernie nu1s/2 > While, I'm here, a correction on something I said earlier... I stated that > the bandwidth of WaveLAN is 11 MHz. This is clearly stated several times in > an article by Bruce Tuch, principle designer of WaveLAN, published in the > AT&T Tech Journal in 1993. However, Bob Buaas told me he thought the bandwidth > was actually 22 MHz, so I took a close look with a spectrum analyzer, and he > was absolutely right. The spectrum has some minor nulls at +/- 5.5 MHz, but > the main lobe of the signal is 22 MHz wide, null-to-null. This certainly > explains why the 915 MHz WaveLANs have no choice of center frequency. :-) It's > a mystery to me why Tuch's article states otherwise, but if I can ever track > down his email address, I intend to ask him. > > -Barry > > > -- > Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca > Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org > Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca > > From cto@g3m.com Wed Sep 23 12:25:36 1998 Received: from bilbo.amt.org ([209.31.224.217]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA16633 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:25:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from GILLIGAN [209.31.224.210] by bilbo.amt.org (AltaVista Mail V2.0/2.0 BL23 listener) id 0000_0081_3609_2eed_88a4; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:25:01 -0700 Message-ID: <001701bde716$9027b4e0$d2e01fd1@gilligan.g3m.com> From: "George Flammer" To: Cc: Subject: Help! Small community network trying to (cover engineering goof?) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:21:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDE6DB.E3C8DCE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDE6DB.E3C8DCE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Brett, Out here in Silicon Valley there are THOUSANDS of Metricom poletops with = HUNDREDS within easy line of sight of each other as well as almost any = well positioned antenna. The Metricom radios are FHSS (if memory serves) = and do not coordinate their hopping channels (I think to do so would be = a certification violation). They do not transmit when they have no data, = so they are good neighbors in that regard. Additionally, if memory = serves, the Metricom system was designed by Radio Amateurs well aware of = and sympathetic to interference issues. In the note from you on this reflector I saw mention of WaveLAN as = representative of your worries. WaveLAN appears to be a wireless LAN = solution not even designed to go "outdoors". It is a DSSS system: well = designed for the multipath environment of indoor operation but = ill-suited for dealing with interference from Hams, AVL systems, or even = the occasional Metricom packet. That's why Metricom, TAPR, and most = anyone thinking about outdoor operation is going with FHSS. Broadband systems with minimal processing gain don't cut it in shared = spectrum environments. As Don, wb9mjn, said so eloquently, "This = experience is the usual problem when technology paired down to the = commercially profitable, is used beyond its intent. If we wish to do = such things, careful reengineering of network architecture is a = requirement.". That statement is validated in that locally here in Silicon Valley there = are hundreds of well designed DSSS systems operating amidst all the = Metricom radios. I thought this topic died half a decade ago... if memory serves. You asked what you should do. I would double and triple check your = system engineering to make sure it was designed to operate well within = non-exclusive spectrum. This can be done and done well. Lariat appears = to have no legitimate spectral complaint; everyone is playing by the = rules that Lariat explicitly agreed to when they chose their Part 15.247 = equipment. In fact, it may be that buying Internet coverage from KN = Energy would be a much cheaper option for your "customers" as well as = saving all of us some email bandwidth :-) Hello to everyone else, Regards to all, -George w6mt ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDE6DB.E3C8DCE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Brett,
 
Out here in Silicon Valley there are = THOUSANDS=20 of Metricom poletops with HUNDREDS within easy line of sight of each = other as=20 well as almost any well positioned antenna. The Metricom radios are FHSS = (if=20 memory serves) and do not coordinate their hopping channels (I think to = do so=20 would be a certification violation). They do not transmit when they have = no=20 data, so they are good neighbors in that regard. Additionally, if memory = serves,=20 the Metricom system was designed by Radio Amateurs well aware of and = sympathetic=20 to interference issues.
 
In the note from you on this reflector I saw mention = of=20 WaveLAN as representative of your worries. WaveLAN appears to be a = wireless LAN=20 solution not even designed to go "outdoors". It is a DSSS = system: well=20 designed for the multipath environment of indoor operation but = ill-suited for=20 dealing with interference from Hams, AVL systems, or even the occasional = Metricom packet. That's why Metricom, TAPR, and = most anyone=20 thinking about outdoor operation is going with FHSS.
 
Broadband systems with minimal processing gain don't = cut it in=20 shared spectrum environments. As Don, wb9mjn, said so eloquently, = "This=20 experience is the usual problem when technology paired down to the = commercially=20 profitable, is used beyond its intent. If we wish to do such things, = careful=20 reengineering of network architecture is a = requirement.".
 
That statement is validated in that locally here in = Silicon=20 Valley there are hundreds of well designed DSSS systems operating amidst = all the=20 Metricom radios.
 
I thought this topic died half a decade ago... if = memory=20 serves.
 
You asked what you should do. I = would double and=20 triple check your system engineering to make sure it was designed to = operate=20 well within non-exclusive spectrum. This can be done and done well. = Lariat=20 appears to have no legitimate spectral complaint; everyone is playing by = the=20 rules that Lariat explicitly agreed to when they chose their Part 15.247 = equipment. In fact, it may be that buying Internet coverage from KN = Energy would=20 be a much cheaper option for your "customers" as well as = saving all of=20 us some email bandwidth :-)
 
Hello to everyone else,
Regards to = all,
-George  w6mt
 
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDE6DB.E3C8DCE0-- From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 13:57:03 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21174 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:57:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA25083; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:56:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809231856.MAA25083@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:50:39 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:70] Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom In-Reply-To: <13833.1052.778190.478207@romsys-sun.Bucharest.roedu.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Unfortunately, Breezecom tells me that while the sequence can be changed, it can't be made to avoid certain parts of the spectrum. Does your documentation say otherwise? Maybe we got a clueless tech support person. --Brett At 09:33 AM 9/23/98 -0500, cip@roedu.net wrote: >We are using Breeezecom equipment for links as long as 15km. >The hopping sequence can be changed. >The data rate of the equipment is 3MBPS but the actual throughput is >around 1.8Mbps... > > >-- > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ciprian Cosma YO3GHC CC5980 CC467-RIPE > cip@roedu.net cip@pub.ro cip@lbi.ro > >"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time >to reform." Mark Twain >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 13:57:04 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21192 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:57:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA25086; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:56:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809231856.MAA25086@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:54:42 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, cto@g3m.com From: Brett Glass Subject: No "engineering goof" here! In-Reply-To: <001701bde716$9027b4e0$d2e01fd1@gilligan.g3m.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's not an engineering goof to expect to be able to share publicly available spectrum, or to choose the best equipment that's commercially available (which WaveLAN was, and arguably still is). Incidentally, is this the George Flammer whose name appears on at least half a dozen Metricom patents? --Brett Glass From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 14:15:05 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA21999 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:15:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id NAA25256; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:15:00 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809231915.NAA25256@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:12:32 -0600 To: "George Flammer" From: Brett Glass Subject: No "engineering goofs" here! Cc: In-Reply-To: <001701bde716$9027b4e0$d2e01fd1@gilligan.g3m.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:21 AM 9/23/98 -0700, George Flammer wrote: > > Out here in Silicon Valley there are THOUSANDS of Metricom poletops with > HUNDREDS within easy line of sight of each other as well as almost any well > positioned antenna. The Metricom radios are FHSS (if memory serves) and do > not coordinate their hopping channels (I think to do so would be a > certification violation). I believe that it would NOW, but only as of a 1997 rulemaking. We have no idea how much "grandfathered" Metricom equipment was manufactured and/or deployed before that. > > They do not transmit when they have no data, so they are good neighbors in > that regard. According to a Metricom engineer to whom I spoke yesterday, they emit a "heartbeat" packet once a second. > > Additionally, if memory serves, the Metricom system was designed by Radio > Amateurs well aware of and sympathetic to interference issues. Hams would not need to worry about interference from the Metricom system, because they can use far more than the 1 watt of power that's allowed for Part 15 applications. The Metricom system seems to be designed to use every tactic possible to plow through noise (where transmissions from other Part 15 equipment are regarded as "noise"). In other words, to avoid being interfered WITH rather than to avoid interfering with others. > > In the note from you on this reflector I saw mention of WaveLAN as > representative of your worries. WaveLAN appears to be a wireless LAN solution > not even designed to go "outdoors". It is a DSSS system: well designed for > the multipath environment of indoor operation but ill-suited for dealing with > interference from Hams, AVL systems, or even the occasional Metricom packet. > That's why Metricom, TAPR, and most anyone thinking about outdoor operation > is going with FHSS. Lucent recommends WaveLAN as an outdoor solution at ranges of up to 10 miles! See http://www.wavelan.com/solutions/ and http://www.wavelan.com/products/productdetail.html?id=12 among other links. So, it's being used for its intended AND RECOMMENDED purpose. > > That statement is validated in that locally here in Silicon Valley there are > hundreds of well designed DSSS systems operating amidst all the Metricom > radios. WaveLAN is the best there is. One California school district, in fact, found that it was not only better than all the other DSSS solutions they tried, but also better than Breezecom's FHSS equipment. (This agrees with our experience.) See http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/WIRETEST.HTM > > You asked what you should do. I would double and triple check your system > engineering to make sure it was designed to operate well within non-exclusive > spectrum. This can be done and done well. It was done; one of the most experienced wireless networking engineers in the business, with 7 years of experience, helped to plan our network. > > Lariat appears to have no legitimate spectral complaint; everyone is playing > by the rules that Lariat explicitly agreed to when they chose their Part > 15.247 equipment. We did not "explicitly" (or implicitly, for that matter) agree to any rule which says that someone else can take down our network by sheer force of number of transmitters! > > In fact, it may be that buying Internet coverage from KN Energy would be a > much cheaper option for your "customers" as well as saving all of us some > email bandwidth :-) Well, first of all, we don't have "customers;" we are a non-profit organization with members, and are not allowed to receive revenue other than gifts from anyone who is not a member. Second of all, K N Energy's services are insufficient to supply the needs of our members. Many run Web servers, and the Metricom system is far too slow for that and does not assign fixed IP numbers. The system that will drive ours off the air will not be able to replace it.... Our community will be badly hurt as a result. --Brett Glass From cto@g3m.com Wed Sep 23 17:20:52 1998 Received: from bilbo.amt.org ([209.31.224.217]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA00306 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:20:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from GILLIGAN [209.31.224.210] by bilbo.amt.org (AltaVista Mail V2.0/2.0 BL23 listener) id 0000_0081_3609_7410_8ff3; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:20:00 -0700 Message-ID: <009101bde73f$c57188f0$d2e01fd1@gilligan.g3m.com> From: "George Flammer" To: "Brett Glass" Cc: Subject: Re: No "engineering goofs" here! Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:16:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Hi Brett, thanks for the prompt reply, 1) Re: FHSS hopping coordination. To my knowledge, no Metricom radio network has *ever* coordinated hopping channels between radios. It was against the intent of the original ruling and was clarified/codified subsequently. Check your source. 2) Re: "Good Radio Neighbor". The 5mS heartbeat data packet (which is targeted to other radios) maintains network synchronization over several square kilometers at a cost of less than 0.005% spectral duty cycle. Even the once a sec number might be high in a fully deployed network. Sending synch data at that cost is more efficient than other techniques and thus qualifies (to me) as a 'good radio neighbor'. 3) Re: Lucents recommendations for outdoor use of DSSS systems. Here's their disclaimer: "*Lucent Technologies cannot guarantee any stated distances as the terrain and environment will be different for every installation. The maximum distance stated is based on perfect environmental conditions. The typical distance is based on good environmental conditions". I personally am surprised that they would make even such a recommendation, but as mentioned, there *are* a lot of DSSS systems working in and around installed FHSS systems. If their system, installed per their recommendations doesn't perform to specifications you certainly have recourse with them. Well designed networks can co-exist; what is Lucent doing to reassure you that their equipment is engineered for urban outdoor WAN use? Get their help, you're the customer! 4) Re: your network design, see item 3). 5) Re: explicitly accepting Part 15.247: The label on your equipment should read, (clause 2) "This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation". If your Part 15.247 label doesn't, contact the manufacturer. It isn't optional and isn't intended to be ambiguous. In summary, Part 15 equipment can be used to create low cost, flexible, high performance networks. Metricom, amongst others like yourself, is working to provide high value data services using unlicensed spectra. Your complaints appear aimed at preventing such a service being provided to the local citizenry so that a few, large organizations can continue to monopolize the Part 15.247 spectrum. Unfortunate and unnecessary given that, if well engineered, Lariat's network should suffer no adverse impact from fellow Part 15.247 occupants. This forum is technical in nature and I have belatedly realized that this thread (whoops!) is political. I rose to the bait and offered several technical answers where none would be accepted and none were desired. I apologize to the list for the noise, so this will (thankfully) be my last note on the subject. Thanks for your time, -George sk From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 21:41:50 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20596 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:41:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA29155; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:41:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809240241.UAA29155@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:39:11 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, "George Flammer" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: No "engineering goofs" here! In-Reply-To: <009101bde73f$c57188f0$d2e01fd1@gilligan.g3m.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:21 PM 9/23/98 -0500, George Flammer wrote: >1) Re: FHSS hopping coordination. To my knowledge, no Metricom radio network >has *ever* coordinated hopping channels between radios. It was against the >intent of the original ruling and was clarified/codified subsequently. Check >your source. I've seen the 1997 ruling and the comments that led to it. One question, though: if monopolization of the band via coordinated hopping has been recognized by the FCC as undesirable, why should monopolization via the deployment of mass quantities of transmitters be allowed? This is a serious question. It seems to me that Metricom -- or anyone else, for that matter -- could use this as a loophole to take over the band. >2) Re: "Good Radio Neighbor". The 5mS heartbeat data packet (which is >targeted to other radios) maintains network synchronization over several >square kilometers at a cost of less than 0.005% spectral duty cycle. Even >the once a sec number might be high in a fully deployed network. Sending >synch data at that cost is more efficient than other techniques and thus >qualifies (to me) as a 'good radio neighbor'. Again, an individual radio might seem like a "good neighbor," but when you have nearly a hundred of them in a small town the size of Laramie...? Suddenly, those packets begin to make a difference. >3) Re: Lucents recommendations for outdoor use of DSSS systems. Here's their >disclaimer: > > "*Lucent Technologies cannot guarantee any stated distances as the >terrain and environment will be different for every installation. The >maximum distance stated is based on perfect environmental conditions. The >typical distance is based on good environmental conditions". Anyone would have to make this disclaimer, especially since licensed users and other Part 15 users could interfere somewhat. But the Metricom system appears to be a "pathological case" in that it throws a huge number of transmitters -- and, hence, a huge amount of aggregate power -- at other users of the band, whom the system sees as "interference" rather than as fellow users deserving of mutual respect. >I personally am surprised that they would make even such a recommendation, >but as mentioned, there *are* a lot of DSSS systems working in and around >installed FHSS systems. If their system, installed per their recommendations >doesn't perform to specifications you certainly have recourse with them. It's performing to spec NOW. It will not perform to spec when the Ricochet system is deployed. NO spread spectrum system on the same band could! >Well designed networks can co-exist; what is Lucent doing to reassure you >that their equipment is engineered for urban outdoor WAN use? Get their >help, you're the customer! I've gotten their help. They essentially say that the problem is a "tragedy of the commons" situation. The analogy: A village has a "commons" -- a common meadow where each resident can graze his or her cow. But then, along comes one inconsiderate citizen who says, "Hmmm.... This looks like a good way to raise a lot of cattle without buying land. The commons are underutilized! I'll just bring in a whole herd of cattle and graze it there." Of course, the commons is soon overgrazed, and the citizen who used the commons as intended -- that is, who grazed one or two animals -- is naturally upset. And the only rational answer is to limit the number of animals one can graze or the amount of grass they can consume. This is regulation, and it's annoying; however, what can one do? Without it, the commons are no longer commons; they've become one person's exclusive preserve. Lucent is reluctant to tell me to boost our power from 250 mW to 1W (even though this was allowed by the same 1997 ruling), because they see this as nothing but escalation. Instead, they say to negotiate with K N Energy and Metricom -- which we are trying to do. We need constructive advice about how best to do this. >4) Re: your network design, see item 3). Again, designing a network to be more aggressive or use higher power isn't the answer. The answer is to share the spectrum in a reasonable way. Our nodes, according to Lucent, are compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard, which helps systems from different vendors to share the spectrum gracefully. The Metricom system, alas, is not. >5) Re: explicitly accepting Part 15.247: The label on your equipment should >read, (clause 2) "This device must accept any interference received, >including interference that may cause undesired operation". If your Part >15.247 label doesn't, contact the manufacturer. It isn't optional and isn't >intended to be ambiguous. It's not ambiguous. The DEVICE must accept the interference. The owner, however.... >In summary, Part 15 equipment can be used to create low cost, flexible, high >performance networks. Agreed. >Metricom, amongst others like yourself, is working to >provide high value data services using unlicensed spectra. We're not "providing services." We are working, as unpaid volunteers, to network our community for the benefit of everyone here. That's how the commons are supposed to work. >Your complaints >appear aimed at preventing such a service being provided to the local >citizenry No; in fact, if you've read our Web pages, you'll know that the charter of our group is, in fact, "to teach, promote, and facilitate the use of the Internet." >so that a few, large organizations can continue to monopolize the >Part 15.247 spectrum. There ARE no large organizations in Laramie. We are a small community. And we have no desire for ANYONE to monopolize the Part 15 spectrum. However, one large, out-of-state corporation -- K N Energy -- is seeking to monopolize that spectrum to the detriment of the community. >Unfortunate and unnecessary given that, if well >engineered, Lariat's network should suffer no adverse impact from fellow >Part 15.247 occupants. We have suffered no adverse impact from other Part 15 occupants, but WILL suffer from K N Energy's deployment of the Ricochet system if it is allowed to occur. No design we can come up with will help. Directional antennas? As mentioned before, the Metricom system is a grid; there will likely be one or more Metricom transmitters in the front and back lobes of every one. (Also, we must use omnis at some locations.) Higher power? We can only push things to the one watt limit. There's no engineering magic here; our nodes will be surrounded and outnumbered. >This forum is technical in nature and I have belatedly realized that this >thread (whoops!) is political. It is, in part, political; however, it admits itself to technical solutions. In particular, it should be possible to amend Part 15 further -- as was done with regard to frequency hopping coordination -- to limit the aggregate power of a large number of transmitters deployed as part of the same network. Sort of the equivalent of saying that you can only graze so many cattle or sheep on the commons. I'd invite suggestions for how such restrictions could be implemented fairly, as I would like to submit them to the FCC for proposed rule making. --Brett Glass From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Wed Sep 23 21:56:20 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA21206 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:56:19 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA30571 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:56:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199809240256.WAA30571@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:56:18 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:71] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Bernard A Doehner wrote: > Baseband 11 MHz (chip rate)... Times two bandwidth expansion when you > heterodyne it to the transmission frequency... > > Same thing that happens with a 3 KHz. audio signal when it is AM'ed (~6 > khz transmitted BW). Elementary. But the Tuch article says "the main lobe is quite compact, with first zero at 5.5 MHz", and refers in several places to using 11 MHz of RF (not baseband) bandwidth. Go figure. Of particular interest is this concluding remark: "WaveLAN, using 11 MHz of bandwidth, achieves a 2 Mbps raw data rate for indoor operation". Leaving aside the discrepancy about the bandwidth, it's pretty clear that WaveLAN was designed for indoor applications. Of course, people soon learned that they could be used outdoors as wireless bridges, but WaveLAN is ill-equipped to deal with the nasty quagmire of signals that populate the two UHF ISM bands. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Wed Sep 23 22:11:09 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA22305 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:11:08 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA31580 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:11:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199809240311.XAA31580@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:11:07 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:69] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809230423.WAA19721@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > Well, we've got some indications that there may be problems at higher levels, too. > You see, the Metricom transmitters are laid out in a grid. No matter which way > you point a directional antenna on a rooftop (it's not so bad at ground level), > you're likely to get at least one of their transmitters in the front lobe and > one in the back. Maybe more. Use antennas with higher directivity and better f/b ratio, cross-polarized to the Metricom systems. For the cases (hopefully a minority) where you still can't get Metricom outta your face, use a 2.4 GHz product instead. By all means pursue a political solution if you think it will get you anywhere, but this is not the proper forum in which to beat that particular drum - we're here to talk about the technical aspects of spread spectrum communications. Barry (AKA TAPR SS list maintainer/moderator/whatever) -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From wd5ivd@tapr.org Wed Sep 23 22:36:19 1998 Received: from [207.43.172.70] ([207.43.172.70]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA23982 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:36:17 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:36:15 -0500 To: " Spread Spectrum " From: "Greg Jones, WD5IVD" Subject: PRUG Demo at DCC PRUG will be demoing their 2.4G radio they talked about last year at the upcoming DCC for those attending. It is rumored that they have a dozen of the radios in testing back home. Should be an interesting Friday Night social and PRUG presentation. See those attending Friday! Cheers - Greg ----- Greg Jones, WD5IVD Austin, Texas wd5ivd@tapr.org http://www.tapr.org/~wd5ivd From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 22:44:16 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA24491 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:44:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA29585; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:44:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809240344.VAA29585@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:41:56 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org, ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:78] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809240256.WAA30571@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:00 PM 9/23/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >Leaving aside the discrepancy about the >bandwidth, it's pretty clear that WaveLAN was designed for indoor applications. I've looked at all the historical data on WaveLAN I can find, and I find no indication that it was specifically designed for either indoor or outdoor applications. It *was* designed for high throughput -- much more so than other systems available at the time. >Of course, people soon learned that they could be used outdoors as wireless >bridges, but WaveLAN is ill-equipped to deal with the nasty quagmire of signals >that populate the two UHF ISM bands. It works fine for us! The Metricom system is only an issue because it saturates the band with hoppers, all broadcasting at the legal power limit. See http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/WIRETEST.HTM for a good apples-to-apples comparison of WaveLAN vs. other technologies for outdoor use. --Brett From brett@lariat.org Wed Sep 23 22:50:26 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA25030 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:50:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA29625; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:50:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809240350.VAA29625@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:48:03 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Technical additions to Part 15? In-Reply-To: <199809240311.XAA31580@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809230423.WAA19721@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:13 PM 9/23/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >Use antennas with higher directivity and better f/b ratio, cross-polarized >to the Metricom systems. What do we do about the fact that, because the Metricom system is laid out in a grid, there's almost certain to be one of their nodes in the front lobe no matter what? >For the cases (hopefully a minority) where you still can't get >Metricom outta your face, use a 2.4 GHz product instead. We'd have a couple of minor problems doing this. First of all, we put the school district on the lower half of 2.4; we sure don't want to interfere with them! Also, there's a matter of money.... Buying 2.4 GHz cards, plus new antennas, could be quite expensive. And 2.4 GHz performs badly in the presence of trees, of which there are a few in the area. (It's one of the reasons we picked 915 MHz.) >By all means pursue a political solution if you think it will get you anywhere, >but this is not the proper forum in which to beat that particular drum - we're >here to talk about the technical aspects of spread spectrum communications. Understood.... However, the two do converge at the point where the Part 15 rules are made. And one of the things we're interested in doing is proposing rule making that would help systems to coexist more easily and prevent one user from taking over the band. What TECHNICAL constraints would you propose to prevent a system like the Metricom Ricochet system from squashing other networks? (Let's ignore, for the moment, the POLITICAL difficulty of getting such rules made.) --Brett Glass From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Wed Sep 23 23:05:15 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA26291 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:05:14 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA03321 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:05:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199809240405.AAA03321@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:05:13 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:77] Re: No "engineering goofs" here! In-Reply-To: <199809240241.UAA29155@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > It's performing to spec NOW. It will not perform to spec when the Ricochet > system is deployed. NO spread spectrum system on the same band could! If you qualified that statement by saying that no point-to-multipoint 2 Mbps spread spectrum system could, I'd agree with you. Fact of life in the ISM bands: as the level of crud goes up, you have to lower your expectations about achieving high throughput over long distances. Case in point: here in Ottawa there is an amateur TV repeater that transmits 24 hours a day. It eats up a 10 MHz chunk of the band centered at 916 MHz, and it runs several *kilowatts* ERP. Ghastly waste of spectrum, but perfectly legal. If the local hams in Laramie put up one of those in the middle of town, you'd be dead in the water. Even with cross-polarized high gain antennas, you can't fight that kind of interference power with WaveLAN. I know - I tried. I ended up selling my 915 MHz WaveLAN cards to some folks who are using them quite happily for short-range links between adjacent apartment buildings. Even the more robust lower bitrate products like Metricom would have problems in the vicinity of this repeater, but they wouldn't be as hopeless as WaveLAN is. Such is life when you're using "free" spectrum... Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From bobbiej@vnet.net Thu Sep 24 00:12:25 1998 Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA11363 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:12:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from popserv.vnet.net (popserv.vnet.net [166.82.1.29]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA13348 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server1 (kd4lv.vnet.net [166.82.145.48]) by popserv.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA22755 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401bde778$dddbc020$309152a6@server1> From: "Bobbie Johnson" To: Subject: Re: [SS:45] RE: 32] Re: SS on HF Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:04:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 First I have heard of it and I have been a member of both for more than 30 years. Bobbie KD4LV -----Original Message----- From: Lanier, Robert To: ss@tapr.org Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 9:10 AM Subject: [SS:45] RE: 32] Re: SS on HF >What does church and the Southern Baptists have to do with ham radio? > > -----Original Message----- > From: ss@tapr.org [SMTP:ss@tapr.org] > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 3:57 PM > To: ss@tapr.org > Subject: [SS:32] Re: SS on HF > > Listening for the military stuff I used to be part of 10 years ago, I > find that almost all of it is gone. Since we were using more and > more satellite gear, and JTIDS, I think spectrum is available, and > if we don't apply for it, the Church will. I'd rather see more > HF for Hams, then HF for churches. They've already taken over > the AM broadcast band. We may be better off going to the > Southern Baptists for spectrum, rather than the ARRL?? > > The other option is to take over the Novice bands, but keep the > power limit. Since there will be no more Novices (I hope) there > is no more need for the CW allocation. There's sufficient CW > spectrum on HF. 15 meters and 21.1 to 21.2 is a good > candidate. The 50 kHz on 40 meters is another, and 3.5 to > 3.6 MHz on 80 is another. 10 meters is so unused, I mostly > hear CB radio ops going on locally, as there is no Ham > activity. > > I think HF is one of those areas where intelligent hoppers > can be deployed. A good application, would be internet > or VHF/UHF connections, where radios can use band activity > from all over the US to map frequencies from. My radio could > take the data from another radio in town over UHF or the > internet, to determine the next 10 hopping frequencies, or > a code that selects the next band to hop to. Something > that can't be done locally, as the mapping receiver would > be overpowered. Another idea is a common channel on HF > using FSK to distribute hopping data. Very low baud rates > needed. > > I don't think each radio must operate as a single > entity, but with technology today, could work in a > LAN or WAN type network. > > We can't do anything if the Church takes over, or 10 > moonbounce operators control the HF spectrum. > > Time to move on and clean up the rules. We're not > going to be able to do anything unless they are modified. > The STA route is a dead end. People spend more time > shuffling paper than burning solder, or writing code. > > Steve > > From cip@roedu.net Thu Sep 24 02:39:34 1998 Received: from bigfoot.Bucharest.roedu.net ([192.129.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA14989 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:39:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from cip@localhost) by bigfoot.Bucharest.roedu.net (8.9.0.Beta5/8.8.8) id KAA09366; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:39:18 +0300 (EET DST) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:39:18 +0300 (EET DST) From: cip@roedu.net To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:73] Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom References: <13833.1052.778190.478207@romsys-sun.Bucharest.roedu.net> <199809231856.MAA25083@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <13833.63035.820383.502256@romsys-sun.Bucharest.roedu.net> Reply-To: cip@roedu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Unfortunately, Breezecom tells me that while the sequence can be > changed, it can't be made to avoid certain parts of the spectrum. > Does your documentation say otherwise? Maybe we got a clueless > tech support person. > You can define whatever hopping sequence you like (I don't know if this is OK with the FCC). But to do this you must have a Technician password for your modem... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ciprian Cosma YO3GHC CC5980 CC467-RIPE cip@roedu.net cip@pub.ro cip@lbi.ro "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From ronen@netmanage.co.il Thu Sep 24 03:25:57 1998 Received: from nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il (root@nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il [156.27.240.10]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA16091 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:25:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ronen.netmanage.co.il (ronen.netmanage.co.il [156.27.241.36]) by nmi-gate.netmanage.co.il (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA11195 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:26:24 +0200 Received: by ronen.netmanage.co.il with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE7A5.C268F380@ronen.netmanage.co.il>; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:26:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01BDE7A5.C268F380@ronen.netmanage.co.il> From: Ronen Pinchook To: "'ss@tapr.org'" Cc: "'tidhar@netvision.net'" , "'nir.m@mail.com'" Subject: Re: WaveLAN vs. Breezecom Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:26:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BDE7A5.C26A7A20" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7A5.C26A7A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I saw your equation in Breezecom vs other WLans at http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/WIRETEST.HTM I have a radio Link here with Breezecom and I get a 1MB Through put without a problems However BreezeCom is an expensive line and I suggets you to look at the following http://www.proxim.com/symphony/products/#isa They have a Card with about the same spec but cost only 150$ Ronen ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7A5.C26A7A20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ig8IAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5wQAAAAAAADrAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAEAUAAAMAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAQAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAANQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHNzQHRhcHIub3JnAFNN VFAAc3NAdGFwci5vcmcAAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAAwAAABzc0B0YXBy Lm9yZwADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAOAAAAJ3NzQHRhcHIub3JnJwAAAAIBCzABAAAA EQAAAFNNVFA6U1NAVEFQUi5PUkcAAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAADAAAAHNzQHRh cHIub3JnAAIB918BAAAANQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHNzQHRhcHIub3JnAFNN VFAAc3NAdGFwci5vcmcAAAAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAQRAAAAAwAA MAUAAAALAA8OAQAAAAIB/w8BAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAABAHRpZGhhckBu ZXR2aXNpb24ubmV0AFNNVFAAdGlkaGFyQG5ldHZpc2lvbi5uZXQAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAA AAAAHgADMAEAAAAVAAAAdGlkaGFyQG5ldHZpc2lvbi5uZXQAAAAAAwAVDAIAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4A ATABAAAAFwAAACd0aWRoYXJAbmV0dmlzaW9uLm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6VElESEFS QE5FVFZJU0lPTi5ORVQAAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoAAAAAHgD2XwEAAAAVAAAAdGlkaGFyQG5ldHZp c2lvbi5uZXQAAAAAAgH3XwEAAABHAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAEAdGlkaGFyQG5l dHZpc2lvbi5uZXQAU01UUAB0aWRoYXJAbmV0dmlzaW9uLm5ldAAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB 9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAUCAfkPAQAAAEcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAQB0aWRoYXJA bmV0dmlzaW9uLm5ldABTTVRQAHRpZGhhckBuZXR2aXNpb24ubmV0AAARAAAAAwAAMAYAAAALAA8O AQAAAAIB/w8BAAAAOwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAABAG5pci5tQG1haWwuY29tAFNN VFAAbmlyLm1AbWFpbC5jb20AAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAPAAAAbmlyLm1A bWFpbC5jb20AAAMAFQwCAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABEAAAAnbmlyLm1AbWFpbC5jb20nAAAA AAIBCzABAAAAFAAAAFNNVFA6TklSLk1ATUFJTC5DT00AAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AAAAAB4A9l8BAAAA DwAAAG5pci5tQG1haWwuY29tAAACAfdfAQAAADsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAQBu aXIubUBtYWlsLmNvbQBTTVRQAG5pci5tQG1haWwuY29tAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEA AAAEAAAAAAAABgIB+Q8BAAAAOwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAABAG5pci5tQG1haWwu Y29tAFNNVFAAbmlyLm1AbWFpbC5jb20AAPcGAQSAAQAbAAAAIFJlOiBXYXZlTEFOIHZzLiBCcmVl emVjb20AkggBBYADAA4AAADOBwkAGAAKABoACQAEACcBASCAAwAOAAAAzgcJABgACgAVACIABAA7 AQEJgAEAIQAAAEI0MkI0MkUwN0E1M0QyMTFBMjQ1MDBBMDI0MTlGQzFCAPYGAQOQBgAQBQAAIQAA AAsAAgABAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQBQTDH7 lOe9AR4AcAABAAAAGwAAACBSZTogV2F2ZUxBTiB2cy4gQnJlZXplY29tAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAAB veeU+sngQiu2U3oR0qJFAKAkGfwbAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAAAHJv bmVuQG5ldG1hbmFnZS5jby5pbAAAAAMABhAZg2ebAwAHEDIBAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABJU0FXWU9V UkVRVUFUSU9OSU5CUkVFWkVDT01WU09USEVSV0xBTlNBVEhUVFA6Ly9XV1dGU1VTREsxMkNBVVMv V0lSRVRFU1RIVE1JSEFWRUFSQURJT0xJTktIRVJFV0lUSEJSAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA8wEAAO8BAACg AgAATFpGdTn2LVfhAAVmYmlkBAAAZAEDnQH3IAKkA+MCAGNoCsDgc2V0MCAHEwKDDUEhD3VwcnEy D899fRMKgAjIIDsJbzI1NTMCgAqBdWMAUAsDbHQecgqxCNAAQQtgbmcxGDAzMwvUATAgSSAUc2EH 4HkIYSBlcVB1YXRpAiAgC4AgikIJ0XoFkW0gdgQgiG90aASQIFdMBiJfGMAKogqEFWIDIGgCQHBQ Oi8vdxxwLgPQdQBzZC5rMTIuYwRhLhzQL1dJUkUAVEVTVC5IVE2fG8EBQBsZF+AP8HZlGtCIIHJh DZBvIEwLgP5rG/AEkB/AA/AaMBlJAHAaZBfRZxAwH9ExTUJIIFRoA2B1ZyEwcL51BUAhAghgInIR sG8CYAxlbQQhGxlIb3dl/x+wBcAZVAhQGdAEACHhGIDceHAJ8ACQH7FsC4AfwTsiAxzAZyJRBCAY QSB0eyBACQBvIJAYwCkgGkAg/QIQbAkAA/AW8CTbG80kUU54B3AdQANwL3MGwHDRI+BueS8kUWQV kCjANC8jBABhHn4i8GV5/R+GQwsRIPQBoCPyKeIYAMcHgBfwJ0BjIGIjgQWgFnMFQAIgbC+wMTUw /iQqyggAJ+ALkCraFpAeoZ0DYHQFkBrwA9AxNhDyCyrTExEANvAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAAMA gBD/////QAAHMGAQcFeU570BQAAIMGAQcFeU570BCwAAgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UA AAAAAAADAAKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAFKFAAChDwAAHgAlgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOC4wAAMAJoAI IAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwAvgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAA AAADADCACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAMoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA ABiFAAAAAAAAHgBBgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AQoAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4 hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgA9AAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAMADTT9NwAAuQs= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE7A5.C26A7A20-- From bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Thu Sep 24 09:06:09 1998 Received: from lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (bm@cr8111-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.93.218]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05922 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:06:07 -0500 (CDT) From: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Received: (from bm@localhost) by lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA18949 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:06:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199809241406.KAA18949@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:06:08 -0400 (EDT) To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:82] Technical additions to Part 15? In-Reply-To: <199809240350.VAA29625@lariat.lariat.org> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.2-970722-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Brett Glass wrote: > >Use antennas with higher directivity and better f/b ratio, cross-polarized > >to the Metricom systems. > > What do we do about the fact that, because the Metricom system is laid > out in a grid, there's almost certain to be one of their nodes in the > front lobe no matter what? Well, you do have your 10 dB of processing gain, plus maybe 20 dB of discrimination due to cross-polarization, plus presumably higher ERP due to using directional antennas (where needed, you could bring your ERP up to the 36 dBm max using yagis with [12 dBi + line loss] gain). So, you would have a fighting chance except in those cases where the Metricom unit is much closer than the other end of your link. If your current links are running with zero margin, you've got your work cut out for you, but hopefully that's not the case. In really tough cases, you might have to give up on 2 Mbps and use a lower bitrate product (e.g., FreeWave) that can bust through the crud. > >For the cases (hopefully a minority) where you still can't get > >Metricom outta your face, use a 2.4 GHz product instead. > > We'd have a couple of minor problems doing this. First of all, we put the > school district on the lower half of 2.4; we sure don't want to interfere > with them! Also, there's a matter of money.... Buying 2.4 GHz cards, plus new > antennas, could be quite expensive. And 2.4 GHz performs badly in the presence > of trees, of which there are a few in the area. (It's one of the reasons we > picked 915 MHz.) True about the trees, but the difference isn't huge unless you're talking pretty thick forest... and high-gain antennas for 2.4 GHz are cheap. Although you might have to replace 915 MHz equipment with 2.4 GHz in some cases, you could probably find areas in which the 915 MHz gear could be reused. > >By all means pursue a political solution if you think it will get you anywhere, > >but this is not the proper forum in which to beat that particular drum - we're > >here to talk about the technical aspects of spread spectrum communications. > > Understood.... However, the two do converge at the point where the Part 15 > rules are made. And one of the things we're interested in doing is proposing > rule making that would help systems to coexist more easily and prevent one > user from taking over the band. What TECHNICAL constraints would you propose > to prevent a system like the Metricom Ricochet system from squashing other > networks? (Let's ignore, for the moment, the POLITICAL difficulty of getting > such rules made.) I frankly don't think you'll have much luck trying to kick Metricom off the band. They've chosen to use it to provide a ubiquitous service at landline bitrates to roaming users. You want to use it to provide near-T1 rates in point-to-point or point-to-multipoint service. Who's to say that one use is more valid than the other? Metricom's service is probably closer to what the architects of Part 15 visualized for wireless LAN service, although they may not have anticipated doing it on that scale. :-) Such usage definitely makes life more difficult for you, but it need not put you out of the wireless game. You will have to use some creative engineering, and treat each link as a special case. Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | http://hydra.carleton.ca From jeff@aerodata.net Thu Sep 24 09:13:00 1998 Received: from aerodata.net (aerodata.mich.com [198.108.18.17]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06120 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:12:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alfalfa (alfalfa.aerodata.net [198.108.18.18]) by aerodata.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA26623 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:31:12 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980924101250.00a573f0@aerodata.net> X-Sender: jeff@aerodata.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:12:50 -0400 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [SS:79] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal In-Reply-To: <199809240311.XAA31580@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809230423.WAA19721@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:13 PM 9/23/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >Brett Glass wrote: >> Well, we've got some indications that there may be problems at higher levels, too. >> You see, the Metricom transmitters are laid out in a grid. No matter which way >> you point a directional antenna on a rooftop (it's not so bad at ground level), >> you're likely to get at least one of their transmitters in the front lobe and >> one in the back. Maybe more. > >Use antennas with higher directivity and better f/b ratio, cross-polarized to the >Metricom systems. For the cases (hopefully a minority) where you still can't get >Metricom outta your face, use a 2.4 GHz product instead. I've heard Metricom is either testing or started using 2.4 ghz for backbones between there poletop units. Maybe someone more in the know can confirm or deny this. In any case, they certainly could start using it with the same tactics they used in the 900mhz deployment. > >By all means pursue a political solution if you think it will get you anywhere, >but this is not the proper forum in which to beat that particular drum - we're >here to talk about the technical aspects of spread spectrum communications. > >Barry (AKA TAPR SS list maintainer/moderator/whatever) Well, what is the proper forum? If I don't like the messages, I don't read them. I have to admit, I didn't like Brett's tone at all when he started this discussion. But what he said got me to thinking and it DOES affect amateur radio operators. That is, the intent and spirit of the part 15 rules. I believe Brett is stating that Metrocom is not keeping in the spirt of the part 15 rules by deploying large numbers of COORDINATED transmitters (each legal under part 15). Remember that most (all) part 15 transmitters until Metrocom operated in a anarchical fashion. Consequently, there overall impact on other users was minimized and localized. To the RF folks out there.... what would have more impact on operations on a band, one 1000 watt transmitter on a 200 foot building or 1000 one watt transmitters (legal part 15) spread over the same "footprint" the 200 foot building could see? Most amateurs might guess the 1000 watt transmitter but in radio as in nuclear war, 1000 one kiloton (watt) nuclear weapons (transmitters) can cause more damage (interference) then one megaton (1000 watt) nuclear weapon (transmitter). We as amateurs might as well write off the shared Part 97/15 bands if this continues. "use a 2.4 GHz product instead" is not a long term solution when faced with a adversary like this that clearly ignores the (unwritten) spirit of the law. What Brett may want to focus on is to explore the "spirit" of the Part 15 rules and then get them written into law. A tough battle but one I think we as hams should support as it only is in our best interest. -Jeff wb8wka ------------------------------------ | Jeff King Aero Data Systems | | jeff@mich.com P.O. Box 510895 | | (248)471-1787 Livonia, MI 48151 | |F(248)471-0279 United States | ------------------------------------ From brett@lariat.org Thu Sep 24 10:21:58 1998 Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11698 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:21:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id JAA03165; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:21:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809241521.JAA03165@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.63 (Beta) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:08:57 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [SS:83] Re: No "engineering goofs" here! In-Reply-To: <199809240405.AAA03321@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> References: <199809240241.UAA29155@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:07 PM 9/23/98 -0500, bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org wrote: >Brett Glass wrote: >> It's performing to spec NOW. It will not perform to spec when the Ricochet >> system is deployed. NO spread spectrum system on the same band could! > >If you qualified that statement by saying that no point-to-multipoint 2 Mbps >spread spectrum system could, I'd agree with you. Yep, that's what I'm saying. We CAN'T slow down to Metricom's 28.8 Kbps; we are running Web servers, multimedia, etc. >Fact of life in the ISM >bands: as the level of crud goes up, you have to lower your expectations >about achieving high throughput over long distances. We are talking about a city that's 2 miles by 4 miles; that's all! And the hub is at the center. This is considerably less than the rated range of WaveLAN. >Case in point: here in >Ottawa there is an amateur TV repeater that transmits 24 hours a day. It eats >up a 10 MHz chunk of the band centered at 916 MHz, and it runs several >*kilowatts* >ERP. Ghastly waste of spectrum, but perfectly legal. If the local hams in >Laramie put up one of those in the middle of town, you'd be dead in the water. >Even with cross-polarized high gain antennas, you can't fight that kind of >interference power with WaveLAN. Or with Metricom. Both would be QRMed right off the band; sort of "reverse TVI." >Such is life when you're using "free" spectrum... Well, we don't even have a MEANS of using non-free spectrum. Just try to call up Lucent, or Breezecom, or any other vendor of spread spectrum digital radios and ask them if they can adapt their equipment to licensed spectrum. You'll get a pause, be transferred to tech support, and be told, "What is it that you want? We've never been asked that before." Metricom DOES have the ability to adapt its equipment to licensed spectrum, since it makes its own. --Brett From cbbrandt@gci.net Thu Sep 24 11:22:47 1998 Received: from augustine.gci.net (augustine.gci.net [208.138.130.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14260 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:22:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gci.net ([24.237.1.3]) by augustine.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA6771 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:22:11 -0800 Message-ID: <360A71AB.705FEC8B@gci.net> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:22:03 -0800 From: Chris Brandt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ss@tapr.org" Subject: Ethernet Bridge? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on my five port hub. Chris Brandt WL7NG From w9ddd@tapr.org Thu Sep 24 14:14:39 1998 Received: from localhost (w9ddd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21758 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:14:38 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:14:38 -0500 (CDT) From: John Koster To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:90] Ethernet Bridge? In-Reply-To: <360A71AB.705FEC8B@gci.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It sounds like you are wanting to do in effect is have multiple PCs on the one cable modem. The problem being you only get one IP address assigned by the cable system (probably on a dynamic basis). I haven't done it yet, but I was planning on using an old 386 with Linux to allow the other 4 PCs in the house access. I haven't signed up for the cable modem service yet because they don't have dial up as an alternative, so I would still have to keep the dialup ISP for when I travel (which is a lot). They have a nice economic analysis which shows it isn't all that much more expensive than dial up. Howver it assumes you dump your ISP and the 2nd phone line you theoretically got just for the internet. I have a little web server running at the house right now that is a 386SX40 with 16MB of ram and an 8MB Hard Drive. I see no reason that it won't work as a router/IPmasking/bridge, whatever and intend to start setting it up that way shortly for testing. Perhaps by the time I get it set up, the cable people will have figured out how to give me dialup as part of the package. Then if I can convince them to give me a static IP........ John Koster, W9DDD On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Chris Brandt wrote: > Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I > could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 > miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to > share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on > my five port hub. > Chris Brandt WL7NG > > From ronen@ronen.netmanage.co.il Thu Sep 24 14:42:34 1998 Received: from ronen.netmanage.co.il (ronen.netmanage.co.il [156.27.241.36]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22414 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 21:41:49 EDT Message-Id: <289196@ronen.netmanage.co.il> From: Pinchook Ronen To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:90] Ethernet Bridge? In-Reply-To: your message of Thu Sep 24 11:26:33 1998 <360A71AB.705FEC8B@gci.net> look at www.proxim.co/symphony --------************----------**********-------******* Home of Chameleon , TCP/IP applications for Windows Ronen Pinchook (4Z4ZQ) Phone: 972-4-8550123 NetManage Israel, Ltd. Fax: 972-4-8550122 E-Mail: ronen@netmanage.co.il ********------------**********----------*******------- From ssampson@usa-site.net Thu Sep 24 14:42:45 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (ssampson@access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22433 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:42:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from ssampson@localhost) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA07109 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:42:40 -0500 From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: <199809241942.OAA07109@access.usa-site.net> Subject: Re: [SS:88] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:42:39 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980924101250.00a573f0@aerodata.net> from "Jeff King" at Sep 24, 98 09:17:23 am Content-Type: text Hams could end this nonsense by deploying beacons across the band and using morse code at 5 WPM at 10 Watts. Metricom would go under, and then the band would be cleaned out. Just an idea... Steve From compuman@eecs.umich.edu Thu Sep 24 14:45:03 1998 Received: from vulture.eecs.umich.edu (vulture.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.12.22]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22529 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:45:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost by vulture.eecs.umich.edu (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA20619 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:44:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Glover To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:91] Re: Ethernet Bridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Regarding doing some form of net sharing: I actually HAVE a cable modem from MediaOne. Just like ADSL from Ameritech, cablemodems from MediaOne (at least the one-ways) require you to have W95. Even though things can work fine from Linux, the companies sort of refuse to give support if you are not running W95. Given this we can't run IP Masquerading since the W95 TCP stack (even OS/R2) is crap. So what we did is ran a proxy server, the one I use is WinGate. It works fine, is trivial to install, and supports just about everything I wanted. If you run ssh through the proxy (or VNC viewer) you can even run encrypted X sessions right through the proxy. If we could run Linux as the gateway (which we plan on doing) we would be using IP masquerading. There are several proxy server programs (NOT written by Microsoft) for Windoze 95 which actually work, and are easy to use. Using Wingate I have been able to share with several machines simulatenously Web, telnet, ftp, ssh, realaudio, etc...heck I even got it to run Starcraft to battlenet! also, if you get sockscap 32 you can run applications which don't know what a proxy is through the proxy server. If you have any questions please ask! If you can run Linux, then by all means do it, although I suspect a 386 might be a little underpowered to do IP masqerading for a cablemodem, which can give you several megabits/second of data..A 486/50 was fine for IP masquerading to share a single dial-in 28.8, but for more, I don't know...We are going to try it with a cyrix pr120 in like a week or so. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...an enormous body of information science literature is based on work that *uses* relevance, without throughly understanding what it *means* ... without an understanding of what relevance means *to* users, it seems difficult to imagine how a system can retrieve relevant information *for* users. -- Schamber, 1990 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Eric Glover -- compuman@eecs.umich.edu Grad student hoping to finish before the year 2000! On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, John Koster wrote: > It sounds like you are wanting to do in effect is have multiple PCs on the > one cable modem. The problem being you only get one IP address assigned > by the cable system (probably on a dynamic basis). I haven't done it yet, > but I was planning on using an old 386 with Linux to allow the other 4 PCs > in the house access. I haven't signed up for the cable modem service yet > because they don't have dial up as an alternative, so I would still have > to keep the dialup ISP for when I travel (which is a lot). They have a > nice economic analysis which shows it isn't all that much more expensive > than dial up. Howver it assumes you dump your ISP and the 2nd phone line > you theoretically got just for the internet. > > I have a little web server running at the house right now that is a > 386SX40 with 16MB of ram and an 8MB Hard Drive. I see no reason that it > won't work as a router/IPmasking/bridge, whatever and intend to start > setting it up that way shortly for testing. Perhaps by the time I get it > set up, the cable people will have figured out how to give me dialup as > part of the package. Then if I can convince them to give me a static > IP........ > > John Koster, W9DDD > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Chris Brandt wrote: > > > Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I > > could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 > > miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to > > share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on > > my five port hub. > > Chris Brandt WL7NG > > > > > > From ssampson@usa-site.net Thu Sep 24 14:47:37 1998 Received: from access.usa-site.net (ssampson@access.usa-site.net [209.140.34.130]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22779 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:47:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from ssampson@localhost) by access.usa-site.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA07136 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:47:38 -0500 From: Steve Sampson Message-Id: <199809241947.OAA07136@access.usa-site.net> Subject: Re: [SS:90] Ethernet Bridge? To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:47:37 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <360A71AB.705FEC8B@gci.net> from "Chris Brandt" at Sep 24, 98 11:26:33 am Content-Type: text You might look into proxim's new Symphony product line at http://www.proxim.com They aren't shipping yet (although their web page is taking orders), but the prices seem reasonable. About $150 a node, but Microsoft OS only. Steve > > Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I > could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 > miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to > share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on > my five port hub. > Chris Brandt WL7NG > From stevew@eng.adaptec.com Thu Sep 24 15:07:48 1998 Received: from magic.adaptec.com (magic.adaptec.com [208.236.45.80]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24377 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:07:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kingdom.adaptec.com (kingdom [162.62.162.10]) by magic.adaptec.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24105 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.adaptec.com (eng [162.62.1.51]) by kingdom.adaptec.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA03214 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kona.adaptec.com by eng.adaptec.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24167; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:06:42 -0700 Received: from eng.adaptec.com by kona.adaptec.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02990; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:05:40 -0700 Sender: stevew@eng.adaptec.com Message-ID: <360AA612.9FB33EFC@eng.adaptec.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:05:38 -0700 From: Steve Wilson Organization: Adaptec Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:91] Re: Ethernet Bridge? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Koster wrote: > > It sounds like you are wanting to do in effect is have multiple PCs on the > one cable modem. The problem being you only get one IP address assigned > by the cable system (probably on a dynamic basis). I haven't done it yet, > but I was planning on using an old 386 with Linux to allow the other 4 PCs > in the house access. I haven't signed up for the cable modem service yet > because they don't have dial up as an alternative, so I would still have > to keep the dialup ISP for when I travel (which is a lot). They have a > nice economic analysis which shows it isn't all that much more expensive > than dial up. Howver it assumes you dump your ISP and the 2nd phone line > you theoretically got just for the internet. > > I have a little web server running at the house right now that is a > 386SX40 with 16MB of ram and an 8MB Hard Drive. I see no reason that it > won't work as a router/IPmasking/bridge, whatever and intend to start > setting it up that way shortly for testing. Perhaps by the time I get it > set up, the cable people will have figured out how to give me dialup as > part of the package. Then if I can convince them to give me a static > IP........ > > John Koster, W9DDD > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Chris Brandt wrote: > > > Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I > > could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 > > miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to > > share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on > > my five port hub. > > Chris Brandt WL7NG > > > > Been there - done that. The 386 is more than sufficient to be used in this way. There is a cable modem FAQ running around in the linux world you might both want to referrence. As for the Cable modem ISP providing dial-up service - that one is a rare instance. Some provide the ability to pick up your email from outside their domain - but that is about it in my experience. -- Steve Wilson KA6S aka stevew@home.com From dewayne@warpspeed.com Thu Sep 24 15:13:13 1998 Received: from warpspeed.com (c443742-c.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.1.67.207]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24693 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:13:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [204.118.182.22] (204.118.182.22) by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2b6); Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:11:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980924101250.00a573f0@aerodata.net> References: <199809240311.XAA31580@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:09:54 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: Re: [SS:88] Re: Help! Small community network trying to deal At 9:17 -0500 9/24/98, Jeff King wrote: > >I've heard Metricom is either testing or started using 2.4 ghz for backbones >between there poletop units. Maybe someone more in the know can confirm or >deny this. In any case, they certainly could start using it with the same >tactics they used in the 900mhz deployment. This is true. They just put out a press release to this effect yesterday. It part of their new ISDN speed 'Autobahn' service that is being tested in the SF Bay Area and is scheduled to be rolled out in mid-'99. -- Dewayne -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com Warp Speed Imagineering ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM 43730 Vista Del Mar ! WWW: Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From cmiller@infinop.com Thu Sep 24 16:18:49 1998 Received: from pacecar.infospeedway.net (root@pacecar.infospeedway.net [207.43.207.96]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28274 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:18:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from infinop.com (cmiller@bozio [207.43.207.221]) by pacecar.infospeedway.net (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA15584 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:18:41 -0500 Sender: cmiller@infospeedway.net Message-ID: <360AB731.9C5CED04@infinop.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:18:41 -0500 From: Clint Miller Reply-To: cmiller@infinop.com Organization: Infinop, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:90] Ethernet Bridge? References: <360A71AB.705FEC8B@gci.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For more IP addresses: Look at pg 20 of the June '98 issue of the Linux Journal. IP masquerading is the ticket. I use it extensively with dynamic IP assignment to our ISP and it works flawlessly. For connectivity to your friend: I'm sure others on this list can help you with the physical link. I have no direct experience with this (yet). I would be tempted to configure an ethernet bridge in the same linux machine that would run the IP masquerading firewall. -- Clint Miller - KD5BYY http://www.infinop.com/ Infinop, Inc. mailto:cmiller@infinop.com 3401 E. University #104 voice:940.484.1165/fax:0586 Denton, TX 76208 From kb0thn@qsl.net Thu Sep 24 17:27:49 1998 Received: from dm.deskmedia.com (dm.deskmedia.com [199.199.147.32]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA00933 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:27:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from brain-dead.localnet (jjeffers.deskmedia.com [206.9.220.5]) by dm.deskmedia.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA21566 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:27:45 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980924172809.00803430@qsl.net> X-Sender: kb0thn@qsl.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:28:09 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: James Jefferson Subject: Re: Ethernet Bridge Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >If you can run Linux, then by all means do it, although I suspect a 386 >might be a little underpowered to do IP masqerading for a cablemodem, >which can give you several megabits/second of data..A 486/50 was fine for >IP masquerading to share a single dial-in 28.8, but for more, I don't >know...We are going to try it with a cyrix pr120 in like a week or so. I've personally masked normal 10 megabit ethernet through a 386 16MHz with 4 megs of ram - not a problem in the least. The IP_MASQ creates very little overhead. Take a look at Phil Karn's cablemodem information as well as the various linux howtos. See ya all at DCC tommrow, From cbbrandt@gci.net Fri Sep 25 00:42:23 1998 Received: from augustine.gci.net (augustine.gci.net [208.138.130.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA06843 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:42:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gci.net ([24.237.1.3]) by augustine.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA7295 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:41:48 -0800 Message-ID: <360B2D14.121CA027@gci.net> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:41:40 -0800 From: Chris Brandt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ss@tapr.org" Subject: Re: Ethernet Bridge? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, I work for the cable system that I got the modem from. In our system we use Com21 external modems. You can hook up as many computers as you want to your hub and they all get there own IP. Our system uses a semi static IP system. I.E. it will hold the IP assigned to the NIC card for up to 5 days, updating the time every time you log on to the system. So in essence you have a static IP. I leave one of my computers on all the time, so I have had the same IP for the last 5 months. The Com21's plug into the cross over port on network hubs, and basically acts as an extensions of our computer network. So as you can guess we could have peer to peer net working with anyone that has a cable modem. But Com21 built in a way to switch that feature off, so we won't have as many possible security problems. We also offer dial-up access to our system along with the cable modem service. I currently have 512Kbs of bandwidth to play with. We are planing on a roll out to the the general public sometime in November. The public versions will start out with 256Kbs to start with, an allow 7.5 gig's worth of downloading per month. Should cost about $50 to $60 per month. Chris Brandt WL7NG In Anchorage, Alaska!! John Koster wrote: > It sounds like you are wanting to do in effect is have multiple PCs on the > one cable modem. The problem being you only get one IP address assigned > by the cable system (probably on a dynamic basis). I haven't done it yet, > but I was planning on using an old 386 with Linux to allow the other 4 PCs > in the house access. I haven't signed up for the cable modem service yet > because they don't have dial up as an alternative, so I would still have > to keep the dialup ISP for when I travel (which is a lot). They have a > nice economic analysis which shows it isn't all that much more expensive > than dial up. Howver it assumes you dump your ISP and the 2nd phone line > you theoretically got just for the internet. > > I have a little web server running at the house right now that is a > 386SX40 with 16MB of ram and an 8MB Hard Drive. I see no reason that it > won't work as a router/IPmasking/bridge, whatever and intend to start > setting it up that way shortly for testing. Perhaps by the time I get it > set up, the cable people will have figured out how to give me dialup as > part of the package. Then if I can convince them to give me a static > IP........ > > John Koster, W9DDD > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Chris Brandt wrote: > > > Does anyone have suggestion on a cheap ethernet bridge. Or a way that I > > could give another buddy access to my home network? He lives about 3 > > miles as the crow flies away from me. I have a cable modem and want to > > share some of my bandwidth with him through one of my available port on > > my five port hub. > > Chris Brandt WL7NG > > > > From kn6td@clubnet.net Fri Sep 25 01:13:23 1998 Received: from mail.clubnet.net (www.clubnet.net [206.126.128.4]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07441 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:13:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from djl_portable (206.126.141.135) by mail.clubnet.net with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:21:09 +0100 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980925061313.009769c0@mail.clubnet.net> X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:13:13 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: RE: Ethernet Bridge? If you are going to use NT on your server / router, you might want to look at the site http://willow.canberra.edu.au/~chrisc/nat32.html. There you will find a service called NAT32 which does address translation so that one NIC has 2 IP addresses. This allows the cable modem and the NIC to talk via ethernet and the NIC and the local LAN to talk. The problem you are solving is that the cable modem and the NIC talking to it are using host numbers from the cable company's domain, while the router and other machines on the LAN are on another domain (presumably 192.198.1.xxx). NT does not yet natively understand the concept of coexisting in more than one domain. I think this is a serious shortcoming which will soon be rectified. As for the physical link - is the path to your friend's location line-of-sight and is also a Ham? (s) Derek From cbbrandt@gci.net Fri Sep 25 02:15:18 1998 Received: from augustine.gci.net (augustine.gci.net [208.138.130.19]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA08538 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:15:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gci.net ([24.237.1.3]) by augustine.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA7F6 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:14:45 -0800 Message-ID: <360B42DB.D7845464@gci.net> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:14:35 -0800 From: Chris Brandt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ss@tapr.org" Subject: [Fwd: [SS:101] RE: Ethernet Bridge?] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No I'm not using NT, just a simple peer to peer network. No server is involved on my home network. I wanted to have both computers setup to play games, surf or do other things, all with the ability to share or what ever the need at the time. With my peer to peer my wife can surf while I play a game with friends, or do some work while still being able to get files off the other computer if she's using it. But the Nat32 program might be helpful if I know that the wireless Ethernet cards would work with my existing NIC card install together. Then I could maybe I could share with my buddy who is also a ham. And yes it would be line-of-sight. No building or mountains in the way. Chris Brandt WL7NG Derek J. Lassen wrote: > If you are going to use NT on your server / router, you might want to look > at the site http://willow.canberra.edu.au/~chrisc/nat32.html. There you will > find a service called NAT32 which does address translation so that one NIC > has 2 IP addresses. This allows the cable modem and the NIC to talk via > ethernet and the NIC and the local LAN to talk. > > The problem you are solving is that the cable modem and the NIC talking to > it are using host numbers from the cable company's domain, while the router > and other machines on the LAN are on another domain (presumably 192.198.1.xxx). > > NT does not yet natively understand the concept of coexisting in more than > one domain. I think this is a serious shortcoming which will soon be rectified. > > As for the physical link - is the path to your friend's location > line-of-sight and is also a Ham? > > (s) Derek From stevew@eng.adaptec.com Fri Sep 25 11:06:25 1998 Received: from magic.adaptec.com (magic.adaptec.com [208.236.45.80]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01763 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:06:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kingdom.adaptec.com (kingdom [162.62.162.10]) by magic.adaptec.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA10839 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.adaptec.com (eng [162.62.1.51]) by kingdom.adaptec.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA02906 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kona.adaptec.com by eng.adaptec.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10924; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:05:20 -0700 Received: from eng.adaptec.com by kona.adaptec.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03848; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:04:18 -0700 Sender: stevew@eng.adaptec.com Message-ID: <360BBF02.36D16156@eng.adaptec.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:04:18 -0700 From: Steve Wilson Organization: Adaptec Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:102] [Fwd: RE: Ethernet Bridge?] References: <360B42DB.D7845464@gci.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Brandt wrote: > > No I'm not using NT, just a simple peer to peer network. No server is involved on > my home network. I wanted to have both computers setup to play games, surf or do > other things, all with the ability to share or what ever the need at the time. With > my peer to peer my wife can surf while I play a game with friends, or do some work > while still being able to get files off the other computer if she's using it. But > the Nat32 program might be helpful if I know that the wireless Ethernet cards would > work with my existing NIC card install together. Then I could maybe I could share > with my buddy who is also a ham. And yes it would be line-of-sight. No building or > mountains in the way. > Chris Brandt WL7NG Chris, The one thing that has been constant in all the replies is the basic recipe that you need to have two separate domains running....one that connects you to the Internet thru the cable modem, and the other which connects all your home systems AND the router connecting the two domains. There is a significant limitation on most of the cable modem systems, that being you are only assigned ONE IP address. Usually the IP is assigned with DHCP, thus it is a dynamic number. The policies differ between systems - some IP addresses last 5 days, some last an hour requiring a new login. In any case your router needs to be able to deal with Dynamic IP assignment potentially. Consequently, the peer-to-peer system doesn't work unless the only two peers are a single PC and the cable modem. As soon as you have 2 systems that want to employee the same IP address you require a Network Address Translation Agent of some sort - be it Linux or Win95/98 or NT. All have utilities to do this - just pick the one that skins the cat for you. As has been noted - a 386DX with two NE2K Nics and 30-50Mb of hard disk running linux will do the job admirably. I did that myself initially. Total cost of the system was about $40 for the two Nics. I saw peak thruput of around 400Kbytes/sec on that system. Hope this helps. -- Steve Wilson From LNUSSAT.JMALMBER@eds.com Fri Sep 25 22:50:38 1998 Received: from relay1.eds.com (relay1.eds.com [199.228.142.73]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA04558 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:50:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nnsp.eds.com (nnsp.eds.com [199.228.143.130] (may be forged)) by relay1.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22755 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DNET.EDS.COM (dnet.eds.com [130.174.18.173]) by nnsp.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA09211 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DNET.EDS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 2.0) with snapi via DMNCEC id 0095000018662778; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:50:07 -0400 From: JOHN MALMBERG To: SS Subject: Re: [SS:101] RE: Ethernet Bridge? Message-ID: <0095000018662778000002L082*@MHS> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:50:07 -0400 >NT does not yet natively understand the concept of coexisting in more than >one domain. I think this is a serious shortcoming which will soon be rectified. Are you talking Internet Domains, or what m$soft pretends are security domains? There is no relationship between them. Fully qualified Internet domain names are resolved by a DNS. One of these is native on NT-SERVER, but not the workstation. With out a DNS or a WINS server, names are resolved by broadcast. The broadcast is most likely blocked by your ISP. If you do not have a local DNS set up on something, NT SERVER, VMS, LINUX, or UNIX, then you are using the ISP's DNS and of course it knows nothing of your local network. If you have FILE and PRINT sharing on a WINDOWS PC, or are running WINDOWS-NT, it is not a good idea to connect up to a cable modem unless you have firewall that blocks the LANMAN traffic. This is also a problem with dialup connections, but they do not last as long and are much slower, so the risk is smaller. -John, WB8TYW From kn6td@clubnet.net Sat Sep 26 01:17:58 1998 Received: from mail.clubnet.net (www.clubnet.net [206.126.128.4]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA19111 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:17:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from djl_portable (206.126.141.125) by mail.clubnet.net with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:25:47 +0100 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980926061743.00f73368@mail.clubnet.net> X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:17:43 -0700 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Derek J. Lassen" Subject: Re: [SS:104] RE: Ethernet Bridge? At 10:51 PM 9/25/98 -0500, you wrote: >>NT does not yet natively understand the concept of coexisting in more than >>one domain. I think this is a serious shortcoming which will soon be >rectified. > >Are you talking Internet Domains, or what m$soft pretends are security >domains? There is no relationship between them. I was refering to Internet Domains, ie IP Addresses. MS is phasing out the "security domain" concept. It name is an unfortunate holdover from before the time when "MS invented the internet" (just kidding!!!!). Last I heard, they are going to a derrivitive of Kerberos. > >Fully qualified Internet domain names are resolved by a DNS. One of these is >native on NT-SERVER, but not the workstation. >With out a DNS or a WINS server, names are resolved by broadcast. The >broadcast is most likely blocked by your ISP. > >If you do not have a local DNS set up on something, NT SERVER, VMS, LINUX, or >UNIX, then you are using the ISP's DNS and of course it knows nothing of your >local network. Again, the problem is that the cable modem gets an IP address from the cable head end (may be done via DNS / DHCP / (R)ARP, depending upon the implimentation of the modem). The modem will not pass on the DNS / DHCP/ (R)ARP broadcasts. And if you just go ahead and give your machine some IP host numbers from the cable company's domain (without asking them (they are WAY UNLIKELY to give permission), and the numbers that you subsume already exist on the other side of the modem, you are going to confuse the hell out of their router (unless it is a Crisco - its already confused). > >If you have FILE and PRINT sharing on a WINDOWS PC, or are running WINDOWS-NT, >it is not a good idea to connect up to a cable modem unless you have firewall >that blocks the LANMAN traffic. This is also a problem with dialup >connections, but they do not last as long and are much slower, so the risk is >smaller. No problem - kill the "everyone" user group and create a group which is local and trusted; make sure its passworded, priveledge restricted, and host restricted. And, you need to SEVERLY restrict where Administrator (which should be renamed, BTW) can log on from. > > >-John, WB8TYW > > (s) Derek, KN6TD From LNUSSAT.JMALMBER@eds.com Sat Sep 26 02:59:15 1998 Received: from ns2.eds.com (ns2.eds.com [199.228.142.78]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA21020 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:59:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nnsp.eds.com (nnsp.eds.com [199.228.143.130] (may be forged)) by ns2.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA13195 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DNET.EDS.COM (dnet.eds.com [130.174.18.173]) by nnsp.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA06753 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DNET.EDS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 2.0) with snapi via DMNCEC id 0095000018664214; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:58:39 -0400 From: JOHN MALMBERG To: SS Subject: Re: [SS:105] RE: Ethernet Bridge? Message-ID: <0095000018664214000002L042*@MHS> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:58:39 -0400 Derek, KN6TD wrote: >I was refering to Internet Domains, ie IP Addresses. It is my understanding that the cable modem gets an IP address(s) from the head end that it is allowed to transmit to the rest of the network, and will filter out anything else. Additional addresses are available at extra charge. >The modem will not pass on the DNS / DHCP/ (R)ARP broadcasts. DNS is not a broadcast, it is a direct request. If DHCP is active, (here it is not) then the DNS will get set on your box as soon as the DHCP request is serviced, unless you overrode it previously. Once you know their DNS, you can point your local DNS at it. Your name querys go to yours, and if it does not know them, it will then ask the ISP's. No broadcasts are involved with DNSs. It is unlikely that they will allow your DNS to update the ISP's, and you should have no need. If you have your own DNS, you can have as many private Internet Domains as you like. >> >>If you have FILE and PRINT sharing on a WINDOWS PC, or are running WINDOWS-NT, >>it is not a good idea to connect up to a cable modem unless you have firewall >>that blocks the LANMAN traffic. This is also a problem with dialup >>connections, but they do not last as long and are much slower, so the risk is >>smaller. >No problem - kill the "everyone" user group and create a group which is >local and trusted; make sure its passworded, priveledge restricted, and host >restricted. And, you need to SEVERLY restrict where Administrator (which >should be renamed, BTW) can log on from. Sorry, that does not work. That only stops the point and click hackers that can not read. The information is posted else-where on the wierd wild web. A firewall is the only known defense. Sanity check all security information posted. Much of it sounds good in principle, but doesn't work in practice. -John, WB8TYW From dewayne@warpspeed.com Mon Sep 28 21:50:44 1998 Received: from warpspeed.com (c443742-c.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.1.67.207]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04956; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:50:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (192.168.1.7) by warpspeed.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2b6); Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:49:13 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Sender: dewayne@mail.warpspeed.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:50:30 -0700 To: fccreg@tapr.org (TAPR FCC Regulatory List), netsig@tapr.org (TAPR Networking List), ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: FCC ANNOUNCES SHIFT IN AMATEUR RADIO ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS COMPLIANCE AND INFORMATION ACTION September 25, 1998 Report No. CI 98-17 FCC ANNOUNCES SHIFT IN AMATEUR RADIO ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS The Federal Communications Commission announced today a change in the handling of enforcement actions concerning the Amateur Radio Service. By internal arrangement between the FCC's Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) and the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), as of September 1, 1998, all investigation, evaluation and processing of radio amateur related enforcement matters have been transferred to the CIB. The main objective of this change is to facilitate the Commission's pursuit of compliance in the amateur services especially with regard to resolution of interference complaints. The CIB staff now handles amateur radio enforcement matters from initiation to resolution, including, as appropriate, complaints, amateur testing issues, warnings, monetary penalties, revocation hearings or, in extreme cases, equipment seizure and prosecution through the Department of Justice. WTB continues to handle all processing and licensing matters including new applications and licensing renewal matters. WTB continues to handle all policy and rule making matters related to amateur radio. All amateur enforcement questions and complaints should be sent to: Compliance and Information Bureau Compliance Division Attention: Amateur Complaints 1919 M Street, Mail Stop 1500E1, Washington, D.C. 20554 Calls should be directed to (202) 418-1184. News Media contacts: Meribeth McCarrick or David Fiske at (202) 418-0500 Compliance and Information Bureau contact: Riley Hollingsworth at (717) 338-2502 - FCC - From LNUSSAT.JMALMBER@eds.com Tue Sep 29 19:32:39 1998 Received: from ns1.eds.com (ns1.eds.com [192.85.154.78]) by tapr.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17088 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:32:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nnsa.eds.com (nnsa.eds.com [192.85.154.30] (may be forged)) by ns1.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11945 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DNET.EDS.COM (dnet.eds.com [130.174.18.173]) by nnsa.eds.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA09326 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DNET.EDS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 2.0) with snapi via DMNCEC id 0095000018780851; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:32:03 -0400 From: JOHN MALMBERG To: SS Subject: Re: [SS:57] Re: FHSS radio project Message-ID: <0095000018780851000002L012*@MHS> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:32:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greg, WD5IVD wrote: >>Local hams are cheap, so I need material to let them know how much setting >>up a network would cost, also what impact the local terrain of rolling >>hills will cause. >Cheap is no longer a defense or an excuse these days. Cheap means that our >hobby is going down. I see hams at every hamfest dropping tons of money on >stuff and computers. People don't seem to think twice about spending money >on computers, Internet access, or whatever over a year. The returns on use are much higher for these than that with an SS unit. The higher the cost of the unit, the longer it will take to build a critical mass. Traditional radios, even uhf ones already have a number of other people that some one can communicate with. The Internet only requires from $20 to $40/month. With cable modems hitting the area at the cost of an ISP and a second phone line, the access will be faster than the SS units, and again a wider group to communicate with. The initial down payment is not there. When the best phone modems could allow 33K, or if you could get ISDN to work at 128K, the SS unit offered something to attract the computer users into the hobby. It still can, but it will be a harder sell. Our Hobby is going down. We need new blood, and this looks like one of the best ways to get it. Unfortunately, much of the new blood is in high school and is limited in budget. Computer clubs are possibly ripe for recruitment. Looks like I should be looking there in addition to ham club. >Our goal has always been to shot for something around $500 a unit, but I >wouldn't be surprised that the beta units will cost more I thought that I saw on the tapr.org www page that $350 a unit was viewed as a target, that if it were exceeded, it was anticipated that the project would fail. >Figure $1000-$2000 a network node site to get started. That number can be scarry for recruitment. A better sales job will be needed. Where can expenses be reduced? Tower mounted xcvrs to reduce coax costs? I never have had much problems building antennas. I do not have test equipment that works at that frequency, but that could be shared by a large group. Does that include the user's computer? >Putting up a central site that covers everyone to share the resource (like >has been done forever) is not one of the best solutions. Old paradigms of >networking is not going to work in many cases. I aggree. The single session per radio is going to be a big obstacle. I suspect that to get the distance between sites here, directional anttennas will need to be used. If dedicated radios to each link are also used, that means that each ham will need to purchase two radios. The same is true for the HUB and SPOKE configuration. While the HUB and SPOKE is more spectral efficient, it may not provide the coverage needed for this area. The two most likely beginning applications that I see here are WWW servers and multiple point chat sessions. Both need the multiple connection capability that is not planned for the initial units. >You can start doing something today with existing SS STAs. No one should >be waiting for us (TAPR) to hand them a radio. I would not expect as a lone wolf to be able to create a radio that would be compatable with the TAPR SS units. Or even to come close to it's quality or cost. The concern is very high about investing a lot of time and money to end up with an incompatable system. Once the radios are communicating with each other, at even a basic level, then some experimentation could begin that could be helpful to the cause. I think that GNU CC cross compilers are available for the CPU on the TAPR board. At this point I do not even know if I could reach the closest ham to me about 8 miles away, and neither of us have towers. If there were someway cheap that could help determine that, it would help us determine the true cost of deployment. Unfortunately my expertise is now more on the computer side, such as protocols and routing than on the radio side now. I am concentrating on making sure I know how to build an effective network with PCs, including security and privacy concerns. Also on how to gateway to the existing 1200 baud network. -John, WB8TYW