|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Wild West Wireless
Kenneth M. Beck (WI7B)
on
June 14, 2006
View comments about this article!
I don't live in a large metropolitan area. My QTH is equal distance from a Starbuck's and a desert filled with sagebrush, coyote, and rattlesnakes. When WiMax wireless internet service came to town, I jumped for it. Finally I thought, I could free myself of a wired existence. WiMax is wireless with a difference. It's a licensed radio service, transmitting on licensed (paid for) 2.5 GHz channels using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (ODFM). It's billed as free of 2.4 GHz interference that often accompanies WiFi, cordless phones, surveillance cameras, ad naseum.
For 6 months, WiMax worked flawlessly. Then, the new brand of Part 15 “2.4 GHz” devices made their appearance in our small community. The effect on my internet service was immediate. I went from downloads of 1.5 Mbs to 50 Kps. When the WiMax ISP service tech (who is also a ham) came to investigate, he found “2.4 GHz” radiation everywhere near the QTH. “If you could see it, it would be a black curtain of radio transmissions”. He had previously found that the “new” surveillance cameras are amplified and search out “unused” channels in the 2.3-2.5 GHz frequency “vicinity”.
In addition to this, he told me a new type Part 15 “2.4 GHz cordless telephone” is now being marketed for use in homes. I think it illuminating to read some of the specifications:
“The EnGenius DuraFon 4x Cordless Long Range Phone System is ideal for the users in various business settings. The system offers 3x more power than any 2.4 GHz phone systems on the market! With this new long range system you will receive the mobility and flexibility you demand in the office, on the field, or at home.
Up to 12 floors in-building penetration; 250,000 square feet in manufacturing plants, warehouses; 3,000 acres on farms or ranches
Two-way radio - full duplex, no group chatter or push-to-talk, can be used even when out of range of base unit, Handset-to-Handset, Handset-to-Base or Base-to-Handset
Four telephone lines supported from one base
Auto-attendant directs callers to specific handsets
Expandable up to 36 handsets with 4 line capability
Digital Spread Spectrum (DSS) technology for privacy and clarity
Frequency hopping security
Option: EnGenius High Gain Outdoor Antenna w/Coax Cable”
This unlicensed radio communication system is presently being offered on line (TWAcomm.com) as a “cordless telephone”. How is this legally a Part 15 device? How is this not an environmental hazard in the hands of the untrained and unlicensed?
This new generation of Part 15 “2.4 GHz” RF devices are now hindering licensed commercial radio services. I've always thought of spectrum defense in terms of our Amateur Radio Service. It was an eye-opener for me to see commercial licensed services shut-down by Part 15 devices.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by AB2MH on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I seem to remember that the EnGenius phones were illegal in the USA. Not 100% sure on that, so don't quote me.
To me it's reflective of the non-ham public in general. They don't think spectrum pollution is an issue at all. That's why we have all of these cheerleaders for BPL and endless iPod FM transmitters and lots and lots of part 15 devices.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by AB2MH on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, some of these same people think that there should be zero regulation of any sort of radio communications or transmitting devices and that the free market should take care of it.
Um, yeah, right.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by AA4PB on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Those who don't deal with RF and spectrum issues just don't get it. I have people designing a brand new office building who recommended running everything wireless so they don't have to plan ahead or run cable. Desktop computers, clocks on the wall, video display systems, audio systems - everything all wireless. At some point all of the available wireless spectrum will be filled with stuff that should have been wired and things that really need the mobility of wireless will no longer work effectivly.
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe your WiMax ISP service tech has his facts a little mixed up.
The long range phone you're referring to operates in the 900 Mhz band, not 2.4 Ghz.
They are manufactured by EnGenius Technologies, Inc of Costa Mesa, CA.
http://www.engeniustech.com/corporate/contact.aspx
Here's the phone specifications:
http://www.engeniustech.com/resources/DuraFon%204X%20Tech.%20Specs.pdf
You may be experiencing interference from many sources occupying 2.4 Ghz, such as standard cordless phones, routers and access points, etc. Many consumers are using collinear antennas, some of which are external, making interference problems potentially worse.
I believe WiMax is also slated to run even higher in the band - as high as 2.69 Ghz, probably in an effort to minimize this type of problem. Maybe they are planning to do this in your area??
I would escalate your issue to a supervisor at your broadband provider and not go strictly by this tech's say so.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WA7NCL on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems like they were asking for it when they put a commercial service in a band shared with unlicensed part 15 operation. Vote with your money and go back to a wired service.
I think the moral of this tale is that we as consumers need to make sure that for things like internet service we have as many alternatives as possible. Like cable, DSL, optical fiber, phone line and others so that when one service doesn't perform we can use another.
The second is that we as hams will be under assault as these services look for more bandwidth. BPL is just one example. Fortunately for us many wired alternatives work better and are cheaper than BPL so people will vote with their money.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by NJ2L on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't forget that microwave ovens work in this band as well. Keep all wireless equipment away from these generators, even if they are "sealed".
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WA5ZNU on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a 2.4GHz spectrum analyzer.
It seems to work in 1MHz steps.
I don't think it goes up to 2.69GHz, but it looks like a fun (and cheap at $99) toy.
http://www.metageek.net/
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KE7HLR on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> By the way, some of these same people think that
> there should be zero regulation of any sort of
> radio communications or transmitting devices and
> that the free market should take care of it.
The FCC should regulate the technical-standards aspect of sharing the public's limited EM spectrum; but, personally, I think the FCC should NOT be in the business of dictating morality.
73,
Dan KE7HLR
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N0AH on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Imported in grape crates from Chile in the spring of 2003...big story on it in Washington Post. System will and does fry small pets and song birds. Is your lawn grass looking brown? Any nieghbors drop dead suddenly lately with red dots on their nose? This is hanger 52 stuff- Over by the "other hanger".
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WC0V on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For quite some time my 2.4 GHz cordless phones get nastily jammed by my GE microwave oven which must use 2.4 GHz since that is the frequency that water boils at. Our solution: go in the bedroom and switch to the "old" 900 MHz cordless phone. Next cordless phone will be 5.2GHz or thereabouts.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by AB2MH on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The FCC should regulate the technical-standards
> aspect of sharing the public's limited EM spectrum;
> but, personally, I think the FCC should NOT be in
> the business of dictating morality.
> 73,
> Dan KE7HLR
I have no problem with that. But these people think that the free market should take care of everything - right down to the technical standards, and that there should be no license required for anything that deals with radio frequency spectrum, ever.
Having a background in ham radio and electrical engineering I know that will simply lead to total chaos, as everyone fights for whatever spectrum they can use. But try telling that to them - they'll accuse you of being a communist nazi who wants the Government to control everything.
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well not in exactly the same situation but...We live in a canyon, over 5 miles to the nearest TELCO central office (never mind DSL is unknown in Del Rio), nearest neighbor is 9/10 mile, our best connect was 26 KB. Wild Blue Satellite internet came out and we subscribed, now I hear large birdies all over 20 & 17 meters. Not sure why nor do we have a qualified tech to answer why. I just live with it and if a birdie is in the way and no one is online just unplug the satellite modem.
I guess progress of any kind comes with some sort of price tag.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N5PVL on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ironic, isn't it, that the ARRL petitioned the FCC recently to allow up to 100 watts power, along with protection from interference complaints on 2.4 ghz. and other ham bands all the way down to 440mhz, 2 meters and 6 meters.
That's what we get when the ARRL treams up with TAPR - totally irresponsible insanity.
That's RM-11325 at the FCC website, if you would like to look over the comments on this moronic proposal, by the way.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K3UD on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"By the way, some of these same people think that there should be zero regulation of any sort of radio communications or transmitting devices and that the free market should take care of it."
Yep....
And some people think that amateur radio allocated spectrum should have zero regulation as to mixing incompatable modes and automatic and semi automatic roving WL2K robots popping up without notice on all of our spectrum. The theory seems to be that hams will take care of it themselves.
So what's the difference? Interference is interference regardless where it comes from.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K3NG on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Note that WiMax isn't necessarily licensed or unlicensed. It's merely a protocol specification that can be used from 2 to 66 Ghz, which contains a few unlicensed bands and numerous licensed ones.
2.5 Ghz is a licensed band called BRS, formerly known as MMDS/ITFS and was used for wireless cable. Some data services in this band may use WiMax, however many use proprietary protocols.
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W5GNB on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not familliar with the WIMAX equipment but it could be that the receiver/transmitter quality could be lacking in the system. Also, the antennas, freznel path, power level, and distance play a very important role in how you might receive your data.
I use Breezenet (Alvarian) equipment here on 2.4Ghz and we have a couple of hops of over 30-miles. One of these 30-mile hops is really poor and according to the freznel calculations, it should not even be working but I cosistantly get a -65db signal level and have never had a signal drop in the six years or so that the system has been active. The other hop looks right over the top of a large city from one side to the other and I am sure there are LOTS of 2.4Ghz activity on the vicinity of this path. We have no interferrence problems at all.
you should use another provider if you have that option and see if there is any better service. Here in New Mexico the cellular telephone company has a service that is pretty good.
Also, the wireless system must have local encription so as not to accept outside signals that will distort its data reception. The WEP codes must be set up properly to avoid outside interferrence. You should not have any problem co-existing with other 2.4Ghz signals if things are set up correctly.
Good luck and 73's
Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N3KQX on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just read an overview article about WiMAX in this month's Communications Technology (paper only at this time). Acording to the article, 3.5GHz and 5.8GHz are in use now. Eventually, there will be several bands between 2 and 6GHz, including a 4.9GHz band for public safety. Google doesn't seem to have much information about US licenses, although several other countries seem to be showing some activity. It sounds like your ISP is using an unlicensed band.
I'm really amazed at some of the 2.4GHz "booster" equipment out there these days. I can see someone easily exceeding the 100mW limit on WiFi, using plain old off-the-shelf hardware: http://tinyurl.com/pnzal (compusa wifi antennas)
When the 2.4GHz band was first made unlicensed, the rule was that the radios were not modifiable, and the FCC specified that the connectors were not to be easily bought (can't run down to RS and pick up a BNC to attach to your new access point). However, they didn't anticipate the Internet store, so experimenters went nuts.
I'm just glad most of these antennas are using RG-174 coax, so the actual gain can't be much!
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K6AER on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Wi-Max does not go up into the 2498-2686 MHz MMDS band. The licenses for those bands are owned by the cellular phone companies, Sprint, Nextel, Cingular and Verizon. The 2.4 GHz license free ISM band is from 2402-2483 MHz. 2483-2498 MHz is for direct satellite communications. The ISM band requirements is for the EIRP to be less than 3 watts IERP including the antenna gain.
Your slower internet speed could also be due to the WISP provider placing too many customers into the back haul pipe. Local interference can be a problem but most Wi-Fi systems will switch frequencies if they encounter a low signal to noise ratio. I am still amazed at WISP’s who put money into a unsecured spectrum and builds a business prone to outside interference.
Bottom line is there is no guarantee on interference or regulation in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. This also holds true for the 5.3 and 5.8 GHz bands.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KE7HFQ on June 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm just glad most of these antennas are using RG-174 coax, so the actual gain can't be much!"
There are a number of small USB WiFi adapters available (cheap) that can be placed in the focus of a parabolic reflector, no line loss.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W6TH on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Our home is 100 percent wireless running 4 computers, can you imagine with 4 computers and no wires to run. Also telephones and temperature gauges in all 8 rooms and one in the basement. Using the internet for our telephone service is great and such a low cost. No wonder the young generation is not interested in ham radio.
ZEW2500P...IEEE802.11G LSB WLAN. This is my modem.
Never yet a problem with any sort of interference and of any kind. A different kind of ham radio, right?
W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been playing with WiFi adaptors. I found that indeed they can be put into reflectors. I also found that they can have almost 20 feet of USB cable before they slow down....BUT...when connected to more than 10 feet of USB cable they make lots of noise on the ham bands, especially 20 and 75 meters. No noise when very short cables are used. I have not put much effort into choking the noise other than a single ferrite which did not work.
We have two identical CATV amplifiers, one makes nasty noises in all of the ham bands, the other does not. ???
In fact, our house has so many RF noise generators I have to keep them listed in a database. When I get to a certain frequency that has noise I look it up in the database and turn the offending machine off if I can. Spouse and kid approval required.
It seems that the FCC does nothing to assure Part 15 is followed. Or Part 95. A little on Part 97....
For some reason the FCC thinks that people should work out their own problems in some areas. I disagree. The FCC won't change it's mind until people start resorting to violence to defend their RF turf.
That's just what the world needs. Geeks and nerds doing battle over RF turf. Knowing geeks and nerds like I do it is likely that the 'violence' won't be TV great like getting to watch them duke it out in the street. Instead they will be destructive in other ways. They will attack hard drives and kidnap data. Data supply lines will be re-routed. Decimals will be deleted from currency databases. Names, even of the innocent, will be added to marketing lists.
Oh, the humanity!
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K3NG on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The Wi-Max does not go up into the 2498-2686 MHz MMDS band. The licenses for those bands are owned by the cellular phone companies, Sprint, Nextel, Cingular and Verizon
There's still many other licensees with old MMDS licenses, it's not all cellular phone companies. WiMax can run on any frequency in the microwave bands. WiMax is not tied to a particular frequency allocation, it's merely a protocol specification.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W6TH on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
I am sure that the FCC know what they are doing and what they want.
The other day which was yesterday, I went into a place to have lunch while out shopping. I was sitting down enjoying my lunch when this gentleman came in and sat along side of me and opened up this small box. The box was a computer and I asked him how could this computer work the internet with no connection to the internet, the gentleman said that he just logged on to the internet. I asked how can that be done here in this place and he quickly replied; this place has a wireless network that I use and have no problem logging on. I do this often on my lunch break.
Now this is high tech stuff fellow hams and ham radio is now a hobby so puts ham radio into a low tech position.
Again, I may ad, ham radio is low tech compared to the progress of electronics.
ARRL, what did you do to us ham radio operators, once a high tech and now a hobby?
So you see folks, the FCC know what they want and what way to go, high tech is the key word.
W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K4RAF on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For all you Wild West Saloon lawyers with 2-bit advice, I'd recommend going over to dailywireless.org & educating yourselves on WiMAX. There is even a specific section on the subject.
I have never seen such disinformation mixed with misguided opinions in my life as in this thread. You guys can't even get the bands straight!
k4raf@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K4RAF on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Engenius phone's FCC ID is?
Post it & I could tell you more about it. If it don't have one on the base unit, it is a grey market.
k4raf@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W6TH on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
RAF
I noticed the same.
Welcome back my friend.
73, Vito W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K4RAF on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WI7B,
You also fail to mention the carrier who is providing your WiMAX service. This would be most helpful to those of us willing to help. I bet it is ClearWire?
What brand, model & FCC ID is the WiMAX subscriber unit?
k4raf@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WW0H on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH said: "ARRL, what did you do to us ham radio operators, once a high tech and now a hobby?"
How is this the ARRL's fault? It seems that whatever problem comes along, somebody blames the League. When there was the discussion about whether to lower the code or drop it, they were the old fogies who wanted to keep things the way they were. When the code requirement was lowered, it was their fault that they didn't do more to keep out the "rif raf". And now it's their fault we have hot spots in restaurants and shopping malls.
Let's blame the ARRL for the Iraq war, the price of gas, and the national deficit. I'm sure they had something to do with it.
John
WW0H
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W6TH on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
WW0W,
Wow John, you certainly don't believe in the separation of the church and the state.
W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
large birdies all over 20 & 17 m
|
|
|
by WA5ZNU on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5YPJ, these birdies are likely 100Base-T Ethernet carriers. Check for one at 14.030. Try the usual -- good ferrite beads or FT240-43 big ferrites on the cables, shielded cables, move sat away from antenna etc. You might also try using 10Base-T, perhaps forcing your Ethernet card in the driver to use 10Base-T. (I assume your sat connection is <800kbits/sec).
73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by TIMEPILOT84 on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eugenius Durafon 4x FCC ID: N13-SP922
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=620531&fcc_id='NI3-SP922'
It's a 900Mhz phone system. The entire premise of this article is wrong.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by WI7B on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TIMEPILOT84,
Yes, that is a 900 Mhz unit. What the WiMAX tech said he was referring to is a new 2.4 GHz system. The specifications quoted in the article is what is printed on the TWAcomm website.
The premise of the article is my loss of WiMAX connectivity because of interfering "Part 15" 2.4 GHz devices that were detected by the WiMAX technician, not any specific device he identified as the culprit. That premise is correct, as I understand it.
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by W5GNB on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What if anything has this got to do with ham radio?"
How about ECHOLINK and IRLP !!
And YES, it IS HAM RADIO!!!!
73's
Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on June 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2WH
"What if anything has this got to do with ham radio? "
Yes Virginia -- there is life above 30 Mhz
This has everything to do with being a ham -- a modern ham
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by PA5MW on June 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I'm in the 2.4Ghz business I know we are sharing/producing more different applications in this 2.4 GHz band:
- Wireless digital baby monitors (sound only and sound+image)
- Wireless digital headphone systems (not 854Mhz)
- Wireless analogue TV links
- Various Wi-fi computer applications
From experience we can tell the first 3 above can share, to some extent, the band by using different frequency 'channels'. Some are digitally 'intelligent' linked and can be used up to 10 on the same frequency in the same room.
The biggest culprit is Wifi; single 'turbo' devices using almost the full band. Since at least one neighbor in your area has WiFi, you're doomed.
Well, at least the bedroom has become quiet again :)
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by TIMEPILOT84 on June 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like some tech didn't feel like doing his job, so he gave some half-assed "there's intereference everywhere, check out this new phone system/surveillance camera system" answer so he could go back to playing solitaire. Other people on this board attest that they haven't gotten any interference from 2.4Ghz ISM band gear in areas that have a much higher density of ISM gear. The phone system quoted in the article is a 900 mhz that is touted as having much greater range than 2.4ghz systems (as well it should being a 900mhz device). No where in any of the documentation on TWAComm or Engenius' site, or on the FCC site does anything say that there's a new Engenius DuraFon 4x that uses 2.4 Ghz ISM.
Methinks you've been given a snow job by a lazy tech, and that you should call and complain to your service provider again and again until you get someone competent (Good Luck with that!). I've personally used a Wi-Max system out in the hills with both a Bluetooth and Wi-Fi MIMO system running, and not seen any degredation in performance. Granted, the service I used might not have chosen a frequency as close to the ISM band as your ISP does, though.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N7ANL on June 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken,
The Engenius phones are getting blamed here because your tech/ham friend "suggests" they are a culprit. (Did he use the "revised" no-knock warrant tactic the Supreme's just approved?)
.
So where is his proof THIS phone is the culprit?
.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. And while I haven't checked yet if their new phone is on 2.4ghz or what it's other ratings are, one would be FAR SAFER investigating first in order to blame THE actual problem device or devices in this instance, before picking the culprit out of thin, albeit RF polluted air.
.
If I recall, Engenius's phones come under an "industrial" cordless phone specs, rather than consumer grade specs. In any case, there are relatively very few of these out there, compared to the millions of other potential interference devices of all sorts.
.
Engenius's 900mhz phones have been on the market for several years now, so if they were not legal, it would seem their sale within the USA would have been shut down awhile back. (I realize there are export devices sold here but this is not some under the radar product line).
Rick
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by K4JF on June 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Our home is 100 percent wireless running 4 computers, can you imagine with 4 computers and no wires to run. Also telephones and temperature gauges in all 8 rooms and one in the basement. Using the internet for our telephone service is great and such a low cost. No wonder the young generation is not interested in ham radio."
Huh? Non sequitur! None of that has anything remotely to do with ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by AB2MH on June 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> What if anything has this got to do with ham radio?
> K2WH
Out of control part 15 devices affect ham radio too, whether it be wi-fi in the 2.4GHz band or BPL on HF.
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KE7CDV on June 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And some people think that amateur radio allocated spectrum should have zero regulation as to mixing incompatable modes and automatic and semi automatic roving WL2K robots popping up without notice on all of our spectrum. The theory seems to be that hams will take care of it themselves.
So what's the difference? Interference is interference regardless where it comes from."
No, there is a difference. At least historically, there were many "gentleman's agreements" amongst hams as to what type of emissions went where; there's *no* such agreement advocated by folks who think all spectrum should be for anyone's uses.
If people were honest about it, they'd admit that the current debate over what to do with the ham bands really boils down to a battle between their traditional uses with traditional technology vs. what people employing more contemporary systems would like to do with it.
Regulation by bandwidth largely solves the problem of "sharing" between these multiple uses; segregation of semi-automated emissions from strictly human-controlled emissions largely solves the problem of robots walking all over CWers.
---Joel KOlstad
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by N1YRK on June 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, I hate to sound rude, because I really believe that we should all try to be nice, on the air or off. But some people here really need to learn more about WiMax and WiFi before they complain. Really.
On another topic, let me say that for a few years now I have warned people that 2.4 ghz will get like 27 mhz because of the lack of enforcement on high power equipment. Right now, you can go buy a 1 Watt amplifier and a 28 dBi dish without any sort of license. If you play your cards right, you can even find a 10 Watt amplifier. These are bad for both the community of radio users (including hams) and can be potential health hazards. I am not saying that such things should never be used, but there needs to be training and licensed techs who can handle this sort of thing. The FCC has dropped the ball here. They said that systems above a certain ERP need to be instaled by 'qualified technicians', but never bothered to decide what that actually meant.
The 802.11b/g noise in cities is a real disaster. There are places where there is so much activity that systems with sensitive receivers will just wait and wait for a vacant channel and never find it (802.11 is CSMA). You actually have to make the receivers dumber for the system to work, which of course causes problems for other users. The FCC needs to handle this, by making more channels available for WiFi.
|
| |
|
Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KI4OGD on June 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If changing a government regulation would solve the problem, wouldn't that make the government regulation the problem, and the best way to prevent future problems would be to get rid of the goverment regulation?
maybe, but probably the best way to solve most of the Part 15 interference issue would be if us Hams petitioned the FCC to do its job, and regulate the problems it created?
|
| |
|
RE: Wild West Wireless
|
|
|
by KC7YJJ on June 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
==
I can see someone easily exceeding the 100mW limit on WiFi, using plain old off-the-shelf hardware: http://tinyurl.com/pnzal (compusa wifi antennas)
When the 2.4GHz band was first made unlicensed, the rule was that the radios were not modifiable, and the FCC specified that the connectors were not to be easily bought (can't run down to RS and pick up a BNC to attach to your new access point). However, they didn't anticipate the Internet store, so experimenters went nuts.
I'm just glad most of these antennas are using RG-174 coax, so the actual gain can't be much!
==
Too late. Engenius happens to manufacture/distribute +23dbm WiFi cards running at 280mW. I own a pair of them and use them under part 97 connected to my 12.5dbi yagi and another 7dbi 'patch' antenna at the other end. The antennas have the 'anti-part 15' reverse connectors on the pigtails (pigtails of LMR400, on the yagi and LMR195 on the patch, I might add) but those were available at the local Ham shop. It doesn't make them any less available, just more confusing to configure and more expensive to procure-like 'security bits' on Telco and CATV installations. Myself and a fellow HAM enjoy sharing my cable modem across our condo complex. We don't run them at max power, since we are still required to keep power to a minimum, but it's nice to know it's there if we decide to take them into the field or if I commandeer the setup for emcomm use.
-James
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
Do We Need a Kick in the Pants?
Action On BPL By Congress?
RFI Complaint Against Linksys
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
Other Editorial Articles
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
How to Spot a Scam
JARL Ham Fair 2009
|
|
|
