Amateur Radio Wireless

I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get an
amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in the UK
and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing this and/or
US-specific websites?

Example:
http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...99&goback=1046

Ann wrote:

> I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
> often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get an
> amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in the UK
> and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing this and/or
> US-specific websites?
>
> Example:
> http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...99&goback=1046

No license is required to use normal 2.4GHz equipment, which is what is
discussed in the article. And I'm in a wooded, hilly area in the US and
can tell you from experience so far that most of your links will NOT
work if you can't physically see from point A to point B. I do have some
exceptions. The most amazing exception I have is one business that's
completely and totally out of sight around a hill and there are big
trees and houses on the hill as well. They're maybe 350 yards away as
the African swallow flies but have had a solid link with my AP for about
18 months now. But for another customer at about a mile I couldn't even
get a hint of a signal using a 24dbi grid antenna because we were just
below the crest of a hill. A 50' tower at the customer's place would
have solved that but they decided to wait until DSL became available,
and I couldn't really blame them.

Look over info past and present at
http://isp-planet.com/fixed_wireless/index.html

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:24:46 GMT, "Ann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
>often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get an
>amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in the UK
>and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing this and/or
>US-specific websites?
>
>Example:
>http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...99&goback=1046

The ARRL calls it their "High Speed Multi-Media" network:
http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
To the best of my knowledge, it's legal.

http://www.houstonwireless.org/Membe...-ham-20030114/
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/10/3/?nc=1
http://www.eham.net/articles/4924

I personally do not approve. Ham radio operators are allowed to use
much higher power levels on 2.4GHz than unlicensed users. In
addition, the letter of the law claims that in cases of conflict, the
licensed operator always wins. The problem is that any abuse of this
anomaly in the rules is most likely going to be judged by the FCC in
favor of approximately 50 million unlicensed 801.11b users, with large
corporations behind them, instead of a few ham radio operators.
Getting a ham radio license and operating at very high power levels is
also not going to make you very popular. Most hams are voluntarily
staying within the 15.247 power limits and are being very careful to
not compete with commercial services.

If you have a lousy line of sight over an unspecified path, you might
look into 900Mhz wireless:
http://www.avalanwireless.com
http://www.freewave.com
http://www.maxstream.net
It's not broadband but it will go through a forest. However, it won't
go through a pile of dirt very well.



--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:57:01 -0500, Rôgêr wrote:

> Ann wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
>> often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get
>> an amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in
>> the UK and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing
>> this and/or US-specific websites?
>>
>> Example:
>> http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...99&goback=1046
>
> No license is required to use normal 2.4GHz equipment, which is what is
> discussed in the article. And I'm in a wooded, hilly area in the US and
> can tell you from experience so far that most of your links will NOT
> work if you can't physically see from point A to point B. I do have some
> exceptions.

My understanding of the frars project is that they're using high gain
antennas, which do require users to have a license. Of course that's UK
regulations. Thank's for your reply; back to the drawing board.

? The most amazing exception I have is one business that's
> completely and totally out of sight around a hill and there are big
> trees and houses on the hill as well. They're maybe 350 yards away as
> the African swallow flies but have had a solid link with my AP for about
> 18 months now. But for another customer at about a mile I couldn't even
> get a hint of a signal using a 24dbi grid antenna because we were just
> below the crest of a hill. A 50' tower at the customer's place would
> have solved that but they decided to wait until DSL became available,
> and I couldn't really blame them.
>
> Look over info past and present at
> http://isp-planet.com/fixed_wireless/index.html

Interesting thread. I had a general ham license for probably 30 yrs (damn,
dating myself, got it when I was 15). Unfortunatly lost it about 10 ago
since I was busy and failed to renew. It used to be a fun hobby, but the
internet offers a lot I think. I ran across this link a few days ago about
a 30 mile cordless phone.

http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/c...280/975984.htm

From my memory of FCC regulations, I would think this would be illegal in
the US, and I doubt it work any distance only with line of sight.


"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:24:46 GMT, "Ann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
> >often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get an
> >amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in the UK
> >and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing this and/or
> >US-specific websites?
> >
> >Example:
>
>http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...999&goback=104
6
>
> The ARRL calls it their "High Speed Multi-Media" network:
> http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
> To the best of my knowledge, it's legal.
>
>
http://www.houstonwireless.org/Membe...-ham-20030114/
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/10/3/?nc=1
> http://www.eham.net/articles/4924
>
> I personally do not approve. Ham radio operators are allowed to use
> much higher power levels on 2.4GHz than unlicensed users. In
> addition, the letter of the law claims that in cases of conflict, the
> licensed operator always wins. The problem is that any abuse of this
> anomaly in the rules is most likely going to be judged by the FCC in
> favor of approximately 50 million unlicensed 801.11b users, with large
> corporations behind them, instead of a few ham radio operators.
> Getting a ham radio license and operating at very high power levels is
> also not going to make you very popular. Most hams are voluntarily
> staying within the 15.247 power limits and are being very careful to
> not compete with commercial services.
>
> If you have a lousy line of sight over an unspecified path, you might
> look into 900Mhz wireless:
> http://www.avalanwireless.com
> http://www.freewave.com
> http://www.maxstream.net
> It's not broadband but it will go through a forest. However, it won't
> go through a pile of dirt very well.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:57:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:24:46 GMT, "Ann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I'm interested in doing wireless in a hilly, wooded area where there is
>>often not good line of sight. (I understand that I would have to get an
>>amateur radio license.) Google produces some info, but mostly in the UK
>>and Australia. Anyone know if US regulations prohibit doing this and/or
>>US-specific websites?
>>
>>Example:
>>http://www.frars.org.uk/cgi-bin/rend...99&goback=1046
>
>The ARRL calls it their "High Speed Multi-Media" network:
> http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
>To the best of my knowledge, it's legal.

Its an interesting website, but it would not be legal to interface amateur radio to the
general internet nor to use amateur radio for commercial purposes.

>http://www.houstonwireless.org/Membe...-ham-20030114/
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/10/3/?nc=1
> http://www.eham.net/articles/4924
>
>I personally do not approve. Ham radio operators are allowed to use
>much higher power levels on 2.4GHz than unlicensed users. In
>addition, the letter of the law claims that in cases of conflict, the
>licensed operator always wins. The problem is that any abuse of this
>anomaly in the rules is most likely going to be judged by the FCC in
>favor of approximately 50 million unlicensed 801.11b users, with large
>corporations behind them, instead of a few ham radio operators.
>Getting a ham radio license and operating at very high power levels is
>also not going to make you very popular. Most hams are voluntarily
>staying within the 15.247 power limits and are being very careful to
>not compete with commercial services.
>
>If you have a lousy line of sight over an unspecified path, you might
>look into 900Mhz wireless:
> http://www.avalanwireless.com
> http://www.freewave.com
> http://www.maxstream.net
>It's not broadband but it will go through a forest. However, it won't
>go through a pile of dirt very well.
>
>
>
>--
>Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
>150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Barry

In news:(E-Mail Removed) Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ham radio operators are allowed to use
> much higher power levels on 2.4GHz than unlicensed users.

Not all that much more power; only up to 1 W without automatic power
control, but up to 100 W if APC is used. Of course, if APC is being used,
the chances of actually running 100W is small.

The big deal is that hams can use any sort of antennas they can dream up
or get into the air. Since directional antennas are the order of the day,
the opportunity for interference is minimized.

Whose fault is it if the 802.11 manufacturers chose to use an "unlicenced"
band that was already occupied by a licensed service with rights to run
high power?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN (E-Mail Removed)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:41:24 +1100, Barry OGrady <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>The ARRL calls it their "High Speed Multi-Media" network:
>> http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
>>To the best of my knowledge, it's legal.

>Its an interesting website, but it would not be legal to interface amateur radio to the
>general internet

I guess if internet connections to ham radios are "illegal" all hams
should immediately disconnect their APRS trackers, Winlink email,
Echolink remotes, IRLP connected repeaters, and all manner of remote
base and repeater operation.
http://www.aprs.net
http://www.echolink.org
http://winlink.org
http://www.irlp.net
http://cqinet.sourceforge.net
and more that are connect to the internet.

>nor to use amateur radio for commercial purposes.

Now, that's correct. Hams cannot charge money for communications
services nor act as transit for commercial services (i.e. advertising,
commerical email, purchases, etc).


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

On 26 Mar 2005 01:49:23 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Jeff Liebermann
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Ham radio operators are allowed to use
>> much higher power levels on 2.4GHz than unlicensed users.

>Not all that much more power; only up to 1 W without automatic power
>control, but up to 100 W if APC is used. Of course, if APC is being used,
>the chances of actually running 100W is small.

Actually, that's only for 802.11 and 802.11b. You can go 1500 watts
with other modulation methods (i.e. frequency hopping). I know of
several high power 2.4GHz ham stations with big dishes. Mostly used
for 9600 baud satellite work.
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html

>The big deal is that hams can use any sort of antennas they can dream up
>or get into the air. Since directional antennas are the order of the day,
>the opportunity for interference is minimized.

Yep. Directional antennas are a good thing.

>Whose fault is it if the 802.11 manufacturers chose to use an "unlicenced"
>band that was already occupied by a licensed service with rights to run
>high power?

Oh, assigning the blame is easy. The FCC had a problem. Hundreds of
manufacturers, inventors, hams, and experimenters had all these really
great ideas for communications. Just one problem, there were no
frequencies available for them to play. Most did their testing on ham
frequencies, but eventually everyone came to the FCC for an
allocation. Lacking the technical abilities to evaluate the merits of
all these proposals, and getting armtisted by corporate influence
peddlers, the FCC took the easy way out and dumped everything into the
ISM bands. I once saw a staff report claiming that the 900MHz ISM
band was "under-utilized". The theory was for each of these great
ideas to prove themselves in the ISM bands, and then the FCC will
consider allocating additional frequencies.

Well, along came the spectrum auctions and spectrum suddenly became
valueable. There was no revenue in unlicensed operation (spectrum
auctions are essentially license auctions). Predictably, there was no
spectrum for those not willing to pay for it. Meanwhile, much of the
spectrum was sold for pennies, while other spectrum went for prices
well beyond economical. The spectrum auctions soon became a fiasco.

Then, somone at the FCC noticed that the most successful thing they
ever did was to get out of the way and let the IEEE handle the
technical part of unlicensed wireless. This is terrible for the FCC
as it neither generates revenue or actually requires any FCC
involvement beyond rubber stamping type certification on equipment.
So, the FCC has finally, after 8 years of f*****g around, released a
fabulous 50MHz of former military bandwidth, with a minimum of
licensing (they just can't let go of the license game), and enough
grandfathered ground stations to make the spectrum useless in
metropolitan areas. Great praise should be given to the attorneys at
the FCC for having done this much.

So, what should a manufactory do with literally millions of customers
waiting for the FCC to throw together some sane spectrum policy? I
dunno. I seriously don't expect the attorneys that are running the
FCC to give much consideration any such technical considerations like
co-channel users, adjacent user protection, and service compatibility.
Spectrum is politically motivated, horded by the commissioners, and
technical considerations are secondary. (I can supply examples but
then this rant would last forever).

Bottom line is the manufactories did not "choose" to use 2.4Ghz. They
were told that it's 2.4GHz or go fly a kite by the FCC. Since two tin
cans and a string were not selling well, they decided 2.4Ghz was
better than nothing.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:41:24 +1100, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:57:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
<...>
>>The ARRL calls it their "High Speed Multi-Media" network:
>> http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
>>To the best of my knowledge, it's legal.
>
> Its an interesting website, but it would not be legal to interface
> amateur radio to the general internet nor to use amateur radio for
> commercial purposes.

But wouldn't a private, non-commercial, "home" network be ok? And perhaps
even websites (www.*.gov, etc) that have no commercial content? Other
restrictions I've run across is that one can't encrypt and one must
transmit his/her call sign periodically.

<...>