e) and I
> *liked it*, but as it was non standard never got around to depending
> on it existing on anything.
>
> We definitely need more channels, not less
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:18 PM bkil wrote:
> >
> > If this is not the right forum to discuss, could you please p
would be illegal. Worst case you will
> need to reduce power by 3/6dB (10/5MHz) if there is a power spectral
> density limit in a given jurisdiction and max EIRP @ 20MHz is already
> at that limit.
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 06:48, bkil wrote:
> >
> > If this is not the right f
If this is not the right forum to discuss, could you please point me
in the right direction?
After all, channel spacing is indeed 5MHz here. Although using a new
raster instead of the 20MHz channel center frequencies would allow
full utilization of the band (16 or 8 channels respectively), using
eighbor. Even the weakest
>signals are very strong when they are shouted in your ear.
>
>Rule #7. Lastly, don't be a cry baby. (If you insist on using obsolete
>technology that is highly sensitive to interfering signals, don't
>expect much sympathy whe
Full-duplex still needs some work, but there is definite progress:
http://www.ti.rwth-aachen.de/~taghizadehmotlagh/FullDuplex_Survey.pdf
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TR-1.pdf
https://sing.stanford.edu/fullduplex/
I've only skimmed through, but as I see it, many points have already been
addressed. TV went digital, large parts of the spectrum freed up for other
purposes while allowing to transmit in local whitespaces where available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11af#Spectrum_regulation
As a
