Forrest W Christian wrote:
George wrote:
And I should also say that it is being discussed and addressed by on
the wispa fcc committee list.
I'm working on the first draft of a response from WISPA..
Basically saying that this is a BAD idea, at least in those bands shared
with ISM/UNII users.
One point to bring up is the fact that they request the band and
privileges to do research and to further understanding and techniques
yet they want an exemption from something which they say is quite
difficult. I would say that is what research is all about and they
would want to solve that probl
George wrote:
And I should also say that it is being discussed and addressed by on
the wispa fcc committee list.
I'm working on the first draft of a response from WISPA..
Basically saying that this is a BAD idea, at least in those bands shared
with ISM/UNII users.
-forrest
--
WISPA Wireless
Thanks George. I could not find any information on this.
George wrote:
Here is what I got from P15:
On March 13, 2006, The ARRL has proposed a change in regulating spread
spectrum power output. This will dramatically affect users of
802.11b/g in
the 2.4 GHz frequency range.
Basically the
And I should also say that it is being discussed and addressed by on the
wispa fcc committee list.
George
George wrote:
Here is what I got from P15:
On March 13, 2006, The ARRL has proposed a change in regulating spread
spectrum power output. This will dramatically affect users of 802.11b/g
Here is what I got from P15:
On March 13, 2006, The ARRL has proposed a change in regulating spread
spectrum power output. This will dramatically affect users of 802.11b/g in
the 2.4 GHz frequency range.
Basically the proposal allows amateur radio operators to run powers of 100
watts without a
