On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 1:48:29 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I remember some ham posting on this list
There were actually two+ of them, one was me. >not to use ch. 1 on 802.11b because their >satellite is there. He didn't have the common sense to think that >to hear that satellite, an antenna with such a narrow receive >beamwidth would be deaf to other people's 802.11b devices that are >not in outer space. And the second ham was actually having a problem hearing it due to use of 802.11b on channel 1. What were you saying about common sense? Ever hear of sidelobes and reflections off tall buildings and trees? >Just because they are "primary" there doesn't >mean he can go around telling people what channel they can and can >not use. Someone was asking for a recommendation of what channel to use. So, since I am a ham, I have no "authority" to recommend a channel? Who the hell appointed you god? I simply suggested that the poster avoid channel 1 if possible as it was the only channel hams were using on a regular basis for weak signal work. Shame on me!! > That's the whole ham attitude that creates a bad image of >hams. They have zero authority - leave it at that. Speak for yourself... you infact DO have zero authority with me... and I would in fact suggest it is you sir, who is creating a bad image for ham radio. I WOULDN't be on this list if I didn't think the Part 15'ers were doing wonderful things... even though I am a ham. I have the capability to in fact think that ham radio is cool and the part 15 WiFi scene is also cool... something you seem to lack. It is not a either or situation as you have tried to paint it. Jeff King wb8wka, regulatory advisor ARRL HSMM P.S. >Since I am a ham, I am entitled to put a 13 dB gain antenna on my >phone, and should I desire, a 1500 W (yes, one point five kilowatt) >amplifier. Yes, and only use it for non-commercial speech. Oh, and also, if your running spread spectrum under part 97, you'll need to implement automatic power control. Of course, since your a "ham", you already knew this, right? Of course, if you really where a ham, you would have recalled that there is a 100 watt limit on spread spectrum in the ham band... (the 1.5kw PEP limit is for none SS emmissions). >The truth is the ham radio "rent-a-cops" can't do jack about it. >They can not prove conclusively that your phone is the source of the >emission. That is the first correct thing you have said. And this in fact has only happened a few times. Your making a mountain out of a grain of sand. >And even if they could, the enforcement of 902-928 is way >waaaay down on the FCC's list of things to do - below the Christmas >party. Ask Everett about what the FCC did with Darwin Networks then. >Don't worry about pissing off the hams - Everett is also correct here.... as I am sure HE has pissed off every ham on this list with all his misinformation and half truths. The fact of the matter is, if by the very rare chance you interfere with a ham, both you you can work it out. The rare times (2 that I know of) this went all the way to the FCC, it was a commercial WISP that involved their lawyers and dug their heals in (they tried to say there part 15 operation was in fact part 18). To solve it all they would have had to do was change channels. Everett is trying to create division when in fact non exists. I hope the people on this list are smart enough to realize it. He (if he really is the ham) is the true problem. Go go enhance your gear and have at it. I sure am. -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
