> I *knew* that comment would bring 'em out of the woodwork :)
so Jeff - since you have divided loyalties -- who do you support, the hams who want channel 1 for their weak signal work, or the rest of the part 15 users who see it as "isolated" from channel 6, the default? If you're going to take sides, It sounds like you'd prefer the part 15 guys like us all lost chhanel 1 from our set of channels. I'm betting the next satellite launched (if there is one!) will not have a 2400Mhz downlink. There's supposed to be spectrum allocated in 2300 Mhz for Ham use only. Too bad they didn't put a synthesized tuner on board! Just out of curiosity last night I logged into 12 APs (They each use sectorized antennas or dishes) and tried moving each over to ch 1 - then looked at the energy present - it was no different than 6, which kinda surprised me with 6 being the default. Maybe it was too late in the night for 802.11b activity, or the whole band is just noisy... If the fcc thought there would have been an issue, ch 1 would be higher up. In reality, more cordless phones cause interferance down low in the band than do 802.11s on ch 1 - how do you propose to handle all the people who have cordless phones on 2400-2412 Mhz? (you do know that's where they like to put cordless phones, right?) And with regards to antennas - the sidelobes on my 12' dish are nothing compared to the main lobe - at least 30+ dB down. I only need a 20 dB capture ratio. It's up to the dish installer/operator (ham) to put the feedhorn at the focal point and minimize sidelobes. It's not the responsibility of his neighbors to all vacate channel 1. The satellites I tune are 24,800 miles away - not some LEO that comes and goes at its pleasure. As for trees & buildings - a smart antenna installer omits those from the view when putting in a sat antenna. I can view the clarke belt from Brazil to the Pacific Ocean. Sidelobes never are an issue for me, even as I depart a strong sat like G10R with loads of digital modulation on high powered new transponders. Mainly because my equipment is properly maintained. Granted, a typical ham sat receive station is a bunch of crossed yagis bolted to a crossed rotor scheme for az-el - mainly because it's cheaper than putting a az-el mount on a dish, but they can do things to mitigate the problem if they have it. Jeff - I really do appreciate your comments on the history (and I'm intending zero sarchasm here) of the ham vs part 15/ch 1 issues - It looks like you've been tracking it. So how exactly did the businesses come out with their attornies/pt18 bit? I mean - it at least cost them their attorney fees. It does sound like you have a wealth of information on the subject- I'm really glad its comming out now instead of just a staement "don't use channel 1" - that's what the forum is for. Exchange of info - please if you know the history behind it - let us know too. Your statement over not using channel 1 would have been much stronger had you told us (the first time) that two wisps were taken to court over their usage of channel 1, and cited the results, etc. As for your comment abot me really being a ham - do some investigative work. Look in the book like hams do. I don't go sticking random numbers and letters that the government gave me after my name. I have a name, not a number. Everett > > 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
