On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:32:42 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >I *knew* that comment would bring 'em out of the woodwork :)
That was your intent, was it not? I just don't see the need for the conflict between Part 15'ers and Part 97'ers (hams) which seems to be your intent to encourage. > >so Jeff - since you have divided loyalties I don't have "divided loyalties" I used Part 15 far more then ham radio, Part 97 (ham radio) is just a hobby to me. But I see no reason to put the services in conflict, which seems to be your intent? -- 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. There is no "support" here nor "Part 15 guys". What don't you understand here? A person asked for a recommendation of a channel to use for his local lan. I said that the only widespread ham use of 2.4ghz was the Oscar 40 downlink, which overlapped with channel 1. Hence avoid this if you can. If you can't, and you don't bother any licensed users, then their is nothing wrong with being there. BTW, the default on the LinkSys is Channel 1, not channel 6. >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. Your "legal advice" is actually incorrect if you care to read Part 15. Also, you can receive Oscar 40 on a 24dBi dish. No need for a 12' dish. >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? You were making comments that the FCC doesn't enforce the law against Part 15 violators. They do, but the violator has to be incredibly stupid and arrogant to get their attention. Kinda like the attitude you are promoting here. I'm simply stating, work with your neighbors, and don't adopt the screw you attitude that you appear to be endorsing. The point is I HAVE been on both sides of the issue, and if people work together, most issues can be resolved. >As for your comment abot me really being a ham - You actually said you where a ham. I didn't know it before then >do some investigative work. I did. Here is your information: http://www.qrz.com/detail/KC6TCM You appear to be a retired, inactive, Technician class operator. >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. ??? As do I. I gave you my callsign (along with my name) so you might realize I knew a bit about what I was speaking. I rarely if ever use it on this list as it is not that relevant. In this case, it was. The sky is not falling Everett. Really. -Jeff King wb8wka (extra class + first/general radiotelephone + radar endorsement) -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
