> > > 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.
Jeff - calm down - I was only trying to go back and find your post - I couln't find it and knew that bait would bring it out - it did - and it proved to also bring out more facts about channel 1 that you hadn't told us - so it's provoking a good discussion about channel 1. I do, honestly, enjoy hearing what you have to say - you have had more experience with channel 1 than I have (I don't use it for satellite operations. I use Inmarsat and Iridium when I travel, but not the ham satellite) > > > > > >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. > My apologies - I read your original post as saying "dont use channel 1" - and I can't go back and find it! I wanted to get more detail, which I now have. It won't affect my use of channel 1, nor 6, nor 11 in the least but at least we now know the history behind it thanks to your info - you have a wealth of knowledge behind it. Talk about it a little more - it's interesting to know the history behind these things. I'm glad you've aired some of it, and if you know even more - I'd love to hear it. Had your original post said, "2 WISPS were sued over use of channel 1 so I'd advise against that one - see the story here --- www.arrl.com/2.4/ghz/dispute" then we'd all know about it! > BTW, the default on the LinkSys is Channel 1, not channel 6. > This too is good to know - I don't buy linksys hardware - so I didn't know they defaulted to 1. You see - we are learning things that you know that others (like me) don't -- purposeful discussion. Sorry I had to bait you to get it! Jeff - I really think you have some good history in there - and I'd like to hear more about it - sorry I had to bait you to engage in a discussion and we respectfully disagree on some ham issues. > > >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. > Not legal advice. Just good satllite practice. I've seen some real nice ham shacks with racks of equipment locked to a cesium standard and I've seen some wood planks with 1960's vintage equipment and a real big ashtray as the centerpiece of the shack. The guys with dishes adjusted correctly will likely have so much gain on their intended target (assuming its all aimed correctly) that they will not notice the occasional burst from 802.11 on ch 1. I don't give legal advice. I give engineering advice. Learn to tell the difference. I was only suggesting that if the ham constructs a proper satellite antenna system, they can easily avoid interferance (that's what it's all about, right?) without trying to hunt down every single 802.11b on channel 1 within 300 feet of them. And, they'll probably make more contacts as a result - it's time better spent. As you get older you find that time is more valuable - spending it wisely on antenna improvements rather than witch hunts is (IMHO) a better use. > > >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. Lead them to my door, please. I've actually submitted reports of interferance to the FCC on behalf of the san jose police department and fought for the FCC to do something. I was hired because the SJPD gave up after so many attempts! It's impossible, even with plots from spectrum analyzers and time of day information, to get them to get off their butts and do something about a police radio problem. I was told Airplanes had #1 priority. Unless the problem was related to VHF AM or ILS they didn't have resources. I ended up having to do the work for the SJPD myself, as the FCC was useless. I don't see them EVER comming to my house and saying, pardon me, but I think you are +3 dB too high in your signal strength. I can see an arrogant ham doing that because he lacks the ability to properly measure power output and thinks he owns the frequency as he is "primary". I ended up flying with Officer Desmond Casey aboard N904PD (SJPD's air one helo) with a spectrum analyzer. They were thankful someone gave a damn about it - and surprised the FCC wasn't that someone. Working together, we found the problem in one evening, faster than the FCC could auction a frequency. > > 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. > Jeff - I never said screw you - and if I had nice neighbors who came over and said, "Hi, I'm N6xxx and I'm trying to work a satellite tonight to talk to fiji and get one of these neat little cards in the mail - I think possibly your 802.11 install is on channel 1, although it could be someone else, could you please move it for me to channel 2 - 11 so I can hear fiji later this evening? I'd really like to get one of these cards!" - you bet - I'd move channels for him. Nice attitude, nice person, no big deal for me to login and change RF channels. But - if someone came over and copped an attitude "HAMS ARE PRIMARY USERS OF 2.4 GHZ AND I HAVE DETERMINED YOU ARE CAUSING INTERFERENCE IN OUR BAND, THEREFORE YOU MUST MOVE IMMEDIATELY OR I WILL CALL THE FCC ON YOU" - then I'd just tell them the area code is 202. Good luck, and get off my property. And leave it on channel 1 all night. Probably with a continuous signal strength test running to make sure they are not interfering with me. You'll find in this world you attract alot more desirable responses with a friendly attitude. Claiming "primary" ownership of the band as you did in your original post (I *do* remember that) won't make any sense to a typical 802.11 user. Being "PRIMARY" in a band has no meaning to the mass populus who just got home from frys with an 802.11x device. This is what irritated me about your original post - suggesting that "PRIMARY" status was the reason people should avoid channel 1! > > >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. > Nope. It wasn't -- just as you have proven, I could have gone and found your callsign too if I'd cared about it. But I don't. I cared more to learn what you knew about channel 1- you fell for the bait - and you provided alot of useful information that we previously didn't know (like the lawsuit over wisps using ch1, and linksys using ch1 out of the box) - hopefully this has led to a better understanding. Maybe some people will opt to avoid channel 1 as a result. But saying they should not use channel 1 because hams are primary in that band is a poor way to do it. Support your argument with facts! You have them - we now know that! Facts are much more interesting than opinion. > The sky is not falling Everett. Really. > And neither is Channel 1. Really. I hope from your search you have discovered that I have been designing RF&Microwave devices since before you were even born. Everett Basham, BSEE UofA, MSEE Stanford, RF & Microwave designer for 45+ years. > -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
