I only commented this to the list so that a record of this bully tactic
exists. If you cannot see what he was insinuating then that is your
right to read it however you like. I know what he was trying to say. He
was saying that if we bitch to the FCC about their wishes to gain access
to the 2.4 GHz band without Spread Spectrum APC power limitations then
we all might be the unfortunate recipients of harmful interference when
they turn up the power and knock us offline while doing legitimate moon
bounce experiments. Regardless, I am not starting a holy war with Hams.
Most of them are good guys anyway. This one in particular is a bully and
I have drawn attention to this. That is my opinion and I shared it. Draw
your own conclusions as you see fit. I have no intentions of pushing
this issue any further. To be honest with you I consider most Hams to be
our friends and allies. This one I believe is a bully though.
Scriv
Brian Webster wrote:
John,
I'm not sure if this guys comments were meant to be that of a
threatening
nature. If someone is using the moon as a passive reflector, they may very
well be aiming at the horizon with a set of antennas using steerable
tracking gear for their antennas. The idea would be that you start using the
moon like you would a tracking system for a moving satellite. At moon rise
and set you would be aimed at or near the horizon with a lot of power. I'm
just pointing out the technical aspect of this, I'm not on the tower talk
list and did not see the whole thread to get the tone of the conversation.
This type of system is typical for hams who operate either satellite comms
or moon bounce. They do this to allow maximum time for communications. While
it would be possible to intentionally use this to harm WISP's it is also
possible that it could happen by chance.
Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:11 PM
To: Dan Hammill
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz
ruleschange
Dan Hammill wrote:
John,
Thank you for your sentiments towards hams.
I meant what I said though I may have had it wrong after some of the
replies I am seeing from this group.
Dan KB5MY said:
if I run legal limit into my 24-foot
dish, aim at the moon on the horizon, and some unlicensed ISP happens to
lie
in-between, I guarantee that the ISP will lose, regardless of how much
power
he/she may be running.
I have been using the list servers here as an opportunity to share my
thoughts on perspectives and see how best to proceed for everyone's best
interest. Marlon has done the same. Quite frankly I am surprised that
the bully tactics you describe would be even put into print. I have
always thought Hams were basically all above such thinking. I have no
intentions of turning this into a holy war. I know my place. Thank you
for pointing it out though with the end of your gun.
Good bye,
John Scrivner
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
