Inexpensive High Speed Packet Radio Is Here

[kb9mwr]

Yes that's right it is so close to home you may not even realize its potential ham implementations. #What I'm talking about is all of the Part 15 spread spectrum wireless ethernet devices. #

There are numerous manufactures of these devices. #They operate on the shared 900 MHz, 2.4 & 5.7 GHz bands with speeds between 1.5 and 11 Mbps! The common 802.11b devices are 11 Mbps and 6 of the 11 user settable channels operate in overlapping ham allocations.

The beauty of this kind of operation is that it can be done by those with no desire to "get technical". #Numerous hams have reported successful 10-15 mile paths by attaching nothing more than a higher gain antenna to the devices.

This idea is nothing new. #As a matter of fact 13 years ago Al Broscious, N3CFT suggested this very idea at a computer conference. #But at the time amateur spread spectrum rules where more restrictive and prohibited certain spreading codes. #None the less TAPR attempted to urge interested hams to obtain a special temporary authorization permit from the FCC. #

Well a few years have past and the ham rules have been relaxed and the price on this technology has come down considerably. #Now for about $150 you can pick something up locally and thrown in a $60-70 24 dB parabolic antenna and your all set to build that high speed affordable RF network,
where you can mimic the internet by having web pages, conferencing, FTP and so on.

There is absolutely no reason not to explore this technology. #Existing #AX.25 traffic can be ported over a wireless ethernet link using AXIP encapsulation.

Further information & details:

Using Part 15 Wireless Ethernet Devices for Amateur Radio: (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html)

Green Bay Professional Packet Radio: (http://www.gbppr.org)

An encouraging article. Reading this has really interested me...

This article goes a long way at proving that good things can come to amateur radio from "spectrum sharing". As long as we retain the ability to operate the bands, sharing will not be an impedence to use by amateurs. Type in "433, 434, 902-928MHz or 2.4GHz" into a search engine like Google & there are quite a few modules, devices & assemblies available under Part 15. I am happy to see it because for under $50, you can get a compact 902-928MHz data transmitter & receiver RF modem setup.

These products simply couldn't be as cheap & widely available if they were developed exclusively by amateur "manufacturers".

However, since it is a modified Part 15 device, my only question is would "content restrictions" apply to use under Part 97 or would it be unrestricted under Part 15 using "external antennas". I suspect the online amateur legal experts will lean in the direction of stricter Part 97 but I consider it Part 15 & Unrestricted if I were to use it.

Could I send the "The Limbo" picture over 802.11 @ 5.7GHz or 2.4GHz & face "Radio Prison"?

Food for thought...

RM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Isn't there a restriction on our baud rate that does not apply to the "shared" users? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73 de Craig............KCØGOA

[KB5YQH]

Excelent!!

I've been looking into this recently as part of my research on homeland defense/security.

Commercial-grade, high gain antennas are everywhere (check ebay). The only real limitation (that I can find) imposed by Part 15 is the power restriction - but you can repeat the signal as much as you want.

Want to boost the power? Use the ham bands....
I wonder about station ID, prohibited traffic and all that. This is truly emerging technology.

73!

RMB

[N3HGB]

A web search would reveal a huge number of experimenters have been doing this stuff for quite some time now and they aren't connected to ham radio at all.
This is interesting and fun, but it isn't ham radio. Now if someone wants to figure out a way to run these things through a linear we might get somewhere!
73

While I am no legal expert, it seems if a user exceeds the limitations of Part 15 then the device would have to comply with Part 97 - all of it. How would your network feel about a CW identification every ten minutes? Remember, the ability to transmit FAX is limited by the need to identify your station. Also, as I recall there are limits to data rates of 19.6 kbaud for 6 meters and up. Most of these WiFi links have considerably higher data rates.

[mdown]

Amateur Broadband Radio Club (http://www.amateurbroadband.net)

Hi my name is Mike KD5QLN, I am an officer in the ABRC (Amateur Broadband Radio Club). From our interpretation of the rules all you have to do is use your callsign for the Ethernet MAC address in the same way APRS does for station and node identification. As far as power, 100 Watts PEP is the max but you would be surprised how far 1 watt will get you (13-15 mi depending on elevation). Initially our Access Points (nodes) will operate in the 2.4 GHz spectrum, specifically 2413.0 Mhz -2418.0 Mhz classified as high rate data by the ARRL. Later on we will operate in the 2.3 Ghz spectrum. #Our AP's run the Linux OS and are completely configurable, and will for instance be able to relay APRS traffic through the serial port of the access point. This is made possible by a group called OpenAP that distributes and maintains open source Linux OS Access Point software. They can be found at . opensource.instant802.com (http://opensource.instant802.com/). The ABRC AP's will be deployed strategically in a mesh design; this will be a routed network not a bridged network, unlike current wireless systems. #

For more information on our network see our website linked above.

[Cyberblob]

This is funny I was talking about this very subject when I was in CA. Basically using 802.11b for long range network communication for two buildings about 15 miles apart and both of them on high ground the possibility was there for the connection but ultimately network security fell into play since WEP is easily breakable. I did find articles on building a 10-15 mile setup on the internet. Now if the amateur community had a grip on this new community of communications we then could move this into a new job field in short range network communication. If the FCC went for this new communication standard for amateur radio packet this would solve my problem of it is just too slow. If some company say Linksys would add AXIP encapsulation into a firmware version and a removal of WEP since encryption is not legal for hams for hams this could easily work and revolutionize packet from the slow and clumsy ham computer to ham computer communication. I for one would be very supportive of this. Amateur Radio must evolve it has been too long since we were the innovators of new technology. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

N9TOW

MCSE
Network Security Specialist

[mdown]

The way we keep non-hams from accessing our network is through MAC address registration. If your Mac Address (callsign) is not registered with the network you cannot establish a session with the Access Point.

Mike Down
KD5QLN

[mdown]

Because of the OpenAP Linux AP's we should be able to incorporate the AXIP encapsulation daemon (http://www.armed.net/how/pg002440.htm) written by Ron Atkinson (N8FOW), and Bdale Garbee (N3EUA) since our AP's run Linux.

Mike Down
KD5QLN

Isn't it highly ironic that in order to use unlicensed Part 15 devices with a ham license, you must slow it down?

Welcome to ham radio, the falling edge of technology.

If the ARRL had a clue, they'd be lobbying to lift the data rate restrictions rather than throwing tantrums about sharing the bands!

Run the stuff wide open, who would even know? It's not like the legal beagles can listen to it on a scanner & determine you are speeding in a no speed zone!

I say run it wide open. It is always easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission!

RM

[mdown]

Well I read part 97 wrong we can only use 100 watts. For more detail on Spread Spectrum and the FCC's view on it see this link. §97.305 Authorized emission types (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#311)
Mike Down
KD5QLN

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab9eh @ Mar. 28 2002,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would your network feel about a CW identification every ten minutes? #Remember, the ability to transmit FAX is limited by the need to identify your station. #Also, as I recall there are limits to data rates of 19.6 kbaud for 6 meters and up. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Misc Part 97 Clarifications (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/clarify.html)

Baud rate/bandwidth not restricted above 902 MHz. #Ham identification can be fullfilled by tunneling your callsign in the ethernet datagram. #See above the link.

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Radiomercenary @ Mar. 28 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't it highly ironic that in order to use unlicensed Part 15 devices with a ham license, you must slow it down?

Welcome to ham radio, the falling edge of technology.

If the ARRL had a clue, they'd be lobbying to lift the data rate restrictions rather than throwing tantrums about sharing the bands!

Run the stuff wide open, who would even know? It's not like the legal beagles can listen to it on a scanner & determine you are speeding in a no speed zone!

I say run it wide open. It is always easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission!

RM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wrong, you don't need to slow it down.. see 97.307(f)(1)

Above 902 MHz - No speed limit, No bandwidth limit
High Speed Amateur Packet Using Part 15 Wireless Devices (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html)

Misc. Part 97 Clarifications (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/clarify.html)

I appreciate you providing links for everyone.

I am glad to be wrong, but honestly it didn't make any sense to me. Typical misinformation & that's why I raised the point.

Maybe now Team Legal Beagle can stir up something else to hunt!

Thank you all! Excellent reading!

RM

[mdown]

From what I understand we can use part 97 devices on channels 1 - 6 on the 2.4 GHz spectrum.

see 802.11b Direct Sequence Channel to Amateur Frequency Mapping (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/dssfreq.html)

Mike Down
KD5QLN

[mdown]

FCC QUERIES WIRELESS INTERNET PROVIDER ABOUT INTERFERENCE TO HAMS


From the AARL Letter Vol.20, No. 7 Feb 16th 2001

================================================== =========

The FCC has asked a wireless Internet system provider what it intends
to do to eliminate interference to Amateur Radio operations in the
Dallas, Texas area. The FCC wrote Darwin Networks Inc on February 8,
2001, regarding complaints of harmful interference to Amateur TV on
2.4 GHz that's said to be a result of the company's deployment of
Part 15 devices in an apartment complex.

The FCC said Darwin Networks' Part 15 devices at the Post Townlake
Village property in Dallas apparently were installed in the apartment
complex to provide Internet service using wireless 2.4 GHz nodes.

In the letter, FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth noted that operators of Part 15 devices are required to
cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized (ie,
licensed) spectrum users. "Darwin Networks is obligated under
Commission rules to locate the source of interference caused by its
equipment and make necessary corrections within a reasonable time,"
he said.

According to Hollingsworth, Darwin had written the unidentified
complainant stating that its devices were operating under Part 18
Industrial, Scientific and Medical rules, which would not obligate
the company to resolve amateur complaints. But Hollingsworth said it
appears that Darwin is not operating Part 18 ISM devices but Part 15
devices that are not covered by the same sort of exception.

Hollingsworth gave Darwin Networks 10 days to reply.

================================================== =========


Interesting Huh....
Mike Down
KD5QLN

[KB5YQH]

I hate to add another website but what the heck...

TAPR has some excellent info (of course) on this subject:

TAPR Spread Spectrum (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/ssf.html)

Some of the "interesting developments" (now 3 years old!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif are relaxing of the FCC rules. Station ID by CW, etc is no longer required.


RMB

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc0goa @ Mar. 27 2002,21http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Isn't there a restriction on our baud rate that does not apply to the "shared" users? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73 de Craig............KCØGOA[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sort of - if you consider that deep down inside most modern modems they are all doing a lower baud (then as stated on the package) - take dsl for instance - not too uncommon for dsl to be doing 9600 baud. So how does it do as much as 7 megabits over a copper wire? Fancy modulation using really nifty dsp's. Plus in spread spectrum you have a whole lot more bandwidth to work with - I'm sure experimental spread spectrum part 97 rules account for this.

[KB2SSA]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif Just how far will a high gain 802.11a parabolic dish dish reach if we did run 1.5KW!!! If 1W gets you 15 miles then theoretically you could run a 22,500 mile 11Mbs link.Of course I know that it is point to point and such we are limited by the curve of the earth. But just think about the possibilities!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB5YQH @ Mar. 28 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to add another website but what the heck...

TAPR has some excellent info (of course) on this subject:

TAPR Spread Spectrum (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/ssf.html)

Some of the "interesting developments" (now 3 years old!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif are relaxing of the FCC rules. #Station ID by CW, etc is no longer required.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

"TAPR FHSS Radio Project Reports and Status Project Status - February 2001"?

What happened to the project? Nothing for over a year?

As I said, no kits. Application notes are fine but where do you get hardware?

I am happy to read any website so keep them coming! Found that searching Google for "802.11a" & "802.11b" easily provided a night or 2 worth of reading on this rather interesting subject.

This thread may just cause we at the Radio Fortress to seek forward deployment of a higher speed wireless network!

Could send "Limbo" in a blink & who would know unless you were within a few miles?

RM

[mdown]

Well the problem with 1.5 Kw is that the maximum PEP power for spread spectrum transmissions is 100 watts.

see §97.311 Spread Spectrum Emission types (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#311) of the FCC part 97 rules.

Mike Down
KD5QLN

[KB5YQH]

100 watts is correct. Hey, at 2.4 GHz you can almost cook a turkey with that http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

I have to add this one...Somebody earlier mentioned something about "appliance users", or something like that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Remember, there's room for LOTS of different types in this hobby AND developing new TECHNIQUES, procedures, modes, etc is just as important (probably more so) as developing hardware.

Face it - the hardware is becomming so complex that, unless you're adept at microscopic soldering and have your own clean room at home you're really an "appliance user" no matter what. You're just using integrated circiut "appliances". If you're still winding coils and tuning crystal-controlled oscillators you ain't inovating.

Think SYSTEMS! That's what we need to do to maintain our relevance and keep our precious spectrum space.

This idea (SS WLAN, highspeed packet, etc) is exactly where we need to go. Believe me, the time is ripe for
this thing to take off. It's up to us to make it happen.

Remember the NetRom and ROSE packet networks from a decade ago?

Hopefully we can get a national spread spectrum packet network going and I'll be typing this message on qrz.ham not qrz.com.

73!

RMB

[N3HGB]

I am glad to see hams interested in new technology, but there is a big catch here. There are many groups already working with this and setting up wireless nodes all over the country. They may technically be violating some rules with adding antennas, but no one cares. If I could have a choice of an unlicensed access point to run an internet link and get encryption, porn, business email, and anything else I can do over a landline ISP or use a ham link and be restricted by all the rules that apply to our service, which one makes more sense?

[mdown]

The broadband ham network allows distant repeaters to be linked together, ATV to be rebroadcast, real-time voice conversations, real-time video, APRS to be rebroadcast, a private .ham extension for websites and email, a limited internet proxy for email and websites pertaining to amateur radio with out commercial content, a fast alternative to packet radio (packet radio can tunnel through the new network), and our own network free of spam, porn, and non-hams. But best of all access to it is free unlike wireless internet with prices upwards of $200 a month.

Mike Down
KD5QLN
Amateur Broadband Radio Network (http://www.abrn.org)

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3HGB @ Mar. 28 2002,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A web search would reveal a huge number of experimenters have been doing this stuff for quite some time now and they aren't connected to ham radio at all.
This is interesting and fun, but it isn't ham radio. Now if someone wants to figure out a way to run these things through a linear we might get somewhere!
73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
One step ahead of you. We have buildt homebrew amps. See my other link GBPPR "The Low Cost Wireless How-To"

GBPPR - Low Cost Wireless Network How-To (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/)

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mdown @ Mar. 29 2002,12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The broadband ham network allows distant repeaters to be linked together, ATV to be rebroadcast, real-time voice conversations, real-time video, APRS to be rebroadcast, a private .ham extension for websites and email, a limited internet proxy for email and websites pertaining to amateur radio with out commercial content, a fast alternative to packet radio (packet radio can tunnel through the new network), and our own network free of spam, porn, and non-hams. But best of all access to it is free unlike wireless internet with prices upwards of $200 a month.

Mike Down
KD5QLN
Amateur Broadband Radio Network (http://www.abrn.org)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Exactly. Not to forget its usefullness in emergency communications. The ability to transfer a emergency coordination plan PDF over existing packet is non-exsistant.

As pointed out we have 16.7 million IP address reserved:

The Digital Domain of Amateur Radio (http://www.youthtech.com/hamradio/tcp-ip.htm)

[kd4e]

I find this discussion fascinating! The local technical specialists here in the West Central Florida section have been testing such a network for over a year. (Problem is that they are so busy experimenting that it is difficult to get specific answers about the best devices to acquire.)

I have just ordered one of the new Sharp Zaurus Linux-based handheld pc's and would like to choose a wireless CF or SD card that can do triple-duty, link with the wireless network at work, wireless network at home, and Amateur Wireless ... is that possible?

If this is possible what are the specific CF or SD wireless cards that folks have used for such multiple purposes, please?

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

[mdown]

I have a question for the ham do-it your selfers. How hard would it be to modify a part 15 2.4 GHz device to be in the 2.3 GHz band?

[n7wsb]

My brother and I #have already started speculating what you could do with this - maybe a digital radio? I was holding my ipaq the other day with its lucent wavelan card in it thinking hmm - everything is right here actually - its got a loud speaker, microphone, pcmcia/cf adapter - it even has a push to talk button (and no I'm not kidding it really does). All we need is some multi-cast capable application voip application and presto. I say multicast because A) it could be selective and B) would be a whole lot less bandwidth intensive. Plus if you missed anything because of reception problem it wouldn't "waste" bandwidth trying to resend.

Cool thing being is you could set up trunks to link digital voice/data repeaters together via the internet or wireless lines - and it would be SO EASY TO DO! In fact it would be so easy that my head is spinning with ideas.

anyhoo - as soon as I get the money (anyone want to hire a out of work ham/it guy let me know) I'm going to seriously develope a amateur network in the portland metro area (in oregon) for data (voip and regular tcp/icmp/udp data) - I think it would be fun.

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mdown @ Mar. 30 2002,00:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a question for the ham do-it your selfers. How hard would it be to modify a part 15 2.4 GHz device to be in the 2.3 GHz band?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is something I hope to see. I figure if the right people get interested in this it may become a reality. Without transverting it is possible to re-program (eeproms) all cards though manufacture/service software. Most are set with to conform to the intended country of sale's ISM bandplan. By simply changing the country code you could change the devices bandplan. Here are all the ISM bandplans I know of:

ISM bandplans (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/int-ism.txt)

This whole discussion has rekindled my interest in using 2.4 GHz. I was doing some searching & for anyone looking for a cheap way to get on AO-40 2.4GHz, take a look at K5GNA's 2.4GHz Hardware (http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=k5gna&include=0&since=-1&sort=2&rows=25)

I have no connection with this guy but he is offering #"plug N play" solutions to getting on 2.4 & using it. Antennas are an important part & he has some to choose from. I am going to be able to hear AO-40 very soon... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Enjoy it!

RM

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mdown @ Mar. 28 2002,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FCC QUERIES WIRELESS INTERNET PROVIDER ABOUT INTERFERENCE TO HAMS[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Proves hams (Part 97) has priority over unlicensed Part 15 users. Which is kind of the whole point of re-classifying.

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB5YQH @ Mar. 28 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to add another website but what the heck...

TAPR has some excellent info (of course) on this subject:

TAPR Spread Spectrum (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/ssf.html)

Some of the "interesting developments" (now 3 years old!) are relaxing of the FCC rules. #Station ID by CW, etc is no longer required. #


RMB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Excellent would not be my word of choice. Most of the info. in that section is dated. And as someone pointed out the 900 MHz FHSS radio is in major limbo.

Thought this was interesting:

On March 22, 2002 the ARRL announced K8OCL is to chair ARRL's High-Speed Digital and Multimedia Working Group. This is funny because a few years back the ARRL effectively
washed it's hands in packet and turned everything over to TAPR. This news implies the ARRL (feels much the same way I do) has no confidence in TAPR to do anything advanced in the digital arena. Otherwhise they would not have taken upon themselves to do this.

[n1aup]

Why can't hams replace these low power transmitter / receiver combinations with higher power ham radio, microwave equipment and decent antennas?

What if ham radio could provide 100 megabit, wireless, internet backbones connecting every state in the union to take over for the internet in times of national emergency? We could interface this backbone mesh with the computers of emergency service personnel running TCPIP with no reconfiguration of the computers themselves (by using the 802.11B equipment as the interface between the local network / computers and the ham radio WAN backbone.

I hear that the Linksys wireless access point boxes use the standard PCMCIA wireless card inside as the radio portion of the technology, so it might not be too difficult to replace the radio piece with something better.

Please don't tell me why this won't work. I'm very skilled at coming up with 1000s of reasons why this idea is far-fetched. Please tell me intelligent reasons how we can make this happen.

If ham radio can develop this communications system, it would rescue ham radio from extinction.

Is anyone else excited about this?

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1aup @ April 01 2002,12:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please don't tell me why this won't work. #I'm very skilled at coming up with 1000s of reasons why this idea is far-fetched. #Please tell me intelligent reasons how we can make this happen. #

If ham radio can develop this communications system, it would rescue ham radio from extinction.

Is anyone else excited about this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We don't necessarily need higher power to do what you describe. Do a search on "Merticom's Ricochet wireless network." In short that was a commerical attempt to offer nationwide wireless access delievered by part 15 900 MHz radios. It was rather sucessful until they filed for chapter 11. There is no good reason we can't pull something of a simular nature off. But we will need: to work together; and decent tower/site access, ect. And I do believe you are right in saying such a system could help prevent our extinction.

[mdown]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1aup @ April 02 2002,05<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why can't hams replace these low power transmitter / receiver combinations with higher power ham radio, microwave equipment and decent antennas?

What if ham radio could provide 100 megabit, wireless, internet backbones connecting every state in the union to take over for the internet in times of national emergency? #We could interface this backbone mesh with the computers of emergency service personnel running TCPIP with no reconfiguration of the computers themselves (by using the 802.11B equipment as the interface between the local network / computers and the ham radio WAN backbone.

I hear that the Linksys wireless access point boxes use the standard PCMCIA wireless card inside as the radio portion of the technology, so it might not be too difficult to replace the radio piece with something better. #

Please don't tell me why this won't work. #I'm very skilled at coming up with 1000s of reasons why this idea is far-fetched. #Please tell me intelligent reasons how we can make this happen. #

If ham radio can develop this communications system, it would rescue ham radio from extinction.

Is anyone else excited about this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are talking about the eventual goal of the Amateur Broadband Radio Network, at it's maturity we envision a "Ham Internet" network isolated from the public Internet for ham and emergency communications. As my brother and I work for an isp we understand the complexities involved with setting up broadband, high-speed, and wide area networks. Our first goal is to link up the entire state of Oklahoma (where we live at) and go from there. One issue that we have been running into is the cost of access points, we hope to obtain several access points from a company in the form of a donation to a non-profit organization.

[K5PYR]

I've seen proxim's products go 17miles with a parabolic antenna for 100mbps. This things operate in the 5.4GHz band like 802.11a (but not complient). I hope someone finds a way to carry such a signal. reading 10Mbps microwave link (http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx/#uwave). I was thinking of what kind of modulation you could use (like proxim) and any transmitters that would be able to handle such bandwidth?

KD5NQD

The use of microwave 2.4 ghz Lan products is wonderful for those of us who are computer nuts and want to be able to set up small networks... #I am currently working on a small wireless lan project in Wyandotte, MI, between myself and some of my friends. #
On an interesting side note, check out this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1860000/1860241.stm
The idea of hackers using pringles cans to spot wireless networks should amuse some of you....

Paul G-
KC8SQC

[mdown]

Pringles can.. that's sad.. We had our "seek truck" out-rigged with an amber revolving light, a non-penetrating roof mount strapped down to the bed of the truck with tie downs, attached to the roof mount was an 8 foot pole, #a rotor, #a 24dB gain dish, and a half watt amp. We could see networks miles and miles away. We had so much fun sitting atop hills rotating our dish to see onslaught of people with "Wireless Cable/DSL Routers" named "Default", We died laughing when we came across a "computer security company" that basically had its entire network open for everyone to see. Another funny moment was when we were driving through a residential area and someone came up to us and asked if we were the cable company looking for illegal connections. We died laughing again. Our original goal was to map out our towers current wireless internet coverage. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pyr @ April 01 2002,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've seen proxim's products go 17miles with a parabolic antenna for 100mbps. This things operate in the 5.4GHz band like 802.11a (but not complient). I hope someone finds a way to carry such a signal. reading 10Mbps microwave link (http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx/#uwave). I was thinking of what kind of modulation you could use (like proxim) and any transmitters that would be able to handle such bandwidth?

KD5NQD[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Our Proxim cards are 2.4 GHz, FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum) with +23 dBm output power stock. They have a 1.6 Mbps signalling rate. The Symphony's use 2 level FSK at 800 kbps, and 4 level FSK at 1.6 Mbps FHSS, 79 channels each with about 1 MHz bandwidth stock. The default frequency hopping time is 200 milliseconds and is changeable. Frequency hopping systems are based on conventional narrowband radio technology.##This allowed us to use standard test equipment to check the RF sections. We designed 1 watt Bi-directional amplifer using RF-microdevices RF2126.



More info click here (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/)

[mdown]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: steve35@att.net [mailto:steve35@att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:16 AM
> To: mdown@kd5qln.com
> Subject: Linking up Oklahoma
>
>
> Email Generated by QRZ Message Systemmdown,
>
> This email has been sent from w9sn via Ikonboard.
>
> (http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi)
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> (Your Quote:)
> "You are talking about the eventual goal of the Amateur
> Broadband Radio Network, at its maturity we envision a Ham
> Internet network isolated from the public Internet for ham
> and emergency communications. As my brother and I work for an
> isp we understand the complexities involved with setting up
> broadband, high-speed, and wide area networks. Our first goal
> is to link up the entire state of Oklahoma (where we live at)
> and go from there. One issue that we have been running into
> is the cost of access points, we hope to obtain several
> access points from a company in the form of a donation to a
> non-profit organization."
>
> The information on this has some holes in it. Would we be
> allowed to link other homeowners (non-hams) to our ham system
> with full internet high speed access?
> Could we sell this service to them?? This sounds exciting
> thanks for your input....Steve

No because non ham's cannot legally operate part 97 devices.
Are we currently allowed to sell airtime on our ham radios?
On this "Ham Internet" you wont be able to go to www.yahoo.com or www.nytimes.com for instance.
This network is to be used for non-commercial ham and civil emergency activities. We will however have websites for hams, ARRL, SkyWarn, ect. If you look at our website under the about section you will see this paragraph.

"The ABRN is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for buying access to the Internet from a local Internet Service Provider. It is an experimental network which should not be relied upon to provide 100% dependable communications."

The only people that will have legal access to the network are genuine FCC licensed amateur operators.

I hope this helps clarify what this network is for.

Mike et al,

Lots of interesting stuff on this thread but maybe you can clarify a few things. I understand from reading the other messages that hams can use up to 100W within out bands which, when added to a 24db gain dish, gives a range of, uh . . ., well lets just say a whole bunch of miles.

What is the power limit on vanilla 802.11 boxes used by non-hams? I would think that a regular Part 15 box with a high gain dish would give some serious range. No?

[mdown]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab9eh @ April 04 2002,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mike et al,

Lots of interesting stuff on this thread but maybe you can clarify a few things. #I understand from reading the other messages that hams can use up to 100W within out bands which, when added to a 24db gain dish, gives a range of, uh . . ., well lets just say a whole bunch of miles.

What is the power limit on vanilla 802.11 boxes used by non-hams? #I would think that a regular Part 15 box with a high gain dish would give some serious range. #No?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

According to Title 47 Chapter I Part 15 Subpart C Section 15.247 ii b; The maximum power the FCC allows Part 15 devices to transmit is 1 watt, this includes the radio, coax, amp (if any), and Antenna, The entire system cannot radiate more than 1 watt of power. #see FCC Code Title 47, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 19 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=15&SECTION=247&YEAR=1999&TYPE=TEXT) for more detailed info.

[kb9mwr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab9eh @ April 03 2002,13:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is the power limit on vanilla 802.11 boxes used by non-hams? #I would think that a regular Part 15 box with a high gain dish would give some serious range. #No?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Correct you can obtain 15-20 miles with true line of site within
Part 15 power limits.

Here is a power comparison (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html)

I just think we hams should be using this as an alternative to
existing 1200/9600 systems.

What better way to start using those unused bands?

There really is no excuse not to try something on 2.4GHz. The 802.11 info on the net is endless. Here is a plan I found for a homebrew 6dBi gain 2.4 GHz Colinear Omnidirectional Antenna (http://www.guerrilla.net/reference/antennas/2ghz_collinear_omni/)

RM

[K5PYR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb9mwr @ April 03 2002,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pyr @ April 01 2002,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've seen proxim's products go 17miles with a parabolic antenna for 100mbps. This things operate in the 5.4GHz band like 802.11a (but not complient). I hope someone finds a way to carry such a signal. reading 10Mbps microwave link (http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx/#uwave). I was thinking of what kind of modulation you could use (like proxim) and any transmitters that would be able to handle such bandwidth?

KD5NQD[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Our Proxim cards are 2.4 GHz, FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum) with +23 dBm output power stock. #They have a 1.6 Mbps signalling rate. #The Symphony's use 2 level FSK at 800 kbps, and 4 level FSK at 1.6 Mbps FHSS, 79 channels each with about 1 MHz bandwidth stock. #The default frequency hopping time is 200 milliseconds and is changeable. Frequency hopping systems are based on conventional narrowband radio technology.##This allowed us to use standard test equipment to check the RF sections. #We designed 1 watt Bi-directional amplifer using RF-microdevices RF2126.



More info click here (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I get the 2.4GHz cards but I was mainly refering to the Stratum 100 wireless system in my original post.

[n9zia]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mdown @ Mar. 30 2002,00:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a question for the ham do-it your selfers. How hard would it be to modify a part 15 2.4 GHz device to be in the 2.3 GHz band?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It should be possible, there are a few people currently working on transverting the 2.4 GHz signal down to the 1.2 GHz or 900 MHz bands. No hardware exists currently, it's all just scribbles in a notebook for now.

Here is a theoretical overview of a 2.4 GHz to 900 MHz wireless LAN transverter (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/2400-to-900.html)

[n9zia]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1aup @ April 02 2002,11<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why can't hams replace these low power transmitter / receiver combinations with higher power ham radio, microwave equipment and decent antennas?

What if ham radio could provide 100 megabit, wireless, internet backbones connecting every state in the union to take over for the internet in times of national emergency? We could interface this backbone mesh with the computers of emergency service personnel running TCPIP with no reconfiguration of the computers themselves (by using the 802.11B equipment as the interface between the local network / computers and the ham radio WAN backbone.

I hear that the Linksys wireless access point boxes use the standard PCMCIA wireless card inside as the radio portion of the technology, so it might not be too difficult to replace the radio piece with something better.

Please don't tell me why this won't work. I'm very skilled at coming up with 1000s of reasons why this idea is far-fetched. Please tell me intelligent reasons how we can make this happen.

If ham radio can develop this communications system, it would rescue ham radio from extinction.

Is anyone else excited about this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


The main problem is the old, senile hams who control the local amateur packet networks. Most of these people have never heard of Claude Shannon, and think 1970's bipolar Motorola radios and 1200 bps AFSK is the way to go.

Example, one of the local packet "gods" told me I couldn't TX/RX switch 10 Watts @ 900 MHz in under 100 microseconds for one of our 2 Mbps links. Guess what? I've got the hardware to switch at around 40 microseconds. It's these egotistical ways which are killing modern packet radio.

You guys are making this too simple. Actually, Part 15 regulates the ERP, not the raw power output. Therefore, if you stick a high gain antenna on, it will violate the max ERP limitation.

Also, somebody here mentioned that these devices are spread spectrum. If thats true, then you wouldn't be able to just stick this thing on the ham bands with a minor modification. Spread sprectrum devices pseudo-randomly switch between many different frequencies, eating up a lot of bandwidth.

Also, somebody said that you would have to CW ID your wireless LAN card every 10 minutes. Thats bogus-- you don't have to do that with packet radio today! All you have to do is have your call sign on each packet.

Which brings me to my final point.... You wold have to adapt these things to use AX.25 so that the callsign routing system is retained without WEP encryption. Good luck on doing that with a highly integrated SMD constructed device with embedded microcontrollers. I know that regular ethernet uses a MAC address for identification....Wireless ethernet might use the same MAC addressing scheme.