125 mile 2.4 GHz record Wi-Fi connection

[ve3lny]

Hams may be interested in this story about a record 125 mile Wi-Fi contact on 2.4 GHz.

"During this year's Defcon WiFi Shootout, reigning champions Team iFiber Redwire trekked to the Las Vegas, Nevada desert area to test the limits of WiFi connectivity on July 30. The result was a successful, unamplified 11 Mbps connection over a distance of 124.9 miles for three hours between Las Vegas, Nevada and Utah Hill, Utah."

EITplanet.com (http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/networking/news/article.php/3524491)

A description of the event and some fantastic photos can be found at WiFi Shootout (http://pasadena.net/shootout05/)

73, Jack VE3LNY

[WA2ZDY]

I'm glad the article points out that this was done by hams. That clarifies the use of the large dishes and higher power. It also means their content was limited to what is permissable over the ham bands.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but keep in mind Joe Citizen or even Joe Average Ham cannot duplicate this. Most folks do/see things on the internet that would not be appropriate for the ham bands and most hopefully are using encryption for their security. Encryption is not legal on the ham bands at all.

So for most of us, we need to stick to the limits allowed by 47 CFR Part 15. And those limits would certainly never permit a 124.9 mile path.

So while this is a commendable achievement, it has less to do with WiFI than it does simply with 2.4 GHz propagation. For most, this article would be seen as deceiving.

[HB9DRV]

They used only the standard laptop's WiFi power, not high power - it's all in the article.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 21 2005,11:22)]I'm glad the article points out that this was done by hams. #That clarifies the use of the large dishes and higher power. #It also means their content was limited to what is permissable over the ham bands. #

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but keep in mind Joe Citizen or even Joe Average Ham cannot duplicate this. #Most folks do/see things on the internet that would not be appropriate for the ham bands and most hopefully are using encryption for their security. #Encryption is not legal on the ham bands at all.

So for most of us, we need to stick to the limits allowed by 47 CFR Part 15. #And those limits would certainly never permit a 124.9 mile path.

So while this is a commendable achievement, it has less to do with WiFI than it does simply with 2.4 GHz propagation. #For most, this article would be seen as deceiving.
Why should hams stick to Part 15 power limits?

I have a robot project with some students that are working on a remote sensing project using wifi as the interconnecting link. We hoping this can be done over links of several miles using only wifi - i.e. radio.

It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr

[W7DJM]

AB0WR said:


""""Why should hams stick to Part 15 power limits?""""


You are misinterperating. # What the deal is, is, # if you are not an amateur, #operating UNDER YOUR LICENSE, #your wifi, or any other radio transmitting equipment, # which includes everything from baby monitors, TV/Dish remotes, #cordless phones, #MUST be operated under Part 15---which means, #that they CANNOT be modified, in any way.

That's the reason, for example, that FRS radios MUST by law have a permanently attached antenna--so you won't hook the radio up to a Great Big antenna up your tower.

On the other hand, # if you DO modify a wifi device and operate it "under you amateur license" # IN #the amateur band, by the way, # what this means is, #that the CONTENT of what you send is limited.

To put it simply, # a wifi device, #operated under amateur regulations, #can't even send this very here webpage, because it contains commercial advertising.

[n0zu]

"""COOL"""
Hope that they get farther next year.

[WA2ZDY]

HB9DRV, youre correct, but they used 10 and 12 foot dishes, clearly the ERP of such violates the Part 15 rules here in the US. #I don't know what the laws are in your country, but here an average consumer could not legally use the setup used in this test. # And for a ham to use it, he/she would have to comply with amateur rules, which in the USA prohibit encryption and a lot of the content that would otherwise flow over a WiFi LAN. #You can't have it both ways here in the US.

ABØWR, hams shouldn't. #Heck, run 1500w out to those dishes, that's fine (if it were technically feasible.) #But in doing so, as I said above, you must comply with Part 97 rules, not Part 15. #And that means no encryption - dangerous for a wireless LAN, and the content is restricted to what is legal on the ham bands. #

The deceptive side of the article is where the headline grabs a casual reader and makes him/her think "wow, I can get MY LAN to do that, or at least work from here to the office." # And that isn't true. #

I stand by my feelings as expressed in my original post.

[ke5eiy]

Quote[/b] ]The deceptive side of the article is where the headline grabs a casual reader and makes him/her think "wow, I can get MY LAN to do that, or at least work from here to the office." And that isn't true.

You are reading way too much into this. Can you point to the exact words for me in what was posted? This only has to do with experimentation of Wi-Fi. We as hams are still allowed to do this right? Now the military and maybe the commerical applications for this in the future are huge. Live and think out side the box. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kb2kuu]

I doubt that we have to worry about Joe average computer user trying to attempt anything closely related to this. The cost alone would be prohibitive. This is far from an amateur setup. here is a quote from the article

" The team had spent much of their summer break from University to build and test their equipment. With surplus satellite dishes scrounged from their home area, building a custom trailer for the remote station, assembling all the scaffolding for the base station and testing. The teams talents in welding, mathematics, electronics, ham radio, programming, and Linux were all necessary to break their previous record."

I think you can rest easy now.

Anyway I think that this is great stuff. kudos to the hams. Does anyone know their callsigns?

[KL7FZ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 21 2005,13:13)]It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr
Oh!!! Groan! Not another license class with no knowledge! Yep, that's right. We want them fooling around with microwave stuff with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE! Oh that's a good idea. Uh-huh.
Geepers!
Bite your tongue!

KL7FZ

[k0kma]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 21 2005,13:13)]Why should hams stick to Part 15 power limits?

I have a robot project with some students that are working on a remote sensing project using wifi as the interconnecting link. We hoping this can be done over links of several miles using only wifi - i.e. radio.

It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr
HF antennas are a lot more forgiving than one that has to operate on 2.4 GIG!!!!!!

2.4 gig @ 1500watts = Microwave oven!!!!

I think you would need to know a little something, dont you?

Phineas
K0KMA

[w1yw]

It's not clear to me that this was legal--either as Part 15 or Part 97. If not, that is unacceptable. However, it does underscore a point I have made for some time: amateur 'wireless' is becoming a morphed version of amateur 'radio.'

K3NG has an excellent FAQ for the wireless LAN guys vis a vis ham radio. Check it out:

http://www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/ham_wisp.html

[k9ctb]

For those of you missing the point: #What amateurs need, and what we are laying groundwork for, is "internet speed" *amateur* links. #This would enable us to transfer *amateur* related information and files at very high speeds. #All without "spam" and any other junk that causes congestion or is otherwise undesirable. #Part 15 is for consumers. #Amateurs are concerned with part 97 and the very language of the law would force strict controls on the content of the network.......what a great thing.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 21 2005,13:13)]It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr
That was the original purpose of the Technician license.

[wj9j]

Those who think you cannot modify wifi equipment are correct. However, you can buy FCC (Part 95) certified dishes to operate with specific 802.11 cards. With this a combination of 40 millaWatts and 24 dbi dishes is easily obtainable (and legal). You just have to pick out an FCC certified pair. www.hyperlinktech.com is a good starting point

That said, a friend and I have easily accomplished 43 miles LOS with off the shelf parts as such. The problem starts when you try to send data (more than just hearing the SSID broadcast).

You have to adjust the timing of certain parameters because wifi works like packet radio, it is half duplex. The stuff was not designed for long range and the timing has to be adjusted. (That's why they used Linux for more control over some of those functions). Because each signal is delayed at a distance, the links have the propensity to step on each other.

I have had some success with relatively short distances (2 miles) using linksys equipment with Satori software. I have had a continuous link up for almost a year running about -78 dbm, although some issues in heavy rain.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (wj9j @ Aug. 22 2005,00:25)]You have to adjust the timing of certain parameters because wifi works like packet radio, it is half duplex. #The stuff was not designed for long range and the timing has to be adjusted. (That's why they used Linux for more control over some of those functions). #Because each signal is delayed at a distance, the links have the propensity to step on each other.
As Fonzie used to say "Correctumundo". The network will become flooded with retry requests as the propogation delay goes beyond the distance it was designed for.

[n7okl]

While not legal under Part 15 rules, there are a huge number of consumers using very high-gain antennas and amps on their Wi-Fi gear...

Lets face it...how many consumers are even aware there are rules on their use of the equipment let alone know what the limits are.....

Mel
N7OKL

[w4gov]

Hello,

To experiment in the WI-FI portions of 2.4GHz is allowed. There is nothing that says you cannot use better antennas to boost your signal. You can also use amplifiers to boost your WI-FI signal and you don't even need a license for that either! You can purchase, online or Best Buy, higher gain antennas for your WI-FI devices.

Here are the specs on the COTS WI-FI card they used for this event:
Part Number: Z-Com XI-325HP+

Description: Wireless PC Card with removable antenna

Up 24.7 dBm transmit output power
Long operating range, up to four times range of standard products
Compliant IEEE 802.11b

Automatic data rate scaling at 11, 5.5, 2 and 1 Mbps
Optimized throughput, range and connectivity

Advanced Power Management Extended battery life
Plug and Play Easy installation

External antenna included and is removable to expose external RP-MMCX connectors. See our other items for RP-MMCX pigtails, cable assemblies and antennas.



You can purchase a WI-FI PCMCIA card that has an externall antenna jack. With this, you can hook up a 11.5DB gain antenna that you can buy at best buy, to your card on the roof of your house to create a larger footprint network. This is all legal!

check this link for COTS external antennas and aplifiers for WI-FI! http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/antennas_2400.php

Also, anyone, regardless of being a ham or not, can dupicate this event. Having a Ham License has nothing to do with modifying the antenna only, and operating in the already allowed spectrum of WI-FI. The only Ham related piece they used in this event was the 2M link for voice communications.

They also did NOT use an amplifier until they tried to make a further distance contact. Even still, this is also allowed. The COTS amplifiers on the market, are FCC rated and allowed for anyone to purchase, no license needed!

I think it was a great shot at 125 miles! I hope they make it further next year!

Part 15 has nothing to do with this. The test conformed to part 15 at any rate.

This event conformed to all the rules and did not deviate from the equipment UL/FCC ratings. The only items that were modifed were the antennas.

Also, it is impossible to do this while operating under a Ham License. A Ham License has absolutely nothing to do with the WI-FI portion of the specturm.

Thanks
Adam
KA1ZFE/KG4BB

[K3UD]

And some states want to outlaw the pringles can http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73
George
K3UD

[ka0gkt]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 21 2005,13:13)]It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr
The FCC issues experimental licenses all of the time, however there is one license which would allow experimentation, it is relaftively simple to get, the test isn't at all demanding, and requires less technical knowlege than needed to build a robot...It's called the No Code Technicians Amateur License. #There should be no problems with you students passing their NCT...if there is, then perhaps they aren't technically savvy enough to work on robotics.

73 DE KAØGKT/7
--Steve

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (ka1zfe @ Aug. 22 2005,12:05)]Also, it is impossible to do this while operating under a Ham License. A Ham License has absolutely nothing to do with the WI-FI portion of the specturm.
Adam,

I think you need to look at the frequency for each of the 11 channels in the 802.11b/g spec and compare that to the amateur frequency allocations at 2.4Ghz. You will see there is an overlap. Also, check out the amateur HSMM project which uses 802.11 gear for it's basis on the ARRL web site.

Amateur High Speed Digital Networks (http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/)

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[ka0gkt]

Quote[/b] (ka1zfe @ Aug. 22 2005,12:05)]...Also, it is impossible to do this while operating under a Ham License. A Ham License has absolutely nothing to do with the WI-FI portion of the specturm.

Thanks
Adam
KA1ZFE/KG4BB
Pardon Moi, as a licensee I have greater rights to the portions of the band relegated to WiFi than do the unlicensed part 15 occupants.

For those who are unaware:

802.11A, Channels 9-12 are within the 5.65 to 5.925 GHz Amateur band.

802.11B and 802.11G, Channels 1 through 8 are within the 2.39 to 2.45 GHz Amateur band.

While it may seem a technicality, an amateur with a WiFi router tuned to a frequency within an amateur band could be cited for violations of the part 97 rules by his WiFi connection, hense, unless in amateur service, I recommend that when using 802.11A, HAMs utilize channels 1 through 6 and when using a 802.11B/G channels 9,10 or 11 be used to remain under the part 15 rules and not he part 97 rules.

73 DE KAØGKT/7
--Steve

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (ka1zfe @ Aug. 22 2005,06:05)]Part 15 has nothing to do with this. The test conformed to part 15 at any rate.
No, it did not. They were using 300mW cards into antennas with more than 30db of gain. With gain that large, they would have been limited to less than 200mW to remain legal under part 15.

[w5aox]

Golly, I have an idea! #Let's most of us argue about the legalities of what's already going on while the guys doing actual experimentation keep plugging away, increasing their (and our) abilities.....
Many of us choose to ignore the fact that hams have an ancient and established tradition of bootlegging, experimentation outside the limits of whatever license held, etc. #Without that, the radio art would have been largely advanced by non-hams.
In the early 1900's, the FCC acted under pressure from RCA to try to keep hams from RECEIVING without a license, and it was under pressure from RCA that the FCC actually ABOLISHED an existing FM Broadcast band pioneered by Edwin Armstrong (the old 42 MHZ FM band on some of our antique radios) because RCA feared the competition of static-free broadcasts they didn't hold patents on. #So let's not get too wound up about whether there's a paragraph somewhere in the rules that gives us something to huff and puff about.
The FCC has also proven in the past that it will legalize activity that becomes popular enough (witness the expansion of CB channels from 23 to 40, establishing the old bootleg #channels of 27.385 to Channel 38 and 27.405 to channel 40), as well as allowing "ordering pizza" over amateur radio automatic phone patches, which many of us do not even realize is now legal.
Too many of us denounce something as "not in the rules" when we haven't even READ the rules since we studied for our ham tests.
Bravo to these experimenters, licensed and not, who are advancing the frontiers of our knowledge and ability.
I find it distressing to see more construction articles on non-ham web sites about building microwave antennas...
We seem to be turning into a majority of gripers than builders and experimenters. #Then again, many saltier hams say it has always been thus.....

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (w5aox @ Aug. 22 2005,13:30)]Golly, I have an idea! #Let's most of us argue about the legalities of what's already going on while the guys doing actual experimentation keep plugging away, increasing their (and our) abilities.....
Many of us choose to ignore the fact that hams have an ancient and established tradition of bootlegging, experimentation outside the limits of whatever license held, etc. #Without that, the radio art would have been largely advanced by non-hams.
In the early 1900's, the FCC acted under pressure from RCA to try to keep hams from RECEIVING without a license, and it was under pressure from RCA that the FCC actually ABOLISHED an existing FM Broadcast band pioneered by Edwin Armstrong (the old 42 MHZ FM band on some of our antique radios) because RCA feared the competition of static-free broadcasts they didn't hold patents on. #So let's not get too wound up about whether there's a paragraph somewhere in the rules that gives us something to huff and puff about.
The FCC has also proven in the past that it will legalize activity that becomes popular enough (witness the expansion of CB channels from 23 to 40, establishing the old bootleg #channels of 27.385 to Channel 38 and 27.405 to channel 40), as well as allowing "ordering pizza" over amateur radio automatic phone patches, which many of us do not even realize is now legal.
Too many of us denounce something as "not in the rules" when we haven't even READ the rules since we studied for our ham tests.
Bravo to these experimenters, licensed and not, who are advancing the frontiers of our knowledge and ability.
I find it distressing to see more construction articles on non-ham web sites about building microwave antennas...
We seem to be turning into a majority of gripers than builders and experimenters. #Then again, many saltier hams say it has always been thus.....
It's 2005....

I am very enthusiastic about turning in each and every 'bootlegger' I hear. Take away their licenses.

OK OM:-)?

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Aug. 22 2005,13:16)]Quote[/b] (ka1zfe @ Aug. 22 2005,06:05)]Part 15 has nothing to do with this. The test conformed to part 15 at any rate.
No, it did not. They were using 300mW cards into antennas with more than 30db of gain. With gain that large, they would have been limited to less than 200mW to remain legal under part 15.
BTW....Terry knows what he's talking about. Listen to him.

[w4gov]

Thank for citing my ingnorance. Next time I will research my response a bit better.

I am just happy to see a line of site link that far on 300mw using 802.11 and I am sick of everyone always ripping apart something so small and neat.

Thanks
KA1ZFE/KG4BB

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (w5aox @ Aug. 22 2005,16:30)]Golly, I have an idea! Let's most of us argue about the legalities of what's already going on while the guys doing actual experimentation keep plugging away, increasing their (and our) abilities.....
You hit the nail on the head. These folks on here read way too much into the rules and that stiffles inovation and experimintation. Without these experimenters we would still be pounding away on wired telegraph or even worse still using the pony express.

73 de Greg
KC7GNM

[KF4FSE]

While I do think they were overstepping the Part 15 power limitation on 2.4GHz, to my knowledge you can experiment all you want as long as you stay under the designated power limits. I've seen a few posts here regarding modification of the antennas and such, but that isn't illegal to the best of my knowledge. You cannot sell a non-FCC certified set, but as an end-user you may modify your equipment provided it still confirms to the part 15 rules.

Oh, and some people on here were also talking about using it as an amateur and not allowing commercial traffic. From what I understand, and this is after some consultation with the FCC on some past questions, commercial traffic is that which directly benefits you financially. Viewing a website that had advertisements on it probably would not be in violation of the rules. However, using an amateur frequency to sell some service would be in violation. You can talk about rigs, where to buy them, prices, etc., all you want, even if you're telling people to head over to Radio Shack to buy some parts. You would not be allowed to actually use amateur frequencies to cooridinate sales events.

Anyway, just my $0.02. It's late, so my grammar has more or less gone to crap. Sorry! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[WA2ZDY]

FSE, you're quite correct about commercial traffic. I was thinking more of the porn popups we suffer here. Porn cannot be sent over a Part 97 link. And nobody has brought up my WiFi encryption comments. Who would run anything over WiFi without encryption? If a ham uses WiFI outside the Part 15 limits, he must then follow Part 97 rules, which prohibit encryption.

I did not "rip apart" the experimentation angle of this project. I was pointing out that the ARTICLE about it is deceiving. It is not made clear to the average reader that this activity would not be legal for an average non-ham consumer to use on the home LAN. That's all.

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Aug. 22 2005,20:40)]Quote[/b] (w5aox @ Aug. 22 2005,16:30)]Golly, I have an idea! #Let's most of us argue about the legalities of what's already going on while the guys doing actual experimentation keep plugging away, increasing their (and our) abilities.....
You hit the nail on the head. These folks on here read way too much into the rules and that stiffles inovation and experimintation. Without these experimenters we would still be pounding away on wired telegraph or even worse still using the pony express.

73 de Greg
KC7GNM
Sport,

Do your homework before you accuse those exhorting legal operation to be stifling innovation.

If ham radio needs to be illegal to innovate, then we should shut it down.

In any case, your response requires correction, so others are not misled.

[wj9j]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,04:48)]FSE, you're quite correct about commercial traffic. I was thinking more of the porn popups we suffer here. Porn cannot be sent over a Part 97 link. And nobody has brought up my WiFi encryption comments. Who would run anything over WiFi without encryption? If a ham uses WiFI outside the Part 15 limits, he must then follow Part 97 rules, which prohibit encryption.

I did not "rip apart" the experimentation angle of this project. I was pointing out that the ARTICLE about it is deceiving. It is not made clear to the average reader that this activity would not be legal for an average non-ham consumer to use on the home LAN. That's all.
I think you are confusing Wi-Fi with access to the internet. They are not the same thing.

And I may be wrong, but encryption may be legal as long as it is a recognized standard, and the key is published, AND the intent is not to hide or encode the meaning of messages.

But I would like to hear some further comments on that... Encryption could be used to keep non-hams off that particular network. Any thoughts?

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (w5aox @ Aug. 22 2005,13:30)]Many of us choose to ignore the fact that hams have an ancient and established tradition of bootlegging, experimentation outside the limits of whatever license held, etc. #Without that, the radio art would have been largely advanced by non-hams.
This is utter, unboundaried, crapola.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (wj9j @ Aug. 23 2005,06:20)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,04:48)]FSE, you're quite correct about commercial traffic. #I was thinking more of the porn popups we suffer here. #Porn cannot be sent over a Part 97 link. # And nobody has brought up my WiFi encryption comments. #Who would run anything over WiFi without encryption? # If a ham uses WiFI outside the Part 15 limits, he must then follow Part 97 rules, which prohibit encryption.

I did not "rip apart" the experimentation angle of this project. #I was pointing out that the ARTICLE about it is deceiving. #It is not made clear to the average reader that this activity would not be legal for an average non-ham consumer to use on the home LAN. # That's all.
I think you are confusing Wi-Fi with access to the internet. #They are not the same thing. #

And I may be wrong, but encryption may be legal as long as it is a recognized standard, and the key is published, AND the intent is not to hide or encode the meaning of messages.

But I would like to hear some further comments on that... #Encryption could be used to keep non-hams off that particular network. #Any thoughts?
You are correct OM or the whole WinLink/PACTOR III operation would be illegal.

This may have been addressed in the HSMM articles in QST and on the ARRL Web site. I need to go back and re-read the articles.

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (wj9j @ Aug. 23 2005,09:20)]I think you are confusing Wi-Fi with access to the internet. #They are not the same thing. #

And I may be wrong, but encryption may be legal as long as it is a recognized standard, and the key is published, AND the intent is not to hide or encode the meaning of messages.
What you need to do is think outside the box. That article was not in a ham radio publication. It was published in a networking magazine. Lots of "average citizens" read such things. They don't have the knowledge we do of the difference between this and that.

John Q Public is looking that that article and saying to himself "that's the solution I need." The brief mention of ham radio in that article means nothing to the uninformed. And just like CB shops peddle illegal stuff to truck drivers, there are plenty of places wiling to peddle illegal stuff to John Q Public. And after all, Mr Public just read it the magazine that it was done.

Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?

Again, I did not put down the experiment. I pointed out that the article is deceiving.

As for encryption, you're correct. if the key is known, it's standard and there is no intent to hide the content, it's legal. But what then is the point? I know I don't want you seeng what runs over my LAN and presumably you don't want me to see your traffic.

So back to square one. Either comply with Part 15 rules, which the experiment in the article does not, or comply with Part 97 which won't work for most folks.

As for hams using wireless for ham stuff, this is great news. For that, we should see this article in QST, not a networking magazine read by the general public.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]As for encryption, you're correct. #if the key is known, it's standard and there is no intent to hide the content, it's legal. #But what then is the point? #
Authentication. The ARRL HSMM keys are used to keep joe six-pack off a network put up by hams. It is extremely unlikely that someone would choose the same WEP key.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. #Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?.
You may not aware of it, but amateurs are afforded *NO* protections from the unlicensed services at 2.4GHz.

Quote[/b] (§97.303(j)(2)(iv) @ Aug. 23 2005,)] Amateur stations operating within the 2417-2450 MHz segment must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific, and medical devices operating within the band.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Aug. 23 2005,07:05)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]As for encryption, you're correct. #if the key is known, it's standard and there is no intent to hide the content, it's legal. #But what then is the point? #
Authentication. The ARRL HSMM keys are used to keep joe six-pack off a network put up by hams. It is extremely unlikely that someone would choose the same WEP key.
But they are published on the ARRL Web site including the hex-code for both 64-bit and 128-bit. Not much security there.

There is also a proposal to submit a request to allow the same type of strong encryption permitted on Part 15 WiFi for Part 97 operations strictly within the same country.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Aug. 23 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. #Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?.
You may not aware of it, but amateurs are afforded *NO* protections from the unlicensed services at 2.4GHz.

Quote[/b] (§97.303(j)(2)(iv) @ Aug. 23 2005,)] Amateur stations operating within the 2417-2450 MHz segment must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific, and medical devices operating within the band.
That is not the same thing as interference from Part 15 WiFi devices. Amateurs are indeed protected from interference by those devices and Part 15 WiFi is afforded no protection from interference by Amateur operations.

This is a serious issue however, since the default channel used by virtually every 802.11b/g device is channel 6 which is totally within the amateur allocations at 2.4GHz and the one used by the amateur HSMM project.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 23 2005,01:26)]But they are published on the ARRL Web site including the hex-code for both 64-bit and 128-bit. #Not much security there.
Not much security in WEP period. However, it will keep people that do not intend to associate with the network, off the network. That's all that is needed.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 23 2005,01:33)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Aug. 23 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. #Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?.
You may not aware of it, but amateurs are afforded *NO* protections from the unlicensed services at 2.4GHz.

Quote[/b] (§97.303(j)(2)(iv) @ Aug. 23 2005,)] Amateur stations operating within the 2417-2450 MHz segment must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific, and medical devices operating within the band.
That is not the same thing as interference from Part 15 WiFi devices. #Amateurs are indeed protected from interference by those devices and Part 15 WiFi is afforded no protection from interference by Amateur operations. #
Your right. ISM is Part 18. My bad.

[wj9j]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 23 2005,07:26)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Aug. 23 2005,07:05)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,00:36)]As for encryption, you're correct. if the key is known, it's standard and there is no intent to hide the content, it's legal. But what then is the point?
Authentication. The ARRL HSMM keys are used to keep joe six-pack off a network put up by hams. It is extremely unlikely that someone would choose the same WEP key.
But they are published on the ARRL Web site including the hex-code for both 64-bit and 128-bit. Not much security there.

There is also a proposal to submit a request to allow the same type of strong encryption permitted on Part 15 WiFi for Part 97 operations strictly within the same country.
I think the issue is that someone can't claim to accidently end up on the "ham" network. Just as someone can't accidently make up a call and bootleg on the local repeater. If it were open, people's XP box would be automatically authenticating.

[KE4WBO]

2.4 wifi 125 miles ...use same power 200mw on 2.3 ghz for same range not uncommon to do this have a couple of grids on 2.3ghz cfmd in fla

[w6qwn]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,06:36)][quote=wj9j,



Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?
Apparently you haven't been on 2.4 ghz lately. I have and it is a part 15 sewer...

[ky5u]

It occurred to me that the conversation here sounded vaguely familiar:

"Yeah good buddy! #Got me onna them eight oh-twice dot double toothpick radidios fer mah laptop. #Brot it to mah local CB shop and let their bestest teknishun "ol' boogar" boost up tha power on that rascal. #I'm lookin' fer me a "fat boy" leenyar to kick that data up to 500 watts keydown. #Hoooo boy!

"Ah got me 300 feet of RG-58 on order and I'm gonna stick me a Gizmotchy "Super Nuke" 15m dish on mah too-hunert foot tower. #Got me onna them Ham-M roticerys so I can pernt it at "Data Death", mah good buddy 150 miles away. #We gonna swap Pammie Anderson videos and I got a live cammra set up to let Double D watch me lite off some air biscuits wif mah bic liter.

"Ain't had me so much fun since ah put the 6 pil in mah Datsun and kerchunked the repeter in Denver!!!"

[WA7NIW]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 23 2005,17:21)]It occurred to me that the conversation here sounded vaguely familiar:

"Yeah good buddy! Got me onna them eight oh-twice dot double toothpick radidios fer mah laptop. Brot it to mah local CB shop and let their bestest teknishun "ol' boogar" boost up tha power on that rascal. I'm lookin' fer me a "fat boy" leenyar to kick that data up to 500 watts keydown. Hoooo boy!

"Ah got me 300 feet of RG-58 on order and I'm gonna stick me a Gizmotchy "Super Nuke" 15m dish on mah too-hunert foot tower. Got me onna them Ham-M roticerys so I can pernt it at "Data Death", mah good buddy 150 miles away. We gonna swap Pammie Anderson videos and I got a live cammra set up to let Double D watch me lite off some air biscuits wif mah bic liter.

"Ain't had me so much fun since ah put the 6 pil in mah Datsun and kerchunked the repeter in Denver!!!"
AG4YO,

Too funny. I can almost see that 300 feet of RG-58 after 500 watts of 2.4 ghz RF pushes a Pam Anderson video through it. Whew, talk about an "air biscuit".

Dick

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA2ZDY]

QWN, actually no, I've never participated in ham activity on 2.4 GHz. I've run my wireless LAN there without a hassle for many years though.

[KI4FCP]

Quote[/b] (kb2kuu @ Aug. 21 2005,17:16)]I doubt that we have to worry about Joe average computer user trying to attempt anything closely related to this. The cost alone would be prohibitive. This is far from an amateur setup. here is a quote from the article

" The team had spent much of their summer break from University to build and test their equipment. With surplus satellite dishes scrounged from their home area, building a custom trailer for the remote station, assembling all the scaffolding for the base station and testing. The teams talents in welding, mathematics, electronics, ham radio, programming, and Linux were all necessary to break their previous record."

I think you can rest easy now.

Anyway I think that this is great stuff. kudos to the hams. Does anyone know their callsigns?
here they are, and they did a great job http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The team is made up of four main guys (who are all amateur radio operators) - Justin Rigling KC8OIO, Ben Corrado KC8RKO, Brandon Schamer KG4NVK, and Andy Meng N8MX.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (w6qwn @ Aug. 23 2005,13:23)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Aug. 23 2005,06:36)][quote=wj9j,



Suppose those folks some of them DO end up on the channels inside the ham band. #Do we want to surrender 2.4 GHz frequencies the same way the low end of 10m seems to be being taken over?
Apparently you haven't been on 2.4 ghz lately. #I have and it is a part 15 sewer...
Add to that, the default channel used by virtually all 802.11b/g equipment out of the box is channel 6. That is totally contained within the amateur 2.4GHz allocation.

[wa6jbd]

Neat stuff, but I'm more impressed with the new 47 GHz world record that was just set here in California during the 10 GHz and up contest... 330+ km.

[KG6JVE]

Quote[/b] (ve3lny @ Aug. 18 2005,17:37)]A description of the event and some fantastic photos can be found at WiFi Shootout (http://pasadena.net/shootout05/)

73, Jack VE3LNY

The next SOCALWUG meeting is tomorrow Thursday 08/25/04 at 7pm (Pacific). Locations and directions at http://www.socalwug.org

Frank Keeney, Discussion on the world record set at the Third Annual Wi-Fi Shootout at the Defcon conference in Las Vegas. This year a new 802.11b distance record was set at 125 miles. I’ll show detailed Google Earth (and other) maps of the successful and unsuccessful locations that they attempted and why they did and did not work. Detailed hardware discussion, more photos and news of the event. I’ll show the “high definition” version of the popular online video from http://pasadena.net/shootout05


Trevor Marshall, PhD, http://www.trevormarshall.com holds the Australian Amateur Radio distance record set back in 1964 of about 105.5 miles set (by voice) on the ultra-high frequency of 576 MHz amateur band. The record still stands, as the 576MHz band was lost to amateur use soon after that.

He’ll present information on long-range propagation and FCC rules. He’ll also explore the techniques of building long distance links and their affects on data timing in transmission and reception. This will be an enlightening presentation for those wanting to discuss and learn about how to build reliable long distance wireless links.

We’ll attempt to stream the meeting video live see http://www.socalwug.org for the latest video streaming information.

Frank
KG6JVE

[WA4CDM]

Hello All. I think some of you miss the point of this test entirely. A test was made, It was successful. Regardless of the content. It opens the path way for others to follow. And just maybe bring in some younger people into our hobby/service. Try to be positive about things like this. Times change and so must we. It's all part of the future and nothing stays the same.:D

[w4gov]

I think this test was great. And they conformed to the rules. Read them...

Amateur Radio Operators operating under licensed spectrum:

Users operate under FCC Part 97 rules and regulations.

Frequencies usable from over-the-counter consumer gear include the #33cm #902-928 MHz band #and the 13cm 2390-2450 MHz band. #

In the 13cm band, 802.11 channels 1 thru 6 are the only channels in the 2390-2450 MHz bandplan.

Maximum Transmitter Power Output (TPO) is 100 watt or 50dBm.

If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for the communication.

You must enable broadcasting of your SSID, which has to include your callsign.

WEP encryption is not permitted.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (WA4CDM @ Aug. 25 2005,05:53)]Hello All. I think some of you miss the point of this test entirely. A test was made, It was successful. Regardless of the content. It opens the path way for others to follow. And just maybe bring in some younger people into our hobby/service. Try to be positive about things like this. Times change and so must we. It's all part of the future and nothing stays the same.:D
I need help with something concerning this test. They took off the shelf cards and hooked up 10' dishes to them. What was done to advance Amateur Radio? The dishes looked like old "C" band Satellite dishes. Seems to me the only thing "Amateur Radio" about this test is that Amateurs did it so as not to bust the Part 15 rules. What about this will attract new Amateurs? Is it that they can "boost-up" their Wifi Devices like an old CB Radio if they become Amateurs?

My point is that there isn't much about 2GHz propogation we don't know at this point. There are many path loss and hop design programs available free that will help you design a microwave path at 2GHz which esentially what this is.

If someone drives a Chevy and goes 100 miles on 1 gal. of gas, is it significant when someone drives a Ford 90 miles on 1 gallon just because it was a Ford? We can all admire that these folks got outside and had some real fun. I applaud this "outing" as kind of a nice field day exercise. Sounds like it was alot of fun. But IMHO, no real advancement of Amateur Radio was done. Should they continue having fun? Absolutely!! And keep posting the great pictures too.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (ke5eiy @ Aug. 21 2005,17:53)]You are reading way too much into this. #Can you point to the exact words for me in what was posted? #This only has to do with experimentation of Wi-Fi. #We as hams are still allowed to do this right? #Now the military and maybe the commerical applications for this in the future are huge. #Live and think out side the box. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
You can't "live and think out side the box" if, in so doing, you violate the FCC regulations applicable to the mode of operation.

In other words, you can't operate equipment licensed for operation under part 15 regulations using Part 97 rules, unless the equipment in question is modified for use IN the Amateur Radio Service, in which case part 97 rules would apply (which also means that the equipment in question can no longer be used for Part 15 operations as it is no longer type accepted due to the modification).

Clear as mud?

Paul, N0JAA.

[wj9j]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Aug. 25 2005,11:02)]Quote[/b] (ke5eiy @ Aug. 21 2005,17:53)]You are reading way too much into this. Can you point to the exact words for me in what was posted? This only has to do with experimentation of Wi-Fi. We as hams are still allowed to do this right? Now the military and maybe the commerical applications for this in the future are huge. Live and think out side the box. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
You can't "live and think out side the box" if, in so doing, you violate the FCC regulations applicable to the mode of operation.

In other words, you can't operate equipment licensed for operation under part 15 regulations using Part 97 rules, unless the equipment in question is modified for use IN the Amateur Radio Service, in which case part 97 rules would apply (which also means that the equipment in question can no longer be used for Part 15 operations as it is no longer type accepted due to the modification).

Clear as mud?

Paul, N0JAA.
If the modification involved using a non Part 95 antenna (due to too much ERP), then returning to Part 95 is as simple as removing the antenna or replacing the original.

But this type of change has been done thousands of times already for many years by amateurs using equipment from commercial on the ham bands. I have never seen anything that says that you cannot return a Mitrek (or such) to commercial use after it has been used for ham.
It's only ham equipment that is not type accepted for use in the commercial bands.

I don't think one would have to crack the case to declare it as Part 97. I'm not sure there has to be a "modification" to declare it as used under part 97, just as there would not be a Mod required for any other gear. Since it is already designed for the ham band, what would you be modifying?


Someone please correct me if I am not thinking clearly on this.


Andy
WJ9J

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (WA7NIW @ Aug. 23 2005,21:49)]Too funny. I can almost see that 300 feet of RG-58 after 500 watts of 2.4 ghz RF pushes a Pam Anderson video through it. #Whew, talk about an "air biscuit".

Dick

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
i don't think a Pamela Anderson video will FIT through an RG-58 cable! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Paul, N0JAA.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] ]If the modification involved using a non Part 95 antenna (due to too much ERP), then returning to Part 95 is as simple as removing the antenna or replacing the original.



I don't think this would be considered a modification of the device. #Since the antenna is external to the device, you would not be modifying anything.

Quote[/b] ]But this type of change has been done thousands of times already for many years by amateurs using equipment from commercial on the ham bands. #I have never seen anything that says that you cannot return a Mitrek (or such) to commercial use after it has been used for ham.
It's only ham equipment that is not type accepted for use in the commercial bands.

I don't think one would have to crack the case to declare it as Part 97. #I'm not sure there has to be a "modification" to declare it as used under part 97, just as there would not be a Mod required for any other gear. #Since it is already designed for the ham band, what would you be modifying?


But you WOULD have to crack the case to make the modification, as you would have to change the appropriate circuitry, tuning coils, final amp, etc., to make the device able to transcieve on Amateur frequencies. #Such a change would be considered a modification and would make the device no longer type-accepted for the service for which it was originally designed (such as modifying a CB radio to transmit on 10 meters, causing the radio to lose its Part 95 certification).

The only exception to that I can think of is if you feed the output from the original device through a transverter, thus changing the output frequency (and possibly power) of the original device.


Paul, N0JAA.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Aug. 23 2005,07:53)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Aug. 22 2005,20:40)]Quote[/b] (w5aox @ Aug. 22 2005,16:30)]Golly, I have an idea! Let's most of us argue about the legalities of what's already going on while the guys doing actual experimentation keep plugging away, increasing their (and our) abilities.....
You hit the nail on the head. These folks on here read way too much into the rules and that stiffles inovation and experimintation. Without these experimenters we would still be pounding away on wired telegraph or even worse still using the pony express.

73 de Greg
KC7GNM
Sport,

Do your homework before you accuse those exhorting legal operation to be stifling innovation.

If ham radio needs to be illegal to innovate, then we should shut it down.

In any case, your response requires correction, so others are not misled.
Sport? I think you are mistaken. There is no correction on what I said at all and I will not correct any of it. You are the one that is mistaken. There was nothing illegal in this record breaking setup but some folks seem to thinkk there is. That is what I am talking about. Not like an unlicensed operator using the ham bands to experiment or anything like that.

PS next time do not call me sport. I take offense at that.

KC7GNM
Greg

[wj9j]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Aug. 25 2005,14:04)]
Quote[/b] ]If the modification involved using a non Part 95 antenna (due to too much ERP), then returning to Part 95 is as simple as removing the antenna or replacing the original.



I don't think this would be considered a modification of the device. Since the antenna is external to the device, you would not be modifying anything.

Quote[/b] ]But this type of change has been done thousands of times already for many years by amateurs using equipment from commercial on the ham bands. I have never seen anything that says that you cannot return a Mitrek (or such) to commercial use after it has been used for ham.
It's only ham equipment that is not type accepted for use in the commercial bands.

I don't think one would have to crack the case to declare it as Part 97. I'm not sure there has to be a "modification" to declare it as used under part 97, just as there would not be a Mod required for any other gear. Since it is already designed for the ham band, what would you be modifying?


But you WOULD have to crack the case to make the modification, as you would have to change the appropriate circuitry, tuning coils, final amp, etc., to make the device able to transcieve on Amateur frequencies. Such a change would be considered a modification and would make the device no longer type-accepted for the service for which it was originally designed (such as modifying a CB radio to transmit on 10 meters, causing the radio to lose its Part 95 certification).

The only exception to that I can think of is if you feed the output from the original device through a transverter, thus changing the output frequency (and possibly power) of the original device.


Paul, N0JAA.
Actually, some radios, you don't have to crack the case, depending of where you put them, the Motorola Maxtrac for example.

You are claiming that a modification (other than antenna) has to be done in order to make something legal for part 97. Do you have a rule to back this up? (I disagree with this postulation unless you can prove it) Do you know what they did to modify these devices? Can you speculate?

Thanks

Andy
WJ9J

[ky5u]

Again:

They took off the shelf cards and hooked up 10' satellite dishes to them. What was done to advance Amateur Radio? Seems to me the only thing "Amateur Radio" about this test is that Amateurs did it so as not to bust the Part 15 rules. What about this will attract new Amateurs?

Help me understand.

[ke4pjw]

Charlie, the ERP was above what is allowed under part 15. They only legal way it could have been done is operating under part 97.

I know it's not your thing, but some of us think that multi-megabit per second transfer rates on long links are pretty darn cool.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 26 2005,07:12)]Again:

They took off the shelf cards and hooked up 10' satellite dishes to them. #What was done to advance Amateur Radio? Seems to me the only thing "Amateur Radio" about this test is that Amateurs did it so as not to bust the Part 15 rules. What about this will attract new Amateurs? #

Help me understand.
Why is that-- Could it be they were using modern communications equipment such as computers instead of a 100 year old spring loaded N/O SPST switch. Frankly you CW forever guys are pathetic. High tech stuff like this and Echolink will provide the youth interest that will let us joe hams continue to play with old AM rigs that contain toobs and CW, etc. The future is coming and you guys don't even recognize it. Either play along or disappear. Besides, FISTS and others should make sure that these newly licensed kids are exposed to CW. I'll bet there are plenty of good fists in generation Y that just need elmering. Don't turn them off with a CW requirement.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]MMM: Why is that-- Could it be they were using modern communications equipment such as computers instead of a 100 year old spring loaded N/O SPST switch. Frankly you CW forever guys are pathetic.

I ask a simple question and its funny how it becomes an attack on CW. We're not talking about CW. I am trying to find out what advancement of Amateur Radio happened with this activity. It appears to me that there was NOTHING Amateur Radio related to that "shootoff" other than Amateurs did it to skirt Part 15.

Quote[/b] ]pjw: I know it's not your thing, but some of us think that multi-megabit per second transfer rates on long links are pretty darn cool.

Yes it was indeed cool. It was a nice field day outing. It was probably alot of fun for the participants. GOOD! But it did not advance Amateur Radio. They took an off the shelf Part 15 device and added a gain antenna, then shot a signal 100 miles. What did I miss?

I have no issue with the activity itself, but billing this as a great Amateur Radio accomplishment World's Record is a big stretch. Come on folks!

Here is a positive suggestion... When you put up a wide area coverage data network that any licensed amateur can use to connect to an amateur related computer network, then you'll have a BIG step toward digital success. Just a suggestion.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 26 2005,14:03)]Quote[/b] ]MMM: Why is that-- Could it be they were using modern communications equipment such as computers instead of a 100 year old spring loaded N/O SPST switch. Frankly you CW forever guys are pathetic.

I ask a simple question and its funny how it becomes an attack on CW. #We're not talking about CW. #I am trying to find out what advancement of Amateur Radio happened with this activity. #It appears to me that there was NOTHING Amateur Radio related to that "shootoff" other than Amateurs did it to skirt Part 15.

Quote[/b] ]pjw: I know it's not your thing, but some of us think that multi-megabit per second transfer rates on long links are pretty darn cool.

Yes it was indeed cool. #It was a nice field day outing. #It was probably alot of fun for the participants. #GOOD! #But it #did not advance Amateur Radio. #They took an off the shelf Part 15 device and added a gain antenna, then shot a signal 100 miles. What did I miss?

I have no issue with the activity itself, but billing this as a great Amateur Radio accomplishment World's Record is a big stretch. #Come on folks! #

Here is a positive suggestion... #When you put up a wide area coverage data network that any licensed amateur can use to connect to an amateur related computer network, then you'll have a BIG step toward digital success. #Just a suggestion.
Here is a positive suggestion... When you put up a wide area coverage data network that any licensed amateur can use to connect to an amateur related computer network, then you'll have a BIG step toward digital success. Just a suggestion. I agree. this would be a great thing for ham radio and defines a challenge that the ham community should take up. Packet is too slow by today's standards but satellites can be used if it is possible to carry a large enough buffer memory aboard them or if satellite can "talk" to satellite to relay the data instantaneously.
.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Aug. 22 2005,05:58)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 21 2005,13:13)]It would be nice if the FCC had a license class that allowed this kind of experimentation without having to learn all the technical stuff involved with HF, antenna's, etc.

tim ab0wr
That was the original purpose of the Technician license.
Yes and no. The original Technician license was a 'technical' license, aimed expressly to promote this kind of experimentation under Amateur Radio Rules (there was no internet) and it required the General class electronics theory. All that was a good thing.

Today's Technician license is a serious misnomer. It should be called "Communicator" license, as it is pretty much non-technical. That isn't a dig; it is fact. Some Technicians are indeed technically inclined. Most, though, are simply chatting on two meter repeaters, using channelized radios. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it is a far cry from anything resembling "technical" in nature.

On another point, I completely disagree that the Ethernet, Internet, LANS, WANS, or Wi-FI is amateur radio. If it is, then we have several millions hams in America, most of them unlicensed.

Ed

[ky5u]

Maybe the folks who did this shootoff deserve more credit than we've (I've) been giving them. If they take this knowledge and put 4 or 5 of these 802.11 boxes with dishes around a populated area to offer coverage, this may be useful.

But, here is the unvarnished truth (IMHO). There are many new "digital" proponents. In order to put a wide area Amateur access 802.11 type network on the air, someone will have to design and implement it. This may be a Catch-22 in that we've created digital "experts" with little or no experience in implementing RF systems. Many will be off shooting skip on HF soon or using the lagging-edge digital technology on HF to slap themselves on the back as being "modern".

At least these folks (shootoff/out) know real digital when they see it.

[M1PFS]

we can use the wireless network on the 13cm ham band (ch. 1 - 6) under the ham licence and use it like a more up to date version of packet radio. for more info look at this:
QRZ Forum Topic (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=100186)

[KB9WZJ]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Coming Soon! WiFi EME !!!

[N2WEC]

Who Cares? WiFi is still a problem. Not a cure.

[w9ray]

hams have made a dozens qsos out to over a thousand miles on 2304 .. 1qso out to almost 4,000 miles.... and EME qso are made regularly at 2.3ghz....
Its funny all the fuss over a 125 mile link.. yes its harder because of the bandwidth.. but have serious hams actually really tried to see how far wifi will go...i dont think so 125 miles is nothing...

[W5GNB]

I just LOVE all these KILLOCYCLE KOPS that we have in this "Hobby"

Maybe next time they will run 1500-watts into those dishes and proceed with a transatlantic record!

THREE's
de W5GNB