WiFi

[KD7LDH]

So I guess Ham radio and wireless access to the internet will never be allowed because of the ads.... hmmmmm I am a bit disappointed...

Just wanted to comment....


I was also wondering if one day in the future we will ever be allowed to use the ham bands for wireless internet to access urls such as wikipedia.org or qrz.com etc....

-KD7LDH

[n5tjd]

The way I see it, why do it on the ham bands when there are commercial means?

The internet is the internet. Amateur radio is amateur radio. While some interaction is to be expected, they are two entirely different things.

[WA2ZDY]

You can do it. But you'll have to observe the amateur limitations on content. The commercial ads here on qrz.com aren't the limitation as they aren't for YOUR pecuniary interest. The limitations will be anything "adult" rated (how many popups do you get when you surf?) commercial emails of yours, music (ever get a musical popup?) You get the idea.

There are also the speed limitations with ham frequency stuff. I don't see any 11Mbps stuff on the 440 band.

Now what you can do is use your WiFi LAN on the ham frequency. I "think" WiFi channel 6 is the one inside the 13cm ham band. Once you assure you're on the correct frequency, you can run 1500w PEP output into whatever antenna your mind comes up with. (RF safety calculations considered of course.) Just remember to ID and observe the content and control operator restrictions. THIS one has been done.

I think the toughest thing you'll find is being careful of the content. Just way too much stuff passes over an internet connection for you to be on top of all of it.

[ke4pjw]

A transparent web proxy running Dan's Guardian (http://dansguardian.org/) would fix all of those problems.

[N4QX]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 19 2005,05:43)]The limitations will be anything "adult" rated (how many popups do you get when you surf?) commercial emails of yours, music (ever get a musical popup?) #You get the idea.
Keep in mind that the music prohibition applies to "music using a phone emission." #[97.113(a)(4) (emphasis added)].

The transmission of data that results in music being played on the other end is perfectly permissible, regardless of whether the internet is involved.

[WA2ZDY]

QX, that has been my interpretation also, but there has been a lot of discussion about it and I frankly am open to it being either way. As such I include that to be on the safe side.

I think you're right but not being a lawyer . . .

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 19 2005,11:32)]QX, that has been my interpretation also, but there has been a lot of discussion about it and I frankly am open to it being either way. As such I include that to be on the safe side.

I think you're right but not being a lawyer . . .
And take care concerning copyright issues if you do decide to transmit your Itunes library over the ham bands.

73
George
K3UD

[KD7LDH]

Quote[/b] (KD5WZB @ Dec. 19 2005,05:27)]The way I see it, why do it on the ham bands when there are commercial means?
Why do it on the ham bands?
1. Fun and Learning
2. We may find a cheap solution and allow for more convenient access to information for all licenced operators

Convenient access means (in my opinion) another reason to get a ham licence and play = More licenced Operators who are possibly active....

I assume this will help ham radio as it will show to the FCC we like our bands and not to give them away....

-KD7LDH

[AC0H]

Why don't we just leave the amateur frequencies for amateur radio and the WiFi frequencies for WiFi?

What is the fascination with trying to turn Ham Radio into some poor approximation of the internet?

An assumption by a lot of Hams has been that if we morph Ham Radio to look like the internet or provide cheap access to the internet we will attract new, young, geekier, Hams.

#1. It hasn't happened in the 15 years the ARRL and others have been trying it.

#2. What ever we come up with in regards WiFi via Ham Radio has already been done better, cheaper, faster by people and companies who do this stuff for a living.

There is a difference between the internet and Ham Radio. If you got your license because you thought Ham Radio was going to be like the internet then you made a mistake.

Everybody on this board needs to read the book by Clifford Stoll, "Silicon Snake Oil". The internet is not and never will be the "be all and end all" of modern civilization.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] ]
Why don't we just leave the amateur frequencies for amateur radio and the WiFi frequencies for WiFi?

That's pretty much what we are doing.

When the WIFI gear on ham freqs first became available, a lot of Packet enthusiasts thought that it would be a real windfall for amateurs wanting to build high-speed local Packet networks.

Instead, it has been a windfall for whiny technoids who want to complain about the hobby, pretend to have some alleged 'expertise' that exists only in thier own minds, and endlessly debate the same tired old points and issues in a masturbatory fashion, round and round, ad nauseum. - It's been goiing on for years now, to no particular point and with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Lots of talk - not much 'do'.

For a real giggle, go back and look at the very earliest discussions about WIFI and ham radio, then look at the ones today and note how exactly the same talking points and issues still dominate these so-called 'discussions'.

Aaaawk! Awwwk! #Polly wanna WIFI ? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif - Talk about being stuck in the groove of a broken record!

The obvious problem here is the perception that WIFI equipment must only be used as intended - to provide Internet access. No significant amount of thought or work has gone on, outside of that box.

Because of this, whenever a "ham radio" WIFI LAN does get set up, the users rapidly lose interest because what you have then is - a crippled version of the regular Internet access you would have had if you just left the 'Ham Radio" part out of the equation altogether.

Intellectually unable to look beyond the Internet box, no Ham WIFI group that I am aware of has even considered exploring the use of the equipment for Ham Radio only type applications, where it might actually do the hobby some good, and where some actual as opposed to imaginary expertise might be developed.

Ironically enough, the person who has done the most to develop real-world utilization of WIFI in relation to Amateur Radio has been Hank Oredson, W0RLI, the father of the Packet BBS.

Hank and the amateurs in his area have done more to actually utilize and develop the use of WIFI by amateurs than all of the efforts of TAPR and the ARRL HSMM group combined. - But they appear to be the only ones doing so.

One advantage of definitively getting past "Integration of Amateur Radio with the Internet" is that such pointless, masturbatory thinking will finally be given a rest, and some real thinking about what can be done with such resources will finally have a good chance to develop.

But as things stand today, very little of anything is being done by amateurs involving WIFI except talk.

We are effectively leaving the amateur frequencies for Amateur Radio and the WIFI frequencies for WIFI, just as you suggested.

The negative side of this is, of course, the "Integration of Amateur Radio with the Internet" perception that there is an alleged 'need' to eliminate content restrictions and allow data encryption on the ham bands, when it is obviously "Integration of Amateur Radio with the Internet" that needs to go, not the protective PART97 regulations that allow Amateur Radio to exist.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Hank and the amateurs in his area have done more to actually utilize and develop the use of WIFI by amateurs than all of the efforts of TAPR and the ARRL HSMM group combined. - But they appear to be the only ones doing so.

One advantage of definitively getting past "Integration of Amateur Radio with the Internet" is that such pointless, masturbatory thinking will finally be given a rest, and some real thinking about what can be done with such resources will finally have a good chance to develop.

And I have no problem with that. I do networking and wireless networking for a living.
It's the originators idea that Amateur Wi-Fi must integrate with the internet for it to be of any utility that I have a problem with.
The world wide web has bastardized the original "internet", Arpanet for those that don't know, into what we have today, 85% advertising and commerce, 10% porn, and maybe 5% meaningful content. I'd just as soon that Ham Radio had nothing to do with it.

[N8CPA]

"Everybody on this board needs to read the book by Clifford Stoll, "Silicon Snake Oil". The internet is not and never will be the "be all and end all" of modern civilization."

Amen! And it's worth pointing out, Cliff is both a ham, and a founding father of the internet. I hear he also likes to bake delicious cookies with his girlfriend.

[kj5t]

Why do this?

Because, hams have always been the ones to change things when it comes to communication. Part of communicating is the internet, and I believe that hams just playing around could improve the current ways of exchanging data. I don't know how we would change it, but all it would take would be some legal playing around. If some good honest hams were doing this, then good things could happen.

Who ever does this stuff must realize that there are others on the bands not interested in doing it. The ARRL doesn't need to replace CW or SSB with digital, but digital is becoming more and more popular. Hams need to work together, and the ARRL needs to be willing to work with hams (some say that haven't, I really don't know, but I will assume they haven't listened to everyone on the bandwith issue) to make certain locations across our vast spectrum to use digital and wifi via ham frequencies.

Who knows what can come of this or anything else. I am going to keep an open mind, on both sides of the issue. This could turn into a bad thing, people using this to send commerical e-mails, people using this to exchange copyrighted music, people using this data transfer as free means of transfering data.

Data means a lot of things in the sense I am using it. Life-saving data like live WX conditions, live reports in and out of disaster areas. If you could transfer A LOT OF data at high rates of speed via ham radio, EMCOMM can improve.

I am just thinking out loud, welcome to other ideas, and tell me if I am too far off the face of the planet.

[KD7LDH]

Gentlemen:

I will admit my lack of knowledge in this aspect of ham radio politics... I havn't kept up with equipment and politics reguarding the integration of ham radio and internet...

I just taught it would be cool to do the whole community wireless stuff, and see if I could put my KD7LDH to use...

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Part of communicating is the internet, and I believe that hams just playing around could improve the current ways of exchanging data. The way we currently exchange data on the amateur bands is like the dark ages compared to what's being done on wired and wireless networks. TCP/IP is pretty tough to beat. If your intent is to build a wireless network like WiFi in the amateur bands for amateur purposes and #passing amateur traffic at SHF and above I'm all for it.

If your intent is to compete with or replace the internet using the amateur version of WiFi, whatever that turns out to be, or worse try to do it on HF, your wasting your time and our spectrum.

[kj5t]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 21 2005,01:16)]Quote[/b] ]Part of communicating is the internet, and I believe that hams just playing around could improve the current ways of exchanging data. The way we currently exchange data on the amateur bands is like the dark ages compared to what's being done on wired and wireless networks. TCP/IP is pretty tough to beat. If your intent is to build a wireless network like WiFi in the amateur bands for amateur purposes and passing amateur traffic at SHF and above I'm all for it.

If your intent is to compete with or replace the internet using the amateur version of WiFi, whatever that turns out to be, or worse try to do it on HF, your wasting your time and our spectrum.
Yes, I agree that right now the data exchange isn't near what they can do over commerical means. But perhaps we can improve what is being done via commerical means by replicating it in some ways in the SHF/EHF spectrum.

Again, I don't know much of what I am talking about, only that I feel something could be done, and like you if this is the intent I am all for it.

[kf6rdn]

Everyone seems to assume TCP/IP networking is the Internet.
It is a protocol, you could build your own TCP/IP network to do something, err....hamish, dunno, maybe a fast version of APRS? Voice over IP? Streaming multimedia.
Things that the internet uses COULD be used by hams. Essentially simply another "mode", such as packet, psk etc. We are actually going BACK to packet type networks via CMDA, 3DG cell technology.

All that could be fun, as long as as mentioned someone isn't trying to blend ham radio with the internet. Or replace it. Certainly the internet can enhance radio, such as the APRS thing that you can see your location on.

But trying to use ham radio so I can get the internet in my car on my 706 or something is just useless.

I've got a cell phone which will do that, and I can view all the porn I want! HA! Or I can win a ham radio over ebay.. har.. I guess that IS mixing ham radio and the internet..

Don't mind me.. I had alot of broken servers and databases to deal with today..

[K0RGR]

Do any of you guys read QST? There was quite an article on 802.11 a couple months back.

You can do a lot with 802.11 without the need for a ham license. You'd be surprised at the range you can achieve with the standard, off-the shelf 802.11 stuff. I think the current DX record is something over 20 miles. I'm sitting here in my office on the third floor and I can see wireless networks in hotels 2 blocks and 4 blocks away, and in homes on the hillside over a mile away - no problem. And that's with the internal antenna on my laptop. With a small, cheap dish, we could do wonders.

But, if you're going to operate under Part 97, then you can run higher power. Two-watt amplifiers for 802.11 can be had for around $200. In addition to the prohibitions on commercial content, you have to think about identification. I believe you can make FCC happy by setting the LAN address for your adapter to the ASCII equivalent of your callsign. Also, you can't encrypt your network! That's a big problem!!! You can hide it, but Linksys doesn't like that.

ARES groups are using 802.11 for emergency communications without web-browser access to the Internet, and people are doing WINLINK over it. I have heard of some using Part 97 rules, but the only ones I have talked to do it under Part 15 so anybody can operate the equipment. We've been looking into it here because we have need of a way to provide communications in some deep river canyons and even NVIS on HF has been unreliable at times.

Another big application we're interested in doing is using 802.11 to send video or digital still pictures between storm spotters and the weather service or the EOC during storm spotting events. We'd also like to send out WX radar pictures in realtime so the spotters can see where they are in relation to the storm features on the radar. This would be in conjunction with APRS. There is already software out there to do this.

There are lots of non-ham groups out there putting up open 802.11 Wi-Fi networks, and I wonder how long it will be before FCC starts shutting the illegal ones down. Of course many cities are building their own 802.11 networks, including Minneapolis. One of the suburbs offers high speed Internet to anybody for $25 a month, I think.

There are lots of ham applications that integrate with the Internet that can be done this way, but I don't see any need to provide HTTP access for general web browsing and email.