Inexpensive High Speed Packet Radio Is Here

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?

 

</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

 

</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[/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

 

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

 

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.

 

</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

 

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

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...

Enjoy it!

RM

 

</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.

 

</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

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.

 

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?

 

</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.

 

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. 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

 

</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. 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

 

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?