High-Speed Multimedia Hamming

Skuld-Chan writes "I noticed a few days ago that the ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) formed a working group to promote use of 802.11 protocols on the amateur radio bands."

Comments

woohoo!

[vorovsky]

Oh wow, this is GREAT news for me! I've been a radio operator for about 7 years now and tried to dabble a bit in the "data links" before the days of 802.11 at all. Just recently I had a renewed interest with all of the 802.11 products but was having a hard time integrating them into ham radio more. Woohoo!

Re:woohoo!

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

Part of the reason that I obtained my license in the first place was to be able to play with some of the more interesting tech. Several of us gather at a local restaurant, about two miles from my home, and I've wanted to set up a bi-directional link to allow us to have high-speed (or at least better than 56K) internet access while we're 'geeking'. If equipment becomes easy to buy or build, this'll finally be a reality. yay.

Re:woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as software/hardware allows, I'll have an AP at my network! No doubt about that!

I was wondering

[mschoolbus]

I am actually looking for a way to get wireless access to my personal network a safe (secure) and legal way. I just want internet and access to my network in my car or wherever I may be in the general area of my house.

Anybody know of some good cost effective methods that do this?

Re:I was wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember part of the FCC rules for hams state that no-encryption shall be used. I dont know about you, but I dont like broadcasting my internet traffic over the air without encryption.

Re:I was wondering

[LostCluster]

Remember part of the FCC rules for hams state that no-encryption shall be used.

Which means 802.11-over-ham is not going to be useful for personal connections, and only usable for information that's suitable to be broadcast.

Re:I was wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Cellular phones necessarily contain modems, and most of them have accessories
that include a "data connectivity kit" for serial/USB connectivity with PDAs or
computers. As far as I can tell most cellular providers in the US will allow
you to transmit data at a low-bandwidth frequency (like 14.4 Mbps) just as you
would any other call. So, why not just set up a modem on one of the machines
in your house and dial into that modem from your cellular phone? Depending on
your cellular plan, it may be cost-effective since the marginal cost of a few
additional calls does not increase your bill, or it may be cost-effective for
calling on nights and weekends, for example.

Additionally, some cellular providers such as Verizon offer high-speed data
service (e.g. 128 Mbps), but these may be expensive (~$35/month).

Re:I was wondering

[gasp]

Except part 97 does not permit broadcasting. :) Seriously, I see almost no potential for using 802.11b in any normal way on the ham bands. The story says they hope this will encourage existing part 15 users to get amateur licenses and operate under part 97. I just can't see any practical motivation for this.

Remember, ham comminications must not be encrypted. They must not be commercial. (This means no ads, no non-ham commerce, basically no websurfing.) They must not be broadcast. (Not really a problem, not much different from packet radio this way.) Each transmitter must identify itself. (I suppose using the ham callsign as the SSID would work for that.)

Sure, hams can have fun playing with 802.11b under part 97, but because of the content restrictions it's in NO WAY any replacement for the people operating under part 15. Seriously, how useful is a network connection that is not allowed to be secure or be used for commercial traffic.? Yes, it has potential for ham-related events, contests, and emergencies. But I don't see anything else.

One peeve of mine is that hams have become followers and are no longer leaders in radio technology. There was a time when hams did things first, and commercial radio products and services grew from those efforts. Technology has mostly become too complex for the single hobbyist to provide a substantial development contribution. Now the ham community mostly waits for commercial technologies to become old and inexpensive, then adapts them for their own purposes while adding little or nothing new. A large part of the reason hams are allocated valuable spectrum is for innovation, but in the past decade I've seen only regurgitation. I would love to use my ham license to do something I couldn't do more cheaply and effectively on the commercial bands. 802.11b under part 97 is another example of less functionality for more effort.

I'm not saying it's not worth doing, just that it's only useful to the hobbyist who wants to play and do a thing because it can be done. I'm saying it's not useful to anybody who wants to operate a real and practical wireless network.

Re:I was wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Hams still do lead where they can. APRS started in ham radio, and is being adopted by the military, commerce, and a form even added to family radio service radios. The FCC regs kept Ham radio from using spread spectrum for a long time. Hard to lead in a field you aren't allowed to operate in.

High speed hamming?

[ekephart]

This is what I do at Subway at lunch. Then I rush back to Slashdot.

(ducks)

Re:High speed hamming?

[Mitchell Mebane]

This is what I do at Subway at lunch. Then I rush back to Slashdot.

Ah, yes, but does your hamming integrate streaming audio?

This is bad news

[luckybob83]

If you read the whole article you will find that they actually want to boot the unlicensced people out and get it all for the licensed HAM operators. This is bad for all the WISPs out there, and then also there go my plans.

Re:This is bad news

[KUHurdler]

It really isn't that hard to get a HAM license. If there is a local HAM club in your area they usually perform tests on a regular basis. If you're serious about it, look into it.

On a side note, when we were doing this stuff in college for a project, they weren't too sure about all the wireless stuff taking up channel space. I'm not sure if they are against it by now or not?

Re:This is bad news

[GlassUser]

I really don't care for the whole WISP idea. I don't believe that it's proper to be using public resources for personal (or even worse, corporate) profit. If the WISPs want to have a for-pay service, then they can participate in the band auctions just like the TV stations and cellular carriers.

Re:This is bad news

[Mr2cents]

Erm.. I don't get your point. wat is 'it'?? You always need a ham licence to access ham networks, it's logical since your actions activate transponders that require a ham license.
Ham's are allowed to use 2.4Gh, but so are you (you just have to use licenced transmitters, hams can build them theirselves).

Re:This is bad news

[Nate B.]

Well, for the several channels of 802.11b that utilize the Amateur Radio Service allocation in the 2.4 GHz region at least, the users of those Part 15 devices must accept all interference from licensed service operations and not cause harmful interference to those same licensed users. This is long-standing FCC rule policy in the U.S.A.

For several years we Amateur Radio Operators have lived with the spectre of manunfacturers dumping all sorts of product onto the market obstensibly operating under Part 15, but causing all sorts of problems to licensed users. Of course, the manufacturers conveniently forget to inform their customers of the pitfalls of relying on a Part 15 device. So, when a licensed user's operation is harmful to the device, the customer naturally holds them to blame as a result of ignorance. Slowly the noise floor (a measure of how weak a signal one can receive from a distant station) has increased, so we hams are naturally, looking to get *our* spectrum back.

The WISPs should be required to operate in a properly licensed and allocated Service, IMO. Part 15 devices are intended to be small operations that cover a house, small business, etc. NOT as a wireless urban LAN. AFAIAC, WISPs should be considered in the same way as cellular providers.

Re:This is bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even necessarily buliding the transmitters that we're doing. We're using off the shelf equipment with the higher power levels as well as more efficient antennae (greater ERP) granted to us under FCC Part 97 rules that come with the license.

Joshua/KD5LSX

Re:This is bad news

[general_boy]

You're right about the hams but practically speaking, it's little or nothing to worry about.

Hams are growingly concerned about their spectrum getting usurped (and rightfully so, it has happened before and the ARRL is constantly fending off new threats). Part of that sentiment has an outlet via reminders to spectrum users lower on the 'totem pole' that hams have higher status.

IIRC, the 2.4 GHz ham band extends from 2390 to 2450 MHz. (They used to have 2300-2310 or so too, but it's gone.) However, the FCC Part 15-247 unlicensed band extends from 2400 to 2483.5 MHz. This means that the upper 5 or so 802.11b channels are out of the way of hams that might be operating in their licensed band. High power ham radios in that 2390-2450 slot *shouldn't* be emitting much energy outside it, but even a little can cause interference to 802.11b radios operating above 2450. Summary: almost half the unlicensed 2.4 band the hams cannot touch but that doesn't mean there would be no problems.

There are also strict rules on how hams can use their spectrum. A *LOT* of what unlicensed users can do in the way of data transfer (almost anything goes) is prohibited for hams. Anything that facilitates a business is out. Another big one is the issue of unlicensed operators causing emissions of a ham radio (they basically cannot). The regs are a bit vague but that's the gist of it. The result is that the only legally 'safe' manner in which to operate is to talk only to other hams over such a licensed link.

I am a licensed ham - have been since I was 9 years old, yet feel sad when I read the article. It used to be hams were on the forefront of developing new radio technologies (indeed, that's one of the tenets of the amateur radio charter - furtherance of the radio art) but here I see them (us) glomming onto technology mostly developed in the commercial sector, and threatening to push unlicensed users out. Hams still have a boatload of frequencies available, especially in the microwave regions. However, most of us don't want to take the time to design new radios. You get the picture.

Even though I could legally use an 802.11b radio at high power, etc., I'd rather operate unlicensed and not be subject to restrictions on what traffic passes over a link. My Internet connection at home is via an 802.11b-based provider.

'nuff said.

Re:This is bad news

[akb]

Let me see if I understand your position. Hams, numbering in the thousands, maintain that part 15 users, numbering in the millions and growing at double digit rates annually, should stand aside. Nascent metro area networks, should be cut off because they may carry traffic which is encrypted, commercial or obscene.

Obviously it doesn't make sense to mix what has the potential to become a mass media service with amateur uses. Why would it be in society's interest to hobble a service on this scale for one as limited in utility as part 97?

Re:This is bad news

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If you read the whole article you will find that they actually want to boot the unlicensced people out and get it all for the licensed HAM operators. This is bad for all the WISPs out there, and then also there go my plans."

I got my Ham license when I was 10 years old. And back then, I had to learn Morse Code to do that. Today, it's almost too easy to get it.

Given what you learn from becoming a Ham operator, I'd say it's worth it. You need to know how radio works if you're going to deploy WISPS without interferring with each other.

Re:This is bad news

[kc0dxw]

That's right, hams are permitted to use the spectrum licensed to them.

It is about the rule of law, not purported social convention

Re:This is bad news

[akb]

Spectrum is governed by a political process, as it is everyone's not hams exclusive property, not "social convention". In fair political processes the interests of millions usually trump the interests of thousands. Part 15 uses are also backed by major manufacturers and service providers (IBM, Intel, ATT, Apple).

If your only arguement is "whaa! its mine" then you will not likely even get any sympathy when you are booted out of the spectrum.

Again I ask, do you think its in society's best interest to have the spectrum see limited use by an order of magnitude less people? Do you have an arguement that keeps up with changes in technology and a marketplace now occupied by billion dollar players?

I've only heard one arguement advanced so far, emergency services. I see no reason why these can't be located on another frequency. I would not feel secure with emergency services cohabiting spectrum with millions of part 15 users. I think its clear which of part 15 or part 97 users I would relocate.

Re:This is bad news

[w1rfi]

> I think its clear which of part 15 or part 97 users I would relocate.

I am not sure it is clear at all that either service will be required to relocate. The HSMM project does not seek to relocate Part 15 operation at all. It can continue its operation as a secondary user as defined by Part 15.

Frankly, the choice of 2400-2483.5 MHz for unlicensed operation was not an ideal one. That spectrum is also allocated to Industrial, Scientific and Medical devices and no user, Part 97 or Part 15, has any protection from ISM devices. If that microwave oven creams a Part 97 spread spectrum signal, there is no recourse.

If the Part 15 operation is to continue to grow, it needs spectrum not hampered by ISM. ISM gotta' go somewhere and it serves a valid purpose, so spectrum needs to be found elsewhere.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab

Replacing the internet?

[KDan]

I'm not an expert in Ham or this, but I'm curious: is there any possibility, in the medium to long term, for replacing most of the internet infrastructure with an amateur-operated wireless net, free of corporate or governmental intrusion? ie does this technology go in this direction?

Daniel

Re:Replacing the internet?

[LinuxHam]

Sure, but you can't encrypt your transmissions or transmit profanity or obscene materials.

Re:Replacing the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you want to take a MAJOR hit in speed, at least in the short term.

Re:Replacing the internet?

[Nate B.]

Technically, yes. As a matter of regulatory policy, no. Right now encryption is prohibited unless the transmission involves authentication for control operations of another amateur radio station. Otherwise transmissions must not be obscured in an attempt to hide their meaning.

A spirited debate is ongoing at QRZ.com over this same topic.

The fact is that amateur radio is regulated not only by individual adminstrations i.e. FCC in the U.S.A., but also by ITU treaty regulations as well.

Commercial traffic that is a direct benefit to either of the parties conduction the contact are prohibited as is content of an obscene nature. In short, ham radio is not currently a legal way to provide "last mile" internet. You're still limited to 802.11A/B Part 15 devices for widespread unlicensed use.

Re:Replacing the internet?

[KDan]

Thanks for the information.

Daniel

Re:Replacing the internet?

[ek_adam]

There is not enough bandwidth, even if you're dealing with low power short distance sets. Assume you're using a transceiver with a nominal 1 mile range. The signal might be good enough for a digital transmission 2 or 3 miles if conditions are good. However, the signal continues on for a long way past that; too low for a readable signal, but a constant contributor to background static. Most of the static you hear on a CB radio are mixed signals from all of the other CB's on the planet. Back when CB's were rare, you could sometimes hear skip transmissions from other continents. Now you are lucky to hear something 5 miles away.

Re:Replacing the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any possibility, in the medium to long term, for replacing most of the internet infrastructure with an amateur-operated wireless net

No.

FCC amateur rules will preclude this just based on the inability of a large population of the general internelt public to control themselves... profanity pornography etc... cannot and will not be tolerated... I.E. KB8FCC will not keep a link up so you can sit down and say the word shit 97 times in a letter to your homies. it's his arse on the line for ALL traffic that transmits from his radios.

if the general internet population had an IQ over 70 and didnt have the need to sound like idiots that dont know how to speak without profanity then it could be possible... but simply looking here, not a chance in hell....

Re:Replacing the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing the Internet? Absolutely not. You can't go long ranges to get between sites. For about $500 a month, I've got a T1 that goes a little over a 100 miles to a relatively isolated city. In six years, I think we've only had three days of total downtime. If I wanted to do that with wireless, I'd need several repeaters in remote locations. In this case, the locations would have to be way out of the way and travel a longer distance due to the city being almost surrounded by government-owned land. I'd also have to get power to the locations. Why would a company go to more trouble and spend more on equipment and have more sites to maintain for something less reliable?

Also, you don't have sufficient bandwidth over the short distances to handle exchange points. I can get 100 Mbps Ethernet cards for $25, a hub for $50, and some cables and have a 100Mbps switched exchange point. We're doing that now with three other ISP's. It isn't possible to do that with wireless, because it isn't fast enough and the bandwidth is always shared. Another problem is concentrations of users like in apartment complexes or office buildings. Again, for $25 a user plus a switch, I can do fast Ethernet, and add another 100 Mbps of bandwidth. For wireless, you can't add bandwidth for any price unless you move to different frequencies which means you can no longer use your existing cards, AP's, antennas, and probably cabling. Also, if you have to change frequencies, historically, you have to move upward in frequency. That makes the wireless even worse. It's more directional, absorbed more by walls, and the losses in the cables are much worse. The office build we're in already has three companies selling wireless and probably a dozen other buildings within receiving range that have tenants that use wireless. During the day, we typically get about 200 Kbps throughput with 3% packet loss. It's just going to get worse as more people use it. The idea of it replacing the Internet is ridiculous. It's a neat idea in certain situations for short distances, but that's it.z

Re:Replacing the internet?

[Dan East]

I am an Amateur Radio operator, and a very important part of the license is that ham bands may not be used for anything commercial. While the internet itself is not a commercial entity, it is a conduit for commercial activity. So my interpretation is that it would be illegal to broadcast internet traffic over ham bands.

Dan East

Amateur Radio needs to reinvent itself

[ramas]

I have been an amateur for 11 years now ON and OFF mainly because communication by itself (even the kind of communication that wireless offers!) is now ubiquitous with the arrival of the WWW, cell phones and sat. phones and so on. However, I believe that wireless has its own space and needs to reinvent itself. 802.11 is a great opportunity to bring out the spirit of amateur radio which is more about experimentation and exploration of our environment than just about those rock solid 59+ 40db signals from your cell phone.

lets hope that this effort provides a new lease of life to the now ailing (in terms of activity and numbers) hobby.

Re:Amateur Radio needs to reinvent itself

[evilpenguin]

I dont generaly do "me too posts, but I will in this case. I got my amateur license in 1993 because I wanted to do TCP/IP packet radio and I wanted my home on the Internet (not easily done at home in '93). Back then, the main uses were e-mail, telnet, and USENET news. None of the bandwidth hogging rich content so common today. So AX.25 with 1200 baud and later 9600 baud was fast enough.

I'll admit that my interest has since waned. My fastest digital gear is still 9600 baud, and while it is quite easy for me to communicate over 60 miles, 9600 baud doesn't cut it.

The emergence of some high speed spread spectrum stuff is pretty exciting. I will probably renew my license this year so I ca be ready to get involved. Wireless broadband over wide areas appeals to me.

Its strange how ham radio was leading-edge in wireless networking a decade ago, with pioneers like Phil Karn (KA9Q) actually contributing to the specification of the TCP protocol itself as a result of his packet radio experiements, to now, where it has been sitting well behind the part 15 world. I hope this exploration brings the hobby back to the innovative levels of 10 years ago and brings some new hobbyists in.

73 DE N0ZES

Re:Amateur Radio needs to reinvent itself

[WillWare]

[Ham radio is dying because] communication by itself is now ubiquitous with the arrival of the WWW, cell phones and sat. phones and so on.

This is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The Internet has been eating amateur radio's mindshare lunch. The demographics of ham radio has been steadily moving toward the elderly end of the curve.

One of the original functions of ham radio was to provide a venue for communication innovation. I would love to see this function find its rebirth in growing 802.11 connectivity. Maybe hams can build the big Wifi blanket that everybody talks about. It would also line up with the ham charter to provide emergency communications.

What would really be interesting would be to see hams go in novel directions of radio experiments: things like antennas even more interesting than the Pringle can, and different modulation schemes... lots of interesting possibilities.

Re:Amateur Radio needs to reinvent itself

[Ron Atkinson]

Also speaking as a ham radio operator for 24 years, I've been upset at how badly it's progressed lately. I used to try and stay on the cutting edge and enjoyed building and designing things, but now I started shifting back to the HF bands and treating ham radio as more nostalgic.

I do know some hams that also use 802.11 and claim it's "amateur radio", but it's not. It's been posted here that it's a shared band with Part 97 and 15 devices, and it is. Part 15 is supposed to accept all interference, but the interference it accepts needs to be legal interference too (such as a Part 97 accepted device). Ham bands have restrictions too in their transmissions, and Part 15 devices are typically poorly made devices that are designed to pass only at very low power levels. If a local ham went to Best Buy, bought a Linksys WAP and bumped up the power, and then if the RF slattered all over the band, then they would be in violation.

Part 15 devices are made pretty cheaply, Part 97 is made better, and commercial gear is made even better yet. You can take commercial gear and modify it for use on the ham bands, but you can't take ham gear and use it for commercial use. Part 15 devices just aren't suitable for ham radio use. What many hams are doing is basically hooking up Part 15 devices and sending out packets (some use ICMP packets) with a string that contains their callsign. Of course it's also been mentioned that on the ham bands it's illegal to obscure the meaning of the conversation and to use it for commercial purposes. This can exclude the use of encryption, so if 802.11 nodes are open then there probably isn't a lot they can do to stop rouge users from using the network other than filtering.

Now if the equipment is built from scratch in the 2.4 GHz band and FCC certified for Part 97 use, then it would be perfectly legal and there isn't much a Part 15 device user could do. I don't have a problem with this at all and I sure wish vendors such as Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, etc. would release products that are approved for the ham bands.

Summary: I highly discourage the use of Part 15 devices in the ham bands and claiming that it's "Amateur Radio" just because they slap a callsign on it, but I do encourage hams or vendors to build radios that are legal for the ham bands. If interference starts occuring and Part 15 devices aren't protected, then it's time for companies to start moving into other bands or protocols that reduce interference. Hams have shared bands with other services for years and we find ways to share the same frequencies with other primary users and not be bothered by them.

K8RCA

Re:Amateur Radio needs to reinvent itself

[w1rfi]

Hi, Ron,

Actually, other than HF and 50-MHz amplifiers, commercially made Part 97 equipment does not have to be Certificated. Hams are licensed to design and build their own equipment, if they wish.

Right now, there are no specific limits on Part 97 spurious emissions, just a requirement to use good engineering practice and a provision that if spurious emissions cause harmful interference, the amateur must correct any station problems. Although that wouldn't apply to a Part 15 operation, the HSMM group is paying close attention to filtering and amplifier linearity.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab

Replacing old technologies?

[caseyc]

This sounds very cool. I'm assuming ARRL expects to see 802.11 replacing the existing radio data systems, packet radio and such?

What are the advantages to using 802.11 on the amateur bands, versus the already allocated frequencies being used by WiFi products? Longer range? Anything else?

Re:Replacing old technologies?

[Phreakiture]

The big advantage would be speed. Packet radio is slow. 1200baud is still the norm on the 2m band.

The bandwidth of 802.11b is too much to be run on any of the VHF bands, but 70cm (440MHz) or higher may be plausible. I envision the first efforts no on 2.4GHz involving a transverter (which would convert 2.4GHz down to something else for transmission, and back up for reception)

As for usage of the existing 2.4GHz band, I regret to inform the unlicensed users that radio amateurs had greater legal access to the band well before 802.11 came along. We have a secondary allocation to part of the band, and primary to another part. Unlicensed users, using the band under the part 15 rules, have no rights whatsoever. Even so, I see no reason why we need to go chasing each other around the bands, and I disagree with the point of view that was expressed in the ARRL article. You might, though, as a courtesy to us, pick a channel above 5, since only 1-5 can be used uner part 97... where they can be used with linear amplifiers quite legally (again, assuming the user is in posession of a license).

Regarding this system replacing the internet.... I am not certain that ham radio can do that. My main concern is the fact that we cannot carry messages for hire, nor can we carry any sort of commercial traffic (a single pop-up, spam, or ecommerce site would cause a legal problem). What will make things interesting is that it will be possible for someone with an unlicensed rig to communicate with someone using a high-powered licensed rig. This will mix up the rules a bit and I'm not sure what the end result will be....

Re:Replacing old technologies?

[Andy Dodd]

In addition to channels 1-5, hams have access to frequencies "below" channel 1.

To use this, unfortunately, it will either require firmware hacking or a company being nice and shipping Australian-designated 802.11 equipment to US hams who show their licens (like Proxim did)

Re:Replacing old technologies?

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

How about a Medal of Honor tournament spanning several miles without the use of dial up and typical Internet lag?

The data is probably not encrypted and your player name or machine name can be your callsign to appease the FCC rules on identification.

diff. from computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

from the article: "Hinternet applications could include two-way streaming video, full-duplex streaming audio, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications such as eQSO, EchoLink, iLink and IRLP, and digital voice."

How is this any diff. from just using a laptop to access the internet over 802.11B. Also, what type of equipment would they need to do all of these functions because AFAIK they can't use their current gear to be able to stream video.

Re:diff. from computers?

[Red Warrior]

Actually, you would be surprised what "their current gear" includes. Hams have been broadcasting and receiving SSTV (slow scan tv) for literally decades. Packet radio (which requires computers) for a very long time, have been doing homebrew GPS, Autopatch (radio to land-line) etc.
About the only "new" equipment needed would be a 802.11 compilant transciver, which is nothing more than a radio that can transmit and receive at a given frequency (and a bit-o software), when you get right down to it.
-73-

more traffic at 2.4GHz?

[greechneb]

Just what most wireless people want, more traffic at 2.4 GHz. It's amazing how much traffic goes on at that bandwidth. I'll be glad when new frequencies are opened up for commercial use. We had quite a few 2.4GHz wireless radios that in many locations couldn't get a solid signal because of interference. We ended up switching to 5.8GHz in some locations to deal with the interference. It's for this reason I'm glad we dropped wireless, and went to phone based.

Re:more traffic at 2.4GHz?

[kd5ujz]

the 2.4ghz band is allready appointed to ham operators. Dont get mad if hams start using whats already theirs.

Re:more traffic at 2.4GHz?

[Naikrovek]

They're only using the protocol, not the frequency band. Sheesh, man.

There will be no interference.

Re:more traffic at 2.4GHz?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess again. 802.11b channels 1 through 6 lay entirely within the ham bands. Part 15 users (non-hams) can use them as long as they don't cause interference with hams and the government.

We just discussed this last night in HWUG

[Brento]

Houston Wireless User Group just discussed this as our presentation for last night's monthly meeting, oddly enough, complete with a very nice presentation by Erewhon.

Bandwidth Grab

[pommiekiwifruit]

So, is this a bandwidth grab of internet users from ham radio? The soviets were bad enough with their "woodpecker" jamming frequencies; if every computer owner with a spare hundred dollars starts broadcasting data on ham frequencies my grandad won't be able to call out "cq cq cq" much longer :-(.

Of course if it is in a new separate band, that's something else.

Re:Bandwidth Grab

[Alrescha]

"So, is this a bandwidth grab of internet users from ham radio?"

Hard to call it a bandwidth grab when it's already their band...

A.

Why ham?

[PhysicsGenius]

I understand why they used to do it back in the 50's--there wasn't much other way to talk to people far away, plus radio technology was still cool back then. But with the rise of the Internet and the replacement of vacuum tubes with computers in the hearts of true geeks, why does anybody continue hamming anymore?

Re:Why ham?

[oldave]

Recent examples... when the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, the public switched telephone network (including cell phones) was overloaded in minutes. Ham radio was the only reliable method of communication.

On 9/11/2001 in NYC, within moments, the public switched telephone network was overloaded. Ham radio was the only reliable method of communication.

In areas hit by natural disasters such as hurricanes, ham radio is often the only method of communication that works.

You see, ham radio operates on many frequencies, from local, line-of-sight to world-wide reach. In times of emergency, when other methods of communication fail, ham radio operators are there, with their batteries, radios and sometimes jury-rigged antennas to get word out about what may be needed in the area, also information regarding the health and welfare of others.

Re:Why ham?

[Nonillion]

It's just like anything else. You could blow your money on computers, HDTV, cars etc. Amateur radio has been around a long time and I enjoy it as much as working with linux, solaris and Sun boxen.

When the internet goes down and or the cell phones quit working, I can always depend on amateur radio to pass the traffic when all else fails. Ham radio was used during and after the world trade center attack because all regular communications systems were not operational (public service, cell phones, etc).

There's nothing like the thrill of working a distant station on HF under less than ideal conditions. It's like the thrill one would get after hacking a government computer, and giving yourself the refund you deserve ;p

Re:Why ham?

[dwm]

Because it's fun, of course.

The young often forget that something doesn't have to be cool to be fun.

Re:Why ham?

[VE7RJT]

>I understand why they used to do it back in the >50's--there wasn't much other way to talk to >people far away, plus radio technology was still >cool back then. But with the rise of the >Internet and the replacement of vacuum tubes >with computers in the hearts of true geeks, why >does anybody continue hamming anymore?

Why do people hunt or fish when they can go to the grocery store and buy food? For the experience and the thrill of doing it. Because it's fun. Because it's a challenge. Same thing for ham radio.

Re:Why ham?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hobby. Of course the ARRL will tell you how incredibly important amateur radio really is (providing communications in emergencies, training people in electronicvs, driving innovations), but I think that's just very obvious attempts to justify amateur radio somehow.

I am a ham, and I do it for the fun. I do foxhunting (tracking down hidden radio transmitters). I talk to people with similar interests. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to communicat with people around the world, knowing that no other infrastructure is in between us and the signal from my antenna is traveling round the globe. It grants me the right to build and experiment with RF-emitting circuits (someting I always enjoyed). Some people like to communicate around the clobe with the lowest power possible (fractions of a watt).

For many folks, ham radio is also an online chat (IRC is modeled on radio metaphors for that matter). While chatrooms etc. are widely available on the internet these days, the license requirements and at least some enforcement efforts by the FCC resp. corresponding authorities abroad keep most of those i****s off the air that made me abandon IRC in the early 90's (compare ham radio communications with what you hear on CB in the US, and you know what I mean).

And yes, radio technology still is cool. It is insanely cool if you anderstand it and you can build and modify it yourself. Cellphones may have cool technology inside, but they are mostly black boxes. Not very hackable.

Re:Why ham?

[w1rfi]

Are you saying that you believe that hams actually communicating in emergencies, the value of amateur radio as practical experience for electronics technicians and engineers and the innovations of amateur radio are no more than "obvious attempt to justify amateur radio" or do you think those things really happen? Those that would like a glimpse of the technical side of amateur radio can download about half of the technical articles found at: http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/TISarticles.html. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI

Re:Why ham?

[AvantLegion]

Those examples are interesting, but of seemingly little use.

What is the overriding importance of having the "only reliable method of communication" during Oklahoma City, or 9/11?

CNN, Fox News, etc., told me that planes slammed into the towers. I didn't need a Ham radio for it.

Perhaps you're implying that the important thing is to communicate about other things during those times, but I sure didn't find myself feeling cut off or devoid of means for important communications during those times.

I can see the use of Ham if we're, like, invaded by China, or Raelians and their extraterrestrial buddies, or something like that. But I don't see any real useful advantage of Ham in those other examples.

Re:Why ham?

[gekman]

In the hours/days after the WTC attacks, most of the cellular phone infrastructure in lower Manhattan was dead, not simply overloaded. During that period ham communications aided many agencies begin the rescue efforts, including fire, police and the Red Cross. Most of these agencies' radio equipment operated on non-compatible frequencies, so even though their radios were working, they could not talk to other groups. Many hams volunteered as "shadows" who stayed with officials of the various agencies, allowing them to talk with other officials via ham frequencies. This lack of interagency communications still exists today, although the problem is being addressed at the local, state and federal levels.

George/W2GEK

Re:Why ham?

[Anonymous Coward]

But with the rise of the Internet and the replacement of vacuum tubes with computers in the hearts of true geeks, why does anybody continue hamming anymore?

This is coming from a 20y/o ham radio op (myself) It still has high values. Trust me, sit in front of that radio and listen for a few minutes. I guarentee you'll hear at least four spoken languages and all sorts and forms of tounge, then try
to figure out what they're saying. It is this form of international community that differs from the net. You can hear these peoples opinions, sometimes you can SEE what they're saying (SSTV), and the most important part is, you don't have to pay an exclusive
monthly membership at a low price of $20.00 a month. That is why I personally defend amateur radio when people laugh at it, go ahead, laugh, but I'll be laughing at you when you're wondering what someone is saying in morse code in the movies.

Re:Why ham?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a day to day basis, it's like fishing...you never know what you're going to catch.

The radio services can be good at ad-hoc networks to fill in while the folks who would do the heavy lifting recover.

Re:Why ham?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communication for media sources is incidental and usually prohibited.

The communication that Hams in ARES and RACES (look 'em up) was for the EMERGENCY WORKERS and GOVERNMENT, plus support systems like Salvation Army (see SAREX) and Red Cross.

We act as an auxilliary communications system. When the hospital needs supplies, for instance, and can't get through on the phone, it will be Ham operators who get that message through.

You don't get it--all of the "modern" communicatiosn methods are easily disabled or overloaded. Even trunked police radio systems are vulnerable--but Hams with HT's and training can provide the backup that we need.

Hams saved lives, people. Many of us are in this hobby primarily for public service--so that we're ready to help when the time (9/11, OK City, natural disasters, disaster weather) comes. We spend our own money and our own time to equip and prepare our emergency forces--it's an all volunteer system.

You may someday owe your life to the actions of a Ham.

Jim
kc0lpv

Re:Why ham?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am saying that the role of amateur radio in emergencies is greatly overrated.

Most hams may be good radio operators, but the real problems in emergency communications probably lie elsewhere - like knowing organizational structures and operation schemes. Effective emergency operations take professionals, and amateurs may often hurt more than they help.

I've seen enough paramilitary, survival-type hams that are just waiting for an occasion to demonstrate their importance, and the ARRL is supporting them by marketing things like neon colored vests with the word "radio operator" or jackets with an ARES logo on it. I guess it gives many weekend would-be firemen something to feel good about. (Incidentially, our local NOAA station emphasizes these days that no Skywarn activation will be necessary, presumable because they get otherwise bothered by too many ARES folks who want to take part in adventure games whenever a few snowflakes fall.) I'm not saying that all hams are like this, but IMHO the ARRL is clearly catering to this kind of client.

Of course, there are cases when some hiker gets hurt or lost, and gets help by means of amateur radio. Well, the same thing happens with CB and even FRS. And probably all of these combined are by far outnumbered by the incidents resolved by cellphones. It doesn't help that in those few real emergencies, many hams use their radio for interviews for the media, in violation of part 97.

I think similar about maintaining a pool of electronics experts. It is entirely possible to get even an extra class license with only minimal electronics knowledge (the real obstacle is learning archaic morse code, which by some unfortunate quirks of history is still the de facto standard for amplitude keyed transmissions), and there is an abundance of highly skilled electronics engineers graduating from universities.

Now, there are true electronics experts in the ham community, and there are hams who can truly help in emergencies. Just as there are non-hams with similar qualities. Just because a FCC license is required, amateur radio isn't more significant than many other hobbies (as holders of a driver's license, which is about the same difficulty to obtain, aren't considered emergency transportation personnel either).

Part 97 contains some noble words about the purpose of the service, but reality may differ. It's a hobby. That's what the word "amateur" means.

Re:Why ham?

[w1rfi]

Anonymous Coward writes, "I've seen enough paramilitary, survival-type hams that are just waiting for an occasion to demonstrate their importance, and the ARRL is supporting them by marketing things like neon colored vests with the word "radio operator" or jackets with an ARES logo on it. "

ARRL is supporting them with information about emergency communications protocols and procedures. The League offers a variety of on-line courses (at some real bargain prices, as these things go) and the first developed were the emergency communications courses.

The courses and contents are describe at:

http://www.arrl.org/cce/

A tad more than jackets...

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Re:Why ham?

[starbuck5250]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the geek factor. I'm building a complete microwave station basically from scratch: including the boxes the bits go in. My own hands, my own boards, my own antennas. Homebrew. And it's all portable: I'll be putting it in my car and driving around making contacts os extremely low power with my own geeky creations.

I hate to /. him, but W3IY has a setup that I want to emulate: http://members.fcc.net/wseab/

It's better than hacking Legos!
73 de KC2HIZ Buck.

'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[hcdejong]

A radio amateur with an 802.11 transmitter could easily jam the low-power, shitty-antenna transceivers used in 802.11 networks. Only a few channels (up to 14) have been defined for 802.11 use, and it only works because transmitters have limited range. Change that, and you've got instant DOS.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[pa3gvr]

I don't think that this will wipe out 802.11b. Because of other Amateur Radio usage in this band the Amateur Radio version of 802.11b will be fixed to one channel (6). Regular 802.11b devices will automaticly switch to other channels with less interferance.

73 de Sjaak KG4PVX / PA3GVR

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[hoofie]

I thought the point was to use the 'protocols' - that doesn't automatically mean the transmissions will be at the same frequency as Wifi equipment (I'm not familiar with amateur radio so I don't know what they transmit at). I presume just the data transmission encoding, handshaking etc etc will be done according to the 801.11 standards.

However, if they are indeed at the same frequency bands, I wouldn't be best pleased to have my expensive gear rendered useless by the hairy bloke down the road with a massive aerial in his garden (neither I imagine, would the WiFi manufacturers be happy about it either as it would knacker their sales figures).

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[OverCode@work]

Is there much a determined radio amateur couldn't jam?

It rarely happens on purpose. Causing intentional harmful interference is a big no-no in amateur radio. It's against the spirit of the hobby, and quite illegal in most places. Among other things, the amateur radio rules require a specific receiving party; you can't just transmit garbage for no reason.

That said, part 15 devices must accept harmful interference from properly licensed non-15 devices. If a receiver can't handle a nearby signal from a device operated legally under part 97 (with proper identification, power output, receiving end, etc), too bad. Get a better receiver or petition the FCC to open up more frequency space to unlicensed low-power devices. I think that's the real solution.

-John, KG4RUO

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[hcdejong]

Yes, the proposal talks about using 802.11 at several different frequencies, only one of which is the band in which WiFi networks operate. But it also states that that is the first frequency that will be used.

802.11 is impractical for many frequencies available for ham radio: an 802.11 transmission (at the speeds specified in 802.11) has way too much bandwidth for sub-Ghz frequencies.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[hcdejong]

It rarely happens on purpose.

True. But the problem here is, if the performance of your 802.11 network takes a nosedive, how are you going to find out that it's due to a radio amateur jamming your signals?

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[Blimey85]

Is there much a determined radio amateur couldn't jam?

You bring up a good point. I knew a guy when I was first getting into amateur radio that liked to talk to people at the local McDonalds through their headsets. He only did it a couple of times and it seemed harmless but I guess if everyone did this, it would be quite a mess. What he would do is wait until just before closing and then sit up on the hill and talk to them saying something such as "This is God. *long pause* I want a whopper. *another pause* I am in the pink Caddy out front. Then he would just watch the people freak out.

Another buddy took his radio with him on a high school band trip and talked through a tv in another room of the hotel while it was not turned on. Caused one girl to start crying because she thought the tv was posessed. So yea, you can jam pretty much anything. If you use the right frequency and enough power, you can shut off a modern car, start things on fire, etc. That's why amateur radio licenses used to be a bit more difficult to get. Now that you no longer need to learn Morse code, all you need is some basic electronics knowldege and a few evenings to study and your ready to take the test and get your license.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering there are a great number of microwave bands, including 9cm (3.456 GHz), 5cm (5.6Ghz), 3cm (10GHz), 1cm (24GHz), 47GHz, 76GHz, 120GHz, 144GHz, 245GHz, and ALL frequencies above 300GHz, I really don't think it can be called impractical. A lot of hams are starting to do a bit of microwave work, and having a hellovalotof fun doing it.

73 de w6sn

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[SuperQ]

It's also just as easy to loose your license. Intentional interfearance will, if you get caught, will get your license revoked, and depending on the things you do.. get you jail time.. I heard (over This Week in Amature Radio) about a guy in texas wo was serving jail time, for breaking his probation and using radios to jam police, and make death threats on amature radio bands. This was after his ham license was revoked, and serving jail time for similar things.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[synchrostart]

The possibility of your scenario is rare, but if it were to happen, like the ARRL article said, you would have no ground to stand on. Read the manual on your WiFi gear. The manufacturer makes no guarantees and any interference you have to just put up with. You have no legal ground to stand on.

So for example, if an HAM wanted to use his/her rig to put out enough power to use 802.11b protocols over the frequencies some are talking about over his 200 acres ranch so he/she could use his laptop out by his/her fence and you lived on the edge of the ranch and got interference, tough luck for you. As long as the HAM is not exceeding his/her power requirements as per their level of license and only using as much power as they needed to, they could certainly do this.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[Blimey85]

I agree that it can cause revocation of your license (if you had one to begin with) as well as jail time but I think the punishment should fit the crime. If the intent was malicious, then the license should be revoked and possible jail time. However if it's someone merely playing around, and it's a one time thing, I think that should be and often is overlooked.

Some things are simply too much fun to not try once and I think talking to your neighbor through his tv, although very inmature, is one of those things. Aiming your brand new dirctional antenna at his satellite dish, cranking the watts way up, and then scaring the bejesus out of him... well, I've said more than enough.

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[hcdejong]

But how well will those high frequencies work? From a brief stint in radar engineering ISTR that around 50 GHz atmospheric absorption gets high enough to limit your range. Also, do regular (omnidirectional) antennas still function at those frequencies? Or are you limited to parabolas (and thus point-to-point links which have to be carefully aligned)?

Re:'regular' 802.11 networks in danger?

[Skuld-Chan]

I think if part 15 users ever took that sort of thing to court most courts would say something along the lines of part 15 devices were never meant for long range communications.

802.11 missed the boat on AO-40

[LinuxHam]

I always felt that with all other stuff that was crammed on the bird, it would have been nice if they stuck an 802.11 access point on board. Of course, we'll never know if it would have survived the "event" that occurred shortly after launch.

Re:802.11 missed the boat on AO-40

[MaggieL]

I always felt that with all other stuff that was crammed on the bird, it would have been nice if they stuck an 802.11 access point on board. Of course, we'll never know if it would have survived the "event" that occurred shortly after launch.

Well, there certainly are modems and computers on board. The RUDAK experiment is slowly being cranked up as the control operators (carefully) prepare to try to put AO-40 in 3-axis stabilzied mode. Digital networking though AO-40 is still part of the plan, as far as I know. I don't think 802.11 would be a very good idea in this environemnt, though; there are other protocols better suited.

The "event", for those who don't know, was a small explosion on board the spacecraft as a result of problems with the liquid-fueled rocket engine. AO-40 has only a fraction of the capabilites it was intended to have as a result. Nonetheless, AO-40 is used every day in a variety of modes, and digital comms though AO-40 are still very much on the agenda. see http://www.amsat.org for more information.

--Maggie K3XS--

Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[GlassUser]

I was at the Houston Wireless Users Group (HWUG - http://www.houstonwireless.org/) meeting last night and this was our primary topic. One concern we had was stations supervised by licensed operators and classed under Part 97 communicating with Part 15 Unlicensed (eg Joe Sixpack WiFi APs) stations. I believe the consensus is that you're not supposed to communicate like that, but I don't think anyone has proposed effective access controls for it. Any suggestions?

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[SubtleNuance]

for those who dont 'get it' (like me) why would you WANT 802.11 on Ham Radios? why not just stick w/ PCs and 802.11b APs (as we have now)?? multimedia on a radio? umm, wouldnt a wireless 802.11b tcp/ip network do that..?

what is the point? sorry - i just dont get it..

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[GlassUser]

Probably the biggest attraction is more flexibility. You have a lot more leeway with putting together "systems" (currently, to operate under Part 15, you technically have to have your entire system - transceiver, cabling, and antenna - certified together). With a licence, you're considered more responsible and somewhat less subject to rote as opposed to making sure you don't exceed your signal max spec. Also, you could transmit in that band in up to 100 watts, whereas "powerful" Part 15 equipment is only at 200 milliwatts.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[wowbagger]

You can use ANYTHING on the Ham bands as long as:
1) YOU, the control operator, are licensed for that band.
2) The equipment you are using meets the part 97 emission requirements.
3) You are not violating any of the usage rules.

If you want to use a part 15 WAP on the ham bands, you are perfectly legal so long as the equipment isn't spraying all over the place, you properly ID every 10 minutes, you are not encrypting the traffic to prevent monitoring, you are not sending commercial traffic, etc.

The fact that the WAP is part 15 in and of itself does not matter.

That said, I don't know how you would meet the ID requirement - most WAPs don't know how to send Morse, and I don't think sending out an ICMP with your call sign embedded in it would be acceptable.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[kbielefe]

Power and distance. Ham radio operators can transmit up to 1500 watts PEP and can have as big of an antenna as they want (limited only by FAA regulations and local zoning regulations). Part 15 devices are limited to 1 watt (I believe) and must use those teeny antennas that come with the device.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it would probably be acceptable to do it via an ICMP packet, or similar. (alternative, DNS UDP broadcast?). As long as the method used is a 'standard'. (it can be a community standard, but the information necessary to utilizeit must be available, etc.)
There may be some finer points to the process (letter of intent to the FCC perhaps?) but otherwise it isn't a problem. It is done all the time with other data broadcasts.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[GlassUser]

Yes, but the concern was that the usage rules state you can't broadcast to the general public. I believe that was the part that snagged us.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the spreading sequences used by the Amateur Radio Service were supposed to be different from those used under Part 15, but that requirement was relaxed on 1 November 1999. However, there is an interesting catch in the Amateur Radio Service R&Rs about power used by spread spectrum stations - no more that 100W ERP and if more than 1W ERP is used, there must be automatic means to reduce power to achieve Eb/(N0+I0) of 23dB. (47CFR97.311d)

But, 47CFR97.111 prohibits, generally speaking, communications with non-amateurs except for some very limited circumstances regarding emergencies.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[pa3gvr]

Communication from Part 97 --> Part 15 is allowed.
Communication from Part 15 --> Part 97 is resrticted.
Read this.

73 de Sjaak KG4PVX / PA3GVR

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[Bishop]

Part 15 devices such as WiFi are actually limited to miliwatts depending on the antenna used. Most commercial devices only output 30-100mW. An opporator with a Basic Amature license, which is easily obtained, is probably limited to about 100watts. An Advanced license would be required for higher power. Although 100watts is still enough to cook a bird.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[Bishop]

As long as the method used is a 'standard'.

This is correct. It may even be sufficient to set the node name to ones call sign. That is why this ARRL group is important. They will decide on an appropriate standard for station identification. The FCC probably dosen't care what the standard is any more as HAM bands are largely self regulated. The FCC only becomes involved if there is a complaint, at which time the FCC will work with the local HAMs.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[kbielefe]

Thanks for the info on the part 15 devices. My 1 watt estimate was an upper bound.

According to Section 97.313, there is no license class restriction on the power output allowed on the amateur microwave bands, making the limit 1500 Watts regardless of whether you are a technician class or extra. However, it also states that you must use the minimum power necessary to maintain reliable communications. My 5 watt 2-meter handheld is perfectly sufficient if I am on a hilltop, and my 50 watt mobile is more than adequate on level ground. So a 100 watt limit is probably a reasonable expectation both from the minimum power rule and a technical point of view, unless you are trying to bounce your signal off of the moon.

Re:Communicating with unlicensed stations?

[Bishop]

According to Section 97.313

My bad. I was going from memory. I should have really looked that up. Another poster wrote that there is a limitation of 100w on spread spectrum signals. At any rate you can already push 802.11b pretty far with decent antennas and the existing low power levels. The limitation seems to be the curvature of the Earth.

As an aside I am no antenna expert, but I cringe every time I read a story about some point to point link useing WiFi. They are willing to buy nifty cards and access points, but when it comes to antennas they often use high loss cheap coax instead of $1US/ft for nice lower loss LMR400. And some of the hacked together antennas are so hideous it is a wonder they work. There are some good and really good DIY 2.4GHz directionals out there, but the awfull pringles can is not one of them.

so does this mean that i can set up my own wifi?

[Tenchi-kun]

I wouldn't mind being able to create my own WiFi network without having to purchase the $100 a piece accessories :D,/p>

I do think that it's interesting to see people who usually work with HAM stuff to move into trying, and succeeding apparently, to make WiFi work with stuff that they've put together.

Re:Bad News

[craiglp]

Actually, amateur radio operators are *licenced* users of the 2.4ghz spectrum that wifi uses. Wifi is a part 15 *unlicenced* user. Operating under part 15 means accepting any/all interference and causing none to licenced users. Hams have known this all along. Wifi users don't ask/don't tell.

Could someone translate ham to networking and back

[jj_johny]

Maybe I am not getting it but you have 802.11 in ad-hoc mode and what do the ham folks want besides that?

You also have the stuff from locust world for mesh networks.

Re:Bad News

[oldave]

What, exactly, would the FCC be looking for?

Of course, the fact that licensed amateurs aren't limited to the micro-power levels of Part 15 devices comes into play here.

Legally, licensed amateurs are required to use only the minimum power required to maintain communication... but the rules allow up to 1500 watts on most authorized bands (the hazards of 1500 watts at 2.4 GHz, particularly anywhere near the antenna, are left as an exercise for the reader).

Part 15 devices may not interfere with licensed operations, and must accept any interference caused by licensed operations.

Re:so does this mean that i can set up my own wifi

[hcdejong]

I'd expect they are using regular 802.11 equipment, remove the antennas and connect the antenna ports to their own transmitters/receivers/large antennas. So no, it's not cheaper than off-the-shelf 802.11 equipment.

There was network...

[neurostar]

...in the medium to long term, for replacing most of the internet infrastructure with an amateur-operated wireless net, free of corporate or governmental intrusion?

Actually, before the internet became widespread, there was a large network of packet radio users on the east coast. Although it was slow (300bps to 9k6), it is possible. And there's been some work on 10 gHz broadband radio links. There's also been other bands used, but I don't have links to them.

The main problem with attempting to do this over the ham bands is the fact that encryption isn't allowed on the ham bands. Compression is allowed iirc, but encryption isn't.

neurostar

Re:There was network...

[merger]

This brings back a good old memory of Ray Petit, the inventor of CLOVER. He was one of my boy scout leaders who introduced us to HAM Radio. Easily one of the nicest people I've ever had the chance to meet. I remember in the late 80's him telling me about actually hitting the 9600 bps and how great it was. I know that last part was kind of off-topic but here is a good link to learn more about CLOVER.

Also, one's being worked on right now!

[neurostar]

I forgot to metion this in my previous post, but there is currently a group working on this idea.

The Guerrilla.net project is aiming "to provide a networking fabric outside of Governments, commercial Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and dubius Internet regulatory bodies."

neurostar

Roll Your Own 2.4-GHz/802.11b Tin Cantenna

[Anonymous Coward]

A good article from the ARRL on building your own ham antenna.

And when you are done with that, check out the fun at Pajonet!

Re:Roll Your Own 2.4-GHz/802.11b Tin Cantenna

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, removed instantly.

Here's the google cache.

And then check out Pajonet!

from the dit-da-dit-dit-dit dept

[Goody]

Please add "morse code" to the list of things that the editors don't know.

Goody
K3NG

Re:from the dit-da-dit-dit-dit dept

[rickla]

Maybe they do know it, and mean "wait" till you read this!

Re:from the dit-da-dit-dit-dit dept

[Goody]

Ah yes, I forgot about AS.

Ha. I doubt it. :-)

di di di dit
di di di dit

Re:from the dit-da-dit-dit-dit dept

[rickla]

The only reason I know as so well, is that I was a very nervous novice, and had to send it often when I was trying to read my scribbling! rick

Re:from the dit-da-dit-dit-dit dept

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a NO code extra. Well I'm a KNOW code extra and dit-da-dit-dit-dit is A and S run together which means "wait".

What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a licensed ham, but I cannot help wonder what this should be good for. 802.11 is designed for LANs, and I would expect that it doesn't work well over larger distances (just think of latency times).

For local use, 802.11 is available to everyone without a license, and hams are allowed to use it like everyone else. If you do it within the amateur radio service, it is subject to pretty stringent regulations - no encryption, no offensive/indecent communications, access only for licensed hams, no communications associated with any kind of business or pecuniary interest (and this is interpreted _very_ strictly); if the communications span a border to another country, even more stringent restrictions apply (no "third party communications" unless there's a bilateral treaty, only "messages of a superficial nature").

Amateur radio isn't meant to, nor does it work as a free (as in beer) alternative to cell phones, internet, whatsoever. Emulating something within the constraints of amateur radio that is available in a more useful form to the general public anyway is bound to fail. Packet radio activity seems to have died out in many regions, simply because Internet access is so much easier, faster, more versatile, and nowadays more easily accessible. If I want to transmit "multimedia" content (whatever that buzzword may mean), I can do so online.

I'd really like to experiment with new modes, and that's difficult enough (the regulations on spread spectrum communications are EXTREMELY strict, since the FCC has to be able to monitor your communications). Going through that hassle may be worth if you're experimenting with something new. Carrying 802.11 over to amateur radio is to me neither innovative nor interesting.

Re:What's the point?

[balister]

This is my frustration with experimentation in amateur bands today. I would love to do high speed wireless work in the amateur bands. I live in a rural area without access to any high speed internet service.

In order to produce a technically useful solution, I need to encrypt all my traffic. (Never mind some of my email is business related and I like to look at p0rn as much as the next guy :) But under my current interpretation of the ammateur rules, encryption is not permitted.

Personally, I believe some flexibility is required in order to motivate people, such as myself, with the technical expertise in radio and networking to explore wireless networking work to create network links. Without the use of these links to replace my current dial up internet, I am not motivated to invest the time and money required to do this.

Of course, this opens a real can of worms in the area of more than casual commericial use. For eaxmple, I could sell you a wireless link and the training required to pass the amateur exam. You would be using amateur frequencies legally (under the conditions I outlined above) however, you would not be contributing to advancing wireless networking.

Philip, K4EP

Re:What's the point?

[LinuxOnHal]

It sounds like in your area, using the standard 802.11b frequencies would work for you in the ISM band. If its a rural area, with no broadband access, chances are the frequencies aren't very crowded either.

Just a tip, Linksys WAP11's work great as point to point wireless bridges, I've got them easily spanning 4 miles into town with a couple of grid antennas, using the standard ISM frequencies, none of the HAM frequencies I am licensed to use.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amateur radio service isn't meant as an alternative telephone or internet service. You're beating the wrong horse here.

Re:What's the point?

[balister]

From Part 97.1:

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

My argument is that other parts of part 97 are reducing our ability to advance the radio art as amateur radio operators.

Philip, K4EP

restricted

[rickla]

Remember, anything done as an amateur can't be commercial, so it's really not feasable that these networks could hook up to the internet or otherwise have outside access.
Rick

Re:restricted

[scalveg]

Mod this up, someone! I would like to hear more about this!

This seems to be true from my (limited) knowledge of amateur radio.

Additionally I believe that transmitting encrypted information over amateur radio is similarly prohibited.

Emergencies

[gibbonboy]

As others have said, in a real disaster, the normal public networks are quickly overwhelmed. Amateur operators who can use their networking equipment over longer distances can transmit all sorts of vital information in and out of a disaster area. I am playing with these systems at home, with hopes to have them ready for emergency use soon. More experimentation leads to technical jumps not possible when design is only driven by limited power and profitability for the manufacturer.

KB3HQX, Susquehanna County ARES Coordinator
EMA/911 Database Analyst

Re:Bad News

[balister]

Bad news? As several people have pointed out part 15 devices must not interfere with licensed services and must accept interference from licensed services.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with the campus admin responsible for wireless networking. He is aware that wireless networking at 2.4 GHz is subject to interference from other services. He feels they can control this by using university policy to control on campus users. For example, if the local amateur radio club decided to broadcast a TV signal over 802.11 frequencies, they could tell them to stop since they would be on university property. However, they know that I could legally build a TV transmitter and a highly directional antenna to point at one of their access point and place this off campus. Of course this would be a waste of my time and money.

What does all this mean? In the 2.4 GHz band part 15 wireless networking devices are at the mercy of the other licensed users of the band.

Philip

I read the article...

[dissonant7]

...but I'm not a hammer. I just don't understand what exactly this means to me as an 802.11 (joe sixpack) user\WAP operator.

Does this mean that I'll be able to use the standard 802.11 card I have on my laptop to pick up signal from 802.11 broadcasting hammers on 2.4 ghz, or are they on different channels? I know that a hammer can use much more powerful antennae; does this mean a ham based 802.11 AP could provide omnidirectional 802.11 internet service over several miles? Or is all this just something for ham geeks to get excited about and the rest of us to get irritated about when the hammers start causing interference with our preexisting WAPs?

Re:I read the article...

[Nate B.]

...but I'm not a hammer.

Whew! There for a minute I was afraid my crescent and combination wrenches were posting to /. too! At least I can trust that my tape measure will keep a secret, though

WRT the rest of your comment. Sure you would be able to receive the 802.11b communications on your Part 15 device. An Amateur Radio Station is by rule in the U.S.A. prohibited from conducting communication with an unlicensed user, so no two way communication between a station operating under Part 97 may take place with a station operating under Part 15.

By definition in the Part 15 FCC rules, a licensed station of any service cannot be considered to be causing harmful interference to a Part 15 device. This is not so simple out here in the "real world" of social interaction. By rule Part 15 devices must accept any and all interference from licensed service and may not cause harmful interference to the a licensed station--a bitter pill to swallow after one has spent a considerable sum on hardware. Fortunately, there are several 802.11b channels that fall outside of the Part 97 spectrum allocation if interference becomes a problem. As a practical matter I think it will be some time before you have to worry about being wiped out by Amateur Radio operations.

ARRL's real name

[LinuxOnHal]

The posting shows the ARRL's name the "Amateur Radio Relay Legue," this isn't quite right. The ARRL is actually the American Radio Relay League, a National Association, primarily for Amateur Radio operators and interesed parties. It now has over 163,000 members and a staff of 120.

authorized/prohibited transmissions

[femaletrouble]

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/ part97/b.html contains the rules on authorized and prohibited transmissions, go down to parts 97.111 97.113

Roll your own [fill in the blank]

[pa3gvr]

Why ham?
For me it is because I can build everything from scratch if I want to.
Another reason is that the ham community still innovating.

Maybe this experiment will generate a better understanding of the interferance that is caused by all the users of the spectrum and even come with solutions that can be used for the regula part 15 801.11b devices.

73 de Sjaak KG4PVX / PA3GVR

I'm not so sure this is legal...

[tgd]

Federal regulations explicity prohibit "broadcasting" by amateur radio operators, broadcasting being defined as any radio communication intended for reception by the public, unlicensed operators.

The only way I can see this working is if they open up new bands for 802.11 communications that are exclusively for the use of licenced amateur operators, the way they have two extra bands for radio control devices for the exclusive use of amateur operators. That would mean likely more expensive hardware, and I'd wonder exactly how the amateur radio community and FCC would police it.

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[Red Warrior]

Actually, broadcasting is more accurately defined as a "one way communication, other than brief test transmissions" (I don't have my part 97 book handy, if my paraphrase is too far off, someone will correct me, I'm sure). Whether or not unlicensed entities can receive them is irrelevant.
what is relevant is whether the transmission is intended to be part of an N- (where N >=2) communication.
Btw, any yahoo can legally buy a ham radio in the US (unless your state laws say different, IANAL) and listen all day long.
-73-

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[tgd]

I can't dig up the specific law on it, but I clearly remember reading that its illegal to broadcast anything with the purpose of being received by an unlicensed radio operator, even if they are only listening. (Ie, its not illegal for them to listen, but its illegal for me to transmit something to someone listening who isn't licensed)

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[Skuld-Chan]

Its legal - take a look at part 97.311 - SS emission rules.

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[Red Warrior]

You are correct that a Ham cannot intend to communicate with a non-ham. You are correct that a Ham cannot broadcast. (These, btw, are NOT the same thing according to the FCC)
However, nothing in the article contemplated Hams communicating with non-hams. Nor did it contemplate Hams broadcasting (one-way transmissions).
When you say it would be illegal for me, KD7RAE to send a transmission INTENDED for reception Joe Nolicense, you are correct. However, when I send a 802.11 (or any other format) transmission with the intent of communicating with other Hams (as intended by the article), it is totally irrelivant if Joe Nolicense listens in.

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[Red Warrior]

Uhm...I stand corrected. Just looked up "Broadcast" in Part 97. I was defining "one-way transmissions". Your definition of "Broadcast" was correct. Mine was not.
Note to self: "Cut down on caffine may not be a good new year's resolution."
However, the article STILL doesn't contemplate Hams intending to send transmissions TO non-Hams.

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[tgd]

Damn, you had me worried. I'm off to take my technicians class exam in a couple hours... considering I only have a 90% pass rate taking practice tests, I was starting to worry that I might have something like that wrong too! :)

Re:I'm not so sure this is legal...

[Red Warrior]

Nope, just me. I don't do AM well...Esp w/o caffine.
Good Luck on the exam. Remember, when in doubt, the answer is "C".
73
KD7RAE

No, it doesn't.

[tgd]

Amateur radio regulations explicitly prohibit the use of the radio spectrum for any sort of commercial activity what-so-ever. It also explicity prohibits the transmission of any information in any form of a ciphered form, so SSL, WEP, etc are all illegal on amateur bands. You can't even SSH over a packet radio link.

M2 Antenna Systems

[dylan.ucd]

I used to work there! yeah! go M2!

I suppose instead of a PING...

[elsegundo]

.. hams will need to do a QSL instead!

Yes, I know that was quite corny...

Sounds like a great idea except...

[Viol8]

...when suddenly your kernel download and p0rn surfing comes to a grinding halt because Road Warrior wants a 10-10 and a steak with all the trimmings from Big Mama down at Tonys Truck Stop when him and his 18 wheeler arrive there in "t minus 10 woman!"

Re:Sounds like a great idea except...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is insulting that you think that Hams talk in that way. CB is on 11m anyway, it shouldnt have any effect on this.

Re:Sounds like a great idea except...

[Viol8]

It was a joke you idiot. See if you can CQ a sense of humour.

Re:Sounds like a great idea except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well seeing as it was such a funny joke, why hasn't it been modded up?

Re:Sounds like a great idea except...

[Viol8]

Probably cos the moderators were as dumb as you.

WOW

[mnmn]

I had long planned to build a very long wave radio connection with a radio guy in Pakistan, to connect them to the Internet here. I had been visiting sites to find the best way to encode digital, but this sounds perfect for the job.

802.11 over radio will also radically increase the area(useable by ISPs) . I can see it now: sitting on a remote mountain deep in Canadas country, with my solar-powered transmeta laptop, playing counterstrike with my friend, deep in the australian outback.

Cant wait to buy laptops with 802.11 over radio built in.

Re:WOW

[Viol8]

Umm , just how do you expect to get megabit per second bit rates on VLF which has an EM frequency measured in tens of Khz? I can't believe any real radio ham wouldn't know about fundamental physics such as this. I smell BS.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

either you are very young or somewhat of a moron. 802.11 already goes over radio signals. most commonly over some of the 2.4Ghz frequencies. The real point here in that this concept in theory give HAM operators more flexibility in using 802.11 technolgies over frequencies they already have the right to use. HAM operators have different power and other restrictions than your average person on certain frequencies. The systems in the article referenced in the original post is of utterly no use to anyone who is not a HAM, either at the access point or on the wireless client, as these systems are using frequencies that only HAMs have priviledges on.

Re:WOW

[mnmn]

Umm lemme check did I mention megabits per sec?? hmmm. Nope cant find it.

Re:WOW

[mnmn]

By radio signals, | meant the lower unaccessable (medium and higher level) frequencies. Whats moronic about this exactly??

Re:WOW

[Viol8]

Well then how do you expect 802.11b to work then? Or do you think the standard will work at 20kbs?

Re:WOW

[mnmn]

Ever heard of MULTIPLE CHANNELS that the 802.11 uses in its bandwidth? Since that bandwidth would be mostly empty, channels of around 64k can be added to potentially half a megabit.

Re:WOW

[Viol8]

Oh get a bloody clue. If you have a channel sending 64Kbit of data then it'll use >= 64Khz of bandwidth. How many of those channels do you think you can fit on the VLF waveband which ends at 100Khz?? And who says most of the VLF band is empty , a lot of it is used for time signals, navigation bouys , military comms and so on. The reason these wavelengths arn't used for high speed comms is because ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! When you've gone and read a decent communications physics book get back to me.

IRLP

[disc-chord]

IANAH (I am not a Ham) but...

How can this promote or invigorate amateur radio at all? I have had the opportunity to explore the world of amateur radio with friend's equipment and I believe I have a fair understanding of the prinicples involved, but I cannot for the life of me imagine any opportunities granted through the use of 802.11 that are not already available.

I have "played" with Shortwave on a 15-25(I forget) meter antena and spoken to the Ukraine, it was crap and barely destinguishable. I have also "played" with the IRLP (a project I would have expected /. to embrace ages ago, since it is bringing new people to Linux daily by providing an actuall use for average pc users) and found quite the opposite. On a little mobile car radio I was able to speak clearly to the UK and Australia as though I was using a really high quality cell phone service.

So what exactly does this project do to "reinvent" Amateur Radio that is in any way more attractic/effective/efficient/etc. than the IRLP which has already been around for years and has relays now all over the world?

Think of the possibilities

[fmaxwell]

With ham radio equipment and the 802.11b, ham operators will be able to move files, audio, video, and messages all over the world!

Oh, wait... The rest of us can already do that with the Internet. And we don't require big investments in ham radio gear and unsightly antennas. Oh, and there's also the fact that there are far more people with Internet connectivity than ham radio gear. And some guy with a cable modem is not polluting the radio spectrum with unnecessary traffic that can interfere with everything from SETI programs to the neighbor's TV picture. (No, I don't care about whether you think it's the TV's fault. The average consumer can't redesign their television just because you decided to beam a kilowatt signal towards their house.)

Yeah, I know, flamebait. Troll. And I'll get to hear a dozen or more outlandish justifications for this (like stories of mountain climbers with ham radio gear and handhelds). I just get annoyed with the way that some ham radio operators think that a crippled, slow alternative to the Internet via RF will be really cool.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[GigsVT]

I don't think anyone is proposing an alternative to the Internet. Ham radio can't carry commercial traffic, can't carry encrypted traffic, must identify with a callsign every 10 minutes, etc.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[I'm just joshin]

And what happens when your internet goes down due to a natural or man-made disaster? Amateur radio is a -supplement- to normal communications channels, not a replacement or drop-in component to such systems. Most communications systems used by end users (cell phones, wired phones, and internet) depend very heavily on the availability of basic infrastructure services that typically are overloaded or go offline in an emergency. Crippled and slow alternatives aren't cool. But being able to communicate around the world on just a few watts of power and being able to communicate at all when power is out and phones are down are. Especially when you're desperately trying to find out if someone you love is alive. A Santa Cruz ham helped me contact my family after the 1989 Bay Area earthquake when phones were still down and would be down for another 14 hours.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[oldave]

Also, when these disasters take place, being able to send video or still photos of damage, etc, back to a state or regional Emergency Operations Center will help speed response of equipment and material to deal with the issues actually occurring, not necessarily what's in a written plan that didn't cover what has actually happened.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and when the internet is down due to some sort of terrorist attack, who do you think is going to be able to set up data networking for the emergency relief groups?

And RE your comment on TV RFI, it isn't us "...think(ing) it is the TV's fault...", it is the United States Government saying "It is the TV's fault". HAMs do their best to resolve interference issues as a matter of being a good neighbor, but we are certainly not required to do so.

HAMs frequently help people resolve interference issues that have *nothing* to do with the HAM's equipment. People assume that because you have a couple of Yagi's and a dipole in your backyard, that's why their VCR isn't working right. Well, it turns out to ACTUALLY be their garage door opener, but they still don't believe you until you flip that breaker and the interference goes away.

Geez, people...

Re:Think of the possibilities

[ka9qpn]

Have a few issues because of some television interference once upon a time, or what? Sure ham radio is dated, slow, crippled, and whatever else you call it. It also keeps us out of the taverns the same way that the Internet keeps modern geeks sober. You want to whine about unnecessary traffic polluting the airwaves, let's talk about Oprah, radar guns, and RFID tags.

And who says that antennas are unsightly?

Re:Think of the possibilities

[fmaxwell]

Yeah, and when the internet is down due to some sort of terrorist attack, who do you think is going to be able to set up data networking for the emergency relief groups?

You seem to forget that 20 years ago there was no public Internet. In emergency, relief groups don't need data networking. They need volunteers, blood donors, food, medical supplies, clean water, etc.

If networking is needed in an emergency, it can be done much more effectively through direct broadcast satellites.

it is the United States Government saying "It is the TV's fault".

So what is a person supposed to do? Go back to school, get an EE degree, and redesign their television? If you know that TVs, in general, are sensitive to RF interference from your gear, then why are you broadcasting? Why should your "hobby" involve annoying many people around you?

People assume that because you have a couple of Yagi's and a dipole in your backyard, that's why their VCR isn't working right.

I'll tell you a little story. Years ago, I was awoken by a distorted voice coming out of the speakers on my stereo. The stereo was off at the time. I was using high-end speakers connected with 10 gauge cables to one of the better Sony receivers (built a lot better than what one finds now). My father, at the other end of the house had interference so bad that he could not listen to his stereo. This went on for a period of about two weeks, during which time I frantically tried to find out who was responsible. Guess who it was: A ham radio operator about a block away. He was using a high-gain antenna rotated towards our house through which he was pumping a kilowatt. And he was talking to someone who was a local phone call away. When I approached him about it, he became belligerent, blaming my stereo and my fathers'. It was only when I pointed out the FCC rule about only using enough power to establish and maintain communications that he backed off and knocked the power down to 50 watts or less.

So please don't paint all ham radio operators as saints who live to serve man in emergencies. This guy was just a putz who sat in his basement using a kilowatt linear amp to compensate for having a small penis. He would use his gear to talk to anyone who would answer him -- with no concern for the interference it caused.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[fmaxwell]

And what happens when your internet goes down due to a natural or man-made disaster?

While the Internet is a valuable tool, it is far from indispensible. When necessary, networking can be provided by direct broadcast satellite (e.g., DirecTV) with better data rates and reliability.

A Santa Cruz ham helped me contact my family after the 1989 Bay Area earthquake when phones were still down and would be down for another 14 hours.

And in those cases, ham radios are fine. But, with the Internet, there is little need for ham radio use during non-emergencies. If you want to talk to someone on the other side of the world, the Internet is likely to be a better choice. Ever heard of a ham radio café in China?

Re:Think of the possibilities

[ka9qpn]

And of course, your solution is to paint us all with the same tar brush because somebody gave your dad a ration of shit many years ago.

I don't own an amplifier. Maybe that makes me content with the pecker that God issued me (at least in your world).

I maintain that there are still a sturdy contingent of clueless folks who blame every belch of their electronics on the 'guy with the big antenna'. Let ME tell YOU a story. Twice in my ham/CB career I was summoned to neighbor's homes to answer for my alleged TV interference. Twice I tried to keep from laughing myself to urination while the TV went batshit with 'my' interference while I was standing there! I was a lot more gracious than I should have been, as the accusers were in both cases complete assholes. Had they not been so, or showed a little remorse at accusing me falsely, I might have been motivated to help them find the ne'er-do-wells. As it was, I was very happy to let them live with their irritations.

Moral: there are a lot of folks that are given to overcompensating. A few of them do it here.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[fmaxwell]

And of course, your solution is to paint us all with the same tar brush because somebody gave your dad a ration of shit many years ago.

You completely missed the point of the story. I was showing that hams do cause interference and that they are often not the saintly people that you would have us believe. The interference was more of a pain to me than it was to my father and I was the one that had to confront the irate I'll-do-whatever-I-want ham radio operator. So don't go assuming that I'm another G.W. Bush trying to get even for what someone did to my father years ago.

I maintain that there are still a sturdy contingent of clueless folks who blame every belch of their electronics on the 'guy with the big antenna'.

And I maintain that not every person who blames a ham radio operator for interference is wrong and that not every ham radio operator is a good, responsible person.

I don't own an amplifier. Maybe that makes me content with the pecker that God issued me (at least in your world).

Have you got a better explanation of why someone would use a kilowatt amp with a high-gain, directional antenna to talk to someone 15 miles away -- expecially when he later proved that he could do so with less than 50 watts? He's obviously trying to compensate for something.

Moral: there are a lot of folks that are given to overcompensating. A few of them do it here.

We'll forgive you.

Re:Think of the possibilities

[ka9qpn]

So don't go assuming that I'm another G.W. Bush trying to get even for what someone did to my father years ago.

I still haven't heard a bit of positive, i. e. not all amateur radio operators are overcompensating boobs who carelessly ionize birds for miles around for self-gratification. Which just ain't so. Conseqently, I don't see your comments as anything better than exercise of an old prejudice. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, amateur radio did advance the technology in the electronics community for many years. We still provide valued public service and aid in times of disaster and emergency. Those are facts. Your ancient RFI-based grudge is an anecdote. Life goes on, and I'm afraid so will your silly assault on a group of mostly decent people.

I'm moving on. Can you?

Re:Think of the possibilities

[fmaxwell]

I still haven't heard a bit of positive, i. e. not all amateur radio operators are overcompensating boobs who carelessly ionize birds for miles around for self-gratification.

Then I'll say this:

Many ham radio operators have been instrumental in saving lives and aiding relief workers in times of disaster.

Now it's your turn. You have portrayed everyone who is not a ham radio operator as some kind of ignorant buffoon who has an axe to grind against ham radio operators. How about admitting that not all people who complain about ham radio RFI are in the wrong, stupid, and unreasonable.

Life goes on, and I'm afraid so will your silly assault on a group of mostly decent people.

"Silly assualt"? Please! Quit playing the victim. I just stated my opinion that 802.11b over ham radio does not serve a justifiable purpose. Why risk interference with everything from SETI experiments to television sets to do something over radio that you could do interference-free, and more reliably, over the Internet 99.99% of the time?

I'm moving on. Can you?

Yep.

P.S. I have a marine radio in my boat, a pair of business-band radios, and a pair of FRS radios. Over the years, I have come to realize that every time I key the mic, I risk interfering with someone else. Because of that, I try to only use transmitters when necessary and never for idle chit-chat.

Not really

[Andy Dodd]

The overlap between the ISM band and the amateur 2.4 GHz band is only partial.

a) While hams have legal rights that place Part 97 users above Part 15 users, hams are usually more intelligent about causing interference and more responsible about solving it. I.E. while a ham legally doesn't have to solve an issue of a Part 97 interfering with a Part 15 device, he usually will try to help with the problem. (Many hams will readily supply their neighbors with interference filters if they complain that the ham's HF rig is causing TV reception or phone problems.) OTOH, Part 15 users are usually assholes about fixing problems even though they are legally required to.

b) Hams can legally operate 2.4 GHz equipment outside of the ISM band. Trust me, if they're able to, they WILL to avoid the Part 15ers. Getting equipment that will operate like this can be tough though - I've only heard of it being done with Proxim equipment, who would sell you WLAN gear that was designated for the Australian ISM band (which overlaps the US amateur band completely) if you faxed them a copy of your license.

Been done before

[Andy Dodd]

Do a Google search for N9ZIA.

He has some excellent WiFi info, including some info on reclassifying 802.11 gear as Part 15. The solution to the IDing problem was exactly what you suggested - An occasional ICMP packet with your callsign embedded.

music?

[n1ywb]

It's illegal to transmit music in the ham band, we know this. But is it illegal for me to stream an MP3 over an amateur radio 802.11 link? What about downloading an MP3? That's not exactly playing music that other people could receive. I'm not sure if that violates the intent of the FCC's rule.

On the other hand, the last thing the FCC will probably ever bust you for is using your ham radio 802.11 link to download an MP3. Maybe if you're running a public shoutcast server over it...

Re:music?

[Student_Tech]

I think it is allowed because I recall reading in a QST, magazine produced by ARRL, where they asked questions and if I was listening to a sound file being sent over 1200 baud packet (slow I know, but only sound I can think of right now) it is gonna sound like a modem sending data, not really music to most people. I think the no-music part is more for people so they aren't competing with normal broadcast radio stations, because the amateur radio license is lots cheaper to get than a commerical radio station.

-KC7QHH

Important things to remember

[Uhh_Duh]

I've been a licensed HAM radio operator for about 11 years now (I got my license back in the days when you had to know morse code)!

Anyway.. HAM operators aren't just a bunch of radio cowboys out there with expensive high-powered gear. The HAM test itself makes sure that people understand a significant amount of theory before they're allowed to use that gear. In addition, while the laws are very flexible in part 97, they also have some interesting wording. For example, what's the maximum amount of power you're allowed to use in any given band? Answer: "The minimum needed to establish reliable communications". My observations of the HAM community are that these are polite, responsible people and I don't think you need to worry about anyone intentionally causing interfernce to your Wi-Fi network. In situations where HAM's need long-distance high-power signals, they often switch to directional beam antennas so as not to interfere with anyone. If anything, they're going to want to help improve the 802.11b spectrum.

No reason for anyone to get their panties in a wad. This is a GOOD thing for the WiFi community as you're going to start seeing some very unique and innovative uses for the spectrum -- you're also going to see a very large community with the ear of the FCC fighting to improve WiFi in general.

Re:Important things to remember

[Chanc_Gorkon]

First off, they are using the PROTOCOL and not THE BAND! What I mean is theya re talking about using the 802.11 protocol for communication on the Amateur Bands. This means they will use a Ham Band like 2m, 70cm or maybe the 1.2 GHz band. They are not going to be using the SAME band as WiFi uses. So there's not going to be any problem with them doing this to WiFi. Problems that will happen are 802.11 stuff messing around with 2m voice or other modes (nothing we ain't used to already). Only few words....I doubt 11MB or 72MB even will be possible on these. The bandwidth of the RF signal has to be acceptable to make the frequency usable by multiple networks. An example would be your club wants their own 802.11 network on one freq while the other club wants a freq near you. You have to be separated a bit in order for you to not cross talk. If the bandwidth is too wide, you won't be able to maintain a separation. Also, I think most all WiFi gear uses spread spectrum(ala DSSS) and hams have been experimenting with that for a while. My question is will the hams use spread spectrum also or are they using something different?

Re:Important things to remember

[gfilion]

What I mean is theya re talking about using the 802.11 protocol for communication on the Amateur Bands. This means they will use a Ham Band like 2m, 70cm or maybe the 1.2 GHz band. They are not going to be using the SAME band as WiFi uses.

What I'm worried about is that they're talking about implementing the 802.11b protocol, which is the annexe B of the 802.11 protocol. This annexe specifies the specific frequencies to use. If they want to implement 802.11 over their own freqs (2m, 70 cm, etc) they should not implement annexe B.

It's maibe just a typo or an honest mistake, but it may also mean that they don't what their doing...

GFK's

Re:Important things to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

"First off, they are using the PROTOCOL and not THE BAND!" and "They are not going to be using the SAME band as WiFi uses."

I hate to break the news to you, but 802.11b channels 1 through 6 lay ENTIRELY within the amateur 2.4GHz band! When we talk about using 802.11b on the amateur bands, we mean constraining our operation to channels 1 through 6. If Part 15 users experience interference to or from hams (not likely), they simply need to move up to channel 11 to alleviate the problem.

Re:Bad News

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that the rules for amateur radio require them to use the minimum amount of power to communicate. Therefore, there shouldn't be much if any interference. Again, if you had a clue, you'd realize that the 802.11b device you bought is an unlicensed device so if it causes interference to a licensed device, you must turn off the unlicensed device. If the licensee causes unintentional interference to non-licensed devices, most people with a license will try to resolve the problem.

Again, if you had a clue, you'd know that the 802.11b band is split into channels. It is only legal for amateur radio operators to operate on some of the channels. The other channels are out of the amateur radio band.

Also, if you are having a problem and you need communications in an emergency, amateur radio operators would be more than happy to just let you die because we wouldn't want to get on your "public" frequencies.

Before you start with your "there goes 802.11b" crap, do your research, ok?

We still have 2300-2310

[Skapare]

US hams are still authorized for 2300-2310 MHz. See the ARRL band plan for the 13cm band. Actually, we used to have all of 2300-2450 in one big 150 MHz chunk. But 80 MHz of it has been lost, so it's now 2300-2310 MHz (mostly because that's where the DX work was done, although it does include things like repeater inputs input so as to have a wider frequency split) and 2390-2450 MHz. Hams do not have 2450-2483.5 MHz, so any operation there has to be strictly under Part 15 rules, including things like not interconnecting any Part 97 operations.

US Hams still have all of 5650-5925 MHz in a single 275 MHz chunk in case you might be interested in working some 802.11a.

Re:In addition..

[Wireless_Monkey]

Hmmmm...... are you a TAPR member?

One has to question, because for the last 5 years they have been trying to do exactly what you suggest. They recently gave up their effort to produce a Spread Spectrum radio because of the fact their volunteers could not work fast enough to keep up with the parts obsoleting themselves.

Bottom line, it is an expensive task to produce a spread spectrum radio. This is not a TNC2. A spread spectrum radio is both a radio and computer. This is further complicated by the fact that ham's, as well as most hobbyists are limited in budget.

Hence, leveraging existing 802.11b technology makes perfect sense.

It is either that or sit on their collective hands and do nothing.

Hams are not trying to boot part 15 users.

[Wireless_Monkey]

You need to re-read the article because it says nothing of the sort. The hams are trying to get primary access to I believe 2mhz of the band, which is next to nothing, and in any case, has nothing to do with their 802.11b efforts (it is for narrowband satellites). By and large, what they (The HSMM) is GOOD NEWS for part 15 hackers, who are now operating in a gray area. They (the part 15 hackers) have much in common with the roots of ham radio. I think this is a very good thing. And it is not much of a problem for a real WISP, because the population density is so small in the rural areas a real WISP would operate in. The only time a part 15 user has to defer to a ham is if they cause interfernce to communications on a ongoing base, and the times this has happened can be counted on one hand. The sky is not falling.

Update your rule book

[Wireless_Monkey]

Not anymore. Hams can conduct personal business on amateur radio as well as make personal sales of amateur equipment. What they can't do is run their small business on it nor telecommute to their employer using it.

This change is often described as "You can now order a pizza using the autopatch"

The only thing missing from making this the next killer application is allowing them to run encryption, which a rule change may be in the works for.

Re:Update your rule book

[kb7oeb]

I didn't think this was true so I used google and found this:

Phone Patch, Autopatch and HF/VHF/UHF Operating Guidelines

2) Phone patches or autopatches involving the pecuniary interest of the originator, or on behalf of the originator's employer, must not be conducted at any time. The content of any patch should be such that it is clear to any listener that such communications are not involved. Particular caution must be observed in calling any business telephone. Calls to place an order for a commercial product may be made such as the proverbial call to the pizza restaurant to order food, but not calls to one's office to receive or to leave business messages since communications on behalf of ones employer are not permitted. Calls made in the interests of highway safety, however, such as for the removal of injured persons from the scene of an accident or for the removal of a disabled vehicle from a hazardous location, are permitted.

Now I know :)

How about 802.11a? 5650-5925 MHz anyone?

[Skapare]

Hams also have 5650-5925 MHz. Of course, RF parts for this portion of the spectrum are more expensive. But antennas are smaller for the same directionality and gain, and the bandwidth is greater. It can open some additional channels, too. Anyone know of any amateur work being done with 802.11a in this area?

Update your rule book (again!)

[Wireless_Monkey]

Spread spectrum on the ham bands is restricted to 100 watts, not 1500 watts as you claim.

Further, unless your 802.11b card can implement automatic power control, you are limited to 1 watt,

• which is excactly the same as part 15 users are limited to

I repeat, The sky is not falling

Re:Update your rule book (again!)

[oldave]

I didn't claim we could do 1500 watts with spread spectrum. I said hams can do up to 1500 watts on most authorized bands.

To clarify, there are some bands, and some modes even on other bands, where reduced power is required.

Frankly, I can't see doing 1500 watts on anything but HF, though I know there are the moonbounce folks who do 1500 watts into some impressive arrays and get rather large ERP values.

Oh wow dude

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do we start logging SSID? :-)

minor nit.

[Anonymous Coward]

ARRL - American Radio Relay League.

Re:Bad News

[vk2tds]

I need to say firstly that I am a board member from TAPR, and a member of the ARRL. These are my own views however.

>What does all this mean? In the 2.4 GHz band part 15 wireless networking devices are at the mercy of the other licensed users of the band.

Exactly. Basically if an 802.11 user is causing harmful interference to a Part 97 Amateur Station they can be required to stop operating.

Think of that University Campus... If there was a HAM station attempting to recieve low power 2.4 GHz and this was being interfered with by the Uni, the Uni would have to turn off 802.11 stuff.

But this does not happen very often in practice since 802.11 is fairly low power and will cope with most interferemce, and just sounds like white noise anyway

>I'd really like to experiment with new modes, and that's difficult enough (the regulations on
>spread spectrum communications are EXTREMELY strict, since the FCC has to be able to monitor
>your communications). Going through that hassle may be worth if you're experimenting with
>something new. Carrying 802.11 over to amateur radio is to me neither innovative nor interesting

Realistically using 802.11 is interesting... It is returning 802.11 to its roots. 802.11 has been copied from the Ham AX25 protocol. 802.11 uses station names called the SSID. These are part of the callsign in AX25.

802.11 can be changed in frequency, changed in power, and modified beyond belief. There are many things that are illegal under part 15 that you can do under part 97...

New protocols are really just the start.

>Only a few channels (up to 14) have been defined for 802.11 use,
>and it only works because transmitters have limited range

This is not accurate. There are 14 center frequencies, but only THREE channels.

What is needed...

What 802.11 really needs is its EXCLUSIVE FREQUENCY - which is not going to happen :-(

Darryl

Elitist old fogies are killing ham radio

[xtal]

I am a licensed ham - have been since I was 9 years old, yet feel sad when I read the article. It used to be hams were on the forefront of developing new radio technologies (indeed, that's one of the tenets of the amateur radio charter - furtherance of the radio art) but here I see them (us) glomming onto technology mostly developed in the commercial sector, and threatening to push unlicensed users out. Hams still have a boatload of frequencies available, especially in the microwave regions. However, most of us don't want to take the time to design new radios. You get the picture.

Bingo! I've been a ham radio op since I was 13, and this year will be my 14th with a ticket. 73 de VE1SFM. Back in the day, you used to see all sorts of problems with digital modes and packet radio mixed with the internet. People freaked, because the internet was seen as a threat. I was into that for a long time. How many of shops even have homebuilt gear in them? I have some stuff, but mainly accessories, power supplies and antennas. Everything else is commercial. It seems more and more people rely on commercial stuff from companies like Kenwood, because it's reliable and inexpensive realative to developing your own. That's not why ham radio developed as a hobby, though.

Along comes 802.11. Hams should be embracing spread spectrum technology and pushing the envelope. The design of this technology is hard, and it's already available to anyone. The genie is out of the bottle with 802.11 though - the fact I can go in and buy this hardware for $100 is absolutely mind boggling. People should be looking for ways to extend and modify this gear, looking at ways to get into making custom digital chips to change the modulation schemes, etc etc etc.

If you told me I could go buy a SS radio w/10mbit bandwidth (let alone 54mbit) with a computer interface for $120cdn 10 years ago, I would have laughed in your face. That was science fiction, the stuff of star wars satellites.

But, no, instead what I see here is the ham radio organizations trying (hopelessly, I might add) to kill or restrict one of the best things to happen to public communications since Marconi flew a kite. Or tesla made a coil :). Anyone who doesn't like seeing city-wide lan's spring up based on this technology.. well, THEY should go fly a kite.

Bah, humbug.

Re:Elitist old fogies are killing ham radio

[w1rfi]

> But, no, instead what I see here is the ham > radio organizations trying (hopelessly, I might > add) to kill or restrict one of the best things > to happen to public communications since > Marconi flew a kite. ARRL is not trying to kill or restrict the best thing to happen since Marconi, it is trying to use the 802.11b technology within amateur radio. Although I am sure that amateurs will make some progress with pushing the state of the art, the concept that the 802.11b standard could have been developed by a handful of experimenters is ludicrous. It took an industry millions and millions of dollars to make it happen. 802.11 is really not even very good spread spectrum. One of the future goals of the HSMM group is to develop ways that amateurs can experiment with non-standard spread spectrum and possibly make some real improvements along the way. Please don't feel that these amateurs see the Part 15 users as the enemy, because they don't. Some are even professionals in the field. Just as there is overlap in our spectrum, there is also a natural separation, and the goals and intent of unlicensed operation are not necessarily the same as Part 97. Those that want to build a network so that anyone in their community can access xxx.com should do so under Part 97. Those that want to experiment with protocols and equipment and antennas and amplification should do so under Part 97, with the clear understanding that the result can only be used by licensed amateurs and the prohibition against business use and the content of xxx.com are clearly spelled out in Part 97. I expect that, just as is happening now, no small number of the Part 15 users will continue to be hams, and those who want to do more experimentation than allowed under Part 15 will become licensed under Part 97. The HSMM group is sure hoping that the latter happens. Those who are interested in amateur radio and its potential can vistit the ARRL Web site at http://www.arrl.org. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab

As a licensed ham...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good news. Ham radio is going to go extinct if we don't start moving into new technologies. I haven't even touched my radio for ages but maybe this is something I can try.

OT

[gekman]

Great call, Ed!

73, de George/W2GEK

Every one reading this can get a HAM license!

[Newer Guy]

This is true. It's EASY. There's no more code test for the Communicator license. All you have to do is memorize some really easy stuff. Radio Shack even has a book called: "From 5 watts to 100 watts", that's designed for CB ers! Exams are given every week all over the place. Check out arrl.org for locations and practice tests. Also, there's an iminent FCC ruling allowing hams to use digital encryption for their data. You know you'd like to run an 802.11(b) link with up to 1000 watts, now wouldn't you?

Re:Ninnle on the air!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is asking why Ninnle Linux is considered offtopic considered offtopic?

This deserves better formatting...

[John Miles]

... although I don't tend to agree with Ed's assertion that 802.11's core technology is some sort of deep voodoo that could never have come out of anyone's ham shack.

Nowadays, the 'interesting' part of the RF world is UWB (ultra-wideband wireless) technology. UWB occupies the embryonic-technology niche that spread-spectrum occupied 20 years ago. And if I can just scrape together whatever Picosecond Pulse Labs wants for their new 100-GHz samplers and the time to fool around with them, well... there ya go.

(begin quote of parent message from Ed Hare)

> But, no, instead what I see here is the ham
> radio organizations trying (hopelessly, I might > add) to kill or restrict one of the best things > to happen to public communications since
> Marconi flew a kite.

ARRL is not trying to kill or restrict the best thing to happen since Marconi, it is trying to use the 802.11b technology within amateur radio. Although I am sure that amateurs will make some progress with pushing the state of the art, the concept that the 802.11b standard could have been developed by a handful of experimenters is ludicrous. It took an industry millions and millions of dollars to make it happen.

802.11 is really not even very good spread spectrum. One of the future goals of the HSMM group is to develop ways that amateurs can experiment with non-standard spread spectrum and possibly make some real improvements along the way. Please don't feel that these amateurs see the Part 15 users as the enemy, because they don't. Some are even professionals in the field.

Just as there is overlap in our spectrum, there is also a natural separation, and the goals and intent of unlicensed operation are not necessarily the same as Part 97. Those that want to build a network so that anyone in their community can access xxx.com should do so under Part 97. Those that want to experiment with protocols and equipment and antennas and amplification should do so under Part 97, with the clear understanding that the result can only be used by licensed amateurs and the prohibition against business use and the content of xxx.com are clearly spelled out in Part 97. I expect that, just as is happening now, no small number of the Part 15 users will continue to be hams, and those who want to do more experimentation than allowed under Part 15 will become licensed under Part 97. The HSMM group is sure hoping that the latter happens.

Those who are interested in amateur radio and its potential can vistit the ARRL Web site at http://www.arrl.org.

73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab

(end quote)

No, READ THE ARTICLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: "Champa's team is calling the specific techniques, software and hardware involved "the ARRL 802.11b protocol" to distinguish it from the unlicensed, commercial protocol."

ARRL 802.11b Protcol NOT EQUAL TO Commercial 802.11b.

We want to protect our existing spectrum resources, which are continuously under attack by commercial interests.

JD

Re:No, READ THE ARTICLE

[Wireless_Monkey]

Ahhh......sure. And your point is?

Re:No, READ THE ARTICLE

[Anonymous Coward]

That this is not some ham-radio-operator intrusion into spectrum that "belongs" to the WiFi users.

Hams will make every effort to NOT interfere with commercial systems, but on bands where we are licensed and/or primary, we have to actually USE our spectrum to its fullest, or the commercial entities will start in again with "we could put this to better u$e...".

JD

Re:In addition..

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post is plagiarized from http://www.sss-mag.com/hamss2.html.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The startling truth finally became apparent, and it was this: Numbers
written on restaurant checks within the confines of restaurants do not
follow the same mathematical laws as numbers written on any other pieces
of paper in any other parts of the Universe. This single statement took
the scientific world by storm. So many mathematical conferences got held
in such good restaurants that many of the finest minds of a generation
died of obesity and heart failure, and the science of mathematics was put
back by years.
-- Douglas Adams

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...