Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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!
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?
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.
If there is nothing left worth living, what are you willing to die for?
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
Carpe Diem
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.
- ramas opines !!
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.
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.
What's your damage, Heather?
Of course if it is in a new separate band, that's something else.
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.
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.
Intelligent Life on Earth
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?
funny munging
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.
This is what I do at Subway at lunch. Then I rush back to Slashdot.
Ah, yes, but does your hamming integrate streaming audio?
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
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.
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.
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.
neurostarRecent 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.
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."
neurostarPlease add "morse code" to the list of things that the editors don't know.
Goody
K3NG
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
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....
www.wavefront-av.com
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.
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
"Never pet a burning dog."
Because it's fun, of course.
The young often forget that something doesn't have to be cool to be fun.
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.
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
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.
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.
.. hams will need to do a QSL instead!
Yes, I know that was quite corny...
The revolution will be televised. Blackout restrictions apply.
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.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
IANAH (I am not a Ham) but...
/. 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.
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
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?
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.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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-
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
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.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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.
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?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
..don't panic
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.
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?
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
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn...
... 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)
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.