Wrong, they are "regulated", but not "licenced". Big differance.
Above 300gHz (and below 3kHz), it is unregulated, and you can do whatever you want (probably won't be effective, given the nature of the bands, though). There are no restrictions on what is done, nor who does it.
45mHz, 900mHz, 2.4gHz, 5gHz, 24gHz, and 60gHz (and some others) are regulated, but unlicenced. The FCC sets restrictions on what can be done, but not who can do it.
Most other usefull frequencies are reserved for licenced (or military / special case) use. The FCC restricts both the who and the what.
For 2.4ghz ISM, the FCC allows this under part 15 (hams and military fall under different "parts", with different rules, which I can't seem to recall):
Point to multi-point - 30dBm (1W) TX power, 36dBm (4W) EIRP
Point to point - 30dBm TX power, 36dBm + 3dBm per 1dBm reduction in TX power.
In 5.8ghz ISM (but not the overlapping UNII):
PtMP - same as 2.4
PtP - 30dBm TX power, unlimited EIRP.
So, no a 1000mW (1W, 30dBm) transmiter, with a 24dB antenna, would not be legal in 2.4ghz ISM (the 802.11b/g band, and the most frequently used). It would, however, be legal in 5.8 ISM, one of the bands 802.11a can use (it also often uses the much more restrictive UNII bands, where this setup would be WAY over the limit)
Slashdot Mirror
I.e. do you want a cluster that acts like a mainframe, or one that acts more like a supercomputer?
You will need to answer "why?", before anyone can really help you with "what?" or "how?".
What is a language if not an encoding of concepts? Just where would you draw the line?
Morse code isn't a simple 1 to 1 encoding of the latin alphabet; it is considerably more complex than that, largely designed for efficency.
I'll agree on the Lisp and QAM bits, though. One does need to be a true geek to understand either.
Yes, yes I did.
Oops.
Wrong, they are "regulated", but not "licenced". Big differance.
Above 300gHz (and below 3kHz), it is unregulated, and you can do whatever you want (probably won't be effective, given the nature of the bands, though). There are no restrictions on what is done, nor who does it.
45mHz, 900mHz, 2.4gHz, 5gHz, 24gHz, and 60gHz (and some others) are regulated, but unlicenced. The FCC sets restrictions on what can be done, but not who can do it.
Most other usefull frequencies are reserved for licenced (or military / special case) use. The FCC restricts both the who and the what.
--e
No, no it wouldn't.
d efault.aspx
These are directional antennas, and directionality is achieved by focusing.
If you used something like this for indoor coverage, you would have one small corridor of great signal, and more dead spots than you started with.
If you want great indoor coverage use this stuff: http://www.andrew.com/products/trans_line/radiax/
--e
It's just a 2.4ghz antenna, big freaking deal.
No WiFi system will beat Canopy (or Trango, etc...).
Better than Canopy: http://www.navini.com/
Better Canopy: http://www.lastmilegear.com/
--e
No, it's not an acomplishment at all (unless you count making a pointless press release as an accomplishment).
5km is nothing, total cake.
Off the shelf, cheap, WiFi gear that can easily do twice that -> http://www.tranzeo.com/
Big bad antennas that do much, much, more -> http://www.tessco.com/
Both are plenty "Commercial"
--e
For 2.4ghz ISM, the FCC allows this under part 15 (hams and military fall under different "parts", with different rules, which I can't seem to recall):
Point to multi-point - 30dBm (1W) TX power, 36dBm (4W) EIRP
Point to point - 30dBm TX power, 36dBm + 3dBm per 1dBm reduction in TX power.
In 5.8ghz ISM (but not the overlapping UNII):
PtMP - same as 2.4
PtP - 30dBm TX power, unlimited EIRP.
So, no a 1000mW (1W, 30dBm) transmiter, with a 24dB antenna, would not be legal in 2.4ghz ISM (the 802.11b/g band, and the most frequently used). It would, however, be legal in 5.8 ISM, one of the bands 802.11a can use (it also often uses the much more restrictive UNII bands, where this setup would be WAY over the limit)
(when did you ever come across a piece of non-gaming software that you really *enjoyed* using?)
mmm... vi insert "HOMER SIMPSON GURGLE" here