Your questions still don't solve the dilema that now exists for the Democratic candidates. Right or wrong, the fear most U.S. citizens have for their own security far outweighs any Consitutional concerns or concern for International law.
That said, it still must be remembered that resolution after resolution was passed by the United Nations from 1991 to 2002 all of which were ignored by Saddam and his regime. Some authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam and Iraq into compliance if necessary.
Are you now saying that those resolutions that spanned three U.S. administrations were all without merit? Are you admitting that the U.N. really has no standing in terms of International law and no priority over any sovereign nation? Would your reaction be the same if these events had taken place four years earlier?
The nine Democrat candidates for president have to be fuming. For them to have even a chance all actions in Iraq need to fail, or at the very least remain a stalemate until late summer 2004. Of course there is no guarantee that things will improve in Iraq. We obviously need to wait a few months to know for sure.
It seems to me that this cannot be spun negatively in any meaningful way prior to the first primary elections without appearing to be totally offbase. This cannot be good news for the Democrat candidates as Saddam's capture will resonate well with the American electorate for some time.
It looks like Howard Dean's longshot just got longer.
The anti-RIAA/MPAA crowd falls all over themselves to hand the henchmen of the cartel their money. What happened to principle? Oh yeah this is Slashdot...
I guess I'm the only Slashdotter left who hasn't bought a DVD player and hasn't harmed the defense of digital liberty by feeding the cartels.
Rather than another of Steve Jobs proprietary projects, how about something that's open source?
While I don't know if the code has been made publicly available, there is a guy who has built up his own studio automation system. Linux Journal featured Bill Goldsmith in this article
on KPIG.com and Radio Paradise. In the print article, there was talk of making his studio software available, it might be worth contacting him for details.
I know that if I were in the radio biz, I'd much rather have a system as much under my control as possible. This also includes scrapping mp3 in favor of Ogg as this recording studio professional did (while the article is supposed to be about Linux, the deeper story is about the use of Ogg files).
I keep reading comments that assert the above, but where is the definition of the requirements to qualify as a "desktop OS"? I don't think one exists!
Personally, I've used a Linux based system as my primary desktop OS for over 5 years. Let me tell you, it was tough going for the first year or so. The past year to year and-a-half has been a pure joy. Outside of support for MS proprietary bits, I see nothing in the latest MS offerings that exceed the capability and security of the "Linux desktop".
If Linux based systems cannot be used as desktops, how come my brother (not a computer guru) has no problem using his?
... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?
Perhaps SCO-Caldera has made it plain that they have no intention of leaving United Linux. If so, then it's a good bet that the other vendors will find it necessary to withdraw and leave SCO-Caldera holding the bag, so to speak.
I think the key to OpenTRAC's success is how well it supports and integrates the current APRS protocol. Backward compatibility is a nasty fact of life.
I haven't had time to read the spec closely and I'm not well up on APRS, although I have a weather station ready to hook up to Xastir whenever I get an RF path out of here, so I may be out of line thinking that this protocol intends to replace rather than extend and fix the broken parts of APRS.
While AX.25 is (short sightedly) limited to 6 ASCII characters for the callsign field, could not OpenTRAC extend that to say at least 10, perhaps 12 characters? Imagine at least being able to embed a reciprocal operator's callsign into the position reports.
For example, VE5/KA0RNY sucks up 10 characters right there. I'm sure somebody would try something silly like W0/VE5ABC/M. I think 12 characters would be a useful extension to the AX.25 limit. It would also provide space for more descriptive station identifiers.
Now how about some info on blocking those annoying Java ads that start all the Java VM processes and leaves them running? Few things are more annoying. I even tried to file a bug against Mozilla in regards to this, but was basically told it wasn't an important issue.
Ahh IFR. Good stuff. At my former work locale I was issued a new 1200S. Here we have an old 1200S that's too old to upgrade, at least cost effectively. We also have a 500.
Been to the factory dropping off and picking up units and have been by there too many times to count on K-42 taking a shortcut to Enid, OK. Good to see they're still hanging in there.
In principle, I'm inclined to agree--the less regulation, the better. However, the software industry is unregulated and we have a convicted monopolist in it. Fortunately, things seem to be tipping ever so slowly back into a competitive landscape.
Unfortunately, recent history has shown that companies that formerly operated in a regulated environment when turned loose became rather destructive in short order. SBC is a wannabe Worldcom/Enron. Their impressive list of aquisitions in the past few years and their strongarm tactics in the states they are operating in is a testament to this.
Being employed in telecom, I do have reservations about local govenment bodies owning/maintaining the local telecom infrastructure. There are far too many required standards and far too many interface points to allow a street/sewer department approach to the problem.
Either any company that requests right-of-way for copper/fiber gets it, or a regulated monopoly gets it. Allowing a de-regulated monopoly in this situation is simply asking for disaster. And while a de-regulated company is *supposed* to play by the rules and obey the law, there is still a generation of upper management that just wants to try to play the Enron/Worldcom game again.
Finally, in response to your politely worded question. I deal with SBC in my work life. I've witnessed their service with attitude for many a year. I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted this time. Yeah, it'll be back and they'll likely get what they want in the near future, particularly if their whining attitude results in a pro-SBC public backlash toward the legislature.
To really put the finishing touches on this issue the legislature should allow the independent telcos to string up their own infrastructure in the SBC service areas strictly for broadband access. The independent Kansas telcos did this roughly 20 years ago at the start of the cellular business by cooperatively forming Kansas Cellular and building it into nearly a state-wide network, except the three large metro areas, Wichita, Topeka, and Lawrence to KC, which, naturally, SBC claimed as their own. They later sold Kansas Cellular to Alltel for a tidy sum about four years ago. On the other hand, a local independent telco is actively building its own broadband wireless network that covers the local SBC served area. So this ought to prove interesting.
Umm, no. You, sir, are mistaken as to the prevelence of independent telcos in Kansas and the surrounding states.
I live in a town served by SBC, one of the afforementioned examples in your message. Just east of here in a small town is an independent telco that operates in part of the surrounding area. They would be quite amused indeed to learn that SBC owns their cable infrastructure and their Central Offices. They are, and several other companies like them around here, independent telephone companies. Yes, they trunk to SBC and the other carriers, but they are not simply local service providers.
They have existed for years and were never a part of the AT&T/Southwestern Bell monopoly. There are many such companies in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that I have worked with first hand.
SBC is the dominant telco in Kansas, but they aren't the only one. Not by a long shot. Which means their attitude will relegate them to the same irrelevance that they have in the cellular business in Kansas.
The key to understanding this issue is that SBC has never intended to invest in broadband access much beyond their current market. The Kansas legislature has tried to encourage SBC through various means over the years to build such a network to the rural areas. SBC has resisted and to make matters worse recently eliminated several hundred jobs in Topeka, right under the legislators' noses.
In a past era such investments in infrastructure were made under much stricter regulation than exists currently. Regulation assures that the company involved can employ people and make a reasonable profit while also assuring that the consumer isn't gouged too hard by a natural monopoly. The fly in the ointment here is that the current SBC executives believe that they can pull off what Enron and Worldcom were unable to do.
I doubt highly that we Kansans will be hurt gravely by this bill's dismissal. SBC has failed to take any initiative into an area that others are already finding good business. SBC wants it the monopoly way or no way. No way for SBC suits me just fine.
I really hate to disagree, but SBC is not the only entity that understands line upkeep and has the ability to maitain an extensive telecommunications infrastructure. There are quite a number of independent and cooperative telcos in areas of Kansas that AT&T/Southwestern Bell deemed beneath their dignity in the early part of the last century that are doing quite well, thank you.
It may come as quite a shock, but these non-SBC entities generally have a more modern infrastructure and employ new technologies sooner than SBC has in the past (this excludes the Sprint owned telcos in Kansas). The reality is that SBC is a large corporation with a large marketing dept.
Many years ago my uncle who lives about two miles from my folks but are on one of the independent telcos had a private line and touch tone as standard service over a decade before it was standard service to SBC customers. SBC, doesn't lead, they haven't lead, and they won't lead. They won't offer leading edge service unless forced kicking and screaming (witness SBC-Kansas president Tomlin's childish reaction).
I understand your emotional connection to the topic at hand, but SBC is hardly a shining example of a leading telecommunications company.
To have allowed this bill to pass as SBC wanted it would have been irresponsible on the part of the legislature to SBC's existing and (perhaps smaller number of) future broadband customers. Passage of this bill would have effectively neutered the Kansas Corporation Commission (not that they aren't already in the hip pocket of SBC, but that's another story) from acting on matters on behalf of Kansas residents.
Perhaps the bill's dismissal was a mistake, but SBC is not the entity to give this kind of lattitude to.
BTW, we have a couple wireless broadband carriers established in the area and one is going to expand toward my future home this spring, so I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not completely familiar with all the details on this, but having dealt with SBC for a number of years now with the company I work for and having been a locked-in customer of theirs for all my life, all I can say is Hoo-Yah!
Their arrogance is typical of all regulated (and unregulated) monopolies. The president of SBC Kansas Randy Tomlin, according to the Topeka Capital Journal, reacted angrily, "The big losers today are the people of Kansas. They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states when it comes to telecommunications access."
Reality check, Mr. Tomlin. Your company will never voluntarily provide any kind of broadband Internet access in any locality of less than 2500 people, unless, of course, your definition of broadband is 26.4 kbps through a Pair Gain system. With is currently the case for the majority of your customer base. You most likely don't have a clue as to why wireless broadband is taking off either.
These tossers got exactly what they deserve, particularly after eliminating several hundred jobs in Topeka right around the first of 2003. This should give some idea to their cluelessness. Eliminate jobs, then ask the legislature for an end to regulatory oversight of their "broadband" division.
SBC has become among the most predatory of the "Baby Bells" and it's time somebody told them, "No!" Even AT&T praised this bill's dismissal in committee.
It isn't often I praise the actions of our legislature in Kansas, but this is one of those times when they deserve a good word for their actions.
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.
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.
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.
As noted in the article, upon explanation of the inner workings of a computer and that it just manipulates bits really fast, one of the students said he had an "aha" revelation. This is the kind of thing that should be taught to everyone in school.
Dinking with Word and Paint, don't de-mystify the machine. Only by having a basic (no pun intended) understanding of the machine and what it does will a person be willing to control it. So many folks that have computers are so intimidated by them that they are afraid to control the machine. Changing fundamental settings like wallpaper truly scares some people. (Insert gratuitous MS slam here)
Equally important is the discussion and enlightenment these students will get on matters of copyright, law as it is being applied to computing, and patents. Only a well informed citizenry will prevent the spate of knee-jerk reactions to minor problems. Perhaps a well educated citizenry will clean up the ridiculous mess that is the DMCA and software patents.
I hope This kind of course gets cloned and used in education everywhere. It's desperately needed.
Actually, the power to the feed horn remains constant whether there is one circuit in use or the system is at capacity. The radios used for analog microwave utilize Frequency Modulation, FM. The output power of an FM transmitter does not change as modulation is applied. The carrier deviation depands on two factors of the modulating signal, its amplitude and its frequency. The amplitude of the modulating signal determines how far above or below the center frequency the FM carrier will swing. In 2-way radio this is allowed to be a maximum of +- 5kHz. The frequency of the modulating signal determines how fast the FM carrier will swing between these two extremes.
In an analog microwave system the transmitters are setup in such a way so as to take varying channel usage into account and so they will not exceed the allowed bandwidth when operating at capacity. Therefore adjustments of signal levels on the baseband frequencies is critical. Now, if you look at the baseband (which is nothing more than an evenly spaced set of single sideband AM signals stacked from 4kHz to some design extreme) as more channels come into use the envelope of the baseband gains in amplitude (power) for each channel that comes into use. The result is that the FM carrier in the microwave transmitter deviates more and its frequency of deviation will increase as well.
The effect is that the power density of the RF envelope will decrease as the baseband reaches channel capacity, but this is already accounted for in the initial setup of the radio and design of the RF path between sites. Now, given that AT&T was using up to 50 mile (80 km) paths and our system is using paths about 30% to 60% of that figure, it's quite possible AT&T's system employed variable RF power to maintain a certain power density.
With the equipment in use by the company I work for the output power of the radios is constant, typically 1 or 5 Watts at 6 GHz depending on the path. Also, our system is designed for a maximum of 600 channels considerably less than the AT&T Long Lines system, I believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Your questions still don't solve the dilema that now exists for the Democratic candidates. Right or wrong, the fear most U.S. citizens have for their own security far outweighs any Consitutional concerns or concern for International law.
That said, it still must be remembered that resolution after resolution was passed by the United Nations from 1991 to 2002 all of which were ignored by Saddam and his regime. Some authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam and Iraq into compliance if necessary.
Are you now saying that those resolutions that spanned three U.S. administrations were all without merit? Are you admitting that the U.N. really has no standing in terms of International law and no priority over any sovereign nation? Would your reaction be the same if these events had taken place four years earlier?
The nine Democrat candidates for president have to be fuming. For them to have even a chance all actions in Iraq need to fail, or at the very least remain a stalemate until late summer 2004. Of course there is no guarantee that things will improve in Iraq. We obviously need to wait a few months to know for sure.
It seems to me that this cannot be spun negatively in any meaningful way prior to the first primary elections without appearing to be totally offbase. This cannot be good news for the Democrat candidates as Saddam's capture will resonate well with the American electorate for some time.
It looks like Howard Dean's longshot just got longer.
Stay tuned.
The anti-RIAA/MPAA crowd falls all over themselves to hand the henchmen of the cartel their money. What happened to principle? Oh yeah this is Slashdot...
I guess I'm the only Slashdotter left who hasn't bought a DVD player and hasn't harmed the defense of digital liberty by feeding the cartels.
Sad. Just sad.
"Intelligence is a constant. The population is increasing."
Climb a mountain, use machine code!
Rather than another of Steve Jobs proprietary projects, how about something that's open source?
While I don't know if the code has been made publicly available, there is a guy who has built up his own studio automation system. Linux Journal featured Bill Goldsmith in this article on KPIG.com and Radio Paradise. In the print article, there was talk of making his studio software available, it might be worth contacting him for details.
I know that if I were in the radio biz, I'd much rather have a system as much under my control as possible. This also includes scrapping mp3 in favor of Ogg as this recording studio professional did (while the article is supposed to be about Linux, the deeper story is about the use of Ogg files).
...to the term "scrolling stock ticker"...
They already have the pictures. I received these in email, so they must be true!
What is the definition of "a desktop OS"?
I keep reading comments that assert the above, but where is the definition of the requirements to qualify as a "desktop OS"? I don't think one exists!
Personally, I've used a Linux based system as my primary desktop OS for over 5 years. Let me tell you, it was tough going for the first year or so. The past year to year and-a-half has been a pure joy. Outside of support for MS proprietary bits, I see nothing in the latest MS offerings that exceed the capability and security of the "Linux desktop".
If Linux based systems cannot be used as desktops, how come my brother (not a computer guru) has no problem using his?
... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?
Perhaps SCO-Caldera has made it plain that they have no intention of leaving United Linux. If so, then it's a good bet that the other vendors will find it necessary to withdraw and leave SCO-Caldera holding the bag, so to speak.
I think the key to OpenTRAC's success is how well it supports and integrates the current APRS protocol. Backward compatibility is a nasty fact of life.
I haven't had time to read the spec closely and I'm not well up on APRS, although I have a weather station ready to hook up to Xastir whenever I get an RF path out of here, so I may be out of line thinking that this protocol intends to replace rather than extend and fix the broken parts of APRS.
While AX.25 is (short sightedly) limited to 6 ASCII characters for the callsign field, could not OpenTRAC extend that to say at least 10, perhaps 12 characters? Imagine at least being able to embed a reciprocal operator's callsign into the position reports.
For example, VE5/KA0RNY sucks up 10 characters right there. I'm sure somebody would try something silly like W0/VE5ABC/M. I think 12 characters would be a useful extension to the AX.25 limit. It would also provide space for more descriptive station identifiers.
Good info.
Now how about some info on blocking those annoying Java ads that start all the Java VM processes and leaves them running? Few things are more annoying. I even tried to file a bug against Mozilla in regards to this, but was basically told it wasn't an important issue.
Ahh IFR. Good stuff. At my former work locale I was issued a new 1200S. Here we have an old 1200S that's too old to upgrade, at least cost effectively. We also have a 500.
Been to the factory dropping off and picking up units and have been by there too many times to count on K-42 taking a shortcut to Enid, OK. Good to see they're still hanging in there.
In principle, I'm inclined to agree--the less regulation, the better. However, the software industry is unregulated and we have a convicted monopolist in it. Fortunately, things seem to be tipping ever so slowly back into a competitive landscape.
Unfortunately, recent history has shown that companies that formerly operated in a regulated environment when turned loose became rather destructive in short order. SBC is a wannabe Worldcom/Enron. Their impressive list of aquisitions in the past few years and their strongarm tactics in the states they are operating in is a testament to this.
Being employed in telecom, I do have reservations about local govenment bodies owning/maintaining the local telecom infrastructure. There are far too many required standards and far too many interface points to allow a street/sewer department approach to the problem.
Either any company that requests right-of-way for copper/fiber gets it, or a regulated monopoly gets it. Allowing a de-regulated monopoly in this situation is simply asking for disaster. And while a de-regulated company is *supposed* to play by the rules and obey the law, there is still a generation of upper management that just wants to try to play the Enron/Worldcom game again.
Finally, in response to your politely worded question. I deal with SBC in my work life. I've witnessed their service with attitude for many a year. I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted this time. Yeah, it'll be back and they'll likely get what they want in the near future, particularly if their whining attitude results in a pro-SBC public backlash toward the legislature.
To really put the finishing touches on this issue the legislature should allow the independent telcos to string up their own infrastructure in the SBC service areas strictly for broadband access. The independent Kansas telcos did this roughly 20 years ago at the start of the cellular business by cooperatively forming Kansas Cellular and building it into nearly a state-wide network, except the three large metro areas, Wichita, Topeka, and Lawrence to KC, which, naturally, SBC claimed as their own. They later sold Kansas Cellular to Alltel for a tidy sum about four years ago. On the other hand, a local independent telco is actively building its own broadband wireless network that covers the local SBC served area. So this ought to prove interesting.
That's what the fsck I'm talking about!
Umm, no. You, sir, are mistaken as to the prevelence of independent telcos in Kansas and the surrounding states.
I live in a town served by SBC, one of the afforementioned examples in your message. Just east of here in a small town is an independent telco that operates in part of the surrounding area. They would be quite amused indeed to learn that SBC owns their cable infrastructure and their Central Offices. They are, and several other companies like them around here, independent telephone companies. Yes, they trunk to SBC and the other carriers, but they are not simply local service providers.
They have existed for years and were never a part of the AT&T/Southwestern Bell monopoly. There are many such companies in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that I have worked with first hand.
SBC is the dominant telco in Kansas, but they aren't the only one. Not by a long shot. Which means their attitude will relegate them to the same irrelevance that they have in the cellular business in Kansas.
The key to understanding this issue is that SBC has never intended to invest in broadband access much beyond their current market. The Kansas legislature has tried to encourage SBC through various means over the years to build such a network to the rural areas. SBC has resisted and to make matters worse recently eliminated several hundred jobs in Topeka, right under the legislators' noses.
In a past era such investments in infrastructure were made under much stricter regulation than exists currently. Regulation assures that the company involved can employ people and make a reasonable profit while also assuring that the consumer isn't gouged too hard by a natural monopoly. The fly in the ointment here is that the current SBC executives believe that they can pull off what Enron and Worldcom were unable to do.
I doubt highly that we Kansans will be hurt gravely by this bill's dismissal. SBC has failed to take any initiative into an area that others are already finding good business. SBC wants it the monopoly way or no way. No way for SBC suits me just fine.
I really hate to disagree, but SBC is not the only entity that understands line upkeep and has the ability to maitain an extensive telecommunications infrastructure. There are quite a number of independent and cooperative telcos in areas of Kansas that AT&T/Southwestern Bell deemed beneath their dignity in the early part of the last century that are doing quite well, thank you.
It may come as quite a shock, but these non-SBC entities generally have a more modern infrastructure and employ new technologies sooner than SBC has in the past (this excludes the Sprint owned telcos in Kansas). The reality is that SBC is a large corporation with a large marketing dept.
Many years ago my uncle who lives about two miles from my folks but are on one of the independent telcos had a private line and touch tone as standard service over a decade before it was standard service to SBC customers. SBC, doesn't lead, they haven't lead, and they won't lead. They won't offer leading edge service unless forced kicking and screaming (witness SBC-Kansas president Tomlin's childish reaction).
I understand your emotional connection to the topic at hand, but SBC is hardly a shining example of a leading telecommunications company.
Obviously, you're not an SBC "customer"...
To have allowed this bill to pass as SBC wanted it would have been irresponsible on the part of the legislature to SBC's existing and (perhaps smaller number of) future broadband customers. Passage of this bill would have effectively neutered the Kansas Corporation Commission (not that they aren't already in the hip pocket of SBC, but that's another story) from acting on matters on behalf of Kansas residents.
Perhaps the bill's dismissal was a mistake, but SBC is not the entity to give this kind of lattitude to.
BTW, we have a couple wireless broadband carriers established in the area and one is going to expand toward my future home this spring, so I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not completely familiar with all the details on this, but having dealt with SBC for a number of years now with the company I work for and having been a locked-in customer of theirs for all my life, all I can say is Hoo-Yah!
Their arrogance is typical of all regulated (and unregulated) monopolies. The president of SBC Kansas Randy Tomlin, according to the Topeka Capital Journal, reacted angrily, "The big losers today are the people of Kansas. They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states when it comes to telecommunications access."
Reality check, Mr. Tomlin. Your company will never voluntarily provide any kind of broadband Internet access in any locality of less than 2500 people, unless, of course, your definition of broadband is 26.4 kbps through a Pair Gain system. With is currently the case for the majority of your customer base. You most likely don't have a clue as to why wireless broadband is taking off either.
These tossers got exactly what they deserve, particularly after eliminating several hundred jobs in Topeka right around the first of 2003. This should give some idea to their cluelessness. Eliminate jobs, then ask the legislature for an end to regulatory oversight of their "broadband" division.
SBC has become among the most predatory of the "Baby Bells" and it's time somebody told them, "No!" Even AT&T praised this bill's dismissal in committee.
It isn't often I praise the actions of our legislature in Kansas, but this is one of those times when they deserve a good word for their actions.
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.
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.
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.
As noted in the article, upon explanation of the inner workings of a computer and that it just manipulates bits really fast, one of the students said he had an "aha" revelation. This is the kind of thing that should be taught to everyone in school.
Dinking with Word and Paint, don't de-mystify the machine. Only by having a basic (no pun intended) understanding of the machine and what it does will a person be willing to control it. So many folks that have computers are so intimidated by them that they are afraid to control the machine. Changing fundamental settings like wallpaper truly scares some people. (Insert gratuitous MS slam here)
Equally important is the discussion and enlightenment these students will get on matters of copyright, law as it is being applied to computing, and patents. Only a well informed citizenry will prevent the spate of knee-jerk reactions to minor problems. Perhaps a well educated citizenry will clean up the ridiculous mess that is the DMCA and software patents.
I hope This kind of course gets cloned and used in education everywhere. It's desperately needed.
Actually, the power to the feed horn remains constant whether there is one circuit in use or the system is at capacity. The radios used for analog microwave utilize Frequency Modulation, FM. The output power of an FM transmitter does not change as modulation is applied. The carrier deviation depands on two factors of the modulating signal, its amplitude and its frequency. The amplitude of the modulating signal determines how far above or below the center frequency the FM carrier will swing. In 2-way radio this is allowed to be a maximum of +- 5kHz. The frequency of the modulating signal determines how fast the FM carrier will swing between these two extremes.
In an analog microwave system the transmitters are setup in such a way so as to take varying channel usage into account and so they will not exceed the allowed bandwidth when operating at capacity. Therefore adjustments of signal levels on the baseband frequencies is critical. Now, if you look at the baseband (which is nothing more than an evenly spaced set of single sideband AM signals stacked from 4kHz to some design extreme) as more channels come into use the envelope of the baseband gains in amplitude (power) for each channel that comes into use. The result is that the FM carrier in the microwave transmitter deviates more and its frequency of deviation will increase as well.
The effect is that the power density of the RF envelope will decrease as the baseband reaches channel capacity, but this is already accounted for in the initial setup of the radio and design of the RF path between sites. Now, given that AT&T was using up to 50 mile (80 km) paths and our system is using paths about 30% to 60% of that figure, it's quite possible AT&T's system employed variable RF power to maintain a certain power density.
With the equipment in use by the company I work for the output power of the radios is constant, typically 1 or 5 Watts at 6 GHz depending on the path. Also, our system is designed for a maximum of 600 channels considerably less than the AT&T Long Lines system, I believe.