<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.34">
<TITLE>RE: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A couple of quick comments...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1) The FCC has defined what is means by spread spectrum and how to obtain APC under Part 97. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2) DSSS (802.11b) and OFDM (802.11g) do not fit the FCC diffinition of spread spectrum.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>3) Accomplishing APC on DSSS and OFDM types of modulation using the method of APC that the FCC has defined in Part 97 is a "Practical Impossibility" (a legal term) and I can assure you that no knowledgable federal attorney is going to get the government involved in Practical Impossibility litigation. There is too much case law at stake if they lose and judges almost always rule against practical impossibility.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Walt/K5YFW</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>PS, just this week finished a contract law seminar from the Defense Acquisition University (continuing educations requirement for procurement professionals) that shows just how federal judges are ruling. IMHO they would not rule in favor of the government where there is a question of Practical Impossibility.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[<A HREF="mailto:ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org">mailto:ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org</A>]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:06 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Contrary to other posts, I can find nothing in any FCC documentation that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>shows they approaced the ARRL about dropping the APC requirement. And since </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>this is a public proceeding, it will cost you little to add your comments to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the proceeding at this time. If you do not comment on it and it becomes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reality *then* you could incur significant legal costs trying to fight the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>isse as a seconcdary user of the spectrum.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I an an amateur radio operator with two Linksys wrt54g wireless routers I have </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>modified the firmware on. I have been looking at purchasing amplifiers to up </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>their output to establish an omni-directional hubbed network. Amplifiers with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>moderate power levels are not that expensive. Dropping the APC requirement </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>*would* make it easier to implement the current FCC requirements. Meeting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>current requirements would require applications to make use of the 802.11h </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>modules in the modified firmware I am using. It *will* require additional </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>work over just buying off-the-shelf stuff and using it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Having said that, I have to tell you I have already posted comments against </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the proposal. After thinking about it a lot I came to the conclusion that APC </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>*is* the technological path to follow to limit spectrum pollution, be it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>pollution in the Part 15 or Part 97 arena. Hams are supposed to engineer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>their equipment based on sound engineering practice and judgment. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Implementing APC *is* exhibiting sound engineering practice and judgment. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>While you can argue that philosophically amateurs will implement APC on their </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>own without it being in the rules, pragmatically that is not the case. The </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ARRL in their proposal admits this by basically saying APC, as formulated by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the FCC, is too hard for amateurs to do. Basically, that is a crock. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Conceptually, it is easy to do in any FHSS system. It is hard to do in a DSSS </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>system because trying to identify signal strengths of narrow band signals is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>difficult in a DSSS system. But I'm sure some DSP processing could handle </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>this. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Anyway, as you can see there are probably lots of varying views on this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>subject. You need to think your position through and put in your comments, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>while I think it is past the comment date, I think the FCC will still accept </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>comments as long as they aren't actively in the process of analyzing them.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>tim ab0wr</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:03, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Hi All,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I can't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been asked to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ask for your input on the issue.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> headaches and gnashing of teeth.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> community first.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Are there people using this ability today?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> What's it used for?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> drop the APC requirement?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Thanks all!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Marlon</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ham-80211 mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ham-80211@lists.tapr.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211" TARGET="_blank">https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ham-80211 mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ham-80211@lists.tapr.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211" TARGET="_blank">https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>