Marlon, I've been thinking about an appropriate WISPA technical response to the FCC on this as a long-time ham (since 1958) AND a long-time WISP supporter/provider (since 1993). I'll get my suggestio
I want to first say that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Ham community at large and recognize the extensive efforts by this community to aid us all with emergency communications, res
I don't actively use 2.4 GHz so the only affect now is nil, in future if I got into it, it would presumably drive up costs and obsolete some non APC gear, but several observiatons: It's first and for
I don't have a clue what this means, or what it has to do with antennas. Guess I'm dumb or something. 73 Tom W7WHY _______________________________________________ ___________________________________
There are frequencies where you can become licensed and use higher power. Why didn't you set up there first? Because the equipment costs were higher, and you would have the extra cost of the license.
As best I can tell, this boils down to "We WISP, WiFi, and Municipal operators would like to eliminate amateur radio's primacy on the 2.4 GHz band". Have you considered mesh topologies, which reduce
John, Thank you for your sentiments towards hams. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for hams to use APC on 2.3 & 2.4 GHz. As an EME (moonbounce) enthusiast who plans to be on 2.3 GHz some
WISPA's desire for amateur feedback notwithstanding, this topic is inappropriate for this forum. Since it's already here, I will hazard a brief comment. I consult to the Dept. of Justice on communica