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. 2.4G was cheaper to start
so now that you are there you want the FCC to make it all better for you.
The noise level on 2.4 has gone WAY up since all the unlicensed stuff started
showing up, so the LICENSED users may need the higher power to overcome the
noise.
At 09:34 AM 5/20/2006, John Scrivner wrote:
>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, research for new
>innovative radio technology, technical training, etc.. I know that the
>Ham community as a whole do not wish to cause anyone harmful
>interference in any way and that they are a good steward of the spectrum
>they use. With that said I think we can all appreciate the importance of
>seeing our collective efforts represented and addressed in a balanced
>and positive way within the FCC.
>
>Substantial efforts have been put forth predominantly by the WISP, WiFi
>and Municipal wireless industry segments to make 2.4 GHz wireless a
>platform for efficient and low-cost broadband delivery. We understand
>and fully acknowledge that the Ham community has primary rights in this
>band. It would make more logical sense to us to allow unlicensed
>operations to have extended power with APC than to eliminate APC for
>Hams and possibly further harm the efforts being made by many in the
>WiFi space to utilize unlicensed frequencies in a responsible and
>practical way. I think that as unlicensed WISP operators we should
>consider asking the FCC to extend the power rules to any users in this
>band, including Part 15, and take away any primary license status to
>anyone who chooses to run the higher power with no APC requirement. At
>least those who run with no power level protections would all be in the
>same pickle if interference knocks two or more operators offline (Part
>97 or not). Part 97 operations using APC could retain their primary
>status and justifiably cause anyone using higher power to change
>frequencies or turn down power to stop the interference.. I see no
>compelling reason why Part 97 operations should be granted the right to
>easily cause harm to Part 15 operations unless the primary licensed
>status is eliminated for Part 97 and essentially everyone has Part 15
>status with higher power rights of use in this band. Another acceptable
>option would be to allow commercial use of this spectrum under the same
>rules and protections as Part 97 for WISP, WiFi and Municipal
>operations. Either option above gives all users a balanced and level
>policy framework to operate within. I do think that one of the
>requirements for higher power use should be that any operator would be
>required to become a licensed radio operator (Ham or other) before the
>higher power could be used.
>John Scrivner
>
>
>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > As I'm sure you guys are aware, HAMs are primary users in about half
> > of the 2.4 gig band. When using APC you can run very high wattage. I
> > can't remember if it's 100 or 1000. This is for video as I recall.
> >
> > There's a proposal to drop the APC requirement. As a board member of
> > the Wireless Internet Provider's Association (www.wispa.org) I've been
> > asked to ask for your input on the issue.
> >
> > WISPs, and other license exempt users, are limited (for all practical
> > purposes) to 4 watts for our broadcast sites. And much of the gear is
> > contention based, so anything that's always on tends to cause great
> > headaches and gnashing of teeth.
> >
> > We will likely fight this new proposal but wanted input from the HAM
> > community first.
> >
> > Are there people using this ability today?
> >
> > What's it used for?
> >
> > Any plans for more high power 2.4 gig use?
> >
> > Are there any reasons that we shouldn't come out against the proposal
> > to drop the APC requirement?
> >
> > Am I missing anything? Asking the wrong questions etc?
> >
> > Thanks all!
> > Marlon
> > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
> > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
> > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
> > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
> > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FCC mailing list
> > FCC@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
Jim Rhodes K0XU
jim@rhodesend.net
Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|