[TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

Dave AA6YQ aa6yq at ambersoft.com
Sat May 20 23:49:43 EDT 2006

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

Have you considered mesh topologies, which reduce the need for higher power
and provide redundant paths that can be used to route around local
interference? Yes, these would increase your equipment costs, but unlike
amateurs you do have a revenue stream from end-users and/or advertisers. 


       Dave, AA6YQ


-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 9:34 AM
To: FCC Discussion
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List; towertalk at contesting.com; Amateur 802.11b
Mailing List
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

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!
> (net meeting)
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
> _______________________________________________
> FCC mailing list
> FCC at wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc

TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com

More information about the TowerTalk mailing list