[TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change
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.
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
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.
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!
> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
> 18.104.22.168 (net meeting)
> FCC mailing list
> FCC at wispa.org
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
More information about the TowerTalk