Actually, no it's not illegal, and no, it's not especially dangerous. While FCC regs require Ham operators to use the "lowest practical power" in their communications, that is something that's open to interpretation. Hams on some freqs crank out 1500 watts quite readily - and safely. We're not talking about a WiFi card in your laptop, or a cell phone next to your head - there are safety considerations and limits of exposure and such. But your statement that it's illegal and dangerous is patently untrue for the amature radio crowd.
Hams are, incidently, the Primary Users for the lower 6 channels (US spec) used by WiFi. Cheers, L4J On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:50:43AM -0300, James Tucker wrote: > Of course the power ranges you quote are also illegal, not to mention > extremely dangerous. > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Michael Williamson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Using 802.11 for anything remotely critical is outright STUPID. > > > > FCC regulations are such that these part 15 devices (802.11, cordless > > phones, baby monitors) have no legal protection from interference from > > licensed services (amateur radio, TV stations, etc). If I'm running a > > high powered (10-100 watt) maybe signal at 2.4 ghz for amateur radio TV > > and happen to be living across the street from an election center, > > they're basically screwed. As a matter a fact, if their 802.11 is > > interfering with my licensed operation, it is they who must shut down. > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > Without even commenting on the "security" of WEP, it seems to me that a > > > massive DDOS attack against the voting machines could prevent vote tallies > > > from being counted in a timely manner. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
