Jim, Your exaggerations and alarmism aside (the Wall Street WLANs deal very effectively with QRM all the time...that's what I get paid to help them with). A zillion of them all over 2.4 GHz is a lot more of an issue, believe me. The biggest power amp we used was 1.6W. My local police station uses a 5W amp!
You must be one of those digital elitist....just kidding! The WLAN gear was selected for initial (again, INITIAL) HSMM R&D because it is cheap and readily available. As I mentioned before on this reflector, HSMM R&D has mostly shifted to our 3.3 GHz band at present. No Part 15 there. John - K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption NOT! Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:15:48 -0000 Thanks for your frank discussion. As far as encryption for the items like casuality lists. Does anyone think that since at least WWII amateur radio hasn't been able to send encrypted info on CW or RTTY? Hell, the military sent plenty of it in this fashion. So what is the new driver? In every case I can find there is one justification. Our clients and customers are demanding it. Hmmmmm, clients and customers, customers and clients. What does this sound like? Oh, I know, a BUSINESS. These folks are wanting to turn amateur radio into a common carrier business that is allowed to carry encrypted third party traffic. Keep in mind that in most cases, these "customers and clients" don't even want a ham to do the encrypting, they simply want us to carry it over our frequencies. This isn't what amateur radio is about and should not be allowed. There has been an excellent discussion on authentication techniques in prior messages. Let it suffice to say that encrypting content is not required to authenticate a message. You can even send repeater commands, satellite commands, etc. in the clear but only have them acted upon if proper authentication techniques are used. Heck, you can even use encryption techniqes of signatures for non-repudiation. That means if you shut down a satellite by mistake, there is a verifiable trail that shows YOU were the one to do it. You can't blame it on someone else. There are several discussions on qrz.com about this if you want to read up about it. What John, k8ocl, is recommending (using part 15 wireless routers under part 97) really consists of using power amps on a part 15 device for increased range and as a byproduct to assume full control of the spectrum. What he doesn't tell you is that it is a dangerous game for widespread use. Just wait until a ham on Long Island, New York fires up a high powered wireless router and wipes out a bunch of Wall Street firms. Or someone in a high density residential neighborhood that has a bunch of rich and powerful folks does the same. Do you really think the FCC is going to come down on ham radio's side since we are the primary users? How do you think they will resolve it? Very dangerous game indeed. As far as amateur radio wireless internet service goes there is one big problem I see. Amateur radio allocations are based upon personal conversations between two or more hams on a frequency. Amateur radio wireless internet connections changes this to ONE ham on a frequency passing 100 percent third party traffic. This reduces spectrum efficiency by 50%. If you assume 3 per frequency by adding net and roundtable uses, you end up reducing it by 66%. Add in wider bandwidths and the spectrum efficiency becomes even less. Think about the 100 kHz bandwidths on 2 meters. You are reducing users to 10 per mHz, 40 for the whole band! To me this is a selfish use of amateur spectrum nor will it even support the number of digital elitists wanting to increase this service. Overall, I doubt the current allocations would support over 50,000 US hams total. I ask you to make the folks pushing this to explain in detail some of these problems and their ramifications. Jim WA0LYK ================================================================== --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <k8ocl@> wrote: > > > > Wow! N6CRR stated that very, very well... Congrats! > > Wowser right back. > > Guess I'm just one of those simple folks that call a spade a spade, > and point out the attempt to back door change the nature of amateur > radio into something it is not. I've read a few of the minutes of the > HSSM, and seems like no one was asking the question of "should the > amateur service even be moved in this direction". The HSSM, the league > and those that are pushing multimedia content, first mile email > connectivity, and other parts of the brave new future as they see it > might actually ask the community what they think of that future. > > The crap fest over the proposed rule making on bandwidth regulation > reflected a general unease with the ARRL, and those folks that think > they know what is best for the future of Amateur community, all > without asking. The league, and those that seek to drag the rest of us > Luddites into the next century fail to ask if we want to be drug there. > > Your comments down tread in regards to uses of Amateur radio to report > causality figures (hence the need for encryption) presupposes that > Amateur radio should be utilized for that sort of effort in the first > place and that appropriate state, local or federal services are not > available, while also trotting out the old/new turnip of this is a new > world post 9/11. Is Karl Rove advising you on this stradidegry? I > suppose as part of the Wantabe radio service that would be appropriate. > > Please keep your adult beverage, it might go well with the flavor aid > on this topic you seem to be swilling and dispensing, might cut the > flavor a bit. > > If you can manage to work around the ()*(&*(& Pactor III MBO's > stepping all over your live QSO, I can usually be found up on HF > working DominoEX, Olivia or Contestia. Love to carry on the > conversation on a live human to human basis, which is what I think > Amateur radio is at it's very core, not a first mile extension of the > internet. >
