[Cu-wireless] visited w/ hams this afternoon

[David Young]

Ralph, Chase,

Chase and I are bringing a discussion we'd had in private to the list
because it might be interesting to subscribers.

Chase is talking about the FCC requirements that your antenna, amp,
and radio be FCC-certified. Anyway, our home-made antennas are not FCC
certified, and so they are probably not legal. Possibly I misunderstand
the whole certification regime. If so, someone please fill me in.

It is my position that since FCC-certified antennas are bought at much
greater cost than a motivated experimenter can build one, sometimes
adding 10-20% to the cost of a station, then I am not going to sweat it
if experimenters use home-built antennas in our network, ***provided they
abide by Part 15 transmit-power and out-of-band transmission limits***. It
seems to me that it is those limits that matter, not the certifications,
if one will be a good "steward of the airwaves."

Dave

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:33:50PM -0500, Chase Phillips wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> While one of the groups is vetted by the FCC (hams), the other is only
> vetted in-so-far-as it is "not vetted" by being placed in the Spectrum of
> Misfits with the other wireless transmission rejects.  It is obvious that
> there will be some ham operators who will work hard to maintain the hams'
> reputation in the eyes of the FCC, if only so they can keep on being hams.
> 
> Still others are working to make a legitimate reputation for the ISM band
> (while there is such a thing) so that the FCC won't take what little space
> we have away from us.  I would say that while in spirit hams are
> not-for-profit, hobbyists, and are seeking to advance the state of the
> art, they are in fact operating at the behest of the FCC, and that ham
> operators know this, in general.  As Zach mentioned to me at a meeting,
> they are self-policing, and they are generally strict within (and without)
> their own circles.
> 
> Based on your views wrt. antennae, I guess that you are not too concerned
> about the very thing that keeps the spectrum for hams "legal," correct?
> (FCC)  How do you reconcile the large amount of equipment used in wlans
> that must be FCC approved if it is to be mass-marketed?  In what ways
> would it be better to consider FCC sentiments for this project?  In what
> ways wouldn't it be better?  Is there any way to get what you want, and
> still work with the FCC?  If after answering all of these questions you
> come to the conclusion that there's a fundamental disagreement between the
> interests of the FCC and cu-wireless, then you must then see the same
> fundamental disparity between this group and the hams.
> 
> If such a disparity exists regarding legal concerns, and you still want
> something from the hams, you've got to sell your case to those operators
> based on the spirit of their activities, and assume that some, if not all,
> will not only guffaw at your suggestion, but will also actively disagree
> (and perhaps even attempt to work against you!).
> 
> I have my own opinions about the FCC which are totally not reflected by
> this email.  I am merely suggesting one valid possibility: hams may not
> generally want to be wireless outlaws, hence it may not be in their
> interest to take on an atheistic mentality wrt. the FCC.
> 
> PS. I'm so totally _not_ trolling right now.
> 
> regards,
> Chase Phillips
> --
>   shepard at ameth.org ][ -111--0010-0-1100-101-000-01--10
>  http://www.ameth.org/ ][ 00-00-01-10--1-00-01-010111010-0
> 
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, David Young wrote:
> 
> >
> > Part 15 is the section of FCC rules that applies to the unlicensed
> > equipment we're using.
> >
> > I think that their interests are actually very similar to our interests.
> > Both our groups are both for not-for-profit and hobby uses of the
> > airwaves, and for advancing the state of the art in radio communication.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 06:09:38AM -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "Part 15"?
> > >
> > > I'm not surprised by their attitude.  They are focusing more on their
> > > own interests.
> > >
> > > -Ralph
> >
> > --
> > David Young             OJC Technologies
> > dyoung at onthejob.net     Engineering from the Right Brain
> >                         Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cu-wireless mailing list
> > Cu-wireless at lists.groogroo.com
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cu-wireless mailing list
> Cu-wireless at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung at onthejob.net     Engineering from the Right Brain
                        Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933