[Cu-wireless] major interference

[David Young]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:05:24AM +0800, Illustrious niteshad wrote:
> Normally, I'd agree, but Dave Young had mentioned that a group of the
> local hams in Urbana had some sort of inexplicable antipathy towards
> our lil' ol' 2.4 GHz network.  IIRC, they claimed that using 2.4 GHz was
> "inherently unsafe."

I have heard that the ARRL is hostile to most unlicensed uses of the
spectrum, taking the position that the FCC contradicts its charter when
it grants the use of a frequency without a license. By that reasoning,
the ISM bands are just one example of an "illegitimate," unlicensed
band. The hams I talked to were concerned that the 2.4GHz band overlaps
a ham band; nobody I talked to operated in that band, however.

At typical ham operating levels, 2.4GHz might be unsafe! I am a little
worried about an ARRL initiative that encourages hams to operate
802.11 stations, not because of the safety issues, but because of the
interference issues.  Even if part of the ham creed is "use the least
amount of power necessary," I fear 100 and 200mW are contemptibly low
power levels for a ham.  At 500mW and above, however, you are doing
"real radio." "Microcellular," "multihop" networks do not seem to be on
the ham radar screen.

> Then again, all that we need is for someone to go
> war-driving/war-walking with a directional antenna (Pringles can,
> *cough* *cough*) along a baseline, and we should be able to pin-point
> the evil-doer quite well ourselves.  That's pretty much how the Motor
> City Radio Club pinpoints sources when they play "the Fox and the Hounds"
> during their annual field day.

Let's not get in the "evil-doers" mind-set. We don't have any right to
the band, and the interference source might even be operating within
the power limits. I am going to e-mail a few local WISPs today to see
what I can find out.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung at ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933