September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9444] Re: What If?
by dick＠pobox.com 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

18 SEP, 2003 - 1930 CDT I understand how a consent agenda works, but I have never really dealt with one. So I think it's a good idea, but we should see it several weeks ahead of the board meeting so it can be tweaked if necessary. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9443] We're Busy Fighting Fires...
by Art Goddard 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

But hopefully not too busy to check on this recent NSF Grant to find out how it might impact Amateur Radio. 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------- • 100 megabits per second Carnegie Mellon University $7.5 million Will upgrade the country's network infrastructure, bringing 100 megabit-per-second Internet access to millions of homes within the next few years.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9442] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs
by Joel Harrison 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPsCorrect. But that recommendation will take quite sometime to implement, if at all. First we have to convince our guys to move. That seed has already been planted, subsequent to the Board's adoption of the report in July, and the North Texas Microwave Society will be leading the effort. In fact, there will be a "trial balloon" of this idea floated around at the annual Microwave Update Conference Sept 26-28 in Seattle. What response it will receive is not yet known, but having a well respected amateur microwave organization like NTMS to help us is a huge plus. The big question is going to be "If we go to the trouble of modifying our equipment to move, how can we be assured we won't encounter the same problems above 5.825 GHz?" A good question I cannot yet answer! NTMS and the microwave group in the Chicago area are currently preparing engineering data on the interference U-NII operation is currently causing to amateur operations in those areas, and as soon as that is complete we want to send complaints to the FCC. FCC doesn't think there is any interference of this type because we've never submitted any real evidence before. That is about to change. I would hate be somewhat friendly toward this NPRM prematurely. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. The NTMS data is being collected and prepared by degreed, professional RF engineers who are also radio amateurs. -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9441] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs Because outdoor U-NII operation is already permitted in the band 5725-5825 MHz, the Minute 56 report recommended investigating the relocation of amateur weak signal activity from 5760.0-5760.4 MHz to somewhere in the 5825-5830 MHz band. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9440] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs 5.725-5.825 GHz wasn't the area in the 5 GHz band we wanted to be more "friendly" in, it was the lower segment. This segment is where current amateur activity is taking place. Actually, 3.6 GHz would be excellent - no amateur activity there!! 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:34 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9439] FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs The FCC has just released an NPRM (ET Docket No. 03-201) proposing some rules changes to make Parts 2 and 15 more friendly toward wireless ISPs. I have not studied the NPRM in detail. However, my initial reaction is that we may want to support at least some parts of the NPRM even though it would result in greater Part 15 use of the 2.4-2.45 and 5.725-5.825 GHz bands. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the "Minute 56" report to the July Board Meeting as well as offer support of a better alternative for "last mile" broadband delivery than BPL. Personally, I think the 5 GHz band is a better place for it than 2.4 GHz (and maybe 3.6 GHz will be even better). But either one is better than BPL. Dave K1ZZ Here's the link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.pdf

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9441] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

Because outdoor U-NII operation is already permitted in the band 5725-5825 MHz, the Minute 56 report recommended investigating the relocation of amateur weak signal activity from 5760.0-5760.4 MHz to somewhere in the 5825-5830 MHz band. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9440] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs 5.725-5.825 GHz wasn't the area in the 5 GHz band we wanted to be more "friendly" in, it was the lower segment. This segment is where current amateur activity is taking place. Actually, 3.6 GHz would be excellent - no amateur activity there!! 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:34 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9439] FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs The FCC has just released an NPRM (ET Docket No. 03-201) proposing some rules changes to make Parts 2 and 15 more friendly toward wireless ISPs. I have not studied the NPRM in detail. However, my initial reaction is that we may want to support at least some parts of the NPRM even though it would result in greater Part 15 use of the 2.4-2.45 and 5.725-5.825 GHz bands. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the "Minute 56" report to the July Board Meeting as well as offer support of a better alternative for "last mile" broadband delivery than BPL. Personally, I think the 5 GHz band is a better place for it than 2.4 GHz (and maybe 3.6 GHz will be even better). But either one is better than BPL. Dave K1ZZ Here's the link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.pdf

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9440] Re: FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs
by Joel Harrison 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs 5.725-5.825 GHz wasn't the area in the 5 GHz band we wanted to be more "friendly" in, it was the lower segment. This segment is where current amateur activity is taking place. Actually, 3.6 GHz would be excellent - no amateur activity there!! 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:34 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9439] FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs The FCC has just released an NPRM (ET Docket No. 03-201) proposing some rules changes to make Parts 2 and 15 more friendly toward wireless ISPs. I have not studied the NPRM in detail. However, my initial reaction is that we may want to support at least some parts of the NPRM even though it would result in greater Part 15 use of the 2.4-2.45 and 5.725-5.825 GHz bands. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the "Minute 56" report to the July Board Meeting as well as offer support of a better alternative for "last mile" broadband delivery than BPL. Personally, I think the 5 GHz band is a better place for it than 2.4 GHz (and maybe 3.6 GHz will be even better). But either one is better than BPL. Dave K1ZZ Here's the link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.pdf

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9439] FCC NPRM on Part 15 wireless ISPs
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

The FCC has just released an NPRM (ET Docket No. 03-201) proposing some rules changes to make Parts 2 and 15 more friendly toward wireless ISPs. I have not studied the NPRM in detail. However, my initial reaction is that we may want to support at least some parts of the NPRM even though it would result in greater Part 15 use of the 2.4-2.45 and 5.725-5.825 GHz bands. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the "Minute 56" report to the July Board Meeting as well as offer support of a better alternative for "last mile" broadband delivery than BPL. Personally, I think the 5 GHz band is a better place for it than 2.4 GHz (and maybe 3.6 GHz will be even better). But either one is better than BPL. Dave K1ZZ Here's the link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.pdf

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9438] Re: Washington Trip 9/15/03-some parts confidential
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

If you want to see some of what Jim and Chris saw at the FCC's Columbia facility, check out "The New Age of Amateur Enforcement," April 1999 QST, pages 52-55. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9437] More BPL Flackery
by dick＠pobox.com 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

InTech Newsletter - June 1, 2003 Net Access Through Electric Outlet Germantown, Md.-There is a new frontier in Internet connectivity that may be as simple as plugging into your electric outlet. That is high-speed Internet access over the existing power lines. There is a market-and-technology trial underway by Germantown, Md.-based Current Technologies and Potomac Electric Power Co. (Pepco). The product offering has high-speed Internet, home networking, Internet radio, voice-over IP, Internet gaming, and video-on-demand services operating concurrently over a broadband connection that is maintained through the home's existing power lines. The Potomac trial is one of two that Current Technologies and its utility partners have underway. The other trial is taking place outside Cincinnati with Cinergy Corp. Current Technologies expects the service will be available commercially later this year. "By partnering with utility companies such as Pepco and Cinergy, we will provide broadband Internet access to virtually every outlet in customers' homes," said Jay Birnbaum, president of Current Technologies. As part of these trials, more than 100 households in Potomac and Cincinnati are now using Current Technologies' broadband over their power lines. The Current Technologies solution needs no truck roll to a home. It provides customers broadband access at symmetrical speeds that are better than DSL and cable modem through proprietary equipment that is attached to utility power lines. Customers connect to the service using a small, commercially available power line modem that connects to their computer and plugs into ordinary power outlets.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9436] Re: Intro License
by R. B. Vallio 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

Hi Mike, Thanks for your very carefully chosen prose. I'm not interested in ripping them to shreds, however. I believe it you look into kit sales, you'll see most of them are being sold to long-time licensees looking for new areas of interest. Five-watt rigs are not generally designed for newcomers, and on a unit cost often exceed that of a piece of used gear. One-hundred watt rigs are found everywhere, many of them cheap, and most of them easily operated by even the greenest of folks. I don't have all of the answers, but my years of being on the bands just makes me feel that five-watts is not the place to put the entry-level H.F. folks. I'm still tired from the rigors of our long-range-planning sessions in St. Louis. That was a really intense session. Take care, OM. 73, Bob W6RGG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9435] Washington Trip 9/15/03-some parts confidential
by W5JBP＠aol.com 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

Monday morning Chris and had an appointment with the FCC monitoring chief in Columbia, Maryland. I had been invited to see the facility on several occasions, but due to time constraints, that had not been possible. As the only thing on my agenda for Monday was the donor reception that night, this was a perfect opportunity to do the tour. First let me mention that a tour of the monitoring facility is something that they usually do not do, and it was mentioned that I should not mention it too much as it might give hams the feeling that they do it all the time. They don 't. So, Chris and I was privileged in getting this invitation. This is a secure area and in the main operations room, very secure. Chris and I were told, that if a situation came up, we might have to leave. As it turned out, after we were in for about 10 minutes, an alarm went off, and we were immediately escorted out of the operations room and into another area. What we did see, and get a demonstration on, is how the system works and both of us were very impressed. All they need for a plot, anywhere in North America is about 400 milliseconds to get a fix within 20 miles and that number can be refined the longer they do the plot. You may think that then they should be doing more in the amateur radio bands, but we learned that they do work for other agencies and other governments as well. That takes priority. That is about it, but to say the least, Chris and I were both duly impressed. The donor dinner went well, but the weather did not cooperate as it began to thunderstorm about 6:45 and I think that kept some away, but Congressman Mike Ross, D-AR did show up and gave a very good talk about his amateur radio experiences and gave us a good report on how he feels about AR. It was very positive. Tuesday morning I was to have had a meeting with Julie Knap of OET, but due to a family emergency, it was canceled. So, John Chwat and I had breakfast and spent 2 hours talking about the points made in group "A" on Sunday at the St.Louis meeting. I have asked him to come up with a plan to present to you about how to see your representatives in the home offices. I will be a "how to" type of document and I think it will be helpful in our congressional promotions. Later this morning, Mary, Debbie and I met with both John and Derek and covered areas that we might explore for grants. Of course education and communications training were high on the list. I intend to call my friend over at HHS and see if he can help in getting some type of funding for a HASMAT course. You never know unless you ask. In the morning, Chris and I have a meeting scheduled with the Wireless bureau to make sure we are on the same page with them and the time line that you all and Joel discussed on Saturday night. We want to also see if we can see which way the wind is blowing on BPL if we can set something up with the OET. We have learned that the BPL folks have set up a Congressional Staff briefing for later this month. We will have a "spy" there, but this shows that they are pulling out all the stops. Dave, Chris and I talked last night about this and decided it is time to set up an in person meeting over at the NAB meeting room with those who we have talked to, and have an interest as we do, on the interference issue. More on that as we get it put together. Jim Haynie

1 0