Since 802.11b/g have several channels in our shared 2390-2450MHz band, can a ham
set up a "super WIFI" node using QRO?

I'm not proposing to do so, but the concept seems viable, so long as the node
does not use encryption.

The Man in the Maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ

--
Iitoi

In article , Iitoi wrote:

Since 802.11b/g have several channels in our shared 2390-2450MHz band,
can a ham
set up a "super WIFI" node using QRO?

I'm not proposing to do so, but the concept seems viable, so long as the node
does not use encryption.

This whole subject is rather controversial... there's been a lot of
discussion of it.

I believe that the general consensus is that you *can* do what you are
proposing, as long as you are careful to stay consistently within one
set of rules. That is, if you're using your ham Part 97 privileges,
you must:

- ID properly (using your callsign as the ESSID is the usual method),
and

- Stay strictly within the usage rules (i.e. no encryption, no
transmissions in which you have any sort of pecuniary interest), and

- Stay within the frequencies, power limits, and other technical
boundaries of Part 97. There are only one or two WiFi channel
numbers which you can use, without having the signal contain
significant energy which is either outside of the ham allocation
entirely, or falls into weak-signal parts of the 2.4-gig ham band
that are reserved for specialized uses according to the current
bandplan.

- Limit access to your system to other hams. Some people do this with
MAC-address restrictions. Others feel that using WEP encryption
is an acceptable way to do this (some claim that since the motive
is access control rather than obscuring-the-content, it doesn't
strictly violate the FCC regs against encryption; others
feel that it's OK if the actual WEP key is published somewhere).

QRO is something that you need to be careful about. Make sure that
you review the FCC Part 97 regs concerning spread-spectrum
transmissions. If you go above a certain power level, you are
*required* to have automatic power control implemented on the
transmitter, to keep the power down to the minimum which will deliver
a specified signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver.

I believe that the ARRL has proposed that the FCC eliminate this
particular restriction, but that hasn't actually happened yet.

And, of course, you may need to be concerned about the reactions of
other (Part 15) WiFi users, who may come after you with torches and
axes when they find that your QRO signal is preventing their laptops
from getting to any access point more than 5' away. Of course, they'll
be in the wrong, legally, but that's only a small part of the equation
:-)

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:29:15 EDT, "Iitoi" wrote:

Since 802.11b/g have several channels in our shared 2390-2450MHz band, can a ham
set up a "super WIFI" node using QRO?

That question has come up every so often in the last 10 years, and the
answer is YES providing that all the ham rules - use of a channel
within the ham band, proper ID every ten minutes, control operator,
etc - are followed.

I'm not proposing to do so, but the concept seems viable, so long as the node
does not use encryption.

That is correct,
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote:

Some members of our club have been discussing this very thing. Some
say it is just plain illegal.

On the other hand, I am not at all sure.

1.It is not illegal to put a wirelss router on my Cable modem.

2. If there is a bad spot in my yard, I can say install a better
antenna on the router. (if indeed those commercial units do anything.

3. If I have a big yard, or say if I had a farm and wanted to get
some internet access from one of my outbuildings, is it okay if I put a
little yagi setup, esp if I am a Ham?

4. Now if I am wanting internet access at a mountaintop station that
doesn't have access otherwise, is it illegal to do the same thing as in
step 3?

One thing to be aware of: the FCC requires that Part 15 radios and
their antennas be certificated as a complete system.

If you substitute a different antenna (other than one which the
radio's manufacturer has actually tested and certificated with the
radio), then the original certification of the Part 15 equipment is
voided, and it becomes (technically) illegal to use the radio to
transmit until you have it re-tested for compliance at a properly
equipped test facility.

This means that, if one wants to pick nits, most people who install
higher-gain aftermarket antennas on their 802.11 access points /
routers / cards may very well be operating illegally. I've only ever
heard of one case of a company fined for doing this (and they were
also operating with an illegally-high-powered amplifier)... I doubt
it's an issue that's on the FCC's radar, unless somebody files a
formal complaint about a specific situation.

These Part 15 rules don't apply if you're using the system within your
ham Part 97 privileges... but you then have to honor _all_ of the
rules for Part 97 use. You can't pick and choose (e.g. put on a
high-gain antenna and an amplifier under Part 97, and then use the
system on Part-15-only frequencies with encryption turned on and for
running a business). If you want to stay fully legal, you have to do
it one way or the other... within Part 15, or within Part 97.

My rationale is that I have paid for the service. As long as I am
not doing anything that was illegal at the cable drop already, such as
providing other people service, I am not doing anything that a wireless
router does. I'm only giving it an antenna with a bit more punch.

Unfortunately, modifications to the antenna itself are probably
outside of what Part 15 allows, unless you use an antenna that the
AP's manufacturer has actually certificated with that particular AP.

Sticking a passive reflector being the antenna, for a few dB of gain,
might not count as a modification to the actual antenna, and might
thus be legal.

The issue of whether it's OK to allow other people to use your home
wireless network, on a cable or DSL line, would be a contractual issue
between you and your ISP... I don't think it's an FCC issue at all.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote:

1.It is not illegal to put a wirelss router on my Cable modem.

2. If there is a bad spot in my yard, I can say install a better
antenna on the router. (if indeed those commercial units do anything.

As has been pointed out, the better antenna probably won't comply with Part
15. Now, you can use your Part 97 privileges to extend your LAN, but once
you allow Internet content to travel that Part 97 circuit, how do you
prevent commercial content? Obscene content? Sounds like you are allowing a
non-licensed operator, e.g., Google, to use your circuit. Even if you have
some wonderful, magical firewall, it seems as if it might be difficult to
explain away the "pecuniary interest" clause, since you are essentially
extending a paid-for service.

IANAL, but it sounds like shaky ground to me. Of course, you could take
that attitude that the probability of an enforcement action is close to
zero, and you could be right. But I, personally, wouldn't try it.

...

xpyttl wrote:



IANAL, but it sounds like shaky ground to me. Of course, you could take
that attitude that the probability of an enforcement action is close to
zero, and you could be right. But I, personally, wouldn't try it.


I've found the QST article dealing with this. Its called

IEEE 802.11 Experiments in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, on page 35 of
the July 2005 QST. I would be surprised if QST allowed these amateurs to
write up their illegal activities.


QST has some links encouraging this activity also

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/hi...nications.html

It was written form an EC perspective, but the purpose is pretty clear.


I'll save further comment until I've read the issue.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:28:01 EDT, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

And, of course, you may need to be concerned about the reactions of
other (Part 15) WiFi users, who may come after you with torches and
axes when they find that your QRO signal is preventing their laptops
from getting to any access point more than 5' away. Of course, they'll
be in the wrong, legally, but that's only a small part of the equation

About 15 years ago I was involved in an industry group called the Bay
Area Wireless Communications Alliance, made up of engineers and
manufacturers' marketing people in "Silicon Valley".

At the time the WiFi specs were just starting to be formulated, and
the consensus was that the digital spread-spectrum encoding would take
care of all interference problems. When I piped up and mentioned that
(QRO) ham radio will cause shutdown, all the digital types poo-pooed
the suggestion, while the three hams in the group just nodded their
heads in agreement.

Can they spell "Front End Overload" ? ggg
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:51:48 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

IEEE 802.11 Experiments in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, on page 35 of
the July 2005 QST. I would be surprised if QST allowed these amateurs to
write up their illegal activities.

QST has some links encouraging this activity also

The encouragement is to use said circuits for ham radio purposes -
WAS on 2.4 GHz ???
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:

At the time the WiFi specs were just starting to be formulated, and
the consensus was that the digital spread-spectrum encoding would take
care of all interference problems. When I piped up and mentioned that
(QRO) ham radio will cause shutdown, all the digital types poo-pooed
the suggestion, while the three hams in the group just nodded their
heads in agreement.

Can they spell "Front End Overload" ? ggg

#chuckle#

I'm sure the smell of Magic Blue Smoke leaking out of the front-end,
and the whimpering sound of badly-abused demodulators, will stimulate
their spelling ability no end :-)

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:19:58 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Probably the best thing to do is to call your ISP and carefully and
properly frame the question.

You are presuming that the ISP will understand what you are proposing!

Read the Terms of Service and get an opinion from a regulatory
professional who has your interests at heart, not the ISP's interests.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net