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 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

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 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