"Mike Coslo" <mcoslo@youknow.comcast.net> wrote in message news:Xns9999FFB13831mcoslocomcastnet@216.196.97.136... > "h" <w@w.biz> wrote in news:13d0kn1pn739523@corp.supernews.com: > >> Again all this is ok.. Snipped > I'm talking about sending a signal to a remote site where Internet > service is not available, and using that access to get to say a dx > cluster or to a website set up to allow stations that are not in the same > place communicate and log in a contest. Or to connect to Echolink for an > emergency net. > > - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - > I am getting the parts together to very soon set up my own semi-long distance Wi-Fi link. Ace - WH2T Also SEE http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/006518.html A team in Venezuela went up a mountain and came down the unofficial holders of the longest Wi-Fi link record at 167 miles. They used Linksys WRT54G using open-source firmware (DD-WRT) using retrofitted satellite parabolic dishes. When I read this story initially I thought, well they may have used Wi-Fi protocols, but this isn't Wi-Fi in the sense of regulation-conforming unlicensed use within the signal limits. The last Wi-Fi distance winner, Cincinnati teenagers who created a 125-mile link for DefCon's Wi-Fi Shootout, clearly exceed Part 15 rules, but claim they were using Part 97 (amateur radio) rules. Part 97 ain't regular Wi-Fi. .

In article <81b3c$46fd4477$4e0b116$23189@DIALUPUSA.NET>, Dr.Ace Ratliff <Ace@WH2T.com> wrote: > I bought a "Buffalo WHR-HP-G54" Wireless-G broadband router & acess point >with high gain antenna. >I flashed the Router's firmware with software I got from Sveasoft and now my >router can transmit up to 1 watt fully adjustable. And I also have extra >frequency/channels not usually availabe in the U.S. >I believe that as a licensed amateur radio op. I am legal ! Maybe yes, maybe no. As I understand it, you have a choice. You can either operate the router/radio, unmodified, under the FCC's Part 15 rules. In this mode of operation you must comply with all of the Part 15 rules (which generally require the use of certificated radio equipment... and modifying the radio or antenna would void this certification). Or, you can modify it, and then operate under the amateur-radio rules. In this scenario, you must operate entirely within your ham privileges as defined by Part 97, and follow all of those rules. You would be allowed to modify the radio, as long as the resulting modifications fall within the technical requirements given in Part 97. You can transmit, but *only* within the frequency ranges specifically authorized for amateur-radio use (these overlap the normal 802.11 frequencies but do *not* include all of the 802.11 channels!). Your transmitter must ID itself according to the "10-minute rule", you may not use encryption for the purpose of obscuring the transmissions, and you may not have a pecuniary interest in the operation of the radio. You cannot, I believe, "have it both ways" at the same time... e.g. operate a modified radio outside of the normal set of 802.11 channels, but use the router for commercial purpose or (according to most interpretations) use WEP or WPA encryption for the purpose of keeping your transmissions private. -- Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> 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" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message news:8s80t4-eie.ln1@radagast.org... > > In article <81b3c$46fd4477$4e0b116$23189@DIALUPUSA.NET>, > Dr.Ace Ratliff <Ace@WH2T.com> wrote: > >> I bought a "Buffalo WHR-HP-G54" Wireless-G broadband router & acess point >>with high gain antenna. > >>I flashed the Router's firmware with software I got from Sveasoft and now >>my >>router can transmit up to 1 watt fully adjustable. And I also have extra >>frequency/channels not usually availabe in the U.S. > >>I believe that as a licensed amateur radio op. I am legal ! > > Maybe yes, maybe no. > > As I understand it, you have a choice. You can either operate the > router/radio, unmodified, under the FCC's Part 15 rules. In this mode > of operation you must comply with all of the Part 15 rules (which > generally require the use of certificated radio equipment... and > modifying the radio or antenna would void this certification). > > Or, you can modify it, and then operate under the amateur-radio rules. > In this scenario, you must operate entirely within your ham privileges > as defined by Part 97, and follow all of those rules. You would be > allowed to modify the radio, as long as the resulting modifications > fall within the technical requirements given in Part 97. You can > transmit, but *only* within the frequency ranges specifically > authorized for amateur-radio use (these overlap the normal 802.11 > frequencies but do *not* include all of the 802.11 channels!). Your > transmitter must ID itself according to the "10-minute rule", you may > not use encryption for the purpose of obscuring the transmissions, and > you may not have a pecuniary interest in the operation of the radio. > > You cannot, I believe, "have it both ways" at the same time... e.g. > operate a modified radio outside of the normal set of 802.11 channels, > but use the router for commercial purpose or (according to most > interpretations) use WEP or WPA encryption for the purpose of keeping > your transmissions private. > > -- > Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO Dave, I agree with your point of view. I said "And I also have extra frequency/channels not usually availabe in the U.S." The extra frequency/channels are European. I have set the router NOT to use them. I was just commenting that they are there. I named my router and network WH2T so any time it is transmitting it transmits my callsign. I am not using WEP or WPA encryption, I live in a very rural area. Very 73, Ace www.WH2T.com .

In article <13fslev8re90u53@news.supernews.com>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >> I named my router and network WH2T so any time it is transmitting it >> transmits my callsign. > >Unfortunately, that doesn't meet the FCC requirements for identification. > > From 97.119: > >(b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized for >the transmitting channel *in one of the following ways*: >(1) By a CW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for >identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute; >(2) By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a standard >phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is >encouraged; >(3) By a RTTY emission using a specified digital code when all or part >of the communications are transmitted by a RTTY or data emission; >(4) By an image emission conforming to the applicable transmission >standards, either color or monochrome, of §73.682(a) of the FCC Rules >when all or part of the communications are transmitted in the same image >emission. > >Maybe you could teach the router CW . . . or RTTY . . . The strict reading you're making of 97.119 would also appear to make illegal almost all AX.25 packet radio systems, as well as PSK31, Olivia, MFSK, and the other sound-card modulations... since none of these identify via either CW, or via "RTTY" in the classic meaning of the term (i.e. FSK modulation using Baudot code). Rather, the callsign is transmitted via the same modulation scheme as the rest of the textual traffic being carried. I believe that the FCC has a broader view of the issue, in that they use the phrase "RTTY emission using a specified digital code". If one interprets this as meaning "a transmission of alphanumeric characters, using a digital code whose details are publicized", then this covers both the "modified 802.11 access point" (since the callsign is transmitted as part of an ASCII string, sent via one of the standardized and well-published 802.11 modulations) and all of the packet and sound-card modes. If the FCC were of a mind to interpret the rules to require that the ID'ing be done either in CW, or in "classic" RTTY, I believe that they would have done so decades ago when AX.25 over AFSK modulations first became popular, or more recently when PSK31 and MFSK and etc. came into use. I've not heard or read any hint that they intend to do so. If you're using some sort of _experimental_ digital code, or an exotic modulation scheme which has not yet been publicized, then you'd need to identify in CW or in a published digital code to stay legal. I believe that at least one of the sound-card modulation systems can embed a narrow-bandwidth CW ID inside the wider-bandwidth signal, so that casual listeners using SSB receivers can hear the ID... a neat and courteous trick. -- Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> 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!

"> : : The strict reading you're making of 97.119 would also > : : appear to make illegal almost all AX.25 packet radio > : : systems, as well as PSK31, Olivia, MFSK, and the other > : : sound-card modulations... since none of these identify > : : via either CW, or via "RTTY" in the classic meaning of > : : the term (i.e. FSK modulation using Baudot code). > : : Rather, the > : : callsign is transmitted via the same modulation scheme > : : as the rest of the textual traffic being carried. > > Every packet TNC I've ever used has the option to set the station callsign > to identify in CW. I belive it's a requirement to do so every 15 minutes > here in the UK but it's been a while since I operated on packet so it may > have changed. I notice a few voice repeaters have a voice ID mode now, > although they still ID in CW as well. > > 73 Ivor G6URP > Many TNC2 clones do not have a cw ident facility, depending on what software version they have installed. Also in the UK it is no longer a requirement to id in morse, the new licence regulations now say: "by the same type of transmission that is being used for the communication" Regards Jeff G8HUL

In article <lu20g3140hp2b4ud33tv144tkf52shm9cv@4ax.com>, Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:12:03 EDT, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) > wrote: > > >If the FCC were of a mind to interpret the rules to require that the > >ID'ing be done either in CW, or in "classic" RTTY, I believe that they > >would have done so decades ago when AX.25 over AFSK modulations first > >became popular, or more recently when PSK31 and MFSK and etc. came > >into use. I've not heard or read any hint that they intend to do so. > > At one time, CW identification was required for all data type amateur > emissions including RTTY. Indeed, MixW, the most popular sound-card > data program, still makes provision for this. Recent interpretations, > though, allow for ID using the mode of communication. During my > "reign", we (the San Francisco office of the FCC) at my urging > actually acquired a PK-232 TNC and the software to go with it! > -- > > 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane > ARRL Volunteer Counsel > > email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net > We had the same unit in the Region X Office in Seattle........ Bruce in alaska -- add <path> before @

"Jon Kåre Hellan" wrote >> The reason for CW ID was that the FCC Field Engineers and Monitoring >> Station techs could read the ID "off the air" because we were all >> code-qualified. > How long until voice ID is required for CW signals? Good one! N7SO

Jon Kare Hellan <dev@null.com> wrote: > > How long until voice ID is required for CW signals? My guess is that within about 10 years, CW usage will be about as rare as AM usage is today. -- Klystron

> My guess is that within about 10 years, CW usage will be about as > rare as AM usage is today. I feel CW will take a little longer before it becomes rare. When people moved from AM to SSB it was seen as upgrading. It was another more efficient mode for the same voice information. Of course there were the "die hards", and there is still some AM nets around today. Although you have to really search for them. CW is a different thing. It has fanatical followers and the home brew crew will always see CW as the "first mode". I think CW will become an eccentrics choice, but will still be heard on amateur bands throughout my lifetime (I'm hoping for another 50 years:) even if it becomes a "sked only" mode like some of the rarer data modes. Wait and see I guess :o) -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org

"Klystron" <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote in message news:xxx-53B52C.15392702102007@news.verizon.net... > Jon Kare Hellan <dev@null.com> wrote: >> >> How long until voice ID is required for CW signals? > > > My guess is that within about 10 years, CW usage will be about as > rare as AM usage is today. > rubbish, I built my first CW TX when I was 9 and I guess I've got at least another 40 years left in me yet. - plus my top band 2 watt 160m AM kit set sits pride of place atop my HF rice box - Nowt wrong with AM (or CW) IMHO (BTW I use Wifi for posting to newsgroups from the shack, my SSID is set to default - I don't need an amateur call to use it) -- -- 10-10 de G1LVN -- My call is M0WWS. I fell off a ladder, and I woke up in rec.radio.amateur.moderated Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? ------------------------------------------------------ Amateur Radio - social networking since 1897