[MLB-WIRELESS] ACA discussion paper

[rick]

im confused, as I always am, does this mean we will HAVE to get a licence? I
kind of know how 2.4ghz wireless works, but im more interested in the
network side I think it would be weird if I would have to get a licence for
this hobby and would also stop A LOT of people from becoming interested

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
[mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Mark Aitken
Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2003 8:27 PM
To: sanbar; jlinton at iprimus.com.au
Cc: melbwireless
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] ACA discussion paper


Hello,

At 06:54 PM 9/10/2003 +1000, sanbar wrote:

>Don't like it. The only common interest between amateur radio and
>development of wlan is the use of radio frequencies.

I say "not really".  Nice clear 100% accurate digital audio and video links
between radio and television repeater sites would be very useful to Hams.


>The real knowledge
>in wlan technology is not behind producing the medium to carry data -
>after all, we are using very low powered, off-the-shelf equipment and
>basic RF theory - but in the network's design.

There is no reason one can not help the other.  Amateur Radio Operators and
the clubs they belong too have access to many well situated sites that could
be of benefit to wlaners. And wlaners have access to the technology and
know-how that could benefit amateurs by carrying their digitized signals
along the wlan's network much like the Internet does now with services such
as
IRLP (Internet Repeater linking program) and Echolink.



>The RF side is of littlesignificance other than  prividing a substtute to
>the wired medium

mmmhhh...take it away then!


>while
>keeping within guidelines. The other difficulty will be determining who
>exactly requires this licence to operate the equipment (if you don't own
>or assemble the equipment, do you need the entry-level licence?),

Basically, if the equipment is used outside the class licence guidelines
then the
required licence would be required.

Hams could if they stayed within their allocated spectrum space run 120
Watts carrier
power into the antenna, provided of course that identification/encryption
regulations
where adhered to. Note that I do not propose this at all!! but a little
more power would be
nice wouldn't it.


>Yes, there will be people who attempt to
>operate equipment outside of ACA guidelines,

As do some amateur radio operators try to push the limits of the
regulations and
beyond.


>but groups such as
>Melbourne Wireless go to great lengths to educate member wlan operators
>about basic RF theory and the physical limitations of what they can do
>with the equipment they use.

As do radio clubs with respect to regulations, operation practices, theory,
etc.


>Granted, the RF stuff is significant,

whew....bring it back then.


>but IMHO it would be of more
>relevance to wlan operators to do a RHCE/MCSE than entry-level RF
>theory.

Good Idea.

Hey, lets clone a Radio Ham with a RHCE/MCSE holder,  best of both worlds.

SUPERTECH   ;>)


>Getting an RF link up is the easiest part of building the wlan
>network.

And what do you do when you can not get it up and going "easy"?


>I'm open to criticism.


Me too!

>- Barry


-- Mark




To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message