[BARC-List] (no subject)

Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:05:27 -0500 (EST)

Having just skimmed this article, how does this differ from the AMPRnet?

Scott, WY1Z

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 [email protected] wrote:

> In response to my HSMM question yesterday, several people on the list have
> asked "What's 'HSMM'?"  Sorry, acronyms strike again.
>
> I'm no expert, so view this strictly as a layman's summary, but HSMM stands for
> high-speed multi-media, in effect using radio to create Internet-like
> capabilities on the air (the ARRL has dubbed the term "Hinternet" for this,
> which is a little too gimicky for my taste, but it gets the point across, I
> suppose).  Anyhow, the idea is to develop ways to use wireless digital
> technology to develop high speed digital radio applications.  By high speed,
> we're talking about something along the lines of 9,000 times faster than
> regular old 1,200 packet we see on 2 meters.  This is a project being supported
> by the ARRL, and is envisioned as offering the ability to deploy digital video
> streaming, full duplex audio and other applications that could be very
> effective for emergency communications (even in the face of landline Internet
> disruptions), not to mention plain old fun.
>
> Existing Wi-Fi devices using 802.11b (and, if I have this right, the
> experimental 802.11g) under part 15 of the FCC rules overlap with amateur
> frequencies on 2.4 GHz.  What that means in plain English is that you or I
> could buy a wireless access device for fairly short $, set it up with an
> external antenna (with encryption disabled, of course, to comply with Part 97
> rules) and do some happy hamming that would make packet look downright sleepy.
> We hams can use higher power than what's allowed under Part 15, but that's
> subject to automatic power control requirements which go way beyond where I am
> at this stage.  If you already have a home network (mine is hard wired), sounds
> like it's just a matter of running Cat 5 cable up to a point near an outdoor
> 2.4 GHz antenna (to minimize coax losses), hooking up an off-the-shelf wireless
> device (WAP) and having a go at it.  I gather that reliable links in the 5 to
> 10 mile range are achievable with off-the-shelf devices.
>
> In addition to an ARRL taskforce, hams in several areas of the country (San
> Antonio, TX and Minnesota, among others) are starting to experiment with
> wireless technology.  I believe plenty of computer people are doing this under
> Part 15 FCC rules already, so there could be a happy convergence of interests
> here (and also some interesting spectrum tensions, where we hams appear to have
> primary rights, but I'll leave that topic for another day).
>
> As must be obvious by now, there are better information resources on this than
> me.  If you're interested, I encourage you to read the article in the latest
> QST or to browse to the following URL on the ARRL's site:
> http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/project.html (which also has a copy of the QST
> article).
>
> There also is an active 802.11b e-mail list sponsored by the ARRL on a Texas
> A&M server, which you can join either by:
> -- browsing to http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/arrl-80211b.html and
> selecting "JOIN"
> or
> -- sending an e-mail to [email protected] and in the BODY put
> SUBSCRIBE arrl-80211b firstname lastname or SUBSCRIBE arrl-80211b firstname
> lastname-callsign.
>
> All this is a longer winded way of asking if anyone else is interested in
> trying to experiment with this some.  I haven't set anything up yet, but I may
> do so shortly.  Hope this helps.
>
> 73,
>
> Joe, KB1CJ
> _______________________________________________
> BARC-List mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/barc-list
>