From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 02:17:37 +0800
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
Message-ID: <m0tXXEW-00091KC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:08 AM 1/3/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> As a ham, too (N7IJS) I recognize your implicit selection of 2m or 450 MHz.
>> But I gently object to this, for reasons that I think will be obvious.
>
>I was thinking of the itenerant frequencies around 151 MHz, but the 
>bandwidth would be limited.  I wasn't thinking of amateur frequencies, 
>but my fingers sometimes have a mind of their own ;)

Interestingly enough, my primary objection was NOT really commercial
encroachment on an existing amateur structure (though that is an important
consideration!); rather, it was the fact that because we're talking really
short-range communication (way less than a kilometer, in most cases) using
frequencies below a gigahertz would be a counter-productive shame.  Here, we
WANT "line of sight"!  And, of course, the bandwidth issue is inherently
better:  It would be FAR easier to get 100 MHz width at around 2.5 GHz than
under 1 gig!

>> First, technology has been marching on in the last 10-20 years, and
>> communications frequencies of 2 GHz and more are technically do-able and
>> comparatively empty.  (and with modern IC  technology, even easy)
>
>I'd love to see plans (or used commercial gear) able to do this - I've 
>got a point-to-point application that I'd love to set up ...

I get a free (bingo-card) magazine industry magazine called "Microwaves and
RF," which is sort of the EDN for the high-frequency communication crowd.
You'd be amazed at the level of technical (chip) development there.  Chip
sets that do frequency synthesis/full RF/IF on surface mount chips.    

Jim Bell, N7IJS

 
(BTW, I use Eudora, and I have PGP.  Could somebody explain how to PGP-sign
messages, ideally EASILY?)