[By Subject] [By Date] [By Sender [By Thread]
Previous In Time

Next in Time

From: artky1k@juno.com (Art B Allen)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: My Spread Spectrum Letter to FCC
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:32:25 UTC

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:38:25 -0600 CST "Robert Barron" writes:
>John,
>
>> Actually one can do this type of testing without an STA just
>> by using Part 15 devices that are available to everyone. Has
>> anyone else ever tried this?
>>
>> Come to my house and see what happens when the guy 4 houses
>> down switches on his 900Mhz cordless phone. He bought that
>> because of interference to the old 49 Mhz phone. And yes it is
>> SS.
>
>Is this a "real" SS system? I do know that I have read about
>a number of devices claiming to be SS that are not really spread
>nor do they have a high chip rate. Realize, I'm not saying
>that SS could not cause this. But what I would like to really
>know is how *real* SS would affect all existing users.
>
>> The noise level is pinging my meter with my 60 element looper
>> pointed his direction from 902-910 Mhz ( that is the range I
>> can receive) and so effectively blocking QSO's from east.
>> Turning the antenna shows no spot with noise below S6. When he
>> is done with his calls (this can be hrs at a time he has a 16
>> Year old :-) )the noisefloor is around an average of S1.
>> Lately there have been popping up some 2-3 more signals from
>> different directions but not as strong. I chose to not use
>> 900Mhz and right now the antennas are down and I will
>> concentrate on other bands. This one was an easy decision for
>> me, after all, even here in Rochester with all the BIG
>> activity on VHF and above the VHF/UHF/SHF bands are empty
>> besides the times just a couple weeks before the contests and
>> during the contests.
>
>It would be a shame to lose weak signal operations on 902 MHz as
>it appears you already have. IF SS operations adversely affect
>WS operations there needs to be some documented proof that
>this would be the case. The situation you describe is certainly
>compelling but I'm not certain that it constitutes enough proof
>to convince everyone (or most everyone).
>
>Questions could arise as to how much the phone signal is
>actually spread, which type of spreading technique is used,
>etc. Some work "better" than others. Finding out real
>answers to these types of questions can help the WS groups
>make their points.
>
>73,
>
>Robert, KA5WSS
>barron@liant.com
>
>

Im wondering....

We can run 1500 watts and high gain antennae-

When we have SS interference from QRP devices, wouldn't our TX power absolutely overwhelm the QRP users RX?

Im also wondering if we should be thinking about 'fighting fire with fire'. When we get SS interference as described above, perhaps we should consider running a QRO SS beacon until such time as the interference ceases?

Obviously, part 15 devices DO NOT belong in the ham bands-shouldnt we be more interested in getting these devices OUT of our bands??? Never should have been there to start with...

Obviously, 50 or 100 part 15 devices operating within a mile or 2 of the weak signal user is going to create probs (whether ists SS or not).

Art, KY1K.

------ Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu