| |
OE7FTJ > WLAN 06.05.05 10:33l 35 Lines 1263 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 65FOE7XLR00D
Read: GUEST DK5RAS DO6NP OE8FKQ
Subj: Re: RE packet vs WiFi
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0PV<DB0ZKA<DB0SIP<OE9XPI<OE7XLR
Sent: 050506/0925z @:OE7XLR.#OE7.AUT.EU [TCP/IP Node/BBS Innsbruck] obcm1.04
From: OE7FTJ @ OE7XLR.#OE7.AUT.EU (Wolf)
To: WLAN @ WW
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
m5wjf@gb7max.#28.gbr.eu wrote:
> Wolf OE7FTJ wrote:-
>
>>The problem is the 20MHz bandwidth of _one_ channel!
>>We have a telecom regulation authority here in Austria! In most of the
>>european countries is only 1 MHz rf-bandwidth allowed in the 13cm band.
>>In the 6cm band it is 10 MHz!
>
> and then wrote:-
>
>>In my area are two ATV links running in the 13cm band.
>
>
> Doesn't ATV have at least a 9MHz bandwidth anyway? (maybe I'm wrong?)
> Which would mean use of ATV on 13cms in Austria would be using more than
> the 1MHz rf-bandwidth previously mentioned as applicable from the telecoms
> authority?
>
Yes, I didn't say, that ATV links are allowed to use more bandwidth than
a voice link of corse!
> The other point here is that any TX on Amateur Frequencies at 2.4GHz
> should come under your Amateur Radio Licence rather than
> etsi-wifi-conditions, if you're using these wifi links for exclusively
> Amateur traffic.
>
No, thats wrong! You have to meet the technical conditions about
rf-bandwidth, max pep, etc. when using as an amateur radio equipment!
So it is not simple to use a wifi device as an pure amateur radio dev. :-(
de Wolf, oe7ftj
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
