[HamWAN PSDR] New to HAMWAN (NE Portland)

[John D. Hays]

The earlier question was about hams providing Internet service to
underserved areas (presumably for non-hams and for general Internet access)
-- that is what I am clarifying.  Net-44 infrastructure can run on non
Part-97 frequencies, but must follow Part-97 when using Part-97 frequencies.

If Net-44 addresses are used by non-hams or non-ham related activities then
they are in violation of the TOS for the licensed subnets.

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:52 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel at nigelvh.com>
wrote:

> John,
>
> Correct, but HamWAN is still a amateur network, built by hams, for hams,
> so it’s still an amateur radio network whether or not it’s part 97 spectrum.
>
> Nigel
>
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 15:49, John D. Hays <john at hays.org> wrote:
>
> Nigel,
>
> The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur
> Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur
> Radio, which I take to include infrastructure.  I simply reference
> https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel at nigelvh.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we
>> wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97
>> frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use.
>>
>> You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power
>> flexibility.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john at hays.org> wrote:
>>
>> When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio
>> forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to
>> building the network.  It was pointed out that many of those sites provide
>> space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only
>> (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the
>> repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay
>> commercial rates.  Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an
>> amateur radio requirement.  In addition, running part 97 has greater
>> transmitter power flexibility.
>>
>> So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new
>> address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as
>> well as re-negotiating site rentals.
>>
>> So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules
>> for segments running in the US and its territories.
>>
>> However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to
>> build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> John D. Hays
>> Edmonds, WA
>> K7VE
>>
>>    <http://k7ve.org/blog>  <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> Edmonds, WA
> K7VE
>
>    <http://k7ve.org/blog>  <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>


-- 

------------------------------
John D. Hays
Edmonds, WA
K7VE

   <http://k7ve.org/blog>  <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20180905/aff05a74/attachment.html>