From: "g" <geleem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 2008, April 17 22:31
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
g wrote:
Tom Poe wrote:
G. I used the wrong term. I apologize.
accepted.
There are no interference
issues, nor are there any licensing issues. A wireless network that
covers a 2 mile by 3 mile square area without Internet connection, is
called an intranet. Any computer that can see the cloud, can
communicate with all the other computers, and participate in a
videoconference. Thus, it looks a lot like low power tv. Does that
make sense? So, what's to keep that from happening? Is it the cost of
the equipment for hosting a videoconference? Do you know what's needed?
taking a break to read up on part 15.
truth of matter, something of a similar order was considered by local
lug,
but it was dismissed for various reasons.
things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would
have
expected it to be.
from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and
read.
from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
should be safe.
i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar
with
what you are dealing with.
in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight'
coverage
and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as
was
said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
- --
tc,hago.
g
Persistent, aren't you?
Check the nanostation out on its manufacturer's web site. They cite FCC
approval. Now, you CAN show me up by going one step further than I did.
Check the FCC type approval database to see if they really ARE approved.
{^_-}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
