low power tv

[jdow]

From: "g" <geleem at bellsouth.net>
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.

{^_-}