Talk:High-speed multimedia radio

message: 27 OCT 2019
I am starting to update the HSMM page with info that reflects the newer FCC changes, including the new 802.11a 40mhz channels. If I get something wrong, please let me know.
This will take a few days, as it requires reading through multiple technical documents for the info.
Will add more references as I go along to address the "unclear references" TAG
For the "does not represent a worldwide view" tag, I will do my best. 
kf4yfd (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Information Slowly 

message: It's a common assumption that security requires encryption.  Even the FCC seems to have this belief, given that it allows encryption in space command communications.
In fact this is incorrect.  I've pointed this out to some people involved in HSMM work (and hope to write an article about it one of these days).  Access control needs strong authentication.  That can be done quite easily, without encryption of any kind.  IPsec in authentication-only mode has all the necessary mechanisms.
I suspect in the HSMM context the picture gets muddled because there isn't an authentication-only mode in WEP or WPA.  Then again, WEP at least is junk.  WPA seems to be better, but personally I would just turn all that stuff off and rely on IPsec, which definitely has been designed by skilled cryptographers (unlike WEP).
73, ni1d. Paul Koning (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that if you've reason enough to use authentication, then you've reason enough to use encryption too. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you wouldn't want anyone stealing your packets. --AB (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security != encryption 

message: Can the article be edited to remove the Pros and Cons sections?  It currently reads like a product review rather than an encyclopedia article.--Kharker (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and cons?? 

message: This article is too focused on USA rules.
All this "Part 97" and "Part 15" is irrelevant and unknown in region 1, for example OFCOM manages the UK spectrum. There is no regulation to say which equipment can be used for what, only that to qualify as amateur it must send a callsign and be under the appropriate power range (usually under 400W for a full licencee without an extended power NoV).
Probably best to include each different ruling section. In the UK at least, the RSGB has said of the "13cm" 2.31GHz-2.45GHz band, 2.4-2.45 GHz is for satellites but OFCOM do not restrict it.
There is also a 2.3-2.301 GHz band (requiring an NoV) which some wireless equipment may be able to use. Has anyone heard of such "negative channels"?
The 6cm band is 5.65-5.85 GHz so would only encompass channels 132-165.
420MHz, 900MHz and 1.2GHz don't exist but there is an allocation for 3.4GHz in region 1.
See: https://thersgb.org/services/bandplans/html/rsgb_band_plan_june_2016.htm
Dan Dart (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 1 

message: Citizens Broadband Radio Service is 3.55 to 3.7 GHz. That is within the 3.3 to 3.8 GHz band. Whether it belongs here I'm not sure, but some mention of the other band should be made. Someone has said the details might be WP:CRYSTAL but the proposal itself is three years old and the Navy is already using the band. — Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that S band actually includes the spectrum involved. Apparently 3.3 to 3.8 GHz can be used for other purposes but it is those other purposes, not the spectrum, that is the topic of this article. Citizens Broadband Radio Service seems to have the potential to be notable.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Not under Citizens band radio.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say where it should go. Did you try to find the source? If not, I'll work on that tomorrow. I'm not sure it can be accessed without a subscription.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  19:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck.  Just because someone stuck the word "Citizen" in the FCC proposal doesn't mean it's got anything to do with the world of 27 MHZ.  Sounds more like a place for cable companies to make money, from the reference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice that there was a different band. But CBRS is "Citizens Band Radio" which makes that article more relevant than anything else. I didn't try to include everything that might illustrate what they were doing in my edit because I had a lot to do that day. I don't really have time tomorrow either.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a Google search, it expands to "Citizen Broadband Radio Service" - which CB radio is not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if I missed something, then? I can't access the article at home but I'll try tomorrow.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I did find an article that covered the 3.3-3.8 GHz band. This can be worked out later.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Indeed, "CBRS" in the B&C article (and btw a reference that links a WP article is no reference at all) stands for "Citizens Broadband Radio Service", a very different thing than "Citizens Band Radio", which is anything but broadband. Beyond that, I find it frankly incredible that while reading and writing about radio spectrum usage you "didn't notice that there was a different band", or that it didn't occur to you that the uses described in the B&C article wouldn't exactly be compatible with the existing use of the CB band. Please read your sources more carefully before breathlessly rushing to WP to report on them. In addition, since the B&C article describes only possible future developments then per WP:NOTCRYSTAL the information in it probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. But certainly it doesn't belong at the CB article. The redirect you created for CBRS is also wrong. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There should surely be a better way when I find something that appears to be missing from Wikipedia. A talk page discussion would help, but of course I didn't have a link to the article at the time. I almost started a discussion about another addition I made the same day which I'm not sure is right.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How it works is someone says "There should be an article about *this*", writes an article, then somebody tags it for  not having the right BO, then an admin deletes it.  And just possibly, years later,, someone says "Oh, I wonder why there isn't an article about *this*" and the whole sorry cycle resumes.  Welcome to Wikipedia.  Here's your kazoo. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I've been here for ten plus years. I just try to add the information I see isn't there and hope I'm doing it right.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Looking at the future developments, I knew not to include them. I was only making sure the term "CBRS" was found somewhere on Wikipedia since the rules were three years old and since CB Radio (which is what I saw) was a very old technology. I still don't know how I saw 'band" and not "broadband".— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBRS 

message: This page is way too US centric and says next to nothing about hsmm outside the US (where most would be) Dan Dart (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too US centric