On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM, <creig...
> > Let us know what you decide.
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Cprek
> > <paxtita...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> That's a cool project Creighton. James and I were discussing something
> >> like this. It's worth some more investigation.
> >> Jason, from what I understand there's no way to get DSL without paying
> >> for POTS from AT&T. Someone more informed could correct me though.
> >> Thanks everyone for the info and laughs. I'm going to weigh my options.
> Perhaps LVL1 could apply to the FCC for a club license, and any member in
> good standing (paying member, which presently excludes myself) that can
> get a clear line of sight could use the 'compliance' mode channels that we
> agreed upon as well. I like the idea of dropping down into the ham only
> sector of the spectrum and cutting the signal width down to a quarter
> channel (5mhz wide) while jacking up transmission peak power up closer to
> the ham legal max. Probably users would have to get their own ham license
> to join the network, but that's not so hard to do anymore and we would
> literally have our own 'wimax' data net, able to use it in the car.
> Disadvantages include...
> encryption of traffic *may* not be legal. Encrypted ham transmissions
> that cross international borders are *never* legal due to international
> treaties, but that's not an issue for us. Encryption is sometimes allowed
> if encryption is a byproduct of the medium, and not something under
> control of the operator/user. For example, https surfing is verboten,
> because http is just as effective and is not encrypted; but playing an
> online video game that uses encryption for it's own internal operations
> (which cannot be turned off by the player) is likely good to go.
> Business transactions over a ham band is verboten. This means no ordering
> pizza over the mesh from papajohns.com, no shopping at Amazon, no bidding
> on Ebay, etc.