Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64
On Monday 04 September 2017 18:22:53 Alan Corey wrote:
> > But unless they are sneaking in under the FCC's radar, which they
> > aren't else customs would padlock the container, it does have to be
> > an FCC approved frequency and protocol in order to be able to label
> > it with an
>
> Actually, that's a good question since there's a ham band from
> 2300-2450 which we "share" with other users at the top. In return for
> being outnumbered at least 1000:1 we can run more power, but malicious
> interference is verboten. It wouldn't be the first time something
> like this slid by though, a new service.
> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html But you
> can buy a WiFi card for $5, a ham rig is more like at least $100 and
> hams are a dying breed.
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band%20Chart/Hambands4-web-c
>olor_4-25-17.pdf
Yeah. Being a 1st Phone holder of yore when it actually was a 1st Phone,
I am profanity sensitive when its coming out of my speakers tied to a
radio, and I got my fill of that on the chicken band in the 60's-70's,
sold my last big rig in 1983. The one "CB" radio I wish I still had. 55
very clean watts pep out of the box on SSB. 10 miles, or 12k miles, no
big diff to that rig. Turned around and put the sheckles into a
TI-99/4a. THEN found out that if you wanted to make a computer out of
it, bring another thousand bucks. The hams have well fouled their nest,
so I can see why the numbers are dwindling, except for tech class on 2
meters. Maybe even there. Haven't followed it in 20 years.
> On 9/4/17, Alan Corey <alan01346@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech_Unifying_receiver
> > It's sort of like Bluetooth without pairing. Not sure about the FCC
> > part but it's 2.4 GHz like Bluetooth or WiFi.
> >
> > On 9/4/17, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> >> On Monday 04 September 2017 12:07:56 Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:31:46AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> > But aren't the huge majority of the wireless keyboards and mice
> >>> > just BT at the core? Max reliable range when the dongles can
> >>> > see the master is about 20 feet. I put the mouse in the box the
> >>> > pi is in, and had BT do a scan with bluetoothctl, while I
> >>> > jiggled the mouse, nothing detected.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly Logitech's wireless is not BT. I seem to recall reading
> >>> that they found BT way too unreliable and instead use their own
> >>> protocol. Not sure about other makes.
> >>
> >> But unless they are sneaking in under the FCC's radar, which they
> >> aren't else customs would padlock the container, it does have to be
> >> an FCC approved frequency and protocol in order to be able to label
> >> it with an FCC iD # of JNZYR0017 on the bottom of this K360. It
> >> also has regulatory labels from at least a dozen other national
> >> regulatory agencies from all over the planet. A very busy label.
> >> So the frequency and protocol are supposedly known to the various
> >> regulatory agencies. The above Jnumber doesn't not search in their
> >> database, at least not those pieces I can access.
> >>
> >> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> >> --
> >> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
> >> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> >> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> >> Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
> >
> > --
> > -------------
> > No, I won't call it "climate change", do you have a "reality
> > problem"? - AB1JX
> > Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach
> > Impeach
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: