[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Alex S.]

Hi,
 
I am working on an amateur radio project, so I'd like to get access to the 2.4GHz channels below 2412. I'm using OpenWRT and have modified my CRDA regulatory.bin file to allow those frequencies, but I still only have access to channels 1-11. Poking around in the source for ath9k, I see ath9k_2ghz_chantable in init.c. Will adding values here open up extra channels? If so, what exactly is the format of "CHAN2G(2467, 11)"? The 2467 is obviously the frequency but what is the significance of the second number? I added the channels from 2312-2407 and after recompiling it doesn't seem to have changed anything.
 
Thanks for any help,
Alex 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110823/f6036ffe/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Alex S. <al_91dak@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working on an amateur radio project, so I'd like to get access to the
> 2.4GHz channels below 2412. I'm using OpenWRT and have modified my CRDA
> regulatory.bin file to allow those frequencies, but I still only have access
> to channels 1-11. Poking around in the source for ath9k, I see
> ath9k_2ghz_chantable in init.c. Will adding values here open up extra
> channels? If so, what exactly is the format of "CHAN2G(2467, 11)"? The 2467
> is obviously the frequency but what is the significance of the second
> number? I added the channels from 2312-2407 and after recompiling it doesn't
> seem to have changed anything.

* changing regulatory not advisable
*second number is hw specific value for the channel, we use this index
to do some HAL configuration like ANI, calibration or any other
operation in the driver code using this index for
struct ath9k_channel
*you should have hit
BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(ath9k_2ghz_chantable) +
                     ARRAY_SIZE(ath9k_5ghz_chantable) !=
                     ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS);



>
> Thanks for any help,
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>
>

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

> * changing regulatory not advisable

This may not be applicable if the amateur licence he has permits him
to transmit on these frequencies.

> *second number is hw specific value for the channel, we use this index
> to do some HAL configuration like ANI, calibration or any other
> operation in the driver code using this index for
> struct ath9k_channel

... and the hardware doesn't have calibration data for those lower
frequencies, so you may find you have to do all kinds of crazy hacks
in the EEPROM code for things to work.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> * changing regulatory not advisable
>
> This may not be applicable if the amateur licence he has permits him
> to transmit on these frequencies.

oh ok, i don't know much about regulatory

>
>> *second number is hw specific value for the channel, we use this index
>> to do some HAL configuration like ANI, calibration or any other
>> operation in the driver code using this index for
>> struct ath9k_channel
>
> ... and the hardware doesn't have calibration data for those lower
> frequencies, so you may find you have to do all kinds of crazy hacks
> in the EEPROM code for things to work.

hmmm ok,  going to be lots of hardware code reading :)

>
>
>
> Adrian
>

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Alex S.]

> >
> > This may not be applicable if the amateur licence he has permits him
> > to transmit on these frequencies.
> 

Exactly. According to the FCC it's OK for us to modify stuff to work on the amateur bands. Which in this case there is a band that starts below the frequency of channel 1 and is shared with unlicensed devices up to the frequency of channel 4 or so.
 
> 
> >
> >> *second number is hw specific value for the channel, we use this index
> >> to do some HAL configuration like ANI, calibration or any other
> >> operation in the driver code using this index for
> >> struct ath9k_channel
> >
 
Is there a chart somewhere that maps the index number to frequency?

> > ... and the hardware doesn't have calibration data for those lower
> > frequencies, so you may find you have to do all kinds of crazy hacks
> > in the EEPROM code for things to work.
> 

How does Ubiquiti do it then? Their M series products have Atheros 802.11n chipsets and a "Compliance Test" regdomain that allows channels 0-255 (basically 2.3-2.7 GHz) on the 2.4GHz band.
 
>*you should have hit
>BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(ath9k_2ghz_chantable) +
>ARRAY_SIZE(ath9k_5ghz_chantable) !=
>ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS);

I did. But changing the value of ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS fixed that ;)
 
Thanks for the replies!
-Alex 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110824/f2e95e7e/attachment-0001.htm 

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 August 2011 00:26, Alex S. <al_91dak@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This may not be applicable if the amateur licence he has permits him
>> > to transmit on these frequencies.
>>
>
> Exactly. According to the FCC it's OK for us to modify stuff to work on the
> amateur bands.?Which in this case there is a band?that starts?below the
> frequency of channel 1 and is shared with unlicensed devices up to the
> frequency of channel 4 or so.

I think the best thing to do is engage some of the Atheros developers
directly, rather than on the mailing list.

Since you have a licence to tinker with this kind of stuff, you're
allowed to, but this may give others (who don't have an amateur
licence) the same idea. :)



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Joe Semler]

Am 25.08.2011 um 01:40 schrieb Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>:

> 
> 
> Since you have a licence to tinker with this kind of stuff, you're
> allowed to, but this may give others (who don't have an amateur
> licence) the same idea. :)
> 
Hy guys,
I'm following this discussion according regulatory, frequency and power limitation now for a while in this forum. Oc it's a good policy to have a clear regulatory for ath9k and for our openWRT. But is it not a little bit to much regulatory?
My opinion is, that it's in the responsibility of the operator to fulfill the law.
We have also cars where it is possible to drive faster than allowed.

When we have a regdb where the allowed country settings can be used. But nobody tells the user, that also the antenna gain, the loss of the cable,... Should be part of the calculation.
So it is only the half way to open up a router until 19dB when it is able to work until 26.

The example of our radio amateur shows us, that a special group of people are allowed to OPERATE also with higher power (here in AT up to 200W eirp) and in the frequency area our friend told.
But everybody of us, also non radio amateurs, are allowed to buy and own transmitters. But we are not allowed to operate.

So, why do we take care so much acc. Regulatory? Why is it not possible to open up devices to it's tech. Borders and tell the user. "This operation mode is only for testing. It is not allowed to operate with antennas." or similar (in better English than mine) :-)

Wold be really great when we could find to such a regulatory. It would help a lot of radio amateurs to use openWRT instead of airOS for HAMNET.

Best
JoeSemler, 0xFF-Funkfeuer Vienna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110825/aa7c7be7/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 August 2011 15:43, Joe Semler <josef.semler@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hy guys,
> I'm following this discussion according regulatory, frequency and power
> limitation now for a while in this forum. Oc it's a good policy to have a
> clear regulatory for ath9k and for our openWRT. But is it not a little bit
> to much regulatory?
> My opinion is, that it's in the responsibility of the operator to fulfill
> the law.

[snip]

I'm going to stay out of that discussion, because it's rather .. well,
delicate. :)

> Wold be really great when we could find to such a regulatory. It would help
> a lot of radio amateurs to use openWRT instead of airOS for HAMNET.

For the minority of users that are licenced to operate at different
frequencies and power restrictions, I think the best bet is to try to
build some relations with the vendor(s) in question (eg Atheros) and
talk directly with some of the developers there.

It's annoying, but do you really want to see a proliferation of people
rolling out drivers which let users select frequencies outside the
regulatory limits? Then the next revision of hardware suddenly will
likely stop you from doing it. Then everyone loses.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 25 August 2011 15:43, Joe Semler <josef.semler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hy guys,
>> I'm following this discussion according regulatory, frequency and power
>> limitation now for a while in this forum. Oc it's a good policy to have a
>> clear regulatory for ath9k and for our openWRT. But is it not a little bit
>> to much regulatory?
>> My opinion is, that it's in the responsibility of the operator to fulfill
>> the law.
>
> [snip]
>
> I'm going to stay out of that discussion, because it's rather .. well,
> delicate. :)

Its very simple -- if you know what you are doing, you can enable
whatever frequency you want and sign your own regulatory database. For
the clueless user we provide defaults that do abide by regulatory
rules. You have the freedom to make a change if you know what you are
doing. This was by design!

 Luis

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Joe Semler]

Tnx guys for all the replies. Now I see the actual situation with regulatory and FCC and the ath9k development a little bit clearer.

Best regards
JoeSemler



Am 25.08.2011 um 10:15 schrieb Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>:

> On 25 August 2011 15:43, Joe Semler <josef.semler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hy guys,
>> I'm following this discussion according regulatory, frequency and power
>> limitation now for a while in this forum. Oc it's a good policy to have a
>> clear regulatory for ath9k and for our openWRT. But is it not a little bit
>> to much regulatory?
>> My opinion is, that it's in the responsibility of the operator to fulfill
>> the law.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I'm going to stay out of that discussion, because it's rather .. well,
> delicate. :)
> 
>> Wold be really great when we could find to such a regulatory. It would help
>> a lot of radio amateurs to use openWRT instead of airOS for HAMNET.
> 
> For the minority of users that are licenced to operate at different
> frequencies and power restrictions, I think the best bet is to try to
> build some relations with the vendor(s) in question (eg Atheros) and
> talk directly with some of the developers there.
> 
> It's annoying, but do you really want to see a proliferation of people
> rolling out drivers which let users select frequencies outside the
> regulatory limits? Then the next revision of hardware suddenly will
> likely stop you from doing it. Then everyone loses.
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Alex Hacker]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:40:03AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 August 2011 00:26, Alex S. <al_91dak@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This may not be applicable if the amateur licence he has permits him
> >> > to transmit on these frequencies.
> >>
> >
> > Exactly. According to the FCC it's OK for us to modify stuff to work on the
> > amateur bands.?Which in this case there is a band?that starts?below the
> > frequency of channel 1 and is shared with unlicensed devices up to the
> > frequency of channel 4 or so.
> 
> I think the best thing to do is engage some of the Atheros developers
> directly, rather than on the mailing list.
> 
> Since you have a licence to tinker with this kind of stuff, you're
> allowed to, but this may give others (who don't have an amateur
> licence) the same idea. :)
> 
> Adrian
Hello everybody,
Yeah, some people (like U.. teens) sell this idea on the open market. :)
Actually you need only a half of hour to find that synth VCO can QSY
2272..3000 (11g) and 3500..6400 (11a). This is a 'Secret de Polichinelle'...
73!
Alex Hacker.

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 August 2011 16:07, Alex Hacker <hacker@epn.ru> wrote:

>> I think the best thing to do is engage some of the Atheros developers
>> directly, rather than on the mailing list.
>>
>> Since you have a licence to tinker with this kind of stuff, you're
>> allowed to, but this may give others (who don't have an amateur
>> licence) the same idea. :)
>>
>> Adrian

> Hello everybody,
> Yeah, some people (like U.. teens) sell this idea on the open market. :)

Hah. Why doesn't that surprise me.

> Actually you need only a half of hour to find that synth VCO can QSY
> 2272..3000 (11g) and 3500..6400 (11a). This is a 'Secret de Polichinelle'...
> 73!

I've heard stories too of people blowing things up when trying to set
the synth frequencies too far out of whack.

Anyway, OP: contact me privately and I'll start a thread with some
other developers to see if we can help you out.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Jerald A DeLong]

I too would be very interested in this discussion.



Jerry, KD4YAL

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Jerald A DeLong]

I would also be very interested in this discussion.


 Jerry, KD4YAL

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Alex Hacker]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
> I would also be very interested in this discussion.
>  Jerry, KD4YAL

Hi Jerald,
Obviously Alex shows bizarre behavior - hi got a full support from important persons
(do not including myself) and disappear. So please tell us about your project and I try
to renew the correspondence.
73!
Alex Hacker.

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 28 August 2011 01:10, Alex Hacker <hacker@epn.ru> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
>> I would also be very interested in this discussion.
>> ?Jerry, KD4YAL
>
> Hi Jerald,
> Obviously Alex shows bizarre behavior - hi got a full support from important persons
> (do not including myself) and disappear. So please tell us about your project and I try
> to renew the correspondence.

It's something to take off-list.

It's also not easy to do correctly, for all the reasons we've
discussed off-list.

I think with a bit of persistence, those with the relevant licences
could get some further help.
But you're going to have to go code diving to understand what's
involved in the TX path. :)
(The RX path looks mostly easy.)


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Jerald A DeLong]

On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 01:17 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 01:10, Alex Hacker <hacker@epn.ru> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
> >> I would also be very interested in this discussion.
> >>  Jerry, KD4YAL
> >
> > Hi Jerald,
> > Obviously Alex shows bizarre behavior - hi got a full support from important persons
> > (do not including myself) and disappear. So please tell us about your project and I try
> > to renew the correspondence.
> 
> It's something to take off-list.
> 
> It's also not easy to do correctly, for all the reasons we've
> discussed off-list.
> 
> I think with a bit of persistence, those with the relevant licences
> could get some further help.
> But you're going to have to go code diving to understand what's
> involved in the TX path. :)
> (The RX path looks mostly easy.)
> 
> 
> Adrian

Adrian,

I am fine with taking it off the list and any help would be appreciated.



Jerry, KD4YAL

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Alex S.]

> Obviously Alex shows bizarre behavior - hi got a full support from important persons
> (do not including myself) and disappear. 

I did not mean to disappear. I took it off list so people that shouldn't be using non part15 frequencies don't get ahold of the info. If the powers that be on the mailing list are OK with me pursuing this on the list, then I will be happy to share what I have so far with the group.

Thanks!
Alex
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110827/6f38a823/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Jerald A DeLong]

On Sat, 2011-08-27 at 23:10 +0600, Alex Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
> > I would also be very interested in this discussion.
> >  Jerry, KD4YAL
> 
> Hi Jerald,
> Obviously Alex shows bizarre behavior - hi got a full support from important persons
> (do not including myself) and disappear. So please tell us about your project and I try
> to renew the correspondence.
> 73!
> Alex Hacker.

Alex,

Thank you for your reply.

Currently I live in a condo so it makes putting up HAM radio antennas
almost impossible. So may goal is to setup a WIFI link between my condo
and my truck to be able to work my radio station in my truck remotely.

The ISM 2.4 Ghz band is quite crowed here in my area so it would be nice
to use the spectrum below 2.412 Ghz which I am Licensed to use. Actually
US HAMs may use from 2.390 - 2450 which overlaps channel 1 of the 2.4
ISM band.

It is not uncommon for HAMs to use modified gear in our stations. This
is what HAM radio is about experimentation to advance the art of radio
use.

Any information to accomplish my goals on or off the list would be much
appreciated.

 
Jerry, KD4YAL
   

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

Guys (and girls, and fuzzy others..)

I'll do some poking of my atheros contacts and see what can be found.
Alex/Alex/Jerry, please follow up with me privately.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[David Goodenough]

On Sunday 28 Aug 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Guys (and girls, and fuzzy others..)
> 
> I'll do some poking of my atheros contacts and see what can be found.
> Alex/Alex/Jerry, please follow up with me privately.
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Could I make a request.

One of the things that would be useful as a result of doing this work
would a standard way for people with licences to extend the range as
defined by CRDA.  In the case discussed here it is a HAM licence for
frequencies below 2.4GHz, in my case the area of interest is what is
known as Band C here in the UK at 5.8GHz.  You do need a licence (?1
per station per year to a minimum of ?50 per year) from Ofcom (our FCC)
but it is easy to obtain.  The 5.8 band users are also allowed more
power than you would be in the normal 802.11a band.

Once that standard way (preferably without rebuilding the kernel) has
been defined it should be made public with lots of caviats written 
around it saying that this can only be used if you posess a licence 
and that you are personally liable for its misuse.

David

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Jerald A DeLong]

On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 11:04 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Sunday 28 Aug 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Guys (and girls, and fuzzy others..)
> > 
> > I'll do some poking of my atheros contacts and see what can be
> found.
> > Alex/Alex/Jerry, please follow up with me privately.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Adrian
> > _______________________________________________
> > ath9k-devel mailing list
> > ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
> Could I make a request.
> 
> One of the things that would be useful as a result of doing this work
> would a standard way for people with licences to extend the range as
> defined by CRDA.  In the case discussed here it is a HAM licence for
> frequencies below 2.4GHz, in my case the area of interest is what is
> known as Band C here in the UK at 5.8GHz.  You do need a licence (?1
> per station per year to a minimum of ?50 per year) from Ofcom (our
> FCC)
> but it is easy to obtain.  The 5.8 band users are also allowed more
> power than you would be in the normal 802.11a band.
> 
> Once that standard way (preferably without rebuilding the kernel) has
> been defined it should be made public with lots of caviats written 
> around it saying that this can only be used if you posess a licence 
> and that you are personally liable for its misuse.
> 
> David
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel 

David,

A standard would be nice but can it be done without opening the Pandora
box for misuse. 

US Amateur also have privileges in the 5cm band which overlaps the the 5
Ghz ISM band. We are secondary users of this band with little power
restriction other than not causing interference to other user of this
spectrum.

It would be nice to see a open source solution without having to buy
more expensive commercial gear.


Jerry
 

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Schmiechen]

For the following reasons I propose you keep this discussion on the list:

1) This is an international mailing list and there are many many reasons why 
someone would need to make modifications to the bands.
2) It is legal to listen to these frequencies in the US.
3) Educators, programmers and Ham groups or operators may wish read this (thus 
inundating persons with unwanted emails) or contribute to this discussion.
4) It is protected speech and legal to do so.
5) This kind of thing attracts new amateur radio voulenteers.
6) Others may contribute updates after those discussing all are long gone.
7) There is already amateur radio stuff in the kernel that requires a license 
to operate.
8)It is just plain interesting.

Link to FCC regulation:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b81f1b3ac749a5f1daecdf071c38e33&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.8.219.2&idno=47

Enforcing the FCC and other frequency regulations should someone build a radio 
and operate it at the wrong frequency or without the proper license happens 
very swiftly at the time they begin operating and transmitting, not when they 
begin learning or building equipment (including software).
 
There are many public amateur radio mailing lists that discuss how to build 
and modify radio transmitting equipment, as well as amateur radio and 
electronics books and magazines that show in detail how to transmit at any 
frequency. It is the mission of many ham radio groups to keep information open 
and accessible to all interested in order to attract new members and educate 
exiting ones.

-- 
Sincerely
Turtle

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Peter Stuge]

Alex wrote:
> If the powers that be on the mailing list are OK with me pursuing
> this on the list, then I will be happy to share what I have so far
> with the group

You are the power that be over what you post in this community.


Schmiechen wrote:
> It is protected speech and legal to do so

You are right of course, but unfortunately the Atheros legal team may
be more concerned with other law. I guess something else is
fundamental for them, and of course they are the power that be over
Atheros engineers with useful knowledge.

A company that wishes to gain business advantage in a field where the
legal department is not quite up to speed is a brilliant source of
frustration and really stupid arbitrary technical limitations.

I find the open firmware for Broadcom hardware interesting. It's
university work from reverse engineered specs but it does work, it is
open, and it is running on the radio. Sure it has limited
functionality, but at least there is no f-ing bs wasting human life.

I love open source because I am the limit of what it can do.

Atheros (like every other US company!) suffers from other limits.


//Peter

[ath9k-devel] 'Superchannel'?

[Adrian Chadd]

.. since someone already posted, I may as well follow up.

If people wish to reverse engineer how all of this works (read: I'd
likely be doing the same if I were involved) and collaborate on how to
do this on the ath9k mailing list, I don't think anyone here will
actively try to stop you.

But please keep in mind the ramifications of doing so. You may not
personally get in trouble by making their kit work on non-standard
frequencies (and at non-regulation TX power), but this isn't to say
that this won't be causing issues for Qualcomm in the future. You may
even be in a country where this is legal (and boy have I heard _that_
line be dragged out time and time again!) but again, the repercussions
extend outside of your country and likely to tens (if not hundreds) of
thousands of open source users.

The last thing any of us want to see is their newer stuff go back to
being 100% binary blob drivers.

So with that in mind:

* Everything you likely need to get this show off the road is in ath9k;
* I ask you keep in mind is to look at how TX power calibration is
done. (Hint: there's code to generate the relevant TX power curve
based on the channel frequency when using closed-loop TX power
control; and there's similar code to select the relevant parameters
for open loop TX power control.) You're going to _have_ to do this if
you're going to even remotely stay within legal (and
non-equipment-damaging) levels!
* Please keep in mind that whilst your NIC may work fine with it,
others may not have in any way been tested for frequencies outside of
the standard. Who knows what kind of crazy harmonic distortion is
going to occur in the TX path when you start running the NIC at
outside frequencies.

And finally:

* You keep in mind that you're taking responsibility for others who
may come along and use it. I've already had people contact me
privately, wanting further information so they can run their home
networks outside of congested 2.4ghz bands. (Which I always reply
"then buy 5ghz kit.") This can and will occur.

So if you're going to do this AND release it publicly, I suggest you
only do so _IF_ you are able to verify the kit is running at something
even remotely resembling correct.

Ie, you say "card X from vendor Y works correct from these frequencies
to these frequencies and we've tested thirty of them, so it is highly
unlikely that it's a fluke that one card performs better." This is the
kind of testing I bet NIC vendors are doing before they get their
cards certified and sent to you - but they're testing for certified
frequencies, not "other things". :-) If you're going to do this,
document on your website(s) exactly what kind of things can and will
go wrong.

If you don't have a spectrum analyser so you can do spectral curve
tests, I highly suggest against even attempting this project. No, a
Ubiquiti AP or Wispy unit doesn't count - I mean a $20k + spectrum
analyser from Agilent.

As always, look both sides before you cross the road, and set a good
example for others.



Adrian