Can you make your own wifi router or dedicated data link for the internet?

[Berni]

All you need is a pair of directional antennas and and a pair of regular routers. The directional antennas can even be built DIY out of some solid core wire and copper clad boards. A good directional antenna might have about a 30 degree field of view. With line of sight the setup can work over 10km no problem.

Now if you really want to go far you can also buy routers with higher than usual TX power and use those on both sides of the link. Normal home routers are limited to 100mW of transmit power since that's the most that is allowed by the regulations in most parts of the world. But there are routers that are capable of much higher power and are just software limited down to comply with local regulations. For example MikroTik makes high quality network gear that is still pretty cheap. Some of there wifi routers have 1W of transmit power and you can convince it to use that all of that power by simply selecting a country that allows it under regulation (like Taiwan)

However doing this is technically illegal and putting that sort of power into a highly directional antenna makes a very intense radio field in front of it. So such an antenna should be placed outside, high up and pointing away from any other buildings or equipment. Tho if you are able to get line of sight with directional antennas i highly doubt you would need anywhere near that much power anyway.

[janoc]

The signing is just a way to implement access control without encryption. You'll have a connection that's "secure" in the sense that it's difficult to spoof packets but not secure in that anyone can still read the data in cleartext.

a
The problem of this is, again, that you are solving a small part of the issue and ignoring the elephant in the room. Anyone building a wireless link to the Internet will just run encryption on it wholesale or run a VPN. There is no point in spoofing a connection (e.g. to hack your e-mail account) when you are giving me the login and password in cleartext already (because the crypto is verboten on a HAM radio link).

There are situations where not running all out crypto but signing packets may be useful (e.g. remote control of something) but that is not the situation here. And even in those situations it is rarely needed to go all out with crypto signing, typically something like nonces, sequence numbers chosen from an OTP pad or something similar will do the same job without the expense of the crypto.

Of course, it's starting to sound way more sensible to just use ISM and not have to deal with the amateur radio restrictions. Lora can do very long distances with very little power, maybe a modified version operating just within legal limits can be a good option?

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to modify any ISM equipment. That includes antennas and output power. Only HAMs are allowed to build and modify their equipment when operated under the HAM license restrictions. This actually a very unique exception, no other service (as defined by ITU) has this ability. Once you modify any ISM gear, its certification and "general license" for operation (for the lack of better term) are void and you are not allowed to operate such equipment.

That you don't need a license for e.g. your wifi doesn't mean the operation is unlicensed - it is the gear that has the license to operate it associated with it and guaranteed by the manufacturer - as long as nobody has tinkered with it.

So ISM equipment may work as long as you can use it unmodified, with the stock (or specifically manufacturer approved) antennas.

Now legal issues aside, as long as  you don't go nuts with output power and/or cause interference wiping out wifi, garage openers and what not in the quarter, you aren't very likely to get you backside busted on ISM bands for having a better antenna. On the other hand, given that there is so much going on those bands, you are pretty much guaranteed to be stepping on someone else's toes and someone is going to notice your traffic sooner or later.

Some people were also mentioning LoRA -  guys, LoRA is meant for small sensors and such, with its ~5kbps speed you wouldn't want to connect to the internet  over it ...

[ogden]

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to modify any ISM equipment. That includes antennas and output power.

Exactly. Why would anyone shall consider to modify/build anything if there is Ubiquiti outdoor point-point radio terminal+antenna for MSRP 49$! Do you bake bread and milk a cow as well? - Save your time and build something that is not so easily available

[janoc]

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to modify any ISM equipment. That includes antennas and output power.

Exactly. Why would anyone shall consider to modify/build anything if there is Ubiquiti outdoor point-point radio terminal+antenna for MSRP 49$! Do you bake bread and milk a cow as well? - Save your time and build something that is not so easily available

I don't have a cow but baking own bread is something a lot of people do. It is just better than store bought

OTOH, on what band does that Ubiquiti gear actually operate on? Because it may be cheap to buy but if you have to pay a few hundred bucks an annual license for the spectrum used it could get rather expensive ...

EDIT: It seems to work in the 5GHz ISM band, so the license fees shouldn't be an issue.

[ogden]

I don't have a cow but baking own bread is something a lot of people do. It is just better than store bought

Depends on store. I bet you can't beat bread I am getting in my preferred bakery. The same way I did not offer to buy 18$ APG721 "generic point-point supermarket bread AP" but something that is worth to consider. Indeed there are better options than mentioned 49$ Ubiquiti AP like Mikrotik products, but this one is lowest cost which I dare to suggest.

[janoc]

I don't have a cow but baking own bread is something a lot of people do. It is just better than store bought

Depends on store. I bet you can't beat bread I am getting in my preferred bakery. The same way I did not offer to buy 18$ APG721 "generic point-point supermarket bread AP" but something that is worth to consider. Indeed there are better options than mentioned 49$ Ubiquiti AP like Mikrotik products, but this one is lowest cost which I dare to suggest.

Let's not get into another tangent on bread baking, LOL

But the Ubiquiti stuff is supposedly decent, it is quite often being repurposed for HAM radio uses too. Certainly seems like the cheapest and least problematic (engineering and legally-vise) option for what Beamin was looking for.

[KD4PBS]

I think this thread certainly explains the depth of ridiculousness that the internets is capable of.
The question was, "Would it be possible to use your ham lic or ISM band etc, to set up a long range data link to access your internet from home?"

The answer was given, along with the explanations of fact for the answer.

That answer was not accepted as fact - odd, considering that the facts are conclusive, established with precedence, and on-point to answering the question.

What's to argue?  You want to do this?  Fine.  People break laws every day.  Some even get by with it.  For a while.

But to argue that something which is illegal to do is okay, or should be okay to do merely because you think it should is okay to do is stretching it quite a bunch.

Do it in my neighborhood, and you'll find out quickly how much of an inconvenience for you it can be to break laws such as this, and I'm not the only one in the world who watches for things like this going on.  You want to break the laws?  Go for it, chief.  Just don't try to tell me that you are in the right for doing so.

[tautech]

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to modify any ISM equipment. That includes antennas and output power.

Exactly. Why would anyone shall consider to modify/build anything if there is Ubiquiti outdoor point-point radio terminal+antenna for MSRP 49$! Do you bake bread and milk a cow as well? - Save your time and build something that is not so easily available

I don't have a cow but baking own bread is something a lot of people do. It is just better than store bought

OTOH, on what band does that Ubiquiti gear actually operate on? Because it may be cheap to buy but if you have to pay a few hundred bucks an annual license for the spectrum used it could get rather expensive ...

EDIT: It seems to work in the 5GHz ISM band, so the license fees shouldn't be an issue.

Any of the legal bands, Period.
Have a look at their international website and they have a multitude of products available to suit most needs.
My ISP uses heaps of their gear, they have a 5GHz LiteBeam dish for our outside world connection and relay to other locations for them with a 450x90mm 120^o5GHZ LiteBeam sector panel and added a further 2.4GHz NanoStation that extends our connection to my sons dwelling a few hundred meters away.
https://www.ubnt.com/airmax/nanostationm/

I linked a seller of this Nanostation earlier and you need a pair of them to enable LOS range to 15km.
Plenty far enough for the OP's needs.

[janoc]

Any of the legal bands, Period.

Careful with a blanket statement like that. There are bands where you can operate some gear without passing any exams and such (like HAMs need to do) but you actually do have to obtain license/pay spectrum fees - e.g. GMRS walkie-talkies in the US (where Beamin seems to be located, based on his previous comments). It is only a formality but you still have to do the paperwork or you are risking a fine.

On the other hand, it shouldn't be too difficult to choose a suitable kit where you don't have to do this, there is plenty of it available.

[NiHaoMike]

The signing is just a way to implement access control without encryption. You'll have a connection that's "secure" in the sense that it's difficult to spoof packets but not secure in that anyone can still read the data in cleartext.

a
The problem of this is, again, that you are solving a small part of the issue and ignoring the elephant in the room. Anyone building a wireless link to the Internet will just run encryption on it wholesale or run a VPN. There is no point in spoofing a connection (e.g. to hack your e-mail account) when you are giving me the login and password in cleartext already (because the crypto is verboten on a HAM radio link).

There are situations where not running all out crypto but signing packets may be useful (e.g. remote control of something) but that is not the situation here. And even in those situations it is rarely needed to go all out with crypto signing, typically something like nonces, sequence numbers chosen from an OTP pad or something similar will do the same job without the expense of the crypto.

Why send the login over the connection when you can just store it on the base station? Then just send a command to the base station to tell it to login using the secrets stored in it. Everyone will be able to see that you made a login, but not what the login details are. (Or for that matter, have the base station log in automatically) Or there are some uses - think just quickly checking Wikipedia or similar - that doesn't need a login at all.

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to modify any ISM equipment. That includes antennas and output power.

I was thinking more along the lines of finding an off the shelf module and just using it as part of the system. E.g. connect a 900MHz video transmitter (picking one that's rated to the legal limit with no mods) to a cheap FPGA board through a DAC, then on the receive side, decode it with some sort of SDR. (RTL-SDR might work but can only receive a small part of the 900MHz band at any given time.) Note that you can modify the receive side all you want as long as it doesn't start emitting unacceptable levels of interference as a result.

Those directional Wifi range extenders would work if they can make the distance, but it's nice to think about possible solutions for when those don't work.

[ogden]

I was thinking more along the lines of finding an off the shelf module and just using it as part of the system. E.g. connect a 900MHz video transmitter (picking one that's rated to the legal limit with no mods) to a cheap FPGA board through a DAC, then on the receive side, decode it with some sort of SDR. (RTL-SDR might work but can only receive a small part of the 900MHz band at any given time.) Note that you can modify the receive side all you want as long as it doesn't start emitting unacceptable levels of interference as a result.

In what dreamworld you are living? Do you have slightest idea how much DSP development is needed to achieve what you just describe? Why do stoopid people buy car? - All is needed some metal for car, rubber for tires and of course fuel to drive it.

[NiHaoMike]

In what dreamworld you are living? Do you have slightest idea how much DSP development is needed to achieve what you just describe?

My friend Tiffany Yep does just that and she definitely knows how hard it can be. At the same time, you'll be surprised just how good the SDR community is. Just look at all digital modulations developed for amateur radio that strive to work where others don't.

[janoc]

NiHaoMike, sorry, but 

Seriously dude, get real and stop fantasizing about stuff you have obviously never tried yourself.

[BravoV]

NiHaoMike, sorry, but 

Seriously dude, get real and stop fantasizing about stuff you have obviously never tried yourself.

He has been doing that weird posts on behalf of that particular girl's name for almost a decade here in this forum.

Hint : Try using advanced search in this forum, post made by him, with the search subject name of that girl, I guess you will drop your jaw.

[ogden]

In what dreamworld you are living? Do you have slightest idea how much DSP development is needed to achieve what you just describe?

My friend Tiffany Yep does just that and she definitely knows how hard it can be.

Maybe she knows, but you apparently have no clue.

I am curious which 900MHz video transmitters are good for application you mentioned. Name at least one. Also state TX power,  frequency and bandwidth you offer to use that would be legal in US.

At the same time, you'll be surprised just how good the SDR community is. Just look at all digital modulations developed for amateur radio that strive to work where others don't.

Ok. Surprise me. Please list those digital modulations developed by SDR community that strive to work where others don't.

[janoc]

NiHaoMike, sorry, but 

Seriously dude, get real and stop fantasizing about stuff you have obviously never tried yourself.

He has been doing that weird posts on behalf of that particular girl's name for almost a decade here in this forum.

Hint : Try using advanced search in this forum, post made by him, with the search subject name of that girl, I guess you will drop your jaw.

Yeah, just realized that I have seen this "My friend Tiffany Yep ..." before - and pretty much always in a similar, nonsense context. Nice troll ... Some people really have too much time on their hands.

[KD4PBS]

 

You mean, y'all can't get a 35 dB or greater SNR and less than a dB MER using a drastically non-linear FM video modulator/demodulator setup modified to cram 45Mbps into it's bandwidth?
Obviously y'all aren't trying hard enough.

[NiHaoMike]

Ok. Surprise me. Please list those digital modulations developed by SDR community that strive to work where others don't.

WSPR, PSK31, and PSK63 just to name a few. Granted, they're for a completely different sort of application, but it is surprising what amateur radio operators come up with. Also interesting to read about what hobbyists are coming up with for digital FPV - a use case that values low latency and rapid adaptation to changing conditions.

You mean, y'all can't get a 35 dB or greater SNR and less than a dB MER using a drastically non-linear FM video modulator/demodulator setup modified to cram 45Mbps into it's bandwidth?
Obviously y'all aren't trying hard enough.

With 26MHz of bandwidth available on that band (in the US) and 802.11n fitting 72Mbps into 20MHz of bandwidth, it's definitely possible. Given the same transmit power and antenna gain, it will likely go quite a bit farther than 2.4GHz largely because the 900MHz band is far less used. There's almost nothing in the way of 900MHz Wifi, which is both a plus and a minus. Even with all that, 45Mbps at a range of a mile is asking for a lot.

Now I wonder how much could be gained running multiple 900MHz transmitters in parallel, making sure the frequencies do not overlap.

[ogden]

Ok. Surprise me. Please list those digital modulations developed by SDR community that strive to work where others don't.

WSPR, PSK31, and PSK63 just to name a few.

I do not see any newly developed digital modulations here. WSPR uses FSK which dates back in 1958 (BELL 101 modem). PSK31 and PSK63 uses guess what - PSK which again is nothing new.

None of said transmission modes were developed by SDR community as well. WSPR was developed by Joe Taylor (K1JT), PSK31 - by Peter Martinez (G3PLX).

Granted, they're for a completely different sort of application, but it is surprising what amateur radio operators come up with.

Seriously? Idea of using narrow bandwidth to get better SNR is basics of signal transmission. Only thing we can be surprised here - how slow amateur data transmissions actually are: WSPR needs 110 seconds to transmit 50 bits, PSK31 bit rate: 31 bits per second, PSK63 accordingly 63bps.

[ogden]

With 26MHz of bandwidth available on that band (in the US) and 802.11n fitting 72Mbps into 20MHz of bandwidth, it's definitely possible.

Well, what you say is simply illegal.

FCC § 15.247:

For frequency hopping systems operating in the 902–928 MHz band: if the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is less than 250 kHz, the system shall use at least 50 hopping frequencies and the average time of occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 20 second period; if the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is 250 kHz or greater, the system shall use at least 25 hopping frequencies and the average time of occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 10 second period. The maximum allowed 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is 500 kHz.

[NiHaoMike]

There's a commercial product that claims to do up to 100Mbps on 900MHz:
https://www.balticnetworks.com/ubiquiti-nanobridge-m9-900mhz-13dbi-dual-polarity-dish-bridge-solution.html

[KD4PBS]

Ogden, that's part 15.  We're talking part 97 rules here.  In particular, §97.311 states that an amateur radio operator can use spread-spectrum communications to whatever extent he or she wishes, as long as it is allowed in that band.  In essence, an amateur radio operator can experiment with very esoteric things, as long as it is constrained within the boundaries of what a ham radio operator is limited.  And what kills it is not your part 15 citation, but several part 97 rules:

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(4)Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

(5)Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

§97.307
(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this part.

(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.

(Most Wifi modulation schemes are used with MI's far in excess of 1)

NiHaoMike,
Please tell me you don't think that somehow one can derive a baseband or IF output from some wifi device, feed it into a "rabbit" FM video transmitter, and be able to demodulate that signal out of the "rabbit" video receiver back to a WiFi signal.  You do know what differential phase and differential gain is, what linearity means, and why all of this matters with a Wifi signal, right?
 

[ogden]

There's a commercial product that claims to do up to 100Mbps on 900MHz:
https://www.balticnetworks.com/ubiquiti-nanobridge-m9-900mhz-13dbi-dual-polarity-dish-bridge-solution.html

Oh, you are right. That product may occupy nearly whole 900MHz ISM band (904 - 926 MHz) with continuous "spread spectrum" transmission, yet got FCC ID (thus approval) for 47 CFR 15.247. Did not know that.

Ogden, that's part 15.  We're talking part 97 rules here.

You already said that HAM cannot use his license for such kind of transmissions. So what remains - part 15. Or did I miss something?

[NiHaoMike]

I was actually surprised how cheap 900MHz network stuff is nowadays. Probably helps that there is a mass market for 900MHz broadband transceivers (LTE) in some parts of the world. Still needs some very custom software but the bulk of the work is already made into ASICs.

So the only reason to build your own 900MHz network hardware is to avoid getting locked into a proprietary system. At which point it might be more interesting to find the most popular system used and reverse engineer it, if only to validate its security or lack of it. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those systems rely a lot on security through obscurity, but you can always layer VPN on top of it.

[ogden]

So the only reason to build your own 900MHz network hardware is to avoid getting locked into a proprietary system.

There is no reason for sane individual to build own 900MHz (or any other freq) network hardware apart from pure entertainment or research/learning purposes.