Talk:Cantenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please? Prometheus-X303- 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Even the Secret Service has taken an interest in the cantenna." Can we get a source for this?

splintax (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spider Omni

And what does "more potent" mean with regard to antennas? Certainly not dB gain. A cantenna can have up to 24 dB gain, while an omnidirectional unipole is what 3 or 4? Remove that nonsense. Spike2021 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

I know that I am an unregistered user, so fogive me, but should there be a section on the 'Legality of Cantennae' somewhere in the article?

I remember reading about how the FCC doesn't like the amplification of signals that people are doing at home. 130.20.74.174 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Amplification via antenna-only, to some extent, is still legal under FCC part 15 as long as certain limits are not reached. 147.145.40.44 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The FCC doesn't exactly like homebrew antennas IIRC, not specifically the amplification. T3h 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Then their are a lot of "roll their own" hams that are in trouble. You mind showing me the applicable FCC part? I've been building antennae since I was 8, and I've only had to talk to FCC enforcement 1 time in all these years (and it turns out I was very legal under part 15, which typical cantenna equipment falls under) 66.28.178.68 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


"They're unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," said Lozito of the Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/26/hitech-cop-cantennas.html

http://seclists.org/isn/2005/Jul/0098.html — Omegatron 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The quote is taken out of context in the boingboing article. 66.28.178.68 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other

A comparison to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.179.194 (talk) 16:01, August 30, 2007 (UTC)