If I have a sensor (small, low energy) 10km away. I want it to

File: powerbeam.jpg (1KB, 95x121px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 95x121px

>>1205019
WLAN bridge if direct line of sight.

>>1205031
>>>1205019 (OP)
>WLAN bridge if direct line of sight.
>over a 10km distance

How frequently do you need it? Constant read? Weekly summaries? If the latter I'd use mobile data and maybe some raspberry pi to script it all up, though I have no idea if something like that has been done.

File: BaoFeng BF-F8HP (UV-5R 3rd Gen) 8-Watt Dual Band Two-Way Radio.jpg (257KB, 1500x1499px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1500x1499px

a pair of 8W radios in the 400Mhz band will likely work at that distance.

for longer distance, you can get a lil gadget that's essentially the radio part of a cell phone that can send texts.

if you're in the boonies, you can get an equivalent gadget that works like a satellite phone.

File: i-93xrgnJ-L.jpg (75KB, 338x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 338x600px

>>1205037
>he thinks 10km is an unreasonably long link

>>1205042
don't do this

>>1205041
>mobile data and maybe some raspberry pi
Also a valid suggestion. IoT data plans are insanely cheap, but you're not going to find them at your local cell phone store.
https://m2x.att.com/pricing
I think sparkfun has a little IoT gateway shield for cheap. I use Cradlepoints for commercial deployments/IP failovers.

>>1205019
https://www.lora-alliance.org/

>>1205037
10km is not an unreasonable distance for a direct line of sight bridge. There is WLAN hardware that will fulfill this role with the right setup and circumstance.

I'd really advocate this, if possible to use. Iirc it'd be the least repetitive cost (none) and essentially require no licensing in most circumstances.


If you can't do that, I'd look into using a radio transmitter like >>1205042 suggested, if you clear everything with your local and state regulators.
Careful, the FCC (or whoever is over your area) doesn't take lightly usually to people not listening to them.
This is 'trash your stuff and throw you in jail' territory if they feel like it, a lot of times, and depending on what you 'did'.

>>1205849
I've always wondered how the existence of the FCC isn't a violation of the first amendment.

>>1205875

It's something of a compromise. Due to the nature and ease of producing something that emits radio waves, wireless communications in general wouldn't be possible.

Imagine if it were legal for some asshole to, just because he felt like it, built a wideband, 10kW+ antenna that blasted garbage into the EM spectrum. Could block communications for a whole city.

And that probably wouldn't even be the worst part. Manufacturers cutting costs on electronic products would equate to millions of devices (power supplies, in particular) just making a mess of the local radio spectrum.

Options are either get some government body to make sure that kind of crap doesn't happen, or never be able to rely on any kind of wireless communication that didn't have LOS or was very short-range.


May be able to argue about other aspects of the FCC, but, as far as radio goes...we do need someone to do that job.

>>1205019
The first thing we need to know is country because laws are relevant.

The other question which may be relevant is how much data and how often.

You can get a 3g Arduino shield for $99 or hook up an $8 gprs serial module from ebay to an esp8266 or esp32.

>>1205019
Depending where and how much you want to regularly spend, route it over the internet with a VPN?

>>1205875
speech refers to information, the FCC handles bare transmission

to put it in terms of speech, it would be like the existence of noise laws. the cops dont care what youre saying, they care that you are causing others to be unable to speak or do things that rely on others not speaking (such as sleeping or concentrating on work). you can still speak your mind, but you have to keep it within acceptible volume limits because some niggas are trying to fuckign sleep

>>1205019
Are you trying to hide spy cameras in the ladies toilets again?