2 Sep
2017
2 Sep
'17
10:18 a.m.
Oh, and don't get me started on a "proper" KISS implementation on those
so-called APRS "TNC's". I am now into my 9th different one and they all
have the same issue - no large packets.
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Mark Phillips <g7ltt(a)g7ltt.com> wrote:
"3.) Develop a data mode that uses multiple
carriers, as each carrier
can be 100 KHz wide."
We have that already. That's kinda how OFDM and COFDM work but with
smaller bandwidth carriers. Indeed, many of the HF sound card data modes
work that way too. So if someone with clever programming skills can work
out how to bodge up PSK256K and shove it into the back of a Moto SM50 we
might be on to a winner.
But there are still some hardware solution out there too that need to be
investigated. The CM589 modem chip that D-STAR uses (found in AIS rigs too)
can do up to 256K. Why have we not got an Arduino based modem that accepts
this chip and allows us different speeds? I've also asked the MMDVM crowd
to look at converting their modem stuff to higher speed packet (they said
"what's packet?").
I'm full of ideas but lack any skills to implement anything.
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I applaud Ron's experiments, it would
have a very long road to
becoming something practical for the masses. Heck I can say the same
for the NWDigital radio. They have been trying for quite some time to
make the thing happen. I fear by the time either would come to
fruition, the whole market / tech landscape could be different. (I.e,
56k is not as appealing at the price point as it was 10 years ago when
they started, etc)
As for the ARRL, I am the only one who pounces on their staff
virtually every chance I get (at ham fests and by email), about
getting some of these changes though their heads? I think a
coordinated approach, can help our cause. In addition, anyone can
make comment directly to the FCC. How seriously they take things
without someone waving money in their face is a whole another issue.
I wrote this paper quite some time ago, that covers quite a few of the
issues:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/70cm-ATV-HSMM.html
Basically they way I see it, one has three ways to experiment:
1.) Pay for/file for a STA, which gives you 6 months
2.) Include some element of image transfer, so what your doing can be
classified as an image transmission rather than data. (most
logical/easiest to do)
3.) Develop a data mode that uses multiple carriers, as each carrier
can be 100 KHz wide.
#3 is something I joked with friends about when I was in high school.
That was long before SDR, so we envisioned taking a few TNC's and
radio's on different frequencies, RF combiners and tons of filters to
make it actually work, and from there channel bond/load balance all
the data streams to achieve better throughput.
Do we have anyone who holds a ARRL position on this list?
Steve, KB9MWR
Mark Phillips <g7ltt at g7ltt.com> wrote:
"Maybe someone at ARRL ...."
Ha! Funny.
It's been many folks' experience that the ARRL does nothing that is not
in
its own interest. Unless they can be persuaded
that XYZ technology is
good
for them and Ham Radio they won't lift a
finger. It should also be noted
that the ARRL speaks for less than 20% of the US ham population (see
membership figures posted in QRZ). We are 700K+ hams here in the US. ARRL
has less than 100K members. That said, they are the only group able to
engage the FCC and push for changes etc. It's an expensive proposition!
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net