Mark,
I don't mean to bore all our non US friends with our silly and out dated regulations here in the US, so I'll try and keep this brief. The simple rule modification that Ron points out would solve the problem for this application. (Anyone feel free to log into the FCC and create the petition.) I have bigger dreams of regulatory reform, though maybe that isn't the way to get anywhere...
I have fundamental problems that we have to classify our emissions by how we use them rather than purely technical technical parameters. This is why while there is a data portion to all D-Star radios (not just the 1.2 GHz), they are mostly used for voice (even though it's "digital" voice. So it's classified a "phone". Just like DMR, and the like are "phone?" And digital ATV (for the few that even use ATV these days), while obviously transported as data is classified as "Image"
Spread Spectrum, Phone, Image Data.. which is it? Depending on which it is, certain rules apply. And obviously "data" has a bandwidth and symbol rate restriction, where as Image and Spread Spectrum do not.
So if you have problems with the bandwidth restriction for data, you ask yourself what could I do to classify this as some other emission type.
And while you are pondering that, ponder why this foolishness still exists.. Then fire off some emails to Connecticut.
Honestly I expect more comprehensive petitions from the League than what they proposed in 2013. I have no problem with Individuals creating narrow scoped petitions that focus on their own uses/applications etc. But as an organization that is supposed to represent the hobby as a whole, that 2013 League petition was obviously focused on Pactor and was unacceptable to me.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mark Phillips g7ltt@g7ltt.com wrote:
I had another thought about the bandwidth.
Why can digital ATV get away with it and we cannot? Their data rates get up to mbps. They justify it by calling it "TV" rather than data.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:52 PM Mark Phillips g7ltt@g7ltt.com wrote:
We keep hitting this bandwidth wall. I say we should just ignore it. We are never gonna get a change if we don't show the need for it.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:36 PM K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
I note that at the advertised bit rates, the OBW (occupied bandwidth) may exceed US Regulations for 70cm. However, the chip used, is also claimed to support 33cm.
I am interested in the new packet protocol proposed by the project. Even at a lower bps on 70cm (for the US), and full rate at 33cm, this has real potential for mid-tier data communications.
CFR 47 Part 97.307 (f) 6
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 4:05 AM f4hdk f4hdk@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I am Guillaume, callsign F4HDK, a french amateur-radio operator, and a hacker-maker. I would like to share with you my last project : NPR (New Packet
Radio).
All documentation is provided here : https://hackaday.io/project/164092-npr-new-packet-radio
This solution can transport bi directional IP trafic over 70cm radio links, in a 'point to multipoint' topology, at datarate up to 500kbps. This can be used to increase the range of existing HSMM-Hamnet
networks,
at lower datarates. It's designed for "access", not backbone, and not designed for H24
use.
Its is 100% open-source.
Do not hesitate to ask me questions about it. I hope it will interest some people here.
73, Guillaume F4HDK
John D. Hays K7VE http://k7ve.org/blog http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net