3 Sep
2017
3 Sep
'17
1:42 a.m.
Tony
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 04:16, 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
>>
>