25 Mar
2019
25 Mar
'19
12:43 a.m.
Hello from Argentina,
You are not boring non US friends, but in fact pushing forward the
future, which is what we hams should do.
Several years ago, we requested in Argentina to our local FCC
authorities, to have a data bandwith of 300 KHz on 70cm, due we wanted
to experiment high speed packet.
After several presentations, result was our FCC granted, aprooved and
published on government papers and local regulations the following:
Considerando que AMSAT ARGENTINA ha solicitado reemplazar en el Plan
de Bandas citado los anchos de banda de 12 kHz para Digimodos por 200
y 300 kHz en las bandas de 1,25 m y 70 cm respectivamente, resulta
factible dar curso a dicha solicitud.
'Considering that AMSAT ARGENTINA has requested to replace the
bandwidth of 12 kHz for Digimodes for 200 and 300 kHz in the bands of
1.25 m and 70 cm in the aforementioned Band Plan, it is feasible to
proceed with this request.'
Perhaps this requirement and its approval could be useful to continue
with the proposals to your FCC. Wishing good luck.
If it could be useful, our presentation document (in spanish) is at:
http://amsat.org.ar/Amsat-Solicitud-Anchos-de-banda.pdf
Best 73, LU7ABF, Pedro Converso.
PD: We make succesful experiences using 115 Kbps, Manchester on 1.25m
even before year 2000.
On 3/24/19, Steve L via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
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(a)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(a)g7ltt.com> wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 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(a)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(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net