"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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net