Brian, You read my mind.
You all have to excuse John, K7VE. He represents North West Digital and has a bias. They have been trying to develop a 70 cm data radio for a while.
Same goes if you are on other lists and he brings up the DVSI/AMBE patents, as NWDigital sells a hardware AMBE device.
The Oct 2013 ARRL proposal to modernize the rules for data transmissions appears stalled. So yes, if there is an image use, its classified as an image transmission, Not Data. The first person to use this angle was the late John Stevensen, KD6OZH. It has since been used by David Bern, W2LNX (2012 DCC), myself and others to experiment with the Doodle Labs and Xagyl 70cm 802.11 devices.
Maybe we need to petition the FCC ourselves? I can't say I always fell the ARRL represents what we are doing very well. And their proposal did squat for VHF/UHF in my opinion.
Steve, KB9MWR
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian Kantor Brian@ucsd.edu wrote: Why do all new-technology discussions about the ham bands degenerate into arguments about USA rules? No wonder most innovation takes place in other countries. - Brian
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:26 AM, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
Just remember, in the US, that 70cm data must fit in 100 kHz and be 56 kbauds (Same on the 219 Mhz band), but this is interesting work. 97.305(c) and 97.307(f)6
A Xagyl 440MHz Mini-PCI card and an Alix3D2 board would make for a powerful packet node!
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Steve L kb9mwr@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, You read my mind.
You all have to excuse John, K7VE. He represents North West Digital and has a bias. They have been trying to develop a 70 cm data radio for a while.
Same goes if you are on other lists and he brings up the DVSI/AMBE patents, as NWDigital sells a hardware AMBE device.
The Oct 2013 ARRL proposal to modernize the rules for data transmissions appears stalled. So yes, if there is an image use, its classified as an image transmission, Not Data. The first person to use this angle was the late John Stevensen, KD6OZH. It has since been used by David Bern, W2LNX (2012 DCC), myself and others to experiment with the Doodle Labs and Xagyl 70cm 802.11 devices.
Maybe we need to petition the FCC ourselves? I can't say I always fell the ARRL represents what we are doing very well. And their proposal did squat for VHF/UHF in my opinion.
Steve, KB9MWR
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian Kantor Brian@ucsd.edu wrote: Why do all new-technology discussions about the ham bands degenerate into arguments about USA rules? No wonder most innovation takes place in other countries. - Brian
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:26 AM, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
Just remember, in the US, that 70cm data must fit in 100 kHz and be 56 kbauds (Same on the 219 Mhz band), but this is interesting work.
97.305(c)
and 97.307(f)6
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Steve,
This is very unfair.
Yes, I am affiliated with NW Digital Radio, but that doesn't change the current regulations or patents. I only bring them up when something is proposed which might cause someone to violate them if they were unfamiliar. And, yes, there are people who are not familiar with the rules or patents.
Personally, I think our rules are over restrictive and should be modified, but not ignored. I also believe our patent laws grant patents for many things that should not be patented, but if there is a patent, we should follow the law or get the law changed, or fight a particular patent in court.
Don't attribute motivation to others when you have no idea what motivates them.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Steve L kb9mwr@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, You read my mind.
You all have to excuse John, K7VE. He represents North West Digital and has a bias. They have been trying to develop a 70 cm data radio for a while.
Same goes if you are on other lists and he brings up the DVSI/AMBE patents, as NWDigital sells a hardware AMBE device.
--
------------------------------ John D. Hays K7VE http://k7ve.org/blog http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays
On 2/09/2017 7:19 AM, K7VE - John wrote:
Personally, I think our rules are over restrictive and should be modified,
Maybe we need to look at two variants of some devices (should be easier these days) - one that meets US specs, and an "international spec" device, so the rest of the world can push further. Maybe someone at ARRL or otherwise in a position of influence will then see the US is falling behind and campaign for more modern regulations. So many times, new idea that are perfectly legal in most of the world get squashed by US regulations that are irrelevant to the rest of us.
but not ignored. I also believe our patent laws grant patents for many things that should not be patented, but if there is a patent, we should follow the law or get the law changed, or fight a particular patent in court.
Patent law is a mess, but yes, we should respect those laws and try and effect legal change, or use alternatives. AMBE(X) is a particular pain, because of the need to hang a piece of hardware off something to encode or decode these formats. Not very useful for those of us who run on virtual servers. At least I now have a 100/40 connection, so there's scope for running data between here and the main server, for applications like an xlxd transcoder.
"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!
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Tony Langdon vk3jed@vkradio.com wrote:
On 2/09/2017 7:19 AM, K7VE - John wrote:
Personally, I think our rules are over restrictive and should be
modified, Maybe we need to look at two variants of some devices (should be easier these days) - one that meets US specs, and an "international spec" device, so the rest of the world can push further. Maybe someone at ARRL or otherwise in a position of influence will then see the US is falling behind and campaign for more modern regulations. So many times, new idea that are perfectly legal in most of the world get squashed by US regulations that are irrelevant to the rest of us.
but not ignored. I also believe our patent laws grant patents for many things that should not be patented, but if there is a patent, we should follow the law or get the law changed, or fight a particular patent in court.
Patent law is a mess, but yes, we should respect those laws and try and effect legal change, or use alternatives. AMBE(X) is a particular pain, because of the need to hang a piece of hardware off something to encode or decode these formats. Not very useful for those of us who run on virtual servers. At least I now have a 100/40 connection, so there's scope for running data between here and the main server, for applications like an xlxd transcoder.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
-
K7VE - John -
Mark Phillips -
Steve L -
Tony Langdon