1 Sep
2017
1 Sep
'17
3:46 p.m.
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(a)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(a)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
>
1 Sep
1 Sep
3:57 p.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
5:19 p.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
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(a)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>
2 Sep
2 Sep
6:55 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
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
7:28 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
"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(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
3030
days inactive
3031
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
K7VE - John -
Mark Phillips -
Steve L -
Tony Langdon