| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 26.10.06 07:04l 260 Lines 8935 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 8871-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: [APRSSIG] Vol 28 #9, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<IW8PGT<VK4TRS<VK6HGR<GB7YFS<GB7PZT<ZL2BAU
Sent: 061026/0532Z @:ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC #:11318 [Waimate] $:8871-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:49:48 -0700
From: <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
For most uses, that's probably true. Two problems with that, though.
First, you're going to pay for it. Any company that can get away with
charging 10 cents or more for a single SMS message is going to charge you
for location services, no matter how little cost it imposes on them.
Second, it's not going to work everywhere. This county alone has vast
stretches of wilderness where cell coverage is poor or nonexistent. And
I've seen a lot of APRS and related systems deployed where the
infrastructure simply doesn't exist.
Yeah, a lot of users are going to stop using APRS when they can do the same
thing with commercial cell services. But there's still going to be a need
to fill, and reasons to continue improving the system.
Scott
N1VG
>-----Original Message-----
>From: aprssig-bounces_at_lists.tapr.org
>[mailto:aprssig-bounces_at_lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of wa7nwp_at_jnos.org
>Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 3:23 PM
>To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
>
>>Don't believe me, Verizon is
>>>rolling out optical connection to residences in some
>selected cities
>>>now.
>>>I would gladly pay for an optical connection to the Internet.
>
>The future (high speed or otherwise) of APRS is...
>
>(drum roll)
>
>.. the cell phone.
>
>No endless discussions about paths.
>
>No silly restrictions on encryption or message sizes.
>
>No concerns about aloha circles or over deviation.
>
>No gnashing of teeth over too frequent position reporting.
>
>
>It's happening as we watch. We saw it on here this week.
>
>73
>Bill - WA7NWP
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:34:30 -0500
From: Chuck Gooden <cgooden_at_insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
Look at how quick it has expanded in the last 10 years. Given more time
these vast area of wilderness will have coverage too. If its not cell
coverage, it will be wireless Internet, or some other technology. Even if
it doesn't work everywhere, that's good too.
We depend too much on always being connected. We need to take more time to
enjoy mother nature and to develop personal relationships instead of the
faceless and impersonal service the Internet provides.
scott_at_opentrac.org wrote:
>Second, it's not going to work everywhere. This county alone has vast
>stretches of wilderness where cell coverage is poor or nonexistent. And
>I've seen a lot of APRS and related systems deployed where the
>infrastructure simply doesn't exist.
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:41:43 -0700
From: <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
>We depend too much on always being connected. We need to take more time
>to enjoy mother nature and to develop personal relationships instead of
>the faceless and impersonal service the Internet provides.
I was thinking more about Search and Rescue. For SAR, being connected in
the wilderness is most definitely a good thing.
Scott
N1VG
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:35:19 -0700
From: "Christopher A. Kantarjiev" <cak_at_dimebank.com>
Subject: [aprssig] Re: D7 and ITEM
Thanks, all.
Bob, the documentation I've found is... confusing at best about the
timestamp in OBJECT. Some places say optional, some places say not - which
is it?
(And I've determined that the D7 won't recognize ITEM, anyway.)
Yes, I'm using my D7 mobile with a "steath" 2m/70cm magmount that's pretty
whippy. I guess I'll have to come up with something else, though modern
swoopy/curvy cars don't have much in the way of flat areas for larger mag
mounts.
For hiking, I have a 19" whip w/counterpoise, and for walking around, a
Maldol rubber ducky, all of which work better than the stock antenna.
The D7 is so close... but has some annoying things "wrong", too.
73,
chris
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:40:46 -0600
From: Earl Needham <needhame1_at_plateautel.net>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
Personally, I think, as long as we're exploring alternatives for
improvement, we should consider moving up to 1.2 or even higher, and we
should come up with some way to have AT LEAST 56KB rates.
7 3
Earl
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:55:07 -0700
From: <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
What kind of content are you planning to carry at those data rates? You
can fit a complete position report in 30 bytes.
I'd rather see 4800 baud with FEC. A 60-byte payload would be around 125
msec. Require a TXD of < 100 msec and define four timeslots per second,
synced to the GPS 1pps signal. That's 240 slots per minute, with half the
collision probability of ALOHA. With explicit timeslot assignments you
could get even higher capacities. Plus you get twice the energy per bit of
9600 baud.
Scott
N1VG
>-----Original Message-----
>From: aprssig-bounces_at_lists.tapr.org
>[mailto:aprssig-bounces_at_lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Earl Needham
>
>Personally, I think, as long as we're exploring alternatives for
>improvement, we should consider moving up to 1.2 or even higher, and we
>should come up with some way to have AT LEAST 56KB rates.
>
>7 3
>Earl
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Curt Mills <archer_at_eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] D7 and ITEM
On Sat, 6 Oct 2006, Chris Kantarjiev wrote:
>be sent. So we switched to ITEM. The packet is getting to FINDU just
>fine, but I never see it on my D7, so I'm wondering....
As I recall the Kenwoods don't decode Item format. There's a Wiki
page out there that describes the Kenwood problems.
>(And, not to start a flame, but does the D7's decoder just stink?
>I "hear" what seem to be nice solid packets but the majority don't
>decode at all... some do. Maybe something wrong with my radio,
>though, since I can't seem to get a decodable posit out as of about
>12 hours ago, either.)
Something about them using flat audio from the discriminator instead of
de-emphasized audio I think. Most other APRS systems out there feed data
into the MIC port to it gets pre-emphasized before transmit, de-emphasized
on receive. If/when you bypass these filters and don't provide the
filtering in the TNC circuits, you speak well to those doing the same thing
(Kenwoods), but not so well to everyone else.
--
Curt, WE7U. archer at eskimo dot com
http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown
Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U.
The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:51:07 -0600
From: Earl Needham <needhame1_at_plateautel.net>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] 9600b UHF APRS IS THE FUTURE OF APRS
At 10:55 PM 10/8/2006, you wrote:
>What kind of content are you planning to carry at those data rates? You can
>fit a complete position report in 30 bytes.
Out here it's no problem, but from what everybody else tells me, the big
cities are so crowded that it would be a help. Besides, if we don't do it
now, I suspect we'll do it in 20 or 30 years. Better to have too much than
too little.
Earl
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bob Bruninga " <bruninga_at_usna.edu>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] D7 and ITEM
>but does the D7's decoder just stink?
>I "hear" what seem to be nice solid packets but the
>majority don't decode at all... some do.
The D7 conects its TNC directly to the discriminator and so it has a FLAT
response, where many digipaters just connect the TNC to the MIC and Speaker
so the audio is pre-emphasizd and demphisied.
It is an excellent decoder, and works all the way down to -122 dBm which is
extremely good. It can decode with only two little LCD segments lit. But
does not receive very well the often slapped-together-and-stick-it-up digi.
Amateur Packet Radio is DEPLORABLE with more than 90% of the signals on the
air being just slapped together with no attempt to properly set up the
audio. I am not saying here that everyone has to connect to their
discriminator. I am saying that far-far too many digis are just set with
th audio levevl from the TNC being too high so that causes distortion and
SKEW to the tones. The HIGHER level tone causes the MIC LIMITER to clip or
cut back the gain and then the lower tone is suppressed.
But people just plug a TNC in, send a strong packet and say "see, it works"
and never do anything else...
Good luck.
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
