| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 12.11.99 13:29l 171 Lines 6400 Bytes #-9687 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_288B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/288B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0BOX<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0ROF<DB0MW<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<
DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991112/0931Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:16251 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_28
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA23051 ; Fri, 12 Nov 99 08:57:17 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016816 ; Fri, 12 Nov 99 07:17:20 MET
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 99 07:04:19 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_288B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/288B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
system!
> >I am glad I looked because I gave up on digital modes before I wasted my
> >money. If the manufacturers would license their systems all would
benefit.
> >As it is, the common compatible modes are all you get and these modes
STINK
> >compared to current state of the art possibilities. Digital modes are
going
> >NOWHERE.
> >
> >--
> >Gil Baron gbaron@home.com
> >EFAX 419-793-4952
> >"Hierro candente, batir de repente"
>
> >Just think if every broadcaster sent TV with a different system!
>
> You haven't read anything about Digital TV broadcasting yet, have you?
> As of now there are about 24 different variations of ways to encode
> and transmit digital video. All coming to a TV station near you,
> ready or not.
>
> ---
> Chuck Reti WV8A Detroit,MI
> wv8a@arrl.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:18:46 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Digital Modes, What a mess
Gilbert Baron <xzs1947@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:806n65$oju$1@news.rchland.ibm.com...
> That is not at all true. FCC will mandate a single standard and then all
> will follow it, no choice, and I think it is already done so you won't see
> all these modes for long.
I'm sorry, but you folks are going to have to pop your heads out of your
behinds every once in a while, and take a look around you. The reason we
have "all these modes" is because the FCC encourages Hams to experiment.
That's not going to change. Sometimes individual Hams come up with new modes
for use with a soundcard, and it's a freebee... Sometimes equipment
manufacturers take a gamble and invest in making a new protocol available
and when they do, they charge for it. That's not going to change, either.
It's ignorant to complain because we have so many protocols to choose from,
and it's particularly ignorant to complain because not all of them are
freebees. Most ignorant of all, I suppose, are those who try to spread
obvious lies around about what the FCC is going or not going to to do.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:36:03 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: German packet radio
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>I've watched this from the start, back when TAPR "promised" 9k6 gear
>to be available in 1985. Although a few of the RF engineering types seem
>to have done a good job designing some interesting gear, there has been
>essentially total failure making anything available commercially.
The Germans have been much more successful at this. A line of Interlink
transceivers, designed by DF9IC and others, is available in kit form from a
couple of small companies in Germany. They operate on 23cm and 6cm.
These transceivers are very popular in the European packet radio network.
But it is all FSK, usually using one of those beefed-up G3RUH-type modems.
(there also have been versions of the transceiver with an onboard modem,
but it did not use a scrambler and was not that successful)
On the user side, there are 70cm and 23cm designs, usually operating
split-frequency with a duplexer at the repeater (for echo-duplex).
But these are far less popular, because the average HAM prefers spending
money on a slick Japanese trx that really isn't suitable for packet,
instead of having a sheet-metal box that screams at 2-8 times the speed
for half the price. Such is life.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/ |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: 09 Nov 1999 08:18:40 -0500
From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S. Johansson)
Subject: German packet radio
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> writes:
> Eric S. Johansson wrote
> >> I would be more impressed if that 100 kHz was spread out over 4 MHz in
> >> either a FHSS mode, or a DSSS mode. Legal on 70cm's.
> >
> >so would I. But we (as hams) can't even do the simple stuff let alone
the
> >more complicated spread spectrum stuff.
>
> Hogwash. Paccomm's been selling equipment for large bandwidth FSK stuff
> for years. Not for $200 though, they aren't a charity.
the highest they go is 56 K. and that's for about $800 to $1000 per node.
> The problem, as I see it, is that you can't just scale up the data rate
> and be effective. You are not going to go 10 miles with this bandwidth,
> without stability several orders of magnitude better than a stock crystal
> based oscillator.
I'm really puzzled then. Everything I have read on the European packet
scene has them doing 76K. links over tens of kilometers using relatively
low-cost equipment. Have you checked out the information at www.baycom.org?
> $200?? Where did that figure come from?
from observing price sensitivity in the ham radio market and external
competition points. The things we're competing against for dollars and time
are Internet, other radios, and commercial broadband services. For a $100
investment, you can get 56 K. intermittent data service via the Internet.
For a $200-$300 investment, you can get fractional T1 persistent service in
major metropolitan areas (DSL/cable modems). The ever popular VHF FM
transceiver runs anywhere from $300 to 600.
so, I figure the average network interested ham will spend about $300 to
$500 for a packet set up if there is something for them to connect to or
somehow feeds their ego.
The baycom 76 K. modem runs about 170 Deutsche marks (approx. $100 U.S.?)
which leaves about $200 to $400 for a radio. Obviously, we would attract
more people to try a higher speed service at a lower price point. This is
where I get the $200 from.
To be continued in digest: hd_99_288C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
