| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 08.04.00 07:45l 187 Lines 6380 Bytes #-9493 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_2000_78B
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 2000/78B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0BOX<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<
PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 000402/0342Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:60080 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32134 ; Sun, 02 Apr 00 02:45:05 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00000155 ; Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:33:56 MET
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 00 15:18:11 MET
Message-Id: <pr_2000_78B>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 2000/78B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> the same setup at his end.
>
> The question that's never answered in the brochures for
> these products is: what's the maximum distance that they
> will cross, and do they need line-of-sight? This
> transceiver uses the 222-225 band, and produces 35 watts of
> output, if that helps in the determination.
Line of sight: yes, required for 56k.
Reflections tend to create a lot of bit-jitter which causes the BER
to be way too high to be useful.
50 miles: yes, if line of sight. Low power and small yagi antennas.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
> --
> Aaron Baugher - abaugher@adams.net - Coatsburg, IL, USA
> Extreme Systems Consulting - http://esc.adams.net/esc/
> CGI, Perl, Java, and Linux/Unix Administration
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 03:16:06 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:8bp3vf0dh3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> When I talked to the folks at the FCC's enforcement division, I was told
> that they would be most interested in ANY transmission of advertising
> material transported over a digital Ham link. My specific question was about
> the "juno.com" ads stuck on the end of E-mails that are ported over to the
> Ham network. I was told that ANY advertisement transmitted over the Ham
> bands was illegal as hell. Period.
What section of Part 97 did they quote to you?
Better be REALLY REALLY careful when you talk on the local repeater.
Wouldn't want to get caught mentioning that ad for the new rig you
saw in QST would you now?
That's 3rd party commercial advertising, transmitted over ham radio!
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:36:10 GMT
From: Aaron Baugher <abaugher@adams.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> writes:
> No harm done, Aaron. Since many hams are not familiar with
> the PART97 regs, and others are confused about them, it is
> good for the issue to come up up every once in a while for
> clarification. The "lurkers" in the newsgroup often
> benefit from such discussion.
I'm surprised I didn't have more luck finding that info at
Dejanews. I'm also surprised that after perusing at least a
dozen web sites dedicated to packet radio (including
primers), I never ran across anything pointing out the
restrictions. Seems like that would have to be a pretty
common FAQ from newbies like me.
> Don't forget that you will both need Ham liscenses for
> that setup.
Yes, I was assuming that.
> Personally, I'd go with satellite access, and let the
> other person keep whatever access they already have. With
> the dish, your transmissions TO the web go out over your
> phone modem, and anything coming back to you FROM the web
> comes in over the satellite link, at flabbergasting
> speed. You can also subscribe to and view the DSS
> satellite TV services with most if not all of these.
Flabbergasting *bandwidth*, not speed. You can move a lot
of data, but there's about a 1/2-second of latency while the
packet goes to the satellite and back. That compares poorly
to about 1/4 second for land-line modem, and 1/10-second or
less for ISDN and other options. For web browsing and file
transfers, that doesn't matter -- who cares if each packet
takes a 1/2 second to reach you, as long as lots of them can
get through at once. But for network games and other
real-time activities, that latency is a killer.
Even despite that, I've considered getting the service
anyway, to at least take some of the load off my modem.
> It works out well because you send out very little in
> relation to what you must recieve in order to utilize the
> web. This solution is less expensive, much faster and
> quite a bit more reliable than Packet Radio. There are
> also, of course, not nearly so many legal and technical
> issues to consider when using it.
We had a hailstorm here a few nights ago, and my Dish signal
went to zero. I'm guessing that in those conditions, no
broadcast transmission would have been reliable. :-)
Luckily, it just lasted a couple minutes.
> I've seen 2-meter (144 MHz) stuff work beyond
> line-of-sight, but only under unusual conditions. The
> 222-225 MHz stuff is most definitely line-of-sight. No
> way around it.
Darn.
> If a packet doesn't make it for some reason, it is
> resent. Resends slow down things enormously, and can make
> a 56kb link act like 300 baud when it gets severe
> enough. If the resends do not make it either, the TNC
> tries a specified number of times and then drops the link.
Yes, I've had the same thing happen with land-line modems.
Noise on the line causes packets to be resent, and if the
noise is too bad, it can bog down a connection to nothing.
Thanks for the info,
Aaron
--
Aaron Baugher - abaugher@adams.net - Coatsburg, IL, USA
Extreme Systems Consulting - http://esc.adams.net/esc/
CGI, Perl, Java, and Linux/Unix Administration
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:20:53 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
Aaron Baugher <abaugher@adams.net> wrote in message
news:m27lek1cpe.fsf@haruchai.adams.net...
>
> We had a hailstorm here a few nights ago, and my Dish signal
> went to zero. I'm guessing that in those conditions, no
> broadcast transmission would have been reliable. :-)
> Luckily, it just lasted a couple minutes.
>
My DTV satellite receiver hiccups sometimes when a plane flies over and
momentarily blocks the signal, and a moderately heavy rain will put it into
"schizo-mode", where small parts of the screen updates, while other areas
don't. The kids like it, but I'm not so easily amused. Heavy rain usually
causes it to wonder where the satellite went.
Lower frequency stuff is not affected so badly by rain, etc., but static
To be continued in digest: pr_2000_78C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
