| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 26.05.03 22:05l 218 Lines 9118 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1386-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 23, 4/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030525/1340Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:941 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1386-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: Broadband on Power --City(not FCC) enforces radio law and busts
CBer
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:01:05 -0500
X-Message-Number: 19
At 08:18 AM 5/23/2003, Alex wrote:
>Yeah I read that story, too. I received it through a different mailing
>list, too. It would set a really bad precedent if the CBer loses this
>case (regardless of the actual interference issue). Only the FCC should
>be allowed to enforce FCC regulations regardless of service.
Except the FCC refuses in many cases to actually do anything about
interference. Several years back in Phoenix we had a CB'er who was a real
pain in the...er...side... And despite years of bad behavior on both CB
and Ham bands, CHRONICLED ON THE LOCAL NEWS, the FCC had done nothing but
sent him letters...
I will say the local TV news made it very clear that he was not a licensed
Ham and that his actions, in no way, reflected the Amateur Radio Community.
It took a letter writing campaign to then President Bill Clinton and then
1st Lady Hillary Clinton before a PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE commanded an FCC
investigator put down his cup of coffee, get off his duff, and actually go
over and bang on this guy's door. I believe several federal warrants
were (finally) served by Janet Napalitano, the Federal Prosecutor for
Arizona at the time (now Governor).
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Oops
From: "Bob D." <n2iph@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:00:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 20
"Should've been off-list. Hit reply-all and deleted wrong addy after
realizing hitting wrong button."
Sounds like deliberate interference to me :-)
--------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something,
and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe,
then someone will do it." -Edward A. Murphy, Jr.
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:17:00 -0700
X-Message-Number: 21
At 04:05 PM 5/22/03 -0400, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>But thousands of us are driving around with the
>Kenwood in our vehicles already, so I just used
>it as the baseline for discussion...
>
>The way I see it, we have the TNC's.
>They can do 9600 baud (with proper planning)
>We have the need for linking the internet
>out to the field...
This is the tragedy of the D700. (It sounds like a good title for
a off-broadway production.)
The D700 is an incredible radio and does a mostly incredible job
for APRS. The tragedy is that it is so dang close to being able to
do more. The D700 internal TNC -- WILL NOT!!! -- work with John Hansen's
Radio Mirror. In this day and age of purchasing 256 MEGABYTES
for $20 or so, the D700 has an internal buffer of something like 200 BYTES.
Radio Mirror packets are (currently) fixed at 1K bytes. I don't know what a
D700 would do with such a packet, but I know it won't decode it and
pass it out the serial port.
The same limitation makes the D700 (and D7 and Alinco DR135) essentially
useless for standard packet and TCP/IP packet.
If Kenwood added 5 cents of ram, tweaked the firmware to use it, fixed the
TXD problem and released a headless version of the D700 for data use,
they'd have an extremely useful system that could finally bring 9k6 to the
masses and, IM!HO, actually compete with the new Icom D-Star line.
>Maybe its time for someone to take this on.
I was trying to talk to the Kenwood engineers about this very issue at the
DCC several years ago when they introduced the D700. They didn't
understand and nobody cared then.
Real Internet in the field is definitely a need. It may come with D-Star.
It may come with an expansion of the Winlink system. It'll probably come
from the community wireless folks using Part-15 gear. The D700 is so close
- I hope Kenwood is listening...
>de WB4APR, Bob
73,
Bill - WA7NWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[commercial content deleted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 23
On Fri, 23 May 2003, a sentiment was expressed (by someone I respect very
much by the way), but I think I can offer a counter view:
>>The way I see it, we have the TNC's.
>>They can do 9600 baud (with proper planning)
>>We have the need for linking the internet...
>
>This is the tragedy of the D700.
>The D700 is an incredible radio and does a mostly incredible job
>for APRS. The tragedy is that it is so dang close to being able
>to do more. The D700 internal TNC -- WILL NOT!!! -- work with
>John Hansen's Radio Mirror.
Well, rather than seeing the glass empty and bone dry, I'd suggest that
the glass can be about 95% full if Radio Mirror is simply modified
slightly to take advantage of the thousands of radios with the TASCO chip
in it (including all the ALINCO's). How many RADIO MIRRORS are on the
air? A half dozen? How many Kenwood D700's are out there? several
thousand. Its not hard for me to see an easy fix of one line of code...
>In this day and age of purchasing 256 MEGABYTES
>for $20 or so, the D700 has an internal buffer
>of something like 200 BYTES.
No TNC that I know of has enough megabytes to buffer the data needed for
RADIO MIRROR or for HAMWEB. It is not a function of the TNC memory
anyway, the PC does that. So whatever the buffer size, then lets fix the
software to work with it rather than throwing up our hands in anguish.
>Radio Mirror packets are (currently) fixed at 1K bytes.
>I don't know what a D700 would do with such a packet, but
>I know it won't decode it and pass it out the serial port.
So, lets change that to 256 bytes. Simple change, and it will only change
the throughput by maybe 5% or so... Might even imporve it in a mobile
portable or multipath environment!
>The same limitation makes the D700 (and D7 and Alinco DR135)
>essentially useless for standard packet and TCP/IP packet.
This isnt "standard packet" nor TCP/IP packet. It is an idea to make
excellent use of the D700 to extend the advantages of the internet to
the MOBILE/portable station. Since we are building it from scratch,
then why not design it to work with the 9600 baud TNC that most of us
have in our cars already. (going completely UNUSED)
>If Kenwood added 5 cents of ram, tweaked the firmware to use it, fixed
>the TXD problem and released a headless version of the D700 for data
>use, they'd have an extremely useful system that could finally bring 9k6
>to the masses and, IM!HO, actually compete with the new Icom D-Star
>line.
If wishes were horses...
Kenwood used the TASCO modem off-the-shelf and had no access to the
source code or CHIP design.. they did pretty darn well with making it do
as much as they did. I think most of the "masses" have the kenwood or
Alinco, and HAMS being (in some cases) a flexible lot, I suspect someone
will eventually stop moaning and just develop an application to use them
at 9600 baud. All one has to do is pause every 7 fames for a tenth of a
second. Most TNC's do this anyway to check for channel busy...
>Maybe its time for someone to take this on.
Agree completely. Thus the concept of ANET, or HAMWEB, or RADIO MIRROR or
whatever we want to call it's time has come. Lets make it work...
>I was trying to talk to the Kenwood engineers about this very issue at
>the DCC several years ago when they introduced the D700. They didn't
>understand and nobody cared then.
The D7 and D700 were designed from the ground up to be an APRS type short
packet radio system using an off the shelf single-chip TNC available at
the time. Any conventional packet that it could do was secondary and a
nice to have item.. Always was that way, and no amount of complaining
will every change the design. Yes, they wished they had their own TNC
design and had contorl over the firmware, but they didnt.
Now, back to the use of these radios for distribution of 9600 baud
Internet data. Seems to me that there is TREMEMDOUS potential and
that this simple TNC chip will do just fine if those who write the
software for this new mode will just work within the limitations
of this TNC that we all have under our seats...
>Real Internet in the field is definitely a need. It may come with
>D-Star. It may come with an expansion of the Winlink system. It'll
>probably come from the community wireless folks using Part-15 gear.
>The D700 is so close - I hope Kenwood is listening...
I prefer to take the approach in HAM radio to figure out a way to use
what we have in hand, rather than to always wait and hope that someone
will eventually manufacture exactly what I want. I'd be old and gray and
dissapointed if I took that approach.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
