High Speed Packet?
Byron J. Watts (KC0NPF)
on
May 16, 2009
Website:
http://www.consultbyron.com/2009/05/02/why-not-high-speed-packet/
View comments about this article!
Last time I checked, there are Amateur radio allocated frequencies in the 900mhz band. 902-928mhz (USA). If one does a little snooping around online, one will discover that the 900mhz band is in extensive use commercially, and that there are a host of devices capable of speaking data at rates up to 128kb/s. Yes we might have to realign our band plans, so what?
Young people aren't interested in talking around the world on finnicky HF bands with 5w or less on CW anymore. Why? HF is not reliable communication, just because I talked to Croatia the other day (which I actually did, it was great fun!) doesn't mean I'll be able to get back there today. Also, because we can send a text message anywhere in the world in 1 second, or pick up our portable "HT's" (a.k.a) cellphones, and give a call to the other side of the country, or the world, there's no need for HF voice or ::shudder:: 300 baud data. Yeah yeah, when the cellphone system infrastructure is borked, THEN it comes in handy, ok fine, granted that we hams are a great backup when the infrastructure fails, such is ONE FACET of this wonderful hobby!
Let me illustrate what I'm talking about: Sentry unlicensed device, but capable of operation in the 900mhz band. Think of the possibilities! Or a different form of data radio
NOTE: I am not endorsing or supporting "calamp.com" or any of their products, I was just surprised by how much is possible so close to frequencies that we use!
There are others that can push high-speed data. even 64kb/s is sufficient, but what on earth are we doing at 9600bps, or 1200bps??? Sitting on our bums while the state of the communication art passes us by and leaves us wondering what our place is in this world. Back in the early days of radio, hams were on the absolute bleeding edge of what could be done. If you want to interest youth in ham radio once again, offer them a cost-effective way to run high-speed data off the trunk of their car. Not to replace the internet, or provide a 'backup' in the event that the internet is shut down, (though that would be a nice side-effect, dozens of data equiped amateurs providing a communication 'backbone' while the wires are down) but to interlink with internet and use its amazing capabilities. Linking my data radio with voip = echolink or IRLP on steroids.
I also realize we call it D-star in ham radio, but whaa?? only one company is producing a device such as the ID-1. Pick a modulation/packet standard that is IDENTICAL to commercial devices (yeah, pay the stupid fee for the use of patented modulation systems and whatever), and give us VFO equipped data radios, capable of interfacing and interlinking to installed commercial systems (which are channel restricted) in an emergency.
Think about that for a second, the communication infrastructure in your city is kaput. Most of the police department's 900mhz data radios are still working, but their link to somewhere (the base station connected to the internet that took a lightening strike perhaps?) is MIA. A ham does a little antenna rigging, brings up the generator (if necessary, i mean sheesh we can run these things off of our cars for quite a while) a few clicks of a mouse on their little data radio, kicks on the amp and BAM everybody is talking again like they usually would.
Legal issues, and problems with people abusing the technology for malicious interference purposes would be similar to what we experience today on voice... deal with them accordingly.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by G6NJR on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have an even better idea lets start a completely new system and call it hamternet that way we can keep the internet out of Ham RADIO and as for D-Star thanks but NO thanks keep it where the sun dont shine
and do away with these 1Kw and plus amps as well simply not needed
G6NJR dead against any more than 100 watts into the antenna. YMMV mine dont
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by W7ETA on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"HF is not reliable communication, just because I talked to Croatia the other day (which I actually did, it was great fun!) doesn't mean I'll be able to get back there today. Also, because we can send a text message anywhere in the world in 1 second, or pick up our portable "HT's" (a.k.a) cellphones, and give a call to the other side of the country, or the world, there's no need for HF voice"
Lets see. Is this brave new theory of reality consistent with reality?
I turn on my rig and hear hundreds of people, having FUN, on HF. All of the activity doesn't correlate well with the assertion that there isn't any need for HF voice.
And, it could be that since so many people have FUN on HF and LF, that reliable communications to Croatia isn't necessary to have FUN.
If reliable communications to Croatia, or 7O isn't necessary to have FUN, and people are having FUN on HF and LF with phone, what is left to the logic of this article?
Best from Tucson
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by N0YXB on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham radio does not need to become a back-up for the internet and other commercial IP communications. The commercial users of radio spectrum should be working on their own disaster recovery plans, and can leave amateur radio out of the equation.
Vince
N0YXB
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K5LXP on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You're hitting on a lot of controversial points.
1. It's a hobby. Using all this "state of the art" stuff requires more than just the basic knowledge required to get a ham ticket. If you want to be on the "absolute bleeding edge" you've got to invest significant time and resources into understanding just what's current, much less develop anything new. Your average ham isn't going to go through all that. Not everyone is interested in becoming an EE or IT whiz just for fun.
2. You're not going to attract kids with more of the same in terms of computer technology. Attract them with what's *not* computers and internet.
3. Your community likely already has a contingency plan for if their data links go down. They don't need a bunch of hams showing up to patch in their wonder boxes into the network and save the day. If it was that simple, they can do that themselves. And guess what, they already can. If things are so broken all the backups don't work, then anything the hams might have is irrelevant. You're not going to show up with your Linksys hub and Winlink and pick up where multiple T1's, T3's or a microwave hop went down. But, it would make some marathon or parade organizers day to set up a simple network for their event.
Using your analogy, the sport of fishing should be long extinct. Why float around in a boat all day with a worm on a hook catching one fish at a time when you can use a giant trawler and net hundreds of pounds of fish at a time? No one should ever need to go fishing with a pole ever again. But that's not the point.
If your interest is high speed data using amateur bands, then knock yourself out. Find others with similar interests and experiment away. Who knows, you might discover some clever implementation or patchwork of software that gives hams a capability the standard methods don't. That's the spirit of the hobby.
Computers are an interesting and useful tool to use with ham radio, but they're not the be-all, end-all path to the future. The focus on ham radio should be what it can do what other services can't, not to supplant them. Maybe the goal *isn't* 24/7 failsafe communications. Maybe it's nothing more than a bunch of guys hanging out together via the magic of radio and learning a few things as they go. There are so many varied pursuits in this hobby I see no need to make it "better" by making more like something most people just pay for by the month. If you want internet or a cell phone, there's plenty of that for everyone already. Personally I have no problem using 1950's technology without the benefit of a multi-million transistor processor or an IP address. Just like an afternoon out on a lake, fishing.
Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K8QV on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another solution looking for a problem.
It's what keeps these forums going . . .
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In short, we have arrived at unprecedented levels of on line engagement and in it's attempt to make life easier for everyone, the technology is actually making us dumber.
We now have an entire generation of people who can't count change, can't spell, can't remember a simple phone number. It's a new world of virtual people who communicate solely through virtual means with one another marking the end of face-to-face social interaction as some people had once known in the distant past.
So this leaves me wondering. If we are in an actual emergency and forced into the grave position that we must rely on a network data communication infrastructure for out continued survival, then don't we really have much larger issues on our hands to resolve?
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by NE3R on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You didn't explain what you've done in regards to high speed packet/digital on the ham bands. Do you have a high speed node setup somewhere or you just complaining?
High speed is nice, but I personally find low speed packet to be more of a challenge. Any moron can use up tons of bandwidth for this or that application, but making something useful in limited bandwidth takes some brains. Look at the 1200 baud packet application for APRS, super efficient local networks with tons of info, all in 1200 baud.
73 de Joseph Durnal NE3R
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K9ZF on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I intended to write up a good reply for this "article" but K5LXP and NE3R pretty well summed it up.
Your own opening paragraph brings to mind the question; Why do we need high speed data in ham radio?
There is already wifi and 3G cellular.
APRS seems to be doing fine with 1200...
Why is this an article? Seems like the trolls have moved to posting articles as well as replies now days...
direct replies only, I don't subscribe to topics any longer due to all of the trash.
My call at Yahoo dot com, among others...
73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by AB7E on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's difficult to tell from such a rambling, poorly organized article, but did the author ever make a case for WHY high speed data on the UHF ham bands was necessary, or even useful? I have absolutely no problem with folks who want to play experiment with it and use it for whatever purpose, but I don't get why it is a big deal if slower rates are commonly being used. As several others have said, pretending to create an alternative to the internet or cell phones or WiFi is just silly, and no prospective young ham is going to be any more impressed with 64K speeds than 1200.
As far as emergency service goes, data rates are mostly irrelevant. I listened to several nets for hours during the last major gulf hurricane and the most useful traffic I heard the whole time was the passing of cell phone numbers from one government organization to another. How silly is that? We have a similar situation here in my own community where the local amateur radio club is struggling with some regulatory issues, and the predominant benefit they can show they provide is basic coordination between government agencies that haven't yet figured out how to link up with each other. None of that takes high data rates.
I give this mess a big "so what".
Dave AB7E
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by N9OGL on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article, but a better system would be something like this. Have one node in a town and that node could connect you to other services like BBS's as well as programs that use telnet, and other applications. NONE connect to the internet, and ALL at high speeds of wifi. Packet radio in my area is DEAD, the reason was simply because 1. All BBS's had the same garbage on them, BBS's should be more diverse for example have a BBS for antenna's another BBS for Amateur policy and so on. There is really no bounds on content except for obscene, indecent material and commercial in natural. The Second thing that killed packet in this area was BBS's were using the user frequency for forwarding, point one will eliminate forwarding and mail traffic could set up on a different routing system. Finally the thing that killed packet here was speed...900 MHZ is ok, however wifi systems that use our 2.4 GHz band would be better since the products are out there, including Wal-mart. Amplifier would also help, since wifi are part 15 devices, but since it is a ham band...well, plus it's a lot faster then 1200 or even 9600 baud.
Todd N9OGL
Echolink Node #183805
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KV9U on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Byron and group,
I have to agree with some of the posters, that amateur radio includes a very wide gamut of interests. Some like retro things and some are future oriented, with most in between. This includes young and old.
If it comes to pass as you suggest that "Young people aren't interested in talking around the world on finnicky HF bands with 5w or less on CW anymore," then DXing and QRP might go away. But I would not count on that happening based on real world ham interests.
Several decades ago, it became very apparent to me that "hi speed" packet was not going to succeed as an area of interest when even the active packet radio users felt that 1200 baud was sufficient speed. Those of us who wanted to at least go to 9k6 for "local" contacts amounted to about 3 out of 100 and we just could not develop a critical mass and packet eventually was scaled down rather drastically into a very small part of ham radio compared to what it once was.
But even though reasonably priced "WiMax" type of equipment is available at 1+ megabits/second speeds on microwave frequencies, there is minimal interest. I think that it is fair to say that it this is due to the lack of a day to day need for short distance, direct line of sight links. As I have found, even leaves on a tree, or the neighbors barn can completely block paths of only 5 to 8 miles on ~ 2.4 GHz at several watts of power. Higher frequency bands are even worse. Note QST's Eclectic Technology Column this month on higher bands than 2.4 due to the increasing competition on 2.4.
On the other hand, some of us have had modest successes with public service and emergency communications over the years but it is now rare that we would be needed. Even if we had catastrophic conditions (EMP, widespread hurricanes or ice storms taking down power and communications), many of us may have our own situations to deal with when that occurs (speaking from experience). Outside help can be useful as may be used for public service assistance (shelters, EOC links to state), but if the government services lose their communications (high antenna repeaters, in particular) so will we.
Many hams have very minimal ability to communicate without repeaters since they may not use FM simplex, much less traffic handling on HF. That is something that should be improved by constant practice, but how many really will do that?
We already have VoIP with IRLP and Echolink so that might be useful if the internet is available to an area outside the affected area and yet we can still reach the node. I know of hams who have done this during emergency situations where they were able to get information via Echolink and then HF and then through personal contact and finally getting a message back to the originators.
Because high speed systems have very limited range and require very good signals to even work at all, you might consider taking a closer look at the improvements in ham technology we have been experiencing the past few years with the introduction of very low cost digital sound card modes that can work with much weaker signals. The speeds are not fast at all, but they actually get through when other modes and systems fail completely. Even 20 wpm at getting through is better than zero wpm with high speed, but inoperative technology.
We have ARQ capabilities such as FAE400 (Windows only on Multipsk) and NBEMS (cross platform using flidgi and flarq) for rudimentary ARQ peer to peer messaging.
At this time there is only one HF e-mail system that is useable for messaging with an inexpensive sound card system and that is of course, PSKmail. Winlink 2000 is expected to have a similar capability later this year however PSKmail has additional features (Linux version) which can provide peer to peer ARQ connections which is a must have capability for station to station traffic and no other system provides at this time. The Windows version is expected to eventually meet the Linux capabilities.
PSKmail is far more developed in other areas such as the EU, and at least one major city has a 2 meter server. Unlike other e-mail system, it is fully open source so that any ham can set up a PSKmail server on an ad hoc basis without even being approved by central administration, nor even being required to allow the software installation by remote control. In other words, in the true spirit of ham radio. But many servers are needed here in the U.S. to make this system truly practical. Will enough hams step up to the plate?
The point is that these kinds of systems actually work and get traffic through while high speed systems simply do not work over similar distances. Even 1200 baud packet, which requires a very good signal to work can not work all that far, depending upon terrain and antennas which may be sub optimum during emergencies and portable operation.
Microwave (1.2 GHz) D-Star was about 10 years too late in my view. It is still too expensive for most hams to even consider although can be useful for short range point to point medium speed links such as for emergency management, but it requires hams to be control operators.
Can we actually replace infrastructure such as you suggest? Very few hams could do that, nor would they have the kind of equipment needed for just that one day out of a decade (or a hundred years).
I can not stress enough, that whatever is going to work for us during an emergency must be used frequently, and thoroughly understood by the operator to work in an actual emergency. Public service is a good way to get some of that experience so you know what will and what won't work.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by W4VR on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KV9U: your response made more sense than the author of the article.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You failed to mention the Motorola Maxtrac and GTX series radios, the Kenwood 900 mhz series radio etc. All of these will readily operate on the 900 mhz band and can be used for high speed data also.
I use 250 watts on 900mhz for a repeater but feeding data would work just as well.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KB9MWR on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that Ham radio does not need to become a back-up for the internet and other commercial IP communications.
Nor does ham radio need to be a backup for voice communications. This is a hobby for experimentation and learning.
Sadly there aren't many old school guys left that want to learn and experiment. Most people come here for "fun"? Which explains why most newly licensed hams go inactive in a short amount of time.
The EmComm backup communications business is directly related to the huge frequency allocations that we are squating on. This is justified if we can provide backup communications and dedicate time to civic ARES/RACES exercises.
Just recently Google has Urged a National Inventory of Radio Spectrum. The worst part is that most hams and the ARRL won't put up an argument because they see this as no loss as there is little ham radio activity on these bands.
There is 24.165 GHz of the total amateur spectrum. (HF is a very small sliver (3.75 MHz)
Undoubtedly the future of ham radio is in our huge - virtually unused microwave allocations for applications like the thread author is suggesting. These bands have the necessary bandspace to support wideband modes.
I say yes to high speed packet and anything that makes use of these underused bands of ours. Who knows thinking, something other than HF might just help this hobby evolve.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K5YF on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good ideas Byron.
There are moderated forums/groups on the net where you will find folks who are conceptualizing what you have touched on here. If you haven't yet, try searching in the groups on both Yahoo and Google.
73 de K5YF
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by QRZDXR2 on May 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM on May 16, 2009
In short, we have arrived at unprecedented levels of on line engagement and in it's attempt to make life easier for everyone, the technology is actually making us dumber.
We now have an entire generation of people who can't count change, can't spell, can't remember a simple phone number. It's a new world of virtual people who communicate solely through virtual means with one another marking the end of face-to-face social interaction as some people had once known in the distant past.
So this leaves me wondering. If we are in an actual emergency and forced into the grave position that we must rely on a network data communication infrastructure for out continued survival, then don't we really have much larger issues on our hands to resolve?
Wow the first time I agree with you...on a subject.
I should get a prize... grin
I have been asking the local OES/hams here in Tucson which way is the emergency comm going to be...
Voice.. SSB or 2M/440 is good but think of the pencil burn out filling out all them ARRL radiograms.
CW... ahhh OK slower than SSB and still has the same transfer from ham to written problems.
That leaves the old RTTY,packet and/or the new 64 stuff.
No one seems to get the idea that handling traffic is going to be a real effort if it can't be input, sent and some sort of error free output or direct to printer /internet address. (think of all the hams who would be killed after the first couple hours of pushing a pencil during a couple thousand inquireies.
So I ask what is the answer? Which mode? seems the internet does a pretty good job getting stuff across... will hams then become internet operators instead of radio operators... the texting on 900 megs is not that far fetched when you start looking for a way to get messages in and out eff'cently... I don't think many hams are up to the task either anymore... as you said.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QRZDXER:
We agreed on something? ...Yeah I guess we did.. For once.. :)
Although, I can and "DO" appreciate the work many people do in Emcom, I can't help but wonder what technology is actually relevant in defining our role more clearly.
We typically sum up our role all together in one basket as providing "emergency communications" yet what does that mean to the general public exactly?
Sending APRS positioning packets, passing a telephone number nor does sending a radiogram require broadband technology to accomplish these tasks.
I feel one of the main reasons we can always get through when no one else can is because we maintain simplicity in our internal communication infrastructure. The primary reason why public communication infrastructures fail is exactly just the opposite.
Yet, even when we are armed with that specific information readily in hand, some in our ranks feel there's some need to duplicate what is already well known to fail time after time...
Additionally, I fail to understand why anyone would actually need to rely on the "internet" or have broadband communication capabilities during a communication emergency. I think most people could live without Google, Ebay and internet email option capability if my house were 6 feet under water. I would simply have much larger issues on my plate...
The proposed technology is great when it serves a useful purpose. However, defining the working mechanics of the term "useful" seems to be the main issue.
For example, we often hear it stated; "The technology would be useful during an emergency..." That blanket statement in itself basically says nothing about anything.
...And your absolutely right..:) all data output,- requires data input, regardless of the technology used anyways. I don't feel the actual data speed of the information being sent, is nearly as relevant as our actual capabilities to collect the information from people and the human services we may be providing people at ground zero. This fact is what usually gets lost in translation during any proposal for advanced technology.
Emcom should be primarily focused on people helping people and what kind of services we can provide them during an emergency and not necessarily focused on further defining the "technology" used to accomplish this role.
73 de KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yet, even when we are armed with that specific information readily in hand, some in our ranks feel there's some need to duplicate what is already well known to fail time after time...
Additionally, I fail to understand why anyone would actually need to rely on the "internet" or have broadband communication capabilities during a communication emergency. I think most people could live without Google, Ebay and internet email option capability if my house were 6 feet under water. I would simply have much larger issues on my plate..."
Exactly right. I have been saying for years, the use of the internet as a so-called backup to ham radio comms is foolish. The mantra by ARRL and others "When all else fails, ham radio gets through" is correct, history has this on its side.
Notice the use of the word "Radio" not "Internet". I find it disheartening to say the least with the breathless and continuous efforts by others to heavily integrate ham radio with strong reliance on the internet into the very systems we say will fail. I don't get it.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC2RGW on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just for starters....500' tower space around here is hard to find and expensive to pay for. Hard enough to get decent 440 coverage as it is.
With 900MHz the saturation level you would need for a useful network is not very practical.
For backyard hams, you would need coordinated trunking or linking systems to even get useful coverage with the typical 40' tower at 900MHz. Good luck on getting enough people to set egos aside and then in turn make the investment to build a practical 900 network for hams.
Fun to play and experiment with. A practical reality, no.
Plus it is almost impossible to get people to even look into VHF packet at the simplest levels. Getting people up to snuff on the nuances needed for broad band high speed comms to work reliably...unlikely.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think what we are seeing with many of the new hams coming into the ranks is new hams who have grown up with the internet and do not know a world without the internet.
Locally and globally they see the internet as more reliable than ham radio in most instances since it is rarely down except in a disaster.
So the mad rush to integrate the two for in their eyes, a more reliable comms system. Basically, these young hams do not know the history of ham radio and its intended purpose and they see no difference in using RF or the internet to accomplish the same thing.
So as the OT's who grew up without an internet scratch their collective heads not wondering by understanding why the integration of the internet and ham radio is dangerous. Then you have the new hams scratching their collective heads wondering why the internet and RF could not live in harmony since they have not experienced what it is like to really lose it.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think what we are seeing with many of the new hams coming into the ranks is new hams who have grown up with the internet and do not know a world without the internet.
Locally and globally they see the internet as more reliable than ham radio in most instances since it is rarely down except in a disaster.
So the mad rush to integrate the two for in their eyes, a more reliable comms system. Basically, these young hams do not know the history of ham radio and its intended purpose and they see no difference in using RF or the internet to accomplish the same thing.
So as the OT's who grew up without an internet scratch their collective heads not wondering but understanding why the integration of the internet and ham radio is dangerous. Then you have the new hams scratching their collective heads wondering why the internet and RF could not live in harmony since they have not experienced what it is like to really lose it.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0NPF writes: "Young people aren't interested in talking around the world on finnicky HF bands with 5w or less on CW anymore."
Some of them are, most of them aren't. But that's not a generational thing.
KC0NPF: "Why? HF is not reliable communication, just because I talked to Croatia the other day (which I actually did, it was great fun!) doesn't mean I'll be able to get back there today."
That's what makes it interesting and fun.
You're missing one of the prime differences between Amateur Radio and all other radio services:
Most other radio services use radio as a means to an end. The focus is on the message, not the delivery medium. Most people don't care if their TV comes to them via satellite, terrestrial, cable, fiber, VHF, UHF, analog or digital; what they do care about is the program content and the quality of the picture and sound. Same for cellphones, internet service of all kinds, mobile radio, etc.
Amateur Radio is completely different. Amateur RadioIt's about "radio for its own sake", where the medium and technology is as important if not more important than the message.
KC0NPF: "what on earth are we doing at 9600bps, or 1200bps???"
Those speeds are easy to implement with existing rigs.
KC0NPF: "Back in the early days of radio, hams were on the absolute bleeding edge of what could be done."
When was that, exactly? If that happened at all, it was before 1930 if not 1920 or WW1.
Yes, amateurs have made some significant advances, but in general those were the doings of a few hams who led the way.
What hams have always been good at, and are still good at, is doing a lot with very little. Taking old equipment nobody wants and reusing it for a new purpose, coming up with simplified, lowcost ways of doing something, doing something just to see if it could be done regardless of commercial viability, etc.
IOW, "Radio for its own sake"
KC0NPF: "If you want to interest youth in ham radio once again, offer them a cost-effective way to run high-speed data off the trunk of their car."
That's already available by a variety of methods that permit full access to email, internet, IM, and other established systems.
If you want amateur highspeed data radio, great! Go out and build a demonstrator system and publicize it to hams, and show them what it can do.
That's the real key to every new thing that has come to Amateur Radio: practical demos of what the New Thing can do, and how the average ham can get such a system going.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by WS4E on May 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I think it would just be nice to have a REAL amateur alternative to the proprietary mega-$$$ required PactorModem WinLINK....a common way to send email or other short messages over HF would fit the bill to me.
I could envision all sorts of good uses for this...maybe in the way of say long distance APRS over HF, or short text messaging, remote log book entries when in the field, DX Cluster Updates when camping etc.
I don't know, I would think that given a simple short messaging system that worked over HF, we could find all sorts of interesting things to use it for.
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by WA3SKN on May 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are multiple technical and legal reasons for the bandwidth limitations imposed on amateur radio frequencies, none of which you have mentioned.
Now, why do you need the bandwidth, and how much bandwidth do you need?
-Mike.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Irony: Most 802.11(x) stuff is based on packet! They adopted most of the parameters of AX.25 & moved forward while hams just "played" & didn't move forward at all...
I am already running 900MHz@3mbps, 2.4GHz@54mbps & 5.7GHz@108mbps... All are OFDM modulated (ironically OFDM was developed by a ham)...
You guys can continue to argue amongst yourselves about whether or not upgraded speeds are "needed". Gives me more time for me to show off what I have built myself without the legal arguments...
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KB9MWR on May 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From http://www.qrz.com/ka9q
[quote]
Professional accomplishments include the development of architecture and protocols for CDMA IP packet data services and the invention of the RTS/CTS scheme adopted by IEEE 802.11, the latter being originally conceived for possible ham packet radio use. [/quote]
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's discuss some physical realities.
I have tried hauling a linksys 2.4ghz wireless router up a 30ft mast in an upside-down bucket and tried using it as an omni-directional hub. It really brings home what cell phone system designers face for path loss and receiver noise levels -- just as some have already pointed out on here. Even leafed out trees play havoc with the signal from as little as a half-mile away.
This leaves two basic networking configurations available for hams to use.
1. A star topology with client-to-hub point-to-point links using high-gain antennas to hubs with high antennas for a clear line of sight.
Pro's - simple to set up, ease of routing
Con's - single point of failure just like public service, hub capacity, collision avoidance between stations.
2. A meshed network with lots of low-power clients using routing algorithms to determine the best path.
Pro's - lots of redundancy, ntwk survival
Con's - complex setup for routing, latency issues, numbers of clients required for successful ntwk.
I don't see where either case offers ham radio much unless we want to get into the common carrier business of offering to set up point-to-point links for customers. One topology is just as failure prone as anything we will be backing up and the other requires a station density that I suspect the amateur community would be not be able to meet except in a few places.
Conclusion? As several have pointed out, 1200bps and 9600bps networks on lower frequencies can handle a LOT of H&W traffic as well as logistical traffic for NGO's. Will it handle someone wanting to use an internet gateway to play WOW? No. Which should amateur radio concentrate on?
Experimentation on higher frequencies with faster transmission speeds *is* something we should be doing. We should not be putting it forth as a "savior" for amateur radio, however, because it isn't, at least not at this point in time.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC2SYK on May 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
People are already doing this. Its called HSMM or Hinternet and it is based on 802.11 protocols.
Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
However, there are two problems with this that come from Part 97 §113(a)(4): 1. NO CRYPTO. 2. FCC restrictions on content (censorship).
Internet communications protocols require the use of cryptography to prevent password sniffing and provide authentication. Consider the protocols one uses everyday on the internet. How many are fully secured sessions and how many use cryptographic keys for authentication?
Anything with SSL is straight-out: https, pop+ssl, imap+ssl, smtp+ssl, etc.
Full-session crypto is out: ssh
Full-protocol crypto is out: WEP, WPA, etc.
Anything that uses a crypto authentication I think is not legal: apop, some smtp implementations, pgp, etc.
Then there are protocols that use unencrypted passwords. They are legal, but I wouldn't go blasting my passwords out over the air. Would you? This includes plain pop, imap, telnet, ftp, etc.
So whats it good for? GPS position reporting, web surfing, and anonymous ftp? Okay, but better not go to some site that happens to use the "7 words" or has racy or titillating content. Even if you visit a site like this inadvertently, you or the sender are violating part 97.
An interesting experiment, sure. More useful than current packet implementations? I'm not so sure.
73
-Chris
KC2SYK
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KB9MWR on May 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To clarify Chris' post... He paraphrased Part 97.113;
(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.
There was just another eHam thread recently titled Amateur Internet. When the purpose of your high speed ham network is what it ought to be, the whole passwords in clear text and non-encryption aren't as important.
Using Part 97 high speed 802.11 / packet links for internet access isn't what ham radio is about. Building your own VPN with your own webservers, FTP, messaging etc like we did back in the 80's is ham radio. And when this is for the most part inaccessible from the internet security isn't as important. Of course for Emcomm and other education purposes some interconnection to ham resources already on the internet is logical.
Regarding the non-intentional obscuring rule, like many rules in Part 97 it is subjective and based on intent.
As you can see the next part of 97.113 talks about using other radio services. Ask youself; What does this mean really?
I recommend these resources for further research on that issue:
Security & Data Integrity On A Modern Amateur Radio Network - By: Paul J. Toth – NA4AR
"HSMM and Information Security," by K8OCL CQ-VHF Fall 2004
"Data Encryption is Legal," N2IRZ, CQ Magazine Aug 2006
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14005101/data-encryption-is-legal
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC0UZA on May 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I for one am not intersted in duplicating in an inferior way what is being provided by other services or methods. I also am not intersted in (for the most part) doing via radio what I do all day at work on PCs & internet. Maybe you are. Great. Knock yourself out. There are a lot of amateur activities I'm not particularly interested in but wouldn't stop you from doing them (unless they interfered with my favorite activity).
However, this idea will not attract the zillions of young web surfer text messaging types as it will never match in normal situations what those mechanisms provide. Why look at a black and white TV when you have one that has High Definition Color unless you have to? Whether amateur radio survives or dwindles away will not be dependent on providing portable radio enabled WOW at my campsite. [Yeah I've played that game and have broken the habit.] As someone said earlier, what will attract some young people will be want they don't do all the time. And it will never be oceans of new people in any event and never has been. We are a niche hobby.
Amateur radio has never been for everyone get used to the idea. We do need to keep new people coming in to keep it going and preserve spectrum. Ham radio for the masses? Don't believe it.
73
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by W3WN on May 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can see in many of these comments exactly what is holding back experimenting on 902 MHz and higher bandwiths.
In short, fear of what might happen.
I'm not by any means condoning misuse of the amateur service, nor am I condoning the alleged "hijacking" of the UHF/SHF bands by "hinternetters" who are alleged to be trying to turn amateur radio into a free internet.
However... the bottom line is that what is really being discussed in the original article is communicating via digital signals, and why more experimenting isn't going on.
Maybe, instead of crying about how TCP/IP is bad for amateur radio, or what can & can't be sent (before we even have a working system), or how the hinternetters (whatever they are) are going to hijack this, or how the APRS and EmmComm people are going to turn amateur radio as we know it into police wanna-be "whackers", or whatever other fear-mongering you can think of...
Maybe we should try and see if we CAN find a better way to use these currently underutilized bands to communicate... and use our experiments to do so to further our knowledge in the communications arena.
Or does that make too much sense?
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Much of the theoretical work on using the ham bands has been done.
See: ftp://ftp.tapr.org/ss/MIT-LCS-TR-670.pdf from the TAPR site.
The actual physical pieces already exists.
802.11 wireless nodes interfacing Linux boxes running something like BGP would allow such a mesh network to be established. Couple this with the use of IPSEC to handle authentication and a ham provided centralized certificate server and it can all be done.
The problem is that it isn't *easy*. You have to learn a few things in order to be able to play. You can't just hook up a couple of 802.11 devices and play at being a point-to-point common carrier like AT&T.
In other words, appliance operators need not apply. *THAT* has always been the problem with HSMM and the hinternet. They just want to take boxes off the shelf designed for different purposes under a different set of FCC rules and pretend that using them under Part 97 isn't a problem of any kind. That's where the "encryption on the ham bands is ok" philosophy comes from. "Well -- Part 15 can do encryption so why can't Part 97?".
It is the *having to learn* something that keeps this from taking off. There seems to be fewer and fewer hams every year willing to *learn* new stuff. They just want to hook things up and type on a keyboard or talk into a mic. How the "black boxes" work is just *too* hard to learn.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC8RWR on May 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a can of worms! Any discussion of this stuff will bring out the trolls like a good summer rain brings out the worms. And yet... it is so relevant to the times.
There is a genuine fear among many hams of ham radio getting "clobbered" by the internet and/or internet use on ham frequencies. This is not without reason, given the popularity of the internet and the allure of always available portable access it could very well come to be if internet and high speed digital networks are overly emphasized.
Likewise without newer technology ham radio could simply die out as newer generations of the technically inclined invest all their time in computers and don't see the value of the radio side of things.
That in mind, we do still need to keep up with current technologies and maybe even "advance the state of the art" from time to time. All of course while preserving the older modes which are still rewarding and enjoyable and hopefully showing new comers that they are as well. Without a balance we cannot last.
Now, why don't we have more high speed packet? Well... price could be part of it. When a TNC that only does 1200 baud can still fetch over $100 I shudder to think what something with a more modern speed would cost. How this can be when a 14.4k modem is seen by most in the computer world as a piece of garbage to be thrown out I cannot fathom.
Of course, I'm talking about commercially built gear. Isn't the ham community (not necessarily every individual ham) supposed to be able to build their own equipment? Building this kind of device requires more than just a knowledge of RF electronics. It also requires lots of computer circuitry, and software. Certainly there are some hams out there with these skills, you can find the projects they build with a quick search on Google. I think there could be a lot more development however if there was more mixing going on between the ham community and the typically younger computer tech crowd. They are really just two sides of the same coin anyway.
Also, how much of a threat to traditional DX can digital be? How much bandwidth can one fit in the HF band? How much in UHF and beyond? How much DX can you work in UHF+?
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC8RWR on May 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally I don't want to see Ham radio become a popular method of getting remote internet access. Mainly I don't want this to happen because it could easily become popular enough to crowd out all the traditional ham uses of the bands. I do think we are fairly safe from this though so long as the bans on encryption and commercial use are in place. That makes ham radio too far removed from typical internet usage to become a part of the internet.
I would however love to see hams or similar hobbyists build a pervasive wireless internet connected network. Perhaps this could happen in an ISM band under part 15? Or maybe on 700Mhz?
Too all who say we don't need this because we have cellular networks I must say I disagree. Take a look at what those carriers charge for access. SMS messages can cost as much as $25 / MB to send. Internet access via cellphone easily approaches $100 / month.
Meanwhile most cellphones are closed devices with severe limitations of what software may be installed. These days hobbyists are creating operating systems and whole software suites. They are one (maybe not the only) equivalent to the radio experimenters at the turn of the century who brought us the technology we have today. They are limited however by companies whose roots go back all the way to Ma Bell.
Of course, if the population jumps on it bandwidth will be an issue but if the users cooperate by running their own public access short range nodes in their own homes then I think it could work. City dwellers would use little more than wifi while something a bit larger would be called for in the country.
As a society I think we could really use an open network to help us avoid becoming limited to being consumers alone, spoon fed the same technology indefinitely by companies with no need to innovate. Ham bands are not the place for this but Hams are a major part of the talent pool that could get it done.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KB9MWR on May 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A couple more comments;
You'd be surprised that modern speed gear costs less or comparable to a 1200 baud station.
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/compare.html
As for worry, I don't see High Speed Multi-Media packet affecting any existing amateur operations. This is because to yield such speeds this really has to occur 900 MHz and above. (Possible the lower part of 70cm) I can't think of a better way to put some activity one those underutilized microwave bands, that are probably being eyed up by Google and other corporate interests.
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=203168
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on May 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi, BJ!
Well, you know I agree with some of your sentiments, but I think that we will have much better luck if we find NEW applications and do them in the most cost-effective manner. I don't believe it's really a matter of the technology - the technology is out there. We should be able to do 56 KB on 219-220 Mhz. with gear we can build in our own shops. There is gear available for 3.3 Ghz. that will do just fine, too, and AB0WR has detailed a way of being able to actually use it.
The question is WHY?
Oh yes, we really do need a way of passing written traffic well in disasters, but I think that our slow speed packet and options like PSKMail on HF fill that need about as well as they need to be filled.
Somehow, I can't see running Twitter on ham radio. I know I'm fascinating, but I don't think too many people would follow me. Now, something akin to Facebook could be a real good application, though.
Develop the 'killer app', and we'll build the network to support it!
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by N9DG on May 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8RWR: "As a society I think we could really use an open network to help us avoid becoming limited to being consumers alone, spoon fed the same technology indefinitely by companies with no need to innovate. Ham bands are not the place for this but Hams are a major part of the talent pool that could get it done."
Precisely.... I too would like to see a truly open network which uses a set of protocols and standards built on the "mesh networking" work that already exists today. The higher level protocols would be needed to completely automate the management of a totally ad hoc built network of network nodes. These individual nodes then all being owned and controlled by individuals, small/local business, or local community interests and entities. Then the large telco and datacom providers can provide access points to their networks as needed (bandwidth needs) and where convenient (existing infrastructure). These 'community networks' would have reach enough to force the large datacom providers to compete on price, no more of this 1 or 2 providers being able to monopolize prices in large areas of this country.
This achieves three key things:
1. Makes it so the large datacomm providers can quit whining about the cost of the last mile build out.
2. Gets the large telcos and datacomm providers out of mine and my neighbors pockets for our local community communications needs.
3. Provides a highly resilient local/regional high speed network that is being used daily and that will hold up well (or can be easily/quickly rebuilt) during time of disasters.
But what we don't want is yet another large datacomm corporate windfall of monopolistic spectrum auctions and exclusive "ownership" (to large corporate interests only) chunks of spectrum that are suitable for broadband wireless networking (Googles planned game???). The spectrum auctions have been one of the most *monopolistic* (both the building and protecting of) things our government has ever done.
And yes absolutely, positively I agree that this MUST NOT be attempted or promoted as 'Amateur Radio' or be attempted under the part 97 rules. It must either be another Part 15 chapter, or perhaps a completely new part of its own, it would not, and should not be considered ham radio at all. But yes hams would be a large piece of the "talent pool" to build this..
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KC7YCL on May 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wrote an article a few years ago about using packet in novels ways:
http://www.eham.net/articles/1682
I never got the opportunity to continue with this, but my grand plan was basically exactly what the author of this article is proposing.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by KE7CDV on May 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Personally I don't want to see Ham radio become a popular method of getting remote internet access."
Agreed, and with few exceptions there are generally better methods available anyway.
"Mainly I don't want this to happen because it could easily become popular enough to crowd out all the traditional ham uses of the bands."
I'm not really worried about that -- I just don't see it happening: Ham radio technology has never been the sort of "plug and play" item that the mainstream is looking for.
"I do think we are fairly safe from this though so long as the bans on encryption and commercial use are in place."
Agreed, although I'm probably a bit more "liberal" than most people here -- I think that, e.g., ordering a book on Amazon (using http, not https) can all be done on ham bands if desired, and there are means to provide secure control of, e.g., remote stations that don't amount to encryption.
"I would however love to see hams or similar hobbyists build a pervasive wireless internet connected network."
That would be great.
"Perhaps this could happen in an ISM band under part 15? Or maybe on 700Mhz?"
I don't think it's a problem with technology -- and under part 15 it's not even a problem with licensing -- it's just that there aren't enough hams interested to pull it off anymore.
"Too all who say we don't need this because we have cellular networks I must say I disagree. Take a look at what those carriers charge for access. SMS messages can cost as much as $25 / MB to send."
Sure, but only if you don't opt for a "messages included" plan.
"Internet access via cellphone easily approaches $100 / month."
With Sprint it's all of $15/month/phone for "unlimited" access (meaning... they do watch and might cancel your contract if you seriously start abusing it, but there's no predetermined set point where you're cut off or throttled).
"Meanwhile most cellphones are closed devices with severe limitations of what software may be installed."
This really isn't true -- Windows Mobile is quite "open," and apps can access the Internet on a Windows Mobile phone via 3G in exactly the same way as an app on a PC can.
The iPhone is somewhat more restricted, certainly, but even there it's not at all difficult to write any sort of app you feel like.
The only "closed" portion of smartphones tends to be the radio chipsets themselves -- good luck finding out how to write an app to program a smartphone to intercept other phone calls, for instance!
"These days hobbyists are creating operating systems and whole software suites. They are one (maybe not the only) equivalent to the radio experimenters at the turn of the century who brought us the technology we have today. They are limited however by companies whose roots go back all the way to Ma Bell."
I just don't see those limits. High-speed Internet access today is ubiquitous in most countries -- even in the furthest corners of the U.S. you can get decent speeds via satellite for <$100/mo -- the same sort of thing that would have cost >$1000/mo 25 years ago.
"As a society I think we could really use an open network to help us avoid becoming limited to being consumers alone, spoon fed the same technology indefinitely by companies with no need to innovate."
The problems is that those networks cost money, so unless you can get enough hams to pony up the cash (good luck with that!), you're left with private funding (possibly but highly unlikely) or government funding (more likely, but then everything become politicized and "standards" tend to cause stagnation...).
---Joel
|
| |
|
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by WL7AWC on May 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
High speed packet switching is a good idea. It'll greatly improve our emcomm infrastructure, as well as being a lot of fun.
As far as HF not being a reliable communications medium, it depends on what your application and expectations are. NVIS comms are usually very reliable at low power - we use this all the time in military tactical communications, especially in terrain that's not LOS friendly. Long haul HF requires a lot of power on tap and a wide selection of freqs (which we have) to maintain something on the order of 90% uptime. Since this is a hobby, that's not really necessary and can be cost prohibitive. You take your chances with what you have available (I usually don't run more than about 40 W, regardless of mode). That said, there are numerous digital modes that provide high process gain and correspondingly good circuit reliability.
|
| |
|
RE: High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
by N6HPX on June 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The use of echo link to me is just Internet Radio and is no way an interests when I have to pay for the service to use it as unlike HF Bands where the airwaves is free as long as my license is maintained. Here on my side of the world is in region 3 900 mhz is not usuable. Despite the use of echo link in my area, I dont consider it as much of radio and if I want to do that sort of thing I can alwaus chat mail as its nearly the same thing.
HF is more fun and despite the band conditions the many I know rather use the HF than the internet radios.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
High Performance Audio
How to Improve Your CW Speed:
FM Packet Meteor Scatter, REALLY!
Hi Performance Ham Radio
Future Radios...
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
Amateur Internet
|
