The Future of Digital Radio
Web Williams (KR4WM)
on
September 6, 2003
View comments about this article!
I've been watching, and anxiously awaiting, the arrival of commercially available digital voice HF hardware. I saw in this month's issue of CQ magazine, the future is here! On page 35, AOR (the company of radio scanner fame) has introduced a little box that connects into a microphone port, no internal radio mods required, that purports to produce and decode digital HF transmissions! Immediately, some concerns came to mind:
1. Ten-Tec seemed to be the first to announce a successful test of digital HF.
2. There are now shortwave broadcast stations that are using the DRM format (Digital Radio Mondial).
3. Now AOR jumps into the fray with a digital HF "box".
Now the questions that I would like the manufacturers to address:
1.Are all these modes compatible?
2. If not, WHY not?!?! Everyone should be working together here on a "standard" so that we don't have 50 non-compatible modes out there.
And the -BIG- question for us, as the ones using these new modes:
Are digital voice modes going to be restricted to "digital" frequencies or will they share voice frequencies on HF?
Every time a new mode comes along, the users seem to want to hammer out their own little piece of the band. RTTY at .185, PSK-31 at .170, QRP at .060, Packet at .195 etc. ad nauseum. Where are we going to "stick" the digital voice HF guys???
(My opinion) All this needs to be decided before the first unit is sold.
-Web Williams in Myrtle Beach, SC
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by AB7JK on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Digital radio will share the HF bands with analog broadcasting at least for the next 20 years. Shortwave is most used in areas of the world where radios are the cheap, throw away kind. At present only top of the line receivers with stable 12khz IF outputs are able to copy DRM test transmissions with any degree of accuracy.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WOW! This is like what happened in coming up with standards for Digital TV broadcasting. Let the Feds get wind of this, and we will have a LAW that mandates a forced migration to digital radio, just as they have done with TV.
BTW: have you noticed any long lines of people waiting to buy those digital TVs, in anticipation of the switchover to digital, in 2003? Digital TV is not wanted by the average TV viewer. Is digital radio wanted by the average Ham or is this another 'expensive' solution, looking for a problem?
Dennis - KG4RUL
Ladson, SC
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KR4WM on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article is not referring to digital HF broadcasts- I'm referring to digital HAM voice signals....which are now a reality with the appearance of the AOR digital box and will become more prevalent as the equipment that Ten Tec was testing becomes available. Another mode (two modes?) Move over CW/PSK31/RTTY/QRP/Hellschreiber/FAX/SSTV/etc. etc. ad nauseum.
-Web
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This may be slightly off topic but it shows the rush to have the latest and the greatest first and fast without the proper research. Our city is going to digital communications for all of it employees along with the sheriff and fire department. I followed and researched the progress occasionally from the beginning. The thought of having this brand new, modern and yes EXPENSIVE communication system made the people in control of the finances wet their pants with excitement. We have one police officer (at this time now retired) who was testing out the equipment before total implementation. If the frequency was already in use and you keyed up the radio you would get the busy tone. He explained that this was a serious safety risk for an officer who might need life saving assistance immediately. You and I know that with normal analog radios people can key over someone if needed for an emergency or at least be heard to allow for a pause. The only response / excuse the people in charge of the project could give was:
"well you have to give up some features to allow for others, just look at the improved reception",
"but what about the officer's and the public's safety?",
"like we said, just look at the improved reception".
I'll try to get an update next week to see if any of these issues were resolved and post the information.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, what I'm wondering is how some "little black box" plugged into the mic jack of a ham transceiver suddenly makes it digital?
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forgot. Here's the web page for the device.
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamacc/4050.html
I'm still wondering how this will sound when you add compression, over-driven mic stages, and flat-tubed amps?
Oh, and it costs more than some transceivers.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by W5GNB on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have seen these new expermental modes come and go. Some new modes have proved to be successful and stayed with us, such as PSK31 and SSTV. Just look at what the new WSJT mode has done for Meteor scatter and Moon bounce. These are all a form of digital data superimposed over an alalog transmission mode. Those modes that exhibit faults or problems just don't catch on will go by the wayside (such as PACKET).
I think this new-mode expermentation is quite healthy. At first the cost and usability for the general ham is sometimes out of reach by some factor but that is to be expected, it is a form of research. New modes do not mean that common reception methods are always useable or even desired.
It is an old HAM tradition to expirement with new stuff, I still remember when SSB came into being and all the AM folks were griping about all that SPLATTER noise that the SSB'er were putting out, they were going to be the ruin of Ham Radio. (They might not have been too far off on that one..... HIHI..)
If it works, it will catch on and I bet you will see some real neat improvements in many forms of operation from these types of new mode experiments.
73's
de Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by NK7J on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I hope that hams do not bite off on this too quickly.
I can tell you from experience that digital is not all the manufactures claim it to be. If anyone is familiar with Project 25 (p25)you know how hard it is to implement a digital system. P25 was/is the digital standards that public safety radios are suppose to comply with.
Right now the agency I work for is looking at these systems and we have been looking at what other agencies have implemented. Let me tell you I am NOT impressed, the only real good thing it offers is a dependable encryption that is nice for police. The audio quality sucks in my opinion, you loose "fringe areas" and it is expensive. In some of the areas we looked at they had to add 4 radio sites to a 8 site system just to keep the same coverage. So many claim the coverage is sooo much better, well yeah it is after you add more sites.
Digital can be a total nightmare if no standards are kept and everyone comes out with thier vision of what is best without concern for what the other manufactures are doing.
Digital radio is really in its infancy stages and will have LOTS of bugs to work out in the coming years. I for one am willing to kick back, talk on the radio in analog and let the games begin!
Jack NK7J
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can get dependable encryption with
plain jane wide band FM, we've been
doin' it in the Army for years.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I work at the Anniston Army Depot in a building that covers 4.5 acres and has 14 crains inside running on tracks on two diffrent levels in three diffrent areas. We just switched to the new Motorola Astro radio system which is all digital. It was a huge mistake! There is a delay from the time when you key it up and can begin talking and another delay from the repeter to the other radios. They are no longer usable with mechanics on the floor and between other crane operators. It can take 5 seconds from the time the mechanic on the floor says stop before the crane operator actually receves the stop order! Not only that there are several cranes operating on the same tracks with high level cranes with cables lowered where the low level cranes could run into them. There were several times that cranes bumped into each other and ran into cables before we bought some FRS radios for our own use and safety. New and high cost is not always better!
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hope you bought the 300 MHz ones, as
the US Government is not allowed on the
400 MHz FRS band. Quite a stir over that
in the CAP and the 82d ABN. If they are ICOMs (the last I knew to have the DOD contract) they
may be ok.
Forewarned is forarmed.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KA5CVH on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gary - W5GNB
Those modes that exhibit faults or problems just don't catch on will go by the wayside (such as PACKET).
Mike wrote
While I don't disagree with you entirely, however, I feel that packet lost favor in the amateur community due to the internet and sub $10/mo ISP's.
I think that packet is making a "LITTLE" come back with ARES and home land security as an alternate mode that can't easily be monitored by the media and other ENG entities.
Just my 2 cents
Mike KA5CVH
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Packet has one very unique capability that voice does not: the ability to directly produce a text page that is an exact copy of the received message. In a high message volume situation, this can be a godsend.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's my 3 Cents!!!
Really I'd say that most people think that being able to run Digital Modes on HF is cool, but with all the "Hue & Cry" about CODE and most people's apparent abhorrance towards it, then why are there more CW users than Digital users???
GO FIGURE???
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The goverment did not buy our FRS radios for us to use instead of the Astro radio system. There still in the cranes and we can use them to call the office and the tow tractors draging tanks in and out of the building but for use when talking to another crane while moving a load and when taking direction from a mechanic on the floor we don't use them. We use our "personal little cheap FRS radio". No delay, they only cost $8 each, and we can talk about anything we like unlike the Astro system where everything is recorded.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K4JRB on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I feel the important question is which digital mode (beside RTTY) will survive and be the standard. Most who try to follow digital modes get confused by the number of modes and the contention between them. I posted a note 2 years ago about PSK 31 and got several replies telling me to either go to h... or that some other mode was better.
We decided on SSB years ago over DSB or NBFM and this same type of decision is important for the long term.
I look for some advanced digital mode to join CW, SSB, Packet. and RTTY. I also think digital voice is another mode and see room for this mode maybe even replacing SSB.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE1MB on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AM broadcast is still around and going strong.
Need there be more said?
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K7IHC on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Digitally-modulated voice (phone) may have a place in amateur radio in the distant future, but as long as we have enough spectrum to do all the things we want to do (FM phone, SSB, PSK, CW, etc.), there shouldn't be much need for the narrowband capabilities of digital voice in ham radio.
I am involved in the implementation of a new Motorola ASTRO digital trunked government radio system in my area. It will be replacing a variety of existing VHF lowband and highband analog public safety/local govt systems in the county. The main reason for the migration to trunked systems with digitally-modulated voice is to have the ability to have things like 6.25 KHz channel spacing and stuffing more channels into a given portion of spectrum. Any BS the vendors say about better voice quality, better coverage, etc. is mainly bunk. It's all about spectrum management.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For some strange reason, I seem to remember, A voice to D, and broadcasting D on the ham bands, hasn’t been authorized yet.
What mode is it classified as, and where is it permitted?
I also have the nagging feeling that A to D, broadcasting D takes up more space than SSB?
Bob
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE2IV on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just about all of the respondents here either dismissed digital phone as bogus or put it into the realm of "one of these days but not now"! The scariest is the GI (or civilian Army employee - couldn't be sure from his posts) who doesn't realize he's in a testing situation!!!
Folks, this is supposed to be Ham Radio!
We are expected to seek out and (at least help) in the pioneering of new technologies; not oppose them and come up with reasons why they can't work. Reading this thread is to read a bunch of losers!
And to the poor b-tard who thinks $500 is a lot of money to spend to try a new technology - - get a life! That's "chump change" - - use W's tax cut to pay for it!!! You probably voted for the SOB so take the $ and spend it like he wants you to do.
But at least the "cheapo" is better than the clown who's still crowing about CW. Give it a rest!
For god sakes man....this is the 21st Century...we're talking digital here, not Mr. Morse!
Oh, BTW, if you need to hear digital voice - go onto any website!
The challenge is bandwidth compression NOT basic technology!
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KR4WM on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I still would like to know where the FCC is
going to put it- in the "digital" bands or
in the "phone" bands...? Which is it? I guess
they had better decide quickly since some
company -IS- already selling the equipment!
-Web
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by SM0AOM on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it most gratifying that a series-produced version of Charles Brain's (G4GUO) pioneering
efforts has reached the market. This box is certainly not inexpensive, but considering that it contains the functional equivalent of the $5000-up military HF voice
modems that had development costs in the millions range, I see it as a bargain.
Interesting enough, G4GUO has chosen a modulation format (36 carrier 3600 bps ODFM) that several other designers of multi-path tolerant HF modems also use variants of.
It seems that the multi-tone modulation formats currently have an edge when it comes to low-cost, medium rate modems. With over 20 years in the military and civilian HF communications field, I certainly have watched the various pros and cons about multi-tone and single tone modulation formats come and go...
I believe that this maybe can set the path for coming high-performance digital HF voice and data applications, but as the RF S/N required for good voice reproduction with today's realizations is considerably higher than the SSB threshold, it may not become the mode of choice for weak-signal work.
73/
Karl-Arne SM0AOM
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV,
What dream-world are you living in???
Technical advances found by Hams nowadays, especially those who don't want to learn anything especially the CODE and are more interested in "Plug & Play", and can memorize the basic tech. questions/+answers??? Geeesssh give us a break!!!
Advances in tele-communications by Hams on the whole is also "HISTORY" like you and others like to comment about CODE!!! Corporate Amerika will do it now and has been for many, many years!!! Or has'nt your own narrow-view allowed you to see that???
So move over OB you're also classed as a "DINOSAUR" as well!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KF4MKJ on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If PCS is any indication of how well we can expect digital voice to work. We are in a lot of trouble. There is either a good signal or there is nothing that can be copyied. At least with analog you can make a decent effort to copy a weak signal. With a weak signal on digital (PCS) you could carry on a more readable conversation with a turkey call.
73 KF4MKJ
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KC9OD on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Digital removes the need or ability of the operator. I know and fancy I am one, people who can pass information through use of a weak and noisy signal.
But even worse than standard fm, digital simply shuts off ANY ability to communicate if the signal is weak, like the blue screen new tv sets show if the signal is weak;not worth a darn for trying to catch some tropo dx with a P2 or P3 quality.
And I had the experience of using the Motorola digital handhelds in a fortune 500 company security dept, the "busy" signal, inability to interrupt in case of emergency and disconcerting time delay are just as the earlier fellow said. I have heard that Hamilton County,Ohio is having issues with their switch to 800mhz? digital as well.
In my opinion, the police "need" to secure communications unable to be picked up on Joe Taxpayer's scanner is questionable.
This whole push to digital is about obsoleting functional systems through legislation, in order to fill somebody's pockets.
Multiple talkgroups ,who are digitally managed as to hearing each other or not, is NOT the same as multiple radio channels;yet sales people and regulators pretend they are.I believe the interoperability would have been better served by desiginating a number of real channels for multi-agency use ONLY .
As a former road officer, I can tell you it helps to be able to hear the activity of other police and fire depts in your general area ;I think the digital systems let you hear only what some desk-bound administrator fells is enough.
I can buy a $5 tape measure or a $50 digital measure at the hardware store ; guess which is more accurate ?
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K7IHC on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I said earlier, there *is* some type of future for digitally-modulated voice/phone in amateur radio, I just don't think it's coming soon. In any case, the amateur service should learn from the public safety digital trunking debacle: too many different digital formats available. There is a major digital voice format for trunked radio, known as IMBE. That's the recommended format that came out of the APCO Project 25. It's too bad that many of the major land-mobile radio corporations push other (proprietary) digital technologies on government entities. This forms interoperability barriers between neighboring agencies and increases the costs of the end-user's equipment.
Amateur radio should consider adopting one digital voice format for future use, so that we won't see the problems that government agencies are experiencing now.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just have to through in my comments here. With digital signals, you either hear the signal completely, full quieting, or you hear nothing. Some might consider the high fidelity reception a feature, in reality it is a bug. It allows you no forewarning that conditions are bad.
My wife and I use analog cellphones, and we can tell when we are going into an area where we will lose the signal. Like any standard FM transmission, you start getting more "white noise" on the signal. So you know when to say "I'll call you when I get to a better spot". This doesn't happen with digital.
I have a friend who had a digital phone, and one of the major frustrations in talking with him before he got rid of it was that his signal would drop out, and you couldn't tell it had dropped out. You didn't hear any noise if he was just listening, or indeed if the cell couldn't hear him with a decent signal strength. VERY frustrating. Perhaps this isn't a problem with phones in urban areas (though I suspect it is), but outside of a major city you will run into this phenomenon.
I can't even see it replacing, or even supplimenting VHF/UHF FM. As for HF, forget it. SSB and FM are robust modes that allow for imperfect propagation conditions. Digital doesn't. It might be fun to play with, but I doubt it will ever replace standard modes.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K0RGR on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, any digital mode is interesting to me, even CW.
The best part of digital radio systems replacing all the existing analog radios is that it will make more good commercial analog gear available for ham conversions! And since the new digital radios apparently don't work worth a darn in some instances, there will be even greater need for hams in emergencies.
Actually, I'm intrigued by the idea of FM-qualtiy voice on HF, even if it won't work real well with weak signals. I find that constant-carrier modes like PSK and FM don't create nearly the RFI that amplitude modulation systems, like SSB, do. I wonder if 400 watts of digitized voice will work better for reducing RFI and increasing DX as compared to 100 watts of SSB.
This might be a partial antidote for BPL if we can all run a kilowatt.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KB1IUB on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't digital question concerning the mode?
So I was little confused by the question
regarding this was not a full digital radio.
AFAIK Ten Tec's mode is different from the BC's
mode. There are several digital VHF modes
in addition to a few different signaling
systems in APCO 25.
Bill KB1IUB
www.billohara.com - where I work per diem.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by NA6Z on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Limiting my comment to digital audio (vs digital radio), A friend and I had the opportunity to play with AOR's digital audio box at the ARRL Southwest Convention this last weekend. We were both stunned by its performance. It's in the league of going from records to CDs. I don't think I'd pay $500 for an early unit, but I'm certainly going to hold off on buying any more HF gear until I see where the market is going. No, I have absolutely no association whatsoever with AOR.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KG0R on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL: While there have been some hitches with the switch to Digital Television, you should really read up on the history of digital television leading up to the present.
As stated in an earlier post, spectrum management is a very important aspect to the digital transition in radio/television. As ham radio operators, we should be on front of technological development. The ability of modes such as PSK31 to copy signals below noise level is not something we should leave undeveloped.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some may have a different opinion about going from records to CD for Hi-Fi sound.
The advantages for CD over vinyl are durability, size, and cost, not quality of sound.
At one time, our government had the "bright" idea of forcing all records to be made with recycled vinyl. The result was awful sounding vinyl, hence the popularity and reputation of foreign records being superior. I was mainly that the albums from foreign countries were using high quality vinyl, instead of awful sounding recycled vinyl.
When CDs arrived, they sounded better than USA records; but not because CDs were a better recording medium.
At least, that is the rumor I've heard from OTs in the "music" industry.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KB0GU on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It seems a while back Kansas City, Missouri fire went digital and had real problems losing contacts. Not sure how that all turned out.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KB8UDE on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A couple of observations of my own:
As far as the 'busy tone' goes, if it is a serious emergency I do beieve that the 'man down' button will preempt any other traffic on the air at that time. Providing of course this is a trunked system that you were talking about.
A couple of my ham friends purchased some Alinco 220MHz rigs and bought the digital boards for them. They seem to need a solid S9+ signal to be able to be readable, otherwise it's garbage. Also, the same company now has some new radios with digital options and guess what...not compatible with the previous boards that my friends already have. A single company can't even release compatible hardware, so it's probably a tall order to ask multiple companies to collaborate on a standard.
I'd like to see everyone pick a standard and go with it. P-25 would be nice, since there will eventually be some commercial gear on the surplus market that could be put to use. The way I understand it though is that there are licensing costs associated with using p-25. That's why the decoder card for the Uniden scanners costs so much. It would be nice to get Apco to offer hams a license for free since we are non-commercial.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by K7IHC on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The reason why P-25 related radios (including the Uniden scanner digital cards) are so expensive, is that a small company called DVSI owns the patent/license for the IMBE vocoder. That device is the *heart* of the P-25 digital voice modulation format. DVSI makes considerable money from Motorola by licensing the IMBE technology for the ASTRO radio systems. Another added expense on the IMBE radios is the built-in error correction, which has some impressive capabilities in correcting packet errors in the digital transmissions.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We already have this happening now with analog radio. Just tune into 14.322 + - the 10 kc of splatter and try to decpiher that jibber jabber! It amazes me that they can even understand each other! I think they are speaking spanish, tough to tell at +135 db of compression with kids and dogs screaming and barking in the background along with the hurricane of the amplifier fan and signals so wide that FM is narrower! I think these are supposed to be SSB signals, but they have so much noise on them its as if they are on AM with a carrier! Imagine this mess on a digital rig. Probably would sound like someone trying to cut metal on a circular saw with a dull wood blade! Digital, analog, I cant imagine trying to make any sense out of that mess!
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE6I on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The amazing thing is that Icom/Yaesu/Kenwood can't even agree on an 8-pin mike jack with the same connectors. It's hard for me to imagine them all getting together and creating a compatible standard for digital ham radio, but I suppose you never know.
Does anyone know what the politics of this are among the Japanese ham manufacturers about coordinating this? We can spin our wheels here in the states and debate this, but won't the future of digital ham radio options be decided in Japan.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE6I on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, on the CB issue, I don't know about other parts of the country, but here in the SF Bay Area, CB is pretty quie, except for when the band is open, and then its filled with Spanish speaking stations. Don't know where these guys are, but I assume maybe down in LA or something. And, right now, the ARRL doesn't even make the license test aids in Spanish. So, there's no attempt to get those guys properly licensed at all.
Where is this huge hoard of people willing to take 'the too easy test' on CB anxious to get on the ham radio bands? The technician test isn't that hard and that already gives you 10Mssb. I assume the freebanders are mostly illiterate and unable to read due to the poor school system and will be stopped by any test requiring any kind of reading comprehension.
This is surprisingly common I've discovered. I've been at the DMV and have seen guys filling out their driver's written test like they were doing the lottery. Just marking answers and hoping for the best. Was a waste.
|
| |
|
RE: The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KE6I on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oops, sorry, that message got posted to the wrong topic.
|
| |
|
Just use CW
|
|
|
by WB4M on September 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you use CW, you wont need all the computers, tnc's, soundcards, programs, blackboxes, etc etc.. My paddles will keep me busy making contacts when all of your "digital" modes are kaput.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KC8PMM on September 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well,
One- the digital modes are NOT restricted to the digital parts of the spectrum. You can operate CW and others in the voice band. I would bet this will end up being another voice mode.
Two- Another mode is not a big deal. SSTV is not SSB, FM is not AM, Digital voice is not packet, etc.
Three- No big deal. Cost will probably keep us at a simple standard- like SSB and analog FM. Anyone who has owned a digital-only cell phone understands the limitations and frustrations of digital voice. It will be another feature on high-end rigs and nothing more for a long time.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by KC8PMM on September 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
P.S. It looks to me like it works the same as VOIP, except I would call it V-O-IP-O-SSB instead. It's basically a modem (or TNC) that converts your voice into packets and sends them to the other box to be decoded. Pretty neat. I think it's clever.
Can I use my HF TNC for this? I wonder if you could use software and your soundcard to do the same thing.
|
| |
|
The Future of Digital Radio
|
|
|
by W1GFD on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I am not the foremost authority on Digital HF being in public safety I am very familiar with VHF and UHF digital radio and allow me to say this doesn’t work well if at all. While the idea of digital radio is a good one allowing better and more efficient utilization of a band it is plagued with problems take for example the following real situations. A local unmanned fire department was testing out a new VHF digital radio system, operating on the departments existing frequency, which seemed to be working as promised with one major glitch when the department purchased a new fire engine in that whenever they transmitted the digital encoding interfered with the trucks onboard computer causing it to shut the truck down not good at all. Another situation I personally encountered was with the local National Guard CERT team armed with brand new $3000.00 portable radios, while conducting a WMD exercise I was assigned to the unified command post well about one hour into the exercise the commander of the command post asks me if I have contact with the scene as he couldn’t contact the scene (only 2 miles away) with his new digital radio. Now lets remember these are my experiences with digital radio and in my opinion the whole digital radio concept while very interesting is still in need of further R & D
73
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Your Own QSL Card Factory
Digital Modes on VHF/UHF
The Mystery of the Dixon Voice of America Relay Station
Helping New Hams Get Their Gear:
Name Calling and CB Radio
Other General Articles
eHam.net - server performance issues
USS Indianapolis CA-35 Radio Room
Lecher Wire Follow-Up
eHam Hiccup
Icom HM 98 or HM 133 Hand Mic Project
|
