Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Practical messaging on UHF/VHF?  (Read 19104 times)
WB8VLC
Member

Posts: 455




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2017, 11:16:51 AM »

A two way radio with color touch screen text messaging and moving map GPS display is not unheard of but from a realistic and more so from a monetary market  it'll never happen.

Me and another RF Engineer co-worker friend each had 2 gps enabled color touch screen mapping UHF radios in the ham bands with text messaging and FM two way radio with bluetooth headsets.

While testing the first design of the Garmin rino 750 uhf radios we changed out the stock gmrs/frs SAW filter for one for the lower end of the uhf ham band.

Unfortunately after running early very successful test around Northwest Oregon and Olathe Ks on simplex it took some local hams in Oregon who complained that the Rino modulation wasn't authorized in the ham bands so back our Rino's went to the gmrs/frs bands.

With our antiquated FCC regulatory agency and grumpy old hams unwilling to embrace new ideas such a product is a hard product to introduce.

We hams are our own worst enemy.
Logged
WB8VLC
Member

Posts: 455




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2017, 11:22:21 AM »

A two way radio with color touch screen text messaging and moving map GPS display is not unheard of but from a realistic and more so from a monetary market  it'll never happen.

Me and another RF Engineer co-worker friend each had 2 gps enabled color touch screen mapping UHF radios in the ham bands with text messaging and FM two way radio with bluetooth headsets.

The radios were capable with custom SW of working auto repeater offsets but having no repeater at our use too run our test we used simplex only.

While testing the first design of the Garmin rino 750 uhf radios we changed out the stock gmrs/frs SAW filter for one for the lower end of the uhf ham band.

Unfortunately after running early very successful test around Northwest Oregon and Olathe Ks on simplex it took some local hams in Oregon who complained that the Rino modulation wasn't authorized in the ham bands so back our Rino's went to the gmrs/frs bands.

With our antiquated FCC regulatory agency and grumpy old hams unwilling to embrace new ideas such a product is a hard product to introduce.

We hams are our own worst enemy.
Logged
KB2WIG
Member

Posts: 431




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2017, 01:01:43 PM »



Well, how true is it that the modulation is ' illegal ' on the frequency band you tested on?

If it's legal, why are you upset that others don't like it or are ignorant?. If it is "illegal ", why don't you and your friend  try to change  the regs.... maybe even ask here for support? It sounds like a good application.


KLC
Logged

EXTRALight  1/3 less WPM than a Real EXTRA
WB8VLC
Member

Posts: 455




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2017, 03:38:26 PM »

It wasn't from our concern with being illegal but more with some locals who started rumors which halted our tests, actually it turned us off to any further dealing with local Oregon VHF/UHF good old boy ham users.

Actually from cfr 47, Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE§97.307  operation of data in the 440-450MHz band.

 Emission standards.part F (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c)  for uhf 70 cm which then references section §97.307(f), paragraph:6 an 8.

From 97.307 (f) paragraph 6: A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in §97.309(b) of this part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz.

In our test using the 440-450 band our data format was 300 baud taking up considerably less than a typical voice channel and in fact wholly contained within a narrower 12.5 K channel.

The complainers only complained when they realized that they wouldn't have total control over our testing.

The locals didn't want the 2 new RF ENG arrivals doing any testing on their own without their co-ordination of time and locations even though we used .5 watts on a uhf simplex frequency.

All of this hurt a lot of egos in locals more than any true concern for adhering to fuzzy rules.

These were some of the same local good old boy hams who previously complained when we used P25 ON 446.025 and then 446.0125 which is not used around here, all the time they started the rumor that P25 being a public safety format was illegal on the ham bands, in the end we found out that they felt threatened by our 2 man tests and were concerned that we would distract other users from their DSTAR and Fusion systems.

In the end we stopped using VHF and UHF frequencies because of the local kilocycle know-it-all cops.

So much for paving new methods and experimenting in ham radio.

  
.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 03:44:21 PM by WB8VLC » Logged
KD2HPQ
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2018, 03:03:21 PM »

The other side of the story to the brain dead HT premise is the brain dead user base.    How many posts do you see in online forums by hams confused and bewildered by the most rudimentary of radio features?   Programming in a PL or saving a memory is a traumatic experience.  So as a manufacturer, do you create a groundbreaking innovative product for a user base that can barely work ON-OFF?  It's not technology that's stuck, it's the users.    Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on cell phone development, because there's millions of users there that will spend real money.   Hams are cheap, with a short attention span.  I feel grateful enough there are those out there like K1JT that donate their time and talent to give us modes and capabilities that are even moderately technically contemporary.  The future of radio is a DC-daylight ADC and an open source back end.  From there all bands, all modes and all protocols are possible.  That's where the rest of the world is going, and with any luck someone will repurpose or introduce hardware that (some) hams can use and develop going forward.

Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM

Mark, you can count me among the brain dead, but not because I'm stupid. I hold a PhD in chemistry. I've taken math and physics. I passed the tech exam after studying for like 3 hours (at age 58) (the General took effort, though). I'm not an idiot but I was not born knowing how to program my first handheld, a Baofeng whose manual was indecipherable. My entry to HF was delayed because of all the conflicting information out there.

The handhelds out there are pathetic, me-too products. There's so much innovation they're ignoring. I'm not an EE but from the advances I've seen in computing over the last 30 years there should be no reason we could not have full touch screen, bluetooth, unlimited memories, built-in cw, in a package about the size of a cell phone for all-mode 2m/440 operation. The major manufacturers should stop making all their crappy little expensive black bricks and focus on one handheld device that fully exploits modern technology. My phone does 10x more things than any amateur radio and I've never even seen the manual.

The tinkerers and DIYs can still pull their own copper wire if they like. But there's no law that says everything about amateur radio has to be an ordeal.

Logged
AA2UK
Member

Posts: 752




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2018, 05:40:04 PM »

http://rfinder.shop/product/rfinder-m1du/
Bill, AA2UK
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2848




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 11:08:02 AM »

Quote
That's because the majority of cell phone's are subsidized by the carriers. Amateur Radio has no subsidies there's no re-occurring revenue to be generated unlike cell phones.
Bill, AA2UK

That's baloney.

Go look at a Raspberry Pi.  It is basically the "guts" of the cell phone minus some of the radio features.  It is 35 dollars and it gets more capable every year.  You can also price the add-ons yourself.  432 MHz (!!) is available, widely for about 35 dollars.  Not much wattage, of course, but still there.  Bluetooth built-in.  Wireless internet, built-in.  Basic camera, add about 20 dollars.  Touch screen display 20 to 40 dollars.

The basic "guts" of a low to intermediate cell phone costs about 100 dollars.  And that's in quantity one, hobbyist quantities.

What's missing is that we aren't insisting on this stuff.  But, take heart, the Millenials will.  Because not only do they already have all this on their cell phone, they are also the "maker" community and know the same pricing I do.

It would not take 500 dollars to have an HT with the cited features.  Not even close.  
Logged
KB1GIM
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: Today at 09:18:42 AM »

I agree that open source hardware and software are likely to be more and more important for amateur operation. These folks are doing some interesting stuff: https://openrepeater.com.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!