[aprssig] Re: Another Source of Network Overload ?? -- SuperSUPERLAN

[Robert Bruninga]

>For an APRS specific superlan configuration, you only 
>need one D4-10 or equivalent for the transmitter.  As long 
>as going to all that effort, might as well do it right.

No, no no.  ALll kinds of problems with that statement.

1)That then makes people think that to make a super-site, 
   they have to go search at hamfests for a 10 year old "ideal" radio.

2) It implies that the Super-Site transmitter cannot be a D7 or
    D700, when in fact they are PERFECT for the job.

3) The SUPER-SITE is a 100% transmit only channel and
    does not need super fast turn-around at ALL!  This is not
    a connected systgem that needs ACKS!   It is APRS!

4) The speed of the TXD at a super-site is meaningless.
    You cannot use the super-fast D4 radio to any advantage
    whatsoever at a SUPER-SITE because NONE of the 
    10,000 users with the D7  or D700 could receive anything
   from it.

> I'm not knocking the Kenwoods (too much.)
> I'm begging for info that they (D700/D7/FT817) really work 
>at 9k6 with an external TNC.

I could care less.  Why would one want to spend an additional
$280 for an external 9600 TNC when the internal TNC works 
PERFECTLY for this application..

> I've been trying to get the point across for years since the 
>day at the DCC in Phoenix where the D700 was introduced 
>that it's so so so close to being an incredible system for all 
>packet and not just APRS.  

Well, I am perfectly happy to take something that is 90% of
PERFECT and in the hands of 10,000 APRS users and
get on with using them than wringing my hands about the
10% that makes them less than perfect for ***other***
applicatrions that aren't APRS anyway!

> We desperately need a frequency agile multiband radio 
>that really does 9k6 or better.  It's possible that, with the 
>external TNC, the D700/D7 is the best option out there. 

It would be an absolute waste.  Why take a $500 D700 
with internal TNC and with Internal APRS processing and with
GPS input and all that stuff designed to be APRS mobile, and 
then not use ANY OF THAT, and then add an external $280 TNC?
Seems a total waste to me of a perfectly good radio..

>A D700 with a built in TNC that worked would be a better 
>deal in many cases then the ICOM D-Star.

I think a SUPER-SITE APRS digi which is 100% compatible 
with the existing Kenwood's will be far, far more useful to
HAM radio (because it is what people have NOW) will be
far more "useful" to ham radio than the D-Star.

I am all for the D-STAR, but  if you think our ability to do
public service iis limited on APRS now because only 5% of
HAM radio operators use APRS, then imagine how useful
D-STAR is going to be when only 0.001% of HAMS have it?

If  you want speed, low cost, and everyone can contribute, then
HAMS should be working on 2.4 GHz stuff...

>The Kenwoods are like high performance sports cars...

Yes, and that is what they were designed to do.  They
weren't designed to be a Greayhoud Bus to carry loads
and loads of data.  They were designed for APRS...

>Maybe if Kenwood listened they'd have 20,000 or 30,000 radios in
>the field instead of only 10,000..  I know I'd want to buy two or
three.

I'd rather just tmove out and use it, than wasting all my time
arguing with all the nay-ayers that comnplain about how
less than perfect they are.   Design around their limitations,
instead of just complaining.  It is easy to do.  Just be mindful
of buffer length.  It is trivial.  Slightly slower, yes, but
it works and we have lots of them...

Bob