[aprssig] weak signal ISS packet

[Kenneth Finnegan]

> Lastly...  With the advent of various digital voice modes, why the heck are we
> not moving Packet/APRS forward to use faster but robust modulation schemes
> and methods?

To be fair, I've talked to groups who have built out 9600 baud VHF,
100kbps UHF, and 20Mbps 5.9GHz city-wide data coverage that supports
APRS, so these advancements do exist, but without a national frequency
and coverage, they tend not to be a big deal.

As Bob recently pointed out, if we can't get hams to correctly
configure their Amateur Bell 202 modems, how do we expect them to fair
with something like QAM modems? There is still a TON of low-hanging
fruit in Amateur Bell 202 throughput that we just need to identify and
fix in the existing network.

I suspect that APRS will grow to fill any throughput you give it. Give
people a 100kbps channel, and they want to be able to attach custom
icons to their posits. Give them 10Mbps, and they want to see
guaranteed delivery of every NMEA sentence out of their GPS. APRS
isn't keeping you from playing with newer digital modes, but given the
HUGE amount of infrastructure, and how well 1200bps really meets the
legitimate applications of APRS, I don't see us moving to a new modem.
--
Kenneth Finnegan
http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/