[aprssig] weak signal ISS packet

[Bill Vodall]

>>> I have access to a network that gives me 40 Mbps whenever I want it pretty much nationwide, in my pocket all the time. And it supports APRS, here are my recent travels on findU reported through ATT's LTE and 4G network.
>>
>> But is that Ham Radio?
>>
>> Personally I believe the best thing we could do for APRS is move the
>> APRS-IS from the Echolink model (clients allowed access from the
>> Internet) to the IRLP model (using Internet for linking only.)   It
>> wouldn't prevent access for folks with phones - but it would have to
>> be done differently.
>
> Geez, I thought I'd fought and won that battle in 1997! Yes the APRS-IS is ham radio. Connecting a client via the internet to APRS-IS is ham radio. You don't have to transmit on RF for something to be ham radio. Think Hamvention, club meetings, antenna parties, volunteering for ARRL, and many other things that don't involve RF.

In 1997 we had KPC-3 TNC's, 1200 baud data and digipeaters.   Cell
phones in 1997 were just getting started.  I think that was pre-data
and pre-flip phones.

Today, 18 years later, cell phones are 40 Mbps nationwide with LTE and
4G - multi-megapixel cameras, gigabytes of media on board and speech
recognition.   APRS is essentially still KPC-3 TNC's, 1200 baud data
and digipeaters..

Perhaps if we'd invested more time on the RF Radio network side we'd
have moved beyond technology that was outdated even in 1997.  That's
the point of my suggestion - doing it easiest way isn't the best for
the long run.

> But sure, let's make the system we have less useful than it is now. Great idea.

Internet clients wouldn't see any difference in functionality.  It's
just a different setup.

>> HamWAN in Seattle region is doing great things:   http://www.hamwan.org
>>
> Well, yes, but you would look kinda funny with a handheld device connected to a 2 foot wide antenna. Even funnier than those folks that take photos with their iPads.
>
> Something like this certainly has utility, linking fixed locations as a backup communications system, and it certain is good someone is using ham radio's upper frequency allocations before they get taken away. But really, is it APRS compatible, or something that could grow into being used as infrastructure for APRS?

It doesn't have to be 1200 baud AFSK to be APRS.  It doesn't have to
be TCP to the Internet APRS-IS to be APRS.   All our cool pads and
tablets can do APRS over TCP using Ham systems instead of the phone
company...    These systems (HamWan, EuroHamnet)  should be the core
of THE infrastructure for APRS...

>> EuroHAMNET from the DCC on HamRadioNow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuOqcYgOtg
>
> I'm not finding any quick summary of this,

Hams doing modern networking with modern technologies...

> I'll have to take your word that this is the APRS compatible system of which you spoke.

It's standard networking supporting any TCP/IP applications.  Where we
have APRS programs using standards they just work.

> Can you write a twenty word summary for those of us too AADD to sit through a youtube DCC presentation?

This is one DCC presentation worth watching..     It shows what can be
done building a independent networking using Ham ingenuity and modern
hardware and software.


> Something like "Seattle's HamWAN is an amateur network using commercial 802.11 equipment in the 5.9 Ghz band.
> It has very limited coverage and is not suitable for mobile or portable operations."

Coverage is actually quite impressive and I can see it working well
for portable operations...  Mobile operation has been attempted but
that's not a good fit (yet) for this technology.

FWIW - One of the premier regional Tier2 nodes is currently hosted on
HamWAN since it uses standard network technology.

>

I'm the biggest APRS fan in the house - it's the Ham digital
equivalent of what Facebook is for the rest of the world.  At least it
could be if we move forward with all the missing potential
functionality (email and bulletins, data files like the callsign
database, custom icons, software updates) - and that's why I see these
Internet clients as such distractions from what we could be doing.


> Steve K4HG


Bill, WA7NWP