[aprssig] 9600 Baud Packet Network?

Sun Jun 12 19:59:22 EDT 2016

Exactly ditch 9600

-----------------------------
Sent from my iPhone
Andrew Rich
vk4tec at tech-software.net
www.tech-software.net
0419 738 223

> On 13 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Ev Tupis via aprssig <aprssig at tapr.org> wrote:
> 
> We should be embracing XoIP (where X=Voice, Video, RF, etc.)
> 
> For example, Ubiquiti WiFi equipment can operate on the 2.4 GHz Amateur band.  Put a good amp (http://www.ebay.com/itm/8W-2-4Ghz-802-11n-b-g-Wifi-Wireless-Amplifier-Router-Signal-Booster-antenna-/361336938646) on 'em and ... woooo hoooo ... BROADBAND HAM! ;-)
> 
> Ev, W2EV
> 
> 
> From: vk2tv via aprssig <aprssig at tapr.org>
> To: aprssig at tapr.org 
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 5:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600 Baud Packet Network?
> 
> If we learned anything from the days of packet radio, it should be that nothing will get off the ground in any meaningful way if users have to build something, or modify radios to make them work at higher speeds. 1k2 survived so well because existing external connectors could be used to get audio to/from the radio. 9k6 would probably stand a reasonable chance of getting up today because 9k6 ready radios are available. To go beyond 9k6 would require <insert speed> ready radios off the shelf.
> Regards,
> Ray vk2tv
> 
>> On 13/06/16 03:47, Andrew Rich via aprssig wrote:
>> Why don't you use PPM pulse position modulation at 1 MHz
>> 
>> Like the big boys use
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Stephen H. Smith via aprssig
>> Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2016 10:53 PM
>> To: Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu>; TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig at tapr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600 Baud Packet Network?
>> 
>> On 6/12/2016 3:57 AM, Robert Bruninga via aprssig wrote:
>>> We are not using our 9600 Baud Radios well!
>>> 
>>> What kind of external processor could we plug into the back of a 9600 
>>> baud APRS radio with built-in TNC to make it function as a NETROM node?
>> Not very practical.  The internal TNC would have to operate in KISS mode to allow an external processor get at the raw packets. Given the notorious unreliability of the KISS mode in many APRS radios, this is dubious at best.
>> 
>>> What could we do with it?  All I remember about NETROMS were something like this:
>>> 1) You could connect to any node and see what it could connect to.
>>> 2) Then you could connect to anyone in the net
>>> 3) Such as their PBBS
>> Except for a few DX packet clusters, There is virtually no packet 
>> infrastructure left.  Conventional connected packet (and BBS systems) were 
>> killed off by Internet email in the 1990s, cellular  text messaging in the 
>> 2000s, and full internet access on cell phones in the late 2000s/early 2010s.
>> 
>> Remember, it was all those abandoned TNCs, left over when the connected packet 
>> era of the '80s died, that were the foundation of APRS........
>> 
>>> 4) where you could see their message list
>>> 5) And then read any of their messages.
>>> 
>>> 6) Could a message be a FILE???
>>> 7) And a file could be a small picture?
>>> 
>>> 8) And JPG cameras now cost peanuts
>> These cheap cameras are USB-based and require massive software stacks provided 
>> by real operating systems like Windows, Linux, iOS or Android.   Not something 
>> you are going to run on a PIC-class controller.
>> 
>>> 9) THey could plug into the same extrnal processor!
>> Which is now going to have to be essentially a "real" PC with a real operating 
>> system.
>> 
>>> 10) Now I can see what you are seeing!
>> Even a small JPG image file is HUGE (i.e. 10s or 100s of K) compared to the 
>> bare ASCII text files of the packet messaging heydays that were at most a few 
>> hundred bytes.
>> 
>> I once tried transferring a 320x240 SSTV-like image over packet.  With all the 
>> back and forth transmit-ack-transmit-ack hand-shaking on each few hundred 
>> bytes, it took over 15 minutes to send one image.  And that was direct 
>> radio-to-radio without the overhead of digipeaters, nodes, etc.
>> 
>>> We have the radios, we have the sites,
>> What sites???
>> 
>> 
>>> but we are not using our 9600 baud
>>> capabilties at all.
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking it does need to be seamless with the existing NETROM, THENET, KA
>>> node archetecture for the long haul links so we can use a lot of our existing
>>> stuff.
>> What "existing stuff".   Classic packet is dead - the infrastructure isn't 
>> there anymore....
>> 
>>> Hummh...
>>> Bob, WB4APR
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20160613/ab689faa/attachment.html>