[aprssig] The East will Rise again! (at 9600?)(bands?)

[Robert Bruninga]

> EOCs already have issues with desense from multiple radios on 2M or UHF

Actually, I agree.  6 meters or 900 MHz would be ideal for the backbone.
Rememebr, these sites are very remote and will NOT have any local unlicensed
900 MHz junk in the near vicinity.  So they might actually work in the
Amateur allocation.  Any end points in propulated areas, however, will still
be problematic.

Is there any channel in our 902 MHz allocation that is NOT shared with all
the unlicensed stuff?

It all boils down to radios.  I suggested 2 meters only because we are all
sitting on stacks of them.  But I don’t like using any modern synthesized
radio at a remote site.  I prefer the old XTAL ones.

And there is a huge supply of low band 100W mobile rigs at every Hamfest
(or are the all gone by now)?  But the ones I have take too much pwer, and
are too big to operate from small solar...

Bob, Wb4APR

From: Brian D Heaton [mailto:ky9k-lists at ky9k.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 1:59 PM
To: Robert Bruninga; TAPR APRS Mailing List
Subject: Re: [aprssig] The East will Rise again! (at 9600?)

Why KPC9612s and 2M?

Commercial TNC/Node combos (KPC9612 and others) - Small computers are
available which can provide all the needed/desired functions and interface
to multiple TNCs or sound interfaces. Recent testing shows that QPSK/4800 is
quite reliable via a sound interface to a radio with a 9600 data port. 9600
is just a step up the chain from that. I expect xPSK (likely OQPSK or 8PSK)
rates of around 19200 are quite achievable. You can still use KPC9612s if
sticking to 9600.

Many (I will guess "the vast majority") of EOCs already have issues with
desense from multiple radios on 2M. If the supporting rationale that may
make more sites available is EMCOMM support, I would put the backbone links
on either 1.25M or 70cm with a preference for 1.25M. I would keep the
backbone frequency clear of users to avoid additional congestion and hidden
transmitters. Users could access on 2M/1.25M/70cm (whichever band the
backbone link(s) aren't running on) at either 1200 or 9600. Why kill
performance of an engineered and well adjusted backbone link/network with
user stations?

73-KY9K/Brian


On 5/5/2016 10:29, Robert Bruninga via aprssig wrote:
SAVE your KPC9612’s Boys, the East will RISE AGAIN!

The Golden Packet team is toying with the idea of making our annual
Appalachian mountain digipeater string from Maine to Georgia permament and
making it a 9600 baud network for emergency and ham radio disaster response
and play.  We already have 3 of the 14 sites with approval for
installations…

Lets face it, traditional packet networks are dead and although APRS is
alive and well, it is specific and only operates at 1200 baud.  Although all
fully integrated APRS radios work perfectly well at 1200 and 9600 baud, all
of the existing APRS network is 1200 because all the digipeaters (not
integrated APRS radios) operate at 1200 and the majority of all home APRS
stations and IGates use TNC’s that operate at 1200.  A huge legacy.
Besides, going to 9600 only barely doubles APRS speeds while degrading link
reliability.

So, since we have already shown for 6 years now, that this long 2000 mile
linear chain of mountains and valleys can support a 2000 mile network with
only 14 digis,  why not establish a long haul 9600 baud Node chain from
Maine to Georgia which could be a significant boost to Packet radio
emergency operations. The network would not operate as APRS digipeaters but
as KAnodes.   As we all knew back in the 1990’s link-by-link acknowledgment
was vastly superior to end-to-end.

We already have three sites in MD, and PA …  But we need more than hikers,
to get us access to some existing ham radio maintained sites.  We do NOT
want nodes to branch off down into the plains.  These nodes would bog down
the network.  No, the main backbone would be to support emergency operations
with beams that can point up to the mountains to pass traffic.

So, we are splashing this onto the APRSSIG to see if people have SITE access
and/or have unused 9600 baud KPC-9612’s to step up and lets see what we got.
Also will need a freq.  I’m thinking 145.01 but every time I think of it,
people give feedback, and I LOSE or forget the feedback as to what existing
systems are already on 145.01, such as DX clusters, etc…

Every day we get MORE AND MORE addicted to our wireless infrastructure,
which we all know, will be hard to access in a real emergency.  We need to
keep the Ham radio Plan-B alive…

Bob, WB4APR



_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at tapr.org
http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig