matthew@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (73550000) (02/16/88)
The topic of license-free packet radio has been floating around for some time. Several ideas have come and gone, including the 52-54 MHz "reallocation" and the use of 49 MHz license free bands. Why not class D CB (27 MHz)... The power limit on this band is sufficient to set up a reasonable packet network (i.e. doesn't require lots of close-together low-power nodes). The radios are cheap (<$60) and come with simple speaker and microphone connectors, suitable for connecting a comercially available TNC. The bandwidth available is sufficient to support at least the 300 baud HF modem standard, and almost certainly will also support the standard VHF 1200 baud (202) standard. The channels already exist and, even better, already sound as bad as packet channels would to voice users. Contrary to popular belief, packet WILL work on AM. In fact, it may work better than voice on the same channel, because heterodynes with existing carriers are usually NOT within the modem filter bandpass. A reasonable license-free packet network seems to be needed, and, setting it up on existing personal radio channels would alleviate complaints from users of other spectrum space (such as amateurs) that would otherwise be reallocated to provide for such a service. The only restriction that currently exists is FCC Part 95.627 which states that: d) Digital emmissions are not permitted in the GMRS or the CB radio service. e) The transmission of data is prohibited in the Personal Radio Services. --- I am interested in finding out what other opinions exist regarding the expansion of CB to include digital packet radio. Certainly if enough people are interested, the FCC can be persuaded to modify these existing regulations. Please indicate your opinion by posting, or by e-mail. Thanks, Matthew Kaufman matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu, ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucsck!matthew
kludge@pyr.gatech.EDU (Scott Dorsey) (02/16/88)
In article <1983@saturn.ucsc.edu> matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu (Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG) writes: >The topic of license-free packet radio has been floating around for >some time. Several ideas have come and gone, including the 52-54 MHz >"reallocation" and the use of 49 MHz license free bands. >Why not class D CB (27 MHz)... I don't know just what the present status of the Class C frequencies are, but they are definitely available for digital communication. I don't know if this is limited to remote control applications or not, but it might be possible to consider a packet radio installation as a remote control device (hook it up to a BSR X-10, etc... :-)). Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge SnailMail: ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Tech, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 "To converse at the distance of the Indes by means of sympathetic contrivances may be as natural to future times as to us is a literary correspondence." -- Joseph Glanvill, 1661 Internet: kludge@pyr.gatech.edu uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
cep4478@ritcv.UUCP (Christopher E. Piggott) (02/17/88)
I think that this is an excellent idea, and would be marketable mostly to sub-personal computer (i.e. C64, Atari-800) people rather than CB people. It would take a lot of work, though, to revive a social clique of buletin- board systems which has turned almost entirely to <14yr olds. However, CB's in the $40-60 range are usually automobile radios (correct me if I'm wrong in your part of the country) and would require a further complication: a power supply. Not much to a HAM, who could build one out of a few rubber bands and a paper clip, but most people would have to buy one. Minor point, still. Now, a question: I was once told that the sunspot period relative to CB radios is about 40 years, and that we are now on the upside of the curve. I was told that this means in about 10 years the range we will get from C.B. will be at least quadruple what it is now. Is this true? Christopher E. Piggott ritcv!cep4478@ROCHESTER.ARPA cep4478@ritcv.UUCP cep4478@RITVAXA.BITNET (emergency use only! forwarded to ritcv)
ccs016@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Patrick Tully pstully@ucdavis) (02/18/88)
In article <1983@saturn.ucsc.edu> matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu (Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG) writes: > > >The only restriction that currently exists is FCC Part 95.627 >which states that: >d) Digital emmissions are not permitted in the GMRS or the CB radio service. >e) The transmission of data is prohibited in the Personal Radio Services. >--- >I am interested in finding out what other opinions exist regarding >the expansion of CB to include digital packet radio. Certainly if >enough people are interested, the FCC can be persuaded to modify >these existing regulations. > >Please indicate your opinion by posting, or by e-mail. > >Thanks, >Matthew Kaufman >matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu, ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucsck!matthew I use CB extensively. I do not have my ticket yet, but do hope to in the future. I would really like to see a packet allowed on 27 mhz. I started a radio club awhile ago, we are very interested in packet, ham and other radio aspects, however, the money and living conditions limit most of the members from moving on. A license free packet operation would for sure get more people started. My vote is yes, and I can say that so is the vote of our radio club. * Patrick Tully RFD1 * RADIO FREE DAVIS -- cheap radio operation * {{seismo|ihnp4!}lll-crg|sdcsvax|{decvax!}ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs016 * pstully@ucdavis BITNET
ccs016@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Patrick Tully pstully@ucdavis) (02/18/88)
In article <210@ritcv.UUCP> cep4478@ritcv.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > >Now, a question: I was once told that the sunspot period relative to CB >radios is about 40 years, and that we are now on the upside of the curve. >I was told that this means in about 10 years the range we will get from >C.B. will be at least quadruple what it is now. Is this true? > > Christopher E. Piggott I've heard this too. I believe it is true. The peak should start somewhere around 1991. This is also the time when California is suppose to have another predicted drought. Which makes sense because the last highest CB activity was from 1976 to 1978 and this was the years when California had its drought. I know that the time interval from the last skip activity to 1991 is not 40 years, but what was experienced in 1976 to 1978 was a shorter skip cycle. (~10 years) From my observations, CB also experiences a smaller scip cycle around 23 days (around there) The skip activity during 1976 - 1978 from what I've been told by people was great, but made talking local impossible. The conditions during those years made many people interested in CB, but also forced a lot of people to stop using radios. So, I'm guessing that around 1991 the skip conditions will be better on CB than 1976-1978, but they will also force many people off the radio. Presently on 27 mhz the skip is rolling in. This fits with the 23 day summer type day cycle. (warm afternoons, lots of sun). It has been this way for about 4 days. From Northern California people from the east coast are easily heard in the morining through 5pm, then people from the southern western states and Canada our heard, and at around 6:30 Hawaii and Australia are heard for only about 30 to 40 minutes. And around 7:00 or 7:300 the airwaves are dead. This experimenting was done on Side band using a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal. * Patrick Tully * {{seismo|ihnp4!}lll-crg|sdcsvax|{decvax!}ucbvax}!ucdavis!pstully * pstully@ucdavis BITNET
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (02/18/88)
In article <1983@saturn.ucsc.edu> matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu (Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG) writes: > >The topic of license-free packet radio has been floating around for >some time. Several ideas have come and gone, including the 52-54 MHz >"reallocation" and the use of 49 MHz license free bands. The 1st of which will happen on a cold day in HELL, the second is not a useful option due to the range of the devices available and... >Why not class D CB (27 MHz)... ..this suggestion, while it might seem reasonable is actually not. Some of us have tried this and while it *does* work, the amount of hate 'n' discontent it generates would not endear such packet users to the rest of the CB community! >The power limit on this band is sufficient to set up a reasonable >packet network (i.e. doesn't require lots of close-together low-power nodes). The power "limits" are seldom enforced, and you will find that in metropolitian areas like L.A. and such, seldom observed. I.E.-noone will hear you @ 5 w. >The radios are cheap (<$60) and come with simple speaker and microphone >connectors, suitable for connecting a comercially available TNC. With good reason, the radios are not very selective and have little in the way of sensitivity. FM would be better, but F3E is illegal on 11 meters. >The bandwidth available is sufficient to support at least the 300 baud >HF modem standard, and almost certainly will also support the standard >VHF 1200 baud (202) standard. 1200 works fine on a clear channel, AM or SSB. On a crowded channel only SSB will get your packets across without a very large number of retrys. >The channels already exist and, even better, already sound as bad as >packet channels would to voice users. No comment. >Contrary to popular belief, packet WILL work on AM. In fact, it may >work better than voice on the same channel, because heterodynes >with existing carriers are usually NOT within the modem filter bandpass. Yes, it will work, but the hetrodynes cause retries, many retries. >A reasonable license-free packet network seems to be needed, and, >setting it up on existing personal radio channels would alleviate >complaints from users of other spectrum space (such as amateurs) >that would otherwise be reallocated to provide for such a service. Oh phooey! Stop sniveling, and go study a little! The Novice ticket is well within the reach of anyone who wants it. There are Amateur Radio Clubs around that will bendover backwards to assist you in doing so. >The only restriction that currently exists is FCC Part 95.627 >which states that: >d) Digital emmissions are not permitted in the GMRS or the CB radio service. >e) The transmission of data is prohibited in the Personal Radio Services. And with good reason! Study packet a little closer and you will notice that improperly used, packet can cause a tremendous amount of interference. The use of such equipment by completly untrained users would be difficult to actually justify on the International level. Everything the FCC does is fuel for those that participate at the WARC's..you're asking for blood. >I am interested in finding out what other opinions exist regarding >the expansion of CB to include digital packet radio. Certainly if The Amateur community stands ready to welcome you and all others as fellow operators...anytime you are ready to get serious. The expansion of CB radio, is something the FCC will only laugh at. It's been proposed several times. Some of the proposals have included such things as: A) Expansion of class D 11 meter CB from 27.405Mhz to 27.995. mixed modes. B) 27.410-27.510 A3J voice, F3E voice 27.515-27.715 and AX25a Packet only from 27.720-27.995 using F2/3/E. C) A new class of service, from 27.410-27.510, for AX25a Packet only, using F2/3E. (i.e. "CB Packet" but with a license!) As an Amateur, I can tell you that the majority of such schemes will *NEVER* garner a shred of support from the Amateur ranks because of the attitude that exists on CB. Look at the hassle that SSB users get/give to/from the AM users. Better still is the use of the "funny freqs"...there must be 40-50 times a week in L.A. that someone figures that since they don't "hear" anyone using the region between 28.0 and 28.2, that it's ok for them to have a nice FM QSO with their Trucker-buddies on their 'Rangers'...number 1: Most of these jerks don't know the difference between CW and fly-to-the-moon. The fact that some of us are indeed having a CW-QSO on 28.150 (right where they fire-up!) is of no interest to them, after all, they bought the radio! It *CAME* with the frequencies! Therefore... number 2: The number of existing radios that are equipped with A.M.-only...bad news is most CB users hate SSB, because they dont have it..more 'Low-buck mentality'. I would favor Frequency expansion (ala item B) if: 1) the radios were equipped in such a way that no firther expansion of the frequency range were possible. Use a rom-based composite PLL/VCO chip that has NO equal for replacement, MANDATE unusual I.F. freqs and no "extra" lines to play with. Make that sucker 99.9% impossible to expand! Cast the boards in epoxy or something like that. 2) the stations were Registered/Licensed. Nothing expensive, just a simple form which insures a better attitude by the users of the frequencies, and a unique callsign identifier for your packet-headers. 3) That the FCC could have an enforcement budget to police violators. Like: a) The LIDS that decide to play music, curse or jam. b) The 'LinearLids', who think 1Kw operation is "cool". c) The jokers who insist on running out-of-band, mixed mode, or who refuse identify their stations. d) The clowns that modify CB gear to encroach on the Amateur 10 meter band. Send these guys to jail for 10+ years! >enough people are interested, the FCC can be persuaded to modify these existing regulations. Don't count on it! Amateur Radio is what it is because everyone involved has a vested interest in keeping the 'GoodBuddy' types from overrunning the bands, the FCC's enforcement budget is almost nil, expansion that does not provide for the safeguards listed above has no chance. Period. You want more? CB radio is a sewer, the majority of CB users are braindead, burntout Kids that have so little to do with their miserable lives they congragate around the 11 meter band hoping for any kind of amusement. Just try cleaning it up, I did. I managed to interest 7 people to UPGRADE to Novice tickets..you can do the same. -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **
mrapple@uop.edu (Nick Sayer) (02/19/88)
Just to ask, what would you people think of allowing F3E type modulation on 27 Mhz? If nothing else, the capture effect would work wonders, I think. It's probably not likely that all of 11m would convert, but I think at least ALLOWING F3E on Ch 30-40 and allowing ASCII/Baudot digital codes on Ch 35-40 would be a pretty good idea (the latter in response to the discussion in progress). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Sayer | Packet Radio: N6QQQ @ WA6RDH | CMS: SYSOP@STOKTON%STOCKTON uucp: ...!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!mrapple | Fido: 161/31 Disclaimer: You didn't REALLY believe that, did you? cat flames > /dev/null
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (02/20/88)
In article <1175@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs016@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (Patrick Tully pstully@ucdavis) writes: > I've heard this too. I believe it is true. The peak should start >somewhere around 1991. This is also the time when California is suppose Why not look at the ARRL Long Range Prediction charts? Real Radio Scientists have spent years developing this stuff, it might surprise you..and BTW most of the rumor-legends of CB are vaporware, this is another case of same. > This experimenting was done on Side band using a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal. "Side band"??? "a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal"?? Would you mind explaining these strange terms? Yagi's *are* beams. Some have 3 elements...these are the kind of communication problems that prevail in the 27 Mhz universe.. ..my suggestion, Mr. Tulley, is to actually concentrate on learning the real terminology, then some basic theory. If you've got any time left, try some Morse code practice. If you're very lucky, you might just pass your Novice ticket - but not if you insist on clinging to this CB folklore like a security blanket! Give it up! It's worthless. As far as Packet on CB goes, read my posting to that other technotwit on 'sci.electronics', there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that the FCC will grant *ANY* additional freqs or perks to the 11 meter crowd, so grow up! Get into real radio... -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **
jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) (02/21/88)
<...what would you people think of allowing F3E type modulation on 27 Mhz?> What do I think? I think CBers would be up in arms as soon as they discovered they'd have to give up every other channel in order to support the bandwidth needed. I think they should be going the other direction -- make AM rigs illegal, only allow SSB, and double the number of available channels. :::::: Software Productivity Technologies --- Smalltalk Project :::::: :::::: Jan Steinman N7JDB Box 500, MS 50-470 (w)503/627-5881 :::::: :::::: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 :::::: -- (Stamp out facist .signature restrictions!)
mrapple@uop.edu (Nick Sayer) (02/23/88)
Come on, let's have a rational discussion here. You have made the point already that it is easier to get a Novice ticket than it is to get into the average college fraternity (this is true...). There is no reason to go on and on about it. Getting antagonistic doesn't help anything. It just sends a message to non-hams that we are an elitist society with our noses higher than our scalp-rugs. Unfortunately, some actions the ARRL take help to give this impression. They don't need your help to give us more bad press. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Sayer | Packet Radio: N6QQQ @ WA6RDH | CMS: SYSOP@STOKTON%STOCKTON uucp: ...!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!mrapple | Fido: 161/31 Disclaimer: You didn't REALLY believe that, did you? cat flames > /dev/null
will@ge-rtp.GE.COM (Will Gwaltney) (02/23/88)
In article <1960@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: > In article <1175@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs016@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (Patrick Tully pstully@ucdavis) writes: > > > This experimenting was done on Side band using a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal. > > "Side band"??? "a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal"?? Would you mind explaining > these strange terms? Yagi's *are* beams. Some have 3 elements...these are > the kind of communication problems that prevail in the 27 Mhz universe.. > ..my suggestion, Mr. Tulley, is to actually concentrate on learning the > real terminology, then some basic theory. If you've got any time left, try > some Morse code practice. If you're very lucky, you might just pass your (more "suggestions" deleted) Way to go, Erik. You've just shown Patrick what an open, helpful, friendly fraternity the ham radio community is :-). Seriously Patrick, there is a LOT you can learn from ham radio, and there are a LOT of friendly, open people out there who will be more than happy to help you. Hams are (justifiably) proud of their hobby, but that shouldn't keep them from helping other non-ham radio enthusiasts. Venom aside, Erik's advice is sound. Get an amateur license and REALLY start enjoying radio! I'm glad I did. -- Will Gwaltney | Usenet: will@ge-rtp.GE.COM or GE Microelectronics Ctr. | ...!mcnc!ge-rtp!will Box 13049 MD 7T2-01 | RTP, NC 27709 | The Ether: N4PGG (Advanced or bust!)
bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) (02/25/88)
In article <357@ge-rtp.GE.COM>, will@ge-rtp.GE.COM (Will Gwaltney) writes: > Venom aside, > Erik's advice is sound. Get an amateur license and REALLY start > enjoying radio! I'm glad I did. > I agree with the comments in this reply except for one. And this seems to be the most prevalent idea every time the concept of license free packet is brought up. Everyone immediately jumps in here and says "Get your HAM license". Of course they are missing what is probably the biggest point in the whole discussion. The people asking for a Personal Digital Radio Service don't want to be hams. They have no interest in ham radio and probably the most important idea being missed here is that what they want to use packet for would be illegal over amateur radio. Take a look at what is on the various phone BBS's. They are loaded with shareware, for sale ads, and advertisements for various commercial products. All things definitely out of place on amateur radio. One of the items always brought up when people try to justify the continued existence of amateur radio is the idea of what we were originally chartered to do. And one of these is to develop new means of communication. It now seems like the majority of hams have decided we are developing this stuff for our own personal use. I believe it was hams who pioneerd such technological breakthrus like SSB, FM, and REPEATERS. These ideas have since proven their value in the commercial world and are now considered just a part of the world we live in. The time has come for packet to take it's place in the world too. There is no reason why, in a few years, it can't be commonplace for there to be a packet box hooked up to the PC in every house. Maybe this is the technology it will take to finally bring services like TELETEXT into the home. Any comments on this diatribe will be accepted. (I have my NOMEX underwear on :-) #include <std_disclaimer.h> bill gunshannon UUCP: {philabs}\ US SNAIL: Martin Marietta Data Systems {phri } >!trotter.usma.edu!bill USMA, Bldg 600, Room 26 {sunybcs}/ West Point, NY 10996 RADIO: KB3YV PHONE: WORK (914)446-7747 AX.25: KB3YV @ K3RLI PHONE: HOME (914)565-5256
matthew@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (73550000) (02/26/88)
In article <1170@trotter.usma.edu> bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > ... The people asking for a Personal Digital Radio Service >don't want to be hams. They have no interest in ham radio and probably the >most important idea being missed here is that what they want to use packet for >would be illegal over amateur radio. Take a look at what is on the various >phone BBS's. They are loaded with shareware, for sale ads, and advertisements >for various commercial products. All things definitely out of place on amateur Right. Two Comments... First, that is EXACTLY why I would like to see a personal packet network using some frequencies other than amateur. There are LOTS of things that I can legally talk about on CB that I can't talk about on amateur radio such as business communications, etc... In fact, one probably couldn't read most of these articles on an amateur packet channel due to their contents. Secondly, the reason that I proposed CB channels instead of some NEW set of channels, is that it is very unlikely that any new VHF/UHF channels are available for a public packet network. I would prefer the top part of CB being taken for packet, instead of the top part of 6 meters. Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG (matthew@ucsck.ucsc.edu) (...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucsck!matthew) p.s. I started this discussion about allowing packet on CB... please don't tell me to go out and get a ham license... I already have one. Thank You.
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (02/26/88)
In article <1170@trotter.usma.edu> bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > >I agree with the comments in this reply except for one. And this seems to be >..................... The people asking for a Personal Digital Radio Service >don't want to be hams. They have no interest in ham radio and probably the >most important idea being missed here is that what they want to use packet for >would be illegal over amateur radio. Take a look at what is on the various >phone BBS's. They are loaded with shareware, for sale ads, and advertisements >for various commercial products. All things definitely out of place on amateur >radio. Real good. *NOW* we come to the crux of the matter. 1) NOT INTERESTED IN AMATEUR RADIO. 2) COMMERCIAL INTERESTS THAT PRECLUDE THE USE OF SAME Sounds like what these guys need is a telephone, huh? What they're asking for is all the flexibility of Amateur without those nasty restrictions, tough. Until some astronomical occurance, this is not gonna happen. The use of radio spectrum, as an experimenters hobby-zone is defined as Amateur Radio Service, what they want is Commercial or Fixed Service. BTW: It usually costs more than a telephone. And has some nasty restrictions about not competing with the telephone system, etc. >I believe it was hams who pioneerd such technological breakthrus like SSB, >FM, and REPEATERS. These ideas have since proven their value in the commercial >world and are now considered just a part of the world we live in. The time has >come for packet to take it's place in the world too. There is no reason why, >in a few years, it can't be commonplace for there to be a packet box hooked up >to the PC in every house. Maybe this is the technology it will take to finally >bring services like TELETEXT into the home. Yeah, right. Well, why not just get a cell-phone portable @ 800 Mhz and plug in your modem, plug in your P.C. and wail??!!! Or is the real point here the cost of doing exactly that?? The breakthrus that opened shortwave were indeed pioneered by Amateurs, in fact the whole spectrum from 200 meters down was ours at one time. The commercial interests put their stations into the HF bands ILLEGALLY! No fines were issued, noone went to jail tho...typical of the political machine to "sell off" something they don't own or have already "given" rights to...without recompensation. Absurd. Hey, if a cellular fone is too expensive, I guess they'll just have to rely on the twisted-pair, huh? Teletext is already in a lot of homes, via the phone lines, you don't need packet radio for that; it's a commercial service provider, and you pay for such things. At least according to the current FCC regs. Hell man, we can't order a pizza via auto-patch! Why should unlicensed individuals be exempted from the spirit of the laws?? Go ahead, explain. > >Any comments on this diatribe will be accepted. >(I have my NOMEX underwear on :-) Nahh, come on OM, we're all in this together; besides I used up my monthly supply of <<FLAMES!>> on those CB nerds! ;-) The fact is the telephone Co. monopoly precludes such things, the Amateur's are not gonna let one Hz of bandwidth get sucked-up for such stuff, and the CB community would start tearing 27 Mhz packet-ops a new rectum the first time they heard a BRAZAPPP! -it's a no-win proposition! The real stickler is the commercial interests on the dial-up BBS's, this has no place in a hobbyist-radio service, licensed or not..unless...you wanna open a bigger can of worms...and start looking at (DRUM ROLL PLEASE!): P A Y C B....! UGH, shades of GMRS! (spatooie!) The BBS interests that offer products for profit would then be taxed at some horrible rate to offset the public-trust of being allocated spectrum space..just like the telephone company..oops! What about that? Is Ma Bell (and those 6.02 x 10EE23 de-monopolized locals) gonna stand for such a run for their money?? The answer is (MAY I HAVE THE ENVELOPE?): "not bloody likely!". So, you see, the interests against such things as this are mostly the commercial status-quo, the Amateur community is almost a "friend" by comparison! ;-) -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **
byrnes@ge-dab.GE.COM (Arthur J. Byrnes) (02/27/88)
In article <1960@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes: >In article <1175@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs016@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (Patrick Tully pstully@ucdavis) writes: > Why not look at the ARRL Long Range Prediction charts? Real Radio Scientists >have spent years developing this stuff, it might surprise you..and BTW most >of the rumor-legends of CB are vaporware, this is another case of same. > >> This experimenting was done on Side band using a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal. > > "Side band"??? "a 3 beamed yagi, horizontal"?? Would you mind explaining >these strange terms? Yagi's *are* beams. Some have 3 elements...these are >read my posting to that other technotwit on 'sci.electronics', there isn't ^^^^^^^^^ I think that your comments to Mr. Tully are childish and uncalled for. It is attitudes like your's that turn many potential Hams away from the hobby. All of the terms that Patrick used are acceptable in everyday conversation and are heard on the ham bands daily. Had he been writing a term paper or thesis, then the flames would be vaild, but this group is informal (remember REC.ham-radio ?). I think that a posted apology is in order. >or perks to the 11 meter crowd, so grow up! Get into real radio... Good Advice!^^^^^^^^ Reread his message ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ from the text of Patrick's message it seems that he and his group are "into real radio" they get out of it what they want, and that is the most important part of any hobby. >-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Past President Daytona Beach Amateur Radio Asoc. Arthur J. Byrnes KA4WDK UUCP: ...!mcnc!ge-rtp!ge-dab!byrnes General Electric GEnet: advax::byrnes 1800 Volusia Ave, Rm 4412 Voice: +1 904 258 2507 Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Disclaimer; These views are those only of the author, Arthur.
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (02/28/88)
Looking out the window at the overcast, a thought comes to me.
Diffuse infrared systems have been built that work quite well indoors,
bouncing the signal off ceilings and walls so that line of sight is
not required. Why not try diffuse infrared off the cloud deck as a
scheme for short-range outdoor communications? Ranges of a few blocks
might be possible. One could extend this with repeaters. There would
be fading during good weather conditions, but in areas with smog and haze,
the atmosphere may never be transparent enough to prevent operation.
Laser safety standards should not be a problem, since the beam is
diffused very widely and the peak energy per unit area, the regulated quantity
for lasers, will thus be very low. Detection will require heavy filtering,
both optical and electronic, but with narrow-band optical interference
filters, negative s/n ratio modulation techniques, and packet error
correction, communication should be possible.
Incidentally, all the necessary optical components, including
interference filters, are available from Edmund Scientific.
No FCC licence is required for "blinking light signals", of course.
John Naglehenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/28/88)
> ... There is no reason why, in a > few years, it can't be commonplace for there to be a packet box hooked up > to the PC in every house... Actually, yes there is: choose a reasonable set of assumptions about how many such boxes there are and how much traffic each one sends, and then ask yourself how much spectrum space is necessary for this! Don't forget the desire for both interactive use, i.e. low and relatively constant latency, and fast bulk transmission. Then ask yourself whether there is any reasonable part of the spectrum with that much free space. Nope. Moreover, this is a silly way to do things. Radio is ideal for mobile communications and broadcasting; using it as a substitute for wires between two fixed points in a metropolitan area is dumb, not to say wasteful. You can already buy a box which has many of the desired properties and needs no spectrum space whatsoever! It's called a Telebit Trailblazer, and it gets 14kbps over normal phone lines. If you believe the ISDN enthusiasts, even this is small potatoes compared to what will be available soon. There is, actually, reason for interest in packet radio links of this kind. Not for computers in houses, but for laptops and their fancier successors (e.g. the fabled Dynabook). Unfortunately, such systems tend to want even more spectrum, and it just isn't available. What we may end up doing is using broadcast optical (infrared) communications, which works fine at short ranges in suitably-equipped areas. If your Dynabook works in your dorm room, in the library, in the study halls, and in the classrooms (or non-academic equivalents of the above), it will be less important that it won't work -- or at least won't talk to the outside world at high speed -- from the beach. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) (03/01/88)
In article <2114@saturn.ucsc.edu> matthew@ucsck.UCSC.EDU (Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG) writes: <In article <1170@trotter.usma.edu> bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: << ... The people asking for a Personal Digital Radio Service don't want to << be hams. ... < ... Secondly, the reason that I proposed CB channels instead of some NEW < set of channels, is that it is very unlikely that any new VHF/UHF < channels are available for a public packet network. I would prefer < the top part of CB being taken for packet, instead of the top part < of 6 meters. Whazzamadderwit 900 MHz? Why wouldn't the Cellular Radio folks like to provide a new service and source of revenue for the companies involved ? Any reason why the FCC would be against it ? -- --==---==---==-- .. the vorpal blade went snicker-snack! .. ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!uunet!umd5.umd.edu!cgs
peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) (03/02/88)
One solution for providing a packet band without taking anyone's spectrum is to allow the use of any unused UHF television channel in an area. Even in large cities there are hundreds of megahertz available for this. Just make it clear that any channel can be taken away if needed for T.V. If the packet modems were able to switch to any channel then it would not be any trouble to go to a new channel, and anyone trying to send into a T.V. channel would never key up since the channel would always be busy with the T.V. signal. Also since UHF is rather line of sight there shouldn't be much problem with interference with other cities that have a different UHF assignment. Mark Peting Peting@csvax.caltech.edu
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (03/03/88)
In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > One solution for providing a packet band without taking anyone's spectrum > is to allow the use of any unused UHF television channel in an area. > Even in large cities there are hundreds of megahertz available for this. > Just make it clear that any channel can be taken away if needed for T.V. There would still have to be some type of frequency co-ordination to prevent intermod interference to existing primary users of the spectrum. Given that broadcast video is AM I don't think it would take much power at the packet transmitter to screw up all the TV's for several blocks around if you pick the "right" frequency. Of course if you don't have any UHF TV stations around (like us) it shouldn't be a problem... --lyndon VE6BBM {alberta,utzoo}!ncc!lyndon
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (03/04/88)
In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > One solution for providing a packet band without taking anyone's spectrum > is to allow the use of any unused UHF television channel in an area. > Even in large cities there are hundreds of megahertz available for this. > Just make it clear that any channel can be taken away if needed for T.V. > If the packet modems were able to switch to any channel then it would > not be any trouble to go to a new channel, and anyone trying to send into > a T.V. channel would never key up since the channel would always be busy > with the T.V. signal. Also since UHF is rather line of sight there > shouldn't be much problem with interference with other cities that have > a different UHF assignment. > I most heartily agree with this proposal. I hope that somebody will start work on a proposal based on this to the FCC. In order to have a better chance of success, the proposers need to take care of the following items in advance of their approach to the FCC. Develop plans for a transmitting system which would not inadvertently cause interference to an occupied channel. This means more than just a check for existing carrier before blasting out your own transmission. Currently channels are allocated so that reception coverage areas will not overlap with at least one reception area's worth of buffer area between assigned locations. If a computer hobbyist located just outside the reception area of an allocated channel cranked up his radio modem transmitter, his signal might easily cause havoc to receivers just inside the channels normal (fringe) reception area. Develop an almost fool proof way to keep people from getting around any interference preventing safeguards. At present the inability of the general public from getting equipment that can transmit on these TV frequencies minimizes thoughtless and malicious jamming. Experience with illegal modifications to CB tranmitters shows that this will probably be a serious problem. The system also needs to be able to be easily modified to transmit on different channels, so that it can be used in different locations where different channels are free. If the proponents of this plan can come up with solutions for these difficulties, then there may be a chance for getting the FCC to consider it. However you should be aware that other commercial interests have surely cast their covetous eyes at all that "unused" spectrum. [ The original article I am following up was also posted to rec.ham-radip.packet. Our site does not consider this to be a serious group and refuses to handle it. Therefore I have had to remove it from the distribution list. Perhaps someone with access to both groups would be so kind as to forward this note to that group]. ----------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@tucc.bitnet or urjlew@tucc.tucc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet) tel. (919)-962-9107
dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) (03/05/88)
In article <4726@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > > One solution for providing a packet band without taking anyone's spectrum > > is to allow the use of any unused UHF television channel in an area. No. No. No. No. No. And, NO! > > Even in large cities there are hundreds of megahertz available for this. > > Just make it clear that any channel can be taken away if needed for T.V. > > If the packet modems were able to switch to any channel then it would > > not be any trouble to go to a new channel, and anyone trying to send into > > a T.V. channel would never key up since the channel would always be busy > > with the T.V. signal. Also since UHF is rather line of sight there > > shouldn't be much problem with interference with other cities that have > > a different UHF assignment. This is a crock of pure, unadulterated bullshit. Simply because a UHF TV channel is unoccupied, does not mean that operating these low power packet radios on them will not cause inter- ference to duly licensed broadcasters of both full power and low power commercial and educational TV stations. In assigning UHF's to a community (or applying for a low power TV license in them) the following items are considered: 1) Blanketing and intermodulation on the 2,3,4,5 upper and lower adjacents (20 mile separation) 2) - upper and lower Adjacent channel interference (55 miles) 3) Protection of cochannel (for LPTV, a minimum of about 70 miles; for fullpower stations, I think it is 155 miles spacing) 4) Local oscillator blanketing-interference due to the 7th channel above (or theoretically, below, but most sets use high side injection) a given channel in a market. For example, if there is a channel 36 in a given market, channel 45 is not useable because oscillator reradiation from receivers tuned to 36 would blanket 43 if 43 were assigned to that market. This would also happen to packet radios. Thus, 7 above requires 65 mile spacing. 5) Sound image and picture image: (14, 15 channels below). These spacings are high. I forgot what they are. However, you can't operate 14 or 15 channels below a given assignment in a given market, because the image of this would beat with the local oscillator to fall in the desired assignment if you were tuned to the other assignment. For example, you have a 28 assinged to Anywhere, USA. You can't assign 14 or 15 there because if you did, the visual and/or aural of 28 would fall in 14 or 15 and cause objectionable interference. At least 14 other channels are precluded in a given market because of a given allotment. (However, the 2,3,4,5 adjacents are usually assigned to nearby cities). Of these, at least 6 are highly critical. On cochannel allotments, suppose you live in Moore County, N.C. and are trying to recieve your local NBC affiliate, channel 28 in Durham (WPTF). The signal strength there is 64 dBuV, the minimum protected signal for grade "B". Now, along comes some packet radio jerk say, outside that contour. The minimum protection ratio for UHF TV is 45 dB (28 dB with precision offset, but that is another story). A signal of (64-45) or 19 dBuV would cause noticeable interference. 19 dBuV is very easily achieveable by a bunch of yahoos with their packet radios. One packet radio could take out a few hundred square miles of reception at the 64 dBuV contour. This is unacceptable. In the proposers' defence, they did bring this point up. > > > I most heartily agree with this proposal. I hope that somebody > will start work on a proposal based on this to the FCC. > In order to have a better chance of success, the proposers need > to take care of the following items in advance of their approach > to the FCC. > Develop plans for a transmitting system which would > not inadvertently cause interference to an occupied channel. > This means more than just a check for existing carrier before blasting > out your own transmission. Currently channels are allocated > so that reception coverage areas will not overlap with at least > one reception area's worth of buffer area between assigned locations. Obviously, the poster doesn't understand a damn thing about the nature of the UHF allotment procedure. For one thing, the FCC have already established "low power" (1 kw carrier input, unlimited antenna gain) TV stations in the UHF band. There are thousands of translators already bringing TV service to rural areas which also must be protected. Why should I (a LICENSED low power TV station owner) have to put up with having my service area chewed up by a bunch of hackers? How much risk are they taking with their interference "studies" (a so-called procedure which would NOT work)? The determination of interference to UHF allotments, both full and low power, is a matter for professional engineers to determine, not a bunch of computer hobbyists. > If the proponents of this plan can come up with solutions for these > difficulties, then there may be a chance for getting the FCC to > consider it. However you should be aware that other commercial > interests have surely cast their covetous eyes at all that "unused" > spectrum. You are damn straight. Forget this. You can be assured that the Community Broadcasters Association, the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters (AMST), the NAB, the AFCCE (Association of Federal Comm- unicaitons Consulting Engineers), the SBE, major televison networks, station group owners, and yours truly will fight vigourously to keep this crap out of our spectrum. THE UHF SPECTRUM IS NOT A BUNCH OF UNUSED CAPACITY WAITING TO BE REAPED. It is a well engineered system for broadcasting. If there is any unused capacity, it is NEEDED for high definition television, further installation of translators, and low power TV stations. It is also needed (in some cases) for public safety communications (police, fire, etc.). Low power TV allows entrepeneurs who couldn't afford the $8 million to put a vehicle of local expression on the air for $300 k or so. There are hundreds (soon, thousands) of smaller markets which now have access to the television medium at an affordable level. Millions of dollars have been spent on translators to bring commercial annd public TV to remote areas. Television is an integral part of public service. It brings not only entertainment, but vitally important information in the form of news. Countless lives and billions have been saved (and made) because of broadcast television. What the hell good is packet radio? It pales by comparison. Besides all of which, I doubt you guys can do it at 500 mHz. Multipath interference is a big problem up there. Why don't you look down in the 11 meter band from some spectrum. Sorry about the harsh and sometimes profane nature of this flame. However, I own two LPTV stations about to go on the air, and interference is the last thing we need. David Anthony DataSpan, Inc. Owner W28AC W06AM Charlotte, N.C. Concord/Kannapolis, N.C.
peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) (03/06/88)
I recently proposed the use of UHF television channels for packet radio and saw a posted response/flame from David Anthony article <918@unccvax.UUCP> with some criticism of this idea. First criticism is that many channels that are not being actively used for UHF television are still not usable for other services to protect UHF television receivers from their own poor selectivity. In my original posting I suggested the use of unused channels, meaning those channels that could be used for other services and were not, rather than channels without a UHF signal. I apologize for my lack of clarity, since I clearly caused Mr. Anthony much concern about this. What I am suggesting is that those channels that will someday later be used for high or low power television or whatnot are currently free for other uses, and it seems reasonable to use them until they are granted permanently to some use. All that is asked is for the FCC to put out a list of currently free channels for each area, with care taken to avoid interference, to be used with the understanding that they can be taken away at any time. If a packet radio is set to an active frequency it will not key up, and if is is set to protected frequency it can be found without interference from a high power source, so the locating of violators is readily possible. Second criticism is that these frequencies are better left for other uses. This is already understood, all that is asked is to use them until they do become needed for other uses. I do not propose to set them aside for packet radio forever. The third criticism is that packet radio will not work at these frequencies due to multipath interference. This is simply not the case. Hams use frequencies both higher and lower quite successfully, and also multipath interference can be dealt with easily with adaptive equalizers. I am interested in any comments/criticisms of this but I do ask that this be a discussion and not a shouting match. Mark Peting peting@csvax.caltech.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/06/88)
> ... Why not try diffuse infrared off the cloud deck as a > scheme for short-range outdoor communications? ... Those of us in urban settings can also use diffuse infrared off tall buildings (artificial clouds!). At one point I seriously thought of trying this as a way to get a fast link between my home and work, but the combination of having moved to a less favorable location and having acquired a Telebit Trailblazer has made me shelve the idea for now. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) (03/07/88)
In article <5661@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > I recently proposed the use of UHF television channels for packet radio > and saw a posted response/flame from David Anthony article <918@unccvax.UUCP> > with some criticism of this idea. > (First point omitted for brevity) > 1) Channels which could be used for other services that ate not, rather than channels without a UHF signal Obviously, I did not make myself clear. The allotment of a given full service TV station precludes up to 14 channels from being used in a given service area. This is because of both interference caused and interference received. Now, if you are talking about using **unoccupied** UHF channels which are either in the Table of Allotments (a table showing where UHF channels can be applied for) or could work in the Table of Allotments (requiring a Petition for Rulemaking), then packet radio would be OK provided that all the little packet radios go away when the full power UHF goes on the air. However, lets talk about the two hundred and something Arbitron television markets. I know of precious few UHF allotments in any metered market which are unapplied for (unoccupied, but not unapplied for). Most unoccupied channels are only unoccupied because several mutally exclusive applicants are vying for that channel. The unused UHF capacity you speak of **does not exist**, at least where people exist. Now, in North Carolina, the following UHF's are unoccupied at present: High Point 67 High Point *32 * means educational Rockingham 53 Laurel Hill 60 ? Morganton 23 Manteo 4 (vhf) Kannapolis 64 Of these, they are all in comparative hearings except for Laurel Hill and Rockingham, which are unapplied for, are in the boonies, and couldn't possibly support low power packet. High Point is dark. What my beef is, is that there is no unused UHF spectrum, a fact which no one seems willing to concede. What little UHF spectrum there is "unoccupied" is usually occupied by translators and LPTV's. These are duly licensed services which are in the public interest, convenience and necessity. The unused UHF-TV spectrum will be shortly used, to be sure, and thus, there is no time, or need, to develop radios which can't be used in 99.9% of the television markets in the US. ***** PROPOSAL ***** However, since there seems to be a strong low power packet faction out there, I do have a proposal: 1) Allow licenseable entities to apply for a LPTV license in a given community, giving full no-offset protection to all cochannel stations (and meeting all other separation criteria). Upon a grant, allow them to distribute and operate low power packet radios within their interference-free contour. 2) Allow the use of Channel 38, which is reserved for radio astronomy, for low power packet, except within 100 miles of established radio listening posts. 3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal (220 to 225 mHz) 4) Allow low power packet to operate between channels 4 and 5. 5) Allow low power packet on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) frequencies. ***** I don't want a shouting match either, but the encroachment of the UHF broadcast spectrum is a matter which I will highly defend, as a licensed broadcaster who is taking the risk to serve the public interest. The FCC would have no way to publish where packet radios would not cause any harmful interference. The reason is that this data would be so massive, it would require a hand cart to transport it all in boxloads. When I have run UHF LPTV studies on every channel at just ** one ** location, it is about 175 pages of useful data. This costs about $300. Secondly, if someone did publish such data, the LPTV interested parties would snap it up and apply for even more LPTV stations. There are precious few unapplied for channels in the USA. If you don't use regular protection criteria, then you must revert to LPTV rules. The D/U ratio for interference is a matter of radio physics, not one of what service is being carried. In general, a cochannel signal of 19 dBuV or better WILL CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO A UHF STATION AT ITS GRADE "B" CONTOUR. What about spread spectrum in the lower sideband? David Anthony DataSpan, Inc
john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) (03/07/88)
In article <4726@ecsvax.UUCP> urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: >> One solution for providing a packet band without taking anyone's spectrum >> is to allow the use of any unused UHF television channel in an area. >> Even in large cities there are hundreds of megahertz available for this. There is a company in California (I forget the name) that has a patented system for doing this. However, they are careful to only transmit during the horizontal and vertical blanking interval of the adjacent (if any) channel. This protects receivers of that channel, which might otherwise show interference. TV receivers are very sensitive detectors of interference. Signals 40 dB less than carrier power can be seen on the video quite easily. Also, UHF TV receivers are not too selective - that's why the FCC keeps the UHF stations 6 channels (36 MHZ) apart, wasting all that bandwidth in the first place! -- John Moore (NJ7E) hao!noao!mcdsun!nud!anasaz!john (602) 870-3330 (day or evening) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) (03/07/88)
In article <918@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: >In article <4726@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >> In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > You are damn straight. Forget this. You can be assured that the >Community Broadcasters Association, the Association of Maximum Service >Telecasters (AMST), the NAB, the AFCCE (Association of Federal Comm- >unicaitons Consulting Engineers), the SBE, major televison networks, >station group owners, and yours truly will fight vigourously to keep >this crap out of our spectrum. THE UHF SPECTRUM IS NOT A BUNCH OF >UNUSED CAPACITY WAITING TO BE REAPED. It is a well engineered See below!--------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >system for broadcasting. If there is any unused capacity, it is >NEEDED for high definition television, further installation of >translators, and low power TV stations. It is also needed (in some >cases) for public safety communications (police, fire, etc.). While your technical arguments are correct, they could be interpreted to show that UHF TV an incredible waste of spectrum space! With a typical stations consuming 7 channels (it's own plus 3 guard channels), that station uses 42 MHz of spectrum. That is more spectrum than the ENTIRE HF BAND - just so someone can watch a few reruns and a TV broadcaster can reap bucks primarily by having acquired a public resource (the spectrum) for his own private, government protected, business! So... save us your sanctimonious flames! Some day, the public will become aware of the convenience and safety that they could get if these frequencies were opened up to mobile telephone, messaging, remote control, packet radio, etc! Meanwhile, DBS and cable will remove the EXCUSE for allocating this precious natural resource to reruns of I love lucy! Just how many stations does it take to properly serve an area? How about an urban area with available cable? You call for the "NEED" for HDTV. Need? To waste even more bandwidth???? How about using satellite? Satellite, of course, uses just as much spectrum (or more). However, it can happen on frequencies that are technically unsuitable for mobile radio, such as K-band. (Try making a mobile antenna for K-band - you either get an unacceptably small capture area or unacceptable directivity). -- John Moore (NJ7E) hao!noao!mcdsun!nud!anasaz!john (602) 870-3330 (day or evening) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (03/09/88)
If you want low-power licence-free packet, write to the FCC and express your support of General Docket #87-389. The FCC has proposed opening up the 902 to 928 MHz band for "licence-free consumer broadcasting", with no bandwidth, use, or modulation restrictions. The intent is to provide for new classes of short-range consumer products. John Nagle
john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) (03/11/88)
In article <17352@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > If you want low-power licence-free packet, write to the FCC and >express your support of General Docket #87-389. The FCC has proposed >opening up the 902 to 928 MHz band for "licence-free consumer broadcasting", >with no bandwidth, use, or modulation restrictions. The intent is to >provide for new classes of short-range consumer products. On the other hand, if you are a ham or believe that ham radio is a good service, write the FCC and OPPOSE general docket 87-389. 902-928 MHZ is currently allocated to ham radio, and will soon experience considerable use from hams! -- John Moore (NJ7E) hao!noao!mcdsun!nud!anasaz!john (602) 870-3330 (day or evening) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (03/12/88)
In article <927@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: >***** PROPOSAL ***** > > However, since there seems to be a strong low power packet >faction out there, I do have a proposal: > > 3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal >(220 to 225 mHz) > Did you happen to research what this band is currently allocated for? 220 is an allocation to the Amateur Service. It has been the target of a large number of spectrum-raiders, lately, and FM2 has recently been denied. No one in the Ham circles will support this proposal, it's that simple. > 4) Allow low power packet to operate between channels 4 and 5. > 5) Allow low power packet on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific >and Medical) frequencies. > Sure. Why not? ;-) Don't hold your breath... > I don't want a shouting match either, but the encroachment of >the UHF broadcast spectrum is a matter which I will highly defend, >as a licensed broadcaster who is taking the risk to serve the public >interest. > Fine. No shouting. How about a quiet little discussion about just exactly where the broadcast industry derived it's authority from, regarding the move below 200 meters? Are you even aware of the history surrounding this? Your *almighty* broadcast industry invaded the short-wave spectrum illegally, using frequencies, at will, that were designated as part of the Amateur service. No arrests, no fines, nothing like that...the broadcast industry just paid-off the government and bought huge chunks of spectrum. Public interest? Come on. It's pure profit-motive to you guys, the bs about you serving the public interest is a load because there is so little real competition in broadcasting..even the Cable franchises were perceived as a threat. Don't pretend, go research the spectrum allocations a little. > What about spread spectrum in the lower sideband? > What about it? Spread-spectrum is the 'little-darling' of the NSA, even Amateurs are not allowed a free hand in using this mode. You think the Powers-that-Be are going to seriously consider allowing unlicensed ops to send data at high speeds using this technique? Do you believe in the Tooth-Fairy? ;-) -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (03/13/88)
From article <927@unccvax.UUCP>, by dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter): > 3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal > (220 to 225 mHz) NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In case you haven't noticed, there's an actively used ham band there. There's a current proposal to grab only the bottom two MHz of that band and even that is being heavily fought by the amateur community. There is enough activity on that band that cannot be moved elsewhere to justify it remaining in the amateur service. Several proposals in the past have been put forth to steal this band, and all have failed. Without exception. > 4) Allow low power packet to operate between channels 4 and 5. > 5) Allow low power packet on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific > and Medical) frequencies. These two are much more reasonable. > I don't want a shouting match either, but the encroachment of > the UHF broadcast spectrum is a matter which I will highly defend, > as a licensed broadcaster who is taking the risk to serve the public > interest. I will just as strongly defend every hertz of the amateur spectrum from those who would take it for commercial purposes. Hams serve the public interest just as much as, if not more than, commercial broadcasters. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (03/14/88)
In article <927@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: ... > 2) Allow the use of Channel 38, which is reserved for radio >astronomy, for low power packet, except within 100 miles of established >radio listening posts. ... 100 miles does not seem sufficient to ensure there will be no interference with a transmitter a million times further away. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress C and UNIX consulting +1 612-825-2607
dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) (03/16/88)
In article <697@anasaz.UUCP>, john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > In article <918@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: > >In article <4726@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > >> In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes: > >UNUSED CAPACITY WAITING TO BE REAPED. It is a well engineered > See below!--------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >system for broadcasting. If there is any unused capacity, it is > >NEEDED for high definition television, further installation of > >translators, and low power TV stations. It is also needed (in some > >cases) for public safety communications (police, fire, etc.). > While your technical arguments are correct, they > could be interpreted to show that UHF TV an incredible waste > of spectrum space! With a typical stations consuming 7 channels > (it's own plus 3 guard channels), that station uses 42 MHz of spectrum. > That is more spectrum than the ENTIRE HF BAND - just so someone can watch > a few reruns and a TV broadcaster can reap bucks primarily by having > acquired a public resource (the spectrum) for his own private, government > protected, business! So... save us your sanctimonious flames! Some day, These are not sanctimonious flames. Simply because the allocation standards "waste" spectrum space in a given area (each channel precludes the allotement of up to 14 others at the same transmitter site) does NOT mean the television spectrum is wasted. This is the typical, narrowminded view of a nonbroadcaster. Commercial broadcasters do in fact run "I Love Lucy" reruns. It is not up to land mobile/packet interests to decide how many stations can serve a market. It is up to those who have PAID THE DUES TO TAKE THE RISK to operate a commercial TV station. For one thing, MOST UHF TV allotments are in markets under 50. Many UHF allotments are to places where people are operating one TV station in a city. Do you honestly think that there is a pile of individuals in, say, Laurel Hill, N.C. clamoring for the use of that spectrum for land mobile? Secondly, land mobile have not even used the channels which they've got (or are reserved). I sure do hear a lot of dead air between 30 and 50 mHz these days. Third, commercial broadcasting HAS ALREADY DONE ITS PART in giving up channels 70-83 to land mobile, etc. Commercial broadcasting is a vitally important economic resource for our economy. Whether you like what commercial broadcasters broadcast is a matter of opinion. The billions of dollars which have been generated via advertising revenues, new jobs, and the expansion of the economy mean that the UHF spectrum, exceptionally well engineered and doing fine, thank you, justifies its occupation of its bandwidth, and has indeed paid its way. Furthermore, there are TV "white areas" (Rockingham, N.C. is one) which are expanding to the point where they can justify the construction of a new UHF-TV station. This, to provide service to half a million people without a visual outlet of local expression. Do you think Wilmington, Raleigh, Greensboro, Florence (SC) or Charlotte TV stations care about this region? Demanding that UHF-TV spectrum be broken down for a hypothetical public economic interest that would be orders of magnitude less important is like demanding that Interstates be torn up to install goat paths. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of commercial TV interests being called "sanctimonious", "greedy","spectrum hogs", and all that stuff. The taxes which are generated from the income to commercial TV stations pays its way, at least. It takes a tremendous amount of financial and entrepenurial risk to put a TV station on the air. Since I doubt you have done it, find out about us before giving the knee-jerk "sanctimonious" argument. Be that as it may, I'd say look lower (and higher) for home low-power packet spectrum..... Steaming mad at this point, David Anthony DataSpan, Inc Satellite Radio Network, Inc.
dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) (03/16/88)
In article <2076@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: > In article <927@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: > >***** PROPOSAL ***** > > > > However, since there seems to be a strong low power packet > >faction out there, I do have a proposal: > > > > 3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal > >(220 to 225 mHz) > > > Did you happen to research what this band is currently allocated for? 220 > is an allocation to the Amateur Service. It has been the target of a large > number of spectrum-raiders, lately, and FM2 has recently been denied. No > one in the Ham circles will support this proposal, it's that simple. > > > 4) Allow low power packet to operate between channels 4 and 5. > > 5) Allow low power packet on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific > >and Medical) frequencies. > > > Sure. Why not? ;-) Don't hold your breath... Why not allow packet on ISM. At least I have forwarded reasonable technical material of substance to support my arguments. It seems to me that only a minor change of the rules is required to use the 72 to 76 mHz spectrum. As for FM2, I just found out it was denied. He's back, though, now asking for 90 new FM channels between 32 and 34. Oh, well.... > > > I don't want a shouting match either, but the encroachment of > >the UHF broadcast spectrum is a matter which I will highly defend, > >as a licensed broadcaster who is taking the risk to serve the public > >interest. > > > Fine. No shouting. How about a quiet little discussion about just exactly > where the broadcast industry derived it's authority from, regarding the > move below 200 meters? Are you even aware of the history surrounding this? Quite. Now, we all go dark tomorrow. What are you going to do with all that spectrum? 'Taint good for much, is it. > Your *almighty* broadcast industry invaded the short-wave spectrum illegally, > using frequencies, at will, that were designated as part of the Amateur > service. No arrests, no fines, nothing like that...the broadcast industry > just paid-off the government and bought huge chunks of spectrum. Public > interest? Come on. It's pure profit-motive to you guys, the bs about you > serving the public interest is a load because there is so little real > competition in broadcasting..even the Cable franchises were perceived as a > threat. Don't pretend, go research the spectrum allocations a little. Really, little competition in broadcasting? Have you sold one minute of advertising time in your life? Broadcasting is vital and healthy as an economic interest. What in the hell is wrong with the profit motive? Sounds like a whiney bleeding heart liberal political argument, not an engineering basis to accomplish a goal. Taking the huge (know what a 2000 foot tower sells for today?) economic risk to buy or operate a TV station means bigger profits for those who ultimately succeed. That's the way of the world, bub. So my ancestors-in-life took the spectrum they needed? Did the FRC have any authority? The Department of Commerce? Was it even possible to communicate at 800 mHz in the 1920's? I've a frequency chart on my wall from an IRE Journal published in the 30's (at home), it only goes up to 450 mHz. Lets see: AM radio: 107 channels of 10 kHz each: 1.07 mHz occupied FM radio: 100 channels of 200 kHz each: 20.0 mHz occupied TV: 68 channels of 6 mHz each: 408 mHz occupied Lets see, now, that is 429.07 mHz of spectrum being occupied by a how many billion dollar industry? Last time I checked, people were using how many gHz radios? I would say that (except for small allocations for intercity relay, STL, and so on) that there are approximately 25,000 mHz give or take a few not being used by broadcasting direct-to-the consumer. > > What about spread spectrum in the lower sideband? > > > What about it? Spread-spectrum is the 'little-darling' of the NSA, even > Amateurs are not allowed a free hand in using this mode. You think the > Powers-that-Be are going to seriously consider allowing unlicensed ops > to send data at high speeds using this technique? Do you believe in the > Tooth-Fairy? ;-) No, but I believe that it is only a matter of time before every high school kid will build spread spectrum radios with a nice DSP kit, a few CPU's, and so on, as a science fair project. I wish the Amateurs would be allowed spread spectrum useage, or at least allowed to experiment with it. What I am curious about is, is that if commercial broadcasting took all that spectrum, what was anyone else going to do with it? (sigh) David Anthony DataSpan, Inc.
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (03/16/88)
[line eater bug-- does it still exist?] My bias: I don't care either way; I'm not particularly biased. My comment: Mr. Anthony's argument is unconvincing. He argues that because commercial broadcasters pay taxes and provide jobs, they are some- how entitled to large allocations of a scarce resource. He also makes an argument that commercial television broadcasters are entitled to bandwidth because they risk much money on their stations and because some stations serve areas which some people claim are underserved. The arguments in favor of packet radio cannot compete with the economic analysis of existing commercial television broadcasters because there is no existing packet radio service of the type under discussion. Therefore, no analysis can point to data with as much authority and experience as commercial television. However, if the proven financial success of a service is to be the deciding factor in granting spectrum allocations, then no new service will ever be introduced. Commercial television broadcasters pay taxes; this does not give them a lock on public policy decisions regarding spectrum alloca- tion. Commercial television broadcasters provide jobs, risk money, and, to an extent which is controversial, they provide a valuable service to the public. None of these factors give an obviously overwhelming reason to preserve the UHF-TV allocation in (financial) favor of commercial television broadcasters. Allocation of spectrum is not a narrow issue, to be decided on financial grounds alone. It is a public policy issue, in which many competing factors must be taken into account. This is one reason why the Federal Communications Commission cannot react quickly; it is deluged with comments from many special interest groups and, being a political body, it cannot appear to give in to any of them. Allocation of spectrum must be decided on the basis of the public interest, which is the charter of the FCC. Mr. Anthony would make a stronger case by discussing the merits of commercial television broadcasting in more than financial terms. For example, what service will be provided by an incremental increase of UHF TV broadcasting? How does this compare with the establishment of public packet radio? The level of acrimony in the discussion has been excessive. While Mr. Anthony is, understandably, concerned about the possible effect on his financial future, a more reasoned and reasonable tone of discussion may prove helpful. -- David Schachter disclaimer: Neither me or my company have any financial, personal, or emotional stake in packet radio, television, or related topics. (And I only watch PBS, fer sure.)
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (03/18/88)
But, you've missed the point. Most of the populace does'nt give a rats eye about packet communication. They don't have computers any more significant than a video game. What they do care about is TV, telephones, and to a lesser extent public service (Fire, Police, ...) uses of the spectrum. To be able to talk on a CB or the fact that some ham is talking to Africa is of little concern to them. As an aside, I'm wondering how well Land Mobile is really doing if you don't count Cellular Phones (one normally doesn't but someone mentioned the loss of the short end of the UHF-TV spectrum). Back before it was technically illegal to listen in on the calls, it was amazing how much of the traffic was actually contracters and such that would normally have been a big business band user. These guys have really been fleeing the high-priced commercial radios for the cheaper and more versatile telephone. The monthly charges to the phone company probably are no worse than the operational expense of a wide area mobile radio system. Maybe we should be arguing for the demise of Land Mobile expansion than taking away TV outlets available to each and every member of the public. -Ron
f12012ag@deimos.unm.edu.unm.edu (03/20/88)
In article <620@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: >In article <927@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: >... >> 2) Allow the use of Channel 38, which is reserved for radio >>astronomy, for low power packet, except within 100 miles of established >>radio listening posts. >... > >100 miles does not seem sufficient to ensure there will be no >interference with a transmitter a million times further away. >-- >Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Here here! I must agree with Scot. Besides, just imagine all of the SETI alarms that would go off if propagation on UHF suddenly got better. Let the radio astronomers have clear listening. The bands allocated for radio astronomy are small enough as it is. 73 Ollie - N6LTJ SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 277-3171