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
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