Wait a minute, you were the one that said that 100's of hams could use one 10 kHz wide channel to communicate, not me!
Quote from your message: "... So when you transmit on this 10kHz wide HF channel, from your perspective you are in a clear one-to-one QSO with another Ham, sort of like using PSK without the QRM, except that your message is buffered and then transmitted all at once in very short and fast burst. Thus my anology to IM. However, you are actully transmitting to a HSMM radio access point (AP) along with hundreds of other Hams at the same time and on the same 10 kHz channel..." Now you're saying that you need =>40 kHz. That is a whole different story as far as bandwidth goes on the HF bands. To say nothing about how you would handle collision avoidance amongst stations that can't hear each other, who would operate the AP's, would it be fee based, cost of equipment, who picks the standards and upgrade timing, and on and on. Plus, my guess is you're likely to need something higher that 56 kbs to support 100's of hams doing what you are talking about. I live with a dial up line every day, and I know how much multimedia it will support. Pie in the sky stuff is fun to talk about, but get your ducks in a row before you toss it out as something we should allocating space for. 40 kHz on the proposed 80m band means this would probably be the most popular way of communicating on the ham bands, relegating all current modes to something less than 35 kHz (general and advanced allocation). This may be a viable alternative years in the future, but it sure isn't going to happen in a time frame suitable for consideration of a band plan in todays environment. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim, > > Thanks for the encouragement, but I'd probably get killed (HI). > > In actual practice, we never pursued this as it was not within the > HSMM Working Group Charter which starts at data rates >56 kbps. > Besides, using the best compression we can muster, we'd need ~40 kHz > to get up to that data rate. > > Thanks anyway, > John - K8OCL > > > >From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC R&O > >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:15:47 -0000 > > > >I suspect if there was one, wide bandwidth, 10 kHz channel on each ham > >band for ALL high speed data, that would be accepted by most if not > >all hams. This is certainly less than what is currently "designated" > >by the different modes/protocols like winlink/pactor 3, wide olivia, > >ALE, etc. > > > >Perhaps you should file a petition with the FCC that proposes one wide > >bandwidth 10 kHz channel on each band that operates in the fashion you > >describe and restricts all other modes on all other frequencies to 500 > >Hz bandwidth or less. I'll bet there wouldn't be many negative comments. > > > >Jim > >WA0LYK > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <k8ocl@> wrote: > > > > > > Using HSMM networked radio techniques many operators can have separate, > > > individual, IM exchanges keyboard-to-keyboard on the same frequency, > >at the > > > same time. > > > > > > This is similar to trunked digital repeaters in which many > >individuals can > > > have separate DV QSOs on the same frequency pair at the same time. > > > > > > So when you transmit on this 10kHz wide HF channel, from your > >perspective > > > you are in a clear one-to-one QSO with another Ham, sort of like > >using PSK > > > without the QRM, except that your message is buffered and then > >transmitted > > > all at once in very short and fast burst. Thus my anology to IM. > > > > > > However, you are actully transmitting to a HSMM radio access point (AP) > > > along with hundreds of other Hams at the same time and on the same > >10 kHz > > > channel. So, for example, if you have a beam, all stations would > >point to > > > the HF AP instead of at each other. If you are using a non-directional > > > antenna, then you would simply look for an AP in the area of the > >world you > > > wish to work. > > > Simple. > > > > > > > > > >From: "jgorman01" <jg6164@> > > > >Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > >Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC R&O > > > >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:14:14 -0000 > > > > > > > >You need to explain this further. Just making the statement that IM > > > >is a better analogy just doesn't provide any information as to how it > > > >applies to sharing of RF frequencies, at least not to me. You might > > > >help me out by elucidating a little on just what shared resource with > > > >IM is applicable to HF data transmission. > > > > > > > >Jim > > > >WA0LYK > > > > > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <k8ocl@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > IM would be a better analogy than a party line. > > > > > > > > > > John - K8OCL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
