6 ms·

Internet gateway traffic most likely. Me, personally, I would like to see the bands filled to capacity and it be common/everyday that ordinary people use 2m/70

Internet gateway traffic most likely. Me, personally, I would like to see the bands filled to capacity and it be common/everyday that ordinary people use 2m/70cm data modes for things besides DX’ing.

edrxty 3y ago
This is also the absolute worst nightmare of all the ragchew/gout-net types. The thing is [opens SDR waterfall] 70cm/2m is a wall of blue occasionally punctuated by a lonely repeater kerchunk so I'm not sure what's driving the fear. In fact, the most reliable traffic is the one narrow APRS frequency full of generally indecipherable digital packets from all the proprietary over-landing rigs.
- wcfields 3y ago
  My inspiration has been this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk (Building a Linux Packet Node) and inspired me to buy a used Kenwood TM-D700 to operate a packet node station. I think something like that coupled with something like https://hamwan.org/ https://hamwan.org/ to route high-bandwidth traffic could be a great combo, almost like an adaptive bandwidth.
BenjiWiebe 3y ago
I'd be pretty tempted to use 70cm for some business uses if it were legal. Good range and cheap tx/rx PCBs readily available. However I'd end up using 20kb/s of data 24/7 over a large range. Can't have very many people doing that or there's no bandwidth left.
ianburrell 3y ago
The 2m/70cm bands wouldn't be that useful for data. They are 4MHz and 30MHz (in US) wide. By comparison, Wifi is 20MHz, LTE is 1.4-20 MHz. The bandwidth wouldn't be that high for general use. One place that extra space would be useful is for digital walkie-talkies, as an expansion of FRS.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Internet gateway traffic most likely. Or use of existing internet protocols, yes. Here's an example: I was in an amateur rocketry group. One of our primary telemetry connections was wifi; 802.11b channel 1 is in an amateur band. We used directional antennas on the ground, cylindrical patch antennas on the rocket, and 1W of power (which is why we needed amateur licenses, to exceed the standard 100mW for wifi) and we could reliably communicate via standard IP while the rocket was a long distance away and breaking the sound barrier. The ESSID was one of our callsigns. Our standard telemetry protocol was unencrypted packets, because ham radio. But a common need while debugging the rocket on the launchpad was to SSH in (it ran Linux). So our options were: - Use something obsolete with much worse UX, like telnet. - Use SSH and try to convince it to run without encryption, an option which is a bad idea for every other use case and which modern SSH rightfully refuses to contemplate. - Use SSH with published keys, and hope that suffices to meet the spirit of the regulation. - Add some complexity to the system to reduce power level while on the pad so that we weren't actually using a ham license. - Safe the engines, go out to the pad a mile away, and hook up to the wired umbilical for debugging. Removing the encryption restriction would allow using standard SSH and similar systems.
- threemux 3y ago
  Doesn't this fall under the "telecommand of model craft" exception? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 It seems to me encrypted ssh is totally within the rules in this case.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Leaving aside the question of whether a 3 meter tall rocket that breaks the sound barrier is a "model craft", that just says "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.". It's not completely unambiguous that SSH and other protocols qualify as "control signal" (they were not used to control the "craft" itself), nor whether they qualify as "telemetry" per 47 CFR § 97.217. This exception unambiguously gives a pass for control protocols that aren't obvious to observers on the frequency, but not necessarily for communication protocols that are actually encrypted. Those statutes might provide the necessary exception but that's not unambiguous.

edrxty 3y ago

This is also the absolute worst nightmare of all the ragchew/gout-net types. The thing is [opens SDR waterfall] 70cm/2m is a wall of blue occasionally punctuated by a lonely repeater kerchunk so I'm not sure what's driving the fear. In fact, the most reliable traffic is the one narrow APRS frequency full of generally indecipherable digital packets from all the proprietary over-landing rigs.

wcfields 3y ago
My inspiration has been this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk (Building a Linux Packet Node) and inspired me to buy a used Kenwood TM-D700 to operate a packet node station. I think something like that coupled with something like https://hamwan.org/ https://hamwan.org/ to route high-bandwidth traffic could be a great combo, almost like an adaptive bandwidth.

BenjiWiebe 3y ago

I'd be pretty tempted to use 70cm for some business uses if it were legal. Good range and cheap tx/rx PCBs readily available. However I'd end up using 20kb/s of data 24/7 over a large range. Can't have very many people doing that or there's no bandwidth left.

ianburrell 3y ago

The 2m/70cm bands wouldn't be that useful for data. They are 4MHz and 30MHz (in US) wide. By comparison, Wifi is 20MHz, LTE is 1.4-20 MHz. The bandwidth wouldn't be that high for general use. One place that extra space would be useful is for digital walkie-talkies, as an expansion of FRS.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> Internet gateway traffic most likely. Or use of existing internet protocols, yes. Here's an example: I was in an amateur rocketry group. One of our primary telemetry connections was wifi; 802.11b channel 1 is in an amateur band. We used directional antennas on the ground, cylindrical patch antennas on the rocket, and 1W of power (which is why we needed amateur licenses, to exceed the standard 100mW for wifi) and we could reliably communicate via standard IP while the rocket was a long distance away and breaking the sound barrier. The ESSID was one of our callsigns. Our standard telemetry protocol was unencrypted packets, because ham radio. But a common need while debugging the rocket on the launchpad was to SSH in (it ran Linux). So our options were: - Use something obsolete with much worse UX, like telnet. - Use SSH and try to convince it to run without encryption, an option which is a bad idea for every other use case and which modern SSH rightfully refuses to contemplate. - Use SSH with published keys, and hope that suffices to meet the spirit of the regulation. - Add some complexity to the system to reduce power level while on the pad so that we weren't actually using a ham license. - Safe the engines, go out to the pad a mile away, and hook up to the wired umbilical for debugging. Removing the encryption restriction would allow using standard SSH and similar systems.

threemux 3y ago
Doesn't this fall under the "telecommand of model craft" exception? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 It seems to me encrypted ssh is totally within the rules in this case.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Leaving aside the question of whether a 3 meter tall rocket that breaks the sound barrier is a "model craft", that just says "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.". It's not completely unambiguous that SSH and other protocols qualify as "control signal" (they were not used to control the "craft" itself), nor whether they qualify as "telemetry" per 47 CFR § 97.217. This exception unambiguously gives a pass for control protocols that aren't obvious to observers on the frequency, but not necessarily for communication protocols that are actually encrypted. Those statutes might provide the necessary exception but that's not unambiguous.