A perhaps narrow outsider's opinion: There is potential here for both good and for wreaking havoc with fellow users of VHF/UHF amateur bands given a paradigm shift into a G3 digital era. Improving upon packet's abilities could be a very good thing- particularly for those involved in EmComm. But running analog FM users away just because commercial & gov't users have had the change to digital crammed down their throat would be a very bad idea. If it can peacefully co-exist with current users- then no problem! As a potential user I confess that I'm not terribly interested in digital modes up here. Adding more specialized equipment has no appeal nor any advantage to my operating style. HF digital is much more exciting & useful to me. (YMMV) My greatest fear is that someone in an urban upper 5% utilization zone might find a listening ear in the FCC who would recklessly force a draconian change to make us all go 100% digital VHF & above- even for the 95% who have no trouble finding available analog freq's. This is ham radio after all- not hard core government EmComm! (Which is I suppose STILL waiting to see how beneficial the move will prove to be for them)
One other comment: "Tactical" ham frequencies??!!! What in the world??? For ham SWAT teams? <LOL> Didn't Indianapolis PD get into trouble for less than that? :-) 73 de Stu AF6IT --- In [email protected], "Greg" <n9...@...> wrote: > > If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation > Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star. D-Star brought > everything together along with digital voice. While D-Star is great, its > technology is already dated. > > So what will the third generation of digital radio look like? I am thinking > that it will be more like the Trunked Radio (digital) or either P25 phase II > or TETRA. TETRA is 25 Khz wide channel with four TDMA slots with a very low > cost handheld (under $400) and is used in Europe within the 400 Mhz band. > P25 digital currently is 800 Mhz, FDMA (25 Khz channel). Phase II will move > to a single 12.5 Khz channel with two TDMA slots. Additional capacity can be > added with additional repeaters (12.5 Khz) working under a common controller. > > So, could we do something like that within amateur radio? We have to be > above 220 Mhz in order to get 9600 baud rates. If we look at bands, 900 Mhz > may be to high and 440 may be too crowded. It was suggested that we go 220 > as it gives a mix of characteristics of both 2m and 440 and is fairly open. > If we go to P25 (phase II) we do have to overcome the cost of the VOCORDER. > That could be done with open P25 in software in an software defined radio > (SDR). Most of the military radios these days are SDR. > > A trunked system would allow us at least state wide communications that would > include voice, data and position reporting (APRS). Also that one could link > into the system via VoIP (like D-Star or Echolink). A small community might > only need a single repeater with two FDMA slots. In big cities it might be > that there are multiple repeater sites with two or three repeaters (4 to 6 > slots). Also five simplex frequencies for tactical operations or remote > areas (like using 146.52 and 144.39 now). > > Using 9600 baud rates would allow for greater amounts of information. And an > SDR would be flexible enough to handle such data rates. > > Any comments or ideas? Let the flame wars begin..... >
