I have been watching Andreas' "guy with the Swiss accent" videos for a number of years now. They cover all aspects of electronics, microcontrollers, and related topics. Lots of good ideas and very clear explanations in his relatively short videos.
I "discovered" Zero Retries last week while searching for something else. I immediately found it interesting and subscribed. I'm not sure how I went the almost 18 months since its inception without seeing mention of it before. I am busy working my way through the archive and am up to 0034!
I also discovered that each section has its own link off to the left of the headline and have shared that link on QRZ.com and Reddit threads discussing H.R.9664. Your thoughts are well reasoned and hopefully will be well read. My thoughts are that while our rules are outmoded and out of step with the rest of the world, this blunder on the part of ARRL is not going to help us get in sync any time soon. As if the FCC needed another reason to put us down on their priority list. Sigh.
Thanks for this informative service. I was involved in packet radio from late 1987 until the late '90s. These days my only AX.25 activities have only consisted of running a digipeater/iGate here at the farm that fills in a large gap in the APRS network. That is until late summer when fellow Kansan John, KR0L, wrote of his experience starting with a Coco 2 and landline BBSs: https://changelog.complete.org/archives/10417-the-pc-internet-revolution-in-rural-america That, in turn, inspired me to write a post on my blog about getting "online" with packet from rural Kansas: https://www.n0nb.us/blog/2022/12/1980s-connectivity-from-rural-kansas-via-amateur-radio/ Those posts have inspired me to investigate the current state of AX.25 on Linux (my primary OS) and those searches have led to many things including your newsletter.
Unfortunately, except for APRS, anything I try with regard to data communications on amateur radio puts me on an island of one in these parts. My goal is to figure enough stuff out and get back up to speed enough to inspire some co-conspirators, as you so well put it. There may be a chance as there may be some new licensees in the area next year. Hopefully some of them will want more out of amateur radio than a way to get a ham radio license plate for their vehicle!
Jordan - Thanks for the kind words about Zero Retries. As you'll discover as you progress through the "back issues" of Zero Retries, there are a number of groups that are maintaining, restoring, even starting new Amateur Radio Packet Radio networks in the US. There's a need for a clearinghouse of such groups. I used to maintain such a list for TAPR before... well, actually, I forget why I stopped maintaining that list.
It's on the editorial list for 2023 to publish an issue of "how to get started" in Amateur Radio data communications. One of the best "bang for the buck" solutions is to start with Dire Wolf - https://github.com/wb2osz/direwolf and an audio interface and just about any VHF / UHF radio. The easiest, best supported audio interface I'm aware of is Tigertronics SignaLink USB - http://www.tigertronics.com. They offer cables / interface instructions to make it work plug and play for just about ANY Amateur Radio VHF / UHF unit. It's also possible to just start monitoring VHF / UHF Packet Radio with a software defined receiver and Dire Wolf running on the same embedded computer such as a Raspberry Pi.
You might also check out TARPN - http://tarpn.net/t/packet_radio_networking.html. As I've said in Zero Retries, I have some differences of opinion about their approach, but I greatly admire the work they've done creating a new TNC, providing fantastic documentation, and especially ENERGY and enthusiasm in their project.
One last suggestion - it's kind of a lost art these days, but 1200 bps (and 2400, and perhaps 3600 if you're using a software TNC like Dire Wolf or NinoTNC) Packet Radio works great via a voice repeater. If there's a voice repeater in your area that's underutilized, or open to experimentation, that's a great way to kickstart a Packet Radio network instead of having to get a lot of individual stations (and digipeaters) to provide the same coverage and quality.
Steve, regarding the ARDC grant, does the organization request status updates from those receiving the grant? I'm been a member of the mailing list that handles the patches and such for the Linux kernel AX.25 stack for longer than I care to remember and there has been a trickle of patches the past several months and maybe that is all that is required. So far kissattach and axlisten have worked flawlessly on my Debian Stable desktop computer. The bugs might be elsewhere.
Believe it or not, I am already in the process of giving Dire Wolf a try on a Lenovo laptop running Arch Linux. And I pulled my SignLink USB out of the box to tie it together with my FT-100D, although I could use my FT-817D for these experiments as the same cable works for both.
I've read your mention of using voice repeaters and I do have a 70cm repeater under my own call, I've been thinking about this...
Nate - All I can say (given my confidentiality agreement with ARDC as part of serving on the Grants Advisory Committee) is that whether or not a grantee is required to provide a status report to ARDC depends on the specific grant. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. ARDC does sometimes provide updates on grants in their newsletter and community meetings.
I ask because it was kind of a big deal when it was announced about a year ago. Since then there have been a stream of patches to the linux-hams mailing list from Europe and China. I'd like to see DARC provide a press release stating, and it can be in general terms, the work that the grant money enabled.
Glancing at the message count in the archive index: https://marc.info/?l=linux-hams I see the following message counts for the past five years:
2022 458
2021 284
2020 422
2019 289
2018 203
Which shows 2022 was very active with a lot of patch submissions which is very good to see (only 2020 came close likely due to that anomalous year). Perhaps DARC will drop something after the first of the year in the form of a status update.
It wan't that scandalous. Just a few obvservations that probably should be made over beers at the DCC after party.
But as long as we're talking regulations, one thing that I'd like to see is an adjustment to the Part 15 rules that require certification of amateur radios. This really holds back SDR development, as well as digital voice modes, because once a radio is certified, that's it. The rules are set up for an "analog age" where circuits defined the emmision mode, so we have tons of <1 watt SDR devices that fall under the category of test equipment and almost no high power, high volume SDRs, and none that are open to new programming by end users. Radios are considered complete boxes, and built with that in mind. And because getting devices through the FCC process takes lawyers and businesses that specialize in testing, small volume companies have a very difficult time getting off the ground.
Ready - If you were referring to FCC certifications for Amateur Radio units, those are relatively light - mostly basic stuff like keeping emissions within Amateur Radio spectrum and within the allocated bandwidths, and maximum power levels. And, of course, the "big one" - cannot transmit in 27 MHz (nor easily modified to do so) which was reallocated to the Citizens Band Radio Service. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service says "The FCC equipment authorization program does not generally apply to amateur station transmitters."
If you are referring to certifications for Part 15 units (license-exempt bands such as most of 2.4 GHz), well, I lived through the popularization of that in the days prior to Wi-Fi, where the light regulations were flagrantly ignored. I knew of Wireless Internet Service Providers who prided themselves on bypassing the (required) integral antennas to attach directional antennas, and even amplifiers.
One interesting case of early Software Defined Radios I saw was one company that had a flexible SDR that they were marketing to customers in a variety of radio services in VHF and UHF; trains, taxis, and public safety all had different regulations, so when a customer wanted to use this SDR in their service, the company would simply install new software and send it to the FCC for certification. The FCC engineering staff was flummoxed when they would see the exact same box show up to be certified for different services - same hardware, even the same SERIAL NUMBER. When the FCC asked if the company was pulling a prank, the company replied soberly that no, it WAS the same unit, just different software, to illustrate to the FCC that SDR was a new world in radio technology and the old designators and certifications were obsolete. The FCC said "Hmph" and started certifying the hardware + a specific version of software.
I enjoy the approach of New Packet Radio that I mention in Zero Retries 0078. "Oh, you don't WANT this radio to operate in the US at full potential of 500 kbps in a 100 kHz channel? Here, hold my beer... <keyboard tap tap tap to do a slight software modification> OK, load this new software to be compliant with antiquated US regulations to run SLOWER in a 100 kHz channel."
I wonder how much use that "US" software will get?
From what I have read (mostly from your writing) NPR would be a big boost over 9600 bps and sounds less fiddly to get going. I'd jump in even at 11% of the speed of the rest of the world simply because it is still a giant leap over what I started with 35 years ago and what is still most common.
There are two great leaps forward with Dire Wolf. The first is that given that Dire Wolf is running on a powerful computer (even a mundane desktop), it has a lot of compute power available. So, when it receives a packet with a bad CRC, it does a quick test to see if "flipping every bit" results in a good CRC. If yes, it does another set of sanity testing, then declares the packet good. This increases the reliability of packet a LOT. The second was that Dire Wolf added support for two different Forward Error Correction schemes - FX.25 and IL2P which make packet even better, and especially at "fragile" 9600 bps. See the video - https://youtu.be/bRZhm5bLgxs. IL2P is in a development branch of Dire Wolf - more about that at http://tarpn.net/t/il2p/il2p.html
I suspect that the same will be true with the (hoped for) commercial version of the RPX-100 (https://rpx-100.net/#RPX-100). If, by the time this (again, hopefully) becomes a product, the US Amateur Radio VHF / UHF "symbol rate" regulations have not been rationalized, then someone will do a "dumbed down for the US market" software load to be compliant with US regulations.
But... the RPX-100 will be a SOFTWARE DEFINED radio, and like New Packet Radio, other countries are enlightened and will use software that will make the radio perform at full potential. Just... sayin...
I admit I'm not up to speed with radio certification, but it seemed to be a logical assumption as to why there's a lack of COTS SDR radios that are easily modified. While composing my response I literally looked at the FCC sticker on the back of my old TH-D72, knowing it (and all commerical radios) had passed some test. Your example of the same SDR hardware used for certification is what I'm talking about, because it takes money and time to submit a product for testing, money that a manufacturer who's seen much of their business be replaced by Apple and Google, and Baofeng products, who's kept the amateur business around even though it might not be profitable, might not want to spend.
Then again, maybe no one wants radios that can change by downloading an update.
I have been watching Andreas' "guy with the Swiss accent" videos for a number of years now. They cover all aspects of electronics, microcontrollers, and related topics. Lots of good ideas and very clear explanations in his relatively short videos.
Jordan - agreed! HB9BLA's "Wireless" YouTube channel was a recent discovery for me, and I'll eventually view all of his videos on that channel.
I "discovered" Zero Retries last week while searching for something else. I immediately found it interesting and subscribed. I'm not sure how I went the almost 18 months since its inception without seeing mention of it before. I am busy working my way through the archive and am up to 0034!
I also discovered that each section has its own link off to the left of the headline and have shared that link on QRZ.com and Reddit threads discussing H.R.9664. Your thoughts are well reasoned and hopefully will be well read. My thoughts are that while our rules are outmoded and out of step with the rest of the world, this blunder on the part of ARRL is not going to help us get in sync any time soon. As if the FCC needed another reason to put us down on their priority list. Sigh.
Thanks for this informative service. I was involved in packet radio from late 1987 until the late '90s. These days my only AX.25 activities have only consisted of running a digipeater/iGate here at the farm that fills in a large gap in the APRS network. That is until late summer when fellow Kansan John, KR0L, wrote of his experience starting with a Coco 2 and landline BBSs: https://changelog.complete.org/archives/10417-the-pc-internet-revolution-in-rural-america That, in turn, inspired me to write a post on my blog about getting "online" with packet from rural Kansas: https://www.n0nb.us/blog/2022/12/1980s-connectivity-from-rural-kansas-via-amateur-radio/ Those posts have inspired me to investigate the current state of AX.25 on Linux (my primary OS) and those searches have led to many things including your newsletter.
Unfortunately, except for APRS, anything I try with regard to data communications on amateur radio puts me on an island of one in these parts. My goal is to figure enough stuff out and get back up to speed enough to inspire some co-conspirators, as you so well put it. There may be a chance as there may be some new licensees in the area next year. Hopefully some of them will want more out of amateur radio than a way to get a ham radio license plate for their vehicle!
Jordan - Thanks for the kind words about Zero Retries. As you'll discover as you progress through the "back issues" of Zero Retries, there are a number of groups that are maintaining, restoring, even starting new Amateur Radio Packet Radio networks in the US. There's a need for a clearinghouse of such groups. I used to maintain such a list for TAPR before... well, actually, I forget why I stopped maintaining that list.
Goodspeed on your work promoting Amateur Radio networking in Kansas. As for AX.25 on Linux, it had been neglected for quite a while, but thanks to a grant from ARDC, that's now being addressed - https://www.ampr.org/apply/grants/2021-grants/grant-fixing-the-linux-kernel-ax-25/.
It's on the editorial list for 2023 to publish an issue of "how to get started" in Amateur Radio data communications. One of the best "bang for the buck" solutions is to start with Dire Wolf - https://github.com/wb2osz/direwolf and an audio interface and just about any VHF / UHF radio. The easiest, best supported audio interface I'm aware of is Tigertronics SignaLink USB - http://www.tigertronics.com. They offer cables / interface instructions to make it work plug and play for just about ANY Amateur Radio VHF / UHF unit. It's also possible to just start monitoring VHF / UHF Packet Radio with a software defined receiver and Dire Wolf running on the same embedded computer such as a Raspberry Pi.
You might also check out TARPN - http://tarpn.net/t/packet_radio_networking.html. As I've said in Zero Retries, I have some differences of opinion about their approach, but I greatly admire the work they've done creating a new TNC, providing fantastic documentation, and especially ENERGY and enthusiasm in their project.
One last suggestion - it's kind of a lost art these days, but 1200 bps (and 2400, and perhaps 3600 if you're using a software TNC like Dire Wolf or NinoTNC) Packet Radio works great via a voice repeater. If there's a voice repeater in your area that's underutilized, or open to experimentation, that's a great way to kickstart a Packet Radio network instead of having to get a lot of individual stations (and digipeaters) to provide the same coverage and quality.
Steve, regarding the ARDC grant, does the organization request status updates from those receiving the grant? I'm been a member of the mailing list that handles the patches and such for the Linux kernel AX.25 stack for longer than I care to remember and there has been a trickle of patches the past several months and maybe that is all that is required. So far kissattach and axlisten have worked flawlessly on my Debian Stable desktop computer. The bugs might be elsewhere.
Believe it or not, I am already in the process of giving Dire Wolf a try on a Lenovo laptop running Arch Linux. And I pulled my SignLink USB out of the box to tie it together with my FT-100D, although I could use my FT-817D for these experiments as the same cable works for both.
I've read your mention of using voice repeaters and I do have a 70cm repeater under my own call, I've been thinking about this...
- Nate
Nate - All I can say (given my confidentiality agreement with ARDC as part of serving on the Grants Advisory Committee) is that whether or not a grantee is required to provide a status report to ARDC depends on the specific grant. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. ARDC does sometimes provide updates on grants in their newsletter and community meetings.
I ask because it was kind of a big deal when it was announced about a year ago. Since then there have been a stream of patches to the linux-hams mailing list from Europe and China. I'd like to see DARC provide a press release stating, and it can be in general terms, the work that the grant money enabled.
Glancing at the message count in the archive index: https://marc.info/?l=linux-hams I see the following message counts for the past five years:
2022 458
2021 284
2020 422
2019 289
2018 203
Which shows 2022 was very active with a lot of patch submissions which is very good to see (only 2020 came close likely due to that anomalous year). Perhaps DARC will drop something after the first of the year in the form of a status update.
(comment deleted before posting...)
Probably better I hold my tongue.
Ready - <snicker>. Thanks for saving me the grief of having to "moderate" 😊 Feel free to drop me a note via email and we can commiserate privately.
It wan't that scandalous. Just a few obvservations that probably should be made over beers at the DCC after party.
But as long as we're talking regulations, one thing that I'd like to see is an adjustment to the Part 15 rules that require certification of amateur radios. This really holds back SDR development, as well as digital voice modes, because once a radio is certified, that's it. The rules are set up for an "analog age" where circuits defined the emmision mode, so we have tons of <1 watt SDR devices that fall under the category of test equipment and almost no high power, high volume SDRs, and none that are open to new programming by end users. Radios are considered complete boxes, and built with that in mind. And because getting devices through the FCC process takes lawyers and businesses that specialize in testing, small volume companies have a very difficult time getting off the ground.
The North West Digital Radio comes to mind...
(Part 1 of 3)
Ready - If you were referring to FCC certifications for Amateur Radio units, those are relatively light - mostly basic stuff like keeping emissions within Amateur Radio spectrum and within the allocated bandwidths, and maximum power levels. And, of course, the "big one" - cannot transmit in 27 MHz (nor easily modified to do so) which was reallocated to the Citizens Band Radio Service. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service says "The FCC equipment authorization program does not generally apply to amateur station transmitters."
If you are referring to certifications for Part 15 units (license-exempt bands such as most of 2.4 GHz), well, I lived through the popularization of that in the days prior to Wi-Fi, where the light regulations were flagrantly ignored. I knew of Wireless Internet Service Providers who prided themselves on bypassing the (required) integral antennas to attach directional antennas, and even amplifiers.
Part 2 of 3
One interesting case of early Software Defined Radios I saw was one company that had a flexible SDR that they were marketing to customers in a variety of radio services in VHF and UHF; trains, taxis, and public safety all had different regulations, so when a customer wanted to use this SDR in their service, the company would simply install new software and send it to the FCC for certification. The FCC engineering staff was flummoxed when they would see the exact same box show up to be certified for different services - same hardware, even the same SERIAL NUMBER. When the FCC asked if the company was pulling a prank, the company replied soberly that no, it WAS the same unit, just different software, to illustrate to the FCC that SDR was a new world in radio technology and the old designators and certifications were obsolete. The FCC said "Hmph" and started certifying the hardware + a specific version of software.
I enjoy the approach of New Packet Radio that I mention in Zero Retries 0078. "Oh, you don't WANT this radio to operate in the US at full potential of 500 kbps in a 100 kHz channel? Here, hold my beer... <keyboard tap tap tap to do a slight software modification> OK, load this new software to be compliant with antiquated US regulations to run SLOWER in a 100 kHz channel."
I wonder how much use that "US" software will get?
From what I have read (mostly from your writing) NPR would be a big boost over 9600 bps and sounds less fiddly to get going. I'd jump in even at 11% of the speed of the rest of the world simply because it is still a giant leap over what I started with 35 years ago and what is still most common.
There are two great leaps forward with Dire Wolf. The first is that given that Dire Wolf is running on a powerful computer (even a mundane desktop), it has a lot of compute power available. So, when it receives a packet with a bad CRC, it does a quick test to see if "flipping every bit" results in a good CRC. If yes, it does another set of sanity testing, then declares the packet good. This increases the reliability of packet a LOT. The second was that Dire Wolf added support for two different Forward Error Correction schemes - FX.25 and IL2P which make packet even better, and especially at "fragile" 9600 bps. See the video - https://youtu.be/bRZhm5bLgxs. IL2P is in a development branch of Dire Wolf - more about that at http://tarpn.net/t/il2p/il2p.html
Part 3 of 3 (silly comment system)
I suspect that the same will be true with the (hoped for) commercial version of the RPX-100 (https://rpx-100.net/#RPX-100). If, by the time this (again, hopefully) becomes a product, the US Amateur Radio VHF / UHF "symbol rate" regulations have not been rationalized, then someone will do a "dumbed down for the US market" software load to be compliant with US regulations.
But... the RPX-100 will be a SOFTWARE DEFINED radio, and like New Packet Radio, other countries are enlightened and will use software that will make the radio perform at full potential. Just... sayin...
Re: Northwest Digital Radio UDRX-440... (http://nwdigitalradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/UDRXDS.pdf), I can say with confidence that certification issues were not a cause of that unit not making it to market.
I admit I'm not up to speed with radio certification, but it seemed to be a logical assumption as to why there's a lack of COTS SDR radios that are easily modified. While composing my response I literally looked at the FCC sticker on the back of my old TH-D72, knowing it (and all commerical radios) had passed some test. Your example of the same SDR hardware used for certification is what I'm talking about, because it takes money and time to submit a product for testing, money that a manufacturer who's seen much of their business be replaced by Apple and Google, and Baofeng products, who's kept the amateur business around even though it might not be profitable, might not want to spend.
Then again, maybe no one wants radios that can change by downloading an update.