I wonder under the new rules, if waveforms such as STANAG HF modems (1200/2400/3600 bps) would be permitted in the hf ham bands? They take up an entire SSB (3 KHZ) channel. The spec is public.
Robert - the new US rules now in effect for the Amateur Radio HF bands specify a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz. Thus if STANAG 5066 has a mode that operates in a maximum bandwidth up to 2.8 kHz, then yes, that sub-mode can be used. If more than 2.8 kHz, then no, it cannot be used (by US Amateur Radio Operators). I wasn't able to find an actual reference for bandwidth (channel size) for STANAG 5066.
TCP/IP has one important aspect that limits its usefulness for ham radio: It is extremely "chatty" - both in data volume and lots of "ping-pong". The smallest IPV4 packet is 48 bytes long and you need to acknowledge received packets on no more that 1500 bytes all the time. IPV6 certainly does not improve in this respect. So forget it for example over QO-100.
There are alternative methods, especially for store & forward applications like emails. FIDOnet showed that 50 years ago with 1200 bit/s modems over expensive phone lines. For example, one node aggregated 100 or more mails into a single, compressed file destined for another, directly connected node. Then this file was transferred with a minimum of handshake activity. The receiving node retrieved the single emails and acted on them accordingly.
Alexander - Yeah, TCP/IP does have that "chatty" reputation but there have been numerous workarounds developed over the years. For example, one workaround as part of an early version of GEO satellite Internet I covered more than 20 years ago "faked out" TCP/IP applications using GEO Internet by generating acks to the application within the satellite modem. Another workaround is that TCP/IP can be set to be "patient" in waiting for acks, etc. as we did way back in the day using TCP/IP over AX.25 on 1200 bps channels with no FEC. It didn't work great... but it absolutely DID work!
Steve, thanks for the reply. The actual spec I was interested in is STANAG 4285. That’s the implementation I am familiar with. I see from the attached link it is spec’d at 3 KHz so it is a little too wide for ham use. See Page A-3 section 4 of
I wonder under the new rules, if waveforms such as STANAG HF modems (1200/2400/3600 bps) would be permitted in the hf ham bands? They take up an entire SSB (3 KHZ) channel. The spec is public.
http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/s4285.PDF
Robert - the new US rules now in effect for the Amateur Radio HF bands specify a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz. Thus if STANAG 5066 has a mode that operates in a maximum bandwidth up to 2.8 kHz, then yes, that sub-mode can be used. If more than 2.8 kHz, then no, it cannot be used (by US Amateur Radio Operators). I wasn't able to find an actual reference for bandwidth (channel size) for STANAG 5066.
TCP/IP has one important aspect that limits its usefulness for ham radio: It is extremely "chatty" - both in data volume and lots of "ping-pong". The smallest IPV4 packet is 48 bytes long and you need to acknowledge received packets on no more that 1500 bytes all the time. IPV6 certainly does not improve in this respect. So forget it for example over QO-100.
There are alternative methods, especially for store & forward applications like emails. FIDOnet showed that 50 years ago with 1200 bit/s modems over expensive phone lines. For example, one node aggregated 100 or more mails into a single, compressed file destined for another, directly connected node. Then this file was transferred with a minimum of handshake activity. The receiving node retrieved the single emails and acted on them accordingly.
Alexander - Yeah, TCP/IP does have that "chatty" reputation but there have been numerous workarounds developed over the years. For example, one workaround as part of an early version of GEO satellite Internet I covered more than 20 years ago "faked out" TCP/IP applications using GEO Internet by generating acks to the application within the satellite modem. Another workaround is that TCP/IP can be set to be "patient" in waiting for acks, etc. as we did way back in the day using TCP/IP over AX.25 on 1200 bps channels with no FEC. It didn't work great... but it absolutely DID work!
Steve, thanks for the reply. The actual spec I was interested in is STANAG 4285. That’s the implementation I am familiar with. I see from the attached link it is spec’d at 3 KHz so it is a little too wide for ham use. See Page A-3 section 4 of
http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/s4285.PDF
Bob wm6h