Just visited here: <http://www.hsmm-mesh.org> I am impressed! I have owned a WRT-54G in the past and it was a robust device. I have a WRT-300L here, I took it offline due to an intermittent, it's

Maybe because it's relatively simple to generate GMSK in software whereas 4FSK/C4FM requires (to the best of my knowledge) a dedicated IC to handle the timing; I know that GMSK demodulation has been

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams become dependant on the commercial common

I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it to work in this part of the world. Mesh networks are all well and good, but you have to have the sites to put the nodes.

The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless. If we could get back the piece

Again, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and

Hi, I just wanted to make a very public thank you to John for all of his help to me while I have been getting a new repeater up and running. Thank you John for answering my dumb questions , you

Tony, I'm not so sure it needs to work as you're describing; what I see is that the mesh networks should back up the Internet in areas where they are practical, and link to other areas using other

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:51 AM, qrv@... We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220 Mhz.(about 1996) specifically for point-to-point linking. 97.303l

Would 1MHz be adequate for what is needed? It sounds impractical to use near the coast and one would have to avoid TV stations on Channels 11 & 13. John D. Hays -- Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com David

What I'm saying is that mesh networks have a low probability of success anywhere here, and permanent PrP links have the same weaknesses as the telcos and regular repeaters in some of the more common

* On 2012 31 Jul 08:00 -0500, qrv@... wrote: Wasn't a portion of replacement bandwidth allocated at 219-220 MHz? I know for certain that the American Association of Railroads is using 220-222 MHz

This topic seems more appropriate to this group than any of the others that I'm in here, as the hardware should support at least the three main modes in use. I know some folks might get their knickers

Not trying to start a flame war (but probably will... I'm sorry in advance), but I feel it's important to point out. Anytime you go from analog to digital, audio quality/information is lost. If you

While the codec conversions are unavoidable, you do NOT have to go all the way back to analog, if you are able to build some suitable hardware. That's already been done for D-STAR, with the DV Dongle

Tony, Exactly; all of the DV technologies I mentioned use some form of AMBE, so it's a matter of conversion of bit rates and constructing the proper carrier code for the target system. We already

Agree totally, all the supervisory information needs to be handled properly. I'd like to see this sort of work happen. As for the technologies, I'm wary of TDMA, because it has inherent range limits

Will the UDR56K4 be able to support the switching speeds required for DMR? -Reid N0RC

Hi Reid, DMR is NOT one of the modes supported at launch. There has been some interest in DMR mostly in a future duplex repeater configuration which doesn't require turning the PA around. As a

Maybe your all confused... audio doesn't have to come out a speaker to be analog. To be perfectly clear, the dv-dongle is still converting a digital signal to an analog one... and a second chip is