The Baud Rate Race...

Many Hams interested in packet radio today believe that our slow (compared to the Internet) data transfer capabilities are severely limiting our move to the digital world.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "moving to the digital world"...

If your concept includes Amateurs building digital systems of any significant size or distribution that are "competitive" with networks built, controlled and developed by governmental and commercial entities, then I have a news flash for you; Hams will NEVER be able to effectively "compete" with outfits that control resources of that type, level, and depth.  

Hams do not have the physical resources to do so, and do not have the intellectual resources, (funding, laboratories, equipment, personnel, universities, and so on) to "play" at anything approaching that level. - And they never will.

On the other hand, Hams are in an excellent position to pursue digital technology and infrastructure that governmental and commercial entities have no interest in, or are not pursuing, themselves.

This is simple reality, and is in no way a bad reflection upon Amateur Radio, which was never intended to "compete" with other services in the first place.

Traditionally, Hams have provided communications in those instances where governmental and commercial communications systems have broken down or have been pre-empted, because in these cases, "competition" simply does not exist. What we then have to offer is MUCH better than the alternative, which is nothing whatsoever. These are the times whem Amateur Radio "shines".

Beyond that, Ham Radio communications are primarily a "hobby", and are done on a recreational basis. Again, "competition" with non-Ham communications does not enter the picture here. For most of Ham Radio's history, non-Ham communication systems have been faster, more reliable, and more generally useful than the recreational communications between Hams. There is nothing new about this. It is simple reality and is highly unlikely to ever change, for reasons that are obvious.

This is why Hams who do not worry about "the baud rate race" and concentrate instead on building up viable medium/slow speed packet radio infrastructure are so much more successful than the clique who insist that only "competitive" networking is worthwhile, and so end up achieving very little if anything. Their vision of digital Ham Radio is only as a minor parasite, hanging off of the Internet and completely dependent upon it in order to function at all. - And so by definition becoming useless in times of disaster or emergency. No wonder they do not get wide-spread support or intertest from Hams!

Ham Radio digital networking does not need to be as fast as the Internet in order to be viable and functional, but it does need to be completely independent of the Internet.

In this instance, it is NOT better to say "If you can't beat them, join them", but that is precisely what many frustrated high-speed digital Ham Radio devotees end up doing... They connect to each other on the Internet, and dignify the pretense by calling it "Advanced Packet Radio(?) networking. They do this after discovering that widespread high-speed packet is not yet practical. I've always appreciated the irony of that. - The non-Ham links take away your emergency communications capability, your independence, they discourage the study, advancement and even the use of Radio, (including high-speed systems) but they are characterized as a great advance in Amateur Radio technology.

The most crippling limitation that Hams are currently experiencing in their move into the digital world is the perception that we must somehow "compete" with governmental and commercial agencies that possess resources far beyond those available to Hams. Part of this crippling perception is the erroneous idea that we must compete in the "baud rate race".

A good deal of the negative, "Can't do" attitude that has hamstrung digital Ham Radio in the U.S. for over a decade now has stemmed from this bogus "baud rate race" concept. If it's not high-speed, it's not worth doing. - But high-speed stuff is expensive, not standardized, and difficult for most Hams to set up and operate. So Hams generally throw up thier hands and do nothing, rather than do something they have been told is "not worth doing".

What a terrible waste, and how utterly unnecessary.

We knew that slow/medium speed digital Ham Radio worked well ten years ago, and we still do. The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network again today is the bogus perception that to do so is not "worthwhile" because it is not high-speed or IP.

As it stands today, high-speed packet is best suited for network backbone links, and emergency systems. ( I consider 9.6kb to be medium-speed, not high-speed ) The low and medium speed stuff that we have so much of, and is so easy (comparatively) to set up and use, is the obvious choice for home stations and user access to the network.

Remember that backbone packet links need to be at least eight times faster than user access, in order to handle multiple QSO's without bogging down. In Europe, most user access is 9.6kb, and backbone links are typically 19.2kb, fullduplex. They never abandoned or tore down thier old 1.2kb network as we did, so they had something to work on, advance and improve.

The unfair advantage the Europeans had over is us was that introducing non-Ham links into the network there was forbidden, period. They just stuck with Radio, and respected what they were doing, so now they have something to show for it. We didn't stick with Radio, were told repeatedly by our "experts" not to respect what we were doing, and so our network evaporated.

It seems to me that a lot of Hams here in the U.S. miss having a digital network. I wonder how many of them are ready to ignore the negativity, the "can't do" attitude, and the disparagement of any practical effort that is suggested, and just go ahead and enjoy Packet Radio anyway.

When you hear a Ham saying that we must use IP and "compete" in the baud rate race with the Internet in order for any digital Ham effort to be worthwhile, you can be sure that you are listening to the very attitude that has limited and discouraged the development of digital Amateur Radio in the U.S., not one that has brought it forward or enhanced it's ability to fullfill its primary purpose.

Alternate communications during times of emergency/disaster, and recreational communication among Hams so that independent infrastructure will be there, and ready when needed for emergency use. Experimentation/education in order to advance what can be done with Radio... That's what we are about.

Let's stop letting the "baud rate race" discourage us from providing service, and enjoying our hobby. Fire up your old packet rig, and if there's nobody out there to talk to, get together with the local Hams and chances are that you will find others who miss having a digital network as well. Tell them it's time to dust 'em off, and fire 'em up. Hams who USE Radio have no reason to allow themselves to be discouraged anymore by people who do not.

That's what it is going to take. We're just going to have to start ignoring our "experts", if we want to have a functional, physical packet network again, here in the USA. Every Ham who gets back on the air, who encourages others to do so will be taking us one step closer to having a network again. - Something to be proud of!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

 

Perhaps you should consider 802.11b networking. It utilizes the same spectrum that we are licensed to operate on, and we are authorized up to 1500 watts on that band. 802.11b offers up to 11 megabits / second throughput over distances up to 1 km, depending on your setup.

 

"We knew that slow/medium speed digital Ham Radio worked well ten years ago, and we still do. The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network again today is the bogus perception that to do so is not "worthwhile" because it is not high-speed or IP."

The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network is BANDWIDTH! Bandwidth is a luxury we hams do not and never will possess. Therefore, we will always be relagated to the slow digital world.

K2WH

 

Um! Read the above message??? 11mb/s (11000kb/s) Slow to you?

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4iii @ May 16 2002,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Um! Read the above message??? 11mb/s (11000kb/s) Slow to you?  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No that sounds pretty fast. Unfortunaltely it is also useless for packet radio networking on anything other than a small, token scale.

Imagine trying to set up a route to a town 40 miles away, having to put an entire system every kilometer or so along the route.

Imagine trying to construct a statewide network with wireless Internet junk like that. Who could afford it, assuming it actually worked? Who could keep up with maintaining all that junk?

Let's just stick with usable, practical stuff, located on the ham bands, and leave "vapor systems" where they started off in - The fevered, impractical imaginations of the "high-speed / IP only" group whose cockeyed paradigm has returned precisely nothing to U.S. hams over the last ten years.

I think ten years is a fair, honest trial of any idea. If it hasn't produced by then, I believe it is pretty safe to say that it isn't going to.

On this thread, I am not surprised or upset to see most of the return posts come from Hams who want to restate the familiar "high-speed/ IP only" mantra, because that is literally all they know.

After all, our "experts" have been pushing "high-speed/ IP only" for over a decade at Dayton, at Ham-Com, at the DCC. It is the only paradigm ever put forward ( or allowed ) at those important gatherings, despite the fact that the idea has brought us consistent failure for the last ten years, and has taken us from our position of leadership to being the laughingstock of the packet world.

If the "high-speed / IP only" paradigm had any validity whatsoever, we would be having this discussion over the Amateur Packet Radio network, instead of here on the Internet. - But "high-speed / IP only" has given us no network, no infrastructure, no fun on the air, no ability to provide emergency communications.

It's given us plenty of discouragement, though, and has taken thousands of Hams off the air. It is most often put forward as an arguement NOT to do anything else.

People with GOOD ideas are not afraid of the competition, and are seldom found expending more effort in discouraging the efforts of others than they put into developing and implementing - proving or disproving thier own ideas.

I have seens hundreds of occasions where "high-speed / IP only" folks have discouraged Hams from building anything else over the last decade, as we are seeing right now on this thread. But I haven't seen "high-speed / IP only" offer us anything tangible in return. No network.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. We know what works, and we know what doesn't work. My suggestion is that we do what works, like the folks who currently have successful packet networks have done.

That way we can go back to having fun, and developing our packet networks. Our TNC manufacturers will be pleased as well, and with the increased business, will be able to go back to developing new products again.

Pretty radical stuff, huh? If we can learn to "think outside of the box" that we have been stuck in for the last decade, there is absolutely nothing to prevent us from repairing the damage that has been done, and once again begin to experience true advancement of our digital capability.

Are we too stodgy to "shift gears" though, and approach Amateur Packet Radio as something to do, as opposed to something to discourage?

I suppose we will find out. My theory is that many U.S. Hams remember the packet network, miss it, and are tired of hearing about Hams in other parts of the world enjoying large-scale, well developed packet networks while our "Packet Experts"  in the U.S. have produced nothing but a plentitude of hot air and constant, knee-jerk  discouragement.

The "high-speed / IP only" folks would rather that we had nothing, if we can't have "high-speed / IP only"...  

Too bad the paradgm is unworkable, and has proven to be such a negative influence upon the hobby.

Charles, N5PVL

 

I agree with this post to some extent... however, I think ignoring the fact
that computers are getting faster, storage is cheaper, and data is now a
bit bigger, means certain death for any widely used digital networks.
If you simply want a network that allows you to QSO digitally, check
packet mail, read messages on packet BBSes, and relay emergency
information, packet is just fine. There's probably more to be done to
make the usage of those 1k2, 2k4, 9k6, links just a bit more efficient,
but why should we stay confined to that if we don't have to?

Now, should a new network be dependent upon the Internet for
operation? Absolutely not! If we had to have the Internet to operate
our digital amateur radio network, what would be the point? But, does
this mean that it shouldn't have Internet hooks where possible and
legal? I don't think so. I think it'd be excellent to be able to retrieve your
Internet e-mail over amateur radio, get weather information from
weather websites, and so on and so forth. IP isn't a necessity for the
operation of the network (from a client perspective) ... but if you use
IP, you can use a lot of the programs already in existence without having
to reinvent the wheel (i.e., content available via HTTP, FTP, SMTP, NNTP).

But ... all this added feature, which could be extremely beneficial to the
amateur radio community, is going to need higher speeds to become
practical. Does this mean that we need to try and have everyone
connected with 1mbps links? No, not at all. Heck, I think having
something akin to a 56kbps modem (on frequencies other than 900 MHz,
that one is a waste of time), would be plenty to start with.
The majority of households in the United States receive their Internet
access via a dialup modem at speeds of around 26.4kbps, and it's a tad
slow for big things, but it works just fine. Our point isn't to become the
Internet, but to add functionality to what we're already doing.

Anyway ... I think it's possible. AFSK and the like is not the most efficient
usage of bandwidth when it comes to trying to get high speed ... but
it has to be taken in steps... I don't think HF will really be any faster due
to the high signal to noise ratio ... but that's what PSK31 and the like is
for. When time and resources are available, myself and others will be
working on such an improvement to packet radio ... I guess we'll see how
it pans out.

 

I have been an amateur for many years and one of the
first modes i used as a novice was 5wpm code then i moved to packet noticed i skipped voice because as a
novice i was not allowed on voice then they come up and
started lettting novice class get on 220 then i was on packet with a 220 packet system and a bbs that was so
cool!! then i upgrade to tech then added a 220 to 2M gateway that was also pretty neat!. then packet in alabama started dying and i put it all in the closet till
a couple months ago and got it all back out set up the
bbs on 2M and also have a mobile packet station in my pickup truck!!, packet is a blast and for emergency comm it is great, my bbs gets very useful weather info that i
can use in the field bottom line is that with packet
you dont have the BS of people not wanting you to use
their repeaters and also it is a blast not to mention you
can put up a node for $300.00 or less!!!.

 

NOW FOR MY REAL SOAPBOX!!!!
as most of the "high speed packet" go i placed a question here on qrz in another forum asking the question of just how do you set up a tcp/ip packet system and i got a grand total of 0 answers!! although i
know it can be done i just dont know how so i thought
to my self ok i will just do it the "old fashion way" or
simple way 1200 baud ax25 plain text simple and it works very well!!. Friends can also leave me e-mail
in my truck and i can get it when i see the light blinking
and not to mention it is fun. NOW as for bandwith well
it seems to me that in the past you get more than 4-5 people on a frequency and people start screaming too many retries...GIVE ME A BREAK!!! at 1200 baud i am
not sure just how many people you can get on a frequency but who cares!!! the tnc's will work it all out
ok so maybe you may need more than 1 node on a frequency i may can see that but go ahead cram all the
users on 1 channell that way we dont have the problem
of having to go hunt someone on another freq. not to mention it is lots easyer to build a packet network without having to have multiple tnc's and radio's and ant. at a site. Here in N.W Alabama we are using 145.010 and i would like to see us stay that way and build a network of nodes in the surounding states so that
you could start here in alabama and if you have a friend in like indiana you could connect to them (about 250 air miles away(Southern Indiana)) but until we as amateurs
stop wanting a quiet data frequency with zero retries we will never get anywhere. Come on help me build a U.S wide LOW SPEED 1200 Baud packet system that we can
all be proud of and it all be on 1 frequency!. Lets add to the Node list and Route list. OUT with HIGH SPEED IN with LOW SPEED!!!, If your ever going from memphis to birmingham you are welcome to connect to the KB4OEY bbs you may need to first connect to WIN that is a node then connect to the bbs or connect to me K9LTR if i am mobile!!

KEEP PACKET ALIVE!!! 73, Jamie K9LTR

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is, k9ltr. I *think* you're saying you'd
like to see a nationwide network of 1200 baud packet systems. I think
any system is better than no system at all ... but if you're going to put
all the time and effort into it, you might as well setup something that's
modern, practical, and scalable. I think with the types of data being
transferred a lot nowadays, 1200 baud is awfully slow and restrictive.
I remember using dialup BBSes long ago at 1200 baud ... and that
without a lot of the latencies/problems inherent in RF systems, and while
it's functional, it's not really what I'd like to confine myself to.

As for a TCP/IP packet network, it's not that big of a deal. There are
hams that have done it, many of them hang out on the world wide converse,
(though the channel numbers escape me at the moment). Your problem
is in combining AX.25 and TCP. AX.25 is an interesting protocol, in that
it's both layer 2 and layer 3, so it tends to work a bit to ensure reliable
communications where most layer 2 protocols leave that up to higher
level protocols. TCP generally handles the reliable mode of communication,
with things like ACKs ... but AX.25 tries to do this too. So you get the
two systems actually working against one another, tying up already precious
bandwidth, and the system gets even slower. IMHO, if a protocol like
AX.25 is going to be used, you don't want TCP in there. You could still
send IP, since it doesn't care about reliability, and then perhaps let AX.25
manage the rest of the connection ... but I'm not sure how well that works.

 

You guys are forgetting one very serious thing.

Ordinary Phone modem technology has progressed to the point where 33.6 kbps connections are possible over 2400 baud.. That's right. BAUD. (53 kbps connections are possible over the telephone system because one end is completely digital. 33.6 kbps modems are strictly analogue on both ends.)

The definition of Baud is the number of carrier changes per second and consumes bandwidth in a way we are all familiar with. In order to obtain more than 1 bit per carrier change (As the way it was with 300, 1200 and 2400 baud modems) modem manufacturers use all kinds of modulation tricks, like Quadrature Phase Amplitude Modulation in order to get more than 1 bit per baud.

A lot of modern radios coming out these days have Data Radio ports that allow up to.. guess what.. 9600 BAUD!
(Perhaps they use a form of QAM in order to get 19.6 kbps in Europe?)

In actuality, we have about FOUR times the amount of bandwidth that is capable over a Plain Old Telephone System! (POTS) Unfortunately, we do not have the Signal to Noise ratio that the phone system has.

So, If typical ordinary phone modems can do 33.6 kbps over 2400 BPS, that means that they should be able to do 134.4 kbps over 9600 baud provided that conditions are perfect, but we all know that isn't the case.

If bits and pieces are eliminated from the QAM map, there can be speed "Steps" just like with a regular modem. Or perhaps it could be crippled for "Typical" S/N Ratios over 2M FM?

So, why doesn't the packet system use 100-134.4 kbps for it's backbone and a fraction of that for it's users?

Well, there are smart hams and there are dumb hams. There are hams who hang around on W6NUT and there are hams who work for NASA and design space shuttles for a living. (Or at least, I hope so.)

Some brilliant genius thought up PSK31 to combat the lousy S/N ratio HF has. Someone else thought up IRLP. These systems never would have been in place if someone didn't think them up.

So why can't we have our fast Packet system? Easy. Nobody out there has thought up a way of how to do it yet. I'm not a modem engineer but I've worked with modems long enough to know how they handshake and how they spew data across a phone line.

All we would need is one ham who is very smart to design a new packet standard. It's physically possible, it's done all the time. Someone just needs to think it up.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I can't see any reason why not.. at least not now..

BTW, CARA (Calgary Amateur Radio Assoc) was doing the whole internet gateway thing back in 1993 with the Calgary Unix Users Group. The Gateway consisted of nothing more than a IBM XT running some very specialized and custom coded software. Been there, done that. (It wasn't fast, but it worked&#33

Anyway, Flame me all you like, I'm curious to know what you guys think.

 

ok my point was this
1> it seems as though some think we should be able to xfer huge files over packet radio.

well that is all nice and neat but packet was not designed to do that i mean look at the ONLY binary file xfer is Yapp and its not that great.

I think we foreget lets just use packet for xfer of text like weather and news and also a way to connect to friends without having to be near a px line.

2>Who cares about speed, and besides with speed comes price. You can set up a 1200 bps packet station for less than $200 sometimes less than $150.00 if u shop around.

3>Yes the radio MFG are making radio's 9600 bps OK but look for the stuff out there to use it....there's not much!!! folks have 1200 bps stuff laying in closet's with dust collecting on it.....PULL IT OUT LETS USE IT!!!

4>Yes a point i was trying to get across lets make a nation wide packet system and have it on 1 frequency so you can contact that friend several hundred miles away.

5>And for the ones out there that think 2 or 3 retries are too many and want your own private packet freq. do the rest of us a favor!!!....Give us your packet equipment so we can build a wonderful packet system.

ok now go ahead flame me

73, jamie k9ltr
getting in Flame Resistant Suite

 

ve6bud has some very valid points. The only real barriers to actually
getting higher speed packet is the S/N and modulation that provides a
high(er) throughput, is able to stay within the FCC's bandwidth limitations,
and can work reasonably well with the amount of noise present on RF.
I don't think it's impossible, I don't even know that it's that difficult... it
just hasn't really been done yet on amateur frequencies. I'm not an
engineer either, though ...

Now, back to k9ltr I hope your suit is very flame resistant! j/k
Anyway, answers to your questions/statements from my point of view.

1) Why shouldn't we be able to transfer large files over packet radio?
The telephone lines weren't designed to ever send data, yet that's what they're
used for today, probably just as much if not more so as voice communications.
The only reason nobody transfers large files over packet radio now is
because it just takes too long. Though I'm sure some people still do it anyway.

2) Speed is an important factor when you need it. For text, you don't need
too terribly much above what's already available. But once you start getting
into new features that require a more... diverse content, you're probably
talking about a lot of media that hasn't been transferred across radio
before such as digital audio/video, applications, etc ... We have the frequencies
available, I don't really see any reason not to use them to their fullest,
non-commercial extent.

3) I honestly think stuff doesn't exist to be used with the high speed interfaces
on various radios because people are afraid to do it. They're either afraid they're
going to violate laws (whether from the FCC or some other agency in another
country), or they simply don't see a point to it as they won't have anyone
to really do much with. A group has to get together and start working on
this stuff... one person can't do it all alone.

4) To my knowledge, this would be more or less like a digipeater. Not sure
if you could make them all on the same frequency... but you could probably have
a set of frequencies used nationwide to access the network.

5) Retries and the like are going to be a natural part of any shared media system,
such as Ethernet and the like and CSMA/CD. I'm assuming this is what you're
talking about ... However, perhaps if the speeds were higher, retries might
not be so detrimental to practical operation.

Are we having fun yet? At least this is turning out to be a really good discussion.

 

9600 BPS is too slow. Why is the Ham community held back?? N8PCA

 

n8pca, I'm assuming you haven't read any of the rest of the posts related
to this article. The amateur community is held back because nobody has
yet developed a method to go faster on the frequencies that we use ... as
ve6bud pointed out, it's not that we don't have the bandwidth, but rather
we have a much higher signal to noise ratio than dialup lines and other wired
communications have to contend with.

Now, utilizing different modulations, you can cram more and more bits
per second into your transmission ... however, the receiver has to be able
to demodulate all those bits, and the more you put in there, the less distinct
the bits are from one another, and noise becomes more and more of a problem.
Unlike voice transmissions where you can usually piece together what the
person is saying in the worst of conditions, digital data has to come across
perfectly one way or another. Of course that's where checksums and all that
fun stuff come into play, but your data isn't going to fly if every frame has
to be resent because it wasn't received correctly.

As I said earlier, I don't think we need 1mbps links and the like over amateur
radio ... but 56kbps, 128kbps, achievable things like that would sure be nice ...

 

I just wanted to add a couple of points to this thread.

1). Who do you think often works in these state-of-the-art laboratories, universities, and research labs? Hams!! The very people who have the knowledge to keep us "up to date" are already involved in ham radio, to a large degree (obviously not all of them). I don't think there's such a crisis of ham radio falling helplessly behind the state of the art, at least as far as technical expertise is concerned. The real issue is coordinating "those who know stuff" and helping to create services for the rest of the hams (ie, kit building and such, a la TAPR and AMRAD, etc etc). I think frankly, most RF engineers and designers in industry who are hams simply don't have the time or inclination to apply their knowledge towards developing high speed data for ham use. After spending all day doing it for a job, they probably just want to have a rag chew or chase DX at home. Just a hunch.

2). Having said that, how much "do we need" high speed data? Well, given that there IS cheap, off-the-shelf high speed (at least as compared with 1200 baud) data products out there, which can (and have been) modified for ham use, I think it would be silly to ignore. The hams who have, and are, doing this can easily be contacted for any kind of coordinated "high speed" efforts. I don't think it would be that hard, but perhaps I'm just ignorant of all the details involved. From what I've observed, the biggest obstacle is just getting people interested and coordination. If you don't have a ready-made package/kit that people can buy for low cost & throw together in a weekend, most people will lose interest or not bother. I think it takes 2-3 guys working together to develop the initial model, develop a kit, and then get on QST or someplace to make it known to the ham community (then have the resources to actually provide kits&#33.

3). Having said all this, is there no use for low speed packet? I'm not sure. I think in the short term, yes, because that's all we have. But long term we need to move away from it, in my opinion.

73s,

Bert WF7I