|
This might be a bit of a silly question, but here goes:? Are we allowed to do M17 on VHF?? All of the radio examples I see on the M17 Project site are UHF, so I'm wondering if there are bandwidth or other issues that prevent the use on VHF?
?
Thanks,
?
-Dj
?
|
In the US, you can go down as far as 6m, and even 10m in some circumstances. It's easier to experiment up in UHF land, due to the amount of equipment available.
--
Steve KC1AWV
M17 Project
|
It's also important to note that the equivalent to M17 (rough equivalent, not a perfect one) is a 9kHz wide FM signal. Even with the baud rate limitations being lifted on HF, the signal is still too wide for anything down that far.
--
Steve KC1AWV
M17 Project
|
Thank you Steve.? I have a TYT TH-9000D VHF radio with a data jack connected to a DigiRig that I am currently using for APRS.? I picked up an MMDVM-Pi board and was thinking of experimenting.
|
M17 started in Europe so that’s where most of the RF systems are to date.
In Europe, the 2m band is 144-146 MHz, so not a lot room for new modes and systems.
In Europe the 70cm band is 430-440 MHz so there’s a lot more spectrum for experimentation.
No there is nothing to prevent M17 from being used on all VHF / UHF bands in the US.
Steve N8GNJ
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
This might be a bit of a silly question, but here goes:? Are we allowed to do M17 on VHF?? All of the radio examples I see on the M17 Project site are UHF, so I'm wondering if there are bandwidth or other issues that prevent the use on VHF?
?
Thanks,
?
-Dj
?
|
In Australia, 2m is more heavily
utilised/allocated than 70cm, so most DV has been on 70cm.? Also,
2m has tended to cater more to legacy FM.? Yes, there's the
occasional DMR, D-STAR and Fusion repeater, but far fewer than on
70cm.? As for M17, I'm not aware of a 2m M17 repeater here....
yet.
On 26/8/24 11:47 am, Steve Stroh N8GNJ
via groups.io wrote:
M17 started in Europe so that’s where most of the
RF systems are to date.
In Europe, the 2m band is 144-146 MHz, so not a
lot room for new modes and systems.
In Europe the 70cm band is 430-440 MHz so there’s
a lot more spectrum for experimentation.
No there is nothing to prevent M17 from being used
on all VHF / UHF bands in the US.
Steve N8GNJ
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter -
Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
This might be a bit of a silly question, but here
goes:? Are we allowed to do M17 on VHF?? All of the radio
examples I see on the M17 Project site are UHF, so I'm
wondering if there are bandwidth or other issues that
prevent the use on VHF?
?
Thanks,
?
-Dj
?
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
|
220 in the USA may be a good choice - but good luck finding other users.
You could, OTOH, build a local-regional network for Emcomm, or some
other purpose, and in many areas you'd be unlikely to have to compete
for spectrum.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/25/24 20:05, Dj Merrill via groups.io wrote: Thank you Steve.? I have a TYT TH-9000D VHF radio with a data jack connected to a DigiRig that I am currently using for APRS. I picked up an MMDVM-Pi board and was thinking of experimenting.
|
Unless someone can show me the relevant part in the US regs, there are
still limits on symbol rate:
2200 m - 300 baud
630 m - 300 baud
6 m - 19.6 kbaud
2 m - 19.6 kbaud
1.25 m - 56 kbaud (no max symbol rate 219-220 MHz - 100-kHz max b/w)
70 cm - 56 kbaud
HF, 10-80 m, it's 2.8 kHz max b/w, no max symbol rate ... which is
what the NPRM and R&O covered. No other bands were listed, so the FCC
didn't change anything. No sail mail on those other bands,
presumably.
Even though I've passed both Canadian exams, I don't recall the limits
there, but I believe it's *only* bandwidth that is regulated and not
symbol rate. I really should commit that to memory. Or at least
bookmark the relevant part of the regs.
Peter
|
Peter:
You’re correct - that is the situation as it applies to US Amateur Radio at this moment.
The FCC requested comments on changes to all the other bands, not just removal of symbol rate, but also change or removal of the channel size restrictions. There were substantive, and numerous comments filed supporting removal of both symbol rates and channel sizes for all VHF / UHF bands.
The FCC has not, to date, acted on those comments.
This was covered in depth in Zero Retries.
Steve N8GNJ Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
Unless someone can show me the relevant part in the US regs, there are
still limits on symbol rate:
2200 m - 300 baud
630 m - 300 baud
6 m - 19.6 kbaud
2 m - 19.6 kbaud
1.25 m -? 56 kbaud (no max symbol rate 219-220 MHz - 100-kHz max b/w)
70 cm - 56 kbaud
HF, 10-80 m, it's 2.8 kHz max b/w, no max symbol rate ... which is
what the NPRM and R&O covered.? No other bands were listed, so the FCC
didn't change anything.? No sail mail on those other bands,
presumably.
Even though I've passed both Canadian exams, I don't recall the limits
there, but I believe it's *only* bandwidth that is regulated and not
symbol rate.? I really should commit that to memory.? Or at least
bookmark the relevant part of the regs.
Peter
|
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 7:43?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via groups.io <steve.stroh@...> wrote: This was covered in depth in Zero Retries. I read every issue but missed that. Not sure you can have *no* bandwidth limit because then there would be some joker running a 4-MHz wide signal on 144 MHz. OTOH, 19.6k seems thin. They need to be super careful with 2200 and 630. The latter is, at least, 7 kHz wide but the former is 2.1. They need to keep 'phone off 2200 unless you can fit it into something super narrow. As it is, one SSB signal takes *more* than that band. And 3 would fill up 630. Not relevant to M17, of course, or anything else using CODEC2. -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Peter:
I’m on a phone so it’s not easy to cite the URLfor that coverage.
As the ARRL and ARDC and others (including me) pointed out to the FCC in our comments, there are many “safeguards“ remaining in the current rules (that would not be changed) that preclude the kind of stupidity / abuse that you’re positing. Just to cite one, the prohibition against interference of an ongoing transmission.
Those of us in the “progressive faction” hope that the FCC can see the advantage of maximum possible flexibility for experimentation and technological innovation in the Amateur Radio VHF / UHF bands.?
Steve N8GNJ Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 7:43?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via
<steve.stroh=[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This was covered in depth in Zero Retries.
I read every issue but missed that.
Not sure you can have *no* bandwidth limit because then there would be
some joker running a 4-MHz wide signal on 144 MHz.? OTOH, 19.6k seems
thin.
They need to be super careful with 2200 and 630.? The latter is, at
least, 7 kHz wide but the former is 2.1.? They need to keep 'phone off
2200 unless you can fit it into something super narrow.? As it is, one
SSB signal takes *more* than that band.? And 3 would fill up 630.
Not relevant to M17, of course, or anything else using CODEC2.
--
Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Not challenging you - just don't remember it. You may not know this but ... there's a lot of stuff in ZR! :-D I need to update this with the Canadian regs which are in RBR-4 (which was updated in '22 for MF/LF stuff). For now, it's just 47 CFR 97 (as amended recently). On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 9:02?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via groups.io <steve.stroh@...> wrote:
Peter:
I’m on a phone so it’s not easy to cite the URLfor that coverage.
As the ARRL and ARDC and others (including me) pointed out to the FCC in our comments, there are many “safeguards“ remaining in the current rules (that would not be changed) that preclude the kind of stupidity / abuse that you’re positing. Just to cite one, the prohibition against interference of an ongoing transmission.
Those of us in the “progressive faction” hope that the FCC can see the advantage of maximum possible flexibility for experimentation and technological innovation in the Amateur Radio VHF / UHF bands.
Steve N8GNJ
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter -
Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 17:41 Peter Laws via groups.io <plaws0@...> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 7:43?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via groups.io
<steve.stroh@...> wrote:
This was covered in depth in Zero Retries. I read every issue but missed that.
Not sure you can have *no* bandwidth limit because then there would be
some joker running a 4-MHz wide signal on 144 MHz. OTOH, 19.6k seems
thin.
They need to be super careful with 2200 and 630. The latter is, at
least, 7 kHz wide but the former is 2.1. They need to keep 'phone off
2200 unless you can fit it into something super narrow. As it is, one
SSB signal takes *more* than that band. And 3 would fill up 630.
Not relevant to M17, of course, or anything else using CODEC2.
--
Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
-- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
Not challenging you - just don't remember it.? You may not know this
but ... there's a lot of stuff in ZR!? :-D
I need to update this with the Canadian regs which are in RBR-4 (which
was updated in '22 for MF/LF stuff).? For now, it's just 47 CFR 97 (as
amended recently).
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 9:02?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via
<steve.stroh=[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
> I’m on a phone so it’s not easy to cite the URLfor that coverage.
>
> As the ARRL and ARDC and others (including me) pointed out to the FCC in our comments, there are many “safeguards“ remaining in the current rules (that would not be changed) that preclude the kind of stupidity / abuse that you’re positing. Just to cite one, the prohibition against interference of an ongoing transmission.
>
> Those of us in the “progressive faction” hope that the FCC can see the advantage of maximum possible flexibility for experimentation and technological innovation in the Amateur Radio VHF / UHF bands.
>
> Steve N8GNJ
>
> Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
> Editor
> Zero Retries Newsletter -
> Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 17:41 Peter Laws via <plaws0=[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 7:43?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via
>> <steve.stroh=[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > This was covered in depth in Zero Retries.
>>
>> I read every issue but missed that.
>>
>> Not sure you can have *no* bandwidth limit because then there would be
>> some joker running a 4-MHz wide signal on 144 MHz.? OTOH, 19.6k seems
>> thin.
>>
>> They need to be super careful with 2200 and 630.? The latter is, at
>> least, 7 kHz wide but the former is 2.1.? They need to keep 'phone off
>> 2200 unless you can fit it into something super narrow.? As it is, one
>> SSB signal takes *more* than that band.? And 3 would fill up 630.
>>
>> Not relevant to M17, of course, or anything else using CODEC2.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 9:52?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via groups.io <steve.stroh@...> wrote:
That explains it - I only subscribed at ZR151! -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Dj Merrill
Steve KC1AWV
DavidC KD4E
Peter Laws