[Linux-ham] Opus over 9600 baud KISS TNC

[Tadd Torborg]

Kevin, 
  My expectation is that high latency voice delivery will drive latency improvements.  What I want is something that competes with Voice Over Internet using entirely ham radio digital networks.  We already can buy 56kbaud digital radios at 440Mhz.  I expect to use things like that to make a long haul bigger-than-statewide digital network to support linking repeaters and wholly digital mobile&base equipment.  

It’s taking a while to get started because we have to attract people with locations close enough to each other to make the thing work.  That’s hard to do when we have almost no features or range to offer.   Adding voice over G8BPQ network, even if it was impractical would at least be attractive.  It would also enable using this thing mobile.  Text messaging is pretty close to useless mobile.  Voice may be slow but at least it is useful.  The only way I have to promote this faster is to give it over to government sponsored groups and I don’t think that is the solution to growing this thing in the long term.  You and I can have lots of fun with this if we can build it ourselves and make it run between ham's houses.  

BTW, we have a 2-port node in Bahama that can talk to your house on 6m.  I’d sponsor the gear to make our TARPN work at your house if you’d do it using TARPN rules (i.e. Raspberry PI + G8BPQ + no Internet + no collisions) (see tarpn.net <http://tarpn.net/>), and permit another dedicated link heading out of your location to tie some other network resources in. I’m thinking 6m and 220Mhz.  The antenna I’m thinking of would share one coax with 2m and 440 as well.   If we wait another few weeks I’ll have less gear to lend around but I’m putting a 6m/2m/70cm node up in northwest Chapel Hill where NC86 crosses i40.  That should be able to work you on 2m.  There are stations in Greensboro and Burlington that want to be connected to us.  I don’t have a station that can talk to Burlington yet from our side.  Chapel Hill won’t do it.   Neither will your house I expect, but at least it’s closer.  You could probably talk on 220Mhz to a station in Mebane who CAN talk to Burlington.  

I’d also separately come up with gear to make two bench-top G8BPQ-on-Raspberry PI nodes if you wanted something to experiment on.  I also have Wintel computers available for the same thing if that would help.  I have a pair of 431Mhz 9600 baud data radios and 144Mhz 1200 baud TNCs+radios to loan if you would help.  

   Tadd

Tadd / KA2DEW
tadd at mac.com
Raleigh NC  FM05pv

“Packet networking over ham radio": http://tarpn.net <http://tarpn.net/>

Tadd Torborg
tadd at mac.com



> On Dec 31, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Kevin Otte <nivex at nivex.net> wrote:
> 
> It largely depends on what you want to do. Most of my experiments have centered around real time, point-to-multipoint comms similar to our analog voice systems. With VoIP systems you use UDP because the occasional dropped frame isn't going to go noticed. Once you add in the reliability/retransmission layer, you not only effectively half your available rate, but your end-to-end latency becomes wildly variable with network congestion. Not good for realtime.
> 
> If we ignore the need for realtime and just want to move the voice across a NET/ROM network, you are basically looking at a store-and-forward system. It would be akin to voicemail or Snapchat. Wouldn't be very useful for interactive, but for something like "Hey Bob, I'm running a little late. Go ahead and order my usual for lunch" it would be alright. Of course, at that point you're probably falling back to text anyway.
> 
> On 12/30/2014 02:45 PM, Tadd Torborg wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>   This sounds really hopeful.  Are you still working on the idea that
>> latency is not permitted?  Or are you allowing latency?
>>   I would really like to see this working across G8BPQ nodes.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-ham mailing list
> Linux-ham at trilug.org
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ham

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/linux-ham/attachments/20141231/3bad7bae/attachment.html>