←back to thread

Taking a Radio Camping

(ewpratten.com)
139 points ewpratten | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
CrimsonCape ◴[] No.41088786[source]
I have a question for amateur radio enthusiasts:

Let's say "radio 1.0" is as it existed since radio was invented: convert raw analog or digital packets into a signal of a given wavelength as assigned by the FCC for the "type" i.e. nautical, hobby, aero, etc. Roughly associated with physical distance.

It's obvious we have the technology at this point where multiple streams of information can be reconstructed from one wire/pipe. My cable internet is mixed with thousands of other users and yet the cable internet system delivers me just my data.

Why is the airwaves not just another physical medium (metal wire, fiber optic, air)?

If I want to build an amateur transmitter to airstream my Twitch to my friend in Brazil, the FCC would say no, because

1. Can't clutter up the airwaves (the FCC manages the wavelengths) 2. For "safety" (government wants to monitor the stream)

In "radio 2.0" I can build my hobby hardware to whatever transmit power I want and use whatever wavelength I want because air is just another medium for the same signal. My question is roughly, why cant the organizing principles of my router, isp cable internet system, etc apply to over the air transmission?

Is it a physics limitation? Or a "we always did it this way therefore you can't have it" (FCC, etc)

Let's say I hypothetically have a high power handheld transmitter in my pocket powered by modern batteries, the FCC doesn't exist, and the power is the best that the modern batteries can provide, with the only tradeoffs being weight of the transmitter and duration of batteries, i.e. physics based tradeoffs.

Don't we have the technology to mix thousands of such handheld transmitters so that everyone can carry one, broadcast their own stream, and intermix the streams, and deconstruct the stream back to my own data?

replies(3): >>41088846 #>>41088850 #>>41088913 #
dingnuts ◴[] No.41088850[source]
You might be just describing packet radio, which does exist, but it's extremely slow due to the physical size of the radio waves involved, as I understand it. The frequency of the waves, due to their extremely long wavelength, is very low.

The trade-off for the long wavelengths is better permeability of the signal, which is why the author of the article is able to transmit so far on seven watts, but your Wi-Fi (high frequency and very short wavelength) has trouble getting through walls.

replies(1): >>41091084 #
1. nullfield ◴[] No.41091084[source]
Packet doesn’t have to be in any particular frequency band, e.g. not in ELF-MF (3Hz-3000kHz).

It just implies packet switching instead of circuit switching or message switching, and can be done at any frequency.

APRS is packet; anything that hears a position report can decode the data and decide what to do with it, as a unit. This is versus circuit switching or message switching-circuit switching being a dedicated channel (e.g. a phone call, regardless of what the underlying protocol is, since I know we can do things like VoLTE where the underlying network packetizes and multiplexes traffic) and message switching being like email-routed all together somewhere, perhaps via multiple hops.