From: cheese@runx.oz.au (Mark Cheeseman)
Newsgroups: aus.radio
Subject: Re: Citizens Band Packet Radio on 70cm
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:20:30 GMT
Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia

In article <726360871.AA00307@csource.oz.au> Peter.Berrett@f404.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Berrett) writes:
>Hi evryone
> 
>I'd be interested to know peoples thought on the idea of a new Citizens band
>radio... one exclusively for packet radio. The idea would be that non-amateurs
>would be able to communicate with their local bullettin boards without the need
>to pay for the telephone calls. The band would need say, 80 channels and would
>ideally be on vhf or uhf. My suggestion is that a portion of the 70cm Amateur
>band be allocated for this purpose.
> 
An interesting idea, but it would be somewhat flawed in its practical
application, I fear. For a CB type service, you'd be talking off-the-shelf
components (radio and TNC) -- say $500 for the radio and $300 for the TNC, a
total of $800, just to save the average (local) BBS user $0.25 a call. Even if
a BBSer calls once a day, it's only $90 a year.

Worse still, that off the shelf TNC only runs at 1200bps (2400 if you're
lucky) half duplex (I know most BBS types don't use a full duplex modem to
advantage, but it doesn't make much difference here). With 14,400 modems
selling from around the $600 mark, not only is the initial outlay higher, but
the maximum throughput is a 12th of what is available on landline. And that's
assuming you have the whole channel to yourself, which isn't a given on packet.

OTOH, if somebody designed and marketed a type-approved 9600bps (or faster)
data radio, the idea might be more workable. Packet radio is still far from
being a mature technology -- there's all sorts of problems that packet
experimenters (eg hams) are trying to solve. 

>The whole system need only be low powered as it would be intended for local
>communications. In country areas higher power outputs could be used. An example
>would be city areas = 1 watt while country areas get 10 watts. The use of
>directional antennas should be encouraged as this would minimise interference
>to other stations.
> 
But where do you point the directional antenna? To the BBS? What if you can't
see the BBS directly? What if the BBS shuts down and you can't find another
one within range. What about the hidden transmitter problem?

>I know some amateurs will argue that the new limited novice qualification is
>intended for this purpose however I feel that most intending users do not
>really need to study radio theory as, in a similar fashion to cb, the equipment
>is readily available off the shelf.
> 
Perhaps the DOTC could be lobbied to minimise the amount of radio theory in
the exam, and concentrate on more "relevant" things, like data communications
-- modulation techniques, framing, error correction, networking, and so on.

>As for the question of losing a portion of the 70cm band well... too bad. I
>would suggest that within a very short period of time after the introduction of
>such a service, there would be many thousands of computer users utilising the
>band - many more than there will ever be if it remains a purely amateur
>playground.

Hopefully the limited novice class of licence will help fill this up. I hope
the allocation they're given in 70 includes both packet sub-bands.
> 
>I'm sure the above suggestion will cause a storm in the Amateur ranks but
>really computer users need to access their local bulletin boards without being
>milked by telecom.
> 
The costs incurred by local users logging on to BBSes are minimal compared to
the costs of moving mail and files interstate or internationally, between
boards. Perhaps that is where bigger savings could be made (of course, I could
be biased here, being a sysop!).

...Just my $0.05

73, Mark VK2XGK
> 
-- 
Mark Cheeseman, Your Computer. cheese@runx.oz.au  Fido: 3:712/412.0
Phn: +61 2 353 0143  Fax: +61 2 353 0720  AMPRnet: coming RSN!
This .sig is under warranty. Do not open. No user-serviceable parts inside.