HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Fastest data rate? (arlan 450 @ 200kbit/sec)
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:28:14 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc


The NCR Wavelan cards run at 2Mb/s in the 902-928 MHz band. Don't know
what they actually attain in average throughput though.

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: stauffer@src.honeywell.com (Don Stauffer)
Subject: PK232 vs 1278
To: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Posted-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 08: 34:04 CDT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:34:04 GMT
Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 08: 34:05 CDT

Sean, N3LQN, asked about merits of PK232 vs 1278.  I got a number of
replies about my comments on the MFJ software, some agreeing with me but
many others saying they had no problems.  Since the comments were mixed, I
still feel I wish I had paid a few bucks extra an bought the AEA TNC.
  Sean, the 1278 hardware seems fine, but I am not real thrilled with
the software, either MFJCOM or Multicom.  I have been able to work around
some of the problems, but not all. For packet only, LANLINK works well with
the 1278.  But I want to retain  the FAX andSSTV features.  On the other
hand, most of the software problems I have are evident in the packet mode,
and the system works pretty well with FAX and SSTV.  Its just that I envy
the people in my area that bought the AEA, as they just plug it in, run
the software, and it works.
  One of the maddening things to me about the MFJ software is that if
there is compatibility with a file, for example, viewing an image data
file that is in wrong format than specified by menu selection, the system
has a tendency to go over the hill, locking up, and needing a reboot.  I wish
they would have put in a more gentle way of telling me I had selected something
wrong!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com (Mark Monninger)
Subject: Hostmaster vs Ka-Gold...comments?
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Reply-To: rapw20@email.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:18:06 GMT

Does anyone have any comments regarding Hostmaster vs Ka-Gold for a KAM? 
Some friends of mine have Hostmaster and it seems fairly slick. I've seen  
ads for Ka-Gold but don't know anyone who has used it. Any comments on the
differences/similarities/which-is-better will be appreciated.

Thanks & 73.....   Mark     KG7JL
From: kkrallis@leon.ARIADNE-t.GR (Dr.K.Krallis - Epsilon Software S.A.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Latest version of PK-88 firmware
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:42:36 GMT
Organization: NETWORK ARIADNE , NCSR DEMOCRITOS
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu


I have a AEA PK-88 TNC and the 
ROM is upgaraded to the June 1, 1990 version. As there are
quite a few bugs in this ROM, could you please let me know
if there is a more recent ROM upgrade for PK-88?

Thanks

Costas Krallis  SV1XV (ex G7AHN)
E-Mail: kkrallis@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:15:05 GMT

In article <15045@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>>I guess it is a question on bandwith.  How much bandwidth does one need
>>to say do 4800 baud on HF?  How does that compare with SSB voice?
                 ^^^^--did I say baud?  Someone, quick revoke my EE degree!
...
>couldn't go quite that high.  However, at least when the bands are open and
>relatively noise-free, you could probably push 9600 bps through an SSB-sized
>bandwidth. 

OK, then why, oh why, does the FCC limit transfer rates on HF?????????
I understand bandwidth limits, but if we can put 9600 bps into the
same bandwidth as "CQ DX...your 59, 73! CQ DX...," then we should!
Is the ARRL pushing for bandwidth-limited data xmission on HF?
(No laughter please)

-Thomas
 de N3HAU
From: jangus@skyld.UUCP (Jeff Angus)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Data Carrier Detect and Packet
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:44:08 GMT
Organization: Grendel's Lair

Data Carrier Detect or DCD in most TNC's is simply a matter of noise detection.

Kantronics KAM version 3.0 and later use a software DCD but you have to select
it. (It isn't on as a default) The MFJ-1270b does not have "true" DCD, but a
$15 kit from TAPR (exar 2211 DCD) will correct that to allow running the TNC
with 'open squelch'. The DRSI cards will work with either thier internal DCD
mod from DRSI for about $35. (A nice plug in adaptor that goes in the TCM-3105
socket). TAPR also sells a DCD state machine kit for $20 that work with a wide
variety of TNC's and has a xtal osc. that is an option if the X16 clock is not
available. (For example when the DCD kit is used with an AM7910 modem chip like
that on the Digicom Modems)

Since most VHF packet is done on FM, and most FM stations are either there or
they aren't, simple 'is there noise present' DCD works. Unfortunately it also
thinks the channel is busy when it hears music, voices, intermods etc.

The trick to HF packet is to set the receive audio level so that the background
noise just barely get the (stupid) DCD circuitry to flicker and then back off a
bit. Most modems (VHF included), unlike adolescent music, work best at low
audio levels.

[Side bar]
Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, P.O. Box 12925 Tucson, AZ 85732
1-602-749-9479 (voice) 1-602-749-5636 (FAX)
TAPR supplies a wide variety of Packet related kits, firware and software.

xenon!skyld!jangus   < This space left blank intentionally. >
J Angus, PO Box 4425, Carson CA 90749-4425 voice (310) 324-6080
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Digicom C-64: Anyone still using it?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:39:26 GMT

A couple of years ago I wrote an article in 73 on connecting a Digicomm
modem to a Commodore SX-64.  At that time,  I think we were up to v. 2.10.

At a hamfest this weekend I ran across v. 4.10.  I haven't been active
on packet in a while.  Is this the latest/greatest version of Digicomm?

Does anybody still use Digicomm 64?

Thanks, 

- Ted Drude KA9ELV (drudetb@infonode.ingr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing)
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Organization: Yale Univ. Sci & Eng Comp Facility, New Haven CT 06520
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.130838.18893@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...
>For communications *systems* use, the wirelines are superior to
>radio in ordinary day to day long haul service. But we're supposed 
>to be *radio* amateurs, and the data is secondary to the medium in 
>our case. I know that's a limited way of looking at things, but 
>amateur packet radio is a limited form of communications. After
>all, if communications efficiency were our only goal, we'd make
>long distance phone calls instead of cluttering 20 meters with
>kilowatt DXers.
>
>Gary KE4ZV

My slant on this is that radio is uniquely good at local/portable/mobile
data communications.  Something I dearly wish I could do now (for work)
is to get 38.4 or 56 kb/s from home to work.  Ham radio could be doing
this.  (Alas, not for work!) Ham radio can never hope to compete with 
NSFNet (Internet) in MB/sec around the country or world.  But (until 
ISDN or until normal phone modems get much better) radio (in GHz 
bands, probably) is the right solution.

The economics seems right.  Hams are willing to spend $100s to get
connected on packet.  Soon, this should get you up to 9600 bps for
local communications to a hub node/bbs.  The hub node/bbs systems
seem to be able to command $1000s from clubs or fat cats.  That
should be enough to cadge an Internet connection from the local U,
too.

I can't see the value in ever trying for transcontinental ham links
at any speed, when Internet is free and reliable.  (If ham satellites
can be done "free", I should think Internet connections could be.)

There's a lot of value in long radio links connecting very remote 
or non-industrialized areas, but that's not my focus here.

Just some random ideas from an inquiring mind.  (Maybe the honchos
are working on this already?)

Martin, AA6E
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Please help with getting on packet.
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:08:06 GMT

I finally got my new 1270B TNC running, talking to my computer at 9600 bps,
and receiving packets.  I calibrated the transmit audio level, and I verified
hearing packets, using a separate receiver.  But I have not been able to
connect to any other stations!  I tried increasing TXDelay, but to no avail.
I am on 145.030.  Could I just be in a poor location, and no other station
can hear me?  Someone please give me advice.  Is there a good station near
114th Street on the West side of Manhattan (NY) that I can try to connect to?
I also have 440 MHz capabilities.  Thank you for all advice.

73,
Meir

 * * * * *  =================  Internet address is   mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * = Meir I. Green =  for short, mail to    mig@columbia.edu
 * * * * *  =================  UUCP Bang!            columbia.edu!mig
* * * * * * =================  Amateur Packet Radio  N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
From: Alan.Thoren@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Alan Thoren)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: mfj 1278 and multicom
Date: 13 Aug 92  19:24:00 CST

Various comments about MFJ, their MFJ1278, Multicom and service have 
been left in this echo.

I have only owned 1 TNC and it is the MFJ1278T with the 3.3 ROM.  I love 
it.  I also sent my free EPROM upgrade to them at the end of 1 year and 
heard nothing.  I figured it was a lost cause but 6 moths later 1 called 
them, sat on hold for 5 minutes while thye looked for my order; and 
hot-damn; they found it.  They said it was "on hold" as they were just 
releasing version 3.5 and mine would be shipped in a week.  Well double 
hot-damn; they did ship it and as they said and I got it a week later 
via US Mail and Canada Post.

I find Multicom inadaguate for packet work and prefer the Aussie paKet 
5.1 terminal program.  If you are into Afx and Multi-gray scale or SSTV 
then Multicom may be your answer.  I first got it 18 months ago and was 
instantly annoyed by the copy protection.  Its not that good to be 
concerned about pirating.  However I found I could make extra backups 
for myself using the Copy2PC board with the setting for "copy with weak 
bits".  These copies saved me in the early days of packet 
experimentation.  Once I deleted a Multicom subdirectory without 
restoring the software count back to the floppy ( you are allowed 2 
copies - that thought gives me anxiety attackes just like the days of 
the original Lotus 1-2-3).

So with a little prodding MFJ did deliver and with a little insurance
 by getting an extra copy of the Multicom master disk you should be 
okay.

  VE4YZ  Alan Thoren,    QTH:   Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
  Data: 204-669-5591  Packet: VE4YZ@VE4KV.#WPG.MB.CAN.NA

 * Origin: M.W.C.S BBS - Now 1.8 GIG (204) 943-5407/8/9 (1:348/206.0)
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: ESTIMATE packet radio throughput
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:49:14 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

Because of a reference to ESTIMATE.EXE a couple of weeks ago, I have
received a lot of requests for the program.  I suppose the right thing to
do is to post it, but I'm not sure this is the right place to do so.

Could someone tell me if this is the right place, and if not, where is?

Dave

-- 
==========================================================================
Dave Bushong, KZ1O@K1UGM.MA         + 
Wang Laboratories, Inc.             + "Ma-ha"..... "Ah-haa"
Internet: dbushong@wang.com         +
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: rdg@world.std.com (Richard D Goldstein)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:20:10 GMT

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>I also recently purchased a BayPac unit to connect my computer and my
>handheld to try packet. My impression is that packet is just toooo slow
>for me. I can connect to Australia via ftp at kilobytes/sec. This
>makes packet seem rather useless to me at the moment, although I would
>happily be educated about useful applications of packet.
>-- 
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
>---
>Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
>Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

>It's also hard to tell which group is up to more no-good: cops or
>crooks.

Make that three votes for a big Question Mark concerning packet.

I, too, just received a BAYMOD-9 from PaccCom.  At 60 bucks it seemed like
a cheap way to see what all the broo ha ha was all about.  Well, after
spending two nights here in the Boston area seeing the same
information, messages and mail going back and forth at 1200 baud, I'm
not sure what the big deal is, either.  

Sign me... another kid spoiled by the Internet!

73...  KA2TMT
       Rich G.





-- 
Richard D. Goldstein
Schiller & Kusmer
Patent Attorneys At Law
(617) 227-5454 Telephone
From: sford@arrl.org (Steve Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: APLink and RTTY MBOs
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:12:37 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

Does anyone have (or know a source for) the latest list of APLink
stations *and* RTTY MBOs? 

Thanks...

73, Steve, WB8IMY
ARRL
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Organization: Yale Univ. Sci & Eng Comp Facility, New Haven CT 06520
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:28:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.125034.22941@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...
>>Until I get better adjusted to VHF packet, you'll probably find me
>>on 20 m AMTOR.  There's a friendly medium!  Not much good for downloading
>>software, however.
>
>... If you want
>to talk about slow, the 45.5 baud AMTOR is slow, and can't even handle
>a full character set. It's persistent in the face of errors however, as
>is packet.
>
Slow is good sometimes.  AMTOR goes nearly as fast as I can type, and
about twice the speed I can think on-line.

>Gary KE4ZV

Martin AA6E
From: ieeelib@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Wormhole Info Wanted
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:27:09 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

I am trying to get some info on setting up a Internet-to-Packet 
wormhole from Memphis, TN to the rest of the world. If any body has any info
on setting up a Gateway please send me a mail message.

I also would like to have a list of sites that are connected to packet
via a gateway.

Thanks in advance.

Suresh N9GSA
From: dreyerd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (dan dreyer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: NEED HELP-TR751A to KAM
Summary: connection help
Keywords: Kenwood, KAM, connect
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:39:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Indiana University

Our university amateur radio club recently purchased a Kenwood TR751A 2m
all-mode rig and a Kantronics KAM multi-mode TNC.  Our problem is that we
can't figure out how to connect the two together.  There's an external
speaker jack on the tranceiver--no problem there--but we can't see how to
connect the microphone and PTT wires.  I know that you can sometimes get
along without a separate PTT connection, but the mic connection seems kind 
of important.  Anybody out there done this, or can point us in the right
direction?  Thanks in advance!

                   Replies to dreyerd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

                                 Dan Dreyer N9KDF              

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dan Dreyer  N9KDF                              INSERT
    dreyerd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu                 CYNICAL
    Lowly Undergraduate in Mathematics             REMARK
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson)
Subject: Packet speed
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:21:56 GMT

VHF packet runs at 1200 baud which is quite slow. Access over the phone to
a BBS can be as much as 32kbps with compression. Since the audio bandwidth
available on a phone line is much the same as on a 2 metre FM channel, can
similar techniques be used with packet?

I appreciate that certain countries' rules may not allow this, so let's keep
the discussion technical. I suppose cost may be a big factor, but is it at
least feasible and therefore worth pursuing?

Richard G4TGJ
-- 
Richard Tomlinson, EDS Scicon, Wavendon Tower, Milton Keynes, UK MK17 8LX
rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk   Tel:  +44 908 284539          Amateur radio: G4TGJ
All opinions expressed are mine, and are not necessarily those of my employer.
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:08:09 EDT

tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
>All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
>me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
>I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
>specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
>a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
>with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
>push some bits trough.

First, calculate the bandwidth of the proposed modulation scheme.
From: lhurder@arrl.org (Luck Hurder KY1T)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet/Sattelite Gate
Date: 12 Aug 92 07:36:30 EST
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.packet, CELLIS%BROCK1P.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Carlton Ellis) writes:
>Our local Packet group has expressed some interest in developing
>a gateway on one of our nodes to Amateur Satellites.  I have heard


It's happening on quite a regular basis.  And not so far from you, either.

Check out the QST Public Service column, by ARRL Division Director
(and sat-fan-atic) Bill Burden a few months back.  It's a nifty
article about how local amateurs are routinely being gatewayed into
the satellites.


|       |   |         Deputy Manager, Field Services, ARRL.
|       |___|         The ARRL Amateur Radio Emergency Service, the ARRL
| uck   |   |urder    National Traffic System, The Amateur Auxiliary to
------  |   |         the FCC's Field Operations Bureau, the ARRL
     KY1T             Field Organization and the ARRL Monitoring System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lhurder@arrl.org   Prodigy - MGTS39A,  BIX - ARRL,
   MCI Mail - RPALM, MCI Mail - "ARRL HQ", America On Line - "ARRL HQ"
        Compuserve - 70007,3373 (ARRL HQ)  -- Genie ARRL.HQ
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:38:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: src.1992Aug19.183812.4169
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <17108.9208181824@pyr.swan.ac.uk> iiitac@PYR.SWAN.AC.UK (Alan Cox) writes:
>To start with they are using higher quality modems and filters with
>automatic tuning to avoid drifting of the rigs being a problem. Secondly
>they are using ECC at about 2000 baud to give an error corrected
>1200 baud link. If they can do it why can't we ?

Why not w. a DSP modem?  Someone just has to code it up.
And, oh yeah, get the FCC to OK it on HF.

de N3HAU
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:28:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.233538.10942@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones) writes:
>For some reason
>1200 baud is the standard and not 2400 baud. 1200 baud was dropped as a
>standard years ago in the computer world. Is there any reason why 2400
>baud is not the standard now?  Part of the problem is none of the companies
>are selling a 2400 baud TNC for close to the same price as a 1200 baud.
>The 2400 baud chip set has been out there for quite a while so it isn't
>like it's brand new technology. Interesting question here, is ham radio
>technology driven at all? 

What protocol is used for 2400 BPS packet?  Is it the same as 2400 baud
protocol aimed at telephones?  Or is it different, like 1200 baud
packet?  

I think the situation right now is that 1200 is still reasonable for
local (no hopes, or up to about 2 digi's) interactive communication.
So, as long as the SYSOPS are running 9600 for message-passing, there
really isn't a need to mass produce high-speed modems for everyone.

However, I predict once DSP modems enter the market in force, there 
will be a large switchover to higher baud rates. It just doesn't seem
to wise to buy a 2400 baud modem today, when this fall or next
spring you could buy a DSP modem and do everything.

As soon as W3EAX, University of MD club, buys a DSP modem, I'll let
y'all know how good it works. (Should be some time this fall).

de N3HAU
From: MAGM@dwarf1.quimica.uniovi.ES
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Help MAC packet programm!!!!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:17:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: dwarf1.01GNTD8M4ZZ48WW47O
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

Hello everyone!
I'm new on Packet using a Mac and i'd like to know if there is a
good terminal packet programm for this computer available via FTP
(freeware o shareware). If you have one please send me it via E- mail.
All info via E-mail will be wellcomed.
Thank you and 73
Miguel
EA1EVU
Internet: MAGM@dwarf1.quimica.uniovi.es