HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Summary: Government nastiness afoot
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:03:26 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug20.200751.25500@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>
>Which bill are you referring to?  I understand the NREN will be a
>national research and education network paid for by the government.
>It might be capable of providing pay services, but the internet
>already is (Well, CARL, etc.)

NREN legislation has a lot of baggage attached to it. One of the
things it will do is commercialize the regional networks and
charge for non-research traffic on the high speed network. The
Internet was never intended to be a free network, it just sort
of grew that way. Government funding is slowly being withdrawn for
other than government sponsored research usage today. With NREN,
most of the current usage of the network will become strictly
pay for play. While this is probably as it should be in a capitalist
nation, it means our days of freeloading on the government financed
network are numbered.

>Incidently, I'd wager Al Gore is the only person on a presidential
>ticket who even knows that the internet is.

I wouldn't be surprised, and even he doesn't seem to have a good
grasp of what the network really is and what access to it really
means. The free flow of information it provides is extremely 
valuable for US competitiveness. On that subject, a couple of
events have transpired recently that show the government as a whole
has little grasp of this fact. NASA Ames was recently raided by
security types who feared that free interaction on the net was
giving away valuable commercializable information.

They don't seem to understand that research is only valuable if
it is communicated widely to an audience that can use it, and that
technical discoveries aren't the exclusive province of the US. The
information flows both ways. The real edge in competitiveness goes
to the people who *act* to commercialize products based on the 
information, not to those who hoard it tightly away from even other 
Americans.

The second bit of mischief is insistance by the FBI that advanced
digital networks be "dumbed down" so that they can conduct wiretaps
on them. There is a bill being introduced to Congress written at
the request of the FBI to enforce this. Bit stream interleaving,
datagram routing, and the like are to be prohibited if they prevent
reliable wiretaps using simple technology. Heaven forbid that users
use any form of encryption that hasn't been authorized by the government
and not designed so that the government can easily break it.

Right now the FBI is complaining about *call forwarding* on the
telephone network. They claim it can be used to circumvent wiretaps.
These guys are really in the dark ages, and want to keep us there
too.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: steveb@inst-sun1.tmc.edu (Steve Bednarczyk)
Subject: Re: ESTIMATE packet radio throughput
Reply-To: steveb@inst-sun1.UUCP (Steve Bednarczyk)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:05:32 GMT

In article <1689@necis.UUCP> rbono@necis.UUCP ( NM1D) writes:
>In article <bsxo66.3x2@wang.com>, dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
> Hi Dave...
>
>  I could tell you where to post it........
>
>   but the last time I asked the same sort of question I didn't get any good
>answers.  I wanted to post copies of a few of my ham radio software:
>  DOSGATE, AUTOCALL, AUTOLOG, AUTOFAX, AUTOCW, and a windows program that
> converts metric/english(american) measures.
>
> If you find a good place to post this stuff... let me know.
>
> Rich
>-- 
> /**************************************************************************\
> * Rich Bono (NM1D)              IMRICH              rbono@necis.ma.nec.com * 
> * (508) 635-6300                                       nm1d@nm1d.nh.usa.na * 
> \**************************************************************************/
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: How to power a PC motherboard from car battery?
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:23:18 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc


I strongly agree with the recommendations to just buy an inverter.
Commercial 12VDC-120VAC inverters have gotten very small, light and
efficient in the past decade, and they're not all *that* expensive
either.

Phil
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2168 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14012
From: daved@Autodesk.COM (Dave Duchesneau)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:20:27 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) 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.

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but I've read through the
Handbook and the Operating Manual, and can't find a clear answer:

How do I call CQ (or listen for and answer one) on HF Amtor?

I hear lots of very clear signals, that I can LISten to, but I've
never seen a CQ or one being answered. I've got an MFJ 1278 and
several varieties of terminal programs from XTALK to LANLINK2.0,
but I can't for the life of me figure out how to start!

Thanks!,
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: DSP Modems?  How are they?
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:31:33 GMT

The U. of Maryland Club is going to be looking into obtaining 
DSP Modems for high speed and satellite packet work.  My question
is

1)  How many DSP modems are available?  
2)  What is your experience with any of the above or 
    what have you heard about tradeoffs between the different modems

Please email me and I'll summarize.

-Thomas
 N3HAU
From: bob@arasmith.com (Bob Arasmith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:59:40 GMT
Reply-To: bob@arasmith.com
Organization: Arasmith Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: thumper.hal.com

In article 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 ?

You guys are missing the obvious answer here, most hams are not internet
users, have no idea how slow they are actually running, and are cheap :)

I run a packet BBS that has about 600 users. Mine is different in that
it supports landline and internet access as well as the traditional 1200
baud tnc access. What I have found is that half my users don't own a tnc.
Why, some are turned off by the performance others the
fear of not knowing how to use it and still others that don't want to
invest in the equipment.

Out of the 300 users that don't use packet, 75 access the bbs purely by
the internet gateway. They probably do it for the same reasons.

I tried last year to get a group purchase together for my users of
9600 baud plug and play equipment. For the price of around $400 they would
be up and running, with people and a bbs to talk to. I was suprised at
the meager response. I got less than 10 from my user base.

People argue, but when it comes to putting bucks on the table, the room
gets mighty quiet :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Arasmith
   bob@hal.com (work)
   bob@arasmith.com (home)
   n0ary@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na (packet)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:08:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug16.130838.18893
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug14.071848.25569@qualcomm.com> karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.063334.29133@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>What hardware methods are currently available?
>
>>Our best national and international WAN technology is 300 baud HF BBS
>>forwarding. It's thruput is about 15 bytes/second. It's suitable for
>>Email.
>
>You left out the Internet backbone links, sometimes referred to as
>"wormholes". There are quite a few regional TCP/IP networks that are
>linked to each other through the regular Internet, using IP-inside-IP
>encapsulation techniques that have been in KA9Q NOS well over a year.
>With the growth of the Internet it is not hard at all to find at least
>one site in a given metropolitan area that has both access to the
>Internet and a ham contact interested in putting up a gateway.

I left these out because they aren't amateur radio. They work, and
as long as the commercial and institutional networks tolerate them,
they are useful, but they aren't amateur radio. We could just abandon
packet *radio* and all run Fidonet landline BBSs, but that wouldn't
be amateur *radio* either. The thruput would be better though.

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
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:37:03 EDT

ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.121013.27822@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>The Internet is *not* free. Our use of it is parasitic and subject
>>to the whims of government and corporate sponsors. Ham satellites
>Yes, but universities are effectively in the same boat.

No, universities on the Internet are there because the Government has paid
for their connection as a way to improve the value of their Government-
sponsored research; either that, or they've signed a commercial contract with
one of the commercial Internet providers.  In either case, they're a line-item
on someone's budget.

>Sure, just be sure that you see technical "payback potential".  HF at 300
>baud with robots shows how to fill up spectrum all day long, but that's
>actually unhelpful.  If we could do reliable 9600 kb HF data with exotic
>modems, meteor bounce, or what have you, I'd like that!

One *can*.  But why would anyone bother with people claiming it's a waste of
time when the Internet provides "free" access to gigabit cross-country fibers?
Of course, when alt.binaries.pictures.* finally saturates the Internet, causing
the government to place a moratorium on non-official traffic on their links,
and the commercial Internet providers finally institute per-packet charges that
will make the European PTTs green with envy, then it'll be time to start work
on HF links, right?  If there's anyone left then who cares and knows how,
anyway...

Also, "The Internet" is still chiefly a US and Canada phenomenon, and "The
Free Internet" definitely is.  If you'd like to be able to indulge in
high-data-rate communications with a ham in, say, Chile, sponging off the
Internet won't do it.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: dearnsha@wizard.worldbank.org
Subject: Hiearchial Address Info Wanted
Organization: The World Bank
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:58:23 GMT

Does anyone know where I can find information on the correct form of
hierarchial addressing; even better, does anyone know of a publication
which describes the available address elements?

Thanks. Darrell (NR3Y)
From: aw0g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Aaron Wohl)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: A&A Packet modem kits?
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:34:50 GMT
Organization: Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I buil 2 of the A&A baycom kits and also have the new Tigertronics
Baypac-2.  I use them on the macintosh with the KISS TNC software I am
writing.  I can't comment on the IBMPC software as I haven't ever seen
it running.

The A&A is a kit which is fun (for me anyway).
 It comes with a compleat schematic.
Stas at A&A is very helpfull with any questions.
It doesn't come with a case.  I picked one of the modems up while it was in
 use and it emitted a squeal and stopped working.
One of the 12volt power supplies stopped working.
The power connector is the oposite polarity of most 12v equipment.
There is a red LED for xmit and a yellow one for carrier detect.
Carrier detect is not brought out to the connector (the 7910 modem
 chip doesn't really have a good carrier detect for radio work anyway)
The A&A modem does support 300 baud HF

The Tigertronics modem is line powered so no need for an external power supply.
It comes assembled (ick).
It is has a case, it is built into a DB25 connector.
It does not come with any sort of schematic.  I had to trace some pcboard foils
 to figure out how to hook it to a macintosh.  It does come with a
wireing diagram
 for ibmpc's with both the DB25 and DB9 wireing.
Since it is line powered it may not work without a seperate power supply on
 IBMPCs that use non standard line drivers with low power charge pumps,
 for example the hp95.
It has one surface mount tinie tiny LED that seems to be carrier detect.
I don't know if the Tigertronics supports 300baud HF
Talk to John Olson for tech support.

I heard that Paccom in tampa florida has modem built into a DB25 similar to
the Tigertronics, but I have never seen one.

Although I don't get any money for ham work I did accept discount from A&A
and a modem from Tigertronics to use in writing macintosh software.  Hopefully
I have been fair in the descriptions.
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2160 rec.radio.amateur.misc:13989
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:36:36 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.misc, ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) writes:
>After many years of sitting by the packet sidelines, I've set up a KAM
>and started decoding the burps.  As someone who uses the Internet
>daily, this has been an eye-opening experience for me.
   [deleted]
>The contrast with the Internet is incredible.  I can easily transfer
>a megabyte per minute across the country, and I am somewhat annoyed
>I can't do better.  I can send dozens of e-mail messages around the
>world and often get replies in minutes.  But you all know that.

Why are you surprised that hams have been unable to duplicate a network
that cost millions to install and maintain?  Having said that, we
should be doing a *lot* better than we are.

>My question here is where does one go for information about digital
>ham networking plans - especially the (very logical) use of Internet
>links for long haul?  It's not in QST, I think. :-)

One place to look is the proceedings of the Computer Networking
Conferences.  These have been held annually for 10 years, and most of
the "movers and shakers" of packet have published papers.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 16:59:17 GMT

karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>[...]
>I see no reason to deprecate a long-haul linking technology just
>because it's not radio. Hams ought to take a "systems integration"
>approach to networking and be as flexible as possible in using
>whatever is available to get the job done. [...]

I agree.  Look at what happened to the railroads during this century.
They should have known that they were in the *transportation* business,
not just the train business.  The airlines dominate the transportation
business now.  Railroads are good for hauling freight (I know, oversimpli-
fication).

Hams are in the communications (non-)business.  Read section 97.1.
We have these precious frequency allocations because (among other
things) we push the state of the art, and not just by radio.  You
will never advance in any area unless you see the big picture.

73, 
Dave  KZ1O

-- 
Dave Bushong, KZ1O@K1UGM.MA
Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Internet: dbushong@wang.com
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2226 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14218
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:04:41 EDT

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?

If your question is how much bandwidth do you need for 4800 *bits per second*,
a quick answer is that a 3KHz-bandwidth US phone line is good for a little
over 20,000 bits per second with clever encoding schemes [1]; an HF link
probably has a poorer S/N than a typical US phone line, so you probably
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.  If you really wanted to know about 4800 symbols per second (baud),
then you'll have to specify how those symbols are encoded before you can get
an answer.

>(not including spread-spectrum, that's cheating :) although it should be
>looked into.  What are the rules for S.S. on HF right now?

The rule for HF spread spectrum is, as I recall:  no.

[1] One of the hangups (pun unintended) in the current V.FAST modem
standardization effort is the resistance of the Europeans to accept the
top speed under consideration (24Kbps?  I don't have an article handy)
as an official standard speed option, because so few phone lines in Europe
have adequate S/N to handle it...
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2169 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14013
From: jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:35:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.093811.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> awoodhull@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>In article <q47m26a.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) 
>   writes:
>
>> ...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, 
>
>At a later stage that computer used cassette tape at 2400 baud for mass
>storage. It seemed OK at the time, but when I got a floppy disk I never
>wanted to go back. When I got a hard disk I never wanted to use
>floppies again.  My Apple seemed pretty fast before I saw an XT, and
>that seemed  fast enough until I got my 486...
>
>The point I want to make is that at each level there are useful things
>that can be done. Let's not discourage those who don't have Internet
>access by denigrating packet radio. Packet is still useful for many
>purposes. 

When I first heard that packet radio was only 1200 baud I was taken
aback! However the first thing I saw were ads saying that you could upgrade
your packet modem to 2400 baud. As the prices of packet modems start 
dropping down to resonable levels you will see higher speed modems 
becoming more common. In the next 5 years 9600 will be close to the norm
and not 1200 baud. Packet radio reminds me of the first years of computer
communications. Overpriced slow speed modems, no real standards etc...
Right now here in the Bay Area there is just now a 9600 baud link being
put in to speed mail forwarding through the Bay Area. 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? 

Jeff

-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |      If we do not succeed,
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   |      then we run the risk of failure.
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |      Vice Pres. Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2196 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14110
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:53:15 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Aug17.125034.22941@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> 
> Direct FSK symbol encoding is second only to AFSK in being spectrally
> inefficient and error prone on a HF channel. 

Nope. I'm afraid that OOK takes the top prize! (On / Off Keying)

> PSK methods available today can push 9600 baud over good HF channels. 

There's a couple of problems using PSK over normal HF channels. First of
all, most crystal filters in HF radios have really gross phase characteristics.
This causes some signal degradation with FSK, but more with PSK.

Second, (and most important) is that multipathing of HF signals introduces
tremendeous phase distortion. The only way to combat this problem is to
lower the symbol rate so that the distortions don't last longer than the
symbols. (Which is also why 45 baud RTTY and even 100 baud AMTOR work
on 80m, but 300 baud packet does not)

Another way to combat the multipath distortion problem is to always operate
near the MUF, which results in clean, single path signals. Tom Clark had
some success running 1200 baud PSK on 10m, for example. 


> But the rules prevent it.

Not really. The rules dictate a maximum symbol rate (300 baud below 28 MHz)
and a maximum shift (1000 Hz below 30 MHz). Other than that, the rules are
remarkably open.

Of course, you'd have a hard time stuffing 9600 bps data down a channel
with the characteristics of most HF radios....

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet