HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet

In rec.radio.amateur.packet, rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson) writes:

>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?

It is quite possible to cram more than one bit per Hertz into a channel.
The tradeoff is reliability:  you need a higher signal/noise ratio for
a given bit error rate.

My impression is that current TNC modems do a very sub-optimal job of
decoding signals in the presence of noise.  I suspect you could increase
the baud rate without increasing the error rate if you designed a better
modem.

AL N1AL

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: gettys@regent.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys)
Subject: HK-21 - Does anybody have code for KISS mode??
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:25:36 GMT




	The subject says most of it.  I'm wondering if anyone has a replacement
prom (or the code to put into it) to allow the Heathkit HK-21 pocket packet 
tnc to have a KISS mode. It would be nice to have a portable tcp/ip station at
times and I bought the HK-21 back before KISS was popular so I didn't know that 
its omission was a large flaw. I would really not like to have to go and buy 
a new portable tnc when I've already got one!

	BTW - I have extremely limited resources to pull anyhting from an ftp
site, so if someone could send me it by mail uuencoded, that would be super.

	My address is gettys@regent.enet.dec.com


	/s/	Bob Gettys N1BRM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: cbaechle@iiic.ethz.ch (Cedric Baechler HE9CUN)
Subject: KISS and TCP/IP
Originator: cbaechle@c11
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:29:09 GMT


Hi people,

I'm interesting in building a small packet modem. The problem is by
TCP/IP : I need the KISS protocol. 
Does exist a piece of software that implements KISS such that it would
possible for me to use the TCP/IP protocol?
I don't see another way to solve my problem :-(

Thanks for any help.

73 de Cedric
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gvb@TEFS1.acd.com (George Bowles)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:13:07 GMT

In article <paulf.713809410@w6yx> paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:
>
>> Packet is not repeaters as they are currently defined. 
>
>97.3 Definitions
>
>[...]
>
>(34) An amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of
>	other stations.
>
>
>Sounds like UAA digital operations would fit right in.
>
>
Packet does not retransmit the signals of other stations.
Sorry, you are wrong. In the purest sense, Packet forwarding stations 
are not repeaters. In a broad sense they are. However, in the above
97.3 definition, the meaning here is in real time much like a 2m voice
repeater. What comes in, goes out in close to real time (some voice
repeaters have digital delays). Also, the packet digipeater is not
retransmitting "the signals" of another station. What its doing is 
recording the data in the other stations signal and putting that
data in a "signal" of its own and transmitting it. Careful inspections
of AX.25 readily show this. In fact, if you just think about it a little bit
you can understand that a packet digipeater strips stuff of the incomming 
data and adds stuff to the outgoing data. Before you jump on my case
(I don't know if you will or not), let me invite you to and if you 
do answer these questions when you respond:

If a packet stations receives 10 AX.25 packets on day, holds them for
a total of 10 seconds and send out the data again, is it  a repeater?

What if it holds it for 5 minutes?
                        1 day?
                        1 week?
			1 year?

The fact remains that "retransmitting a signal" is not what a digipeater
does. It retransmits the data in different form. Therefore, digipeaters
are not repeaters. Besides, how many repeaters do you know that can
do receive and transmit operations on the same frequency? One of the main
components of a repeater is OFFSET. Digipeaters have no offset. Repeaters do.


>>NO.  10M FM are REPEATERS.  Only REPEATERS have any differences and then only
>>in what *I* consider VHF segments.  Above 29 Mhz.
>
>1.  Check the definition above.  Repeater does not exclude digital.

No it does not exclude digital. However, in my technical opinion, most
digipeaters are not repeaters. Notice I said "most". If you want 
a digital repeater, you can take a voice repeater and dedicate it to 
digital. In that case, you have a digital repeater that falls under the
same definitions and regulations as a voice repeater.

>-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX 

George Bowles, N9LKG
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:03:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

Well, first CQ's are done in FEC mode.  As a matter of fact you've
got a 70% chance that if you hear a FEC signal it's a CQ (either that
or it's an ARRL bulletin).  CQ looks pretty much like a standard RTTY
one except don't send RY's (if you were inclinded to do that on RTTY)
and send your selcall.  Mine looks something like this:

	CQ CQ CQ DE WO2L WO2L WO2L (WWOL)
	CQ CQ CQ DE WO2L WO2L WO2L (WWOL)
	CQ CQ CQ DE WO2L WO2L WO2L (WWOL)
	HERNDON, VA QRR ARQ/FEC SELCAL WWOL

Most of the first part is just to make the FEC signal long enough for
people to notice it and lock up.  Put your call/selcal in the front
part PLEASE.  It's such a pain to have to sit there and watch two
minutes of CQ to find out who is calling and I can be typing the
SELCAL ahead if it's given early.

The last line (other than my QTH) indicates I'm ready for automatic
replies (either ARQ or FEC).  After this is sent I go back into
standby (not transmiting).

To answer, just push whatever you push to initiate a ARQ connection
and enter the SELCAL (or just call him back in FEC mode with the
normal hiscall de yourcall.  I've had FEC QSO's, most noticably with
some guy on Diego Garcia who's surplus SITOR equipment wouldn't eat
WWOL as a SELCAL and my AMTOR thing wouldn't eat the numeric call he
could enter in his.


-Ron (Another 20M AMTOR fan!)
From: mgb@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: BPQ code in a diode matrix
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:30:39 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

I would be interested in hearing from anyone that really has the
solid scoop on how to implement hardware handshaking on a PC running
4.05 BPQ with a "Netrom" type diode matrix using 3 or 4 other TNC-2's.

The BPQ documentation implies to me that CTS and RTS be wired togeather
at the PC end, and that CD is used to inhibit BPQ serial port transmission
while the RTS line is used to tell the matrix that the BPQ node is
transmitting.

I could not seem to get this to work correctly, and I could find nothing
coming out of a diode matrix that would work properly when hooked to the
CD line on the BPQ serial port.  The matrix is using CTS and DTR from
the other tnc's, as described in the various TheNet and NetRom descriptions
and works perfectly.

If any reader really understands exactly how this is supposed to be hooked
up, I'd sure appreciate being able to talk to them.

Mark Bitterlich
wa3jpy@wb4uou.nc.usa.na [packet radio]
mgb@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil [internet]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: brit@hagbard-celine.MIT.EDU (Christopher B Gould)
Subject: Where can I get a TCM3105??
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:31:52 GMT


I am looking for the TCM3105 chip to put together a Baycom modem.
I've looked through several catalogs but could not find it.  Could
anyone tell me where I can get it?
Please email any information to me, I can then post some sort of
summary in case anyone else is interested.

Thanks, 73,

-Brit Gould   KB4ZBP
brit@athena.mit.edu
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: PK232 vs 1278
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:05:06 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Lanlink makes me ill.  I'm really skeptical about any program that
will sit there and blather at a TNC for two minutes and not bother
to see if anything is there (it just sends in the blind).  There
really isn't any customization for different TNC types (as long as
what you're talking to is enough like a TNC2 you're OK) and the
parameter setup is most kindly described as hokey.

On the other hand, PAKET seems much better.  It actually interacts
with the TNC rather than typing blindly at it, and has a much nicer
user interface, on line documentation and help.   You knew you were
into something intersting when you see how fancy the install program
is.  The shareware contribution ask is only half what they ask for
in LanLink.

-Ron
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: How to power a PC motherboard from car battery?
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:05:21 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.021045.16290@coplex.com> dannie@coplex.com (Dannie Gregoire) writes:
>I would like to set up a portable packet station for use in my car.
>I would like to avoid the cost of purchasing an expensive DC-AC
>(cigarette lighter) power converter, and instead downgrade/condition the 
>power for use directly into the motherboard--no standard PC power
>supply needed.
>
>Surely with the countless field day projects and such created though the
>years someone has done this already.  To save me several days of wheel
>re-inventing I would GREATLY appreciate it if someone could point me in the
>right direction.  Thanks in advance!

+12 volts isn't that hard since the PC only uses it for drives and RS232.
Getting the +5 volts at the currents demanded, however, is more difficult
to achieve efficiently, requiring a switcher. Negative 12 volts definitely 
requires a DC-DC converter. Regulating +12 volts from a 12.5 volt supply can 
be tricky as well. There's very little margin to work with, again a switcher
is called for.

Probably the best course is to modify a standard PC power supply. It's
already a switcher. There are a few PC supplies with integral UPS
capability that can run directly from +12 volts. Others would require
some component juggling to run off 12 volts instead of 110. No PC
supply that I know of cares if it's input voltage is AC or DC, and
most are really tolerant of wide input voltage swings.

Gary KE4ZV
From: iiitac@PYR.SWAN.AC.UK (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:24:52 GMT


HF is only a dead end because everybody has got themselves locked into
the wrong technology. The military bods have been running good 1200 baud
over a 12.5KHz SSB channel just by choice of better hardware and systems.

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 ?

Alan
From: n4hy@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Data Carrier Detect and Packet
Summary: real DCD
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:21:37 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj


REAL DCD'ers don't have floppy DCD's.  With that introduction, the TAPR
DCD, and those I have done for the DSP stuff are data coherence detectors.
This means that they occasionally false on `unsquelched noise' but are
much more robust than simple noise detectors.  At random, the filtered
output of your demodulators, before clock recovery and data extraction,
will look like valid data for long enough for a real DCD to false, that
is to inform you (light up a DCD LED) that it has detected data when there
is none present.  Given this, it is by far the best way to do this job.
These envelope detectors, and energy in band detectors are easily fooled
by people cranking up the volume or AGC bringing up the inband noise to
the point where detection is declared.

Bob

Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2215 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14168
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug19.183251.4094@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.125034.22941@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Well 300 baud does seem slow to someone who uses the government's
>>multi-million dollar internet. However, 300 baud was hot stuff on
>>telephone lines 15 years ago. And unfortunately it's as fast as the
>>FCC will allow on HF right now. There's no *technical* stopper preventing
>>faster operation.
>
>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?
>(not including spread-spectrum, that's cheating :) although it should be
>looked into.  What are the rules for S.S. on HF right now?  Are there
>commercial S.S. kits?)   

4800 bps will easily fit in an SSB voice bandwidth. Systems using multiple
carriers could do it with greater robustness. For an example of the possible,
look at the Telebit Worldblazer technology. That does 38.4 kbps over a voice
grade phone line with the same bandwidth as a legal SSB voice transmission.
It uses DSP with multiple carriers, a training sequence, and half duplex with 
fast turnaround. It also will automatically adjust transmission rate for 
channel conditions. You can't just attach a Worldblazer to a ricebox and
go at it, but it shows what's technically possible in the field.

SS isn't allowed on HF under current rules. It's only available at 420 MHz
and above. HF STAs have been granted however. HF SS radios are available on 
the military market. There aren't any plug and play appliances yet for the 
ham market. This equipment has to be purpose built, not just a $100 accessory 
to a ricebox like current TNCs.

High speed packet, whether UHF or HF requires special radio hardware.
You don't want to limit yourself to the characteristics of existing
voice radios. It's better if the modem *is* the radio. That's the way
the 56 kb RF modem GRAPES produces works.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 20:45:31 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

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.
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Data Carrier Detect and Packet
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:15:41 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

mark@adec23.uucp (Mark Salyzyn) writes:
>jangus@skyld.UUCP (Jeff Angus) sez:
>>The MFJ-1270b does not have "true" DCD ...
>You mean fully functional DCD. They detect DCD with a state machine (digital),

No, the MFJ1270 uses the XR2211 demodulator.  It's an analog PLL device.
There is a state machine in the TNC, but it's used to recover clock and
perform the NRZI->NRZ conversion.  It doesn't do carrier detect.  You
could make it do so, but it's easier to add in a second one on a
piggyback board like the TAPR deal.

>>Unfortunately it also thinks the channel is busy when it hears music, voices,
>>intermods etc.

The real reason for wanting a DCD that isn't noise-based is so that you
can leave your squelch open, because it takes a lot of radios a good
portion of a packet time to get their squelch open.  More than half of
the TXD that people wind up using is to compensate for the receiver's
squelch opening time, not how long the TX actually takes to key up.

>True, but a state machine (digital) DCD still works better here than noise
>based units.

A good state machine will lock on only when the bits look like real
data, so it doesn't matter what the crud on the channel looks like.
That would always be superior to the noise-based DCD.

However, might you want a separate noise-detect unit to perform
collision avoidance.
	- Brian
From: btbg1194@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bradley T Banko)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: A&A Packet modem kits?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:22:14 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I recently came across A&A Baycom packet modem kits in an ad in WorldRadio.
Has anybody had any experience with these kits?  I am really tempted to buy
one at the $60 price.  Do the kits come with explicit instructions for 
wiring the kit to common HT's and radios?

I would also appreciate comparisons of the A&A kits to those sold by 
Ramsey.  (I don't want to hear simply that a "Baycom kit is just a Baycom
kit."  Please make specific comments.)

Thanks.

73 de kb8cne, Brad Banko

-- 
Brad Banko;  Dept of Physics;  U of Illinois;  b-banko@uiuc.edu, KB8CNE
=========================================================================
TI NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING OF CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONERY AND THE
   SPATIAL DETECTION OF POLYMORPHIC STATES OF COCOA BUTTER IN CHOCOLATE
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:10:13 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug16.224813.2752@cs.yale.edu> ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) writes:
>
>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.)

The Internet is *not* free. Our use of it is parasitic and subject
to the whims of government and corporate sponsors. Ham satellites
aren't free either of course, we hitch rides on other people's 
missions. HF is a unique resource to which hams have free access.
Our charter is to advance the communications art. We have the
opportunity to advance beyond what commercial users are doing
and break new ground with long haul data communications via HF
radio.

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

Yes there is, and in addition there's value in connecting rural users 
right here in the industrial US and Canada. And there's value in
establishing alternative paths to wireline services for use in 
emergency situations.

I should say that I have no objection to internet connections. However,
I don't want internet connectivity to be used as an excuse not to
pursue alternative HF technologies.

Gary KE4ZV
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Pac-Comm KISS mode
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:17:22 GMT


 AB> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet

 AB> (From G8FSL: home QTH London, UK)
 AB> A few of us in London running TCP/IP, using Pac-Comm TNCs in KISS mode,

 AB> This problem happens with TNC2 clones running Pac-Comm software, and also
 AB> with the TNC-220 (mind you, the TNC-220 has so many 

 AB> Is there a known problem in this area, and can anyone suggest a fix
 AB> (especially for the TNC-220s, which are gathering dust as a result)?

There might be a software problem.  The Pac-Comm I received this morning
indicated a lot of EPROM changes on a sheet.  I will bring it to work in the
morning and see if I can see what might be the changes.  They were June of 92
software updates.  It also indicated something about FULLDUP in Kiss Mode but I
just scanned it before taking the unit home this morning.

73, Jay Ws7i

jayt@comtch.spk.wa.us
FidoNet 1:346/3.0
WS7I @ WS7I.WA.USA.NA



 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:47:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug18.181839.26451@cs.yale.edu> 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.  I think
>it's fairly safe to piggyback on university network access.  (We need
>some precedents to be set just to be sure.)

Al Gore, yes *that* Al Gore, is pushing a bill to commercialize the 
networks we are now using for free. When we start receiving a monthly 
bill based on bits/buck, using the landline networks is going to look 
a lot less attractive. I just want people to keep their options open. 
If we lock ourselves into the landlines for long haul packet, we may
regret it later.

>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!

We can. But as long as 300 baud systems handle the load, no one is
going to invest in more exotic systems. If we have a permanent place
to use the technology, rather than an expiring STA, I think usage will
increase to the point the system will collapse from overload. I *hope*
the system collapses from overload. That's the only way we're going to
get people to spend the money to make a better network. We've seen it
at VHF. People were satisfied with simplex digipeaters and 1200 baud
until the number of users increased and the systems collapsed. Only
then did duplex repeaters, trunk connected MANs, and 9600 baud modems 
become popular around here.

If it ain't broke, nobody is going to pay to fix it. We've got to
load the systems until they break to force higher capacity. Therefore
spectrum filling 300 baud HF robots *are* helpful to the cause of 
high performance networking on the amateur bands.

Gary KE4ZV