| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.02.00 05:22l 259 Lines 7502 Bytes #-9576 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_48C
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/48C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000217/2343Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:52279 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30639 ; Thu, 17 Feb 00 20:57:57 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00017998 ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:21:55 MET
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 00 18:18:44 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_48C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/48C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
controlled vocoder interface that can accept either a telephone handset or a
PTT microphone (Radio Shack compatible). My goal is to have audio and data
inputs, and audio and data outputs that can be used through a digital 9600
baud repeater, with the same device being used for a secure telephone
through an external 9600 baud modem, or a PPP configured serial port on
Linux. I think they will sell like Twinkies(tm), and they can all be linked
together via the Internet. I call it "Voda-Phone" :-) (Voice/Data-Phone).
Oops, that name is already a trademark, oh well...
Check out:
http://www.dvsinc.com
Also check out:
http://www.chbrain.dircon.co.uk/dvhf.html
Steve, K5OKC
Oklahoma City
Mike Blankenship wrote
> I believe the original question still remains un-clearly answered and I
> also happen to be interested in the outcome.
>
> Try it this way: using current, widely available technology, what would
> be a good choice to start out with packet.
>
> Then let's talk more about high speed access....
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:19:31 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Voda-Phone, was Re: What is a good TNC?
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
>APRS is pure 1200 baud, *never* will be greater speed.
Is that true in the USA? Over here it certainly isn't...
>TAPR sells (haven't checked lately) the best 9600 repeater TNC there is, and
That must be a German design then... or maybe you have overlooked those?
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:42:34 -0800
From: Mike Blankenship <mikeb@rectec.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
I believe the original question still remains un-clearly answered and I
also happen to be interested in the outcome.
Try it this way: using current, widely available technology, what would
be a good choice to start out with packet.
Then let's talk more about high speed access....
73
Mike KC0GPM
Hank Oredson wrote:
> ... or other hardware that one can PURCHASE and connect and use?
>
> There is a long thread complaining about Kantronics TNCs, and how
> terrible they are, but nobody has yet posted any suggestions on what
> one should purchase instead. Something equally easy to hook up.
>
> What is better? Timewave? PACCOM? MFJ?
> In what way better?
> Test results to back up the claims?
> Prices and sources?
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:57:54 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
"Mike Blankenship" <mikeb@rectec.net> wrote in message
news:38AB8A4A.B713146A@rectec.net...
> I believe the original question still remains un-clearly answered and I
> also happen to be interested in the outcome.
Actually, my original post was a bit of a troll ... to see if there was
any actual data to back up that "Kantronics sucks" thread that comes
around every few months. There wasn't, of course.
> Try it this way: using current, widely available technology, what would
> be a good choice to start out with packet.
I have owned and used (at least) the following:
TAPR TNC1, TNC2.
MFJ 1270B, 1270C.
Kantronics KAM, KPC-3, KPC-9612, Data Engine.
AEA PK-232.
Tasco uTNC-21.
Heathkit HD-4040 and HK-21.
I presently have on air:
MFJ 1270B.
Kantronics KPC-9612, Data Engine.
Tasco uTNC-21.
Folks who run my software have used pretty much every TNC available.
They all work.
> Then let's talk more about high speed access....
You run whatever is needed for your local network.
> 73
>
> Mike KC0GPM
>
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> > ... or other hardware that one can PURCHASE and connect and use?
> >
> > There is a long thread complaining about Kantronics TNCs, and how
> > terrible they are, but nobody has yet posted any suggestions on what
> > one should purchase instead. Something equally easy to hook up.
> >
> > What is better? Timewave? PACCOM? MFJ?
> > In what way better?
> > Test results to back up the claims?
> > Prices and sources?
> >
> > --
> >
> > ... Hank
> >
> > http://horedson.home.att.net
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:10:25 -0800
From: Mike Blankenship <mikeb@rectec.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
So the bottom line might read this way:
Just about anything that is out there will work. Opinions vary as to the
quality of that 'work', however. I take it that a PK-232MBX would work fine
to start.
Hank Oredson wrote:
> "Mike Blankenship" <mikeb@rectec.net> wrote in message
> news:38AB8A4A.B713146A@rectec.net...
> > I believe the original question still remains un-clearly answered and I
> > also happen to be interested in the outcome.
>
> Actually, my original post was a bit of a troll ... to see if there was
> any actual data to back up that "Kantronics sucks" thread that comes
> around every few months. There wasn't, of course.
>
>
> > Then let's talk more about high speed access....
>
> You run whatever is needed for your local network.
>
It would seem that DSP based solutions are the only thing that is feasible
for the long run. If I were to spec out a new 'radio modem,' it would be
required to be auto-negotiating for the various modes and speeds that it were
capable of. Granted, a TNC has much more to contend with than a analog
telephone modem, but the TNC should be able to do basically the same
thing-negotiate and re-negotiate as needed to keep the connection alive. It
should also be able to handle from (for instance) 19.2K to 110 baud using the
same radio/TNC combination. Stop and think about it for a moment: if you had
to own a different computer, use a much higher cost digital line, and a
different modem to hook into different providers, would the internet be
booming today? Not hardly.
TNC, sound card, whatever it takes to get up and running would be fine. But
wouldn't it be nice to be able to start some serious data rates on air?
Wouldn't that go a long way toward attracting new operators? The pool of
people that have to be attracted scream bloody murder when they run into
network congestion, slow connect rates, etc. And most of them consider
anything less than about 44K to be slow. So you are going to sound foolish
talking about that 9600 baud connection....
What I'm looking for is not impossible. (It's probably right under my
nose...) But both cost and operations are a factor here. Any improvments
would only help us all.
73
KC0GPM
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 06:18:56 GMT
From: wb5gmk <wb5gmk@flash.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
I liked the fact some of the European packet stuff is being sold as
kits.
Steve,
Saw your microwave page setup, your doing some fun stuff.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_48D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
