| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.02.00 04:00l 244 Lines 7987 Bytes #-9574 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_49B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/49B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PPL<OK0POK<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<
SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000219/1802Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:52668 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30706 ; Sat, 19 Feb 00 16:15:51 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018023 ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:17:59 MET
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 00 17:11:30 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_49B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/49B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:38:27 -0800
From: Mike Blankenship <mikeb@rectec.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
I missed that URL. Could you repost it?
danke
73
KC0GPM
wb5gmk wrote:
> 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.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:30:14 -0800
From: Mike Blankenship <mikeb@rectec.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Let me put it this way: until my health took a nose dive, I owned and
operated an ISP. I know what high speed can be. I know how much you
subscribers complain when you are at the end of the line, thirty miles away
and can't get that new Whiz-Bang V.90 modem to connect at more than 33k6! So
why get 'stuck' with 1k2, 9k6, etc? A couple of people agree that there is
room for improvement. For someone who has yet to bust a single radio packet,
I'm trying to figure out which way to head. I'm looking at a PK-232MBX, but
am not satisfied with it.
The local (2m) ham's say that there is no need to look for anything else.
After all there isn't anything faster available in this (rural) area. I
disagree, thinking that newer technology, especially sound cards, could bring
back the 'edge' to everyday amateur radio. This would also help to create
converts to amateur radio because a newbie wouldn't have to sink another $XXX
to go wireless, he's already got the hardware to do it. Fine. But as soon as
you mention 9600 baud, your prospect's eyes glaze over. Why? To the average
internet aware person, that is a reminder of the 'dark ages.'
Remember how it used to be when hooking up your computer to another one?
Everything was pretty much proprietary. That's what amateurs have today. Ask
a simple question of what to buy, and look how the thread explodes. Trying to
read every response on this thread and checking all the links, I still don't
see any URL's on the sound card solution. Sure, maybe it's not the best
solution, but it just MIGHT win a convert to amateur radio and save ME some
money. See? I knew it was all about me ;-)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:27:02 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
As far as I know, everything in your home-town is 1500% better
than anything across America. Anyway, that's how you make it all sound.
I called the Ham store, they don't have any German designs. Are
they exporting their equipment? Are they expecting Americans to
travel to Europe and buy them there? How come there are no links
from U.S. retailers to these German designs?
Rob Janssen wrote
> Steve Sampson 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?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:41:15 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Mike Blankenship wrote
> The local (2m) ham's say that there is no need to look for anything else.
> After all there isn't anything faster available in this (rural) area. I
> disagree, thinking that newer technology, especially sound cards, could
bring
> back the 'edge' to everyday amateur radio. This would also help to create
> converts to amateur radio because a newbie wouldn't have to sink another
$XXX
> to go wireless, he's already got the hardware to do it. Fine. But as soon
as
> you mention 9600 baud, your prospect's eyes glaze over. Why? To the
average
> internet aware person, that is a reminder of the 'dark ages.'
You're missing the point. Hams are no longer interested in exchanging
messages
in a chat (those that do are on APRS). They are no longer interested in
logging-on
manually to a BBS, and reading for-sale, or WW messages about life in rural
Equador. It takes too much time to sort and read that kind of data.
Sound cards will not suddenly bring Hams back to the keyboard. That use of
the
technology is over. Hams want the technology to do something for them.
> Remember how it used to be when hooking up your computer to another one?
> Everything was pretty much proprietary. That's what amateurs have today.
Ask
> a simple question of what to buy, and look how the thread explodes. Trying
to
> read every response on this thread and checking all the links, I still
don't
> see any URL's on the sound card solution. Sure, maybe it's not the best
> solution, but it just MIGHT win a convert to amateur radio and save ME
some
> money. See? I knew it was all about me ;-)
The thread diverged because the Sound Card is merely a hardware change to a
failed mode. AX.25 is dead. It is a lingering death, but the day is done.
If you want a sound card solution, then get RedHat Linux and be done with
it.
It's already done, and simple to install. You can run Netrom, Rose, or any
protocol that is out there. Hook it up to your Heathkit 2 meter and rule
the
waves.
9600 baud is enough bandwidth to run 4 voice channels using a vocoder. Now
that's something people can use. You could have 4 voice, or 3 voice and one
data, or 2 voice and 2 data, etc, etc. You could run TDMA protocols at that
speed. We don't, because AX.25 is less than $40 at the swapmeet. That's
why people role their eyes, their mind is stuck in AX.25 packet.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:53:10 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
"Hans-Peter Zorn" <hpz@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:88gj4t$hun$1@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> 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.
>
> Huh? What about the URLs I posted? I _once_ saw a KAM TNC here in
Those URLs had no COMPARISONS of packet radio gear.
i.e. no DATA to back up the claims.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:56:57 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:88gtin0mgr@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> 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.
> >
> > Try it this way: using current, widely available technology, what would
> > be a good choice to start out with packet.
>
> Just about any of the available equipment will work... I'd stay away from
> the Kantronics stuff though.
Why?
It tends to work better than most of the rest of the inexpensive gear.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:58:34 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:sap58de92pd96@corp.supernews.com...
> The thread diverged because the Sound Card is merely a hardware change to a
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_49C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
