| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.02.00 05:33l 251 Lines 7971 Bytes #-9574 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_49C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/49C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<OK0POK<9A0YRB<9A0BBS<9A0YDA<HA3KHB<HA1KZH<
HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000220/0017Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:52724 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30709 ; Sat, 19 Feb 00 17:58:00 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018026 ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:18:09 MET
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 00 17:11:37 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_49C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/49C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> failed mode. AX.25 is dead. It is a lingering death, but the day is done.
What do you suggest as layer two transport if not AX.25?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Feb 2000 20:04:10 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@netcom.com>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> writes:
> It's not cheap, but the SCS PTC2e pretty much does everything on HF.
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
It is not God's gift to RTTY, though. I had it in parallel with my
KAM+ this last weekend for WPX, and they seemed to perform
identically.
But it seems to do PSK31 pretty good, and of course is very good at
PACTOR. I'm going to try SSTV with it, real soon now.
73, doug
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:30:28 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Steve Sampson wrote:
> 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?
German manufacturers have US distributors. I just bought a German
SCS PCT2e HF modem. Try http://www.scs-ptc.com
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:46:19 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Hank Oredson wrote
> "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...
>
> As usual, Steve does not know what he is talking about.
Ok, let's say he doesn't.
> Perhaps someday he will put some radios on air and see what
> is actually happening with ham radio.
I've been on every band, baud rate in local packet.
> Of course APRS is run at higher speeds than 1200, where there exists
> such network. We had a lot of fun running it across our 9600 network
> for awhile, until everyone became bored with it.
Sounds past-tense to me.
APRS is pure 1200 baud, *never* will be greater speed, as even Hank
get's bored with it at high speed and shuts it off, while others just go
back
and leave their ancient TNC and 2 meter radio to beacon.
Steve
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:53:56 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Hank Oredson wrote
> "Steve Sampson" wrote
>
> > 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.
>
> What do you suggest as layer two transport if not AX.25?
Anything that uses a MAC address of less than 56 bits, and does not do bit
shifting.
Using a Ham callsign is cute, but very wasteful of binary bits. Bit
shifting is something
only a Ham could find value in.
Try this link, and then tell me why we should continue to use AX.25 (besides
its
availability at low cost, and Hams using 1 kW just because they can):
http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu
Steve
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:34:46 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>> > 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.
Come on, you asked for URL's of manufacturers of better equipment and you
got them. Now you are whining that they did not compare themselves to
other manufacturers. You are expected to do that yourself.
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: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:15:41 -0800
From: Mike Blankenship <mikeb@rectec.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
> "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
>
> > 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.
>
> What do you suggest as layer two transport if not AX.25?
>
Can't we get around this particualr point instead of beating it to death? Why
can't we keep AX.25 as we move forward? Why must it be thrown away? And just
how
angry would the masses be if the ISP's upgraded their modem pools, that
required
you to upgrade as well, or become obsolete and disconnect?
For me, and other, prospective, operators, AX.25 is NOT failed. At this point
in
time, it appears to be the standard for 2m operation. (Again, I have no idea
and
am trying to learn here.) Being able to experiment by expending $20 in
components
and THEN deciding that AX.25 is going to cut it makes sense. Telling me that I
HAVE to spend hundreds more just to find out that I don't want to have
anything
to do with packet is stupid. Knocking the same pursuit of knowlege is also
stupid. Sorry, but I call a spade a spade, and this fits the bill.
I'm still trying to find out HOW to packet. What packet can do. Why to packet.
Telling me that AX.25 is dead and that sound cards aren't the way to go is
simply
yet another nail in the coffin of amateur radio. Maybe you can tell me this:
what
are the protocols, from layer 1 up, does the wireless telecom community use
for
their 'web' phones? Why would ANYONE in their right mind spend thousands to do
the same (or less) thing that they can get for $19.95 per month and have long
distance access to boot? Improvement is fine, great in fact. But, just like
analog phone modems, why can't our methods be backwards compatible and
FLEXIBLE?
Here is a final attempt at an 'understanding.' Here I will discuss my old
company (in general.)
"Remember, before V.90, that there were THREE different (major) protocols for
connections faster than 28.8? Remember that they were, and still are,
incompatible and that the official fallback speed is still 28.8? And that,
even
though there are upgrades available for the majority of 33.6 and up modems,
the
simple fact is that interoperability issues are still a major headache for
ISP's.
Why? Because many modems just don't work well at all. Period. And millions of
subscribers still complain about these issues. Reality check that, in this
case,
it's the subscriber that is causing the problem, not the ISP.
"And now you've just told me that you are upgrading to ADSL. Great. I've got a
V.90 modem. Thank you for forcing me to pick a new ISP. Besides, if I were to
upgrade, I would go to HDSL. It would have made you more money..."
If you let the older methods die of old age, that's fine. Telling me that I
can
try something out in a cost effective manner to see if I want to spend the big
money is a great way to fly. But to tell me "Forget the sound card. It's
dead."
No, not a good answer at all. Because I still don't know if I even want to get
into the digital modes or not. Maybe, after doing all the wonderful things
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_49D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
