Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
keyesbob wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical >> > from > >> a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a >> ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet? >> > > The 2.4 Ghz ISM band that 802.11b/802.11g WiFi uses is very > overcrowded. Not only with WiFi signals, but tons of other stuff as well. > > The 5 ghz band of 802.11a is just too high up for many applications, > which is one of the reason why there's not much noise up there. > > > I've been thinking of experimenting with one of the AMSAT birds (AO-51 i think) that has 1.2Ghz/2.4Ghz linear capabilities... Since most WRT54G setups have one receive and one transmit side, why not run these into a transverter up or down the band which then runs into a linear amp?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
keyesbob wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. >> > > Why? > > Because ham's already have ampr.org and a entire Class A subnet (44/8) which IANA would love to reclaim if they could since that means they can recycle it into even more IPv4 space. Think about it, most devices use NAT. If every computer/device that has internet access were to actually *be* on the *real* internet, our IPv4 allocation would be tapped completely long ago. Never mind the money for the IP's they could charge for reallocation. I'm surprised subnets like 5.x.x.x/8 and others haven't been usurped. But we're talking about an organization that still has its roots in the 60's. Your kids know that IPv6 is the future. >> There are alternate TLD >> lookup services out there but no one cares. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root >> > > It's true most people don't know or care. It's because they're not > authoritative. > And that should stop somebody why? If it didn't work for .xxx or .porn people, then why would it work for us? The IANA will never do this because they maintain the root servers. And who would be our registar body? ARRL? No, thank you. >> If anything, ampr.org need to be expanded to start including IPv6 and >> other technologies. >> > > Yes, IP6 is a good idea. > For sure. There are alot of technological advances that IPv6 provides that simply aren't available in IPv4 (like multicast from the ground up with *security*).
Re: [digitalradio] Hearing impaired hams
I have a relative who is totally deaf. While she is not a ham, her mother, who signs to her, was impressed seeing digital ham radio in action. In the past I have read articles on hams who are either completely deaf or have severe hearing losses and who have used alternative ways to communicate. In one case, I read of a ham who became blind and deaf and had almost no way to communicate with anyone ... except he still had the ability to use morse code. He could touch the voice cone of a speaker and pick up a CW tone and use that for receiving. I have often thought about the fact that if I should ever become severely impaired with multiple sensory loss but still able to use morse code, I might be able to communicate with a few people directly, and with others through technology. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member > who told me that he was switching to digital modes because he is > losing his hearing . I know that we have many visually impaired hams, > speaking on the radio seems like a natural match. However, I had not > given much thought to digital modes being of extra interest to those > with hearing impairments. Seems like another natural match. > > Andy K3UK > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Hearing impaired hams
Hi Andy..you are quite right ...i have had a problem with CW for many years due to hearing problems...tinitus in right ear and hearing loss in bothat times when a band is very noisy i also have trouble hearing ops on SSBthis is why i find digital modes are excellent for qso'sfor ragchew and dx i mainly use PSK and mainly on 20m... recently found WSJT JT65A JT2 and JT4A and found that they are excellent modes when the band condx are poor..especially on 20m 14076.. i started on digital modes about 7 years ago when my xyl complained of the noise from SSB..earphones you say.yes but she didnt like hearing me using ham jargon either. digital modes helped with this problem too. CUL 73 David VK4BDJ Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member > who told me that he was switching to digital modes because he is > losing his hearing . I know that we have many visually impaired hams, > speaking on the radio seems like a natural match. However, I had not > given much thought to digital modes being of extra interest to those > with hearing impairments. Seems like another natural match. > > Andy K3UK > >
Re: [digitalradio] Hearing impaired hams
Sure is. A long time ago I knew a ham who operated 2 modes, CW by a flashing light and RTTY. In fact I think I have a QSL card from him for RTTY going back to the late 70's At 09:08 PM 11/30/2007, you wrote: >In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member >who told me that he was switching to digital modes because he is >losing his hearing . I know that we have many visually impaired hams, >speaking on the radio seems like a natural match. However, I had not >given much thought to digital modes being of extra interest to those >with hearing impairments. Seems like another natural match. > >Andy K3UK > > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[digitalradio] Hearing impaired hams
In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member who told me that he was switching to digital modes because he is losing his hearing . I know that we have many visually impaired hams, speaking on the radio seems like a natural match. However, I had not given much thought to digital modes being of extra interest to those with hearing impairments. Seems like another natural match. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
> > And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any > > comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1 > > can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's > > pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of data > > that can be transfered. And since the ID-1 have Ethernet jacks, that > > means that you can do any Internet protocol that you want. > > I have been following this discussion, and till now I didn't see any reference about the new digital modes that are now starting to spread in Europe. You talk about the D-Star as the last discover in digital voice, forgetting the others protocols namely the commercial ones, like TETRA that have made ours scanners obsolete. They can do much more than APCO25 in the UHF region and put D-Star miles away in development. You can do DV, Packet (19.2k) in a 12,5 Kc channel, messaging, picture and so on. All the commercial analog systems are now migrating for this System here in Europe, I don't like it as it is very similar to cell phones but it is an example of what we should expect in the years to came. Good by to the good all days of scanning, for those not familiar with this system here is a good site to start. http://www.tetra-association.com/ By the away two of this radios make a good link for packet and gateways over VHF or UHF as they can work point to point. Imagine what you could do in the next future with two 3D generation cellphones that could talk point to point same miles away, who knows ? maybe HiPower BlueThoot.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Ed, Even when All USA and other messages were blocked from going through the network, it was still too slow for practical use like we have on the internet. Other than for emergency use, packet could not compete with the rich content of the internet, especially after the advent of the web. D-Star digital data on VHF/UHF is unfortunately no faster than 1200 baud and perhaps a bit slower. When we use the term 1200 baud, that is the baud rate during the time of the transmission. The actual data throughput can often be half of the maximum with good signals and no collisions or even less with other conditions. The microwave D-Star would have had a lot more impact if it had been available a decade or two earlier, since it is more than double the speed of Dale Heatherington's, WA4DSY 56 kbs modem of the late 1980's. It is quite impressive to have such a convenient package compared to the relatively expensive modem driving a transverter and then perhaps an amplifier. At one time I wanted to try 56 kbs, but there was no other interest. The D-Star 1.2 GHz, frequency is better at penetrating tree leaves which are problematical at 2.4 GHz, even with a few watts of power. I used to have a WiMax internet link at about 7 miles point to point and it could not tolerate a line of sight interruption. But the cost is still quite substantial and may find use in linking point to point. I don't see this as practical for normal voice communications since most hams are on 2 meters. In other words, it is difficult to find other than a niche market. One thing that might make VHF/UHF D-Star more useful would be to move to a newer design that can use the full 4800 bps for voice when you want voice, and also use this same speed for data, when you want data. 73, Rick, KV9U Ed Woodrick wrote: > So I'll add a few more cents. > > Packet died in the US because it was too popular for what it could do. > The number of For Sale messages and announcements that were sent > worldwide just overwhelmed users and BBSs. It came to the point that > there was too much content and nothing that you wanted to read. > > And while there were faster networks, 1200 bps was the standard and it > was slow. And it gets real slow when you add other 1200 baud nodes or > digipeaters to the path. And BTW, you will never even get 1200 bps > sustained throughput, as the turn-around for most radios is abysmal. > > And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any > comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1 > can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's > pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of data > that can be transfered. And since the ID-1 have Ethernet jacks, that > means that you can do any Internet protocol that you want. > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Re: Unknown signal ID ?
I suspect you are hearing JT2 which is very narrow and uses 2FSK and DBPSK modulation for sync and data or JT4A at 17.5 BW and 4.375 spacing. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Around 2045Z Friday the 30th > > Freq. 14076+1750 > > Mostly a steady tone, with several "clicks" per second, the > clicks being probably PSK transitions. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
For us Amateurs there is 2390 to 2400 which is outside the ISM band. At 5.8 we have frequencies above and below as well as in the ISM band. keyesbob wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical > > from > >>a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a >>ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet? > > > The 2.4 Ghz ISM band that 802.11b/802.11g WiFi uses is very > overcrowded. Not only with WiFi signals, but tons of other stuff as well. > > The 5 ghz band of 802.11a is just too high up for many applications, > which is one of the reason why there's not much noise up there. > >
[digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
So I'll add a few more cents. Packet died in the US because it was too popular for what it could do. The number of For Sale messages and announcements that were sent worldwide just overwhelmed users and BBSs. It came to the point that there was too much content and nothing that you wanted to read. And while there were faster networks, 1200 bps was the standard and it was slow. And it gets real slow when you add other 1200 baud nodes or digipeaters to the path. And BTW, you will never even get 1200 bps sustained throughput, as the turn-around for most radios is abysmal. And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1 can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of data that can be transfered. And since the ID-1 have Ethernet jacks, that means that you can do any Internet protocol that you want.
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63F
Hi Simon, I have tested these modes on HF NVIS with a nearby station, but the the trade off in speed to support the Viterbi coding is at least half or perhaps slightly over half. They seem to be rarely used and only if you ask the other station to try it for testing purposes. Like many of the newer digital modes, they have not gained much traction because for many hams, PSK31 is "good enough." If conditions do not permit PSK31 operation, they may consider propagation to be too poor to continue digital modes, even though they may not realize that some digital modes will still get through. What we needed the most, were sound card ARQ modes such as FAE 400 in Multipsk, which is the first Windows sound card ARQ mode that works asynchronously, (as needed), to send full ASCII characters, error free, at a speed about twice as fast as PSK31 but can work deeper into the noise, especially with memory ARQ, and eliminates the timing issues that were such a problem with hardware ARQ modes. Although the footprint is much wider than PSK 31, it is not that much different from PSK modes running at 125 baud and with similar speed to PSK125F even though it uses an 8FSK 50 baud waveform. Another surprising mode is Nino Porcino, IZ8BLY's CHIP modes that did not seem to have any advantages and yet turned out to work better than most modes under high QRN conditions and has been selected by at least one digital traffic net as one of their main modes. I wonder if this type of mode has potential for ARQ? 73, Rick, KV9U Simon Brown wrote: > Has PSK63F / PSK125F shown advantages in real life? I am very tempted > to code it up in my PSK engine (which is based on fldigi / gMFSK). > > Any comments really appreciated before I start pounding the keyboards. > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 > 12:12 PM >
[digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical from > a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a > ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet? The 2.4 Ghz ISM band that 802.11b/802.11g WiFi uses is very overcrowded. Not only with WiFi signals, but tons of other stuff as well. The 5 ghz band of 802.11a is just too high up for many applications, which is one of the reason why there's not much noise up there.
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63F
Hello Simon, PSK63F is a bit more quicker that PSK31, a bit more sensitive, is less sensitive to Doppler modulation and is more reliable due to the convolutional coding. It is a good choice. I don't see any interest in PSK125F. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Simon Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:57 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSK63F Has PSK63F / PSK125F shown advantages in real life? I am very tempted to code it up in my PSK engine (which is based on fldigi / gMFSK). Any comments really appreciated before I start pounding the keyboards. Simon Brown, HB9DRV
[digitalradio] Unknown signal ID ?
Around 2045Z Friday the 30th Freq. 14076+1750 Mostly a steady tone, with several "clicks" per second, the clicks being probably PSK transitions.
[digitalradio] PSK63F
Has PSK63F / PSK125F shown advantages in real life? I am very tempted to code it up in my PSK engine (which is based on fldigi / gMFSK). Any comments really appreciated before I start pounding the keyboards. Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical from a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet? With every increase in speed, you reduce the distance you can transmit. We could not begin to use 9k6 in much of our area due to terrain, but some areas have more flat open areas and might be able to get a reasonable distance, but not anywhere near as far as 1200 baud packet. If you did decide to go with the sound card modes, they can go quite fast with the OFDM modems used for SSTV, but which can send digital data of any kind. From looking at the S/N ratios that you need, you might find them to be better than some of the packet modes. There are no current synchronous ARQ high speed modes. But we know from the beta testing of the SCAMP mode that close to 1000 wpm was attainable on HF circuits! A faster VHF mode was also developed but I never got to test that before the software self destructed and the author discontinued further development. Even though not as fast as dedicated 9k6 and 19k2, it would have been freely available if it had been open source. This is one of the reasons that I believe that open source software is a better fit for amateur radio since others could have gone on and developed it further since it was such an awesum program that worked so well with good signals and had other superior attributes for HF or VHF. 73, Rick, KV9U keyesbob wrote: > First I'd like to thank all respondents to my initial post as towards > making this a thought-provoking discussion - if at times it is kind of > depressing. > > Walt, and others - you went to 19200 -- how? What TNC did you use? How > much did it cost? One of the problems is that soundcard modes are so > cheap to run, but there is a limit to how fast you can go with them. > It's my understanding that 19.2k just isn't possible with a soundcard. > What if we were to find out the fastest speed that's possible from the > best 50% of sound cards and establish a standard based upon that? Even > if it's at some odd baud rate 13768 bps or whatever, it's going to be > making the most of cheap hardware. I recall that the Tekk radios were > easy to modify for 19.2k, I imagine many other xtal data radios are as > well. > > And what about using other inexpensive DSPs? Maybe there is some way > to use TV tuner cards and interface them with radios? These things > have much higher performance DSPs and could get us some really decent > throughput - even if we have to take it up to 900 or 1200 mhz in order > to find some room to run such a net. > > What about a protocol which is able to figure out the highest rate > that to distinct radios can communicate at, and do so fairly quickly. > Then remember these settings when they want to communicate again in > the future. Maybe our old HTs could only do 1500 bps but a really good > DSP on the right xcvr do 25000. Sure, it would be harder to do > 'convenient' multicast in such conditions, but we could fall back to > one of several standards (9600, 1200, 4800) for multicast. > > The point is, we squeeze the most possible out of COTS hardware. This > is not to say we do this forever - once we reinvigorate the packet > scene, we would see some modifications to boost performance of radios > and DSPs, and then perhaps some good custom equipment (and not the > vapourware left over from the 90s, but real radios really available) > > - - - - - > > Bill this is a good point. There's so much neglected open-source > software. But what's nice about OSS is that someone else can pick up > the abandonware and work with it, figuring out what should have been > documented long ago. With proprietary software, this is most often not > possible. > > So what we need in this case is a web site to review software for > hams, both proprietary and free, closed source and open source. There > may be some open source software that just needs a few tweaks to be > really good, but the original author(s) aren't interested any more. If > there's community support behind overhauling a particularly promising > old ware, it's got a better chance of happening. > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Rick, Having groups on RF becomes practical if the network is designed to handle the messaging. The design probably needs (1) higher speed "last mile" transfer (but the speed may not need to increase a lot), (2) group / bulleting messages streaming / broadcast with fills vs. point to point transfers, (3) intermediate distance VHF/UFH relays with high speed transfer, and (4) HF national / intercontinental transfer via streaming with fills. This will all need to be studied and designed, not just grown ad-hoc. Intermediate stages will need to use the Internet, and probably retain Internet usage as a backup / alternate path. RF would be used only for "real-time" messages; group archives available via Internet. Latency in a group is fairly big. Consider the time-shifting that occurs between Europe and the States. We still manage to have cogent discussions. --- If an agency is using email via Outlook and Exchange they are putting messages on a server to be picked up at the convenience of the IC. The Outpost software package for EmComm is sort of a server based system. It polls, retrieve, and posts from a distributed set of nodes. NNTP is built to do that and integrate all the message bases. There are scenarios where the group message approach makes sense. How about locating and communicating with people in shelters? Send all individual's messages using NNTP to all shelters. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:12 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet Rub, Although I agree it would be nice to run this group, and perhaps a few other ham discussions over some kind of RF network, how can this possibly be practical? It could take days to deliver such messages, assuming you had some kind of server system to coordinate it. It seems to me that the reason that we went to internet discussion groups, and that was long before these kinds of groups, such as with usenet and listservs, was because the ham based approach (even with wormholes/internet like wireline) could not begin to work well enough. Consider that some of those who rail against wireline discussions for ham radio, were the earliest adopters of using wireline for those very discussions! The one place that discussions could happen, in close to real time, would be more local and possibly regional ones with less latency, but you would often not have the critical mass of enough participants to make that as useful. For emergency use, almost all the communications is tactical and that means voice. There can be some cases where messaging would be helpful but I would mostly be using it for e-mail to reach out of an affected area to the internet, for timely delivery. You would need to be very careful that such messages were confirmed received if they were emergency/priority time value traffic. Do you know of emergency plans in place now that would actually recommend putting messages on a server to be picked up that the convenience of an IC? 73, Rick, KV9U Rud Merriam wrote: > Personally, I would like to do email over the radio to other hams. It > just appeals to me. > > I would also like to see the NNTP protocol used for newsgroups > implemented on radio. The DigitalRadio group should be handled on > radio. Newsgroups would be useful in a number of ways. They can handle > bulletins while setting them as a lower priority than mail and other > newsgroups. > > Emergency communications could be supported although some explanation > and training for end users might be needed. For example, instead of > emailing to an incident commander a message would be posted on an > incident management newsgroup. The incident commander could pick up > the message from any served location. Others could see the message and > respond also. > > Hams could be encouraged to use a system by bonus points for sending > contest and field day entries via the system. > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Well, we have been using the D700s for a couple years now on 9k2 in a straight packet mode. I just made sure the message sizes fit the TNC in the D700. 73, Tom n4zpt Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: > On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam > Which radio? > > The Kenwood D710.They've supposedly fixed the issues with the D700 > and, if true, we have a dual band frequency agile 9k6 and 1200 baud > data radio. Unfortunately the current premier packet data > application, Airmail 2000, doesn't support KISS and the D710 supports > only KISS for binary data. There may be some other data mode I don't > know of -- but we can be fairly certain the 710 doesn't do Kantronics > host mode which is what Airmail uses for normal TNC communications. > > Bill - WA7NWP >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Hi Rick et al Rick wrote: [snip] > 9k6 was the minimum usable speed for TCP/IP via ham radio in my view. It > was moderately expensive, but as you know, many rigs came along that > could do it. Most synthesized rigs can now, I have one here in the > shack, but it will never be connected because there is no interest > locally, and the signals have to be very good in order to get 9k6 speeds > through. Actually, I was interested in 56K stuff too, but that was just > not going to happen. We had the roadmap with ARRL publications such as > "Packet: Speed, More Speed, and Applications." But there just was not > enough interest in this by the packet radio hams. > Back in the early 90s three of us here in Vienna VA USA were running tcp/ip over 19k2 AX25 packet and it was OK for email and text browsing. 9k6 would have been too slow it seems to me. Was expensive at the time as we were using the Ottawa cards and kantronics D4-10 radios. We have been using 9k2 packet for the Marine Corps Marathon now for 2 years. Given we controlled the server we are able to use D700s on 9k6 just fine to check runners in and out of the aid stations. The server used a 9612+, AGWPE, and TelMGR to handle the connects. We are also looking at 9k6 packet for our local county emergency shelter communications on VHF and UHF. Talking to servers running various, and yet to be created, applications. In addition to WinLink 2k. The statewide digital traffic net does use sound card modes. 73, Tom n4zpt Vienna VA USA
[digitalradio] Newsline Poll: Do You Plan To Buy A D-Star Radio For Christmas?
Do you plan to treat yourself to a D-Star radio for Christmas? Amateur Radio Newsline is conducting a very unscientific survey to see how many are and how many are not. Its easy to participate: Just take your web browser to http://www.arnewsline.org/ and scroll down the page until you see the word "POLLS" on the left side of the page. Then click "YES" or "NO." That it. You won't have to wait to see the results either. The current results will be displayed as soon as you vote. Thanks for taking part. de Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF Producer, etc. ARNewsline, Inc. Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
really it was not meant to be.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Rub, Although I agree it would be nice to run this group, and perhaps a few other ham discussions over some kind of RF network, how can this possibly be practical? It could take days to deliver such messages, assuming you had some kind of server system to coordinate it. It seems to me that the reason that we went to internet discussion groups, and that was long before these kinds of groups, such as with usenet and listservs, was because the ham based approach (even with wormholes/internet like wireline) could not begin to work well enough. Consider that some of those who rail against wireline discussions for ham radio, were the earliest adopters of using wireline for those very discussions! The one place that discussions could happen, in close to real time, would be more local and possibly regional ones with less latency, but you would often not have the critical mass of enough participants to make that as useful. For emergency use, almost all the communications is tactical and that means voice. There can be some cases where messaging would be helpful but I would mostly be using it for e-mail to reach out of an affected area to the internet, for timely delivery. You would need to be very careful that such messages were confirmed received if they were emergency/priority time value traffic. Do you know of emergency plans in place now that would actually recommend putting messages on a server to be picked up that the convenience of an IC? 73, Rick, KV9U Rud Merriam wrote: > Personally, I would like to do email over the radio to other hams. It just > appeals to me. > > I would also like to see the NNTP protocol used for newsgroups implemented > on radio. The DigitalRadio group should be handled on radio. Newsgroups > would be useful in a number of ways. They can handle bulletins while setting > them as a lower priority than mail and other newsgroups. > > Emergency communications could be supported although some explanation and > training for end users might be needed. For example, instead of emailing to > an incident commander a message would be posted on an incident management > newsgroup. The incident commander could pick up the message from any served > location. Others could see the message and respond also. > > Hams could be encouraged to use a system by bonus points for sending contest > and field day entries via the system. > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam > Which radio? The Kenwood D710.They've supposedly fixed the issues with the D700 and, if true, we have a dual band frequency agile 9k6 and 1200 baud data radio. Unfortunately the current premier packet data application, Airmail 2000, doesn't support KISS and the D710 supports only KISS for binary data. There may be some other data mode I don't know of -- but we can be fairly certain the 710 doesn't do Kantronics host mode which is what Airmail uses for normal TNC communications. Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] dot-ham Internet domain.
John, What kind of a response is this? It sounds like you are a very bitter person toward others, or am I reading this wrong. To put this in perspective: - after my wife and daughter got their Technician licenses, they were stunned by the comments of a (somewhat) OT packet BBS operator on a local 2 meter repeater putting down no code Technicians. As you can imagine, that ham became persona non grata with much of the ham community. My wife recently upgraded to General class now that code is no longer a requirement for ham radio. Her current objective is emergency tactical voice communications, particularly HF mobile. Do you actually oppose such hams? - In terms of TNC's, I have not recommended hams purchase TNC's anymore due to the rapid changes in technology. I have been only using soundcard modes since PSK31 was developed and got rid of all my old hardware, and over the years that includes Kantronics UTU, AEA CP-1, HAL P-38, MFJ Packet TNC, etc. Except for special applications, this stuff is mostly obsolete since it can not run the new technologies. Also, don't you agree that the low (nearly free) entry level for digital modes, has helped increase the number of digital operators? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > At 08:57 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote in part: > >> Personally, I'd love to have this happen and I'd also be happy to >> assist in the technical details. I do have the skills. >> > > > Me to but you sound a lot like those that said " sure I would > like to be a general or extra as long as I did not have to learn > CW" or have to buy a TNC to get on the digital modes... > > John, W0JAB > > > > > >
[digitalradio] SceneWare packet radio database (alpha release)
I've been working on this for the last month and a half or so. The local emcomm group has been using Aresdata for our database and messaging needs, and we've come to the conclusion that it sucks and needs to be replaced. This addresses some of aresdata's greatest shortcomings by keeping a local copy of the database, so queries don't have to be run over the air (an agonizing experience on a marginal 1200 baud circuit), and providing a much more user-friendly interface. In the current code an interactive method for entering and updating database entries is provided, and ultimately it will have a GUI. It also allows you to specify your location, which can be plotted on a map using an APRS client. It is written in PHP, so you'll need to install the PHP interpreter to use it. There are instructions on how to do that in the readme.txt file. http://www.electroblog.com/sceneware_20071130.zip Comments, suggestions and (especially) code submissions are appreciated. -Joe, N8FQ
[digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Why? > There are alternate TLD > lookup services out there but no one cares. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root It's true most people don't know or care. It's because they're not authoritative. > If anything, ampr.org need to be expanded to start including IPv6 and > other technologies. Yes, IP6 is a good idea.
[digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Why? > There are alternate TLD > lookup services out there but no one cares. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root It's true most people don't know or care. It's because they're not authoritative. > If anything, ampr.org need to be expanded to start including IPv6 and > other technologies. Yes, IP6 is a good idea.
[digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 08:57 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote in part: > >Personally, I'd love to have this happen and I'd also be happy to > >assist in the technical details. I do have the skills. > > > Me to but you sound a lot like those that said " sure I would > like to be a general or extra as long as I did not have to learn > CW" or have to buy a TNC to get on the digital modes... > > John, W0JAB I can only hope that you didn't mean to sound as offensive as you sound on this end. I don't know what I've said to deserve such a snide remark. I've actually owned three TNCs, but sold two and the third is out of commission until I get around to fixing the voltage regulator on the KAM.
