Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???
Sorry Dave it's gone. At 08:43 AM 9/5/2010, you wrote: >> But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. > >Hmm. How much? > >You may email direct if you don't want to discuss price here. > >73 de Dave, NF2G
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???
> But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. Hmm. How much? You may email direct if you don't want to discuss price here. 73 de Dave, NF2G
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???
Hi John. Yes! HF packet is still very much in use, at least in the USA and Canada. We call ourselves Network 105 and we had a recent article in QST magazine. Our frequency is 14103.2 mark, 14103.4 space. To use a PK-232 set the following parameters: HBAUD: 300 PACLEN: 60 MAXFRAME: 1 FRACK: 5 DWAIT: 0 SLOTTIME: 10 PERSIST: 63 PPERSIST: ON VHF: OFF WIDE: OFF We use the network for ragchewing and personal mailboxes mainly. We have approximately 35 nodes and you are welcome to check out our yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network105/ 73 Sholto K7TMG --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker wrote: > > I have been listening to the HF bands for packet > over the last few days not hearing any. > > Is it still in us? > > I have 2 PK-232's not in use for sometime now and > will try to sell, give away or donate to the trash system. > > John, W0JAB >
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Milburn wrote: > Yes, there are a LOT of repeats when the bands are poor. Signal strength is not the only criteria. I don't have a technical background to explain it or even understand it, but there are plenty of days when a signal of S7 will be solid copy..and other days when it will not. Part of the problem is that at 300 baud the bit length is only 3.3 milliseconds. You can have multipath echoes that smear the short bits even when signals are strong. (That's one reason why 110 baud ASCII never caught on with hams, and even 75 baud Baudot can be dicey.)
[digitalradio] RE: HF packet
Thanks for the info on HF Packet. My friend is not licenced yet so he cant TX but wants to check it out. Thanks again73BarryWB1EDI _ Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Faster_022009
RE: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Bill and All, In Texas it is not uncommon to find large areas, say up to 7500 square miles with no cell phone, POTS, or any king of Internet connectivity except via home satellite Internet connectivity. Also these areas have NO TV except via satellite. While PSKMail, as an example, could certainly get beyond that area during the day on 40, 30 or 20M...at night, these area generally have only 80M communications capability. Thus there are times when relaying from sender to receiver requires a relay station outside of the area of concern. During hurricanes on the Texas Gulf Coast, you will find that from Brownsville to Houston and inland to Del Rio on the Rio Grande River and over to San Antonio and then over to Houston that the only cities with Internet capability are San Antonio and Houston. Also, this area extends down 120 miles or so along Mexico's Gulf Coast and inland to Del Rio. From Del Rio to El Paso is the Big Bend area which in normal times doesn't have much Internet Connectivity so there is a huge chunk of country...basically a 500 mile X 500+ mile area that might not have Internet connectivity. So in planning data communications for this area on a 24X7 basis, we generally plan for the worst case scenario...NO Internet. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:38 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? Hi Walt, Guess I was less than precise in describing my position on this. In an emergency... telephones, cell phones, any internet connectivity and sat-phones and the like may well be disabled. I was saying our internet link here is much more fragile than many in the USthe point is we need to assume all *will* fail or be disabled. Any that remain are icing on the cake but we cannot assume we get iced cake. Plan for the worse case scenario and one will be set for any better conditions beyond that.. 73 es be well Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing that I have noticed is that among U.S. and many other hams around the world there is a misconception that we (the world) cannot lose the Internet. > > Well, I have seen times when the Internet within the U.S. (48 states) and I suspect most of Canada and Mexico have lost the entire Internet for 30 seconds to 3 minutes at a time. Due to the resilience of the Internet, it came back quickly. However, I have seen/know of certain parts of the Internet within the U.S. and Canada that have lost Internet connectivity for up to 3 hours. > > There is nothing that can be done to keep a well planned physical and network attack from completely taking down 90% of the Internet in the U.S. and Canada for a period of up to 3 days before the Internet would start to recover and then take another 10-14 days to completely recover. > > Europe is in a lot better shape in that they do not have all that many long open areas where access could be terminated and many times more network controlling nodes per square mile where physical rerouting can be taken. > > Africa and Australia suffer from the worse position that the U.S. > > Satellite inter-connectivity helps but if we rely on satellite until the land connections are reestablished, the system slows down to a crawl. > > The solution is to physically secure as many controlling nodes and backbone hubs as possible and protect network systems from electronic attacks. > > Thanks to the many networking folks across the globe we can recover from the worst Internet failure but it may be a lot slower than we expect. > > In the meantime, amateur radio has the ability or rather should have the ability to fill in for strategic message/E-Mail requirements of our society. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Hi Walt, Guess I was less than precise in describing my position on this. In an emergency... telephones, cell phones, any internet connectivity and sat-phones and the like may well be disabled. I was saying our internet link here is much more fragile than many in the USthe point is we need to assume all *will* fail or be disabled. Any that remain are icing on the cake but we cannot assume we get iced cake. Plan for the worse case scenario and one will be set for any better conditions beyond that.. 73 es be well Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing that I have noticed is that among U.S. and many other hams around the world there is a misconception that we (the world) cannot lose the Internet. > > Well, I have seen times when the Internet within the U.S. (48 states) and I suspect most of Canada and Mexico have lost the entire Internet for 30 seconds to 3 minutes at a time. Due to the resilience of the Internet, it came back quickly. However, I have seen/know of certain parts of the Internet within the U.S. and Canada that have lost Internet connectivity for up to 3 hours. > > There is nothing that can be done to keep a well planned physical and network attack from completely taking down 90% of the Internet in the U.S. and Canada for a period of up to 3 days before the Internet would start to recover and then take another 10-14 days to completely recover. > > Europe is in a lot better shape in that they do not have all that many long open areas where access could be terminated and many times more network controlling nodes per square mile where physical rerouting can be taken. > > Africa and Australia suffer from the worse position that the U.S. > > Satellite inter-connectivity helps but if we rely on satellite until the land connections are reestablished, the system slows down to a crawl. > > The solution is to physically secure as many controlling nodes and backbone hubs as possible and protect network systems from electronic attacks. > > Thanks to the many networking folks across the globe we can recover from the worst Internet failure but it may be a lot slower than we expect. > > In the meantime, amateur radio has the ability or rather should have the ability to fill in for strategic message/E-Mail requirements of our society. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
One thing that I have noticed is that among U.S. and many other hams around the world there is a misconception that we (the world) cannot lose the Internet. Well, I have seen times when the Internet within the U.S. (48 states) and I suspect most of Canada and Mexico have lost the entire Internet for 30 seconds to 3 minutes at a time. Due to the resilience of the Internet, it came back quickly. However, I have seen/know of certain parts of the Internet within the U.S. and Canada that have lost Internet connectivity for up to 3 hours. There is nothing that can be done to keep a well planned physical and network attack from completely taking down 90% of the Internet in the U.S. and Canada for a period of up to 3 days before the Internet would start to recover and then take another 10-14 days to completely recover. Europe is in a lot better shape in that they do not have all that many long open areas where access could be terminated and many times more network controlling nodes per square mile where physical rerouting can be taken. Africa and Australia suffer from the worse position that the U.S. Satellite inter-connectivity helps but if we rely on satellite until the land connections are reestablished, the system slows down to a crawl. The solution is to physically secure as many controlling nodes and backbone hubs as possible and protect network systems from electronic attacks. Thanks to the many networking folks across the globe we can recover from the worst Internet failure but it may be a lot slower than we expect. In the meantime, amateur radio has the ability or rather should have the ability to fill in for strategic message/E-Mail requirements of our society. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? Hi Walt, Thanks for your concise response. We do not even have (up north) DSL or cable...just dialup via the phonelines...all it takes is one iced- over phone line and connectivity to the internet is lost so any comm means that relies on the internet is worthless in an emergency of any sort. Thanks for the prompt to look into Pskmail...guess I need to dust off the Unix box (use it all the time at work so try to avoid it at home). Thanks again, 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > As Rick said...this is kind of the way it is here in Texas durring a hurricane. We loose telephone and DSL then cable and broadband and then if you happen to be on fiber, one of the relays gets under water or the relay node blown away and not fiber. Noise is so high that 2M FM/packet doesn't work well and 70 cm FM packet will do Ok but if you have a digi on top of a tower...by-by antenna and/or coax. > > What you have left is noisy HF. > > So this is the time to try PSKMail. Its only (ONLY???) 200 WPM user throughput but 100% error free and even under the very worst conditions, 25-50 watts of PSK63 qith 16-bit CRC and ARQ will give you more throughput that PSK31 and possibly as much as MSFK-16. And its automatic E-Mail. The nice thing is you don't need anything more than your SSB transceiver and computer with soundcard. > > I might mention that PSKMail also supports PSK125 and may soon support DominoEx for NVIS paths. > > 73, Walt/K5YFW Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Hi Walt, Thanks for your concise response. We do not even have (up north) DSL or cable...just dialup via the phonelines...all it takes is one iced- over phone line and connectivity to the internet is lost so any comm means that relies on the internet is worthless in an emergency of any sort. Thanks for the prompt to look into Pskmail...guess I need to dust off the Unix box (use it all the time at work so try to avoid it at home). Thanks again, 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > As Rick said...this is kind of the way it is here in Texas durring a hurricane. We loose telephone and DSL then cable and broadband and then if you happen to be on fiber, one of the relays gets under water or the relay node blown away and not fiber. Noise is so high that 2M FM/packet doesn't work well and 70 cm FM packet will do Ok but if you have a digi on top of a tower...by-by antenna and/or coax. > > What you have left is noisy HF. > > So this is the time to try PSKMail. Its only (ONLY???) 200 WPM user throughput but 100% error free and even under the very worst conditions, 25-50 watts of PSK63 qith 16-bit CRC and ARQ will give you more throughput that PSK31 and possibly as much as MSFK-16. And its automatic E-Mail. The nice thing is you don't need anything more than your SSB transceiver and computer with soundcard. > > I might mention that PSKMail also supports PSK125 and may soon support DominoEx for NVIS paths. > > 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
> > Bill, > > What you have left is noisy HF. > > So this is the time to try PSKMail. Its only (ONLY???) 200 WPM user > throughput but 100% error free and even under the very worst conditions, 25-50 WPM? What is WPM? Bytes per second is a fixed measure. Assuming 5 bytes plus a space that's 6 bytes per word. 200 wpm is 1200 bytes per minute? Or 1200/60 120/6 or 20 bytes per second. About 200 bits per second. That's not bad for HF but it looks like the PC-ALE package is much faster. Don't forget that since this is based on standard TCP/IP technologies, it's easy to connect PSKmail to JNOS to Airmail to the rest of the world.. They're all building blocks. Hmmm. Does the PC-ALE messaging talk TCP/IP standards? I wonder if it would be possible to use PC-ALE to automatically send a compressed bundle of UUCP Email... Bill
RE: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Bill, As Rick said...this is kind of the way it is here in Texas durring a hurricane. We loose telephone and DSL then cable and broadband and then if you happen to be on fiber, one of the relays gets under water or the relay node blown away and not fiber. Noise is so high that 2M FM/packet doesn't work well and 70 cm FM packet will do Ok but if you have a digi on top of a tower...by-by antenna and/or coax. What you have left is noisy HF. So this is the time to try PSKMail. Its only (ONLY???) 200 WPM user throughput but 100% error free and even under the very worst conditions, 25-50 watts of PSK63 qith 16-bit CRC and ARQ will give you more throughput that PSK31 and possibly as much as MSFK-16. And its automatic E-Mail. The nice thing is you don't need anything more than your SSB transceiver and computer with soundcard. I might mention that PSKMail also supports PSK125 and may soon support DominoEx for NVIS paths. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? Same here Rick...ever more dire at our other home in far Northern WI..nearest gas ststion is 20+ miles away let alone an internet connection...we tend to get along by helping others, a novel concept in this day and age, but still investigating a viable connection to the rest of the world when all else fails..if only for their sake :) 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In our area, if we lose power and the phone system, we likely will lose > internet connectivity. Our EC looked into the situation in our rural > area and found that if internet is down, it will be down our a huge area > since we really have one main ISP. In some areas, where you have > separate companies with their own fiber, you might be able to access > another ISP if you have a bridge such as Winlink 2000. But I would not > build my emergency communications system based on that and would want to > focus on what amateur radio has to offer and that is RF. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > Bill McLaughlin wrote: > > >Snipping abit... > > > >That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer > >Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to > >whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we > >need/desire an alternative. > > > >Bill N9DSJ > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U wrote: > > > > > >>Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the > >>system is set up to work under those conditions. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
HF messaging whether packet or another mode is really the only possible way to have an RF system that covers very wide areas, particularly with low or no population. While community wireless could be done for some in a given community, but it would be unlikely that it would any connection with amateur radio or amateur radio operators. Having an amateur radio license, or even interest in amateur radio, does not necessarily mean significant technical knowledge or ability. With the system we have in my area, with an Alvarion precursor to WiMax, there are still many who have no high speed DSL, but who also can not receive the 2.4 Ghz signal since we are in the "Driftless Area" and have extreme changes in elevation with many shaded areas. For flat topography it would be much easier. Even then, at this frequency you need line of sight and that even means no leaves on trees, etc. And you would still have to provide connections to the internet to move the outside of the immediate geographic area since there isn't remotely enough bandwidth on our frequencies to handle a very large load, assuming you had some kind of point to point network, similar to what we once had in our Section. There are some in our community who were looking into a low powered FM broadcast station. Some of us may have some expertise along those lines, but there are huge poitical issues as you can imagine since some want only their vision broadcast. I have been approached by some who wanted to come up with a personal way they and their neighbors could communicate in an emergency. Other than using FRS or better yet, MURS, there is very little practical networking that they could do for much of a distance and that would be working during an emergency. Are the batteries OK? Leaking? What channel to operate when under duress? Computer related networks are out of the question at those times, especially if there is no power. I don't see 802.11 b/g going anywhere. As more short range networking is added in high population areas, the distances you can cover is shrinking to at most a few miles with high gain antennas and tight beams. The mainreason for having any amateur radio networks today are for emergency purposes as we can not compete with commercial internet. Not even slightly. The only way that can be done for the whole country is with HF if we really want to do this. And I don't think that there are enough who do. On the other hand, you could have local networks running on VHF and up if you have enough interested hams. Our experience is that this number is shrinking as key nodes are discontinued due to personal reasons or becoming SK. There is still some interest in APRS, even some packet clusters for DXers, but emergency use would seem to be the main compelling interest and even there it is a very small subset of hams. 73, Rick, KV9U Harv Nelson wrote: > my view is that, while we were screwing around trying to make an HF > packet > messageing system a reality, the time and money would have been better > spent > developing community wide wireless systems operated by hams for the > benefit > of their communities and neighbors. using public community brad casting > organizations as a model. if we'd done that, hams today would be > delivering > free internet services on city, county, and state wide basis(but probably > not under the aegis of their ham tickets. but contributing technical > expert ice. as our licenses mandate. but instead, we diddle around > with HF > packet and religious aguments about morse code. today the "802.11b/g" > equipment necessary to acomplish the task is available for pennies at > those > stores, whose name can not be spoken. and we're still flogging each > other > with "No-code" lectures. so what if its "consumer electronics" > nobody on > earth knows how to run it better than us. > 73 > Harv, N9AI<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
A couple comments on KV9U's notes... (one > is Jose) > KV9U wrote: > > > When you are using xNOS aren't you also needing to be using TCP/IP > > with considerable overhead? From what I have understood, using xNOS > > on a 1200 baud system is not really practical although at 9600 baud > > it is OK. The beauty of xNOS is that you can choose. You can use the TCP/IP with it's more overhead and better routing or you can use the more efficient legacy FBB/W0RLI BBS forwarding technology. You can route the messages any way you want. 1200 works ok as long as you have a good RF path and keep the messages from getting too big. > Sometimes, bad setups with miserable antennas and bad parameters took a > bigger toll than the TCPIP overhead... Yup. - given good RF, like a regenerating repeater, you can move lots of traffic even at 1200 baud. > > With the IP numbered system, such as the amateur radio 44 IP numbers, > > you have to register your specific address with a central authority, > > although I have never quite understood how it is used. You would > > need to go to your areas AMPRNET Coordinator:) Totally not needed for any *nos work. It's been a big distraction from the important stuff of passing messages on the air. Just treat the RF like you do a home LAN and use the 192.168 numbers. When you have a real Internet presence, use no-ip.com or other dynamic dns service to publish it. > > If you had JNOS, what speeds were you running it at and why did it > > discontinue operation? Discontinue? Just looking for time to get it ported to a WRT54G or NSLU2 > JNOS and TCPIP, or Linux, have not become POPULAR because they are not > really plug and play to work at low speeds, you have to know what you > are doing. The learning curve is steep and it is really not for the > faint of heart. That is the truth. Not worth the effort for most folks in this era of web portals and you-tubes. 73 Bill
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
my view is that, while we were screwing around trying to make an HF packet messageing system a reality, the time and money would have been better spent developing community wide wireless systems operated by hams for the benefit of their communities and neighbors. using public community brad casting organizations as a model. if we'd done that, hams today would be delivering free internet services on city, county, and state wide basis(but probably not under the aegis of their ham tickets. but contributing technical expert ice. as our licenses mandate. but instead, we diddle around with HF packet and religious aguments about morse code. today the "802.11b/g" equipment necessary to acomplish the task is available for pennies at those stores, whose name can not be spoken. and we're still flogging each other with "No-code" lectures. so what if its "consumer electronics" nobody on earth knows how to run it better than us. 73 Harv, N9AI<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 1/16/07, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is too bad that packet could not have advanced with new technology to make it work well on HF. In order for it to be able to work under many conditions, it needed to have the agility to change baud rates/packet sizes to match those conditions and it was really only designed for VHF and for something very close to the MUF on HF. The other problem seemed to be that when the internet moved to e-mail routing, the hierarchy system of packet was much less useful since it could only go to a home bbs. If they could have extended the system to work with e-mail too, you would have had a system that had some real value. As it stands now, there is no system out there that uses amateur radio links to get to other hams since the shutting down of the old Winlink system which only used amateur radio links and replacing it with the mostly internet based Winlink 2000 system. So we have gone from one extreme to another with no balanced approach that I think is needed so we have access to the best of both worlds. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Milburn wrote: >Hi Rick.. >You understand it exactly right. There are a few HF >users, but most of the product of our efforts are VHF >stations running bulletin boards who receive the >messages by VHF nodes which are part of the HF packet >station setup. > >We're just a bunch of stubborn folks who think that >packet radio ought to be done by radio. When the >hop-skip-jump of the early years of packet radio >started going away because antenna sites were lost and >nodes were not maintained, HF radio started replacing >the VHF links where possible. It is (IMHO) a losing >battle we are waging, but since internet packet has >not developed a routing system to deliver personal >messages it has a huge flaw in it, in my thinking at >least. The internet users say just don't send >personals, send your message as a bulletin. But that >defeats the purpose in my view and makes it less >attractive. On the other hand, internet has some >advantages...speed and ability to send larger >messages. > >It's all in your point of view. I started out with >packet back in the early years and loved it, and still >love the system that will allow me to read bulletins, >but also to reply with a personal question or comment >where appropriate...and also to send personal messages >to friends I have developed over the years. > >73 Mark KQ0I >Des Moines, IA > > >
[digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Same here Rick...ever more dire at our other home in far Northern WI..nearest gas ststion is 20+ miles away let alone an internet connection...we tend to get along by helping others, a novel concept in this day and age, but still investigating a viable connection to the rest of the world when all else fails..if only for their sake :) 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In our area, if we lose power and the phone system, we likely will lose > internet connectivity. Our EC looked into the situation in our rural > area and found that if internet is down, it will be down our a huge area > since we really have one main ISP. In some areas, where you have > separate companies with their own fiber, you might be able to access > another ISP if you have a bridge such as Winlink 2000. But I would not > build my emergency communications system based on that and would want to > focus on what amateur radio has to offer and that is RF. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > Bill McLaughlin wrote: > > >Snipping abit... > > > >That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer > >Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to > >whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we > >need/desire an alternative. > > > >Bill N9DSJ > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U wrote: > > > > > >>Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the > >>system is set up to work under those conditions. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
The one thing that these 300baud systems don't have is a gateway in and out of the internet, so that the "gap" can be filled. Any system now has to work with the internet, as well as freestanding Ideally the system should be sound-card based to minimize the hardware required for portable operation. We recently installed a TS480 in our ARES command post, since the 480 does not require an interface.(it has a data port), which gives us full digital capability anywhere we go. We also have a PK232MBX for pactor 1 winlink, which willo be set up soon John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Mark Milburn To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:11 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? And that is how this discussion started. There is already a framework for that kind of communication. It is now operating. Check out 14.098 LSB, 10.147 LSB, 10.141 LSB, 7105.USB , or 7100.5 LSB and you will see "skipnets" operating by radio only, using 300 baud, fully frequency flexible in case of emergency need, and handling bulletin and personal messages every day. We are not short of the framework for such a system...just people that wish to keep it alive. But the lure of the internet makes it seem too much work and too slow, so the framework erodes. I remember when I first started in message handling lo those many years ago, the thing that struck me was the saying that it wasn't the message that was important, it was exercising the system. That is still true. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, Iowa --- John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Bill, there is a need for a short haul > message system such as winlink, or a 300baud system > which could work into an internet gateway > For example, an area hit with tornado or other > natural disaster which would disable the internet in > the immediate area. > > This should work on HF since there may be instances > where the gap may be several hundred miles, so 80/40 > would work. > In our part of north America, sparsley populated > this could be a very real need. > > John > VE5MU > __ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 4:36 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
The reason we don't have a nationwide wireless system is that it is not possible to do this with amateur radio. That is why the Winlink developers abandoned the system and moved to the internet based Winlink 2000 system. They felt that there just is not enough capacity with amateur radio to handle this kind of traffic and do it fast enough to be useful. We have large areas across the country that have no possible relay points for maybe 100 miles, if not more. That leaves out moderate speed VHF paths. Even during the peak of packet operation, most of the long haul traffic was being done via the internet (wormholes). This is why I feel that HF is the only viable option for serious disruptions. It is a decentralized system that is not dependent on one person or a small group of people who must maintain the complicated software and hardware systems that can fail and leave you without communication. You are right about the satellites. The first thing an enemy would do is take out our comsats, particularly military comsats. Based upon shutting down the Omega navigation system some years back and the land based GWEN (Ground Wave Emergency Network) system, and CW communications, it does not seem that the military considers this to be a serious threat. We have tended to put our eggs in one basket though. You may be able to get discontinued VHF repeaters from non-military government agencies if you work this out with your local Emergency Management Office as they can help. Cavities may not be the right size though. Ten meters is the only HF band that can legally operate 1200 baud packet but it is rarely used. There were some 6 meter packet links used in our state but I am not sure if they are still in operation. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: > >Do you have a regularly updated coverage -- and gaps -- >map online? > >I believe that if enough Hams knew where the gaps >were, and how they might assist in filling the gaps, >we could restore this wireless network (sort of a >Ham Internet). > >It is not a question of if but when the Internet >is attacked, via a natural event (earthquake) or >man-made (terrorist). Having a nationwide wireless >network (with some redundancies and rerouting we >could provide a critical service in disaster response. > >Satellites are imagined to be reliable but are >vulnerable to energy spikes from the sun and to >human attack (the Chinese have been developing >satellite-killer technologies for two decades). > >I seem to recall 2M as the core of Packet, are 6M >and 10M used much? There are tons of rigs being >dumped on the market as public service agencies >move to the newest Motorola (and other mfg) pie-in- >the-sky technologies. We will have to backstop >those fragile infrastructures eventually so why >not do it partially using their old gear? :-) > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
KV9U wrote: > When you are using xNOS aren't you also needing to be using TCP/IP > with considerable overhead? From what I have understood, using xNOS > on a 1200 baud system is not really practical although at 9600 baud > it is OK. It depends on what you've got. I had no telephone then, so 1200 baud was fine. JNOS can use LZW compression on SMTP, so it was fair for text e-mails, say, up to 10 K. And I used TCP/IP on HF. Slow, but FTP worked. It was fine for SMALL files. Sometimes, bad setups with miserable antennas and bad parameters took a bigger toll than the TCPIP overhead... > Having said that, I know that JNOS2 now supports both HF and VHF. > Unfortunately, the HF runs with the usual proprietary boxes since > they are the available ARQ modes that must be used for this to work. > And HF is quite slow compared to 1200 baud packet, so perhaps JNOS > can work or some other xNOS variant? Pactor II on a good link can compare to 1200 baud on VHF. You cannot read the text flying up the screen, perhaps just take a glance at the flying words... > With the IP numbered system, such as the amateur radio 44 IP numbers, > you have to register your specific address with a central authority, > although I have never quite understood how it is used. You would > need to go to your areas AMPRNET Coordinator:) Certainly, or use one of the "high" addresses, say, 44.x.y.250, until you get hold of him. I have used that for people that I did not trust they had a long lasting interest. I am glad to say that sometimes I was wrong, so reassigned him with a "lower", permanent address, and reported it to AMPRNET. > I have also heard that one can set up any kind of local/regional > system using other numbers. At least with the hierarchical system, it > was easy for a human to usually see the routing needed to move the > traffic and it was easy for the user to set up an account with a BBS > since it used your callsign. It is possible, but those numbers should stay in an "isolated island". > If you had JNOS, what speeds were you running it at and why did it > discontinue operation? Wouldn't this be useful in areas where many do > not have internet access? The e-mail server was shut down by the organization that sponsored that ham BBS. New directors, new goals, you know... Yes, it was a GOOD idea. It worked at 1200 baud, a bit slow, but it worked for small mails. Guess about the same you should use with Winlink or PSKMail. JNOS and TCPIP, or Linux, have not become POPULAR because they are not really plug and play to work at low speeds, you have to know what you are doing. The learning curve is steep and it is really not for the faint of heart. 1200 baud works with JNOS, or Linux, but does NOT work with AGWPE and IE, because the timers on the browsers are thought for quicker networks and the timers expire...so, the usefulness is near zero and link goes down. The integrated AX.25 support in Linux can tell the browser to hold the horses and hold the link. On Windows, there is no such thing, and if the link is not up to the browser's expectations, it will screech to halt and disconnect. 73, Jose
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
In our area, if we lose power and the phone system, we likely will lose internet connectivity. Our EC looked into the situation in our rural area and found that if internet is down, it will be down our a huge area since we really have one main ISP. In some areas, where you have separate companies with their own fiber, you might be able to access another ISP if you have a bridge such as Winlink 2000. But I would not build my emergency communications system based on that and would want to focus on what amateur radio has to offer and that is RF. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill McLaughlin wrote: >Snipping abit... > >That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer >Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to >whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we >need/desire an alternative. > >Bill N9DSJ > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the >>system is set up to work under those conditions. >> >> > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
No, I don't have such a map. I agree it would be a good thing. If you are interested you might contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get the net listings showing the stations in each net. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, Ia --- kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you have a regularly updated coverage -- and gaps > -- > map online? > > I believe that if enough Hams knew where the gaps > were, and how they might assist in filling the gaps, > we could restore this wireless network (sort of a > Ham Internet). > > It is not a question of if but when the Internet > is attacked, via a natural event (earthquake) or > man-made (terrorist). Having a nationwide wireless > network (with some redundancies and rerouting we > could provide a critical service in disaster > response. > > Satellites are imagined to be reliable but are > vulnerable to energy spikes from the sun and to > human attack (the Chinese have been developing > satellite-killer technologies for two decades). > > I seem to recall 2M as the core of Packet, are 6M > and 10M used much? There are tons of rigs being > dumped on the market as public service agencies > move to the newest Motorola (and other mfg) pie-in- > the-sky technologies. We will have to backstop > those fragile infrastructures eventually so why > not do it partially using their old gear? :-) > > -- > > Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E > ~~ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
And that is how this discussion started. There is already a framework for that kind of communication. It is now operating. Check out 14.098 LSB, 10.147 LSB, 10.141 LSB, 7105.USB , or 7100.5 LSB and you will see "skipnets" operating by radio only, using 300 baud, fully frequency flexible in case of emergency need, and handling bulletin and personal messages every day. We are not short of the framework for such a system...just people that wish to keep it alive. But the lure of the internet makes it seem too much work and too slow, so the framework erodes. I remember when I first started in message handling lo those many years ago, the thing that struck me was the saying that it wasn't the message that was important, it was exercising the system. That is still true. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, Iowa --- John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Bill, there is a need for a short haul > message system such as winlink, or a 300baud system > which could work into an internet gateway > For example, an area hit with tornado or other > natural disaster which would disable the internet in > the immediate area. > > This should work on HF since there may be instances > where the gap may be several hundred miles, so 80/40 > would work. > In our part of north America, sparsley populated > this could be a very real need. > > John > VE5MU > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Hi Rick, The U.S. Declaration of Independence of late has become a popular MARS EXERCISE test message in testing MARS-ALE and with ALE DBM ARQ, that as the body of the message along with the standard MARS message header and tail takes just over 6 minutes if there are no ACK/NAK failures using a frame size of setting of 10 seconds of data which means less data is sent prior to an ACK/NAK, if you increase that from 10 to 100 the message will go some what faster as there are less ACK/NAK handshakes, however if their is a handshake failure due to a poor channel than a much longer frame needs to resent which would mean the message would take much longer than if a shorter frame was sent. PC-ALE always requires and ALE link first, you can't just use DBM ARQ, however a ham program can be written to drop the ALE link and just implement DBM BRD and DBM ARQ, all the details are published in standards to do so. In MARS-ALE as soon as I have the time such will be the case as well. PC-ALE is configured as a data message tool where you type or paste a message and just send it. The interface is not a keyboard to keyboard interface per see as you need to go through menus to keep getting back to the point where you send the message. However in the most recent version there is a one lone data bar for sending a message in any mode, this provides for keyboard to keyboard without the changing focus, and DBM ARQ is bidirectional, thus technically both station can both be sending those one line messages at the same time and as fast as they can type, but the interface is really designed to buffer all this so that you can, I have testing the bidirectional aspect and it does work but you can't load it up, you can send a full message from both ends and watch the exchange where they will pop up on each stations display, the shortest message will usually finish first. The Military implementation of DBM ARQ seems to be all keyboard to keyboard buffered terminals with type ahead buffers triggered to send when x amount of data is ready by configuration parameter settings. I did recently add LISTEN mode to MARS-ALE which is like GTOR Monitor or PACTOR PLISTEN for DBM and DTM ( DTM is not deeply interleaved as is DBM) and its rather amazing how well one can monitor a DBM ARQ message when not in the link, yes you will get frame repeats when sent, but unless you loose sync on a poor channel you get the entire message and with far fewer repeats than you do when listening to PACTOR I by the way. By the way, data compression can be applied to DBM ARQ where mixed cased messages will benefit the same as GTOR and PACTOR do, thus you can more than double the throughput that I mentioned earlier, this will be in the next release of PC-ALE as a user selected option. When you leave PACTOR I, which for a PII or PIII modem is just used for the initial link and then a negotiation to a higher mode/data rate you start to move away from FSK, basically what SCS has done is to follow what the Military has been doing over the last 10+ years whereas PIII is pretty much the SCS version of Military waveform's that are used on the MIL-SDT-188-110 modem. Someone should really look at making a stand alone DBM ARQ terminal program and DBM ARQ BBS if an excellent FSK ARQ PCSDM based system is desired, the speed and robustness are all good and the protocol is all published and free to implement. I believe that I read on this forum that ALE Sounding and Decoding was added to MultiPSK for an experiment? That's not really something that has any usefulness in a program such as MuliPSK, however DBM ARQ would be just the thing. The turn around time after the sending station sends a DBM ARQ frame ( or block ) is seconds, not milliseconds, the receiving station should immediately respond, but in a few seconds if no response is heard or if the response is heard and is bad, the sending station sends the last frame again, if the receiving station gets a frame twice that match then one is tossed, when all is said and done if the message is complete you have success and if not you have a failed message. During the process if the number of retries set to send a frame is ever exceeded ( it resets on each successful frame) then you have a failed message. Lately with MARS-ALE we have been sending long messages on poor channels over short and long distances where DBM ARQ gets through and GTOR and PACTOR I at times fail, pretty amazing, here I am using a KAM Plus, KAM XL for both modes and also an SCS PTCII Pro at times, but mostly the KAM Plus on my 24/7 station. That 24/7 ALE station by the way is using the on-board AC'97 sound device and its a laptop PC, worst case when talking about good, low jitter, low noise PCSDM, PCI is much better and external PCSDM is the best, which I also have and use, but I always do most of my development work with worst case, obviously when switching over to the MIL-STD-188-110 PCSDM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
I agree with Bill, there is a need for a short haul message system such as winlink, or a 300baud system which could work into an internet gateway For example, an area hit with tornado or other natural disaster which would disable the internet in the immediate area. This should work on HF since there may be instances where the gap may be several hundred miles, so 80/40 would work. In our part of north America, sparsley populated this could be a very real need. John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? Snipping abit... That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we need/desire an alternative. Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the > system is set up to work under those conditions. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 4:36 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
> Mark Milburn wrote: > Hi Rick.. > You understand it exactly right. There are a few HF > users, but most of the product of our efforts are VHF > stations running bulletin boards who receive the > messages by VHF nodes which are part of the HF packet > station setup. > > We're just a bunch of stubborn folks who think that > packet radio ought to be done by radio. When the > hop-skip-jump of the early years of packet radio > started going away because antenna sites were lost and > nodes were not maintained, HF radio started replacing > the VHF links where possible. It is (IMHO) a losing > battle we are waging, but since internet packet has > not developed a routing system to deliver personal > messages it has a huge flaw in it, Do you have a regularly updated coverage -- and gaps -- map online? I believe that if enough Hams knew where the gaps were, and how they might assist in filling the gaps, we could restore this wireless network (sort of a Ham Internet). It is not a question of if but when the Internet is attacked, via a natural event (earthquake) or man-made (terrorist). Having a nationwide wireless network (with some redundancies and rerouting we could provide a critical service in disaster response. Satellites are imagined to be reliable but are vulnerable to energy spikes from the sun and to human attack (the Chinese have been developing satellite-killer technologies for two decades). I seem to recall 2M as the core of Packet, are 6M and 10M used much? There are tons of rigs being dumped on the market as public service agencies move to the newest Motorola (and other mfg) pie-in- the-sky technologies. We will have to backstop those fragile infrastructures eventually so why not do it partially using their old gear? :-) -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com Note: Both down temporarily due to server change. ~~
[digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Snipping abit... That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we need/desire an alternative. Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the > system is set up to work under those conditions.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Steve and group, The part of ALE that has this ARQ mode sounds pretty good. Is it fair to say that the 8 tone modulation is actually closer to what Pactor 3 uses? The speed is a bit fast for many HF conditions but it has FEC as well as ARQ so like Pactor, is that why it tends to overcome some of the ISI issues? Can you just use the PC-ALE program and connect to another station for an ARQ transfer of data or even a keyboard connection? If this mode is this good, what is the possibility of adapting it for a high speed digital sound card mode and have it incorporated into the multimode sound card programs? How can this mode handle ARQ with sound card/computer timing constraits? Some of us in the amateur digital community have been hoping for some kind of ARQ sound card mode. Are we overlooking an already invented sound card protocol as Bonnie had mentioned last summer, except that ideally it would scale down in baud rate if conditions require it? I tried to find more information on the specifications but did not find any. I would not consider this mode to be legal on amateur radio frequencies until it has an easy to access specification as required by the FCC. This really should be detailed on the ARRL web site along with the many other digital specs, don't you think? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Andy, > >A system that implemented the ALE Data Block Message (DBM) ARQ >protocol using the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) which at a raw 125 >baud with its deep interleaving providing a full 3x throughput on a >good circuit where no ACK/NAK failures occurred would be much better. >GTOR which blows away PACTOR I is blown away by ALE DBM and best of >all it can be easily implemented on the PCSDM as the ACK/NAK >is variable in seconds and not milliseconds. In MARS we sending >messages using DBM ARQ and FTP on channels where GTOR and PACTOR I >are failing, its really something to see for yourself. The DBM >protocol is extremely robust and it supports bidirectional messaging >as well which is an interesting twist when two stations are attended. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
When you are using xNOS aren't you also needing to be using TCP/IP with considerable overhead? From what I have understood, using xNOS on a 1200 baud system is not really practical although at 9600 baud it is OK. Having said that, I know that JNOS2 now supports both HF and VHF. Unfortunately, the HF runs with the usual proprietary boxes since they are the available ARQ modes that must be used for this to work. And HF is quite slow compared to 1200 baud packet, so perhaps JNOS can work or some other xNOS variant? With the IP numbered system, such as the amateur radio 44 IP numbers, you have to register your specific address with a central authority, although I have never quite understood how it is used. You would need to go to your areas AMPRNET Coordinator:) I have also heard that one can set up any kind of local/regional system using other numbers. At least with the hierarchical system, it was easy for a human to usually see the routing needed to move the traffic and it was easy for the user to set up an account with a BBS since it used your callsign. If you had JNOS, what speeds were you running it at and why did it discontinue operation? Wouldn't this be useful in areas where many do not have internet access? 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: >KV9U wrote: > > > >> E-mail is tremendously more useful than the hierarchical packet >> system because it works not just for hams, but for anyone with >> e-mail, which is ubiquitous in countries such as the U.S. >> >> What I wish for is a system that could do both. >> >> > >Most xNOS can do it. Say, GRINOS, TNOS, JNOS, etc. Configuring the >rewrite rules is not trivial. > >I had access for some time to do both things using JNOS in the 90's . > > > >> We had a crude >> version of it for a short time with the Netlink system, but that was >> discontinued. That way, you can send e-mail via amateur radio in >> areas that would be completely impossible to use cell phones, >> blackberries, etc. and if there is an emergency situation, you can >> still (hopefully) get it to work and you still maintain the >> hierarchical system for within amateur radio circles. >> >> > >It is a pity that there was such a clash and stayed unsolved. The ham >radio hierarchical system >predated the internet domains (as I remember). The bang (!) addressing >system >was a mess, it was not routing, but tying a rope to your mail to pull >itreally, >evolution brought better things. > >I still remember the stupid clash between .NA (North America) and .na >(Namibia) > >It seems that the Internet Domain System won...The amateur system was >more geographically oriented, >but I think it could have been made compatible somehow. Not a simple >task, but not insoluble. It remained >as undone homework > > > >> Even when packet was in its heyday, a very large amount of data went >> via "wormholes." And they were really the early stages of the >> internet. Some of the packet gurus hated to admit they used these >> mostly landline connections though:) >> >> > >I still see it as a good thing...it was a practical solution to the >amateur satgates >and even better. You could connect to far places without even seeing the >Internet, >like if it was an extension to the ionosphere or the NETROM nodes. > > > >> CW has been in decline over many years now, but it still has hobby >> value and maybe a pinch of emergency value too. Not a lot, but a >> little bit. It is nice to read of stories of guys who are back >> packing in remote areas and can use their miniature CW rig to contact >> the outside world and send messages to keep others posted on their >> location and to summon help if it was ever needed. >> >> > >CW has the charm of allowing the simplest and most efficient possible >transmitters. > >I could get into the satellites using Morse. It was the simplest, most >affordable and >most effective mode at hand. With some ingenuity, there is always a >solution at hand, >even "keying" with two bare cable tips > >I keyed my FT-230 via the SWR protection line and fed it to a Microwave >Modules >varactor tripler, and then to an 11 elements Quagi. Worked North >America, South America, >Asia and Europe on Oscar 10 and 13. It jumped every 15 kHz on 435 MHz. > >I was happy until one day when someone got angry with me and called me a >liar. >He wanted a SSB QSO because all satellite radios had SSB. > >73 de Jose, CO2JA >AMPRNET Cordinator, Cuba. >AMSAT NA LM 1209 >Linux User 91155 > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Hi Andy, A system that implemented the ALE Data Block Message (DBM) ARQ protocol using the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) which at a raw 125 baud with its deep interleaving providing a full 3x throughput on a good circuit where no ACK/NAK failures occurred would be much better. GTOR which blows away PACTOR I is blown away by ALE DBM and best of all it can be easily implemented on the PCSDM as the ACK/NAK is variable in seconds and not milliseconds. In MARS we sending messages using DBM ARQ and FTP on channels where GTOR and PACTOR I are failing, its really something to see for yourself. The DBM protocol is extremely robust and it supports bidirectional messaging as well which is an interesting twist when two stations are attended. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:20 PM 1/16/2007, you wrote: >Jose's comments have been helpful. I used VHF packet in the old >days and also used the first satellite gateway on the east coast. >run by my neighbour down the street! > >When I started this thread I had one goal in mind, a simple way that >hams can send brief email without use of the Internet , without >the use of expensive proprietary protected modes (e.g. PACTOR II >and III), AND without a TNC (just using soundcard packet). > > Although 300 Baud is not very robust and quite slow, what would be > wrong with ...say, 10 HF Packet BBS's strategically located around > the world, perhaps on 30 meters? I would not expect them to > forward mail to local VHF gateways or use the Internet , instead > people interested in mail would connect to the HF Packet BBS > directly and retrieve their own mail. If all 10 BBS need to have > the same mail they could forward to each other via a backbone , > that would be a smaller task because the traffic load would require > less forwarding than if VHF or Internet forwarding was part of the plan. > >Of course PSK Mail might be a better plan but would need a Windows >release to make it more accessible to the Masses. > > From an "emergency communications" point of view, my goal would be > a simple method of communication that allows message storage. No > expected links to government communication networks, no elaborate > node interfacing to the Internet. Simply turn on a radio, activate > a computer, issue a "connect" command, enter a "Send Private" or > Send Bulletin" Command , type a brief message and save. > >Andy K3UK.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Jose's comments have been helpful. I used VHF packet in the old days and also used the first satellite gateway on the east coast. run by my neighbour down the street! When I started this thread I had one goal in mind, a simple way that hams can send brief email without use of the Internet , without the use of expensive proprietary protected modes (e.g. PACTOR II and III), AND without a TNC (just using soundcard packet). Although 300 Baud is not very robust and quite slow, what would be wrong with ...say, 10 HF Packet BBS's strategically located around the world, perhaps on 30 meters? I would not expect them to forward mail to local VHF gateways or use the Internet , instead people interested in mail would connect to the HF Packet BBS directly and retrieve their own mail. If all 10 BBS need to have the same mail they could forward to each other via a backbone , that would be a smaller task because the traffic load would require less forwarding than if VHF or Internet forwarding was part of the plan. Of course PSK Mail might be a better plan but would need a Windows release to make it more accessible to the Masses. From an "emergency communications" point of view, my goal would be a simple method of communication that allows message storage. No expected links to government communication networks, no elaborate node interfacing to the Internet. Simply turn on a radio, activate a computer, issue a "connect" command, enter a "Send Private" or Send Bulletin" Command , type a brief message and save. Andy K3UK.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
KV9U wrote: > E-mail is tremendously more useful than the hierarchical packet > system because it works not just for hams, but for anyone with > e-mail, which is ubiquitous in countries such as the U.S. > > What I wish for is a system that could do both. Most xNOS can do it. Say, GRINOS, TNOS, JNOS, etc. Configuring the rewrite rules is not trivial. I had access for some time to do both things using JNOS in the 90's . > We had a crude > version of it for a short time with the Netlink system, but that was > discontinued. That way, you can send e-mail via amateur radio in > areas that would be completely impossible to use cell phones, > blackberries, etc. and if there is an emergency situation, you can > still (hopefully) get it to work and you still maintain the > hierarchical system for within amateur radio circles. It is a pity that there was such a clash and stayed unsolved. The ham radio hierarchical system predated the internet domains (as I remember). The bang (!) addressing system was a mess, it was not routing, but tying a rope to your mail to pull itreally, evolution brought better things. I still remember the stupid clash between .NA (North America) and .na (Namibia) It seems that the Internet Domain System won...The amateur system was more geographically oriented, but I think it could have been made compatible somehow. Not a simple task, but not insoluble. It remained as undone homework > Even when packet was in its heyday, a very large amount of data went > via "wormholes." And they were really the early stages of the > internet. Some of the packet gurus hated to admit they used these > mostly landline connections though:) I still see it as a good thing...it was a practical solution to the amateur satgates and even better. You could connect to far places without even seeing the Internet, like if it was an extension to the ionosphere or the NETROM nodes. > CW has been in decline over many years now, but it still has hobby > value and maybe a pinch of emergency value too. Not a lot, but a > little bit. It is nice to read of stories of guys who are back > packing in remote areas and can use their miniature CW rig to contact > the outside world and send messages to keep others posted on their > location and to summon help if it was ever needed. CW has the charm of allowing the simplest and most efficient possible transmitters. I could get into the satellites using Morse. It was the simplest, most affordable and most effective mode at hand. With some ingenuity, there is always a solution at hand, even "keying" with two bare cable tips I keyed my FT-230 via the SWR protection line and fed it to a Microwave Modules varactor tripler, and then to an 11 elements Quagi. Worked North America, South America, Asia and Europe on Oscar 10 and 13. It jumped every 15 kHz on 435 MHz. I was happy until one day when someone got angry with me and called me a liar. He wanted a SSB QSO because all satellite radios had SSB. 73 de Jose, CO2JA AMPRNET Cordinator, Cuba. AMSAT NA LM 1209 Linux User 91155
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Well, the internet was reality and there was no way to stop it. The only way that radio amateurs could have prevented the linking to the internet would have been to making it illegal and I don't think many would support you on that. Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency benefit, if the system is set up to work under those conditions. The internet has a much larger benefit since it is tremendously faster, can handle so much more traffic, with many additional benefits. By combining radio with the internet you have a synergy that neither one can do as well by themselves. At least at one time. Now with portable devices that are radio transceivers, I do admit that the commercial market has more of this available to everyone, not just radio amateurs. I can not imagine this as being viewed as a bad thing. E-mail is tremendously more useful than the hierarchical packet system because it works not just for hams, but for anyone with e-mail, which is ubiquitous in countries such as the U.S. What I wish for is a system that could do both. We had a crude version of it for a short time with the Netlink system, but that was discontinued. That way, you can send e-mail via amateur radio in areas that would be completely impossible to use cell phones, blackberries, etc. and if there is an emergency situation, you can still (hopefully) get it to work and you still maintain the hierarchical system for within amateur radio circles. Even when packet was in its heyday, a very large amount of data went via "wormholes." And they were really the early stages of the internet. Some of the packet gurus hated to admit they used these mostly landline connections though:) CW has been in decline over many years now, but it still has hobby value and maybe a pinch of emergency value too. Not a lot, but a little bit. It is nice to read of stories of guys who are back packing in remote areas and can use their miniature CW rig to contact the outside world and send messages to keep others posted on their location and to summon help if it was ever needed. True story: A friend of ours, has parents that live in the Pacific NorthWest. As you may know, in the past few weeks they had severe weather problems and loss of power and communications. After about a week and a half the individual was becoming very concerned since they had not heard from their parents during that time. They were able to get a communication to their parents from Wisconsin. But is wasn't through the NTS system, nor using HF (they are Techs and did not have this capability), and certainly not through any Winlink 2000 system since it is strictly an e-mail delivery system. Rather, they got on their computer and located a ham within 26 miles of their parents home via ... Echolink. The ham on the other end agreed to drive to their parents home and report back. Which they did a few hours later to report that everything was OK. This is not unlike how it was a few decades ago when I would get some NTS traffic from the CW or voice nets and hand deliver it, sometimes many miles away, because there was no telephone number. While most traffic was of little importance, I did have one once that was a fairly important situation and got a lot of satisfaction out of delivering the message to the final recipient. Sincerely, Rick W. Mark Milburn wrote: >My view would be that any change to the packet RADIO >system to utilize the internet was a step in the >direction of eliminating it altogether. The value of >packet radio is the emphasis on the radio part. Once >you say the system would be more useful if the end >result was email, then why utilize radios at all? >Just email the person you want to contact. But that's >just my personal opinion and it is obviously out of >step with the prevailing view. I like CW too, so I >guess I'm just stuck in some previous time zone. That >happens to us older guys...hi. > >Have a good one today. > >72/73 Mark KQ0I >Des Moines, IA > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
It seems I should state the part of the history I have lived. 1n 1991 I started with my C-64 and KPC-2 as user of several HF BBS's, on different frequencies, "surfing the NETROM nodes", etc, until I settled as user of YV2AEH on 14095 LSB. It solved a problem I had not been told : stable mail routes. A local BBS had started, CO2BQQ, but it did not have good routes for P mail. It was a matter of making contacts and setting up working routes, which is easier said than done. Eventually, I became co-sysop of CO2BQQ, which had two HF ports at those times, one on 14095 kHz (300 bauds) and another on 28 180 kHz 1200 baud to KA0WIN. Eventually, worked on 15 meters with XE1FH. On late 1993 I started CO2JA running FBB 5.15 and began forwarding with the South FL network on 40 meters and a Satgate there. I cannot remember callsigns now. Life went on and stations come and go. Switched to the Cancun Satgate (XF3R) on 7099 LSB. Routes all over the world were great and STABLE. I started working part time on 7099 and 14101. When XF3R closed the 7099 port, I had become the sysop of CO2BQQ too, and moved it to 14107, linked to XE1LM, which was the route to access the Cancun Satgate. Also, I started an e-mail forwarding link to CO8RCI, which had the routes to South America and the Caribbean. We left our HF radios en different frequencies (14095, 14101 and 14107) and shared forwarding via an automatic e-mail link, and linked to CO2BQQ and CO2BSS on 2 meters. CO2BSS was running JNOS and had a landline modem access for those our of coverage or unable to connect on 2 meters. We moved not less than 300 kB daily...it was a LOT to read, all over HF fwd links. When XE1LM switched off, CO2BQQ went to 14091 1200 baud...sometimes it was great, but most of the time, the propagation windows were wasted in endless retries. I also had CO2JA linked to KP4IG for a short time on 15 meters 1200 baudit was GREAT, almost as good as 10 meters 1200 baud, but it did not last long. I had few HF users, and in general, it is a hindrance to support HF users unless the user is well trained, has good equipment and is considerate, to minimize the impact on the forwarding load for the larger local group of VHF users. I had few non local users on HF, which had no other way to enter into an organized network, but I always tried to move the local users to the 2 meters ports or to the landline access. I have used bulletin import from several web sites, and have also sent mail to them, but P mail routes stopped working coherently when internet forwarding routes appeared, among other reasons because some of those stations had no links to the "RF world". And building a a coherent forwarding routes files is not a trivial exercise, if it is going to be done well. On late 1998 I moved CO2JA to pactor forwarding and set P mail routes to WU3V, TU5EX and somebody else I cannot remember on Europe. CO8RCI closed the HF port, and so, lost the HF routes to South America. Satgates were also gone, and internet fwd was only good for bulletins. CO3VT joined for some time also feeding CO9BQQ on 2 meters from another HF frequency. CO2JA and CO9BQQ were switched to Linux...and stability improved inmensely. Could kiss goodbye to those nighttime resets of the MSDOS era. Uptime rose up to a month or two at times. I did not reset the BBS's anymore, but the power company did As Danny says, it was a sort of ham Internet, and worked well. When there were wormholes, it was easy to fwd to the wormhole headend and have it move the traffic to many places around the world, reliably. For some time it was the substitute of Satgates. There was a ham comradeship that I miss, groups like this one get close but it is never the same. I made good friends that way. P mail worked well. It was nice,as Mark says, to be able to send a personal remark to someone, request a 7PLUS fill, or request files from other BBS's in far places. REQFIL was a sort of networked FTP. I also have been running different flavors of NOS, but it was a different twist. It is a pity it all went into thin air. Man thinks as he lives, and I am not going to deny progress, but to many, full Internet access is out of reach or non affordable. The dissapearance of the RF packet network has been a great loss for those who had equipment to devote to it, but no Internet access. And it was OUR network. And there is still people in, say, less fortunate or less developed places where RF is at reach but the wires are not. Losing HF packet has broadened the ham digital divide. And it is not really about losing packet, is about losing HF connectivity. A widespread, improved substitute never showed up, at least, before AEA sang the dying swan squeak, declared bankrupcy and many took it as the death certification of packet radio. I am a bit reluctant to accept that it is all history, and always kept dreaming on something that worked better than 300 baud packet and was aff
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
My view would be that any change to the packet RADIO system to utilize the internet was a step in the direction of eliminating it altogether. The value of packet radio is the emphasis on the radio part. Once you say the system would be more useful if the end result was email, then why utilize radios at all? Just email the person you want to contact. But that's just my personal opinion and it is obviously out of step with the prevailing view. I like CW too, so I guess I'm just stuck in some previous time zone. That happens to us older guys...hi. Have a good one today. 72/73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, IA --- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is too bad that packet could not have advanced > with new technology to > make it work well on HF. In order for it to be able > to work under many > conditions, it needed to have the agility to change > baud rates/packet > sizes to match those conditions and it was really > only designed for VHF > and for something very close to the MUF on HF. > > The other problem seemed to be that when the > internet moved to e-mail > routing, the hierarchy system of packet was much > less useful since it > could only go to a home bbs. If they could have > extended the system to > work with e-mail too, you would have had a system > that had some real value. > > As it stands now, there is no system out there that > uses amateur radio > links to get to other hams since the shutting down > of the old Winlink > system which only used amateur radio links and > replacing it with the > mostly internet based Winlink 2000 system. So we > have gone from one > extreme to another with no balanced approach that I > think is needed so > we have access to the best of both worlds. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
It is too bad that packet could not have advanced with new technology to make it work well on HF. In order for it to be able to work under many conditions, it needed to have the agility to change baud rates/packet sizes to match those conditions and it was really only designed for VHF and for something very close to the MUF on HF. The other problem seemed to be that when the internet moved to e-mail routing, the hierarchy system of packet was much less useful since it could only go to a home bbs. If they could have extended the system to work with e-mail too, you would have had a system that had some real value. As it stands now, there is no system out there that uses amateur radio links to get to other hams since the shutting down of the old Winlink system which only used amateur radio links and replacing it with the mostly internet based Winlink 2000 system. So we have gone from one extreme to another with no balanced approach that I think is needed so we have access to the best of both worlds. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Milburn wrote: >Hi Rick.. >You understand it exactly right. There are a few HF >users, but most of the product of our efforts are VHF >stations running bulletin boards who receive the >messages by VHF nodes which are part of the HF packet >station setup. > >We're just a bunch of stubborn folks who think that >packet radio ought to be done by radio. When the >hop-skip-jump of the early years of packet radio >started going away because antenna sites were lost and >nodes were not maintained, HF radio started replacing >the VHF links where possible. It is (IMHO) a losing >battle we are waging, but since internet packet has >not developed a routing system to deliver personal >messages it has a huge flaw in it, in my thinking at >least. The internet users say just don't send >personals, send your message as a bulletin. But that >defeats the purpose in my view and makes it less >attractive. On the other hand, internet has some >advantages...speed and ability to send larger >messages. > >It's all in your point of view. I started out with >packet back in the early years and loved it, and still >love the system that will allow me to read bulletins, >but also to reply with a personal question or comment >where appropriate...and also to send personal messages >to friends I have developed over the years. > >73 Mark KQ0I >Des Moines, IA > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Hi Rick.. You understand it exactly right. There are a few HF users, but most of the product of our efforts are VHF stations running bulletin boards who receive the messages by VHF nodes which are part of the HF packet station setup. We're just a bunch of stubborn folks who think that packet radio ought to be done by radio. When the hop-skip-jump of the early years of packet radio started going away because antenna sites were lost and nodes were not maintained, HF radio started replacing the VHF links where possible. It is (IMHO) a losing battle we are waging, but since internet packet has not developed a routing system to deliver personal messages it has a huge flaw in it, in my thinking at least. The internet users say just don't send personals, send your message as a bulletin. But that defeats the purpose in my view and makes it less attractive. On the other hand, internet has some advantages...speed and ability to send larger messages. It's all in your point of view. I started out with packet back in the early years and loved it, and still love the system that will allow me to read bulletins, but also to reply with a personal question or comment where appropriate...and also to send personal messages to friends I have developed over the years. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, IA --- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > Something I never really understood is what is the > HF packet network > was actually doing. You mentioned that mail is not > done much anymore, > but bulletins are. Who can connect to the system to > receive the data or > are you feeding it via HF to local VHF packet BBS > systems? > > In the past was it the primary purpose of the HF > part of packet to > forward to the VHF BBS's or were (are) there > stations who get this > directly off of the HF connection? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
I had two meter packet to a node here in Virginia. I sent messages to others on it, vi9a the BBS, as well as had a spotting page set up which was connected between many different packet nodes across country. It was very much like the internet in that respect. I ocassionally copied and even signed into an hf packet group, but never really used it for much. They were more of a backbone between other systems, and of course there were a number of boats and RVers who used hf to do all of the above. There were regular inputs from some areas which had want ads , etc. and in fact I bought a few things that way. Saw the ads, ordered the product via the post office. It was a good, but slow system and I consider it the father of the internet. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS? > Mark, > > Something I never really understood is what is the HF packet network > was actually doing. You mentioned that mail is not done much anymore, > but bulletins are. Who can connect to the system to receive the data or > are you feeding it via HF to local VHF packet BBS systems? > > In the past was it the primary purpose of the HF part of packet to > forward to the VHF BBS's or were (are) there stations who get this > directly off of the HF connection? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > Mark Milburn wrote: > > >I think so, but probably none of the ones I am > >involved with unless there are prior arrangements. I > >know any of our guys would be glad to help you with a > >demonstration, but the question would be who you could > >connect with at the time of the presentation. I think > >there are some guys that hang around 14.105 that do > >keyboard stuff but I have never worked with them > >personally so I can't tell you too much about them or > >what it would take to get into their BBS. > > > >We handle quite a bit of bulletin traffic, but not too > >much personal mail any more. The internet guys have > >gotten into the business in a big way and they have no > >way to route personal mail so much of that kind of > >mail dies and the resulting frustration on the part of > >senders has caused almost the death of personal mail > >by packet unless you know the routes in advance. > >Sending it is easy...getting it delivered is very > >"iffy". > > > >I would be glad to help with your demo if we could > >determine a frequency and a time that would allow the > >connection. > > > >73 Mark KQ0I > >Des Moines, IA > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date: 1/15/2007 11:04 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Mark, Something I never really understood is what is the HF packet network was actually doing. You mentioned that mail is not done much anymore, but bulletins are. Who can connect to the system to receive the data or are you feeding it via HF to local VHF packet BBS systems? In the past was it the primary purpose of the HF part of packet to forward to the VHF BBS's or were (are) there stations who get this directly off of the HF connection? 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Milburn wrote: >I think so, but probably none of the ones I am >involved with unless there are prior arrangements. I >know any of our guys would be glad to help you with a >demonstration, but the question would be who you could >connect with at the time of the presentation. I think >there are some guys that hang around 14.105 that do >keyboard stuff but I have never worked with them >personally so I can't tell you too much about them or >what it would take to get into their BBS. > >We handle quite a bit of bulletin traffic, but not too >much personal mail any more. The internet guys have >gotten into the business in a big way and they have no >way to route personal mail so much of that kind of >mail dies and the resulting frustration on the part of >senders has caused almost the death of personal mail >by packet unless you know the routes in advance. >Sending it is easy...getting it delivered is very >"iffy". > >I would be glad to help with your demo if we could >determine a frequency and a time that would allow the >connection. > >73 Mark KQ0I >Des Moines, IA > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
I think so, but probably none of the ones I am involved with unless there are prior arrangements. I know any of our guys would be glad to help you with a demonstration, but the question would be who you could connect with at the time of the presentation. I think there are some guys that hang around 14.105 that do keyboard stuff but I have never worked with them personally so I can't tell you too much about them or what it would take to get into their BBS. We handle quite a bit of bulletin traffic, but not too much personal mail any more. The internet guys have gotten into the business in a big way and they have no way to route personal mail so much of that kind of mail dies and the resulting frustration on the part of senders has caused almost the death of personal mail by packet unless you know the routes in advance. Sending it is easy...getting it delivered is very "iffy". I would be glad to help with your demo if we could determine a frequency and a time that would allow the connection. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, IA --- Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are any open to non BBS operators? I'm doing a > presenation soon > about packet without a TNC and just wondered if > old-fashioned packet > email at 300 baud was still an option when all else > fails ? > > Andy K3UK > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Milburn > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Oh my yes. There are a number of us. Listen in > on > > 7.100.5 LSB, 7105.0 USB, 10.147 LSB, 10.141 LSB , > or > > 14.098 LSB. Normally these stations are only open > to > > other BBS stations so you would have to get hold > of > > them to set up forwarding privileges. > > If you are interested in BBS operations, you could > > send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or perhaps I could help > > with questions? > > 73 Mark KQ0I > > Des Moines, Iowa > > > > --- Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Does anyone know the call sign and frequency of > any > > > HF 300 Baud Packet > > > BBS stations that one might be able to connect > to? > > > Do they still > > > exist? > > > > > > -- > > > Andy K3UK > > > Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 > > > www.obriensweb.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX > Cluster > > > telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > > > Our other groups: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > __ > > Need Mail bonding? > > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from > Yahoo! Answers users. > > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster > telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
[digitalradio] Re: HF Packet BBS?
Are any open to non BBS operators? I'm doing a presenation soon about packet without a TNC and just wondered if old-fashioned packet email at 300 baud was still an option when all else fails ? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Milburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh my yes. There are a number of us. Listen in on > 7.100.5 LSB, 7105.0 USB, 10.147 LSB, 10.141 LSB , or > 14.098 LSB. Normally these stations are only open to > other BBS stations so you would have to get hold of > them to set up forwarding privileges. > If you are interested in BBS operations, you could > send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or perhaps I could help > with questions? > 73 Mark KQ0I > Des Moines, Iowa > > --- Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does anyone know the call sign and frequency of any > > HF 300 Baud Packet > > BBS stations that one might be able to connect to? > > Do they still > > exist? > > > > -- > > Andy K3UK > > Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 > > www.obriensweb.com > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster > > telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Our other groups: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ __ > Need Mail bonding? > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 >
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet to internet & SCAMP questions
Rick, The default 24 hour time limit is 30 minutes for most PMBOs, however, this varies with the specific PMBO. Any PMBO will grant additional time upon request. Scamp is in a holding pattern since much work is being done to eliminate the primary central server/backup central server in favor of Common Message Servers, which all run redundantly with mutliple phase commits. In other words, should one Common Message Server go down, the Radio Message Servers (PMBOs) automatically route to the remaining Common Message Servers. Currently, there are two in production and one more testing, but we will quickly to a five server system. 3 in the US, one in Eu and one in Aus. I know that Rick, KN6KB, is also looking at some basic changes to SCAMP, but I do not know more. FYI, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > From my perspective you have three choices for HF connectivity, but I would > not call any of them real time since they are mailer type programs: > > Winlink 2000 with a hardware modem which then could get you into an HF PMBO > to send e-mail but you would be limited under normal circumstaces to a > maximum 30 minute connect time per 24 hours if I remember the imposed time > limit from their system. > > JNOS2 which uses some of the same hardware selection but would probably > require something at the home station. > > PSKmail which is a newly developed system from a European ham that permits > sending e-mail via an ARQ version of PSK63. Slower throughput, but much > smaller footprint than many of the wide band ARQ modes, and of course no > time limitations. > > Winlink 2000 is primarily for Windows OS, JNOS for Linux or DOS, and PSKmail > primarily for Linux. > > You could use the Winlink 2000 system to access a Telpac to route e- mail if > there is one close enough to you. Or you could set up a Telpac at your home > QTH if you can reach it via VHF since Telpacs are designed for packet. > > I have been a SCAMP beta tester and found it to be simply amazing in terms > of its speed and care in not transmitting on a busy channel. It requires > around a 10 db S/N ratio to work and that is often difficult to come by on > HF so the developer is hoping to include additional modes as a fall back and > that might work under weaker signal conditions. > > At this time the developer is working on other things so no SCAMP > development has occurred since the spring. Hopefully this winter (in this > hemisphere) he can return to working on it at times. The previous beta > versions of Paclink SCD which is the SCAMP software, had a timer in them > that make them quit working by a certain date and I believe we are well past > that date so there is nothing you could test right now. > > Maybe others can come up with some other solutions? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of zl1tbg > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 17:55 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] HF packet to internet & SCAMP questions > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet to internet & SCAMP questions
Rick / Tim / Ralph, Here are some links that might be worth checking out: http://www.qsl.net/kb2scs/bwrie.html If you are simply interested in sending/retrieving email over HF or VHF packet, then BWRIE (freeware) may be a solution. Also, the author of BWRIE has a new project, APRS-SCS (shareware) that is being supported on the aprpack Yahoo group. Plans are to add pskmail capability to APRS-SCS. http://www.elcom.gr/sv2agw/ There is a shareware Ax.25 driver for freeware AGWPE. Shareware AGWPE Pro includes the driver. The soundcard driver in AGWPE and AGWPE Pro supports 300, 1200 or 9600 baud packet, or you can use a KISS mode TNC. http://www.mixw.net/related.htm At the bottom of the page are freeware MixNic6 drivers for TCP/IP over Ax.25, and a freeware Ax25Inet program to use these drivers with a KISS TNC. If you are using VHF, you can also use MixW (shareware) as a packet soundmodem. http://www.qsl.net/yb0kli/klinet/ An alternative solution to TCP/IP over Ax.25, KLInet (freeware) is designed to replace IP addresses with the Ax.25 addresses (callsigns+SSID) at the remote end, and map them back to IP addresses at the network gateway end. This uses less overhead than encapsulating the TCP/IP frame in AX.25, but requires that both parties can use static IPs (like the 44.xxx.xxx.xxx domain addresses assigned by AMPR). With all the above options, if you don't want to count on an internet link to an email server, you will need a local email server for at least one station in the local traffic network. As Rick mentioned, it looks like JNOS2 or a Winlink PMBO would provide this capability. Regarding the 30 minute per day connection limit, I believe that this limit is set by each PMBO or BBS operator. Back in the days of dialup BBSs, it was common for the operators to set time limits so each user could get a fair share of connect time. Per discussions on the wl2kemcomm Yahoo group, it sounds like PMBO operators were able to grant unlimited time to stations providing support for hurricane relief efforts. 73, KC0HOS - Jim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
