Hi Ed,
Ed Woodrick wrote:
[snip]
And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any
comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1
can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's
pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I would like to do email over the radio to other hams.
It just
appeals to me.
I would also like to see the NNTP protocol used for newsgroups
implemented
on radio. snip
I've experimented with this. The
And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any
comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1
can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's
pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of
data
that can
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed
Ed,
Even when All USA and other messages were blocked from going through the
network, it was still too slow for practical use like we have on the
internet. Other than for emergency use, packet could not compete with
the rich content of the internet, especially after the advent of the web.
For us Amateurs there is 2390 to 2400 which is outside the ISM band. At
5.8 we have frequencies above and below as well as in the ISM band.
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet?
With every increase in speed, you reduce the distance you can transmit.
We could not begin to
Well, we have been using the D700s for a couple years now on 9k2 in a
straight packet mode. I just made sure the message sizes fit the TNC in
the D700.
73, Tom n4zpt
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam k5rud@
Which radio?
The Kenwood D710.They've
So I'll add a few more cents.
Packet died in the US because it was too popular for what it could do.
The number of For Sale messages and announcements that were sent
worldwide just overwhelmed users and BBSs. It came to the point that
there was too much content and nothing that you wanted to
Hi Rick et al
Rick wrote:
[snip]
9k6 was the minimum usable speed for TCP/IP via ham radio in my view. It
was moderately expensive, but as you know, many rigs came along that
could do it. Most synthesized rigs can now, I have one here in the
shack, but it will never be connected because
Rub,
Although I agree it would be nice to run this group, and perhaps a few
other ham discussions over some kind of RF network, how can this
possibly be practical?
It could take days to deliver such messages, assuming you had some kind
of server system to coordinate it. It seems to me that
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam k5rud@
Which radio?
The Kenwood D710.They've supposedly fixed the issues with the D700
and, if true, we have a dual band frequency agile 9k6 and 1200 baud
data radio. Unfortunately the current premier packet data
application, Airmail 2000, doesn't
-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:12 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Rub,
Although I agree it would be nice to run this group, and perhaps
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet?
The 2.4 Ghz ISM band
I would be hesitant to completely accept certain facts as absolutely
true, but even if Greg Jones wanted to destroy packet, he really would
not have been able to do so when up against the tremendous numbers of us
who used it daily. The truth is that there just was not enough interest
by a
My point is that the packet radio cannot prosper if all of our
_amateur radio_ applications are closed source.
Closed source or open source is a non-issue. What matters is if the
software is well supported with good engineering principles.An
open source package with no support is far
: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
9600 off the shelf
We may finally have the first off the shelf
Bill,
I also would be interested in a 9600 BAUD/BPS radio/TNC or 9600 TNC.
As you, I ran a bunch of TCP/IP at 1200 baud after I ran 1200 baud packet and
even a Packet BBS for several years. When I went to 19.2 KBPS, I forgot 1200
baud packet and have not returned. Since then the 19.2 KBPS
It's my understanding that 19.2k just isn't possible with a soundcard.
Wrong.
The main question is how much BW your radio provides.
Having 10khz of BW 19.2k should be doable. Have a look at the DREAM
software http://drm.sourceforge.net/ . It should get pretty close to 19.2
on 10khz BW, and
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill,
I also would be interested in a 9600 BAUD/BPS radio/TNC or 9600 TNC.
As you, I ran a bunch of TCP/IP at 1200 baud after I ran 1200 baud
packet and
even a Packet BBS for several years. When I went to 19.2
What was it that caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over
the course of a decade that saw astounding growth and advancement of the
Packet network in Europe? ( 19.2 access, 78.2 fulldup backbone )
Was it - the internet? - Well, yes and no. Remember that Europeans had
, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Brabham
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:39 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
What
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Charles Brabham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What was it that caused Packet networks in the United States to
decline over
the course of a decade that saw astounding growth and advancement of
the
Packet network in Europe?
...
Greg Jones and
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bashing operators using Windows and the software for it are not going to
gain you friends.
I did not bash operators using Microsoft Windows. Use that if you
want. My point is that the packet radio cannot prosper if all
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your finding of the outdated links is correct. In order for packet to
have succeeded, it would have had to compete with the internet, and
that
was not really possible.
I think that this really depends on the way VHF/UHF
VHF/UHF is envisioned just the way it is now. That is the vision of the
average ham. Short range voice and a few niche areas with weak signal
voice and digital. But actually less weak signal now than in the past!
Odd when you consider the enormous numbers of new hams who can run 1500
watts on
Using Windows does not mean the application is closed source. There is a
great deal of open source Windows software.
You keep making so strange generalizations like closed source and
appliance operators. They hinder your getting your ideas across.
I mention Winlink only to indicate that I do
27 matches
Mail list logo
