HAM Radio 1/HamRadio.cdr/misc/pkthints/pd91031.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-02-01 | 14KB

From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!packet-radio-relay Fri Feb  1 15:29:32 1991 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.63/waf)
    via UUCP; Sat, 02 Feb 91 12:00:59 EST
    for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com id aa08178; Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:29:30 GMT
Received: from ucsd.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
    id AA28207; Fri, 1 Feb 91 08:58:40 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA05080
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Fri, 1 Feb 91 04:30:21 -0800 for hpbbrd!db0sao!dg4scv
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA05066
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Fri, 1 Feb 91 04:30:15 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fpacket-radio-relay packet-radio-list
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri,  1 Feb 91 04:30:11 PST
From: Packet-Radio Mailing List and Newsgroup </dev/[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Packet-Radio Digest V91 #31
To: [e-mail]


Packet-Radio Digest         Fri,  1 Feb 91       Volume 91 : Issue  31

Today's Topics:
                  Amprnet services listing (2 msgs)
                   FREE Kantronics KPC-II Firmware.
                          Help! What is it?
                   ka9q NOS on an AT&T 3b1 unix-pc
                        Omni vs beam antennas.
                       PACKET->Internet Gateway
                         Shareware on Packet

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 09:45:41 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Charlie Ross, Jr.)
Subject: Amprnet services listing
To: "maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu![e-mail]"@gte.com

  > In the last issue of QEX magazine, the "Gateway" had a listing
  > of finger and mail services for TCP/IP.  A question popped into my
  > head as why such a list was given in a national magazine.
  >
  > Since we do not have a nationwide TCP/IP network in the USA, is
  > connectivity to these services a problem or is it
  > possible for ANY TCP/IP'er to use these services.

I was the person who compiled the list.  It was originally published in two
regional newsletters, "The Wireless Bitstream" (newsletter of the Boston
Computer Society A/R SIG) and "The New England TCPer" (newsletter of the
New England TCP Association.  I didn't hear about it appearing in QEX/Gateway
until people received their copies and started mentioning it.

I'm currently unclear as to why it was published in a national newsletter.
A copy is "in the mail" to me and I want to see it before pursuing it further
with Stan Horzepa (Gateway's editor).

Yes, indeed--connectivity would be a "problem" unless you're linked into
the New England subnet.  I do feel that similar listings would be useful
for each regional net, particularly for the sake of newcomers in each area.
To that extent, perhaps it was published as an example--I don't know, I'll have
to see what wrap-around Stan wrote for it.

--Charlie Ross, NC1N
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
NC1N @ WA1PHY.MA

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 91 16:04:47 GMT
From: att!cbnewsj![e-mail]  (thomas.kenny)
Subject: Amprnet services listing
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charlie Ross, Jr.) writes:
>  > In the last issue of QEX magazine, the "Gateway" had a listing
>  > of finger and mail services for TCP/IP.  A question popped into my
>  > head as why such a list was given in a national magazine.
>I was the person who compiled the list.  It was originally published in two
>regional newsletters, "The Wireless Bitstream" (newsletter of the Boston
>Computer Society A/R SIG) and "The New England TCPer" (newsletter of the
>New England TCP Association.  I didn't hear about it appearing in QEX/Gateway
>until people received their copies and started mentioning it.
>
>I'm currently unclear as to why it was published in a national newsletter.
>A copy is "in the mail" to me and I want to see it before pursuing it further
>with Stan Horzepa (Gateway's editor).

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 15:59:17 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!felix![e-mail]  (Oscar S. Alonso)
Subject: FREE Kantronics KPC-II Firmware.
To: [e-mail]

Free firmware to the first person to send me email with there mailing
address can obtain Kantronics KPC II packet communcator firmware revision 2.82.

I just upgraded to version 3.00.

Oscar S. Alonso
uunet!ccicpg!felix!alonso

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 91 11:18:40 GMT
From: public![e-mail]  (Bob Vaughan [e-mail])
Subject: Help! What is it?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peach) writes:
>I have discovered a packet radio signal, locally, on 412.875 MHz.
>While it is not in the ham band, it sounds very similar to 1200
>baud packet.

This is probably US Army or USAF packet. 412 Mhz is a federal government
frequency. My Hollins book lists the assignment as US Army, and USAF.



--
Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine
Bob Vaughan     - [e-mail] {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie
1-415-856-8025  - [e-mail]       {fernwood,decwrl,mips,sgi}!btr!techie
I am me, I am only me, and no one else is me. What could be simpler?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 91 03:17:18 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!sharkey!fmsrl7!hpftc!slimer![e-mail]  (Mark C. Otto)
Subject: ka9q NOS on an AT&T 3b1 unix-pc
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lucio de Re) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>would anyone who has ka9q NOS (or hyprids thereof) running under unix (sysV)
>and me (if available for the 3b1, of course), pretty please!
>Lucio de Re.

Me too, please!


Mark Otto



--
Mark C. Otto   EMail: mco@slimer, {teemc | hpftc}!slimer!mco
Voice: 1-313-441-4264    USnail: 5133 Heather #208, Dearborn, MI. 48126
Quote: "Yeah. Right. Kermit my a*s." - Mark C. Otto, '90

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 11:12:52 GMT
From: mintaka!ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Omni vs beam antennas.
To: [e-mail]

In article <28.Jan.91.17:05:26.GMT.#[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Pete Lucas, NCS-TLC, Holbrook House, Swindon") writes:
>Hi. I recently had a 'discussion' with another packeteer as to whether
>it was better to use omni-directional antennas or beams for accessing
>BBS's and the like. He argued that using beams results in less mutual
>interference; i argued that the CSMA model ceases to work if there are
>nodes that cannot hear each other yet can interfere with each others
>working.
>This discussion got quite 'inflamed';  What say you good people? Theres
>an evening of free drinks (for me!) in the balance here.
>
>           Pete Lucas [e-mail]  [e-mail]

The correct answer is that it depends on the RF topology of your particular
network. If we assume that the bbs or node is forced to use omni antennas,
a necessity in most cases, then the use of a beam by a user station may
reduce total thruput on the channel. The reason being that your signals
arriving at the bbs will be interfered with by other packeteers' signals
because the beam prevents either you or the other packeteer from hearing
each other and performing the normal channel hold off function. If,
however, all user stations are using beams, and the beams are good enough
that the capture effect is significantly enhanced at the bbs so that the
desired station's signal overrides all other users on the channel while
at the same time being so weak at the other users' sites as to not bother
their transmissions, then the beams create a form of spatial reuse similar
to cellular and thruput is enhanced. However, with the generally random
physical distribution of stations in the network that wish to communicate
with each other at any given time, the probability of this case occurring
is relatively small. Therefore, use of beams generally worsens channel
collisions even though there are special cases where the beams can
help.

Gary KE4ZV

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 91 18:51:09 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!platypus![e-mail]  (Bill Gunshannon)
Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carl Peterson) writes:
>
> If you set up a gateway/router you would have to take a great
> deal of care about what addresses could access which services.
> Obviously, you could not allow a non 44. address to initiate
> a connection to a 44 address.

OK. Enough is enough.  It is time to bring this one out in the open
and resolve it once and for all.

I have heard numerous times that because the remote station would be
controlling the transmitter and he is (possibly) a non-ham that this
would be illegal.  Now lets look at this from a practical technical
aspect.

If I put up a 10M <-> 2M cross-band repeater, a TECH can come on 2M
and initiate a contact on 10M.  This is not considered illegal although
the TECH is initiating the contact.  I have heard that this is OK under
the rules covering 3rd Party traffic cause the TECH isn't the control
operator of the 10M station.  Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash
either.  Cause then all the 10M contacts with G-land AND DL-land etc.
are illegal cause we don;t have 3rd party agreements with them.  The
fact of the matter is that the TECH on 2M never has control of the
signal generated on 10M and that is why the FCC allows it.  I think
the time has come to look at possible INTERNET<->AMPR gateways the same
way.  If it takes letters to the FCC to convince them then so be it.
If I put up such a gateway, I am controling the emissions of the transmitter
not the guy in Odessa, TX who sent a message to one of the hams on the
local LAN.

As long as all other rules are abided by, I can't see where there is any
kind of legal problem.  I don't see a lot of difference between this and
NTS traffic which is non-ham (Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas etc.) put is
placed into the amateur system at one point by a ham.  Basicly the same
should apply to gateways.  I would be considered the ham putting the traffic
into the amateur system.
The potential gain would be great.  Hams would be able to exchange ideas
and colaborate with hams and non-hams alike in their technological projects.

And just to add a little fuel to the fire, all this talk of setting up
wormholes accross the INTERNET is very interesting.  And according to
The Acceptable Use Policy for PrepNET (other NSFNET members will probably
find the same is true for them) these wormholes would (IMHO) be in
violation.

So, would someone out there care to show me the error of my ways??  :-)
I'm not interested in "Well, it you just can't do it, so there."
I want concrete evidence that shows that the arguments that apply to one
type of technology (cross-band repeaters) can't be applied to a new
technology.

bill   KB3YV


--

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     [e-mail]   |  This space would be left intentionally blank

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 91 15:12:59 GMT
From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Shareware on Packet
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Schallehn) writes:

   A question was posed to me by an amateur who is interested in getting
   into packet.  It seems he has a large collection of shareware on his
   land-line BBS and he was wondering if he could legally set up his
   BBS on packet and allow shareware downloads.

I would argue that it is not legal.  Shareware (begware, crippleware,
etc) is software that depends on being distributed in order to
generate revenue for its creator.  Using amateur radio as a means of
distribution is conducting business on amateur radio.

   I know about the avoiding business in amateur radio, but does
   shareware count?

Of course, since most hams don't bother to pay for their shareware
maybe it isn't business after all...


I personally don't like shareware and use very little.  It is the
primary means of propogating viruses.  I much prefer public domain
sources, freeware and copyleft software.  In addition to being safer
and more useful, distributing source code that people can improve upon
and modify is more apropos to amateur radio.


73s and happy hacking, jv

"....say you're thinking about a plate of shrimp...
..and someone says to you `plate,' or `shrimp'......"
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | [e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet)
 -----  [e-mail] {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail

------------------------------

Date: (null)
From: (null)
--
Tom Kenny, KB2GLO
uucp:   att!lzatt!tek          internet: [e-mail]
packet: [e-mail]  ampr: [e-mail] [44.64.0.10]

------------------------------

End of Packet-Radio Digest
******************************