QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/tcp/940245.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 49.0 KB

Date: Tue,  1 Nov 94 04:30:02 PST
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #245
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Tue,  1 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue  245

Today's Topics:
                   bit error rates in packet radio?
                  If they're gonna sell... (3 msgs)
    If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these? (12 msgs)
            If you think you can do coordination better...
                  linux and ne2100 ethernetcards ??
                                 test
                  TNC-2 question / problem (2 msgs)
                         wnos 941101 uploaded

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

Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".

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: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 12:33:41 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: bit error rates in packet radio?

Are there any data on or models for bit errors in packet radio?  Ie,
for 1200bps packet radio (FSK) there would be errors based on the
modulation and frequency, signal/noise, power and gain etc. But there
would also be errors from collisions etc. Maybe there are
significantly different models for 9600, 19200, 56k etc.

I'm not looking for the mother-of-all-packet-radio models. Something
workable enough to give an estimate of error for a packet of a given
length, and type of error: single bit errors, bursts of errors etc.,
suitability of error correction.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BogoMIPS Research Labs  --  bogosity research & simulation  --  VE7JPM  --
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 12:02:41 -0500
From: [e-mail] (D. Crompton)
Subject: If they're gonna sell...

The biggest problem in the large metropolitain areas is the improper
assignment of repeater pairs. Even in densely populated areas you can
scan through the repeater bands and hear very little average useage.
There are so many "private" repeaters. What I mean by private is two
users, or very few users, who use it about <5% of the time. For this
they tie up one of say 50-100 pairs over a 75 mile radius. Quite a
waste!

Amateur radio was not intended to give personal frequencies. The
repeater coordination effort is a mess. The FCC has taken a hands off
attitude citing that Amateur radio was not intended for this use in
the first place.

What we should be doing is developing plans and technology to better
utilize the frequncies we have. We let many megahertz of spectrum
flounder with low percentage usage.

Politically and realistically I see no solution. If anyone has an
answer it would go a long way in helping the cause of amateur radio.
If we don't use what we got how can we ask for more and how can
we justify keeping what we have.

Doug

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 14:15:29
From: [e-mail]
Subject: If they're gonna sell...

I have to agree with Fred and Doug also.

Back, before I left the economic backwater called New England, I had the
opportunity to go to the last Boxboro Hamfest. Being an Amsat member and a
satellite wannabe (yes even mode S) I took time out to talk to Doug
Lougmiller? (cant spell his last name), president of Amsat. Among the things
thant impressed me was his really good understanding of what was going on
both technically and politically within Amsat and the FCC, as it related to
Amsat. This was probably four or more years ago and even then he said that
the 2 gig spectrum was going the way of all things. No argument, no
discussion, it was a casualty. What we would need to do is draw a line in
the sand with respect to the other frequencies. If something is not being
used, one cant cry too much when its taken away. 220 comes to mind.

I think a real lithmus test (for a true Amateur Radio operator would be
to ponder the following:
1) who  would be on the air without the assistance of Kenwood Inc or Icom
Inc or Tapr Inc etc etc.

2) how many people actually write tcp server code or client code or
re-architect how nos (or tcpip over RF) work, and how many get the very
latest jnos and execute it out of the box (and no, simply recomiling it does
not count).

3) how many Amateur Radio licensee's could pass their last FCC exam or even
a, dare I say it, a no code test.

4) On the subject of no code..how many of us could muster up 13 wpm..or even
5.

So, I don't see the problem as FCC intrusion but rather Amateur Radio
comunity atrophy.


-Walt

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:35:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Gerald J Creager <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell...

> I have to agree with Fred and Doug also.

To some extent, so do I... But not to the extent of surrendering.

> the sand with respect to the other frequencies. If something is not being
> used, one cant cry too much when its taken away. 220 comes to mind.

And in our area, 220 WAS occupied.  The spectrum analysis study was not well
conceived.  Period.  It was reviewed between 0900 and 1500 local time in
several metropolotan areas, and then the "reviewers" went home.  Now, it'd be
nice if we could really occupy all our spectrum all the time, but the truth
is, we tend to be heavy users when we aren't at work.

> I think a real lithmus test (for a true Amateur Radio operator would be
> to ponder the following:
> 1) who  would be on the air without the assistance of Kenwood Inc or Icom
> Inc or Tapr Inc etc etc.

Depends on what I'm trying to do.  And you?

> 2) how many people actually write tcp server code or client code or
> re-architect how nos (or tcpip over RF) work, and how many get the very
> latest jnos and execute it out of the box (and no, simply recomiling it does
> not count).

...yes... on occasion.  Or fixed what's come down the pike broken, or
recompiled it to do something that wasn't implemented before or properly.  As
I need to.  I don't always build a watch when I want to check the time.

> 3) how many Amateur Radio licensee's could pass their last FCC exam or even
> a, dare I say it, a no code test.

Well... yes...

> 4) On the subject of no code..how many of us could muster up 13 wpm..or even
> 5.

Next silly question?  Aside from the fact that I now subscribe to the idea
that CW is no longer necessary save as a historical right of passage, I can
still do 20 or so with little preparation.

> So, I don't see the problem as FCC intrusion but rather Amateur Radio
> comunity atrophy.

Maybe this is a sign of a wakeup call.  I'll support a wakeup call.  I CANNOT
support another blatant grab like 220, which was strongly opposed by the
Military, Congress, the Hams, in fact most everyone save the folks who made
money on it.


Oh, by the way:  Checked lately to see how active UPS is with ACSB on 220-222?

Gerry

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 10:37:35 EDT
From: Fred Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

Mike Chepponis, aka California Wireless Incorporated <[e-mail]>, writes:

...
>That's OK, ham radio is a diverse hobby, but we're all bonded by one thing:
>our need of frequencies upon which we can transmit!

Of course we need frequencies.  That's a truism.  Other Services (that term
has nothing to do with "public service", btw, but is the name for each FCC
license program) need frequencies too. How is the public interest best
served by dividing them?

> So, Fred, you may not have 2.4 GHz gear, or work Mode S, or be experimenting
>with wide-band spread spectrum, or using your local ATV repeater with an S
>band output, or...

>That's OK!

>But, please, Fred, don't write the FCC and tell them that you agree with their
>current ham frequency grab.

>Please.

You're entitled to your opinion...  The trouble is, ham radio as we
knew it in our youth is already dead.  It was killed by the ARRL, by
the Repeater Coordinators, by the FCC, by the invention of the Personal
Computer, by the modem and the whole BBS/Kiddiecomms movement, by the
Internet, by cellular telephones, by restrictive covenants, and by
(worst of all) the "I've got mine" attitude of too many hams.  It's
dead, and (hey, it's Halloween) the zombie-corpse is still trying to
stick its failing fingernails into the motherlode of bandwidth from
which it once fed.  But it's still dead, and it's still Halloween,
and everyone knows from dead.

>The way I see it, the FCC (and Hundt and his band of Beltway Bandits) is trying
>to get the golden eggs without the goose.  The goose (Ham Radio) lays the
>Golden Eggs (Trained engineers, technicians, enthusiasts available for the
>commercial industry).

Precisely why it's dead.  Ham radio hasn't been a golden goose for
two decades or more.  Incentive licensing gave it bad, bad heartburn.
The short-lived 1970s CB boom, which could have fed it, gave it a
concussion instead, since the ham radio establishment didn't handle it
right.  General dorkiness killed it off.  Nowadays, it's a rare kid
indeed who finds room for expressiveness in ham radio.  The kids who
did the high school radio club bit, as I did, aren't doing it much
any more.  They probably run computer bulletin boards.

Who's coming into ham radio?  Mostly retirees.  The ARRL might as well
just come out with it:  The slogan they live up to is "Ham Radio,
America's Great Retirement Hobby".  Old WWII sparkys are now discussing
gallstones on 75M or the local repeater.

>The FCC, not happy with waiting for these eggs to be laid, instead wants to
>take a butcher knife and slice the goose open and get all of those golden
>eggs out.

>Of course, all they will end up with is a dead goose, and no golden eggs.

What good comes out of ham radio nowadays?  Oh, I know lots of good
work done by hams.  Here at BBN, I know of at least three other
long-time hams on my office floor (out of maybe 50), all very significant
network scientists in their own right.  We probably all got our start
in ham radio, way back when.  Way back when it _was_ the "people's
network".  It was way back then the best way to randomly communicate
with the world.  But this qso is on the Internet, capisc?

AX.25 is a sick joke.  Most of packet radio is a sick joke.  Sure, the
TCP/IP stuff is pretty cute, especially if you can get decent speed,
though it's an order of magnitude or two slower than a phone modem.
We can't do much novel on 2M here in Boston because all the repeater
pairs are permanently taken by voice --  "simplex" Aloha doesn't
cut it!  440 has one repeater, 1200 bps.  Why do hams do 1200? Becaues
in 1978, Bell Canada threw out a bunch of old 202 modems and hams
"converted" them!  That's progress?

You want progress on packet radio, look to the commercial sector.
With these new frequencies, whole new industries are being spawned.
They'll invent new modulation techniques, or better ways to do
things like spread spectrum that are so tightly restricted on
the ham bands.  Hams just aren't doing this stuff in any volume.
Experimental licenses and Part 15 frequencies are available for
experimenters nowadays; big vast UHF wastelands are a luxury we can't
afford.

No, these new FCC allocations will HELP ham radio!  For one thing,
they're yet another wake-up call.  For another, they remind us that
we have to use our frequencies EFFICIENTLY.  Commercial radios
get 6 bps/Hz in point-to-point microwave service nowadays!  We use
12 Hz/bps for most packet radio.  Commercial services don't eternally
protect inefficient old allocations; they pack'em'in when needed.
Yet when we lost the low end of 220, the repeater guys mostly sat
tight and made the experimenters suffer; after all, it was _their_
end of the band that the FCC took away!  SUch attitudes are a form
of collective suicide, or deserve to be treated as such.

Maybe now we can watch those guys who are moving onto our former
unused bands and learn from them!  Maybe now we can get the "spectrum
managers" to look past their own parochial interests.  Maybe we can
make money from those new commercial opportunities in bands that
we previously could only use for "play".  Maybe we can get some
gear for the remaining ham segments of those bands, now that
commercial volumes of gear are going to show up.

>I wonder what Hiram Percy Maxim would think!

Hiram was an inventor.  I suspect he'd be disgusted by what ham radio
has become.  Perhaps he'd be one of the few experimenters actually
using those bands, and he'd see the opportunity to commercialize his
work.

Remember, gang, we're not losing ALL of our bands.  That's one of
those rare, stupid questions!  Our huge trove of shared goverment
frequencies is finally having just a bit of its reserve taken
away to feed a hungry public.  It's not really bad at all.  73 y'all,
   fred k1io
--------
Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 10:04:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Kurt Freiberger <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

[All Goldsteinisms deleted]

My God, I think I'll just shut down all my Amateur Radio projects,
send my license into the FCC, then go somewhere and hang myself.
Fred has shown us the Error of Our Ways, and shown that we are truly
damned in the World of Communications.  We cannot live with this
shame.  He is the Light and the Way.  We are All Wrong, and obviously
Do Not Know What We Are Doing.  So join with me, fellow hams, and
make the Supreme Sacrifice.  Give up your trivial hobby, and donate
your spectrum for the Common Good of Mankind.

NOT!


--
# Kurt Freiberger, WB5BBW   Dept. of Computer Science, TAMU              #
# Internet: [e-mail]      | "Since when is "Public Safety" the   #
# AuralNet: 409/847-8607          |  root password to the Constitution?" #
# AMPRNet: [e-mail] |        - C. D. Tavares               #
# Disclaimer: Not EVEN an official document of Texas A&M University      #

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 12:21:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Gerald J Creager <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

> [All Goldsteinisms deleted]

I won't be quite as strident as Kurt, but, Fred, get a life.  Maybe, just
maybe, in Boston the Ham community is plagued by the inability to branch out
and do things, but don't even for a minute, think the rest of us are stuck
that way.  Sorry, fellow, but the treasure trove is NOT available for pillage.
There is a Sense of Congress resolution to that effect, and the FCC,
apparently with a little amnesia +/- myopia, has not recognized that.

My hobby has found ways to get, and keep, me employed over the years;  taught
me things about engineering I'd never have been exposed to in other ways, and
allowed ME to become an inventor as well.  If we aren't attracting kids to the
hobby, that's the general failure of YOU and me, with or without the League.
And I'm trying to do something about it.

We still need the frequencies.  Effecient spectrum management requires us to
look to higher frequencies and employ them effectively.  We HAVE learned some
things as we've migrated higher.  At least in the regions of the CONUS I'm
familiar with, UHF spectrum is better utilized than 2 meters, and I see even
better bandplans emerging for 900 MHz and 1.2 GHz.  We learn by doing.  Even
though we've not before been called upon to manage spectrum (just coordinate
repeaters) a lot of the folks involved in the coordinating bodies have seen
the need, and taken the first steps.  As we approach 2.4 GHz, I expect to see
extensions of the existing bandplan that will provide for effective
utilization of that environment.  Providing the FCC allows us to keep it.

We already share a number of frequencies with Govermnet/Military.  If they
need it, it Just Disappears.  We shouldn't have to fight for the bands we do
retain!

And 220!  Well!  Sorry, but in Texas, the bulk of the input concerning what to
do and how to do it came from the experimenters, and weak signal guys,
precisely because they WERE the ones to lose their segment.  They ceded 2
repeater channels from what the coordinating body was going to give them BACK
TO voice repeaters.

Has ham radio changed over the years?  Yes it has.  Has it been an
improvement?  I've not decided yet, but over time I've learned to adjust to
the changes.  In no way does that mean rolling over and playing dead, though.

Gerry

--
Gerry Creager  N5JXS                 *  SAREX Co-Investigator
[e-mail]                    *     A little radio that lets kids talk
[e-mail]     *       to astronauts, and smile
******************************************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:03:45 -0500
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

> [All Goldsteinisms deleted]
>
> My God, I think I'll just shut down all my Amateur Radio projects,
> send my license into the FCC, then go somewhere and hang myself.
> Fred has shown us the Error of Our Ways, and shown that we are truly
> damned in the World of Communications.  We cannot live with this
> shame.  He is the Light and the Way.  We are All Wrong, and obviously
> Do Not Know What We Are Doing.  So join with me, fellow hams, and
> make the Supreme Sacrifice.  Give up your trivial hobby, and donate
> your spectrum for the Common Good of Mankind.

Oh, come on now!  Fred has a made a lot of good points, and issues we
should think really hard about.

I can certainly relate to the packet radio point he made.  We've
really messed up badly here, in my opinion, because of this terrible
Not Invented Here syndrome.  Look at the aweful distributed
conferencing system used to propagate bulletins; how much better would
this have worked if ham had just cloned the USENET news technology?  I
remember Phil Karn and myself bemoaning this point 10 years ago at a
local packet radio meeting.

Hell, no, we won't use RFC822, we'll invent something else.  And using
domain-style names to do routing in the packet network.  And using
'.NA' for North America..

And the choice of AX.25 is just astonishing!  Who thought that
adapting a point-to-point LAPB protocol for use in a multipoint,
multi-access environment is a good idea?  Where's the advancement of
the state of the art?  As far as I can tell, AX.25 came to be due to
blind devotion to the ISO god, and not due to any sound protocol
design.

I ported Phil's KA9Q NET and NOS code to the Commodore Amiga many
years ago.  It was sort of fun.  Fun, that is, using it on a (then)
2400 bps telephone modem, and not the eternal pain of 1200 bps AFSK on
AX.25.  I haven't fired up my TNC in 5 years - it just hurts way too
much.

The problem is that interesting experimental technology gets played
around with in amateur radio, and then it becomes a de-facto standard
and innovation stops because the installed base is "too large".  I can
only imaging the horror of the Vancouver folks who just happened to
use these surplus modems and simple HDLC framing, seeing all that
technology mutated and misused.  Like AX.25 putting ASCII call signs
(oh, yes, shifted left by one bit) in *every* packet!?

I think we've done a lot of bone-headed things along the way, and I
hope that for the few folks actually doing interesting experimental
work, they have spectrum available.  On the other hand, as Fred
mentioned, none of the space currently in use is likely to be made
available for other purposes.  What, give up a few FM repeater
channels!  And that's also why we'll never really get a pervasive
packet radio network, because hams are unlikely to fund radios and
routers which they won't directly use.

Louis Mamakos
WA3YMH

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 19:49:11 utc
From: [e-mail]
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

Here, in Italy we have all frequencies cutted away over 146 MHz.
(Also on HF but is not a so big problem). In 50 MHz we have only
 12500 Hertz, with 10 W input max power, only for code licensee.
ITU reg. 1 reserves from 430 to 440 for ham radio.
We have here:
430-434 Primary - Army
        432-434 Amateur radio
434-435 Primary - Police
435-436 Primary - Amateur radio (+sat)
436-440 Primary - Private links
        436-438 Amateur radio (only satellite)

By the way, from 430 to 432 you can find a lot of pirate stations, and
the police transmits unscrambled.

We have also cuts over 23 cm.

And private services uses FM, and CTCSS tones for voice repeaters, and
continuos carrier repeaters.

Only for information

73

--
Michele Debandi - IW1CFL - Universita` di Torino
Packet HomeBBS I1YLM.IPIE.ITA.EU -- Internet [e-mail]
AMPRnet [e-mail] - [e-mail] [44.134.128.73]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 11:51:38 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

> From [e-mail] Mon Oct 31 11:52 PST 1994
> From: Gerald J Creager <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?
> To: [e-mail] (Kurt Freiberger)
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 12:21:10 -0600 (CST)
> Cc: [e-mail]
>
> > [All Goldsteinisms deleted]
>
> I won't be quite as strident as Kurt, but, Fred, get a life.  Maybe, just
> maybe, in Boston the Ham community is plagued by the inability to branch out
> and do things, but don't even for a minute, think the rest of us are stuck
> that way.  Sorry, fellow, but the treasure trove is NOT available for pillage.
> There is a Sense of Congress resolution to that effect, and the FCC,
> apparently with a little amnesia +/- myopia, has not recognized that.

[rest of note deleted]

A very moo-ving note, Gerry.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:23:02 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Carde (ARHS 96))
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

>Mike Chepponis, aka California Wireless Incorporated <[e-mail]>, writes:
>
>You're entitled to your opinion...  The trouble is, ham radio as we
>knew it in our youth is already dead.  It was killed by the ARRL, by
>the Repeater Coordinators, by the FCC, by the invention of the Personal
>Computer, by the modem and the whole BBS/Kiddiecomms movement, by the
>Internet, by cellular telephones, by restrictive covenants, and by
>(worst of all) the "I've got mine" attitude of too many hams.  It's
>dead, and (hey, it's Halloween) the zombie-corpse is still trying to
>stick its failing fingernails into the motherlode of bandwidth from
>which it once fed.  But it's still dead, and it's still Halloween,
>and everyone knows from dead.
>
>>The way I see it, the FCC (and Hundt and his band of Beltway Bandits) is trying
>>to get the golden eggs without the goose.  The goose (Ham Radio) lays the
>>Golden Eggs (Trained engineers, technicians, enthusiasts available for the
>>commercial industry).
>
>Precisely why it's dead.  Ham radio hasn't been a golden goose for
>two decades or more.  Incentive licensing gave it bad, bad heartburn.
>The short-lived 1970s CB boom, which could have fed it, gave it a
>concussion instead, since the ham radio establishment didn't handle it
>right.  General dorkiness killed it off.  Nowadays, it's a rare kid
>indeed who finds room for expressiveness in ham radio.  The kids who
>did the high school radio club bit, as I did, aren't doing it much
>any more.  They probably run computer bulletin boards.
>

  Being a high school radio club "member," I feel that I can easily support
this statement. The main reason I got into radio was the possibilities for
high speed wireless data transfer. I'm the only licensed student in the
the regional secondary school district that I reside (unless there's one
who's very quiet about it!), and the only faculty member is the club
advisor. A lot of what Mike said is true -- I have a *lot* of friends who
are into computer networking (mostly internet) and other hard-core computer
activities, and I've been able to convince none of them to go through with
getting their licenses. If they did, all they'd use it for would be
high-speed data on the UHF bands and above! And you know what? That's all I
would do too. On a student's budget there is absolutely no way to put
together a reasonable station that can operate more than one or two bands
voice and packet.

  Of course in some ways this is a good thing.. My experience with 2 meters
FM (which ended with the explosion of my trusty HT..) was it was impossible
to get into any intelligent conversation without someone QRMing us off the
machine. So, should it be worth it for us to spend $250 on a cheap 2 meter
HT when for the same $250 we could buy a NICE 28.8k modem and have plenty of
cash left over to upgrade the hard drive? I wish the answer was yes, but
it's not. I can't justify replacing my radio -- the price is just too high
considering the benefits.

  In my opinion, the way to get youth into amateur radio is to improve the
beginning ham packet operator chances of get on the air at speeds of 9600+.
If someone could design a cheap & versatile high speed RF modem that is easy
to get on the air and emphasize things like this at ham radio PR events we'd
see some interest from the younger computer generation.. What I've wanted to
do for a long time now is set up a bunch of short range low power high speed
links between my and a bunch of my friends' houses and run IP on them. If we
had to ability to do this cheaply you'd see us on the air *pronto*!

  Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming amateur radio -- I'm trying to point
out basic problems with the cost and accesibility of actually *using* our
tickets after we get them!

>AX.25 is a sick joke.  Most of packet radio is a sick joke.  Sure, the
>TCP/IP stuff is pretty cute, especially if you can get decent speed,
>though it's an order of magnitude or two slower than a phone modem.
>We can't do much novel on 2M here in Boston because all the repeater
>pairs are permanently taken by voice --  "simplex" Aloha doesn't
>cut it!  440 has one repeater, 1200 bps.  Why do hams do 1200? Becaues
>in 1978, Bell Canada threw out a bunch of old 202 modems and hams
>"converted" them!  That's progress?

  Anyone of my friends that might even *consider* amateur radio laughs in my
face as I sheepishly admit that yes, most hams _do_ communicate at 1200
baud. And why shouldn't they? I would too -- right now, as I type this up
on a 14.4k connection that often seems SLOW, my 1200 baud TNC is being used
as nothing more than a paperweight.

 Once again, as I've heard over and over, the future of amateur radio
depends on getting some youth into the hobby. But, to do so requires that we
all be in tune with what youth *wants*. I (speaking for youth in the case)
don't want 1200 baud NET/ROM networks, or even 2400 baud TCP/IP LANs with a
9600 baud backbone! We need to move forward past 1200, 2400, and 9600 baud.
19.2k is a good start. To attract more people to radio we should ideally go
*above* what can be achieved over the telephone network. I'm not saying it's
easy (I wouldn't really know), or that it's anybody's fault. I just know
that progress must be made or we won't attract any of today's
computer-literate youth.


Chris
--
 Christopher Carde        \      Amateur Radio: N1KEX       /  PGP Encryption
 [e-mail] /  AX.25/IP: [e-mail] \  key via FINGER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "We'll forget the sun, in his jealous sky, as we lie in Fields of Gold..."

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 17:27:40 EDT
From: Fred Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

Gerry writes,

>I won't be quite as strident as Kurt, but, Fred, get a life.

Uh, Gerry, I _have_ a life.  I have a family and a job and a house
and frankly too little time for things.  But I haven't even bothered
to turn on the 2M radio lately to look at our local packet freqs.
Just not enough useful bandwidth.  I guess ISDN has spoiled me for
100bps Aloha.

 Maybe, just
>maybe, in Boston the Ham community is plagued by the inability to branch out
>and do things, but don't even for a minute, think the rest of us are stuck
>that way.  Sorry, fellow, but the treasure trove is NOT available for pillage.
>There is a Sense of Congress resolution to that effect, and the FCC,
>apparently with a little amnesia +/- myopia, has not recognized that.

Uh, did you even read the FCC notice?  Pursuant to an Act of Congress,
they are reallocating GOVERNMENT frequencies to commercial use.  BTW,
amateur radio is SECONDARY on some of these frequencies.

I looked at rec.radio.amateur{.policy} today.  Not a peep about this
whole thing.  An ARRL bulletin, no discussion.  The "get a life"
winner is the dorky OO coordinator in Sacramento who sent notices of
apparent violation to hams who posted things to "all" on radio BBSs
on topics OTHER than ham radio per se.  This was interpreted by the
dorky OO as "broadcasting" in violation of regs.  Now HE needs a life.

>We still need the frequencies.  Effecient spectrum management...

How do we "need" them more than a multi-billion dollar industry
that has no other place to go?  We're NOT losing all of them.  We're
losing some minor outback frequencies that get little use anyway.
(My Radarange is right near that band.  High QRM no doubt!)  We can
collectively _gain_ from this reallocation.

The whole thing reminds me of the gun nuts who think that if you
prohibit one maniac from owning a hundred bazookas and howitzers,
we'll come running after his .22 next.  Okay, NRA folks, flame me
too :-).  It's the same argument and it doesn't fly, so I don't
need to hear it again.
   fred k1io

--------
Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 20:41:01 CST
From: [e-mail] (Walter D. DuBose - K5YFW)
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

In message <[e-mail]> Gerry Creager writes:
> > [All Goldsteinisms deleted]
>
> [ Gerry's Paragraph 1 deleted]
>
> My hobby has found ways to get, and keep, me employed over the years;  taught
> me things about engineering I'd never have been exposed to in other ways, and
> allowed ME to become an inventor as well.  If we aren't attracting kids to the
> hobby, that's the general failure of YOU and me, with or without the League.
> And I'm trying to do something about it.
>
        I teach middle school students basic RF communications "after
        school".  They are *not* forced to attend.  I'm a community
        volunteer, not a paid school teacher...I have two teachers in my
        class which is basically the amateur radio tech plus course.

        These students are eager to get licensed so they can have an ATV
        station at school on 13 cm and hope to have a repeater some day.
        They also want to do 13 cm satellite work and are eager for the
        AMSAT Phase 3D satellite to go up.

        Their also interested in SS technology and high speed data
        transfer in the microwave region.

        These are the astronauts, scientists and professional technical
        adults in 15-20 years.  They will be confident and competent
        leaders of tomorrow *if* they have a working RF lab.

        Just as six meters was my RF lab, so will 2400 and above be the
        lab to these students when they reach high school and college.
        The question is, will there be sufficient spectrum left for
        their lab.

> We still need the frequencies.  Effecient spectrum management requires us to
> look to higher frequencies and employ them effectively.  We HAVE learned some
> things as we've migrated higher.  At least in the regions of the CONUS I'm
> familiar with, UHF spectrum is better utilized than 2 meters, and I see even
> better bandplans emerging for 900 MHz and 1.2 GHz.  We learn by doing.  Even
> though we've not before been called upon to manage spectrum (just coordinate
> repeaters) a lot of the folks involved in the coordinating bodies have seen
> the need, and taken the first steps.  As we approach 2.4 GHz, I expect to see
> extensions of the existing bandplan that will provide for effective
> utilization of that environment.  Providing the FCC allows us to keep it.

        Here's the key "We learn by doing."  Where will todays middle
        school students learn about state-of-the-art, leading edge
        technology, on-the-air RF if they don't have the spectrum to
        use?

        Becaused we, hams, have botched spectrum management in the past
        doesn't mean we can't learn and do a good job on 13 cm and
        above.

>
> We already share a number of frequencies with Goverment/Military.  If they
> need it, it Just Disappears.  We shouldn't have to fight for the bands we do
> retain!

        I don't mind sharing frequencies with the military as a general
        rule, the ones they share with us if needed are need for
        war-time use.  If they need them, they have an improtant job to
        do and I'll be glad to do my part in letting them use them.

> [another of Gerry's paragraphs deletes]
>
> Has ham radio changed over the years?  Yes it has.  Has it been an
> improvement?  I've not decided yet, but over time I've learned to adjust to
> the changes.  In no way does that mean rolling over and playing dead, though.

        Yes Gerry, its changed and improved...from all the reports I've
        received, ARES did a very good job on the Texas coast this month
        with all the flooding.  Most of the work was on V/UHF and even
        80 & 40 meters was pressed into service.  During hurricane all
        we had was HF and that did a very poor job along the Texas
        coast...wish we would have had a couple of 2m repeaters back
        then.

>
> Gerry
>
> --
> Gerry Creager  N5JXS                 *  SAREX Co-Investigator
> [e-mail]                    *     A little radio that lets kids talk
> [e-mail]     *       to astronauts, and smile
> ******************************************************************************

        For those of you who don't know Gerry, while working for NASA,
        he worked with some real high tech. "stuff" AND gained the respect
        of some of this nations top scientists and NASA Astronauts.

        If ham radio is so "behind" the technology curve, and so
        mis-managed, why do NASA Astronauts bother to get ham licenses
        to talk to kids from space?

Walt DuBose, K5YFW
Director of Communications Technologies
North East Independent School District,
Young Astronaut Technology Program
San Antonio, Texas

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:36:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Gerald J Creager <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

Dana Myers sez:
>
> A very moo-ving note, Gerry.

And for those of you still laughing about Bovine Positioning Systems and Cows
in Space, recall that if I'd not been involved in ham radio, I'd NOT have had
the background to do this.

Gerry

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:11:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Gerald J Creager <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

Christopher Carde (ARHS 96) sez:
>   Being a high school radio club "member," I feel that I can easily support
> this statement. The main reason I got into radio was the possibilities for
> high speed wireless data transfer. I'm the only licensed student in the
> the regional secondary school district that I reside (unless there's one
> who's very quiet about it!), and the only faculty member is the club
> advisor. A lot of what Mike said is true -- I have a *lot* of friends who
> are into computer networking (mostly internet) and other hard-core computer
> activities, and I've been able to convince none of them to go through with
> getting their licenses. If they did, all they'd use it for would be
> high-speed data on the UHF bands and above! And you know what? That's all I
> would do too. On a student's budget there is absolutely no way to put
> together a reasonable station that can operate more than one or two bands
> voice and packet.

Chris makes an eloquent point, folks.  We need new blood in the hobby.  We
need folks who start playing with this hobby as teenagers who will start
learning the arcane arts of what we do.  And it's no longer just RF, but that,
too is a big part of it!

For the record, I'm told by one of the EE profs here that last year, only one
person graduated with an RF-oriented EE degree with hands-on experience.  And
he was in a Masters program.  That speaks poorly of the country as a whole.
And what about math and science education, in general?  I've been appalled in
the last several years at the products of some of our centers of "higher
education" when they came to work with me at NASA/JSC.  It wasn't a pretty
sight.  They had some theoretical knowledge, straight from the same books
they'd ALL been taught from, and some of 'em even learned from it.  But most
hadn't the creativiity to see the syntehtic ideas that could spring from their
educations, much less catch some glaring errors in their texts!

He's right:  We need to find lower cost solutions for the entry-level hams.
You know, though, we do have that capability:  Elmers, through example and a
little scrounging can help new hams get lower cost hardware at the swapfests,
AND help 'em check it out.  We DO need to develop some newer hardware to
interface with the hardware that's there, at higher data rates.  BUT we also
need interest the newcomer in other aaspects of ham radio.

I've seen astronauts who got licensed JUST to talk to kids on ONE mission
decide that they really liked several aspects of the hobby.  N5QWL, Jay Apt,
decided he liked satellites to the exclusion of everything else.  That lasted
a couple weeks, until we played during a contest... then a traffic net... and
he was hooked on Ham Radio.  Steve Nagel, N5RAW, was the same way... first
hamfest back, he was shopping for an HF rig, and asking about hidden antennas.

We can Elmer folks to get them interested in other aspects of the hobby
besides data transmission.  Or help them along and be supportive in what they
want to do... Or, what I'm afraid I've seen too much of lately:  Ignore the
newcomer, and make fun of him on the local repeater!

Sorry.  I need to put this soapbox away...

We _are_ at risk of losing frequencies.  I cannot support another blatant
grab.  I can support someone as eloquent as Chris, especially when he makes so
many good points.

Gerry

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:57:43 -0500
From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <[e-mail]>
Subject: If they're gonna sell frequencies, what about these?

In your message of Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:11:17 CST, you write:
+---------------
| Chris makes an eloquent point, folks.  We need new blood in the hobby.  We
| need folks who start playing with this hobby as teenagers who will start
| learning the arcane arts of what we do.  And it's no longer just RF, but that,
| too is a big part of it!
+------------->8

It's getting a trifle more difficult of late...  I talk with the folks who run
the Mentor H.S. radio club fairly often.  Their latest problem is teachers who
can't tell the difference between ham radio gear and pagers.  :-(

| want to do... Or, what I'm afraid I've seen too much of lately:  Ignore the
| newcomer, and make fun of him on the local repeater!
+------------->8

Or p*ss on the ones who come in via "no-code Tech" licenses.  Rather common
around here.  Frankly, I suspect the computer folks who are coming into ham
radio locally because of the lure of packet TCP/IP (yes, even at 1200 baud)
are doing more for the hobby than the old fools grousing on 75 meters... or,
for that matter, 2 meters.  They're the ones driving the push for higher speed
packet locally.  They're the ones planning REAL networks.  They're the ones
who want to experiemnt with higher frequencies, and different and better ways
of doing things.  But the "People Who Count" reject them utterly, because most
of them are no-coders and have no interest in either CW or HF (most of the
"People Who Count" don't care about you if you aren't an HF contester).  See
why I get so upset about the situation?

And don't get me started on 220.  It was, and is, quite active around here.
But not during the day --- it's the YOUNGER hams, who work or are in school
during the day, who are developing it.  You'd think the FCC would support
that...  The "People Who Count", on the other hand, didn't care about the 220
MHz grab because there aren't any packetclusters on 220.  (Eventually, they
learned that one of the more important packetcluster links was in the low
reaches of 221 MHz. Guess when they learned?  When the loss of 220-222 forced
it to be moved.  THEN they were upset about the grab.  Idiots.)

++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH     [44.70.4.88]        [e-mail]
Linux development:  iBCS2, JNOS, MH                     ~\U
Hatred is NOT a family value.            Earth to Rothenberg, come in....

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 21:11:51 -0600
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: If you think you can do coordination better...

<fwoosh> FLAME ON...

THEN GET UP OFF YOUR FAT, LAZY ASS AND DO IT!

The folks on here from Yankee country are spouting the same anti-FM
rhetoric that I've been seeing from the packet community for years.
It's an outgrowth of their general attitude against any sort of
management or coordination at all, and certainly not in the world
of packet. Hell, I don't think that the packet crowd would even
accept central assignment of IP addresses if it weren't necessary
to make the network work at all beyond a few users. What's that
gotten us? Absolute and utter chaos, and a "network" (in name only)
that's almost completely unusable.

Fred Goldstein advocates breaking agreements of long standing just
so the packet folks can have new frequencies to trash.

Fred, it ain't gonna happen, so you'd better get your hand out of
your pants and quit dreaming. The problem is simple: Any attempt to
force trustees to accept others on the channels they've occupied -
in many cases, for over 20 years - will simply be ignored, until the
situation gets so bad that lawsuits break out. You may holler, "Damn
the lawsuits! Full speed ahead!", as the folks on rec.radio.amateur.
policy scream every time the issue comes up, but they're strangely
silent when challenged to pay for defending the feeding frenzy of
lawyers.

I can speak directly only to Texas, since that's where my experience
(8 years as director, and 3 as president, of the Texas VHF-FM
Society, the coordinating body for Texas) comes from...but, in that
experience, I've found that we serve the amateur community as a
whole - *including* those who are _USERS_, not just the folks who
do experimentation - best by making decisions that stand better than
the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of being followed.

Fred, if you feel so strongly that starting repeater wars is the
right answer, put your money where your mouth is. Put up a packet-
only repeater on 146.34/94.

Otherwise, SHUT YOUR DAMN WHINING UP!!!

>sssthpp!<...flame off...


Jay, K5ZC

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

Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 12:11:37 UTC
From: [e-mail]
Subject: linux and ne2100 ethernetcards ??

Hello all,
Since a few weeks i,m trying to install Linux 1.1.18 here..
Installing is not the problem, but the routing via my ethernetcards NE2100, won't work..
After installing the kernel it looks if Linux won't send any frame via my ethernetcards to the 2nd computer which i want to use
 as the gateway station...
However using the netstat-i command Linux tells me, it is sending the packets via eth0 to the gateway...
Monitoring on the gatewaystation (which runs under MS-DOS and uses JNOS (110g))
Don't tells me anything...the tracescreen stays empty, so it looks like nothing is send via my ethernet cards...

If i send pings from the JNOS (MSDOS) system to the Linux system, then the RX- counter on the LINUX system is counting... so th
e packets are received on the linux system.

Running with both ethernetcards under MS-DOS under a novell lite netware system works without any problem.
So the cards and cable (coax rg58u) are okay..

Under Linux i,m using the ethernetcard as described with DMA channel 5, irq5 and adress 0x300

Now my question: has somebody tried also the kernel 1.1.18 with the NE2100 cards and is it possible that the NE2100 driver unde
r LINUX is not working 100%..
Looks here if only the TX part of the driver has an error...

I forgot to mention that i checked the system here several times, and even disabled several other cards (soundblaster + cdrom)
to avoid internal conflicts, although i already new that on the hardwareside conflicts were not possible..
Hope someone can help me further with this problem...
Vy 73 Frans

      *******************************************************************
      *       PI8ESK         Scheemda     JO33lf          R19e          *
      *       Amprnet      : [e-mail]    44.137.12.17     *
      *       AX25 Mail to : pi8esk@pi8awt (S&F JNOS<=>W0RLI)           *
      *       Internetadres  : [e-mail]        *
      *******************************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 18:59:24 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: test

test

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BogoMIPS Research Labs  --  bogosity research & simulation  --  VE7JPM  --
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 16:09:09 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TNC-2 question / problem

What's the relation ship betwen the STA light and the PTT light on a TNC-2?
I'm running both a MFJ-1270B and PacComm Tiny-2 with 9600b modems. On the
PacComm TNC, the STA light will flash and sometime afterwards... (.1 to 5
seconds) the PTT light will flash and the radio will transmit. NOS thinks
that the data was sent with the STA light goes and the radio really sends
it when the PTT light goes.

    On my MJF TNC.... the STA light flashes ( NOS thinks the data has been
transmitted ) but the TNC does not ever send the data. Some time
afterwards... ( minutes or hours ) the TNC will transmit EVERYTHING that
has queued up since the last time the TNC transmitted. The radio will
key up for several minutes while it gets rid of what was in the buffer.
Can anyone tell me what's going on? If I go into cmd: mode on the TNC and
try and connect... neither the PTT or STA lights will flash. It looks like
the TNC just doesn't transmit. I know that it does... becuase when it
transmitts... it transmitts a whole lot. Any info would be appreciated.

73's  de  Jack  -  kf5mg
Internet        -  [e-mail]            -  44.28.0.14
                -  [e-mail]              -  work (looking  for)
AX25net         -  kf5mg@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.noam    -  home [phone]
+=======================================================================+
+                   D.A.M. - Mothers Against Dyslexia                   +
+=======================================================================+

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

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:59:35 +1100
From: [e-mail] (Carl Makin)
Subject: TNC-2 question / problem

Hi Jack,

At  4:09 PM 31/10/94 -0600, [e-mail] wrote:

> What's the relation ship betwen the STA light and the PTT light on a TNC-2?
> I'm running both a MFJ-1270B and PacComm Tiny-2 with 9600b modems. On the

The STA light in KISS mode indicates data is being sent to the TNC.  The
TNC then queues the data until the channel is clear and sends it.

>    On my MJF TNC.... the STA light flashes ( NOS thinks the data has been
> transmitted ) but the TNC does not ever send the data. Some time
> afterwards... ( minutes or hours ) the TNC will transmit EVERYTHING that
> has queued up since the last time the TNC transmitted. The radio will

It sounds like you might have your persist and slottimes screwed.  They are
sent to the TNC by using the "param" command.


Carl.

--
Carl Makin (VK1KCM)          "Speaking for myself only!"
[e-mail]      'Work [phone]'      Canberra, Australia
'The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
 but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.'

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 17:12:24 EWT
From: BARRY TITMARSH <[e-mail]>
Subject: wnos 941101 uploaded

The source code is on ftp.ucsd.edu incoming wnos-941101.zip
latest version of wnos sources.. some exe's later.
Barry.

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #245
******************************