The Baud Rate Race...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ May 14 2002,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"We knew that slow/medium speed digital Ham Radio worked well ten years ago, and we still do. The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network again today is the bogus perception that to do so is not "worthwhile" because it is not high-speed or IP."

The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network is BANDWIDTH!  Bandwidth is a luxury we hams do not and never will possess.  Therefore, we will always be relagated to the slow digital world.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We have no bandwidth? Hello 902-928 = 26 MHz, and 2400-2450 MHz= 50 MHz unused/under-used ham bands. And there are no bandwidth/baud-rate restrictions above 902 MHz.
(I think there should adjust the bandwidth/baudrate restrictions for 70cm)

High Speed Amateur Packet Radio Using Part 15 Wireless Devices

 

I am a Sr. Systems Engineer and have been doing this stuff for many yars. I have been a HAM since I was 12 Years old. I have studied ARPANET, which is the TCP set that the INTERNET is based on. I can tell you all this. TCI/IP, on any large scale, will never be available to the HAM public. The IP address pool is running low for the internet as is. Shortly, TCP/IP will be replaced with something bigger, like a 5th ocet in the IP string. Bandwidth is not an issue here either. We just need someone to find a way to do massive ammounts of compression over RF signals. Already being done!! The only hope the HAM community would have for more badwith and speed is a satelte network that we build! Here you can digitally stream away from the Internet nodes, which also use satelites at points by the way, and keep all your data in our own network. The bands used for this uplod and download would be up to the FCC, and are available. We could have upload nodes, at very reachable points, like internet gateways, on whatever bands we want. The gateway would then stream to the satelite to reach the destination, using something like IP. This is all very close. We just need people with some vision.....

KA1ZFE

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">News flash: Most manufacturers are out to make a buck. You don't hear about a lot of "non-profit" manufacturers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I just said that. Pay attention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you are criticizing the ones who have managed to hang on for not doing freebees, for not rapidly developing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say that. Pay attention. I was talking about letting other (third-party) amateurs in on the development of new radio gear. Not keeping it behind closed doors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh! I see! You expect me to be upset because you are working with high-speed, and IP![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And to show I still fully support the current 1200 bps/AX.25 system that is in place. Including building antennas, giving away a KPC3, and setting up others computers and/or radios.

This bring me to another question a few others and I have been wondering:

Do you know what the network layer protocol, Internet Protocol (IP) really is? The reason most people push its use is because it has been included in every major operating system released since the early 80's! Check out RFC 791, (John Postal - 1981).

You look like a hypocrite and dumbass when you jump on people for wanting to use the software (standard BSD IP stacks) included with their purchased, or open source, operating system.

I'll ignore the fact that nearly all computers include a (fairly) high-speed 115.2 kbps serial port...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no room in Amateur Radio for your kind of attitude.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

HAHAHA. As I write this, I'm working on a homebrew spectrum analyzer for an article which I intend to submit to QEX. I also get email commenting on the past and present work I've done:

... you folks aren't your typical fat-ass, over-50, pot-bellied, chain-smoking appliance operators ...

... I've viewed alot of pages in my time, yours is pretty damn good ...

I can cut and paste my final comment:

By encouraging Hams to ignore persons such as yourself, and have fun with packet anyway, I hope to see a resurgence of interest in packet radio, and the return of the U.S. packet network.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">TCI/IP, on any large scale, will never be available to the HAM public. The IP address pool is running low for the internet as is.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Amateur packet radio is allocated a Class A IP block (44.0.0.0 - AMPRNET). That's 16 million individual, unique addreses. I don't think we'll run out amateur IP addresses for awile.

 

News flash:  Most manufacturers are out to make a buck. You don't hear about a lot of "non-profit" manufacturers.

I just said that.  Pay attention.

Now you are criticizing the ones who have managed to hang on for not doing freebees, for not rapidly developing.

I didn't say that.  Pay attention.  I was talking about letting other (third-party) amateurs in on the development of new radio gear.  Not keeping it behind closed doors.

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

All of the above in response to the following...

Umm no, it's really the manufactures you should confront. (Kantronics, etc.).  The technology has been around for years, but if they can't profit from it, they won't sell or support it or even offer to help others develop it further (ie. not given out schematics or application notes).

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

... Where you criticize TNC manufactutrers for being out to make a buck, not giving away freebees (thier proprietary software/firmware/hardware), and not rapidly developing.

Precisely as I said.

You can apologize now. I'm sure you do not want to appear to be a TROLL, out to disrupt a discussion rather than participate in it.

On the other hand, "high-speed / IP only" folks have disrupted the U.S. packet network, rather than participate in it too. Perhaps this is just a pattern of behavior with you.

Is it possible for you to do otherwise?

Charles, N5PVL

 

Many hams express disbelief that there is actually any organized effort to destroy the global amateur radio digital network, and turn packet radio into a mere appendage of the Internet instead..

It is incredible .. Unfortunately, it's also quite true.

Here's a few quotes to consider:

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

Example #1: Greg Jones WD5IVD
Greg Jones WD5IVD (formerly President of TAPR, formerly of TPRS) from the 8-96 issue of the Texas Packet Radio Society's Quarterly Report:

WD5IVD:
Some might say that I have just made a pact with the 'Dark Side of the Force' by saying we should use wirelines and the Internet to connect regions in Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma and the U.S. at high-speed. My answer is no, we don't turn off the existing TexNet backbone, but use it for what it is good for, that of providing long-haul RF paths when our primary high-speed routes die.

Many might say that the commercial wirelines are unreliable; however, the commercial world is learning every time there is a disaster that takes their equipment off-line. Soon, many commercial systems will not be affected by earthquakes and other such natural disasters.

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

Here Greg says that he intends to put the entire high-speed TexNet Packet Radio network on the back-burner in favor of commercial telephone links. He generously allows as to how packet radio could serve as a "backup" for the telephone, then goes on to explain how unlikely it is that it will be needed even for THAT purpose. So much for Amateur Radio...

What he kinda forgets to mention is how rapidly the TexNet high-speed packet radio network ( TX, OK, AR, MO ) would disappear when support for it is withdrawn, as would naturally follow when it's function is taken over by non-ham means of communication. He didn't mention this, but he certainly knew it.

(Note: The TexNet network completely collapsed within 18 months of Greg's policy being implemented. I was right, he was wrong.)

When Greg talks about imposing these non-ham links "in the US ", he's talking about undermining amateur packet radio VHF/UHF networking throughout the U.S.A.. Ever wonder why packet is declining here, while it never stopped advancing and growing in Europe? Smell a rat yet?

I'm sure Greg is clever enough to know what statements like his tends to do to the morale of ANYONE who is contemplating the expense and effort involved in obtaining tower space, organizing with other hams and putting up a packet radio node. Why use radio to build network, when you will only be "routed around" by non-ham links, depriving you of traffic?

Greg just didn't care - and That says it all, folks!

The many dedicated hams who contributed their time, money and thought to building the amateur packet radio network should be aware that the president of TAPR routed around their VHF/UHF ham radio links with Internet and donated fibre optic links so that their nodes will no longer be used, supported, or needed.

Networkers! Wake up!

Greg Jones has replaced you with Amateur Telephone!


My contention is that when Greg Jones announced his intent to "route around" VHF/UHF networks with Internet and wireline links, he was:

1. Actively discouraging the maintenance, planning and growth of VHF/UHFpacket radio networking in the U.S.

2. Imposing a strong negative influence upon Amateur Radio in the U.S.

3. Not up to the responsibilities of his office as president of TAPR.

Personally, I think U.S. packet ops deserve better. I don't blame "Joe Ham", or 1.2kb/2m packet for the decline of the packet network in the U.S... ( The folks in Europe took those same things as a starting place for DEVELOPMENT, and so they have progressed while we have decayed. )

I blame the people who have been RESPONSIBLE here in the U.S. during the last ten years or so. I blame the "leaders" who have betrayed the trust placed in them by U.S. packet ops, leading us to our current mediocrity, division and turmoil.

Greg Jones is by no means the only person I blame for these sad events, but I do feel that he deserves the MOST blame for his active promotion of these anti-ham policies.

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

Example #2: Phil Karn KA9Q
Phil Karn KA9Q (Author of NOS) in response to my statement on the tcp-group SIG concerning:

Subject: Re: 2300 MHz band reallocated

N5PVL:
Many *NOS stations are now set up for the single purpose of misusing Internet as a cheap, dumb way to avoid the use of radios. Internet message forwarders are the best known example of this.

We can't really afford that type of stupidity any more, IMHO.


KA9Q:
Why is this stupid? Many people outside ham radio would consider it more stupid to build a radio network that uses precious spectrum instead of using existing fiber facilities with much greater capacity and lower cost.

I feel that radio spectrum is too valuable to waste on point-to-point links that are better implemented with non-radio facilities.

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


Here Phil tells it as he sees it.. The global amateur radio digital network is a "waste of spectrum". He seems to share Greg's belief that we would all be better off ( as hams? ) using the telephone, and sees nothing wrong with activities which tend to damage the existing network, such as Internet Forwarding is proven to do.

I can see where Phil would be interested in the opinions of those who are "outside of ham radio".. Sounds like that's where he's coming from himself!

Unfortunately, many Amateur TCP/IP enthusiasts have been exposed to Phil's thinking for years and mindlessly parrot variations on this line of propaganda at every opportunity. This is one of the main sources of the present disdain for the packet radio network as expressed by many *NOS users.

*NOS users, by the way, are the folks who set up the Internet Forwarding gates which  destroyed the amateur radio digital network by systematically "routing around" the existing radio links with the telephone. These same hams constantly disparage the packet BBS store 'n forward network, but insist on being a "part" of it for the sole purpose of destroying it from within.

My feeling is that if Phil Karn's followers do not like the packet radio network and want to do something different, there is certainly nothing wrong with them doing so.

This does not mean that it is acceptable for them to engage in activities designed to damage or destroy the packet radio network. One central tenet of amateur radio is that hams should avoid activities which will tend to lessen the enjoyment of other hams. Phil Karn's followers violate this rule of behaviour every day, as they attempt to dismantle and destroy the amateur packet radio network which was built through the cooperative efforts of countless hams around the world. This behaviour is simply not acceptable - Among hams.

If Amateur TCP/IP (NOS) can only work if the radio network is destroyed and replaced by telephone links, then as hams we can do just fine without TCP/IP.

Amateur TCP/IP relates to both the Internet and the Amateur Packet Radio network as a parasite.. If amateur TCP/IP could no longer feed off of the Internet and Packet Radio, it would act as any other parasite does when deprived of it's host.. It would quickly wither and die.
This is because when it is tested on it's own merit as an amateur radio networking application, TCP/IP has proven to be an abject failure.

In the last fifteen years the AX25 net has grown to cover the globe, but there is still no global, or even national amateur TCP/IP network! - Think about it.

This is because TCP/IP just doesn't work well with radios. If this were not so, then why would amateur TCP/IP devotees be alone in the amateur radio community in trying to legitimize "radioless ham radio", and in promoting dependence upon Internet links for all of our long-haul digital communications? It is understandable why someone interested solely in TCP/IP might think these are good ideas. - To someone who is interested in amateur radio though, they have all the appeal of a dead rat.

It's a darn good way to end up losing spectrum, and took thousands of Hams off of the air.

Devotees of TCP/IP know that if hams continue to use Radio to communicate, ( Duh! ) then amateur TCP/IP will be dead in the water. Even "Radioless Ham Radio" advocates know that saying " My telephone is faster than your radio " is not an impressive brag among amateur radio operators.

In comparasin to a genuine, global amateur radio digital network such as hams have built over the last decade or so, amateur TCP/IP with it's abject dependence upon the Internet for the bulk of it's communications is laughable. Amateur TCP/IP devotees are painfully aware of this fact.

Hence the desperation of Amateur TCP/IP devotees to legitimize "radioless ham radio", and to "route around" the existing Amateur Radio digital net's radio links with the telephone, so destroying them and ensuring that they will not be replaced.

Knowing they look silly in comparasin to Amateur Packet Radio, their reaction is to constantly "run down" every aspect of packet padio and packet users, and take other, more concrete and immediate steps to wear it down and destroy it.

Rather than expend their efforts in building up their own network, these "hams" prefer to destroy the work of others.

The "Internet Forwarders" are not there to help the Ham digital BBS net.. They are there to undermine and eventually destroy it, leaving the world's packet ops with NO CHOICE except "Amateur Telephone" and TCP/IP. They "route around" HF forwarders, AMSAT stations, High-Speed VHF/UHF networks such as TexNet and ROSE, and generally any method you can imagine which hams have found to move digital information for significant distances by radio.

If it's moved by amateur radio, an amateur TCP/IP station will appear to route that traffic over the telephone instead.

This represents the most serious threat to Amateur Packet Radio in it's short but impressive history and in the U.S., where the problem is most severe, the network soon ceased to exist.

In Europe, where they had no Greg Jones or Phil Karn, the network just went right on growing and developing while our network was vandalised.

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

Greg and Phil sure are impressed with the commercial communications outfits, aren't they? On the other hand, they don't appear to care much for hams using radios. Every time they speak in public, they manage to disparage and denigrate the amateur packet radio network (and it's community of hams) . These persons have made running down amateur packet radio in public a way of life.

Are these really the attitudes we want to see in our "leadership"?

My feeling is that our leaders should be persons who are impressed with what HAMS can do with RADIOS, not what the commercial wireline outfits do.

Both Greg and Phil often are featured speakers at important HAM RADIO functions such as Dayton, and Ham-Com. We hear a lot of this anti-ham talk from both of these guys, and their clique of followers.

I think they all should hear from hams in return..

How about "Booo!" and "Hisss!" ?? ---- Right off the speaker's platform!

Should we REALLY hesitate to be rude to "hams" who insist that we should use telephones instead of radios, especially in the case of those who are supposed to be "leaders" of the amateur packet radio community?

Remember that as featured speakers at these functions, their anti-ham rationalizations are taken seriously by many new, uninformed hams who then feel encouraged to spread the "Amateur Telephone" gospel themselves. Every time this occurs, amateur packet radio is degraded and divided a bit more.

Greg Jones, Phil Karn, and others of their ilk work to "normalize" a concept which has no place in amateur radio: The concept of "Radioless Ham Radio", where the telephone is used for the bulk of your communications and you PRETEND it's ham radio. The common name for this is "Amateur Telephone".

There is certainly no reason for responsible amateurs to stand by and see this sort of thinking being spread among impressionable new hams.

Much has been written concerning the crisis which amateur packet radio is currently weathering. The competition from the Internet is often put forward as being our main problem, but actually that isn't the case. As long as we have "leadership" who is more interested in dismantling the amateur radio network than in building it, it really doesn't matter what other problems we may face, does it?

Our main problem is a lack of worthwhile leadership. We need to fix that first of all, before we can rationally hope to fix anything else.

We are losing spectrum, and losing (link by link) the global amateur radio digital RF network to Internet Forwarders. (Amateur Telephone) It's time for hams to stand up and put a stop to this vandalism of our network and spectrum, and stop supporting "leaders" who obviously have an "agenda" to follow which is not in the best interests of amateur packet radio.

We need leaders who are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

We need fighters, not quitters.

If you are sincerely interested in the welfare of the amateur radio digital network and it's community, please step forward to provide the leadership and direction which amateur packet radio so desperately needs at this time.

I for one would find it very refreshing to see a leader in the amateur packet radio community who can display the dedication, wisdom and backbone which is needed to guide us AS A HAM. One who at least likes the amateur radio digital network, and who wants to take steps to help it grow.

Step up! Be a ham! You CAN make a difference.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 18 2002,05:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Anybody who beleives you 100% has a problem. Think about this... how could the comments or actions of a few (i.e. Greg Jones/Phil Karn) prompt node stack Op's to tear them all down? Okay maybe that is not true, how could these comments convince Op's to no longer maintain or abandon what they once set up? I urge all hams to think on their own. Listening to you sir, is just as destructive as listening to anyone else.

 

Jesus guys... when I read all this it's time to wake up !

In Slovenia (yeah, that's some country we all think is way behind) they run packet TCP/IP based networks for more than 5 years at 1.228 Mbit/s, and this for end-user access on 23 and 13cm.

Also in Germany, Belgium, Holland many interlinks operate at 76K8 as well as end-user access  on 70 and 23cm and several projects do exist to migrate to 1.228 Mbit/s as well.

Unfortuntaly many technical people left HAM operations for Internet as many people told them that 9K6 was already fast.  If we don't show more interest in high speed TCP/IP packet we keep on loosing people !

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... Where you criticize TNC manufactutrers for being out to make a buck, not giving away freebees (thier proprietary software/firmware/hardware), and not rapidly developing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

NO! Again, (Are you a politican?) When the TNC/data radio manufactures are asked to help develop and/or sell new packet radio gear, they decline, saying there is no interest. This mean alot of the development and prototyping (and selling) is done by third-party amateurs (people who have other things to do - work, school, party, etc.). You can't rip on someone for not producing hardware/software when they are busy trying to survive. This mean alot of the work is done (slowing) by dedicated hobbists on there free time. Take a look at the work done by KE5FX (on his free time), for example.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can apologize now. I'm sure you do not want to appear to be a TROLL, out to disrupt a discussion rather than participate in it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Speaking of trolls, I just received a email saying "... N5PVL used to troll the Usenet groups awhile ago ... ". Hehe, I should of known you where a fake. Sorry, I should of Googled ahead of time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand, "high-speed / IP only" folks have disrupted the U.S. packet network, rather than participate in it too. Perhaps this is just a pattern of behavior with you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Odd. The packet network (both high-speed and IP, along with all others) is doing quite well around here. Perhaps it's something else? (Something you don't want to admit?)

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (on1dju @ May 19 2002,12:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jesus guys... when I read all this it's time to wake up !

In Slovenia (yeah, that's some country we all think is way behind) they run packet TCP/IP based networks for more than 5 years at 1.228 Mbit/s, and this for end-user access on 23 and 13cm.

Also in Germany, Belgium, Holland many interlinks operate at 76K8 as well as end-user access on 70 and 23cm and several projects do exist to migrate to 1.228 Mbit/s as well.

Unfortuntaly many technical people left HAM operations for Internet as many people told them that 9K6 was already fast. If we don't show more interest in high speed TCP/IP packet we keep on loosing people ![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Slovenia (yeah, that's some country we all think is way behind) they run packet TCP/IP based networks for more than 5 years at 1.228 Mbit/s, and this for end-user access on 23 and 13cm.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Good point, in fact, Maxim IC just released a new monolithic VCO IC with a linear modulation interface (MAX2754) that operates in the 1.2 GHz (23 cm) amateur band. This simple little IC can be used as a replacement for the VCO in the Slovenia design. This could allow lower cost and ease of building with these data radios.

They could also be transverted to other (under used) amateur radio bands.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(Note: The TexNet network completely collapsed within 18 months of Greg's policy being implemented. I was right, he was wrong.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Good job of supporting your network! Here's an idea: Help people. Stop whining on QRZ and write a how-to or something. We can use a good detailed how-to on using cheap soundcards with computers to replace the current, costly TNCs

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever wonder why packet is declining here, while it never stopped advancing and growing in Europe? Smell a rat yet? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

'Cuz I can make $120,000 more a year in the US on professional wireless data services than amateur packet radio networks?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Greg Jones has replaced you with Amateur Telephone![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm. I believe this. Didn't TAPR leaders jump to commercial telecom gear? Dandon or something I think it was. That could explain there "pushing" of wired links.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I blame the people who have been RESPONSIBLE here in the U.S. during the last ten years or so. I blame the "leaders" who have betrayed the trust placed in them by U.S. packet ops, leading us to our current mediocrity, division and turmoil.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

But I don't think there are any leaders out there today, just hobbists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the last fifteen years the AX25 net has grown to cover the globe, but there is still no global, or even national amateur TCP/IP network! - Think about it. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm thinking you have no clue about network protocols. The fix? Easy:

1.) Delete AX.25 software (yes - it's software)
2.) Install (or configure existing) IP software (yes - it's software)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is because TCP/IP just doesn't work well with radios.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, that's like saying talking doesn't work well with radios. Wrong layer on the OSI model I'm sorry.

 

When hams only had cw, they used it. It was all they had. Hams have always been on the air to communicate. Yes, that it was via radio made it more fun, but communicating was always the basic idea. When voice became practical on the air, hams flocked to it - communication was faster and basically easier.

Another good example is RTTY. Some hams (including me) used it a LOT. I loved it. When AMTOR came along, many of us embraced it. It made communicating faster and more accurate. PACTOR was even better - upper/lower case, more symbols - we moved to it.

Packet is a good mode, very useful for a lot of things. We kept for sales on it, communicated, some even sent files back and forth over it. It was a good mode for commmunicating.

Now Packet in the US is all but dead, and folks blame the internet. Well, it's true most folks who left packet behind are on the net now. Why? It's faster and easier to communicate via the net. Is the net ham radio? No, of course it's not. But it really is a better way to communicate. If it wasn't, why are qrz.com and all of us on here?

My brother and I are both hams. We chat on 2m regularly. It's a lot of fun. But when we need to discuss certain things, we pick up the phone. And if I have a file I need to send, should I do it on packet or the net? That's a no-brainer guys.

Why did packet die in the US? Because the net serves the basic need for communicating better and faster. Does that mean Packet has no useful place? Not at all, but to imply we should have stayed on packet instead of moving to the net is pretty much the same as saying we should have stayed on cw and never put modulators in our rigs.

Hams should operate for the fun of hamming. But when you need to communicate, you use the best tool available, and for a lot of what we used to do on packet, the net is the best currently available.

My $.02

Chris

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5ATX @ May 19 2002,08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now Packet in the US is all but dead, and folks blame the internet.  Well, it's true most folks who left packet behind are on the net now.  Why?  It's faster and easier to communicate via the net.  Is the net ham radio?  No, of course it's not.  But it really is a better way to communicate.  If it wasn't, why are qrz.com and all of us on here?  

--

Why did packet die in the US?  Because the net serves the basic need for communicating better and faster.  Does that mean Packet has no useful place?  Not at all, but to imply we should have stayed on packet instead of moving to the net is pretty much the same as saying we should have stayed on cw and never put modulators in our rigs.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think your theory is correct. Somewhere along the way the internet surpassed amateur packet. It became faster and cheap, it became more practical than packet radio.

So let me ask everybody this: Don't you think we if as hams could introduce a new twist on packet, one in comparable speed to the internet and relatively cheap, amateur packet might make a come back?

High Speed Amateur Packet Using Modified Part 15 Wireless Devices

 

TCP/IP on packet works great!  Real magic in action.  Of course it works better at 9600 or even 56000 (or better - soon) but it is useable at 1200.   Heck, at 1200 you can watch the packets flow and learn how TCP/IP (the Internet) works.

Automatic routing.  Endless applications.  Lots of existing tools.  A Linux box with a sound modem is all the equipment needed besides a decent radio.   BBS packet was a nice try.  APRS is lightweight packet.  TCP/IP on radio is the real world of networking.  It works.  It lives.  It's just getting started.

802.11b(ag+) is a great "local access" complement to TCP/IP on Amateur Circuits for longer hops.  If we hams don't jump  on the that bandwagon, the 802.11b folks building wireless networks are going to out communicate us communicators. They're close to taking over the few remaining claims to real usefullness amateurs have - and they can do it while streaming MP3's.


73,
Bill - WA7NWP
www.wetnet.net

 

Check out higher speed modems and data radios:

http://www.symek.com/g/index-g.html
TNC3's, radios that were designed for data, 140,220,440

http://www.d-d-s.nl/menu-en.htm
a data radio for 1.2Ghz...

Have fun!