Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 04:30:17 PST From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Digital-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V93 #128 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Tue, 30 Nov 93 Volume 93 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Ham-Digital Digest V93 #118 Illegal Ham Radio - Internet gateway Land-mobile-radio mailing list started Max BAUD on 6M AM & FM Network adapter card with WG7J NOS New to Newsgroup PK-88 vs KPC-3 vs DPK-2 - Comments? (2 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital". 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: 29 Nov 93 15:45:30 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V93 #118 To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 20:13:22 MST From: swrinde!gatech!asuvax!ennews!stat!david@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Illegal Ham Radio - Internet gateway To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu M.Willis@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis) writes: > Look all this 3rd party stuff. As far as we in Europe are concerned it is tot > illegal. I do not want any of my intermet mail to go to packet or I may end u > trouble. It has already happened once. > > The concept is great, we could really use it but it is against our (CEPT) law > Therefore close these gateways or fix the problem by removing external links > non 3rd party statesbefore it becomes necessary to take other (legal) steps t > protect our licences. It is illegal here in the states also, however, the US regulations allow third-party traffic from overseas amateurs, as long as the communication is still amateur to amateur. Each message is screened at the wb7tpy internet gateway to make sure this regulation is adhered to. david --- Editor, HICNet Medical Newsletter Internet: david@stat.com FAX: +1 (602) 451-6135 Bitnet : ATW1H@ASUACAD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 93 07:27:22 MST From: swrinde!gatech!asuvax!ennews!stat!david@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Land-mobile-radio mailing list started To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Welcome to the Land Mobile Radio Mailing List! The purpose of this sig is to promote technical conversation regarding commercial land mobile two-way radio communications and associated systems and accessories. In addition to conversation buying, selling and trading of commercial land mobile equipment is allowed. ---- To Send Mail To Be Distributed To All Subscribers: land-mobile-radio@stat.com And Send Normal Subject And Text. ---- To Add Yourself To This List, Please Send Electronic Mail To: listserv@stat.com And Include The Command: subscribe land-mobile-radio As The First Line of Your Message. ---- To Remove Yourself From This Server, Please Send Electronic Mail To: listserv@stat.com And Include The Command: Unsubscribe land-mobile-radio As The First Line of Your Message. ---- Requests For Help Should Be Sent To: land-mobile-radio-request@stat.com --- Editor, HICNet Medical Newsletter Internet: david@stat.com FAX: +1 (602) 451-6135 Bitnet : ATW1H@ASUACAD ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 93 16:23:33 EST From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.intercon.com!psinntp!arrl.org@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Max BAUD on 6M AM & FM To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc, gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <2635@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom, KE3Z) writes: >>In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc, gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes: >>>So you're limited to 19.6 kb *and* a maximum bandwidth of 20 kHz. >> >>Ah, no. What the rule says is that when you are using a specified >>digital code from 97.309(a), you can send at up to 19.6 kbauds. When >>you are using "any digital code" you can send within a 20-kHz bandwidth. >>The first two sentences go together; the last two sentences go together. >>(This was a lot more obvious before the latest rules rewrite. Old >>part 97.69 contained each set of code and signaling restrictions together >>in a common subparagraph.) >When we queried the FCC about our 56 kb modem, they told us that >*both* the 56 kb and 100 kHz limitations applied on 1.25m and 70cm. >Apparently they read the regulation the way I do. Please email me the name and title of the FCC person who gave you that information. That is *not* the interpretation we have gotten from PRB. It also is not consistent with the previous rule, which was not stated to have been changed in the last rewrite. >Packet does not use any of the specified codes in 97.309a. It's specified >in the AX25 standards document, accepted by the FCC, as transmitting *octets* >of synchronous data. As such, it always falls under the any other digital >code provisions. Whether ASCII characters are *embedded* into some of the >octets or not is irrelevant. No, a code is a mapping from a character set to a binary value. The FCC is quite explicit about the allowed codes, citing them by their national and international standard designators. And those standards are quite explicit, too: they map the character set onto a set of binary values. They say *nothing* about how the bits are sent. You can send ASCII code via async (start and stop bits), synchronous (e.g., monosync or bisync), or in HDLC frames (like AX.25 does); it's still ASCII. An "unspecified digital code" is one that does not follow the mapping of the referenced standards, regardless of what modem or synchronization standard is used to transmit it. And the AX.25 document says nothing about the coding of the data field except that it must be an integer number of octets. You can send data via packet using the Baudot code if you like--and you won't be using an "unspecified digital code." ------ Jon Bloom, KE3Z | jbloom@arrl.org American Radio Relay League | 225 Main St., Newington CT 06111 | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 18:10:29 GMT From: newsflash.concordia.ca!hobbit.ireq.hydro.qc.ca!infobruno.richelieu.hydro.qc.ca!boulaisg@uunet.uu.net Subject: Network adapter card with WG7J NOS To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu This is the first time that I write in amateur radio newsgroup, so excuse-me if I have written this article in the wrong newsgroup. I have an Racal Interlan NI5210 network adapter card and would like that card being recognized by NOS WG7J. I've got the Clarkson packet driver but I don't know what parameters to setup in the AUTOEXEC.NOS. The only thing that I know to do is ATTACH PACKET 0X61 and something else... I would appreciate a copy of an AUTOEXEC.NOS I have currently setup my PK-88 to be recognized by NOS but now, I would like a Ham BBS on the company network for our +100 amateurs at the company. You respond to me at BoulaisG@ingenierie.telecom.hydro.qc.ca Thanks a lot and 73! VE2GYB, Guy Boulais Iberville, Quebec ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 93 12:20:04 GMT From: amd!amdahl!dlb!daver!tscs!tbag!mrexshun@decwrl.dec.com Subject: New to Newsgroup To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Howdy, I am new to this newsgroup and was interested in having someone E-MAIL me a FAQ list for this area. Best Regards, _' Pete Baker Tampa Bay Amiga Group {~} 3.5GigaBytes of PD Files & XXX Pics ( V-) (813) 889-9465 * (813) 889-9467 "|Y|" mrexshun@tbag.tscs.com -or- mrexshun%tbag@uunet.uu.net _|||_ ======================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 16:43:59 GMT From: das.wang.com!wang!djenkins@uunet.uu.net Subject: PK-88 vs KPC-3 vs DPK-2 - Comments? To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu The BayPac (BayCom) modem was fun, but, it is time to upgrade to a REAL TNC. Most of my packet operation is in TCP/IP but some is still AX-25. All of it is in VHF/UHF (HF privs yes, radios no). The option of operating "portable" is attractive for coolness and/or emergencies, but, is not essential. I am trying to decide between asking for a PK-88, KPC-3 or DPK-2. Some of the relative merits that I know of include: PK-88: Y Y N Y ? ? $139.95 KPC-3: L 1 Y Y Y Y $119.95 DPK-2: L Y N Y 2 3 $109.95 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------- HRO Price | | | | | | | | | | | +--------- Open squelch operation | | | | +------------ TNC-2 Compatible | | | +--------------- PBBS | | +------------------ WEFAX | +--------------------- Kiss Mode +------------------------ 12 Operation (L = Low power consumption) 1) The guy at HRO said it does KISS Mode but it didn't say in the catalog. 2) "100% firmware compatability with TAPR TNC-2" "* TNC-2 Compatible * Runs all TNC-2proms" 3) $31.95 optional board Oddly enough, the guy from HRO didn't talk up the DPK-2 at all. He said the other two would work fine but that if I wanted to do HF packet some day then I should not get the KPC-3. Any comments/suggestions/recommendations/opinions are welcome/appreciated. -- David E. Jenkins Home: (508) 632-4164 Wang Labs, Inc. 52 Norman Street Work: (508) 967-7284 M/S 014-690 Gardner, MA 01440-1916 Fax: (508) 967-2212 1 Industrial Ave. Packet: n1mxv@wa1phy.ma e-mail: djenkins@wang.com Lowell, MA 01851 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1993 19:05:52 GMT From: juniper.almaden.ibm.com!enge.almaden.ibm.com!enge@uunet.uu.net Subject: PK-88 vs KPC-3 vs DPK-2 - Comments? To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article , Dave Jenkins wrote: > >KPC-3: L 1 Y Y Y Y $119.95 > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ > | +--------------------- Kiss Mode > >1) The guy at HRO said it does KISS Mode but it didn't say in the catalog. KPC-3 does do KISS. Mine is running with the G8BPQ code right now. Roy Engehausen, AA4RE enge@almaden.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 93 13:12:10 GMT From: ogicse!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!apple.com!apple.com!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <1993Nov19.125524.28187@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, , <1993Nov23.085806.17098@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Subject : Who should use gateways for what (was Re: wb7tpy gateway) In article <1993Nov23.085806.17098@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Jonathan Magee wrote: >The only use of the internet in ham radio should be to connect ham >stations via worm holes ie only hams can use it. That's exactly what the real-time gateways (as opposed to the mail-only gateways) are doing. See Stan Horzepa's packet column in the December _QST_. >If some one wants to mail some on on Internet, they should get an >internet connection. If some one wants to send a message via hte ham >PBBS system they should get a licence and the gear need for packet radio. Most of us originating messages from the Internet to the PBBS system *are* hams. (It's required by the sysops of most mail gateways.) We just don't want to sully ourselves by using AX.25. :-) :-) Patty N6BIS -- ============================== Patty Winter ============================== Apple contractor Internet: winter@apple.com Sunnyvale, California AMPRNet: 44.4.4.50 "What about truth? What about reality?" "What about the way the old ending tested in Canoga Park?" ================================== N6BIS ================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 09:39:48 -0700 From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!node_13059.aieg.mot.com!user@uunet.uu.net To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References , , <1993Nov28.165758.28265@ee.surrey.ac.uk> Subject : Re: Illegal Ham Radio - Internet gateway In article <1993Nov28.165758.28265@ee.surrey.ac.uk>, M.Willis@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis) wrote: > Look all this 3rd party stuff. As far as we in Europe are concerned it is totally > illegal. I do not want any of my intermet mail to go to packet or I may end up in > trouble. It has already happened once. Do I read this correctly, that if you legally send something via internet and someone *else* in another country legally uses amateur radio to relay that message then *you* could be in violation of your laws? This seems to fly in the face of justice and responsibility. Certainly I can see a regulatory agency jumping to conclusions, but it would seem to me this should be a matter of educating them as to the actual facts. However even so, filtering messages from certain origins would hardly be a new capability, the standard "kill" file should do that quite well. -- Mike Waters rcrw90@email.mot.com AA4MW@KC7Y.PHX.AZ.US.NA BOBS BEST BENT WIRE SK ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V93 #128 ****************************** ******************************