Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:30:14 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 V94 #28 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Mon, 7 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: 219 Committee Report Microwave PK-232 vs 1278 ?? Some dumb questions that I hope someone will take a shot at subscribe (2 msgs) TEMPEST - Electronic Eavesdropping 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: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 19:11:32 GMT From: netcomsv!netcom.com!pdh@decwrl.dec.com Subject: 219 Committee Report To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu brian@nothing (Brian Kantor) writes: >The band plan, as set forth, requires nothing less than 56kb, and because >of its bandwidth and explicit 'signalling rate' restrictions, prohibits >anything above 56kb. Looks like we're going to have a 56kb network, folks. >Hope that's fast enough for you, dude. Basically, they picked the speed and we are stuck with it, even if we have means to go to higher data rates in the same bandwidth, right? >And get a load of the administrative requirements! For the first time, >NON-Repeater operations will have to apply for a COORDINATED SANCTION before >they can go on the air. There's a bunch of beaurocratic hoopage to jump >through before operation is to be permitted; it seems to me that this is >more in keeping with a fee-for-service commercial data highway than an >experimental radio service such as hams have traditionally been. Actually the data network proposed seems to be just that kind of thing. Maybe we need to consider what is the proposed usage compared to what ham radio is supposed to be. >Couple that with the latest proposal that indemnifies ham frequency >coordinating bodies from lawsuits and redress, and you've got the >thin end of the wedge for sure. How long after this gets adopted do we >wait for a proposal to allocate specific frequencies for, say, NTS Nets >on 40 meters? What difference is there between that and what is >proposed here? A few years? >Should we just let NABER handle the coordination? Oddly enough, it makes sense. Shows what ham radio is becoming. >We should see how this turns out in the NPRM, and be sure to comment >upon it vigorously. Agreed. Now where did I put that 900 MHz band plan? -- Phil Howard KA9WGN | "It is good to keep a gun for peaceful purposes, pdh@netcom.com | not for aggression" --Mikhail Kalashnikov, "If I was able to fix it, | designer of the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947, while it must have been broken" | at the Dallas 1994 Shot Show, Wed 12 Jan 1994. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 1994 10:04:26 GMT From: digex.net!access1!sheerpan@uunet.uu.net Subject: Microwave To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Hi. I'm planning a microwave data link between two schools and wondered if anyone had any advice. I'm using a plan from a ARRL handbook (it escapes me which right now) which runs a 2megabit balanced and a voice channel. Any hints on aiming, etc? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 18:08:34 GMT From: netcomsv!netcom.com!slay@decwrl.dec.com Subject: PK-232 vs 1278 ?? To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu : Why do the cognoscenti here prefer the KAM, anyway? Well, I've used (or rather - TRIED to use) the PK-232 and was totally frustrated by it. I do OWN and USE the MFJ-1278, a TNC-2, and a KAM. I bought all the machines but was given the KAM by another ham. My favorite machine is definitely the KAM for a simple reason. I am a DXer and Contester. Of the machines mentioned, only the KAM is dual-port meaning that I can operate V/UHF packet (i.e. PacketCluster) at the SAME TIME that I am operating HF digital modes. For me, that is the primary reason why I prefer the KAM. If the MFJ-1278 was a dual-port machine, I would probably prefer that one. Cheers de Sandy WA6BXH/7J1ABV WA6BXH@N0ARY slay@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:49:08 GMT From: usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!cauldron!ra.csc.ti.com!fstop.csc.ti.com!sbrown@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Some dumb questions that I hope someone will take a shot at To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article <1994Feb1.124509.3349@mallrc.mala.bc.ca> wagner@mala.bc.ca (TOM WAGNER, Wizzard of old Audio/Visual Equipment........Nanaimo Campus) writes: > In article <2ik91nINN932@grumpy.symantec.com>, Alan K. Adamson writes: > > Ok, I have read some articles metioning digital regenerating repeaters. > > Anyone > > want to take a stab at a laymans defintion? What are we talking about > > here. > Are you perchance refering to Digipeater use. This is a system > whereby you can use another packet system as a repeater. It is > quite handy to extend the range to which you can communicate. My > system (baycom) works as an excellent digi- peater. Basically I > place a call to my final QSO by using any reasonable number of > friends packet units. They recieve my call and pass it on to > another repeater who passes it on..... well you know, till it gets > to the final repeater. Don't think that is what a digital regenerating repeater is. Digipeaters tend to be an operating mode of every packeteer's setup. I believe that digital regenerating repeaters are more along the lines of 2M FM repeaters, for example, in that they are located at some central point with a view to maximum coverage, etc. I speculate that they receive on one frequency, recover the bits, send them to another modem, the output of which gets applied to a transmitter on another frequency. I would also guess that most of them are supported by groups of people rather than individuals. Perhaps someone like Bdale will tell us what they _really_ are. ********************************************* | Steve Brown, WD5HCY | | | sbrown@charon.dseg.ti.com | Simplicate | | wd5hcy@wd5hcy.ampr.org | and add | | [44.28.0.61] | lightness. | | wd5hcy@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.na | | ********************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 94 01:15:51 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: subscribe To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu subscribe brian greiner -- Brian Greiner internet bgreiner@accesspt.north.net CompuServe 72727,2041 Ham Radio VE3SPZ@VE3YRA ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 94 10:23:55 From: Max Wheatley Subject: subscribe To: ham-digital-digest@ucsd.edu add max@acme.gen.nz ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 1994 21:19:37 -0500 From: agate!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!montego!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu Subject: TEMPEST - Electronic Eavesdropping To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article <2j3m8h$m6j@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>, Rob Jackson wrote: > >In the US it not illegal to posess TEMPEST-surveillance equipment but >it is illegal to take appropriate counter-measures to prevent >surveillance. The US government has refused to release details of its >TEMPEST research and has restricted the dissemination of independent >research by classifying it. In no way does that equate to it being illegal to attempt to suppress spurious electromagnetic radiation from computing devices. The FCC even has rules requiring EMI/RFI filtering & suppression for civillian & commercial computers & peripherals, albeit not in the name of national security. >The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) makes use of >TEMPEST secured >electronics and computers as they believe that the drug cartels may >possess surveillance equipment. > Yes & no. Some DEA processing machines contain or are capable of accessing classified information. That alone requires the machines and/or their containing room to meet certain TEMPEST criteria. The classified info is what necessitates TEMPEST, and not specifically the belief that narcotic organizations are using Van Eck devices, etc. -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA P.O. Box 443 C$erve:72571,1005 GEnie:Sneaker AOL:Hooligan MCI: 442-5735 Ypsilanti MI "I'm just an innocent little frog, trying to 48197 hop my way across the Information Superhighway" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 22:03:56 +0000 From: spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!fusk.demon.co.uk!db@decwrl.dec.com To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <2ik91nINN932@grumpy.symantec.com>, <1994Feb1.124509.3349@mallrc.mala.bc.ca>, Subject : Re: Some dumb questions that I hope someone will take a shot at I have been involved in the setting up of a 9600 baud digital regenerating repeater. In our implementation we also regenerate the transmit clock to remove any phase jitter from the incoming signal and delay the data by a few bits to give the transmitter time to key up. Mail me if you'd like more information. Regards, Dave G6GZH ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #28 ****************************** ******************************