Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 04:30:01 PST
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #285
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Wed, 3 Nov 93 Volume 93 : Issue 285
Today's Topics:
AMPR gateways on Internet (2 msgs)
AMPR Gateways via Internet
Radio and wire
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
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: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 07:57:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: kf5mg@kf5mg.ampr.org (Jack)
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Well... I'll go ahead and put my $0.02 in....
I do have some mis-givings about using the Internet or other Wire Line
servives to do packet. But on the other hand, an untold number of hams are
going to read this message and I am using a 1200b packet link to get this
to the gateway. Some of these hams will read this using RF links and
others will use wire lines. Before I set up the gateway, sending this note
to the group from my home system via an RF link would have been impossible.
My wish to send mail from my home station to other hams is greater than my
mis-givings about using non-RF paths in the process.
Ham Radio is an evolving hobby. How many of you guys are using home made
spark-gap transmitters to operate? I'm sure that there are some that feel
that not using homebrew equipment is not 'real' Amateur Radio. Pretty
soon we'll all have out personal 'Star Trek' commincators so this will be
a moot point any way.
Now how can we reduce our reliance on wire links? I would LOVE to get
rid of the wire links altogether. But 1200b ain't going to cut it. I would
REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY LOVE to see someone come up with a plug
and play high-speed link. Right now, some areas are using 56kb stuff, but
there's not enough info that most of us ( me at least ) can find on the
subject. If you want to see the reliance on wire links go away... give us
other high-speed alternatives. I CAN/HAVE figured out to use the Internet
as a high-speed link. There's plenty of information on the subject. Info on
other hs links is limted to say the least. Why don't we get off our lazy
take-a-free-ride-on-the-Internet buts and come up with RF alternatives.
73's de Jack - kf5mg ( running JNOS in a 735K - OS/2 2.1 Dos Box! )
Internet - kf5mg@kf5mg.ampr.org - 44.28.0.14
AX25net - kf5mg@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.noam - home (817) 488-4386
Worknet - kf5mg@vnet.ibm.com - work (817) 962-4409
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "I am Homer of Borg.... Prepare to be assim.... oooo Donuts." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 16:01:39 -0800
From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet
To: algedi!kenk@UCSD.EDU (kenk), tcp-group@ucsd.edu
In as much as I was the one who originally created the facilities that
made it so easy to use the Internet in the construction of an amateur
network, it should be no suprise that I have no problem with doing so.
I consider myself a computer communications person first, and a radio
amateur second. Particularly in emergency communications, you *really*
want to be able to use whatever you have on hand; I don't think the
people we'd serve in such a situation could give a damn whether you give
them a radio link, a wire link or a waxed string, as long as it works.
And as hobbyist experimenters, we hams also have a long tradition of
scrounging up whatever is available (particularly surplus items) and
doing clever things with it. Building radio/Internet/whatever hybrids
just continues this tradition. What's wrong with that?
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 15:21:34 UTC
From: wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.AMPR.ORG
Subject: AMPR Gateways via Internet
To: tcpgroup@UCSD.EDU
Hi, I started out in my previous message talking about "AMPRNET Links".
By this i meant the AMPRNET/INTERNET gateways. Later, i just abreviated
this to AMPRNET. Sri if this confused anybody.
73, Don. wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 16:26:06 CET
From: dk5dc@vnet.IBM.COM
Subject: Radio and wire
To: tcp-group@ucsd.Edu
Well, oberving that discussion over a timeframe of 6 days, this
is the first time, I'm lucky to spent the vast time of my
life in Europe. You guys over there in the states must
have problems the average European Packet HAM really does not
understand.......
- No private (locked or closed) Packet Networks
are allowed. The Amateur Radio Service is considered
a special service where every HAM should have access to.
The majority of Telecommunication commissions won't even
allow 'private' networks. Regarding German law, this would
be a violation of the RUles & Regulations.
- Packet Nodes must be coordinated, which means our
Counterpart of the FCC won't give you the ticket
for an unattended Node unless it IS coordinated
in frequency and use of links with the neighbour stations
- About 80 % of the European Packet Network uses solely
430 Mhz Channels and 1.3 Ghz Links. A few nodes remain
on 144 Mhz but these channels (3 of them between 144.625
to 144.675) remain for local Nets without any connection
to the 430 Mhz Net.
- Wire links using some long distance carrier or even
the local Phone Company are NOT allowed in most European
countries (Swedish Nodes do use wire links to link the
North and the South of the country.. the only population
of large parts in that country consist just of moose and bears :-) )
However, Germany is implementing new Rules and Regulations, which
will become effective sometimes next Year. These Regulations
will allow the use of wire links using public carriers.
- Starting in early 1990, Central Europe (France,UK,BeNeLux,Italy
and Germany started to develop a Network topology. Each node
is checked and embedded into a overall picture. You
won't get a node granted (an unattended Node, which is
treated as a special station) unless you provide
some service to the Net, i.e providing a redundant
backup link or allowing two other nodes to be
interconnected via YOUR station (This is called
Ham spirit and self regulation :-))
There are plans to use wire links as soon we get thr right to do so:
In case there is
- no free 1.3 Ghz Frequency (Node Interlinks in Germany
HAVE to be on 1.2 Ghz or 10 Ghz...... hrmpffff
- The node is a heavily used node in a metropolitan
Area, more a service node than an experimental
digipeater.
The reason is quite simple:
Establishing a duplex 9k6 or 19k2 Link cost you rougly
$1000 (DM 1700.-) 2 Linktrx, 2Antennas, Cable
Connector, Modems etc.
Having a cheap link,it takes a looong time to spent that money
paying the bill to the phone company. Based on the current
cost scale, you would pay around 15 cents for 1 (one) Megabyte
of data, using a modern available 14K4 Modem and some landline
protocol like Zmodem etc. The technology is available..
To emphasize it again:
This is, in my opinion a solution for a service Node/BBS. Unfortunately
the Amateur Packet community requests such a 'Service', people simply
want easy access to the next BBS and require the sysop to maintain
its information base. Otherwise any support would vanish immediatly.
Why not use a link to transfer huge amounts of Flames and discussions
and use the spare frequencies for real experiments ?
Peter Glasmacher DK5DC/AA6HM
+----------------------------------------------+
| AX25Net : DK5DC@DB0LJ.GER.EU (SMTP forward) |
| amprNet : dk5dc@dk5dc.ampr.org [44.130.17.60]|
| Internet: dk5dc@vnet.ibm.com |
| Bitnet : dk5dc@vnet |
| Vnet : D1PGLA AT DUESVM1 |
+----------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #285
******************************
******************************