lyndon@ers.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (08/19/87)
The following quotes are courtesy John Gilmore (gnu@hoptoad.uucp) from an article in comp.dcom.modems: >As a 15-year computerist who got a ham license to experiment with >packet radio, let me comment. The ham fraternity is seriously >reactionary. Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more >frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and >report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate >under. Everything you do is under control of government regulations >which take years to update, and the army of reactionary spies makes it >hard to operate outside the rules. The ham fraternity is anything BUT reactionary. Nuclear war wouldn't wake half of them up! Perhaps hams in the US have the attitude that "it's mine, go play in your own sandbox." This does not seem to prevail outside of the US. Perhaps that's why the FCC has the wisdom to start the US phone bands above the international allocations... Perhaps you consider federal legislation "mickey mouse." The rest of the world (for the most part) does not (thank God). Of course in California murder is also a "mickey mouse" law ("don't change lanes so close to me a**hole or I'll blow your brains out!"). I hate to make you face reality John, but most things in life are under control of gov't regulations. It's a good thing there are "reactionary spies" to keep people operating within the rules. If the FCC is faced with having to enforce the regs in the ham bands, there won't be hams bands in very short order (in the US anyway... hey, that's not a bad idea). >In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas >and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you >get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way >or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can >plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether >you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford >to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it. The only time you need to ask the FCC about hooking up a piece of equipment is when the act of "hooking it up" might effect another persons ability to use whatever it is you are hooking up to. If you wire your printer cable wrong, you will zap your own computer - not someone elses. If you wire your phone wrong you could impact all the users on your exchange. If you transmit spurs and/or harmonics you are going to bother a lot of non-hams. The regulations are in place to ensure that these other users have some recourse in the event you interfere with them. >I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for >computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio >Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the >hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just >send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that >THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental >packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting >the bull over the radio). Sounds like you want to become a common carrier. If you think getting a ham license is so damn difficult, then you should get a license to become a common carrier. I would be interested in talking to you about the application process when you're done (you should be finished in about 1990). The cost of the application should not be a problem. As you indicated above, the nice thing about the computing hobby is that you can buy anything if you have the money. C'mon John, let's see you finance a country wide packet network. >What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982 >would fill a thimble, maybe. There are a few people like Phil Karn who >span both computer networking and ham radio, but the rest were >basically ignorant. Their "networking" consisted of passing 10-word >messages from one person to another, by voice or Morse code, down a >line of humans, on a fixed nightly schedule. This was (is) mostly done >by people who have nothing better to do than read other >peoples' messages over the air. This has nothing to do with >computer networking, though these people have finally realized that >they can automate the processing if they can ever get their packet >radios to work reliably enough. So now they want a few computer people >to come in and fix 'em up so they can do their same old same-old, >without, of course, letting many new computer users in to crowd the radio >spectrum. > >[They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications >service. However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for >REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be >needed, since the regular service would continue to work in >emergencies. E.g. the cops don't rely on hams, they have their own >radios for regular and emergency use.] As you may be aware, those of us in Edmonton had the misfortune of experiencing a rather nasty tornado a couple of weeks back. It hit at roughly 1507, and had passed over the city by 1530. At that time I was doing work for one of our clients (Alberta Public Safety Services - the Provincial gov't organization that handles peacetime disasters). By 1600 I had activated the amateur station at APSS (VE6ACD) and was putting together a list of hams and equipment available to help with communications. At 1700 we received a request from the City of Edmonton police dep't to assist them with communications in two of the hardest hit areas. By midnight we had dispatched over 40 amateurs to these sites to assist in locating victims buried in collapsed buildings, and provide logistical communications support for the people bringing in food and medical supplies. It is very obvious that in a disaster of this magnitude no single emergency service has the ability to handle the volume of traffic generated. These amateurs continued to assistthe police at the Evergreen trailer park until late Sunday afternoon. In addition to the above activities, we set up an emergency station at the Red Cross offices, and handled over 2000 messages in a 48 hour period from people around the world trying to find out the status of freinds and relatives in the disaster area. Part of this traffic was carried via HF packet links (at a dastardly slow 1200 baud - sorry). I operated a total of almost 72 hours over that weekend. I don't recall hearing you volunteer to handle any traffic to the US. >That's funny, the hams who are currently doing packet radio are doing >it at 1200 baud. It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over >ham radio in the United States. Ham packet radio was started in >Canada, where the government didn't get nearly as much in the way. >It took an immense amount of work in the US just to get the use of ASCII >legalized over the air -- before that, it was Morse or Baudot or >nothing. 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like >Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet >Radio. When will the American people realise that their problems are NOT the rest of the worlds problems? The amatuer services is an experimental service - if you present a reasonable case to the FCC, you should be able to obtain a waiver for 56KB operation under the existing regs. Of course this assumes you're going to do something with it besides spouting more hot air... Not *all* hams run 1200 baud. We are currently building a network through the province running on a 56 KB backbone with fanout at 9600 baud. The Calgary hub will be tied to a network in Ottawa via a 9600 baud satellite link. I believe similar networks are *already* operational in the US. >> Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using >> digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such >> links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to >> the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking. > >As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking. >This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where >acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end. This data >is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX -- between >each relay point. If you connect directly (no repeaters), you might >get 1000 baud since you have to turn the line around once in a while >for acknowledgements. If you use one repeater, divide by more than 2, >since each packet has to go to the repeater, then, from the repater to >the destination. (Each of these hops involves a delay of up to .3 >seconds while switching from receive to transmit, depending on the >quality of the radio.) Just going through one repeater, you drop under >300 baud; two repeaters gets you say 100 baud, or 10 cps. That is, >when all the data gets through error-free. No wonder it "bogs down" on >more then two links! Well John, CP/M and Apple DOS 3.x are pretty crude too. I wonder why the people using these systems are not burning them and running out to buy the latest, greatest Sun workstations? Could it be that they are content with what they have? It's funny, but as I look out the window I see a lot of four and six cylinder cars driving around, but very few dragsters. Oh well, that's government regulations for ya... >> I am saying only that computer hobbyists >> should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio >> modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who >> obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks. > >How about rejecting the option on the basis of MY statements, made by >someone who DOES know whereof he speaks. I tried it. I still have my :-) >ham license (KB6DQC, technician's). I'm gone though. I'm building >free software rather than building packet radio networks, because there >is no government actively standing in the way of building and using >free software. Great! You're saving the world! Care to explain why TWO MONTHS after I sent in my PRE-PAID order for the Gnu distribution tape I still haven't received it? It took FOUR phone calls to the FSF answering machine to get someone to call back. This despite the fact that I included with the order a phone number and email addresses that I could be reached at in the the event of a delay. I was informed that the FSF had run out of tapes, but that new tapes were now in and that my tape would be shipped via special delivery mail that day. That was TWO WEEKS ago and I still don't have the damn tape! Maybe you should start a FREE BUSINESS SCHOOL and enroll everyone from the FSF. And no, I don't give a damn that it's FREE software. You took $200 of my money so you bloody well better show me something for it! > I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to >die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the >amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong. The world owes you a living? If you don't like it, why don't you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? >{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu >My name's in the header where it belongs. Any your foot is in your mouth... Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM alberta!ncc!lyndon pyramid!ncc!lyndon winfree!ncc!lyndon
karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (08/20/87)
I will have lots more to say about the Public Digital Radio Service vs ham radio stuff that has been going on in comp.dcom.modems and is now spilling over into rec.ham-radio.packet, but I wanted to correct one misconception quickly: There is absolutely nothing illegal about running 56kbps amateur packet radio in the United States. At least I *hope* not, I have two beta-test units designed by WA4DSY in the final stages of construction here, and a number of other units are already on the air in the Atlanta area. When in doubt, check the FCC rules. 97.69 gives you two options for running digital communications: 1. Conventional Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR "RTTY-style" operations at speeds up to 300 baud below 28 Mhz, up to 1200 baud between 28 and 50 Mhz, 19600 [sic] baud between 50 and 220 Mhz, and 56kbps above 220 Mhz. You can do this either domestically or internationally. -OR- 2. For domestic communications ONLY, you can run ANY digital code and modulation method you want, as long as it's intended to facilitate communication rather than to hide it from others. In order to encourage the development of bandwidth-efficient modems, under this option you are restricted by bandwidth rather than signalling speed, The limits are: 20 Khz between 50 and 220 Mhz, 100 Khz between 220 and 902 Mhz, and UNLIMITED above 902 Mhz (assuming you stay within the band, of course). If you can make a megabit modem that operates in only 20 Khz of bandwidth, it is entirely legal to run it on 2 meters (although I'd suggest you talk to your patent attorney first). You are also allowed to run spread spectrum (with one of several standard linear polynomials) above 420 Mhz. Once again, for US domestic digital communications you can do ANYTHING you want above 50 Mhz within the bandwidth (not signalling rate) limits. So basically there are NO arbitrary FCC limits on the technology we hams can use on the air, as long as it meets the bandwidth limits and you operate it according to the rest of the rules. I suppose a Canadian can be excused for not being familiar with American rules, but a licensed American ham who expresses strong interest in the development of digital radio is another story... Phil
SNELSON@STL-HOST1.ARPA (08/20/87)
THE FCC RULES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS. ANOTHER REASON IS TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCIAL SERVICES BY ANY NATION AND TO PRECLUDE MUTUAL INTERFERENCE BETWEEN PROPERLY LICENSED USERS, BE THEY HAMS, DEVELOPERS, MILITARY OR COMMERCIAL. EACH NATION IS ALLOCATED CERTAIN FREQUENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES TO INCLUDE SATELLITE AND RADAR. ALL ARE BASED UPON INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. MOST MAJOR ADVANCES IN RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARE BASED UPON HAM DEVELOPMENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS. DO NOT LET THE TERM AMATEUR MISLEAD YOU. CALLING THEM SUCH DOES NOT DONOTE IGNORANCE NOR ANY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR ABILITY. NEITHER DOES IT INDICATE ANY UNWILLINGNESS TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE OR REGIONS NEEDING HELP OR IN DISTRESS. DO NOT EVER MIX UP A HAM WITH THE TRASH YOU HEAR ON UNLIMITED PUBLIC ACCESS SUCH AS CB. HAVING BEEN IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SINCE 1950 I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR HAMS. REMEMBER THE ALASKAN QUAKE OF '64 OR THE MORE RECENT MEXICO QUAKE AND THE AID AND ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY HAMS! FOR EACH OF THESE THERE ARE AT LEAST 10,000 OTHER INSTANCES WHERE HAMS HAVE BEEN THE LINK THAT HELD THE REST OF THE WORLD IN CONTACT. AND YOU DO NOT HEAR A LOT OF THANKS FROM ANYONE OTHER THAT THOSE WHO WERE HELPED. WITH NO CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE. NAME ME ONE GROUP, ANYWHERE, THAT IS READY TO AID AT A MOMENTS NOTICE THAT EVEN APPROACHES THE "HAMS". MY FELICITATIONS TO THE HAMS. THE BACK OF MY HAND TO THEIR DETRACTORS. BTW. I HAVE NEVER BEEN A HAM ALTHOUGH I HAVE HELD A FIRST PHONE BECAUSE MY DUTIES REQUIRED IT. REGARDS. STEVE
chapman@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Brent Chapman) (08/21/87)
In article <171@ers.UUCP> lyndon@ers.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
#The following quotes are courtesy John Gilmore (gnu@hoptoad.uucp)
#from an article in comp.dcom.modems:
#Great! You're saving the world! Care to explain why TWO MONTHS after
#I sent in my PRE-PAID order for the Gnu distribution tape I still
#haven't received it? It took FOUR phone calls to the FSF answering
#machine to get someone to call back. This despite the fact that I included
#with the order a phone number and email addresses that I could be reached
#at in the the event of a delay. I was informed that the FSF had
#run out of tapes, but that new tapes were now in and that my tape
#would be shipped via special delivery mail that day. That was TWO
#WEEKS ago and I still don't have the damn tape! Maybe you should start
#a FREE BUSINESS SCHOOL and enroll everyone from the FSF. And no, I don't
#give a damn that it's FREE software. You took $200 of my money so you
#bloody well better show me something for it!
To the best of my knowledge, John Gilmore was using the login "gnu"
long before Richard Stallman came up with his cute little
"GNU's Not UNIX" acronym.
As far as I know, John doesn't have anything to do with the operation
of the Free Software Foundation (though I suspect he supports its work).
If you're gonna bitch, at least bitch at the right people.
Now whose foot is in whose mouth?
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman
chapman@mica.berkeley.edu or ucbvax!mica!chapmanrab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (08/21/87)
In the referenced article Lyndon Nerenberg writes: [John Gilmore's comments deleted] >Perhaps you consider federal legislation "mickey mouse." The rest >of the world (for the most part) does not (thank God). Of course >in California murder is also a "mickey mouse" law ("don't change lanes >so close to me a**hole or I'll blow your brains out!"). Let me see if I follow this. "I've heard that there are people in California who are nutso enough to take potshots at passing motorists. Therefore, I can dismiss anything said by a Californian as nutso." That's not it? Hmmm... Let's try again: "Saying that some certain Federal regulations are mickey-mouse is similar to saying that there ought to be no laws." Is that what you meant? Gee, I seem to be having a lot of trouble following you here..... >I hate to make you face reality John, but most things in life are >under control of gov't regulations. It's a good thing there are >"reactionary spies" to keep people operating within the rules. If the >FCC is faced with having to enforce the regs in the ham bands, there >won't be hams bands in very short order (in the US anyway... hey, that's >not a bad idea). Oh, boy, now you've lost me again. Lessee, "because lots of things are currently regulated by government(s), they *ought* to be regulated." And "if it weren't for the all-wise and benevolent government's rules, there would necessarily be unrestricted chaos". Is that what you mean? >>In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas >>and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you >>get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way >>or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can >>plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether >>you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford >>to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it. > >The only time you need to ask the FCC about hooking up a piece of >equipment is when the act of "hooking it up" might effect another >persons ability to use whatever it is you are hooking up to. If you >wire your printer cable wrong, you will zap your own computer - not >someone elses. If you wire your phone wrong you could impact all >the users on your exchange. If you transmit spurs and/or harmonics >you are going to bother a lot of non-hams. The regulations are in >place to ensure that these other users have some recourse in the >event you interfere with them. Hmmmm.... "there is no possible solution to the problem of allocating and using radio spectrum space except government regulation." >>I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for >>computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio >>Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the >>hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just >>send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that >>THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental >>packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting >>the bull over the radio). > >Sounds like you want to become a common carrier. If you think getting >a ham license is so damn difficult, then you should get a license to >become a common carrier. I would be interested in talking to you >about the application process when you're done (you should be finished >in about 1990). The cost of the application should not be a problem. >As you indicated above, the nice thing about the computing hobby is >that you can buy anything if you have the money. C'mon John, let's >see you finance a country wide packet network. Clever, switching the subject of the discussion like that. Notice that John did not allude to "getting a license" (in fact, below he makes clear that he already has one) but to "the hassle". Red tape. Bullshit from the Fancy Candy Company. And other HAMs. ------- Here, Lyndon goes on at great length about his heroic efforts during a recent natural disaster, concluding with: >I operated a total of almost 72 hours over that weekend. I don't >recall hearing you volunteer to handle any traffic to the US. Great. I'm proud of you. I'm sure lots of people are and were grateful. Now please tell me how that justifies the HAM community's total monopoly on literally billions of channels of radio space. Tell me how that justifies locking out the wonderful advances that are possible by marrying computer technology with radio communications. Also, don't bother playing "holier than thou". For one thing, you won't win, and for another, it smells bad. ----- Here, John makes some excellent criticisms of the existing packet radio networks.... Lyndon replies with: >Well John, CP/M and Apple DOS 3.x are pretty crude too. I wonder why >the people using these systems are not burning them and running out >to buy the latest, greatest Sun workstations? Could it be that they >are content with what they have? It's funny, but as I look out the >window I see a lot of four and six cylinder cars driving around, but >very few dragsters. You seem to be confusing John's frustration with the HAM fraternity's hatred of change, with some sort of desire to "replace everything". As far as I can tell the latter idea exists only in your fevered mind. >> I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to >>die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the >>amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong. > >The world owes you a living? If you don't like it, why don't you >DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Intriguing. You're the one who wants government regulations to "protect" your hobby, and you're accusing John of thinking the world owes him a living? Gee, I think you've lost me again... Unlike loud-mouthed clods such as yourself, some of us ARE doing something about it. Unfortunately, the HAM fraternity (with the help of it's Big Brother the FCC) is doing it's level best to *prevent* anyone from doing any development of packet radio with computers. Just think, if we could form a club and BUY the rights to a particular frequency band in a particular geographical area, we could transmit anything we want (so long as we don't interfere with anyone else, of course). Just imagine the experimentation that could be done then! Kinda like the HAMs used to do.... 30 years ago. >>{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu >Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM >alberta!ncc!lyndon pyramid!ncc!lyndon winfree!ncc!lyndon Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/ -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
jpederse@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM (John Pedersen) (08/21/87)
In article <3788@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes:
[ Let me see if I follow this..........
[...... That's not it? Hmmm... Let's try again: ........
[......... Is that what you meant?
[Gee, I seem to be having a lot of trouble following you here.....
[
[ Oh, boy, now you've lost me again. Lessee, ..........
[.............. Is that what you mean?
[
[ Hmmmm....
[
[....................................., it smells bad.
[
[ As
[far as I can tell ...................
[
[................ Gee, I think you've lost me again...
Sounds like someone here doesn't understand english.......
--
John Pedersen {hplabs!hp-sdd }
NCR Corporation {pyramid!bigbang }!ncr-sd!ncrwic!jpederse
Electromagical Engineering{seismo!esosun!ucsdhub }
j.pederse@wichita.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest
So" larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson) (08/22/87)
In article <3788@well.UUCP>, rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: > Tell me how that justifies locking out the wonderful advances that > are possible by marrying computer technology with radio communications. Well, you could take some of these advances, build them, put them on the existing commercial channels, sell the hardware, and retire to that little island in the sun. There is nothing stopping you, now. The commercial channels are there. > Just think, if we could form a club and BUY the rights to a particular > frequency band in a particular geographical area, we could transmit > anything we want (so long as we don't interfere with anyone else, of > course). Just imagine the experimentation that could be done then! > Kinda like the HAMs used to do.... 30 years ago. Kinda like some of the amateur radio folks are still doing. As for buying a channel, look into commercial radio services. It can probably be done, if you try. Alan
mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier) (08/24/87)
> > There is absolutely nothing illegal about running 56kbps amateur packet > radio in the United States. At least I *hope* not, I have two beta-test > units designed by WA4DSY in the final stages of construction here, and a > number of other units are already on the air in the Atlanta area. > > I suppose a Canadian can be excused for not being familiar with American > rules, but a licensed American ham who expresses strong interest in the > development of digital radio is another story... > > Phil Let me add a couple of thoughts to what Phil started here. I also have two of the DSY 56KB modems and four 9600 bps modem kits (K9NG's) and will not have to ask anyones permission to put them on the air. As far as what hams are doing, Gilmore has gotten it all wrong in my opinion (stick to computer software John when you want to flame). (1) The ENTIRE amateur radio "network" with very few exceptions is built from equipment that is owned by one individual or a few individuals who have donated the services of THEIR equipment to meeting the needs of others. It is a kludge but their are anecdotal instances of it working very well. I personally send mail to Canada (VE3GYQ) about twice a week and the delivery time has never been more than six hours (New Jersey to VE3) and this is over links that are all 1200 or 300 bits per second. I send mail to California to W0RLI about once a week and it goes 1200 bps to Maryland and then through a 56 Kbps satellite link to California (Frisco) and delivered there. It is a kludge but it does meet some mail needs. (2) Work is going on to build much better networks. It is heartening to see that Gilmore knows about the work of Phil Karn to produce code for interworking because the only reward Phil is getting for this is the knowledge that people of Gilmore's stature know of and appreciate his work. The TCP-IP-UDP implementation that KA9Q has written is currently running away with what has come to be known affectionately as the protocol wars (as it should) BUT there are other folks working on other stuff (OSI software and "home grown" stuff). We are not standing still while dust collects on our shoulders. Phils later submission concerning the conservative nature of hams is unfair in my opinion in that it singles out hams for this "flame". When was the last time you installed new software that caused some member of your computer community to have to learn as much as a single new command? (3) AMSAT/TAPR are funding a digital signal processing project which I co-chair with Tom Clark W3IWI whose purpose is to bring the tools of DSP to bear on amateur signalling problems. We are working on all the tools necessary to bring a mini ISDN into being. Software that currently works on the devices we are working on (TMS320 family) provides ADPCM and LPC encoding of voice at 9600 bps rates and W5SXD is working on some TMS340 video compression schemes. I will unveil my software modem at ARRL L.A. Networking Conference (yes we run a conference every year for the purpose of people-networking of those working on a broad spectrum of topics in computer networking). Tom put together an implementation of a PSK modem for use in satellite digital communications and that is being provided in kit form from TAPR for $100. (4) As for inter and intra continental digital signalling: AMSAT and JAMSAT have together in orbit, working now, two satellites that afford digital communications in some form or another. FO-12, Japan's first amateur radio satellite, has functioning digital repeater software and it also has a a store and forward mailbox on board. The University of Surrey has Oscar-11, which has a digital store and forward capability. Both of these are experimental and do not provide the necessary facilities for major internetworking. HOWEVER, with the development of the PSK modems, and the launch of AMSAT-NA, AMSAT-DL, and others Phase-IIIC, we WILL be able to move megabits of data on a routine basis. Also on board is a dedicated packet experiment that is a simple repeater but can do some store and forward. Phase-IIIC is currently scheduled for launch in March 1988 and we are gearing up now for our big pre-launch publicity push. (5) TAPR is funding a hardware project to try and produce a generic networking box and the interest is very high in producing a follow on to this initial effort in which we have a larger set of development tools available to us so that progress will go faster. (6) The American Radio Relay League's ad hoc digital committee is pursuing and underwriting experiments in signalling working on HF, VHF, UHF, and microwave to find "optimal" solutions for each of these environments. (7) AMSAT is currently funding a reseach project to design a Phase-IV satellite which has come to mean geosynchronous. The digital (nonlinear hard limited high efficiency etc.) transponder on this is now proposed to be T1 for providing large capacity (as far as ham-radio is concerned) pipes for networking. Tony England, head astronaut on the space station project, is also on the engineering team (Phil K., Tom Clark, Bdale Garbee, and myself are readers of this service on the team) for Phase IV. He wants to use the digital transponder for compressed video in a TDRS style operation as an educational tool. Look I could go on until this gets really boring (it already is? Sorry :-). The point is that no one should say that we aren't trying to do better. Don't give up on us yet. If you are interested in participating in some of the projects or want to be put in touch with those who can put you on the project please feel free to call me at home (609)-443-8963 after 8 PM Eastern and before 10 PM Eastern I don't mind putting people to work :-) Bob N4HY
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/28/87)
> When was the last time you installed new software that caused some > member of your computer community to have to learn as much as a > single new command? Today. It was only a reminder program. I ported Xenix/V7 MicroEmacs to System V last week. Took about an hour, I'd guess. And this is at a Fortran shop. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :->
guy@gorodish.UUCP (08/31/87)
> > When was the last time you installed new software that caused some > > member of your computer community to have to learn as much as a > > single new command? > > Today. It was only a reminder program. So some form of coercion was used to force people to learn and use this reminder program? I suspect the person asking the question meant "When was the last time you installed, say, a new version of an *existing* program that forced the users of that program to learn a new command or commands?" Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com
mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier) (08/31/87)
> >> When was the last time you installed new software that caused some >> member of your computer community to have to learn as much as a >> single new command? > > Today. It was only a reminder program. I ported Xenix/V7 MicroEmacs to > System V last week. Took about an hour, I'd guess. And this is at a > Fortran shop. > -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter Peter is certainly smart enough to have guessed, even though I admit it was not explicit, that my comment referred ONLY to those situations where the users had no alternative but to learn something new. Emacs, though readily available, is usually not the only editor in a shop. Bob N4HY
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (09/03/87)
In article <273@idacrd.UUCP>, mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier) writes:
) > -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter
)
) Peter is certainly smart enough to have guessed, even though I admit it
) was not explicit, that my comment referred ONLY to those situations
) where the users had no alternative but to learn something new. Emacs,
) though readily available, is usually not the only editor in a shop.
Yup...Peter sure is. (BTW, for all of you who were wondering, you can blame
my presence on the net on Peter...he's the one that told me about a Unix
that would run on my AT. Nyah.) I have appropriately >splut!<ted him, too.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
"Don't ask ME about Unix... | (or sun!housun!nuchat) CI$: 71036,1603
I speak SNA!" | internet: beats me GEnie: JAYMAYNARD
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Keith Petersen) (09/06/87)
Can we PLEASE have this discussion moved to some other newsgroup? comp.dcom.modems and Info-Modems is not the place for a discussion about Ham Radio. I'm getting complaints from Info-Modems readers and some people are asking to be removed from the list because of this. --Keith Petersen <Info-Modems-Request@SIMTEL20.ARPA>