Article: 52314 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Jerry" Subject: Thruth about WINLINK! Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:04:49 -0500 Message-ID: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth proposal, there is little time left to do so. Comments should be sent to: bandwidth@arrl.org It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in the 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meter bands. This does not include their efforts to swallow up 1/2 of the 30 meter band. CW users will give up the most when you consider that these users will share their remaining bandwidth with all "narrow" digital modes ... which is everything BUT WL2K. Also, packet radio will forever be laid to rest on the HF bands, as the proposal will eliminate those miniscule parts of the bands for their auto-forwarding. If it's OK with you to give up 40% of your favorite bands to internet e-mail spewing Pactor III robots, then disregard this message, and your wish will come true. The ARRL is wearing blinders, and can only see one direction at this time, and that's WL2K. I don't intend to stand idly by and give up 40% of our most popular bands so some rich dudes in their motor homes, or on sailboats, can enjoy cheating the legitimate ISP's out of the fees that they charge for providing this service. I am all in favor of reorganizing our allocations in an effort to accommodate new digital modes, but this proposal takes way too much from the 98% of amateur radio operators who are not interested in turning our hobby into a cheap internet e-mail gateway for the rich and priviledged. Oh yeah, they will cry emergency communications, and the "amateur radio inernet e-mail for every EM's desk" motto, but it's just not worth it. Tell the ARRL how you feel ... this could certainly be your last chance to do so. Ponder this ... if these new wideband modes are soooo efficient, then why do they require 20 Khz of space? If you give packet radio 20 Khz, it too could be much faster. The speed limit on packet radio is now determined by the pitiful amount of bandwidth allocated to them. Why does WL2K, a proprietary mode, with very high startup costs deserve all of this spectrum when packet radio has had to deal with the microscopic slices of bandwidth for all of these years??? It just smells of yesterday's garbage, and I don't think that the proposal, in it's current form, will benefit anyone but the 2% minority fighting for 40% of our bands. For the record ... I do NOT, nor do I plan to utilize packet radio on the HF bands. My concerns are for the service in general, and the negative impact this proposal will have. Best 73, Luke Bannister AD4MG -------------- Deputy State Emergency Radio Officer - Digital Communications Virginia RACES, Inc. Article: 52315 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Jerry" Subject: Re: VHF/UHF Packet In Your Area Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:06:45 -0500 Message-ID: <114ta91s6edp665@corp.supernews.com> References: <4v99l0pfq2pdkmmdhqdghqrob4ar3aapsm@4ax.com> <2eCdnSYf1KLaLMncRVn-tg@comcast.com> <9tc9l0tce84rd6i8dk3s8856o5s5sm9j04@4ax.com> www.w9otr.org www.n9lya.com www.uspacket.org "William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message news:Xns9570B5422EF72AX2A3DA5M1512AODKAMO@216.196.97.142... >> 1) Keyboard-to-keyboard ops > > Very dead! They use echolink around here. > >> 2) BBS ops > > Very slight resurgence. > >> 3) APRS > > Probably the same as last year. > > This is in EMA. > > -- > William H. O'Hara KB1LEH Article: 52316 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Jerry" Subject: Re: Development of APRS Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:15:54 -0500 Message-ID: <114ta92fd62fd67@corp.supernews.com> References: John, Winlink has from day one (Aug 2004) when I called Steve k4cjx and asked how can I help.. And was told all packeteers are (Explicitive removed). If you must know email me privately n9lya@n9lya.com ... Quickly found found that winlink wants to coexist with NO ONE.. So we tried that in fact I have tried 5 times nmow to solicit cooperation from winlink.. they have an agenda... They want to pursue that agenda and do it alone... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth proposal, there is little time left to do so. Comments should be sent to: bandwidth@arrl.org It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in the 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meter bands. This does not include their efforts to swallow up 1/2 of the 30 meter band. CW users will give up the most when you consider that these users will share their remaining bandwidth with all "narrow" digital modes ... which is everything BUT WL2K. Also, packet radio will forever be laid to rest on the HF bands, as the proposal will eliminate those miniscule parts of the bands for their auto-forwarding. If it's OK with you to give up 40% of your favorite bands to internet e-mail spewing Pactor III robots, then disregard this message, and your wish will come true. The ARRL is wearing blinders, and can only see one direction at this time, and that's WL2K. I don't intend to stand idly by and give up 40% of our most popular bands so some rich dudes in their motor homes, or on sailboats, can enjoy cheating the legitimate ISP's out of the fees that they charge for providing this service. I am all in favor of reorganizing our allocations in an effort to accommodate new digital modes, but this proposal takes way too much from the 98% of amateur radio operators who are not interested in turning our hobby into a cheap internet e-mail gateway for the rich and priviledged. Oh yeah, they will cry emergency communications, and the "amateur radio inernet e-mail for every EM's desk" motto, but it's just not worth it. Tell the ARRL how you feel ... this could certainly be your last chance to do so. Ponder this ... if these new wideband modes are soooo efficient, then why do they require 20 Khz of space? If you give packet radio 20 Khz, it too could be much faster. The speed limit on packet radio is now determined by the pitiful amount of bandwidth allocated to them. Why does WL2K, a proprietary mode, with very high startup costs deserve all of this spectrum when packet radio has had to deal with the microscopic slices of bandwidth for all of these years??? It just smells of yesterday's garbage, and I don't think that the proposal, in it's current form, will benefit anyone but the 2% minority fighting for 40% of our bands. For the record ... I do NOT, nor do I plan to utilize packet radio on the HF bands. My concerns are for the service in general, and the negative impact this proposal will have. Best 73, Luke Bannister AD4MG -------------- Deputy State Emergency Radio Officer - Digital Communications Virginia RACES, Inc. "John Galt" wrote in message news:caebd920.0411221143.31934ef0@posting.google.com... > "Charles Brabham" wrote in message: > >> APRS was developed as a packet radio "killer application" by folks >> associated with TAPR in the US. > > Hi Charles: > > I don't believe that is true. If you'll check early issues of Gateway > (I think around 1993) you'll see APRS was initially developed to track > sailboats out of the U.S. Naval academy in Annapolis, MD. So if you > want to go pointing fingers, point it at the U.S. Navy. > > Now, if your claiming TAPR shameless tried to ride the coattails of > APRS, then I will agree with you. Their only real contribution to APRS > was to form the APRS working group, which they quickly cut and run > from leaving a adminstrative FUBAR'ed mess behind. > > >> The idea is to kill any interest in packet by eliminating its most >> interesting and useful features, substituting a pointless >> internet-dependent >> activity sure to put just about anyone to sleep. > > Have you even run APRS? Up until about 1998 it didn't even use the > internet, and the way it uses the internet is as a giant data > collector. APRS is firmly in the RF domain, even if some people use it > to track their homes ;-( > >> APRS fits TAPR's ideal of a "killer application" perfectly - It kills off >> all interest in the hobby. > > TAPR bashing aside, APRS has generated quite a bit of interest in the > hobby, and a strong case could be made it has prolonged interest in RF > based packet radio. > >> The more TNC's they can talk hams into tying up >> so they can report thier house's position on the internet, the less will >> be >> used for communicating as hams or doing anything else that may be >> interesting or useful. > > Ahh.... now that is the rub, isn't it? "anything interesting or > useful" > > What do you suggest? The only other popular packet application on the > horizon I see is WinLink. You may not like that, but those are the > facts. And oh, did I mention, WinLink has a form of APRS position > reporting in it as well. > > Charles, you interest in some of streaming protocols is well placed. > This could be a killer application if further developed and refined. > If your that concerned, I suggest putting efforts into that. Article: 52317 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: Dr. Anton T. Squeegee Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:02:14 -0800 Message-ID: References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> In article <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com>, n9lya@blueriver.net says... > If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth > proposal, there is little time left to do so. Comments should be sent to: > > bandwidth@arrl.org > > It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow > WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in the What would really have helped is links to sites that support your assertions. I've visited both the ARRL site at this link: http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/04/01/1/?nc=1 ...and winlink.org at this one... http://winlink.org/sysop/PMBO_FREQ.htm ...and I can't find anything which leads me to believe that there would be any sort of "packet-spewing robots" polluting the HF bands. In fact, I don't see anything other than a neat-looking project to establish a worldwide digital network that does not depend on the Internet. If you can give a clearer explanation of how you came to your conclusions, including some specific references to back them up, I will cheerfully make my voice heard at ARRL (I'm a lifetime member). 73 de KC7GR -- Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute. (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR, kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with surreal ports?" Article: 52318 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Hank Oredson" References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:58:55 GMT "Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message news:MPG.1cb86fee170dc028989700@localhost... > In article <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com>, n9lya@blueriver.net > says... > >> If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth >> proposal, there is little time left to do so. Comments should be sent >> to: >> >> bandwidth@arrl.org >> >> It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will >> allow >> WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in >> the > > > > What would really have helped is links to sites that support your > assertions. I've visited both the ARRL site at this link: > > http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/04/01/1/?nc=1 > > ...and winlink.org at this one... > > http://winlink.org/sysop/PMBO_FREQ.htm > > ...and I can't find anything which leads me to believe that there > would be any sort of "packet-spewing robots" polluting the HF bands. In > fact, I don't see anything other than a neat-looking project to > establish a worldwide digital network that does not depend on the > Internet. Except for the minor points that WinLink2K requires the internet to work, and uses the internet to "forward" it's traffic ... > If you can give a clearer explanation of how you came to your > conclusions, including some specific references to back them up, I will > cheerfully make my voice heard at ARRL (I'm a lifetime member). Read up on WinLink2K, AirMail, etc. Google will help. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli Article: 52319 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Hank Oredson" References: <114ta92fd62fd67@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Development of APRS Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:00:38 GMT Yes indeed there is an agenda, and that agenda does NOT use Amateur Radio to move the traffic. The entire concept is flawed when you consider how it will fail in emergencies. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli "Jerry" wrote in message news:114ta92fd62fd67@corp.supernews.com... > John, Winlink has from day one (Aug 2004) when I called Steve k4cjx and > asked how can I help.. And was told all packeteers are (Explicitive > removed). If you must know email me privately n9lya@n9lya.com > ... Quickly found found that winlink wants to coexist with NO ONE.. So we > tried that in fact I have tried 5 times nmow to solicit cooperation from > winlink.. they have an agenda... They want to pursue that agenda and do it > alone... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth > proposal, there is little time left to do so. Comments should be sent to: > > bandwidth@arrl.org > > It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow > WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in > the 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meter bands. This does not include their > efforts to swallow up 1/2 of the 30 meter band. CW users will give up the > most when you consider that these users will share their remaining > bandwidth with all "narrow" digital modes ... which is everything BUT > WL2K. Also, packet radio will forever be laid to rest on the HF bands, as > the proposal will eliminate those miniscule parts of the bands for their > auto-forwarding. > > If it's OK with you to give up 40% of your favorite bands to internet > e-mail spewing Pactor III robots, then disregard this message, and your > wish will come true. The ARRL is wearing blinders, and can only see one > direction at this time, and that's WL2K. I don't intend to stand idly by > and give up 40% of our most popular bands so some rich dudes in their > motor homes, or on sailboats, can enjoy cheating the legitimate ISP's out > of the fees that they charge for providing this service. > > I am all in favor of reorganizing our allocations in an effort to > accommodate new digital modes, but this proposal takes way too much from > the 98% of amateur radio operators who are not interested in turning our > hobby into a cheap internet e-mail gateway for the rich and priviledged. > Oh yeah, they will cry emergency communications, and the "amateur radio > inernet e-mail for every EM's desk" motto, but it's just not worth it. > > Tell the ARRL how you feel ... this could certainly be your last chance to > do so. > > Ponder this ... if these new wideband modes are soooo efficient, then why > do they require 20 Khz of space? If you give packet radio 20 Khz, it too > could be much faster. The speed limit on packet radio is now determined > by the pitiful amount of bandwidth allocated to them. Why does WL2K, a > proprietary mode, with very high startup costs deserve all of this > spectrum when packet radio has had to deal with the microscopic slices of > bandwidth for all of these years??? It just smells of yesterday's > garbage, and I don't think that the proposal, in it's current form, will > benefit anyone but the 2% minority fighting for 40% of our bands. > > For the record ... I do NOT, nor do I plan to utilize packet radio on the > HF bands. My concerns are for the service in general, and the negative > impact this proposal will have. > > Best 73, > Luke Bannister AD4MG > > -------------- > Deputy State Emergency Radio Officer - Digital Communications > Virginia RACES, Inc. > > "John Galt" wrote in message > news:caebd920.0411221143.31934ef0@posting.google.com... >> "Charles Brabham" wrote in message: >> >>> APRS was developed as a packet radio "killer application" by folks >>> associated with TAPR in the US. >> >> Hi Charles: >> >> I don't believe that is true. If you'll check early issues of Gateway >> (I think around 1993) you'll see APRS was initially developed to track >> sailboats out of the U.S. Naval academy in Annapolis, MD. So if you >> want to go pointing fingers, point it at the U.S. Navy. >> >> Now, if your claiming TAPR shameless tried to ride the coattails of >> APRS, then I will agree with you. Their only real contribution to APRS >> was to form the APRS working group, which they quickly cut and run >> from leaving a adminstrative FUBAR'ed mess behind. >> >> >>> The idea is to kill any interest in packet by eliminating its most >>> interesting and useful features, substituting a pointless >>> internet-dependent >>> activity sure to put just about anyone to sleep. >> >> Have you even run APRS? Up until about 1998 it didn't even use the >> internet, and the way it uses the internet is as a giant data >> collector. APRS is firmly in the RF domain, even if some people use it >> to track their homes ;-( >> >>> APRS fits TAPR's ideal of a "killer application" perfectly - It kills >>> off >>> all interest in the hobby. >> >> TAPR bashing aside, APRS has generated quite a bit of interest in the >> hobby, and a strong case could be made it has prolonged interest in RF >> based packet radio. >> >>> The more TNC's they can talk hams into tying up >>> so they can report thier house's position on the internet, the less will >>> be >>> used for communicating as hams or doing anything else that may be >>> interesting or useful. >> >> Ahh.... now that is the rub, isn't it? "anything interesting or >> useful" >> >> What do you suggest? The only other popular packet application on the >> horizon I see is WinLink. You may not like that, but those are the >> facts. And oh, did I mention, WinLink has a form of APRS position >> reporting in it as well. >> >> Charles, you interest in some of streaming protocols is well placed. >> This could be a killer application if further developed and refined. >> If your that concerned, I suggest putting efforts into that. > > Article: 52320 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: Paul Rubin Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> Date: 02 Apr 2005 12:46:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> "Jerry" writes: > this time, and that's WL2K. I don't intend to stand idly by and give up 40% > of our most popular bands so some rich dudes in their motor homes, or on > sailboats, can enjoy cheating the legitimate ISP's out of the fees that they > charge for providing this service. Why stop there? Why not ban ham radio altogether, since (for example) ham voice communication cheats all those poor starving phone companies? > Ponder this ... if these new wideband modes are soooo efficient, then why do > they require 20 Khz of space? If you give packet radio 20 Khz, it too could > be much faster. The speed limit on packet radio is now determined by the > pitiful amount of bandwidth allocated to them. I'm all in favor of more bandwidth for spread spectrum packet, since it means less likelihood of interference (a voice or CW conversation could happen right on top of a 20 khz packet session without either interfering with the other). But I agree ham radio should not be a general purpose internet gateway. One reasonable solution could be to limit the maximum bit rate on HF to RTTY speed, 60 bits/sec or so, while still allowing spreading the 60 bits/sec across 20 khz of bandwidth. That's fast enough to send reasonable email and to have realtime text chat, would not require any tuning, and would be very effective at low transmit power. I've been interested in this approach for quite a while. > Why does WL2K, a proprietary mode, with very high startup costs > deserve all of this spectrum when packet radio has had to deal with > the microscopic slices of bandwidth for all of these years??? I'm not familiar with WL2K but I don't like the idea of any type of proprietary mode being given special recognition in the band plan for any reason. Article: 52321 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Charles Brabham" References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! Message-ID: Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:23:34 GMT "Paul Rubin" wrote in message news:7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > > I'm not familiar with WL2K but I don't like the idea of any type of > proprietary mode being given special recognition in the band plan > for any reason. I know what you mean... When the ARRL starts to mandate which digital mode we must use, then rationality and the scientific method both go out the window. - By introducing "politics" ( if you want to call fascism 'politics' ) into the matter, the ARRL puts itself on the tabloid level. - They undermine themselves while doing the same to the rest of hobby. Corruption and stupidity at ARRL HQ... Sumner and Haynie are both in this, up to thier eyebrows. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php Article: 52322 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: Paul Rubin Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Date: 02 Apr 2005 17:55:56 -0800 Message-ID: <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> "Charles Brabham" writes: > I know what you mean... When the ARRL starts to mandate which digital mode > we must use, then rationality and the scientific method both go out the > window. I don't have a problem with the idea of mandating in favor of some digital modes at the expense of others. But the mandated modes should be non-proprietary. Spectrum is not the property of any particular vendor. Article: 52323 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Hank Oredson" References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! Message-ID: Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 04:20:09 GMT "Paul Rubin" wrote in message news:7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Charles Brabham" writes: >> I know what you mean... When the ARRL starts to mandate which digital >> mode >> we must use, then rationality and the scientific method both go out the >> window. > > I don't have a problem with the idea of mandating in favor of some > digital modes at the expense of others. But the mandated modes should > be non-proprietary. Spectrum is not the property of any particular > vendor. I think you missed the point. WinLink2K depends on connectivity to the internet to work. For emergency communication it is totally useless. If the internet were available, one would simple USE it in the normal manner. If it is not available, WinLink2K is of no help to you at all. The whole concept is a scam. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli Article: 52324 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: Paul Rubin Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Date: 02 Apr 2005 20:50:31 -0800 Message-ID: <7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> "Hank Oredson" writes: > I think you missed the point. > > WinLink2K depends on connectivity to the internet to work. For > emergency communication it is totally useless. I'm not sure what WinLink2K is or what its relation to emergency communication is supposed to be. Is there a url about it? I've been interested for a while in a packet mode that uses the internet. An endpoint node wouldn't have to be on the net, but it would connect to a remote node that also had internet connectivity. So it would be fine for an emergency at the endpoint. If there was a catastrophe that took out the whole internet, then it wouldn't work. Article: 52325 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:29:49 +1000 From: Bob Bob Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Message-ID: Gidday Paul There has been for years The NOS TCP/IP over AX25 system that was setup around the late 1980's allows you to have gateways with various interfaces and tunnels. ie connected radios, modems, ethernet etc. There use to be quite a few wormholes where one use to pass packets without infringing amateur licenses. Basically you can either run TCP/IP over radio and internet links with any kind of routing/rerouting protocol you like. Each point where there are dual interfaces can also be an intelligent gateway/server. Apart from political and possibly legal reasons there is no technical problem with setting up a RF (amateur) link to replace/failover internet ones. Some care must obviously be exercised in bandwidth requirements. There is a lot more available on this that is beyond the small scope of my post. Linux boxes for example can do this job nowadays. I believe there are Windows equivalents but havent checked. Cheers Bob VK2YQA Paul Rubin wrote: > > I'm not sure what WinLink2K is or what its relation to emergency > communication is supposed to be. Is there a url about it? > > I've been interested for a while in a packet mode that uses the > internet. An endpoint node wouldn't have to be on the net, but it > would connect to a remote node that also had internet connectivity. > So it would be fine for an emergency at the endpoint. If there was a > catastrophe that took out the whole internet, then it wouldn't work. Article: 52326 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: Paul Rubin Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Date: 02 Apr 2005 23:21:41 -0800 Message-ID: <7x3bu8l3zu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Bob Bob writes: > The NOS TCP/IP over AX25 system that was setup around the late 1980's > allows you to have gateways with various interfaces and tunnels. I'm familiar with NOS but I don't understand what it has to do with WinLink2K. What specifically is WinLink2K? Thanks. Article: 52327 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:01:09 +0200 From: Frits Subject: Re: EchoLink References: <421b9e61$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <424fb0d5$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> Howard schreef: > Has anyone set up a D-Link DI-624+ for use with EchoLink. I've set it up as > the example in the EchoLink help file but it doesn't work. It works OK with > a standard DSL modem. > Thanks. Howard. > > Hi, Maybe this will help a bit. I have a D-Link 614+ and have it set up as follows: ADVANCED Tab Applications: Special Application Special Application is used to run applications that require multiple connections. Enabled Name Echolink Trigger Port 5198 - 5199 Trigger Type Both Public Port 5198,5199 Public Type Both Success! Frits Article: 52328 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:36 +1000 From: Bob Bob Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7x3bu8l3zu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Message-ID: Sorry Paul I havent been taking any notice of it.. Anything with "Win" in its name implies an OS I dont use! (or at least very rarely) Cheers Bob Paul Rubin wrote: > I'm familiar with NOS but I don't understand what it has to do with > WinLink2K. What specifically is WinLink2K? Thanks. Article: 52329 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Hank Oredson" References: <114ta918ktv2v64@corp.supernews.com> <7x8y403o0x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xhdiovd1v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Subject: Re: Thruth about WINLINK! Message-ID: Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:56:27 GMT Goggle WinLink, WL2K, AirMail. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli "Paul Rubin" wrote in message news:7xekdsmpk8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Hank Oredson" writes: >> I think you missed the point. >> >> WinLink2K depends on connectivity to the internet to work. For >> emergency communication it is totally useless. > > I'm not sure what WinLink2K is or what its relation to emergency > communication is supposed to be. Is there a url about it? > > I've been interested for a while in a packet mode that uses the > internet. An endpoint node wouldn't have to be on the net, but it > would connect to a remote node that also had internet connectivity. > So it would be fine for an emergency at the endpoint. If there was a > catastrophe that took out the whole internet, then it wouldn't work. Article: 52330 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: gswiebeREMOVE_THIS@mts.net Subject: Re: Heard a Digi Mode, what is it? Message-ID: <425010b8.900500@news.mts.net> References: <41dd9bcf.22291052@usenet.magma.ca> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:57:48 GMT When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP. WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with IE? 73 de Glenn...VE4GN On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector" wrote: > >Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's >http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/ > >http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/ > >http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/DIG_intro.htm > >Good Luck >-- >Caveat Lector > > Article: 52331 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "carlrtaylor2" Subject: Tiny 2 Mk 1 Firmware Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Hi all - Would anyone happen to know whether the Version 5 Firmware EPROM chip will work in the U2 socket in a Tiny 2 Mk1? Thanks Regards Carl Article: 52332 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: gswiebeREMOVE_THIS@mts.net Subject: Re: Heard a Digi Mode, what is it? Message-ID: <42505c4f.20250687@news.mts.net> References: <41dd9bcf.22291052@usenet.magma.ca> <425010b8.900500@news.mts.net> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:19:31 GMT Thanks for your prompt response, Danny. Question. 1) If Netscape/WMP does not need Quick Time why does IE6/WMP? Also a quick check using Google indicates that Quick Time is an Apple program so I assume it won't fly with Windows XP. Glenn On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:41:59 -0700, Dan Richardson wrote: >You need to install QuickTime. > >Danny, K6MHE > > >On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:57:48 GMT, gswiebeREMOVE_THIS@mts.net wrote: > >>When I use IE 6 to go to these sites I cannot not listen to the sound >>bytes, Windows Media Player starts and then informs me that it cannot >>play the file. If I use Netscape 7.2 I can listen to them using WMP. >>WMP is the default wav file player. Anybody know by it won't work with >>IE? >> >>73 de Glenn...VE4GN >> >> >>On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:51:49 -0800, "Caveat Lector" >>wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Nigel maybe compare it to the digital on-line sounds at these URL's >>>http://www.wunclub.com/sounds/ >>> >>>http://www.kb9ukd.com/digital/ >>> >>>http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/DIG_intro.htm >>> >>>Good Luck >>>-- >>>Caveat Lector >>> >>> > Article: 52334 of rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc From: "Hank Oredson" References: Subject: Re: sound card Message-ID: <3n43e.125$N13.94@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:46:55 GMT "Marco S Hyman" wrote in message news:x7mzsjmiar.fsf@neko.snafu.org... > "Hank Oredson" writes: > >> Get the generic SBLive! installer from Creative's web site. > > Perhaps if I had a windows partition on this box, but I don't. > Apparently Gateway has a windows driver for this specific card, too. > >> Details on the different cards can often be found via >> a Google of their CTxxxx number. > > Yep. My card is the CT4830 which apparently some software reports > as a CT4832. The Gateway version of this card removed the S/PDIF > output jack and multiplexed it onto the line out 1 jack with some > (undocumented) way to switch between audio and digital output. > I got around that by using the line out 2 jack. Play works just > fine. > > But recording gives me silence. I suspect there's an internal mapping > in the the EMU-10K1 that isn't being set correctly by the *BSD driver. > I get silence on line in and mic in. It's a digital interface issue > as the mixer is more than happy to route mic and/or line in to my > line out. > >> I've picked up a number of the older "SBLive! Gamer Value" >> variety on eBay, generally for about $10 - $12. These are pretty >> generic versions of the Live!, and have the four jacks instead of 3. >> Was going to check CT number, but all are in computers right now. >> CT4670 or 4560 sounds kinda familiar. > > That's an idea. I've also been told that older Ensoniq PCI audio > cards will work well in my environment. I guess it's ebay time. > I'm tired of looking at audio driver code and guessing what the > relevant bits may be. I've had some problems with the Ensoniq cards, and now just toss 'em in the trash. Long story, but I tend to end up with a lot of older compturs to recycle into ham radio use. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli