Posted: 11/14/2015 11:10:02 AM EDT
|
I have always wanted to try packet. When it was really popular, I didn't do it. I didn't have a computer and I didn't have the money to buy one.
I always felt like I was missing out on what was once a very big aspect of ham radio. Everybody I knew in ham radio was on packet. Obviously it's popularity has fallen off the edge of a cliff. I never understood why people always said that the internet put packet out of business, but now I understand after thinking about it a little bit. It isn't that packet is obsolete, but we no longer need a network of thousands of packet nodes across the country to pass traffic. All you need is the ability to pass the traffic to a point where someone has internet connectivity and then they can forward the traffic over the internet. This doesn't make packet obsolete or useless, but it has evolved into a local or regional mode. So, last spring, I bought a Kantronics KPC3+ and tried to get on packet, but I could never make the thing work. Eventually, I took it to a buddy's house and it worked fine; took it back home and nothing. I played with it a few times but was never able to get anything to work. So with late fall/early winter approaching, I am spending a lot more time in the shack and decided to get back to work figuring this thing out. I started out going to a buddy's house where I got together with two other guys who all own Kenwood TH-D72 handhelds and we got them working on packet using the internal TNC. Ok, so I see what packet is now so it's time to go home and get the KPC3+ working. Again, nothing. So, I took my PC and the TNC to the local ARES group last week and asked someone to help me get it working. I was running it off a battery. It worked fine immediately. I can't understand why I can't make it work at home. I take it home, knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing wrong with it. And again, it doesn't work. So, I decide to re-create the exact conditions where it did work. So I reconnect it with the battery and VOILA, it works. After months of on and off playing with this thing I find out that my problem the whole damn time was a bad power supply  . In my own defense I should note that when plugged into the power supply, the front panel LED lights up which I took to mean that everything was OK. I still don't know exactly why it doesn't work with the power supply. I just figured this out this morning and will look into that later today.
So today, I finally have been able to connect with two different packet nodes. I am unable to connect to the closest WINLINK node and I suspect that it isn't on the air. I don't know what, if anything I am going to do with packet, but I can do it if the need arises. I think it is a pretty cool mode, and I think it has some application for ARES type stuff. Yeah, CSB. |
|
Actually it IS a good story of how we come to trust some of our equipment. I have personally seen problems in a test / repair environment caused by an adapter with a 30dB loss. 73, Rob ETA: I just got my old PK-232 up and running and discovered how to get the original software running via DOSBox. Next, I got AGWPE and it's terminal receiving packet on 14.10550. The software has a center pass band of 2210 which luckily I can setup with a narrow filter on my TS-480. I'll have to try a QSO next! Packet would seem to be really valuable if/ when the internet bites the dust during some sort of emergency. (exercise  )
|
|
You're only 30 years late
I think what killed packet off more than anything is the speed limit. 1200 baud is absolutely useless for anything other than plain text. If it had paced other kinds of networking it would still be popular. 0.0012 megabit is just silly. When I was a kid I had a TRS-80 model 100 laptop and a HTX-202. I used an AEA PK-12 which I figured out could run on a 9 volt battery. Being able to carry it around in my backpack and access packet mail from anywhere was awesome. I set up sound card packet a few years ago to monitor APRS stations. That was entertaining for a few minutes I used to carry my VX-8R doing APRS on my motorcycle until I realized it was also transmitting my speed.
|
|
Well......as far as speed, you arn't doing anything that reqires high speed. You are not going to be sending big files or streaming video over radio unless we are talking wifi. Not over HF/VHF/UHF.
You are sending text or very small text files. Then we get into the fact that most hams CHOOSE to stay on 2 meters at 1200 instead of going to UHF at 9600. Again, this isn't broadband Internet speed, but we dont really need that kind of speed with radio. The power supply thing is kind of perplexing. I am using a RigRunner. The "outlet" I was using is putting out 2.88 volts. All the other "outlets" are putting out the correct power supply voltage. I haven't really investigated why. Its time to watch football. |
|
Quoted:
Well......as far as speed, you arn't doing anything that reqires high speed. You are not going to be sending big files or streaming video over radio unless we are talking wifi. Not over HF/VHF/UHF. You are sending text or very small text files. Then we get into the fact that most hams CHOOSE to stay on 2 meters at 1200 instead of going to UHF at 9600. Again, this isn't broadband Internet speed, but we dont really need that kind of speed with radio. The power supply thing is kind of perplexing. I am using a RigRunner. The "outlet" I was using is putting out 2.88 volts. All the other "outlets" are putting out the correct power supply voltage. I haven't really investigated why. Its time to watch football. 2 meters has always been more popular than 440 and always will be. Equipment is easier to find and the signal propagation in easier to work with. UHF packet isn't much of a motivation because 9600 baud is pretty much just as useless as 1200. People use it for text files because that's literally the only option. We don't need broadband speed? It would be incredibly useful if we could. Think real time high res cameras on drones, balloons, whatever. Remote control too. The only thing packet is really useful for is email. If those speeds were possible with ham radio we could do things like mirror wikipedia and other sides for disasters, point to point links of HF remotes, and digital audio modes that would make FM sound terrible. High speed file transfer just doesn't exist in ham radio. That's weird about the power outlet though. Maybe a bad voltage regulator? Should be pretty simple to track down, but I wouldn't have suspected it either. |
|
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. |
|
Quoted:
when I got licensed in 1993 it was really popular every day guys talking about it on 2m repeaters,....sounded really cool I was in my 20's and couldn't afford a computer IPSC and ham radio will keep you poor enough now i have the means, but suspect it's dead . APRS is pretty active. There's one digipeater I can hit but I've never seen anybody on it. 145.01 is effectively empty around here. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand the ISS has a packet dealiebobberthingamajig that does unattended packet. You shoot it up and it shoots you back some kind of "I got it' It's supposed to have a store and forward system, where you can send a message while it's over you and someone on the other side of the world can retrieve it when it's over them. No idea if it still works though. There were some satellites that did the same thing but I think they're all broken now. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand the ISS has a packet dealiebobberthingamajig that does unattended packet. You shoot it up and it shoots you back some kind of "I got it' From what I understand, and it makes sense: yes, it has that ability. However, it is rendered useless because multiple people attempt to connect and transmit simultaneously resulting in packet collisions. I have copied iSS APRS digipeater activity which works fairly well. |
|
Quoted:
when I got licensed in 1993 it was really popular every day guys talking about it on 2m repeaters,....sounded really cool I was in my 20's and couldn't afford a computer IPSC and ham radio will keep you poor enough now i have the means, but suspect it's dead . Again, it isnt dead. But the way it is used is totally different than it used to be. |
Packet geek here. . I too was heavy into packet in the early 90's. The PK-232 is still hooked up in my shack although there is no activity here other than APRS.. Packet would be more popular IF more people were into it. Some of us on this forum played around with HF packet a couple years ago and were able to make contact, but it was sporadic.
If enough ARFhams were to set up an HF station, we could have our own network like whats on 14.105. 
|
|
Quoted:
Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. 
|
|
Quoted:
Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. |
I too have just discovered packet!  I received an Advanced Electronics Applications PK-88 Packet Controller in a box of misc ham gear I bought to get the VHF/UHF amplifier that was part of the deal.
Unfortunately, I don't have a TRS-80 or Commodore 64 so I don't think I have anything to hook it up to.
The good news is that the amplifier (RFC 2/70G) works great. |
|
Quoted:
You are kidding right? Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately, I don't have a TRS-80 or Commodore 64 so I don't think I have anything to hook it up to.
You are kidding right? Only half kidding about the packet controller... The most recent copy of the manual I could find was dated 3/90. |
|
Show off. I've been looking locally for a cheap TNC for a while locally. Noone willing to give them up as it seems most are hanging on to them with the thought they might use it again, despite only using it for a few days back in the 90's. Eyeballed ebay but no deals to be had there from what i've seen. It's great fun once you get it all configured and working, assuming there is activity in the area. I've got a DXcluster, BBS, and Winlink node within a few miles of me. Guy has been running it for years and looking forward to the day I can get back on there. |
|
Well, I believe that instead of buying a hardware TNC, you can do the same thing with a software TNC. I personally don't know anything about this and when I research it, I am left a little bit confused.
I was hoping when I started this thread to get some real discussion about packet including things like doing packet with 21st century equipment like software TNCs, using Raspberry Pis, 9600 baud, how packet fits into ham radio today, how can packet augment other things we are currently doing...................................and not just the normal negativity and off topic thread hijack stuff. So far, I have failed. I also have local access to some packet activity. I mentioned that yesterday I checked into the West Viginia Daren System. I can connect to several of these stations from my house. There is also a fairly close-by Winlink packet node in the next county north of me at their EOC. However, I don't believe it is actually on the air because I can't connect to it and I am positive that if it was working, I could. In addition, I played around with a couple other local guys doing keyboard to keyboard as well as sending email from RMS Express to each other peer to peer and via telnet. THIS GUY really has a lot of interesting stuff that he discusses on his blog. I first linked to this website after someone on here posted a link to it. It is very worthwhile reading. |
|
Quoted:
It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. It's actually worse than that. Stupid dinosaur regulations limit symbol rates on HF to 300 baud. There should be bandwidth limits, not symbol rate limits. Here's a good ARRL editorial on the subject. |
|
Quoted:
Well, I believe that instead of buying a hardware TNC, you can do the same thing with a software TNC. I personally don't know anything about this and when I research it, I am left a little bit confused. I was hoping when I started this thread to get some real discussion about packet including things like doing packet with 21st century equipment like software TNCs, using Raspberry Pis, 9600 baud, how packet fits into ham radio today, how can packet augment other things we are currently doing...................................and not just the normal negativity and off topic thread hijack stuff. So far, I have failed. I also have local access to some packet activity. I mentioned that yesterday I checked into the West Viginia Daren System. I can connect to several of these stations from my house. There is also a fairly close-by Winlink packet node in the next county north of me at their EOC. However, I don't believe it is actually on the air because I can't connect to it and I am positive that if it was working, I could. In addition, I played around with a couple other local guys doing keyboard to keyboard as well as sending email from RMS Express to each other peer to peer and via telnet. THIS GUY really has a lot of interesting stuff that he discusses on his blog. I first linked to this website after someone on here posted a link to it. It is very worthwhile reading. I've recently started doing packet via software TNC using SoundModem by UZ7HO as the TNC and EasyTerm by UZ7HO for the terminal. I'm still a complete n00b, but I'm learning. Also, here in Vegas, there are several packet stations available via our valley-wide AREDN mesh network. Since I'm connected into the mesh (via a 20 mile 2.4 GHz link), I actually use that more often. |
|
I have about 3 or 4 different TNCs laying around here with pretty much NO idea how to use them. APRS was a huge failure for me...I'm man enough to admit it.
There is some semi-local packet traffic/nets I'm aware of....but I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm talking elementary stuff like 'OK, I have a TNC, what now' Later today I'll drag everything out and inventory for a better feel. |
|
Quoted:
It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. Pretty sure we are talking about HF, where the channels are alot smaller than 25kHz... |
|
Quoted:
It's actually worse than that. Stupid dinosaur regulations limit symbol rates on HF to 300 baud. There should be bandwidth limits, not symbol rate limits. Here's a good ARRL editorial on the subject. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, I'm using winlink for HF email.... I WISH that got 1200bps... Try 1-300 bps.... I've been thinking about getting a packet TNC so I use a local access point for it. Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. It's actually worse than that. Stupid dinosaur regulations limit symbol rates on HF to 300 baud. There should be bandwidth limits, not symbol rate limits. Here's a good ARRL editorial on the subject. How do the pactor III and IV modems get around that? They are significantly faster than 300baud IIRC. |
|
SNIP!
I've recently started doing packet via software TNC using SoundModem by UZ7HO as the TNC and EasyTerm by UZ7HO for the terminal. I'm still a complete n00b, but I'm learning. Also, here in Vegas, there are several packet stations available via our valley-wide AREDN mesh network. Since I'm connected into the mesh (via a 20 mile 2.4 GHz link), I actually use that more often. Per my earlier post I tried AGWPE and several terminals including Hamscope and AGWTERM. AGWPE hung up after I had made a connection and shut off the audio or became unresponsive. The UZ7HO sound modem and it's terminal seem to be working FB. I just connected to a station in CO., logged off and continue to monitor just fine. I'll keep using it and see how it plays out. I have the PK-232 running with it's PC Pakratt software in DOSBox on my Win 7 machine with a dedicated RS-232 port. I just felt the need to have a backup running if the PK-232 bit the dust and the dead part was unobtainioum. Contact me if you want help setting up, I still believe a few beacons on 20M might help get a surprise message across the CONUS in an emergency (exercise) .
73, Rob ETS: Yes, I did packet in the 90's, with the same PK-232 I have running now. I did have to replace the DCD level pot! |
|
Quoted:
How do the pactor III and IV modems get around that? They are significantly faster than 300baud IIRC. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Winlink is another one of those technologies that was developed and never improved. I still find it weird that HF limits speed to 300 baud. Its more of a HAM/gear type restriction, modern milpacks can do 2400 or so using multione modems. But they do take a bit of bandwith. http://dev.n8it.org/acs/images/harco-39.jpg It's actually an FCC restriction. 9800 baud is all they allow in a 25 kHz channel. Check out 4RF. They have a 10W SCADA radio that can run 256 kbps in a 25 kHz channel. It's actually worse than that. Stupid dinosaur regulations limit symbol rates on HF to 300 baud. There should be bandwidth limits, not symbol rate limits. Here's a good ARRL editorial on the subject. How do the pactor III and IV modems get around that? They are significantly faster than 300baud IIRC. Pactor 3 gets around the reg's by using 18 carriers each with a symbol rate of 100 baud (DBPSK or DBQSK). Pactor 4 is currently illegal for U.S. hams as at least some of its "speedlevels" use carriers or other modulations (e.g. QAM) which exceed 100 baud by quite a large margin--see SCS' published spec's here. |
|
Quoted:
SNIP! Per my earlier post I tried AGWPE and several terminals including Hamscope and AGWTERM. AGWPE hung up after I had made a connection and shut off the audio or became unresponsive. The UZ7HO sound modem and it's terminal seem to be working FB. I just connected to a station in CO., logged off and continue to monitor just fine. I'll keep using it and see how it plays out. I have the PK-232 running with it's PC Pakratt software in DOSBox on my Win 7 machine with a dedicated RS-232 port. I just felt the need to have a backup running if the PK-232 bit the dust and the dead part was unobtainioum. Contact me if you want help setting up, I still believe a few beacons on 20M might help get a surprise message across the CONUS in an emergency (exercise) .
73, Rob ETS: Yes, I did packet in the 90's, with the same PK-232 I have running now. I did have to replace the DCD level pot! Quoted:
SNIP! I've recently started doing packet via software TNC using SoundModem by UZ7HO as the TNC and EasyTerm by UZ7HO for the terminal. I'm still a complete n00b, but I'm learning. Also, here in Vegas, there are several packet stations available via our valley-wide AREDN mesh network. Since I'm connected into the mesh (via a 20 mile 2.4 GHz link), I actually use that more often. Per my earlier post I tried AGWPE and several terminals including Hamscope and AGWTERM. AGWPE hung up after I had made a connection and shut off the audio or became unresponsive. The UZ7HO sound modem and it's terminal seem to be working FB. I just connected to a station in CO., logged off and continue to monitor just fine. I'll keep using it and see how it plays out. I have the PK-232 running with it's PC Pakratt software in DOSBox on my Win 7 machine with a dedicated RS-232 port. I just felt the need to have a backup running if the PK-232 bit the dust and the dead part was unobtainioum. Contact me if you want help setting up, I still believe a few beacons on 20M might help get a surprise message across the CONUS in an emergency (exercise) .
73, Rob ETS: Yes, I did packet in the 90's, with the same PK-232 I have running now. I did have to replace the DCD level pot! Cool, Rob, thanks. I've got everything set up fine now (although I seem to recall there was some quirk it took me a bit to get past). Now that I'm running, I just need to practice so all of the different commands are internalized. We've got quite a few reachable packet stations & nodes here in Vegas, so I guess we're pretty lucky in that regard. |
|
Quoted:
I think what killed packet off more than anything is the speed limit. 1200 baud is absolutely useless for anything other than plain text. If it had paced other kinds of networking it would still be popular. 0.0012 megabit is just silly. And then cell phone texting came along and reminded us that sometimes, slow and small is all you really need. |
|
Quoted:
And then cell phone texting came along and reminded us that sometimes, slow and small is all you really need. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think what killed packet off more than anything is the speed limit. 1200 baud is absolutely useless for anything other than plain text. If it had paced other kinds of networking it would still be popular. 0.0012 megabit is just silly. And then cell phone texting came along and reminded us that sometimes, slow and small is all you really need. As long as you have the ability to include high res pictures, video, and audio recordings, plus swap contact information easily and quickly. |
|
Quoted:
And then cell phone texting came along and reminded us that sometimes, slow and small is all you really need. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think what killed packet off more than anything is the speed limit. 1200 baud is absolutely useless for anything other than plain text. If it had paced other kinds of networking it would still be popular. 0.0012 megabit is just silly. And then cell phone texting came along and reminded us that sometimes, slow and small is all you really need. Yeah, some people get that. I am one of them. There are all kinds of various modes on all kind of various bands in ham radio. And these modes and bands are used with all kinds of different equipment. For a given situation, you have to look at what is available and choose what is appropriate for a given situation. What is really needed to accomplish what you are trying to do ? Are you trying to make things very complicated and hardware intensive just for the sake of having something that looks impressive, or are you doing that because it is really nessessary ? When you are operating portable, off the commercial power grid including emergency type operations, I am going to go out on a limb and say that simple is usually better. It is easier to get working. It is far less equipment intensive. It is far less electrical power intensive........................... Depending on what kind of traffic you are trying to pass, digital modes with FEC are also nice. |