Hello Jay, Ok.. thanks for that and I've added that to my Rpi v2 documentation for people looking for a shortcut. If anyone is aware of other packet-centric Rpi images, I'd love to hear from you. A little off topic but it seems I now need to update my doc a bit since the Rpi v3 is out. It brings in native 802.11n wifi, Bluetooth 4.1, a faster CPU (4x 64bit 1.2G cores running the ARM v8 instruction set), etc. ~50% faster than the Rpi v2. My only complaint is that it doesn't support external antennas for the Wifi/BT side of things. This URL and associated YouTube video is a good / short intro in to what makes the Rpi v3 new: https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/03/04/raspberry-pi-3-model-b-breakdown-on-ra… --David KI6ZHD

According to the TNC-X website, John Hansen claims to be working on a 9K6 modem but that was quite a few years back and nothing has been heard since. I'd LOVE a 9K6+++ modem but they just don;t seem to be available. I've looked at quite a few of the old designs that came out of German and Slovenia back in the late 90's and early 2K's. They are either no longer available, require an SCC card to provide clocks etc, have no driver support any more or require firmware which is unavailable. Whilst the soundcard road is somewhat acceptable, a hardware modem can't be beat.. Mark NI2O/G7LTT On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Jerry DeLong <kd4yal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Has anyone seen any TNC are TNC-Pi like but support higher baud rate then > 1200? > > > > Jerry, KD4YAL > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM, David Ranch <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote: > > > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Beyond what others have mentioned like the TNC-Pi (nice kit), using a $7 > > USB soundcard and Direwolf will provide superior decodes. As for OS > images > > to run, that are packet centric, there are several available: > > > > - Bernard's new Jessie based image for TNC-Pi - > > http://f6bvp.org/AX25_BBS_Node_RaspBerry_Pi_install.html > > > > - Mitch's Wheezy based image with setup GUI which supports TNC-X and > > Direwolf - https://sourceforge.net/projects/haldigital/ > > > > - I've been working on my own documentation for such a thing (v2 on > > Jessie is close but incomplete, v1 for Wheezy is done) for Direwolf and > > TNC-Pi - http://www.trinityos.com/HAM/CentosDigitalModes/RPi/ > > > > - Brett's TNC-Pi centric image - > > https://sites.google.com/a/thinkonit.com/ax25-fpac/ > > > > > > I'm sure there are others out there as well but these are the ones I'm > > aware of at the moment. > > > > --David > > KI6ZHD > > > > _________________________________________ > > 44Net mailing list > > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net > > >

SCS TNC tracker (http://www.p4dragon.com/en/Modems.html#widget4) and the sound card modes such as DireWolf and UZ7HO now claim to support 19,200 so 9600 should be doable. Bill, WA7NWP

I have a paccomm 9600 which i really never used much way back when. I'd unload it if anyone wants it. please contact me off list. Leon WA4ZLW On 3/2/2016 6:43 PM, Jerry Kutche (N9LYA) wrote:

I don't know how it is up there in the Frozen North but here in the US our "300bd restriction" is very often misunderstood. We are allowed a symbol rate of 300bd. Not a data rate. If we can jamb 1.2mbps into a 300bd symbol rate we could use it. Mark NI2O On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:56 AM, ve1jot <ve1jot(a)eastlink.ca> wrote:

I just went digging into the Canadian regs that I can find online - and they seem to have been massively simplified compared to earlier releases. This one: <http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10650.html> shows only bandwidth limitations on most of the bands (including most HF bands) - mode of emission and data rate is not mentioned at all. I know that this was the eventual intent when the regs were redone in the late '70s, but is that what actually happened? Is there something I've missed from there, or from <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-484/index.html> ? - Richard, VE7CVS On 3/3/16 7:33 AM, Mark Phillips wrote:

Richard, The simplified changes that I am aware of make Amateur Radio Experimentation easier in Canada in as much as the regulations^[1][2] limit the bandwidth use and input power. The rest is left to coordination with neighboring frequency reuse (such as repeater councils) and agreed band plans[3] (RAC/ARRL/etc). Canadian link references follow: [1] http://wp.rac.ca/study-guides-2/regulatory-info/ [2] http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf01226.html#t1 [3] http://wp.rac.ca/rac-0-30-mhz-band-plan/ Michael Durrant VE3PNX ve3pnx at andier.com www.packetradio.ca . On 2016-03-03 (W10) 11:04 AM, Richard Chycoski wrote:

I've heard of them using 9600 on HF over in Eu.... On 16-03-03 11:33 AM, Mark Phillips wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > I don't know how it is up there in the Frozen North but here in the US our > "300bd restriction" is very often misunderstood. We are allowed a symbol > rate of 300bd. Not a data rate. If we can jamb 1.2mbps into a 300bd symbol > rate we could use it. > > Mark > NI2O > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:56 AM, ve1jot &lt;ve1jot(a)eastlink.ca&gt; wrote: > >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >> _______________________________________________ >> And there is still an extensive packet network, with more nodes being >> deployed, in fact, there seems to be a resurgence of the mode, as folks have >> mentioned...but I have dropped my hardware TNC's in favor of software >> modems that are more robust, less current drain, less birdies, and options >> that were only dreamed about back in packets hey-day thanks to uz7ho, >> uronode,bpq,FBB, Direwolf to name just a few...and these are actively being >> maintained..in fact, I may have forgotten a few others...packet is alive >> and well, and not just as aprs nodes...and with the advent of very >> inexpensive computers like the pi, arduino, etc etc, it's a LOT of fun and >> I see a lot of newcomers, even on slow old 300 baud HF daily...there *has* >> been experimentation with higher data rates on HF, but our archaic laws >> prevent us from going much faster than 300b on HF...9600b *is* doable on >> HF, but not legal below 28mhz...that law needs to be revised, hi hi! >> (and yes, TCP/IP also works on HF, but painful due to low 300b restriction) >> Cheers, >> John >> >> >> On 16-03-02 07:43 PM, Jerry Kutche (N9LYA) wrote: >> >>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Yes I have an SCS Tracker and yes it too can do 9600 baud.. >>> >>> A lot of miss information going on here... >>> >>> That's two TNCs... Still in production.... Any more probably... >>> >>> 73 jerry n9lya >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: 44Net >>> [mailto:44net-bounces+n9lya=uronode.n9lya.ampr.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On >>> Behalf Of Bill Vodall >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 6:18 PM >>> To: AMPRNet working group &lt;44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu&gt; >>> Subject: Re: [44net] Making Packet Node with Pi ? >>> >>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> I'd LOVE a 9K6+++ modem but they just don;t seem to be available. >>>> >>> SCS TNC tracker (http://www.p4dragon.com/en/Modems.html#widget4) and the >>> sound card modes such as DireWolf and UZ7HO now claim to support >>> 19,200 so 9600 should be doable. >>> >>> Bill, WA7NWP >>> _________________________________________ >>> 44Net mailing list >>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >>> >>> _________________________________________ >>> 44Net mailing list >>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >>> >> _________________________________________ >> 44Net mailing list >> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >> >

I will ask the source that told me...he told me using usb, normal b/w.... they were using uz7ho soundmodem...15 meters... On 16-03-03 12:51 PM, R P wrote:

Pactor 4 using a P4dragon Modem (very pricey) can go up to 10500bps with compression when transferring a text file or half when transferring an already compressed file! It only needs a 2.4KHZ bandwidth, but Pactor can only do a P2P connection, it is not like AX25 PACKET! Not good for US though, "thanks" to FCC's 300baud symbol rate restrictions of HF. Allowed everywhere else in the world! --- 73 Δημήτρης - SV1UY 73 de Demetre - SV1UY IP Coordinator for AMPRNet in Greece e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org AMPRnet e-mail: sv1uy(a)sv1uy.ampr.org PACKET mail: SV1UY(a)SV1UY.ATH.GRC.EU WEB: http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy On 3 March 2016 at 18:51, R P &lt;ronenp(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

Regarding an STA for higher data rates experimentation: I would think a well written proposal accompanied by the signature of a number of licensed operators willing to participate in experiments would go a long way. Count me in as one who would be willing to sign on. Ken - KD6OAT On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Brian Kantor &lt;Brian(a)ucsd.edu&gt; wrote:

Is this how STAs now work? When we were implementing packet radio in Canada in the late seventies, American hams claimed that the STA process was slow and difficult, the equivalent to getting an act through Congress that was difficult and slow Was this real at the time? Is it better now? I may have to go through this to push a new mesh protocol through as STA (yah, gotta do my local exams first!) and what to know what I'll be up against. - Richard On 3/4/16 10:30 PM, ve1jot wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > +1 > > On 16-03-04 08:16 PM, kd6oat wrote: >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >> _______________________________________________ >> Regarding an STA for higher data rates experimentation: I would think a >> well written proposal accompanied by the signature of a number of >> licensed >> operators willing to participate in experiments would go a long way. >> Count >> me in as one who would be willing to sign on. >> Ken - KD6OAT >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Brian Kantor &lt;Brian(a)ucsd.edu&gt; wrote: >> >>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> In the FCC arena, one of the better ways to get technical restrictions >>> removed is to apply for and operate under an STA - Special Temporary >>> Authority, a document from the FCC that basically allows you to operate >>> an exception to the normal rules. Typically the only requirement is >>> that you make a good case for it technically and that you write up a >>> report afterwards. In the past, STAs have been the basis for >>> changes to >>> the rules. Someone who writes well may want to consider submitting >>> one to >>> allow higher data rates based solely on bandwidth and then >>> experimenting >>> with it. >>> >>> Another possibility is to apply for a Experimental Radio Service >>> license >>> which basically allows you to do just about anything if you can make a >>> good case for it. They used to be a little expensive and they require >>> a written report on what you found out with your experiments but it >>> does >>> allow nearly anything you can think of. >>> - Brian >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:42:09PM +0200, Demetre - SV1UY wrote: >>>> Not good for US though, "thanks" to FCC's 300baud symbol rate >>> restrictions of HF. >>> _________________________________________ >>> 44Net mailing list >>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >>> >>