, 2006 5:58
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Kantronics,
Kam XL
Are these modes X25 compatable? As in can they be used within the
packet radio network?This is something we are currently looking for to
help increase andreplace the 300 Baud HF standard that has been used for
Are these modes X25 compatable?
As in can they be used within the packet radio network?
This is something we are currently looking for to help increase and
replace the 300 Baud HF standard that has been used for far too long
now within the packet networks.
At present we are looking at Q15X25,
> About Pax/Pax2, some weeks ago a Ham told me about adding these modes in
> the Multipsk_Client program. This program (source and .EXE available
> from my site) permits to interface with Multipsk through a TCP/IP link
> in almost all modes, Multipsk becoming a sort of TCP/IP modem. So I have
>
-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:31 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
> Jose A. Amador wrote:
> Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be conside
o Multispk (becoming a sort of "black box") through the TCP/IP
link).
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
Kantronics, Kam XL
While I agree that we need to only allow non-proprietary modes on
amateur radio, it appears that it is about a decade late to argue that
point, as at least here in the U.S. it has been approved by the FCC even
with very sketchy outlines of the descriptions of the modes and even
with the inabili
> Jose A. Amador wrote:
> Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate
> modems formats?
There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary
formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.
Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode
idea and all have failed. Kant
