In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

What do I desire as far as packet operations go?

One thing I used to desire was essentially usenews without the bad words
and spam. But 1200 baud just doesn't cut it anymore. Slower as there
is a lot of dead time.

"1200 baud" (actually 1200 bits per second) is about equivalent to
1200 words per minute as by:

1200 bps = 120 characters per second at 10 bits per character in
the ASCII 8-level character coding commonly used now.
120 characters per second = 7200 characters per minute.
If one "word" consists of 5 text characters plus a space character
(a common measure of throughput in telegraphy the century
before the last one), then 7200 char/min = 1200 words/min.

If the average "fast" radiotelegraphy rate is 20 words/minute,
then "1200 baud" is SIX HUNDRED TIMES FASTER than
average "CW."

Given the two vastly different communication rates, which one is
the "slow" one?

LHA / WMD

Len,

I doubt anyone can read 120 characters per *second*. The need for more and
more speed is being pushed by the desire to send more visually 'appealing'
information. What once was typed into a memo and posted on a bulletin board
("come celebrate Dave's 30 years with the company") in a couple of minutes
has now evolved into a 30 minute or more procedure with the word processor
and all the pretty graphics. It is then passed to the employees as a 100K
file (maybe 500K if Dave's picture is included) via intranet within the
company. This might be nice enough, but is unnecessary information. This
gets much more interesting when someone passes along a virus alert - which
gets forwarded and forwarded ... you get the idea Heck, we used to get
warnings over the company computer about forwarding such stuff.

Mostly, the great advances in communication have resulted in more visual
information being passed. At times, porn is involved. I'm not suggesting
that the higher speed is bad, it certainly isn't. I am suggesting that a
lot of communication going on now might well be described as "bloatware".

Come to think of it, one is safer if you've set your reader to 'text only'
for receive. I wonder why ...
(ps - it is also a good idea to send only plain text. If only plain text
were sent, 1200 baud would be a darn good clip.)


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
"1200 baud" (actually 1200 bits per second) is about equivalent to
1200 words per minute as by:

1200 bps = 120 characters per second at 10 bits per character in
the ASCII 8-level character coding commonly used now.
120 characters per second = 7200 characters per minute.
If one "word" consists of 5 text characters plus a space character
(a common measure of throughput in telegraphy the century
before the last one), then 7200 char/min = 1200 words/min.

If the average "fast" radiotelegraphy rate is 20 words/minute,
then "1200 baud" is SIX HUNDRED TIMES FASTER than
average "CW."

Given the two vastly different communication rates, which one is
the "slow" one?

LHA / WMD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Len,

I doubt anyone can read 120 characters per *second*. The need for more and
more speed is being pushed by the desire to send more visually 'appealing'
information.

I was referring to PACKET type of data. Internet material goes
through faster over a POTS with "attractiveness."

Generic packet transmission goes as "packets of data" along with
sync and system-housekeeping data. That slows down the data
rate in the long run. However, even at half the maximum possible,
data can go zinging through at 60 characters per second or 600
"words" per minute. If the packet stuff was interrupted badly and
required resends such that the maximum rate was dropped to ten
percent, the throughput would be 120 "words" per minute or about
equal to slow speech rate. Packet can sustain throughput as long
as the circuit holds up.


Mostly, the great advances in communication have resulted in more visual
information being passed. At times, porn is involved. I'm not suggesting
that the higher speed is bad, it certainly isn't. I am suggesting that a
lot of communication going on now might well be described as "bloatware".

In that case, newspapers with advertisements have been
"bloatware" for centuries.

One person's "bloat" is another person's gourmet delicacy.

The longest fiber-optic communications line is one that goes from
the UK, through the Med, under-around the Indian Ocean, around
Southeast Asia, and to Japan. Two 4 Gigabit per second optical
fibers, pumped at a light wavelength for amplification. No active
devices IN the cable for repeatering.

Think about it...4,000,000,000 bits per second. And that's not the
fastest comm carrier using fiber.

Come to think of it, one is safer if you've set your reader to 'text only'
for receive. I wonder why ...
(ps - it is also a good idea to send only plain text. If only plain text
were sent, 1200 baud would be a darn good clip.)

This dial-up POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) I connect on
indicates a normal rate prompt of 49333 bps most of the time.
Downloads and uploads go at about 1/10th that rate or roughly
three times faster than 1200 bps data. I'm satisfied with that.

Not bad for a POTS that's only supposed to have a 3 KHz BW
and some folks still saying "it can't possibly send data that
fast!!!" But, it does anyway. :-)

Back a half-century ago, I was keeping SSB transmitters going
that were handling two voice channels and 12 TTY circuits, all
simultaneously in a 12 KHz bandwidth...and that was already
two decades old in radio communications. Back then hams
were bragging up a storm about how they could go "faster" than
20 words per minute. They still do, but the data rates have gone
up far more. Manual "CW" maximum rate is still the same as it
was a half century ago.

If you want to call anything faster than 40 wpm as "bloatware,"
fine. Your choice. You might also think about why a half
million Teletype terminals were made and how all those tele-
printer things displaced the old landline telegraphy operators
long ago with all that 60 and 100 wpm "bloatware" text copy.

LHA / WMD

CB Packet radio in Australia on the normal 40 channels both 27Mhz & 476/477Mhz UHF is illegal in Australia.

However via a loophole you can operate packet on the in between channels on 27Mhz at 1 Watt EIRP thanks to the LIPD Act. (Low Interferance Devices act).

The ACMA really needs to look into better usage of these bands by allowing more freedom on what can be done there.

In my opinion all modes, emission types , and variable frequency stepping should be allowed.

They should also follow the international CEPT standard of 80 channels.

FM and Packet on 27Mhz and Packet on UHF CB should be an easy given in this day and age for CB.

.-.-.

Those were all good points.
I was going to add that the Citizens Band there is more closely regulated then it is in the USA and that they are not running Packet on AM but on FM.
FM is not legal on the 27 mhz Citizens Band in the USA, nor is repeaters.

Packet does have it's uses, it is used as a part of the TNC for APRS, which is widely used by 2 meter and 440 mhz amateur use in the USA.