Elecraft › [K3]

Give us a network interface

Classic

List

Threaded

Locked 32 messages Options

N3PSJ-2

Give us a network interface

Once more I will make my plea for a network interface in the K3 and now the
P3.

I, like others, have had issues getting the serial communications working.
I understand that setting up a network device is a little more complicated
than a serial device, but it would eliminate all the issues introduced by
having to run custom software (LP Bridge) to communicate between more than
one software application and the K3 or P3. It would also eliminate the need
to communicate through the P3 to talk to the K3.

Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure, many
of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it, the
software designers will be quick to add it.

Ken Nicely KE3C
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ken Nicely (N3PSJ)

alsopb

Re: Give us a network interface

Ken Nicely wrote:

> Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
> program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
> simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure, many
> of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
> need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it, the
> software designers will be quick to add it.
>

I really doubt that last sentence. Do you have proof this will be the
case--something like surveying the authors of most of the
logging/contesting programs out there and getting their opinion.

73 de Brian/K3KO
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Pete Smith N4ZR

Re: Give us a network interface

I have discussed this with N1MM often - we don't understand why ham
radio hasn't made the transition to Ethernet long since. Shouldn't
Elecraft lead the way?

73, Pete N4ZR

The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000

On 8/29/2010 8:36 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:

> Ken Nicely wrote:
>
>
>> Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
>> program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
>> simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure, many
>> of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
>> need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it, the
>> software designers will be quick to add it.
>>
>>
> I really doubt that last sentence. Do you have proof this will be the
> case--something like surveying the authors of most of the
> logging/contesting programs out there and getting their opinion.
>
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by N3PSJ-2

> Sure, many of these software programs do not support network
> connections yet, but we need the hardware to support it first.
> Once the hardware supports it, the software designers will be
> quick to add it.

I seriously doubt that. Most software writers tend to support a
common feature set for all transceivers. Unless they are writing
transceiver specific 'remote operation' or 'soft front panel'
applications, they will continue to write to a serial interface -
whether it is implemented as a standard serial port or a USB to
serial converter - and support set/get for frequency and mode
because that's what is available in the 10s of thousands of
transceivers already in user hands.

The Omni VII has a true network interface ... do you see ANY of
the major software packages supporting the full feature set of
the Omni VII via Ethernet? No, the only software to take full
advantage of the Omni VII capability is TenTec's own package.

> Once more I will make my plea for a network interface in the K3
> and now the P3.

In addition to the lack of usefulness with third party software,
this is a bad idea in general. It would generally require a
separate controller (or much larger controller) and would add
significant complexity and cost with no corresponding benefit
for the overwhelming majority of users.

The K3 provides a rich (although sometimes cumbersome) interface
for external control. If you want a network level interface, the
Programmer's Guide provides enough information that you can build
your own.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 8/29/2010 8:18 AM, Ken Nicely wrote:

> Once more I will make my plea for a network interface in the K3 and now the
> P3.
>
> I, like others, have had issues getting the serial communications working.
> I understand that setting up a network device is a little more complicated
> than a serial device, but it would eliminate all the issues introduced by
> having to run custom software (LP Bridge) to communicate between more than
> one software application and the K3 or P3. It would also eliminate the need
> to communicate through the P3 to talk to the K3.
>
> Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
> program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
> simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure, many
> of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
> need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it, the
> software designers will be quick to add it.
>
> Ken Nicely KE3C
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Jack Brabham KZ5A

Re: Give us a network interface

Not to mention that Ethernet has a nasty habit of creating RFI, at
least in my experience.

Now on the other hand native USB might be a simple and useful upgrade
from serial, and with the appropriate driver could appear as a "virtual"
serial port to existing software.

73 Jack KZ5A
K3 #4165

On 8/29/2010 8:51 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> > Sure, many of these software programs do not support network
> > connections yet, but we need the hardware to support it first.
> > Once the hardware supports it, the software designers will be
> > quick to add it.
>
> I seriously doubt that. Most software writers tend to support a
> common feature set for all transceivers. Unless they are writing
> transceiver specific 'remote operation' or 'soft front panel'
> applications, they will continue to write to a serial interface -
> whether it is implemented as a standard serial port or a USB to
> serial converter - and support set/get for frequency and mode
> because that's what is available in the 10s of thousands of
> transceivers already in user hands.
>
> The Omni VII has a true network interface ... do you see ANY of
> the major software packages supporting the full feature set of
> the Omni VII via Ethernet? No, the only software to take full
> advantage of the Omni VII capability is TenTec's own package.
>
> > Once more I will make my plea for a network interface in the K3
> > and now the P3.
>
> In addition to the lack of usefulness with third party software,
> this is a bad idea in general. It would generally require a
> separate controller (or much larger controller) and would add
> significant complexity and cost with no corresponding benefit
> for the overwhelming majority of users.
>
> The K3 provides a rich (although sometimes cumbersome) interface
> for external control. If you want a network level interface, the
> Programmer's Guide provides enough information that you can build
> your own.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 8/29/2010 8:18 AM, Ken Nicely wrote:
>> Once more I will make my plea for a network interface in the K3 and now the
>> P3.
>>
>> I, like others, have had issues getting the serial communications working.
>> I understand that setting up a network device is a little more complicated
>> than a serial device, but it would eliminate all the issues introduced by
>> having to run custom software (LP Bridge) to communicate between more than
>> one software application and the K3 or P3. It would also eliminate the need
>> to communicate through the P3 to talk to the K3.
>>
>> Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
>> program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
>> simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure, many
>> of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
>> need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it, the
>> software designers will be quick to add it.
>>
>> Ken Nicely KE3C
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

ac0h

Re: Give us a network interface

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Not such a good idea either.

Elecraft would have to provide drivers for every conceivable hardware
(some of it should have been in the dump years ago if you judge by what
shows up at hamfests) and operating system combination in use.

I guarantee this will be posted on this reflector soon after the KIO3
supports USB.

"But why can't I run my USB ported K3 with my Windows 95 computer?
Elecraft needs to fix this"

Do you really want communications with your rig dependent on the future
whims of Microsoft and Apple?

Serial just plain works. Some USB to serial adapters don't.
If you've got a desktop computer without serial ports add an PCI adapter
card for $10. Anybody who can build a K3 can add a serial card to a
computer.

If you've got a laptop.....well you're already using a marginal computer
and are already at the mercy of the Prolific and FTDI drivers. I doubt
Elecraft want to make ALL of their customers dependent on those drivers.

On 8/29/2010 9:10 AM, Jack Brabham wrote:

> Now on the other hand native USB might be a simple and useful upgrade
> from serial, and with the appropriate driver could appear as a "virtual"
> serial port to existing software.
>
> 73 Jack KZ5A
> K3 #4165
>
>

- --
R. Kevin Stover

ACØH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMenIoAAoJEAu8BkU0m9MnC/IH/RT4QvL+V6rxaEq+eEX7l066
Ax6Hw8yhbhbnAhkBTIXIsSTHSsWaDr8Lkuvsq/oEIJn8RWjxzUXXXljCUj822CMh
1zbrzWuir++w7q744ppXNbnKvlOn/kwUv+KQPOFkrB1JmEY78tkr9CC0y2JWnZxp
joID1QZnnST2pFpvQCXIFTTOk+zarUPsEed0TtK1tztC7NxANHAOngkcmzt8IyiE
KGxqkWf8x2daK1TMoyeu7fuXLhNMv4oF8FuBNWbDnuQG3KeF0EmLzNQFpqUtO2xE
LvWi3ZSLFwj9g7kJcTaa55nGgPjYLHUM7M9M+e+0yMkPc82Dmocmk5tEj1uSSxU=
=DGqv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Give us a network interface

> Serial just plain works. Some USB to serial adapters don't.

Can you imagine the screams if Elecraft had released the K3 with
USB ONLY and used the Prolific chipset like the first KUSB? The
rig would have instantly been incompatible with large list of
popular amateur software including N1MM Logger, DXLab Suite,
Logger32, DX4Win, and N3FJP's various programs.

There would have been no way for Elecraft to resolve that issue
unless they were willing to write chipset drivers for every version
of Windows and get them all certified by Microsoft. Can you say,
"I'd rather not!"?

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 8/29/2010 10:43 AM, R. Kevin Stover wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not such a good idea either.
>
> Elecraft would have to provide drivers for every conceivable hardware
> (some of it should have been in the dump years ago if you judge by what
> shows up at hamfests) and operating system combination in use.
>
> I guarantee this will be posted on this reflector soon after the KIO3
> supports USB.
>
> "But why can't I run my USB ported K3 with my Windows 95 computer?
> Elecraft needs to fix this"
>
> Do you really want communications with your rig dependent on the future
> whims of Microsoft and Apple?
>
> Serial just plain works. Some USB to serial adapters don't.
> If you've got a desktop computer without serial ports add an PCI adapter
> card for $10. Anybody who can build a K3 can add a serial card to a
> computer.
>
> If you've got a laptop.....well you're already using a marginal computer
> and are already at the mercy of the Prolific and FTDI drivers. I doubt
> Elecraft want to make ALL of their customers dependent on those drivers.
>
> On 8/29/2010 9:10 AM, Jack Brabham wrote:
>
>> Now on the other hand native USB might be a simple and useful upgrade
>> from serial, and with the appropriate driver could appear as a "virtual"
>> serial port to existing software.
>>
>> 73 Jack KZ5A
>> K3 #4165
>>
>>
>
> - --
> R. Kevin Stover
>
> ACØH
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMenIoAAoJEAu8BkU0m9MnC/IH/RT4QvL+V6rxaEq+eEX7l066
> Ax6Hw8yhbhbnAhkBTIXIsSTHSsWaDr8Lkuvsq/oEIJn8RWjxzUXXXljCUj822CMh
> 1zbrzWuir++w7q744ppXNbnKvlOn/kwUv+KQPOFkrB1JmEY78tkr9CC0y2JWnZxp
> joID1QZnnST2pFpvQCXIFTTOk+zarUPsEed0TtK1tztC7NxANHAOngkcmzt8IyiE
> KGxqkWf8x2daK1TMoyeu7fuXLhNMv4oF8FuBNWbDnuQG3KeF0EmLzNQFpqUtO2xE
> LvWi3ZSLFwj9g7kJcTaa55nGgPjYLHUM7M9M+e+0yMkPc82Dmocmk5tEj1uSSxU=
> =DGqv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

N3PSJ-2

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by alsopb

No. I cannot say I have surveyed any other software programmers. But as
the author of K-Keys (granted a very minor program compared to most of the
HR software packages) I would add it in a heartbeat. It would take about 24
hours to add it and test. It is a very simple matter of redirecting the
communication. Most of the time would be adding the setup screens.

Ken Nicely KE3C

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Brian Alsop <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ken Nicely wrote:
>
> > Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow each
> > program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
> > simplifying the communication between the software and the rig. Sure,
> many
> > of these software programs do not support network connections yet, but we
> > need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports it,
> the
> > software designers will be quick to add it.
> >
>
> I really doubt that last sentence. Do you have proof this will be the
> case--something like surveying the authors of most of the
> logging/contesting programs out there and getting their opinion.
>
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Ken Nicely (N3PSJ)

Bob Naumann W5OV

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by Jack Brabham KZ5A

USB and serial port virtualization has the same issues (drivers, software
incompatibility, etc.) as with USB to RS232 adapters.

Net gain = zip.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jack Brabham
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:11 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Give us a network interface

Not to mention that Ethernet has a nasty habit of creating RFI, at least
in my experience.

Now on the other hand native USB might be a simple and useful upgrade from
serial, and with the appropriate driver could appear as a "virtual"
serial port to existing software.

73 Jack KZ5A
K3 #4165

On 8/29/2010 8:51 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

working.
>> I understand that setting up a network device is a little more
>> complicated than a serial device, but it would eliminate all the
>> issues introduced by having to run custom software (LP Bridge) to
>> communicate between more than one software application and the K3 or
>> P3. It would also eliminate the need to communicate through the P3 to
talk to the K3.

>>
>> Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow
>> each program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3,
>> greatly simplifying the communication between the software and the
>> rig. Sure, many of these software programs do not support network
>> connections yet, but we need the hardware to support it first. Once
>> the hardware supports it, the software designers will be quick to add it.
>>
>> Ken Nicely KE3C
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this
>> email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Gary Ferdinand

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by alsopb

So many modern contesting programs already support Ethernet for multi ops.
I agree...use proper networking protocols instead of a decades-old antique
mechanism. Or..failing that use native USB support.

73/Gary W2CS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brian Alsop
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:37 AM
> Cc: elecraft
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Give us a network interface
>
> Ken Nicely wrote:
>
> > Please give us a network port on the K3 and P3. This would allow
> each
> > program to independently communicate with both the K3 and P3, greatly
> > simplifying the communication between the software and the rig.
> Sure, many
> > of these software programs do not support network connections yet,
> but we
> > need the hardware to support it first. Once the hardware supports
> it, the
> > software designers will be quick to add it.
> >
>
> I really doubt that last sentence. Do you have proof this will be the
> case--something like surveying the authors of most of the
> logging/contesting programs out there and getting their opinion.
>
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

N3PSJ-2

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by ac0h

Elecraft would only need to program their interface. The network drivers
for windows have been available for 15 or 20 years now.

I do agree with the serial to usb issues. That is really why I want the
network interface. It avoids all these issues and also makes LP Bridge
unnecessary because it allow the K3 to communicate independently with each
software application.

Ken Nicely KE3C

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:43 AM, R. Kevin Stover <[hidden email]>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not such a good idea either.
>
> Elecraft would have to provide drivers for every conceivable hardware
> (some of it should have been in the dump years ago if you judge by what
> shows up at hamfests) and operating system combination in use.
>
> I guarantee this will be posted on this reflector soon after the KIO3
> supports USB.
>
> "But why can't I run my USB ported K3 with my Windows 95 computer?
> Elecraft needs to fix this"
>
> Do you really want communications with your rig dependent on the future
> whims of Microsoft and Apple?
>
> Serial just plain works. Some USB to serial adapters don't.
> If you've got a desktop computer without serial ports add an PCI adapter
> card for $10. Anybody who can build a K3 can add a serial card to a
> computer.
>
> If you've got a laptop.....well you're already using a marginal computer
> and are already at the mercy of the Prolific and FTDI drivers. I doubt
> Elecraft want to make ALL of their customers dependent on those drivers.
>
> On 8/29/2010 9:10 AM, Jack Brabham wrote:
>
> > Now on the other hand native USB might be a simple and useful upgrade
> > from serial, and with the appropriate driver could appear as a "virtual"
> > serial port to existing software.
> >
> > 73 Jack KZ5A
> > K3 #4165
> >
> >
>
> - --
> R. Kevin Stover
>
> ACØH
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMenIoAAoJEAu8BkU0m9MnC/IH/RT4QvL+V6rxaEq+eEX7l066
> Ax6Hw8yhbhbnAhkBTIXIsSTHSsWaDr8Lkuvsq/oEIJn8RWjxzUXXXljCUj822CMh
> 1zbrzWuir++w7q744ppXNbnKvlOn/kwUv+KQPOFkrB1JmEY78tkr9CC0y2JWnZxp
> joID1QZnnST2pFpvQCXIFTTOk+zarUPsEed0TtK1tztC7NxANHAOngkcmzt8IyiE
> KGxqkWf8x2daK1TMoyeu7fuXLhNMv4oF8FuBNWbDnuQG3KeF0EmLzNQFpqUtO2xE
> LvWi3ZSLFwj9g7kJcTaa55nGgPjYLHUM7M9M+e+0yMkPc82Dmocmk5tEj1uSSxU=
> =DGqv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Ken Nicely (N3PSJ)

Matthew D. Fuller-2

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by ac0h

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 09:43:52AM -0500 I heard the voice of
R. Kevin Stover, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Do you really want communications with your rig dependent on the
> future whims of Microsoft and Apple?

And what about those of us who run neither? Problem**2.

> Serial just plain works.

This is the important point. RS-232 serial is *DEAD* simple. I'll
bet there are people here on the list who've built stuff that does
basic stuff over serial on a breadboard for burger-money prices. You
just put bits in one end, it comes out the other, aside from baud rate
there's no configuration, and there's hardware and drivers for any
hardware/software combo built in the last 40 years.

USB is a totally different world. It's not just a hose you can dump
bits into one end and out the other. It's a whole higher level
multi-point protocol. Now you need much more hardware and software on
the radio side, and additional drivers/software on the computer side.

And Ethernet is beyond that; I doubt anybody really wants a
transceiver that works over _Ethernet_; they want one that works over
TCP/IP (if you want it over Appletalk or IPX or DECnet, just raise
your hand now and somebody will be around to smack you sillier
momentarily ;). Now you need a whole IP stack too, plus whatever
custom protocol you write on top for the radio control. Carambe!

--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [hidden email]
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

ac0h

Re: Give us a network interface

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:38:32 -0500
"Matthew D. Fuller" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And what about those of us who run neither? Problem**2.

LibHamlib won't be going anywhere soon and I doubt anybody with
anything to say about the Linux kernel will advocate dumping RS-232
support, lest they be smitten with a dead fish.

> This is the important point. RS-232 serial is *DEAD* simple. I'll
> bet there are people here on the list who've built stuff that does
> basic stuff over serial on a breadboard for burger-money prices. You
> just put bits in one end, it comes out the other, aside from baud rate
> there's no configuration, and there's hardware and drivers for any
> hardware/software combo built in the last 40 years.
>
> USB is a totally different world. It's not just a hose you can dump
> bits into one end and out the other. It's a whole higher level
> multi-point protocol. Now you need much more hardware and software on
> the radio side, and additional drivers/software on the computer side.
>
> And Ethernet is beyond that; I doubt anybody really wants a
> transceiver that works over _Ethernet_; they want one that works over
> TCP/IP (if you want it over Appletalk or IPX or DECnet, just raise
> your hand now and somebody will be around to smack you sillier
> momentarily ;). Now you need a whole IP stack too, plus whatever
> custom protocol you write on top for the radio control. Carambe!

Agreed. The only Ham Radio app I know of that uses TCP/IP for anything
is HRD and that is used for HRD/DM780/Sat Tracker inter-operation over
the local host interface, NOT rig control.

RS-232 is perfect for how 99% of Hams use their radios.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Nate Bargmann

Re: Give us a network interface

* On 2010 29 Aug 16:22 -0500, Kevin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:38:32 -0500
> "Matthew D. Fuller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > And what about those of us who run neither? Problem**2.
>
> LibHamlib won't be going anywhere soon

I trust that you mean Hamlib won't be *going away* anytime soon. :-)

We're planning to release version 1.2.12 soon. BTW, Hamlib isn't
limited to Linux as we also release Win32 binaries and it is
incorporated into some Windows software, notably Fldigi.

> and I doubt anybody with
> anything to say about the Linux kernel will advocate dumping RS-232
> support, lest they be smitten with a dead fish.

Ethernet is becoming almost as ubiquitous as RS-232, probably more so
with new products. What would be needed is a TCP/IP stack in the
Ethernet IO board in the radio and even that seems to be everywhere
these days.

If I had to choose between USB and Ethernet, I think Ethernet would be
the better long term choice.

> Agreed. The only Ham Radio app I know of that uses TCP/IP for anything
> is HRD and that is used for HRD/DM780/Sat Tracker inter-operation over
> the local host interface, NOT rig control.
>
> RS-232 is perfect for how 99% of Hams use their radios.

True, but why limit ourselves...

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Martin Sole-2

Re: Give us a network interface

I'll admit to not having a horse in this race directly so far as it relates
to Elecraft radios. I do see that Ethernet as the interface medium is
becoming more widely used and one way that this affects commercial equipment
but does not seem to have been picked up here is that the use of Ethernet
brings other possible functions to the party. For work I am involved in Air
Traffic communications and one of the changes currently being implemented on
the infrastructure side is to move from analogue voice interfaces to digital
voice interfaces. This seems primarily driven by Telco's wishes to cheapen
their networks perhaps but is a reality nonetheless. Faced with this radio
equipment is being essentially forced into providing the necessary
interfaces to work with what Telco's are willing to provide. Traditionally
this was a 4 wire analogue line circuit with separate signalling interfaces.
As the infrastructure moved to digital PDH and SDH other functions became
available such as channels on links catering for RS232 etc. Today direct
interfacing to a higher level such as E1 is almost mandatory as Telco's
pursue a desire to reduce investment in hardware by not providing the
de/multiplex functionality. More recent changes are the move to IP based
systems, typically Ethernet, through a standard that allows this in the
commercial Air Traffic communications world. Clearly there are benefits when
installing and maintaining a large system whereby one essentially generic
hardware interface, CAT-X/RJ, fits all and additionally allows integration
of multiple services.

Typically ham radios have various and different interfaces with their
attendant level and matching variances. Whilst RS232 or some such remains
the de-facto standard this will likely remain. A move to an IP interface
would remove the need for much of this hardware. One port for all, control,
signalling (PTT/FSK), audio. Any sort of audio and communications interface
in a radio like a K3 could easily be exchanged for one do-everything port.
Since any on board CODEC would be designed to suit the radio, interfacing of
audio would become almost a thing of the past, as much as dipping the plate
:)

Nobody 'wants' to do this. Talk to any hardware or software provider and
they will all roll out many reasons not to do it. In the commercial world
the costs drive it and Telco's demand for an ever fatter bottom line is what
drives it in that sphere. At the amateur level it really should be coming
from another angle altogether. Ask a manufacturer of any product to add such
new untested and essentially innovative functionality is unlikely to be
successful, they too are in it for the money. Providers of free software,
N1MM, DX-lab, HRD etc, are another matter, more driven it seems to provide
functionality and expand on the various hardware capabilities for everyone's
enjoyment but they are really the cart behind the horse.

I don't know the hardware that well but looking at the rear of the K3 I see
the audio interfaces and the RS232 as well as the multi-function ACC
connector are on one panel. I wonder if they share a common interface? This
would naturally lend itself to being removed and replaced with an Ethernet
port. Hey maybe this is why they are all together? Dunno! I think from a
field and expedition point of view Ethernet makes sense if fully implemented
including control, signalling and voice. You only need carry an Ethernet
cable and having been to some of the world's most out of the way places I
can assure you Ethernet cables, made up or in component parts are available
anywhere, PC headsets too are universally available. Today everything from a
netbook to a desktop and every portable computer in between has an Ethernet
port. There seems little reason not to do it other than entrenched views and
catering to a market led by users whose demands seem to rarely expand beyond
a basic set of wishes.

I'd add my voice to the call for Ethernet and on several fronts. Interface
simplicity for the user, this means the hardware and software providers have
to get it right to make it simple but that should be the challenge. Greater
flexibility with multiple connections sharing one interface. Near ubiquity
of Ethernet on all other system parts, pc's. A more elegant interface
scheme, products like the radio, add on panadaptor, computer, SteppIR
controller, rotator, other semi intelligent hardware, all connected to a
router operating as a mini radio network all able to talk to each other and
arbitrate control.

Martin, HS0ZED

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Jeff Cochrane - VK4XA

Re: Give us a network interface

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Brendan Minish

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by Matthew D. Fuller-2

On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 15:38 -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:

> And Ethernet is beyond that; I doubt anybody really wants a
> transceiver that works over _Ethernet_; they want one that works over
> TCP/IP

Not only would it need to support a relativity bug free IPv4 Stack but
it would also need to support IPv6.
IPv6 may not matter much in the short term, especially on a LAN but in
the next few years we will see Domestic Broadband providers rolling out
IPv6 to end users, The big advantage here for users will be that there
will be enough publicly route-able addresses to give every IP capable
device in the house a unique, static address. This will be a big Plus
for remote operating etc.
The driver for us ISP's is the imminent shortage of IPv4 addresses which
will begin to affect our bottom line shortly..

There would be a fair bit of work in implementing TCP/IP properly and
the features it would bring have minority appeal (I am one of that
minority)
I would prefer to see the K3 stay with the well implemented Serial and
analog audio interfacing that it currently has. That way I can, if I
desire implement my own TCP/IP stack on external hardware running open
source software.
It would be nice to have Audio I/O available as a digital stream at some
stage though.

> (if you want it over Appletalk or IPX or DECnet, just raise
> your hand now and somebody will be around to smack you sillier
> momentarily ;).

DECnet is sitting in the linux kernel, unloved and underused, my vote is
for DECnet and to keep away from all this newfangled TCP/IP stuff

--
73
Brendan EI6IZ

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Dick Dievendorff

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by Martin Sole-2

Perhaps the RRC-Micro-PC Client advertised at http://www.remoterig.com will
be interesting to those who wish to put their radio on the internet for
access by a PC from another site.

Dick, K6KR

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin Sole
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:59 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Give us a network interface

I'll admit to not having a horse in this race directly so far as it relates
to Elecraft radios. I do see that Ethernet as the interface medium is
becoming more widely used and one way that this affects commercial equipment
but does not seem to have been picked up here is that the use of Ethernet
brings other possible functions to the party. For work I am involved in Air
Traffic communications and one of the changes currently being implemented on
the infrastructure side is to move from analogue voice interfaces to digital
voice interfaces. This seems primarily driven by Telco's wishes to cheapen
their networks perhaps but is a reality nonetheless. Faced with this radio
equipment is being essentially forced into providing the necessary
interfaces to work with what Telco's are willing to provide. Traditionally
this was a 4 wire analogue line circuit with separate signalling interfaces.
As the infrastructure moved to digital PDH and SDH other functions became
available such as channels on links catering for RS232 etc. Today direct
interfacing to a higher level such as E1 is almost mandatory as Telco's
pursue a desire to reduce investment in hardware by not providing the
de/multiplex functionality. More recent changes are the move to IP based
systems, typically Ethernet, through a standard that allows this in the
commercial Air Traffic communications world. Clearly there are benefits when
installing and maintaining a large system whereby one essentially generic
hardware interface, CAT-X/RJ, fits all and additionally allows integration
of multiple services.

Typically ham radios have various and different interfaces with their
attendant level and matching variances. Whilst RS232 or some such remains
the de-facto standard this will likely remain. A move to an IP interface
would remove the need for much of this hardware. One port for all, control,
signalling (PTT/FSK), audio. Any sort of audio and communications interface
in a radio like a K3 could easily be exchanged for one do-everything port.
Since any on board CODEC would be designed to suit the radio, interfacing of
audio would become almost a thing of the past, as much as dipping the plate
:)

Nobody 'wants' to do this. Talk to any hardware or software provider and
they will all roll out many reasons not to do it. In the commercial world
the costs drive it and Telco's demand for an ever fatter bottom line is what
drives it in that sphere. At the amateur level it really should be coming
from another angle altogether. Ask a manufacturer of any product to add such
new untested and essentially innovative functionality is unlikely to be
successful, they too are in it for the money. Providers of free software,
N1MM, DX-lab, HRD etc, are another matter, more driven it seems to provide
functionality and expand on the various hardware capabilities for everyone's
enjoyment but they are really the cart behind the horse.

I don't know the hardware that well but looking at the rear of the K3 I see
the audio interfaces and the RS232 as well as the multi-function ACC
connector are on one panel. I wonder if they share a common interface? This
would naturally lend itself to being removed and replaced with an Ethernet
port. Hey maybe this is why they are all together? Dunno! I think from a
field and expedition point of view Ethernet makes sense if fully implemented
including control, signalling and voice. You only need carry an Ethernet
cable and having been to some of the world's most out of the way places I
can assure you Ethernet cables, made up or in component parts are available
anywhere, PC headsets too are universally available. Today everything from a
netbook to a desktop and every portable computer in between has an Ethernet
port. There seems little reason not to do it other than entrenched views and
catering to a market led by users whose demands seem to rarely expand beyond
a basic set of wishes.

I'd add my voice to the call for Ethernet and on several fronts. Interface
simplicity for the user, this means the hardware and software providers have
to get it right to make it simple but that should be the challenge. Greater
flexibility with multiple connections sharing one interface. Near ubiquity
of Ethernet on all other system parts, pc's. A more elegant interface
scheme, products like the radio, add on panadaptor, computer, SteppIR
controller, rotator, other semi intelligent hardware, all connected to a
router operating as a mini radio network all able to talk to each other and
arbitrate control.

Martin, HS0ZED

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Jack Brabham KZ5A

Re: Give us a network interface

In reply to this post by Martin Sole-2

From my perspective, I see serial interfaces as increasingly
problematic due to unavailability.

PC motherboard manufacturers are dropping serial ports due to a
widespread lack of use and interest. And as many have noted, USB to
serial converters can be a PITA.

My current Mobo, which is about 3 years old and due for replacement this
winter, has one serial port that exists on some header that is not
brought out to the rear panel. Finding a PCI RS-232 serial board for
it that had Win 7-64 drivers was a challenge. I only found one. When
Win 8 comes around next year the number of supported serial boards could
easily become zero. PCI slots are also on the way out, many current
high end boards now only include one "token" PCI slot with the rest of
the slots being some flavor of PCI-E

None of the current issue motherboards I'm considering for my next
station PC include a serial port or more than one PCI slot.

So, I'm sorry for those who find serial ports warm and comforting, but
they a about to join paper tape punches/readers, 8 inch floppys, and
CRTs on the list of quaint old technologies that are no longer
manufactured or supportable.

In the meanwhile, rigs and other station equipment are ever increasingly
interconnected and interdependent (read "networked").

Clinging to serial ports is not really a viable option going forward,
neither in terms of providing the desired functionality nor of being
supported by general market hardware/software suppliers. TCP/IP over
Ethernet wouldn't exactly be a giant leap into the future but it is
already supported by any number of ham applications for networking and
for internal communications between modules.

In the meanwhile I'm really glad to have LP_Bridge and the MicroHam
Router so the station works almost like it had a real network.

73 Jack KZ5A
K3 #4165

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Guy, K2AV

Re: Give us a network interface

I have a PCI express card with two serial ports on it. I don't see
PCIX slots going out any time soon. My new Asus mobo has FOUR PCIX
slots in it. Three full and one short. I did not need drivers for
the card, Win7 Pro/64 found them, I assigned them com 1&2 in the
hardware management and have had zero problems. My motherboard has no
serial ports. In contrast, using the USB/serial ports was a series of
wars with a few too-short periods of peace, always interrupted by the
OS.

The problem of insisting on Ham radio equipment manufactures
supporting the patently NON-standard USB standard is driving up
mamufacturer's costs and running into problems every time the OS has
to be patched to get around some security hack. Followed by Wayne
having to upgrade and recertify the Elecraft drivers before the fix
can be distributed. Microsoft is NOT paying for this stuff.

73, Guy

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Jack Brabham <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From my perspective, I see serial interfaces as increasingly
> problematic due to unavailability.
>
> PC motherboard manufacturers are dropping serial ports due to a
> widespread lack of use and interest. And as many have noted, USB to
> serial converters can be a PITA.
>
> My current Mobo, which is about 3 years old and due for replacement this
> winter, has one serial port that exists on some header that is not
> brought out to the rear panel. Finding a PCI RS-232 serial board for
> it that had Win 7-64 drivers was a challenge. I only found one. When
> Win 8 comes around next year the number of supported serial boards could
> easily become zero. PCI slots are also on the way out, many current
> high end boards now only include one "token" PCI slot with the rest of
> the slots being some flavor of PCI-E
>
> None of the current issue motherboards I'm considering for my next
> station PC include a serial port or more than one PCI slot.
>
> So, I'm sorry for those who find serial ports warm and comforting, but
> they a about to join paper tape punches/readers, 8 inch floppys, and
> CRTs on the list of quaint old technologies that are no longer
> manufactured or supportable.
>
> In the meanwhile, rigs and other station equipment are ever increasingly
> interconnected and interdependent (read "networked").
>
> Clinging to serial ports is not really a viable option going forward,
> neither in terms of providing the desired functionality nor of being
> supported by general market hardware/software suppliers. TCP/IP over
> Ethernet wouldn't exactly be a giant leap into the future but it is
> already supported by any number of ham applications for networking and
> for internal communications between modules.
>
> In the meanwhile I'm really glad to have LP_Bridge and the MicroHam
> Router so the station works almost like it had a real network.
>
>
> 73 Jack KZ5A
> K3 #4165
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>