Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- packet:history [2025/06/10 14:15] – g4klx
+++ packet:history [2026/04/20 13:59] (current) – [The Beginnings of Packet Radio in the UK by Jonathan G4KLX] g3aka
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 This document is based on my memories of the time. I do not keep a diary so some of the dates may be a little off, although some of them stay with me and I can date them based on other events occurring at the same time. Although this document is split into sections, and will be read linearly, the reality was that a lot of these things happened in parallel, and there will be a lot of cross referencing between different topics. It is a pity that all of this happened pre smart phone or digital cameras, as it would have been lovely to be able to show you pictures of it all.
-Technically the first packet radio in the UK was in the mid-1980s following on from an article in RadCom about a simple packet system called BBC Packet, using a BBC Micro. It was a remarkable program which included a simple terminal, and allowed simple point-to-point connections and chats. For a brief time this mode was quite busy, but was ultimately a technical dead end. However a number of us found it an interesting idea, and a latent interest in packet radio was created.
+Technically the first packet radio in the UK was in the mid-1980s following on from an article in March 1985 RadCom about a simple packet system called BBC Packet, using a BBC Micro. It was a remarkable program which included a simple terminal, and allowed simple point-to-point connections and chats. For a brief time this mode was quite busy, but was ultimately a technical dead end. However a number of us found it an interesting idea, and a latent interest in packet radio was created.
 I got my first TNC in late 1987, a Pac-Com TNC-220 which was a non compatible evolution of the classic TNC-2. In the UK, Packet Radio was in a grey zone since it involved passing third party traffic (even when digipeating) and that was outside the scope of the licence at the time. Despite this dubious legality it was known that the RSGB and the DTI/RA or whatever they were called that year were looking into it, and we should continue playing with packet and just don't do anything too silly until they worked out the new rules, this would take a number of years. At the time it was still possible to just about do multi-hop digipeating with reasonable success, but the packet channel was starting to get extremely busy.
@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 I believe RP closed down sometime in the late 1990s, although by then I was doing other things and was no longer responsible for it.
-===== KA9Q Net/NOS =====
+===== KA9Q NET/NOS =====
 In the TAPR DCC proceedings were articles by Phil Karn KA9Q about his developments. He wrote an MS-DOS program that offered a terminal with a great many commands that implemented, AX.25, TCP, and UDP all over a KISS TNC. It was, and is, a lovely piece of software, and even included a mailer for SMTP data transfers! I think it expanded to include NET/ROM but I could be wrong about this. One thing that was great about this software was that it was open source which was still pretty rare at the time. I got my first version of it (dated 871225.33n) from Keith G4LZV of the Kent packet group. I was in London on business for a few weeks in early 1988 and I offered to buy him dinner if he could give me a copy of the KA9Q software. Luckily he knew of an excellent Chinese restaurant in Bayswater that we could eat at. We talked nothing but packet that evening.
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 One of my diversions was acquiring an Acorn Archimedes in the late 1980s. This was a marvelous machine, using an early iteration of the ARM processor, and for its time was a very powerful computer. Mine had 4MB of RAM, and although a little quirky, the operating system was pretty impressive. The OS used cooperate multitasking and required each program to voluntarily give up access to the CPU regularly. People were already using KA9Q NET/NOS under emulation on the Archimedes but the experience wasn't very pleasant. I decided to port KA9Q NET to the architecture.
-I chose the NET version because the central commutator loop lent itself to giving up the CPU after each iteration to allow the whole machine to multitask. I did add the ability to have a separate window for each session, AX.25, TELNET, etc. I ported the software in about one day. I was very pleased with the results and so were a number of other people since it ran much quicker and was also a good neighbour on the computer. I maintained that software for a few years before getting into Linux.
+I chose the NET version because the central commutator loop lent itself to giving up the CPU after each iteration to allow the whole machine to multitask. I did add the ability to have a separate window for each session, AX.25, FTP, TELNET, etc. I ported the software in about one day. I was very pleased with the results and so were a number of other people since it ran much quicker and was also a good neighbour on the computer. I maintained that software for a few years before getting into Linux.
 I can now say that I know Phil very well, and have met him a number of times. He's moved on from packet radio, and I recommend his KA9Q Radio project if you want to try something exciting.