AX.25 and third-party

[mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)]

On 94 Dec 10 at 15:09, Steve Sampson wrote:

 SS> Most Hams are Nazi's anyway - they don't allow third 
 SS> party mail to flow unmolested.  As mentioned, third party 
 SS> freedom is the only thing going for AX.25 - otherwise it's
 SS> worthless.

Exactly what constitutes third-party operation is not clear in the rules.  For
example, the FCC recently acted to straighten out a lot of the issues governing
messages relayed by the conventional store and forward packet BBS network.

However, the application of those rules to IP is not clear.  If you send a
message via SMTP, which causes the message to be cut up into pieces that are
sent in different frames, are these frames third-party traffic from the point
of view of a router on the network?  These frames may not even be routed on the
same path.

 SS> On a side subject: the FCC has really warped the rules.  
 SS> They define two types of modulation - voice and data.  If 
 SS> you digitize voice then it doesn't become data - it becomes 
 SS> digital voice.  The reason I mention this is because I 
 SS> wanted to send digital voice as digital data via AX.25 for 
 SS> third party rules in a petition.  The FCC replied that I 
 SS> couldn't, and that they suggest I use 900 MHz or above and 
 SS> an unspecified code (non-AX.25).  Which has caused me to 
 SS> forget about AX.25 for any future base of a digital voice
 SS> protocol.

I suggest you pursue that further with the FCC.  It is ASCII that gets replaced
by the "unspecified digital code," not AX.25.  Whatever you wrap in AX.25
frames is data, I would think, regardless of what is encoded or how.  The
address fields in AX.25, for example, must be ASCII, but that is different.

According to the rules, you are using an unspecified digital code whenever you
stick anything inside AX.25 frames that is not ASCII text, including software
or image files.  I can see no reason why the rules would be more restrictive
for digital voice than digital image or even executable files.

Maybe I do not fully understand your situation.
 
-- Mike