Talk:AMPRNet

One claim definitely needs a reference
Early on this page it now says that "Packet radio had an exponential decline within the amateur radio hobby since the beginning of the 21st Century, and there are few profit models for manufacturers."

As an active ham, radio amateur, I disagree and feel that this claim should state some references and/or be clarified. Johan Adler (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Packet Radio evolved it did not die. Today Packet Radio is built with multiple modes. Packet at all its speeds 300-19200 Baud, Robust Packet, Pactor I II III, WINMOR, ARDOP etc. the list goes on. The modes I listed are but a few that works well with BPQ32, Linbpq, Pilinbpq. Yes the above statement early on this page is in error. Jerry Kutche n9lya

IPv6
Is there also an IPv6 range reserved for AMPRNet? --62.224.160.135 (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No there is not Swoopclear1 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

44.128/10 speculation
Special:Diff/907122074 just restored some speculation about 44.128/10, which does not appear in the accompanying citation. , please could it be clarified what the *exact wording* trying to be cited is? —Sladen (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * MonsieurET (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC) citation will be added when the transcript is published.


 * , so to confirm, at this moment, there is no citation available? —Sladen (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Just like 99% of the other entries. MonsieurET (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * History and design section has no citations, and reads like it was written by a primary source. MonsieurET (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed contested text. MonsieurET (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , appreciations for Special:Diff/907125028! —Sladen (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation removal
Special:Diff/907122261 removed the following citation, leaving nothing in its place:



, please could it be clarified how removing this fully-formed citation helps our readers? —Sladen (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * MonsieurET (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Citation is fine, move it out of intro.


 * ✅ in Special:Diff/907123679/907124747. —Sladen (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

History
Prior to 2009 there were multiple gateways other than the single one at UCSD. This was documented on the GW-List, Gateways@cows.net, but all archives have disappeared. Something happened in mid 2009 referenced here.

From reading this, it appears all the East Coast of the US gateways went offline around the same time for unexplained reasons.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.61.50 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , two uses of "gateway"; one are Radio↔IP/AX.25 gateways for specific geographic radio mesh networks, and the other is  forwarding IP-in-IP packets to/from the internet to the gateway for each of those local mesh networks.  The underlying reason behind   dropping packets becomes apparent ~2015-07-21, and appears to be documented on a different mailing list; resulting in a change of network configuration. —Sladen (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions
First, let me say that I'm impressed by the amount of research that's gone into this page. Next, let me say that I'm the new Communications Manager for ARDC, so as I understand it, making changes here myself would be a conflict of interest.

Having said that, I wonder if I might make a few suggestions:


 * Could we make the Amateur Radio Digital Communications page its own page and not simply redirect to this one? AMPRNet (or 44Net) is really only one function of ARDC now that it's become a private foundation.
 * Since grantmaking has become such a big part of our operations, I think that there could be more emphasis on this, and that would be more appropriate on the ARDC page.

DanRomanchik (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes probably… What is lacking (in most/all things ARDC) is third-party material that can be cited (hence why there is so little content about the ARDC, Inc. per se compared to 44net, or Telescope).  Getting more press releases out, and following up to get articles and coverage in magazines/newspaper/local press/academic journals would provide more material that could then be cited.  As a couple of examples:
 * ARDC funded the ISS HAM upgrades on the space station, but there's very little coverage of the result in the wider Space-related press.
 * The MIT Radome; perhaps follow-up coverage in the Boston/university press: this is a hugh distribution: so there would probably be follow-up by the funder every ~3 months, each of which could result in a photo-op of progress + publicity opportunity.
 * All the funding of tribal communications infrastructure: everyone of those would be multiple articles in the local press, drawing in the wider local public.
 * ie. the egg needs to come before the chicken: the solution is to do the PR legwork, that results in coverage/articles; so that a year down the line is possible to independently cite factoids about ARDC (ditto for anything else on Wikipedia).
 * —Sladen (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This page in the ARDC web site includes many summaries and links out to original news articles that are about ARDC or some of its activities or grantees. --Gnuish (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)