| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 19.09.99 14:52l 234 Lines 7731 Bytes #-9775 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_234E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/234E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990919/0811Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:63984 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_23
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19273 ; Sun, 19 Sep 99 07:33:51 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015687 ; Sun, 19 Sep 99 08:32:23 MET
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 99 08:17:07 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_234E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/234E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Algeria or Antarctica, but people don't understand it, and now I can
'talk' to people from across the world with practically zero effort. Ham
radio, in it's current form, simply can't compete with the Internet.
*sigh* I really don't know what it would take to get me, and others like
me, interested in ham radio, either again or for the first time.
Wireless cannot compete with land line on simple technical aspects, but
it can at least get out of the bandwidth dumps (Talking about how fast a
9k6 duplex link is can really depress today's bandwidth freaks). An
upgrade to 56kbps isn't enough today, we need to get faster (much
faster). And technically speaking, we can. Once some half-way decent
bandwidth is there, new applications can emerge that take advantage of
the flexibility of amateur radio.
Speaking of applications, new satellite extensions to TCP/IP may be
useful for ham radio networks (high latency).
Commercial wireless is speeding ahead on the digital track and achieving
ever higher performance characteristics, new wire technologies are
making the capacity of wire (fiber) practically infinite (40 terabits
per second using WDM and 80 wavelengths, not actually implemented, just
theoretically possible).
OK, I'm done now. Sorry for the length. I've just been frustrated by the
(apparent) lack of progress in the digital packet arena, despite the
(apparent) availability of the technology. I also think that digital
packet can be the medium that attracts future users to ham radio, and it
hasn't even begun to live up to its potential.
Dave (an occasional lurker)
> Steve, K5OKC
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 06:42:52 -0700
From: "Johnny Rico" <lawdog2@ibm.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
I'll buy the first copy if you'll let me know when it is available.
If you would like a beta tester, please e-mail me. I have evaluated
every Windows-based control program for the PTC-II of which I am
aware.
--
Roger, W6VZV
also reply via W6VZV@ARRL.NET
--
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to
build bridges, even where there are no rivers.
-Nikita Khrushchev
Rick Ruhl <ricker@cssincorp.com> wrote in message
news:e5QwIry$#GA.272@cpmsnbbsa02...
> Roger,
>
> We have a version in development for the PTC II and IIe called
PTCTerm.. It
> will use the extended WA8DED host mode for Packet and Pactor and the
TERM 5
> host interface for the other modes..
>
> If all goes well, we hope to have it out before Christmas, same for
the
> HALterm version for the DXP38. Every TNC vendor has been quite
gracious
> with helping us with documentation and TNC specific caveats.
>
> --
> Rick Ruhl
> President, Creative Services Software
> http://www.cssincorp.com
>
> Johnny Rico wrote in message <37df07b1@news1.prserv.net>...
> >Rick, you have convinced me. Initiate support for the PTC-II and I
> >will buy a copy!! Seriously. I wish you would.
> >
> >The ham radio community is damned lucky to have firms and people
like
> >this interested in supporting it with products. It sticks in my
craw
> >to see others accuse them of gouging due to an argument over
whether
> >the software ought to be $50 versus $80 or whatever. Give me a
break.
> >I can argue all day about nit picky details too, but it takes gall
to
> >impugne the motives of another based upon such quibbles. We were
all
> >the poorer when AEA went under (thanks for salvaging part of them,
> >Timewave!) and personally I would not want to see ham radio vendors
> >confined to big commercial hardware vendors who do ham radio
products
> >as an afterthought. RJB.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Roger, W6VZV
> >also reply via W6VZV@ARRL.NET
> >--
> >Politicians are the same all over. They promise to
> >build bridges, even where there are no rivers.
> > -Nikita Khrushchev
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is the last message I going to post on the issue of software
> >pricing,
> >> as we have work to do to continue to provide high quality
software
> >for the
> >> ham community.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rick Ruhl
> >> President, Creative Services Software
> >> http://www.cssincorp.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Sep 1999 13:29:07 GMT
From: k1nkr@aol.com (K1NKR)
Subject: Old question, Old technology
Have you looked at the various ARRL "Computer Networking Conference"
proceedings--especially the early ones? (Conferences 1-4, 1981-1985 were
published as one volume.)
It may be "old" technology, but there was a lot of good engineering there.
Lots to learn. Gives you both a technological and a historical perspective.
Much like reading old QSTs.
Skip, K1NKR
>Subject: Old question, Old technology
>From: emery@cray.com (Scott Emery)
>Date: Fri, 17 September 1999 02:17 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7rsmd5$atu$1@murrow.corp.sgi.com>
>
> I find myself looking for a reference for a question that
>has surely been answered many times. I don't need the full answer
>on the group if there is a reference somewhere (esp. URL).
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:09:29 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Rf network = pipedream
pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8E4413EFApmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.154...
> n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in
> <7rs4b0$1opl@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>
> >
> >That's what the Europeans did to get their fancy high-speed, large-scale
> >network. They respected, maintained, developed and improved the same old
> >1.2kb network we also had ten years ago. We spit on ours and abandoned
it,
> >so now we have nothing.
>
> I read some of the arguments and name calling here, and as an ex X1J node
> operator/TCPIP/AX25 weenie I can appreciate much of the arguments,
> regardless of whether I agree or not. The reference to the European model
> makes me wonder if there are other incentives to motivate European hams to
> expand and upgrade their network.
Yes, there were several things the Europeans had going for them that we
didn't:
The A types never became very influential in Europe, and laws over there
protected the digital ham radio net from damage by persons attempting to
move ham radio traffic via non-ham means of communication. It never became
fashionable there to disparage the network and try to convince people that
it couldn't be done or simply was not worth doing. - So they did it. People
are funny, that way.
Here, the A types did gain influence and there were no legal protection
against "LandLine Lids". - So our network was undercut, disparaged and
LandLine-Lidded out of existence while the European packet net went right on
developing and growing.
You could say the Europeans were advantaged, or that we were handicapped...
The end results are the same.
>I do not see operators with similar
> disposable incomes opting for a "slow" radio data network when thay have
> the same internet options as we do, at similar prices. I am of the opinion
> that human nature is universal; given the same resources and options, we
do
> the same things, in general.
If we had done the same here as the Europeans did, you and I would be very
likely to be having this discussion via amateur radio instead of the
To be continued in digest: hd_99_234F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
