| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 23.09.99 05:00l 213 Lines 7395 Bytes #-9769 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_238H
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/238H
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PRG<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990922/2247Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:1492 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_238
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19560 ; Wed, 22 Sep 99 21:54:45 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015807 ; Wed, 22 Sep 99 21:23:12 MET
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 99 21:17:33 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_238H>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/238H
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
about!
Dammit Charlie all you can do is complain about folks siphoning off traffic
to the Internet. I say lets use that to our advantage.
We just can't keep doing it the same old way! If we do, it'l be the end for
sure. And . . . those Europeans with their more socialistic approach to
things are not going to help us Americans, it's not the American way. Here
in America we are leading the world with the Internet. I say let's couple
ham radio and the Intenet and get turbo charged.
Thoughts?
Peter AB4BC
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7s97sr$269i@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:7s93n4$m57@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com...
> > Charlie:
> >
> > I am not proposing having the Rules recinded or reduced just for Digital
> > Networking but for all ham radio activities!
>
> That experiment has already been tried with the CB bands. It didn't work
> out.
>
> If you think a lack of regulation is the way to go, check out the CB
bands.
>
> Let us know how it goes! That's the only place you are likely to see a
> deregulated radio service. The FCC learned their lesson about that quite a
> while back.
>
> --
>
> Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:04:58 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: The Aplication Mantra
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7s9qnj$ih2@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com...
> Charles:
>
> Think about it . . . changing the Rules and deregulation is how good ole
> packet radio got started in the first place!
Yes and no ... we worked with the ARRL and the FCC to get the rules
changed (85-105 for example), but did start operating "at the edge of
the rules" prior to 85-105.
> I was just trying to get some "new think" going. Heh, heh. We will need
it
> for the next millenium!
>
> Hey I'm an old timer too, but probably not as long as you though.
Well ... it was mostly old timers that got the "modern" digital modes
off the ground. I was licensed in 1953, for example, and a lot of the
other folks had been around about as long ... or longer ...
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:27:07 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
Cathryn Mataga <cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote in message
news:bEuF3.2012$1i3.34385@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
>
> Charles Brabham wrote in message <7s5d9d$1m4h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
> >
> >If each large-scale network had a "HF coordinator", then multiple HF
> >stations within the network's coverage area could be recruited and
> organized
> >so as to eliminate duplicated efforts and organize forwarding chores with
> HF
> >stations associated with other VHF/UHF nets.
>
>
> Here, the issue seems to be, as I've been told by locals, not so much of
> duplicating effort, but of knowing which messages go to HF forwarding,
> and which go to the satellite gateway.
That would be part of the HF coordinators' job; To get together with the
various SYSOPS, work out such questions and pass on the drill he works out
to all the HF SYSOPs on that net. Nobody has to wonder what to do, or how to
handle things.
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:53:14 -0400
From: Tony Giroux <agiroux@cvn.net>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------CFF2085208B659DA0CB17A74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
>
> Charles Brabham wrote in message <7s5d9d$1m4h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
> >My idea is simple: Instead of calling them VHF/UHF networks, why not
> >organize what is already being done anyway and call them HF/VHF/UHF
> >networks, or "all band networks", and take control of a process that has
> >been allowed to go on for years in an uncontrolled, unorganized fashion?
> >
> >If each large-scale network had a "HF coordinator", then multiple HF
> >stations within the network's coverage area could be recruited and
> organized
> >so as to eliminate duplicated efforts and organize forwarding chores with
> HF
> >stations associated with other VHF/UHF nets.
>
> Here, the issue seems to be, as I've been told by locals, not so much of
> duplicating effort, but of knowing which messages go to HF forwarding,
> and which go to the satellite gateway. That messages here in NCA
> destined for the east coast, get uploaded to a pacsat. The deal
> is that, I guess, the satellite is kind of slow, as it takes a day or so to
> get downloaded. HF is much faster -- that is something forwarded over
> HF will be there right away, but well, you know, it's HF. So, who knows
> if the band is open or when it's going be. It's not a good thing for
> messages to sit around on the HF gateways either, if they could be
> uploaded to the satellite gateway.
>
> So, the way for this to happen, I guess, is for all messages destined
> for going outside of the area, to end up on a single BBS. And have
> that machine, then attempt connects, through the network, over HF
> links to the remote BBS's. Then if no HF link is possible, that message
> goes to the satellite. At least that's how I'm figuring right now. That
> is setting up to propagate NETROM nodes, or maybe just making
> a node alias that connect to distant stations with Pactor -- or print an
> error message saying that the channel is busy or something the connection
> has timed out. (And I've been playing around with some code for
> this using just a PK232, and even just Pactor 1 links, btw are hugely
> more solid than HF packet links.) Me, maybe I'll get that
> PTC II someday, though that $900 price tag just sort of gets me
> every time.
>
> Anyway, I'm pretty far along on the code for calling out with the
> PK232, and I figure I'll stick that on my web page pretty soon. I
> got an MFJ 1276 coming in here, so I can call myself to test on
> the receiving end, and I'll do that when that box comes in.
>
> Another way, maybe it could work is that somehow messages get sent,
> like on a token ring type of deal to each of the HF gateways. Each
> HF gateway runs through all it's frequencies to see if it can forward
> the message -- and then if it can't, it passes it on to the next HF gateway.
> Maybe everyone in the area always forwards to the closes HF gateway,
> and then if that message has cycled around all the HF gateways that
> have a chance, it then goes to the satellite gateway. I'm not sure. And
> I'm not quite good enough of a 'forward.sys' guru to know how to
> do this kind of thing. For aesthetic reasons, I kind of like the idea
> of an HF hub bbs, that connects through to each HF gateway in order
To be continued in digest: hd_99_238I
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
