| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 25.09.99 03:24l 217 Lines 7875 Bytes #-9766 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_239I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/239I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990924/2111Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2299 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_239
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19774 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 20:19:50 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015859 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:08:01 MET
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:01:28 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_239I>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/239I
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> it's okay, however the thing works.
>
>I measure packet loss, not BER. There are some good technical reasons
>to do it this way. The main reason is that errors tend to be bursty.
>So BER gives some clues about a link's performance, but does not
>tell the story you want to hear: how well does the link work in practice.
>
>In practice, my "bad" 25 mile link runs at about 1% packet loss.
>Sometimes it is better, sometimes worse, depending on how wet the
>trees on the ridge to my north happen to be, how many bad electric
>fence chargers are nearby, whether a C-130 is right in the path, etc.
>
Okay, well that makes sense. I guess that a 1e6 bit error rate would look
more like a .1% packet loss, given small-ish ham radio packets. I imagine
if it were some kind of intereference or something, then maybe you could
figure out a way to cut that out. Though from the talk here, It sounds like
maybe
multipath probably accounts for the majority of the 1% packet loss.
This is just a strange thought, and I don't suggest you try this, but as a
thought
experiment, say if you ran two links on two different frequencies over
the same path -- transmitting the same blocks of data on both, I wonder,
if the lost packets would be random for both links. That way, even if you
have a
1% chance of getting a lost packet on each of the links that the odds of the
same
packet being lost on both of the links would only be .01% -- that is
assuming
you had some software on the other end smart enough to know when the same
data arrived on both chanels to only use one. Maybe I'm missing something
here.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:59:28 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >
> That's what happened to the BBS "network" (which wasn't really ever a
> network in the sense of a packet switched network anyway).
That's why the BBS net works as well as it does. Your "packet switched
network" cannot move a message across the country, not to mention the much
bigger job of moving messages around the world, such as the BBS net does
every day.
The BBS "network", in other words, accomplishes many things with amateur
radio that you and your fellow LandLine Lids must turn to non-ham means to
even attempt to do.
So you end up sucking hind-tit, but hey! That's part of being a LandLine
Lid. - To suck.
>When it was
> the only game in town, it got a bit of use. But as soon as something
faster
> became widely available, it fell into disrepair. In other words, most of
your
> users abandoned you for the internet.
Sorry, Gary, but it appears you have managed to confuse LandLine Lid
rhetoric with reality. After repeating the lie so many times, you convince
yourself that it's the truth. This is because you are too stupid to examine
the facts for yourself, or perhaps you lack character and just prefer the
comforting lie.
Fact is: The Internet did not just appear here in the USA. It also appeared
in Europe, but the BBS net there actually grew and developed while your
fellow Lids were undermining it here in the US. The Internet drew off a
number of packet ops there as well as here, but for THAT BBS network it was
only a temporary setback that was quickly overcome. - The difference is that
in Europe they were clever enough to enact legislation that protected the
packet network by "hacking and cracking" by clueless jerks like you who
insist that non-hams means of communication is the only possible way for ham
radio operators to communicate.
Are you associated with the "little LEO" folks, by any chance? Do you have
an explanation of your constant and long-standing advocacy of Hams
abandoning the use of the ham bands in order to communicate as much as
possible by non-ham means of communication?
Is anyone PAYING you, buy any chance, to go around attempting to convince
hams that amateur radio is just not good enough?
I would not be surprised.
>You and Charles can rail about that,
> but it is fact, and ultimately one has to face facts or become permanently
> disassociated from reality.
Looks like you need to take a page from your own book there, Gary.
YOU are the one insisting that abandoning the use of radio is somehow a good
thing for hams.
YOU are the one who cannot face the fact that tcpip just won't cut it for
the majority of the conditions that hams using radio must work with. You
have so much trouble admitting that fact that you would rather use the
Internet instead of ham radio so you can PRETEND that tcpip works for hams.
That's the most severe and clear-cut case of hams disassociating themselves
from reality that I have run across in my years with the hobby.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:46:38 -0500
From: Tom Busch <tomb@kiva.net>
Subject: Lexington, Kentucky
There must be some APRS activity...I see a Digi there all the time.
Tom Busch, WB8WOR
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Brian Pemberton wrote:
>So, is there anything (Long haul or Landlid) in the way of
>amatuer packet radio in Kentucky? No sense in learning the
>widgets, hoisting the antenna, plugging in the computer, and
>listening to static.
>
>--
>--
>Brian Pemberton brpemb00@cslab.uky.edu
>Today is Pungenday,the 44th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3165
> Bavarian Erisianism and states that the best method of reaching
>enlightenment is through a Bavarian beer. It is possible to
>achieve Enlightenment without beer, but on the same note it is
>possible to climb a 10 meter wall without a ladder.
>
> - Marc (paraphrase)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:46:48 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: My 2 cents on radio/internet/A-types/B-types
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>If you think hams should get awards for posting CQ bulletins
>and collecting responses, my only comment is that I GET THE
>AWARD TOO because my station did the actual transmitting
>on ham radio. That internet stuff ain't ham radio ... <grin>.
Who said you wouldn't get the award too?
An award for people who made an effort to let other people enjoy
some service would probably be good idea.
(of course not demanded by that amateur himself, but granted to him
by others who appreciate the service)
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/ |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:53:34 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: My 2 cents on radio/internet/A-types/B-types
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:slrn7uh5rn.vgb.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> >If you think hams should get awards for posting CQ bulletins
> >and collecting responses, my only comment is that I GET THE
> >AWARD TOO because my station did the actual transmitting
> >on ham radio. That internet stuff ain't ham radio ... <grin>.
>
> Who said you wouldn't get the award too?
>
> An award for people who made an effort to let other people enjoy
To be continued in digest: hd_99_239J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
