| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 25.09.99 04:11l 212 Lines 7601 Bytes #-9763 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_240D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/240D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990924/2137Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2311 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_240
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19790 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:11:40 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015883 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:09:29 MET
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:01:49 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_240D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/240D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
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: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:35:29 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Cathryn Mataga <cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote in message
news:lOiG3.2751$1i3.43358@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
> Hank Oredson wrote in message <7sc58o$4v$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> That is simply do measurements of bit errors, and if they're low enough
> >> 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.
Too much bother. 1% loss is a very good link (Gary notwithstanding).
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:30:14 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Charles:
>Charlie, wake up and follow the bucks $ $ $ .
>To understand the European (Continental) situation all you have to do is
>shop their Internet access rates. (OK, then just look at the prices there
>since , you really can't shop over there!) And, note the UK is different
>having deregulated like us a few years ago. Thanks Margaret Thatcher!
>Like most things in Continental Europe the Internet access rates are
>extremely expensive (where you can get em).
Who told you that?
Monthly access fees vary between 0 and about US$ 15/month here, depending
on what quality of service you want. Half of the country is on the
Internet.
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: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:30:33 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Rob:
Heh, heh.
I don't mean to put down a great country like the Netherlands, and I do
love to visit you guys especially to enjoy the Genever, but really . . . .
Even with the name change from Netherlands PTT to KPN, still . . .
Taking nothing away from the Netherlands, except size, you must realize that
even KPN is a small operator, roughly the equivalent to rural telephone
companies in America or one of the Canadian telephone companies. How many
subscribers does KPN have? 3 M - 5 M What? How many Internet subscribers
are there in the Netherlands? How many ISP's. Americal has 6 - 7 thousand
ISP's. A typical American RBOC in the days of the 7 baby Bells was 20 M
subscribers. AOL has 10 M subscribers, etc . . . the sizes are not
comparable. The Dutch telecom market is insignificant. But. . . . the
Dutch are not!
When I wrote about Continental European telecoms, for all practical purposes
we were discussing, Germany (DeutcheTelekom), France (France Telekom), and
Italy (Telecom Italia). Sorry but hat's where the "real" European market
is! We know that there are really progressive small telecom operators in
Europe, KPN being one of them. Telia being another, but . . . . really . .
... Comparables, no!
Also I belive that you missed my original point.
My point was that low Internet access prices are coming all over Europe (Not
just in the Nethelands) in the next few years, and when they do. . . . just
like in America, the amateur packet radio network will wither unless it
To be continued in digest: hd_99_240E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
