| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 25.09.99 04:16l 230 Lines 7547 Bytes #-9763 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_240I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/240I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0BOX<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0FHK<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<
PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990924/2213Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2316 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_240
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19800 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:45:31 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015898 ; Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:10:25 MET
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 99 21:02:05 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_240I>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/240I
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
all of our UHF and uWave frequencies and we will only have the "National
Parks" of HF to play in.
Thoughts, discussion, opinions?
Peter AB4BC
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:7sdksv$ptn$1@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
> Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
> > Notice how he thinks the rules should MOST PARTICULARLY be dropped for
> > digital networking?
>
> > Of course, we all know as hams that using Radio and following the rules
are
> > not as important to us as when handling digital info as it is for analog
> > info.
>
> > As long as it's digital, anything goes, right? Ham Radio kiddie-porn,
> > anybody?
>
> > Sorry, but I consider anyone who would contemplate undermining the
entire
> > amateur radio service in order to facilitate a desire to get "freebee
> > Internet access" as being somewhat less than human.
>
>
> I suggest backing up and re-reading the original post. There was
> nothing in there that suggested turning amateur radio into: citizens
> band, kiddie-porn transport, or freebie Internet access. there was only
> the reasonable suggestion of thinking about eliminating content
> restrictions when using amateur radio as the transport.
>
> personally, I am very much in favor of this idea. As long as you keep
> in place the current restrictions on commercial activity, we should be
> reasonably protected from commercial entities using the amateur bands.
>
> I see the primary advantage of this kind of rule change is to generate
> enough interest in radio based networks because there would be
> something interesting to do with them (i.e. connect to the Internet).
> There are also a whole bunch of social side effects when a populous
> controlled service exists simultaneously with a corporately controlled
> service. I suspect it would be similar to the effect the open source
> movement has had on proprietary software development.
>
> --- eric
>
> --
> Eric S. Johansson ka1eec esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us
> This message was composed using NaturallySpeaking
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:08:40 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: The Aplication Mantra
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:7sdksv$ptn$1@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
>
> I suggest backing up and re-reading the original post. There was
> nothing in there that suggested turning amateur radio into: citizens
> band, kiddie-porn transport, or freebie Internet access. there was only
> the reasonable suggestion of thinking about eliminating content
> restrictions when using amateur radio as the transport.
>
Get somebody to explain what "content restrictions" do... If I had to
explain it to you, I would not be able to resist the temptation to insult
your "intelligence".
Amazing that you could let that much slide by you. OF COURSE the little
twerp was wanting the rules relaxed so he could "surf the net" for free!
That typifies the motivation behind most of the LandLine Lid community. To
hell with the people who want to use radio to communicate, or who want to
maintain Ham Radio's legal protection from commercial activity and
objectionable content. To hell with Ham Radio, as long as I can surf the net
for free.
You people couldn't be more obvious if you had the words "STUPID JERK"
stenciled across your foreheads.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:56:51 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: The Aplication Mantra
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
>
> maybe use a cost model like that of repeater clubs. you join and you
> get access to the autopatch (ie internet). maybe providing internet
> access in underserved communities is a new definition for public
> service.
The problem, of course, is that slow Internet access will not impress
anybody, and you are not likely to keep up with the speed of the satellite
access systems with ham radio. Sure, a demo can be cobbled together, but
what do you have ready for use by large numbers of hams? Assuming you work
all that out, (and nobody has even come close to it so far) What ISP is
going to lease you lines so you can give away freebee access to perfectly
good paying customers?
If you are willing to shovel in enough money, you might get something put
together five years from now that will "compete" with access speeds common
TODAY. By then, of course, the access speeds common today will be a joke,
just like your idea of attracting large numbers of people to ham radio with
slow, non-commercial, censored, crippled up Internet access. - Which is the
best you'll ever be able to offer.
Oh, you had "faster than commercially available" access in mind?
Good luck competing with NASA and the major communications carriers!
Oh, you had "freebee" access in mind, when in many places you can already
get that WITHOUT having to study to obtain a license and buying hundreds of
dollars worth of specialized equipment that will be obsolete in rapid order?
Have fun selling it!
You folks need to wake up 'n smell the coffee. Read the writing on the wall.
Amateur Radio ISP's are not just a joke; They are a particularly dumb joke.
*Exchanging* info between the two networks is a different matter, of course.
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:38:57 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:slrn7ujoi7.9tt.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Can software determine, through the
> >> TNC, what are the best frequencies to use? Does the
> >> average Clover or Pactor controller have the capability of relaying
that
> >> kind of data to the software?
>
> >The software running on the computer controls the TNC and the radio.
> >That software simply tries a connect, and if the connect fails, it tries
on
> >a different frequency or band. Very simple actually.
>
> Of course that approach is much too simple... it is just like the
firmware
> in the old TNC's: when the CONNECT succeeds, it starts retrying the data
> transmission until hell freezes over.
This is not true.
> What you need is some link quality data on each of the available
> frequencies, and a decision algorithm to decide which is the best
frequency
> to use. That will be a bit harder to implement, so it is probably left
> for version 2.0
How would one acquire link quality data without establishing a link?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:20:41 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Those Wide, Open Spaces
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:slrn7ujoi7.9tt.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Can software determine, through the
To be continued in digest: hd_99_240J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
