| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.09.99 09:58l 231 Lines 7820 Bytes #-9759 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_241H
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/241H
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990926/0244Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2719 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_241
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19932 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 00:21:41 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015944 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:08:47 MET
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:03:42 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_241H>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/241H
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> accuse you of trying to undermine amateur radio. - Because, of course,
radio
> is just not good enough for ham radio, and the only way to save the hobby
is
> to abandon the use of radio, clear that valuable spectrum for other uses,
> and move all of our operations over to the Internet.
>
> Example:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Phil Karn KA9Q (Author of NOS) in response to my statement on the
tcp-group
> SIG concerning:
>
> Subject: Re: 2300 MHz band reallocated
>
> N5PVL:
> Many *NOS stations are now set up for the single purpose of misusing
> Internet as a cheap, dumb way to avoid the use of radios. Internet message
> forwarders are the best known example of this.
>
> We can't really afford that type of stupidity any more, IMHO.
>
>
> KA9Q:
> Why is this stupid? Many people outside ham radio would consider it more
> stupid to build a radio network that uses precious spectrum instead of
using
> existing fiber facilities with much greater capacity and lower cost.
>
> I feel that radio spectrum is too valuable to waste on point-to-point
links
> that are better implemented with non-radio facilities.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I asked earlier, but never got an answer... Where does Phil Karn work?
Does
> his employer stand to benefit when Hams lose spectrum? - Just trying to
> understand what might motivate this "Ham" to make such ignorant and
> irresponsible statements in connection with Amateur RADIO.
>
> --
>
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:28:43 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:
>Rob:
>Thanks for all of that information. Good work.
>Yes we too have cablemodem access in this country, as well as various xDSL
>offerings.
HDSL is cheap here when bought as ISDN-30 and used for telephony access.
When getting two of these same things connected back-to-back as a 2Mbit/s
leased line, the price suddenly increases tenfold. This is a bit strange,
but so are all rates for leased lines over here.
There is an "ADSL pilot project" in Amsterdam, where a test group
gets this service for free.
The country-wide rollout is delayed by stupid "competition" issues.
These days KPN cannot rollout new technology unless it enables competitors
to do the same, and the network is not ready for that. We have to wait
another year. It is completely unknown what the rates will be.
>Over here in America the "going rate" for cablemodem service is $50 per
>month.
That is more than anybody dares to ask here...
>And yes . . . when I spoke of world prices for telecom, I really meant
>American pricing. American telecom deregulation has been leading the world
>for the past couple of decades. This has driven down prices everywhere else
>and also initiated deregulation by legacy PTTs and governments elsewhere as
>in an effort to keep the American companies and Internet from taking over
>all the world markets.
>Isn't competition great?
I don't think it is. Competition in a small network as we have here only
means extra interconnection costs and overhead because of multiple small
companies operating the same services (administration, customer support,
etc). Up to now, competition has only increased the prices here because
these extra costs somehow need to be recovered.
The introduction of competition has meant that profitable services are
attacked by the competitors first, leaving KPN with the nonprofitable
services and being forced to increase their pricing. This has caused
an increase in the monthly bill for the average customer.
For a small country like the Netherlands, a single network operated by
a state-monitored company (i.e. operated to commercial standards but not
faced with "competitors" that are only after profitable services, and not
making too much profit itself) is the better option.
Competition is also introducing extra complexity in the usage of the system
and the decisions a customer needs to make. When I want to call someone,
I just want to dial his number, not be faced with stupid questions like
"what carrier do you want to use".
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: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:03:02 -0400
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" <wa6vse@fast.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brian Kantor <brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:7se4el$rm4$1@karoshi.ucsd.edu...
> So to sum up:
>
> Gary maintains that a network may well not be worth doing unless it
is
> high performance.
>
> Hank maintains that having a network that works at all is worth
doing
> even if it will never achieve high performance.
>
> Since volunteers have limited time, each must choose between these
two
> exclusive options. (Goodness knows we have enough bandwidth to
support
> both.)
>
> Sounds like something for everybody. Choose and join!
>
> - Brian
>
> PS: I still haven't figured out what Charles wants.
That's easy ... Charles just wants something to rant about to
draw attention to himself (it's apprently the only way he has
to get attention, since he appears incapable of contributing
anything constructive or innovative).
- --
Carl R. Stevenson - WA6VSE
mailto:wa6vse@fast.net
http://www.users.fast.net/~wa6vse
NCI #1052
Director, NCI
Fellow, Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, ARRL
Join NCI - Hams for the 21st Century!
Help modernize ham radio and assure its future survival!
http://www.nocode.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQA/AwUBN+vnA5e+N6+q84HiEQIPOQCfZSHVYhc/Dkf68GkEhSHlDxz3QlQAn3LQ
GHvzZ6L/92wrseyZyB6C2Fea
=mXXN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:38:33 -0500
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Charles Brabham wrote in message <7seopc$2qqt@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Incidentally, I *have* noted that packet/Internet gateways do exist in a
>> number of European countries, including Slovenia, which boasts a
>> very high speed packet network.
>
>That's the 1 MB stuff we heard so much about year before last, isn't it? The
>story I got was that it is fairly cheap 'n easy to build... Is there some
>fatal flaw that has kept it from storming the packet world? Seems to me that
>if you're going to use the complicated, expensive stuff that requires test
>equipment, why not go whole hog and shoot for the best speed you can get?
You bet! Why stop at 9600 bps, or even 56k? That seems to have been
*their* philosophy. They've got about a dozen nodes on their 1.2 Mbps
backbone, plus alot of 76k8 and 38k4 links. They even have 76k8 user
access on some of their nodes. Their 1.2 Mbps nodes use PSK, which
they claim is far superior to FSK/MSK. The slower stuff uses WBFM. That
To be continued in digest: hd_99_241I
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
