| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.09.99 09:59l 174 Lines 7852 Bytes #-9759 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_241I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/241I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990926/0247Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2722 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_241
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19934 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 00:28:12 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015947 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:08:59 MET
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:03:47 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_241I>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/241I
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
may seem archaic to some people in this ng, but that archaic stuff is still
faster than what we have here in the States, without resorting to non-amateur
means. These guys didn't wait for TAPR or some manufacturer to come out
with a faster TNC, or spread rectum vaporware..... they rolled up their
sleeves
and *built* a network, in the most literal sense.
And I bet they enjoyed doing it!
They were kind enough to publish all of the schematics and specs on their
website at http://lois.kud-fp.si/hamradio/hid.html In particular, they have
a Manchester modem that will run at speeds from 2k4 to 76k8, and uses
less than $100 worth of parts.
>I really kind of expected to see a kit for something like that, by now.
Yes, that IS suprising, isn't it? Might be a business opportunity here for
the right person (I've been considering that myself).
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:34:56 -0500
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Charles Brabham wrote in message <7sg37l$hbl@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
>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.
I thought it was a rhetorical question. Phil works for a little cellphone
company called Qualcomm and yes, they'd undoubtedly benefit from
our loss of spectrum.... if not directly, then from sales of new equipment
designed for those frequencies.
Like you, I'm curious about some of these "LLLids" and their connection
with the telecom community. I never really considered the connection, though,
until you brought it up.
Where does Greg Jones work? I just read about his "vision" for digital
ham radio, as published on TAPR's website and I've gotta say that you
don't need to say anything more about him being a Lid.... just direct
people to http://www.tapr.org/tapr/pdf/dcc98.vision.pdf and let them
hear it straight from the horse's ass.
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:06:46 -0400
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:21:33 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:NQTpNzrqje43+pQ9xX0FRrQAmrZO@4ax.com...
>> Yep, exactly so. If you're satisfied with low rate and non-realtime usages,
>> then you can do moderately long haul dedicated links. You can't sustain
>> an extensive packet network that way, however, because latency becomes
>> so great that very few people will tolerate it, even for non-realtime uses.
In
>> other words, if a Pony Express rider could beat your packets across the
>> country, your network wouldn't be sustainable.
>
>Nonesense. I *know* quite well that you think it is impossible to have
>any fun with digital radio unless everything is perfect and as speedy
>as the internet and works perfectly all the time for everybody and for
>all applications. Not my interest. I enjoy playing with radios and antennas
>and stuff like that to see what I *can* do.
What you "know" and what is reality seem to be quite distantly separated.
What you should know, if you've been paying attention over the last few
years, is that I've been doing a lot of experimental work with very low rate
very low power links on noisy unstable HF paths. I've been having quite
a bit of fun doing it too. But I haven't set myself up for frustration and
heartache by trying to do what good engineering practice says isn't
feasible, ie I haven't insisted on using poor paths as a basis for a viable
user network.
It is one thing to experiment with unreliable systems, it is quite another
thing to deploy a satisfactorily functional network which will attract and
hold a sufficiently large user base to sustain it. There are well understood
engineering principles which must be applied to deploy a capable and
reliable network which will earn continuing user support.
Doing things correctly often requires a bit of careful thought, but it is
ultimately more satisfying because it works as designed, and meets
the demands placed on it by its users. The latter is key. If you must
always be telling your users "don't do that, it'll overload the network",
or you are delivering very slow or poor service to your users, they won't
stay with you.
>> That's what happened to the BBS "network" (which wasn't really ever a
>> network in the sense of a packet switched network anyway). 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. You and Charles can rail about that,
>> but it is fact, and ultimately one has to face facts or become permanently
>> disassociated from reality.
>
>Nonesense. History and facts disagree with your assertion.
Then why are you here instead of having this debate via messages passed
on your BBS network? 15 years ago, that's where it would have been. But
not today. Could it be because the user base isn't there any more to form an
audience? Could it be because not enough hams are bothering to maintain
BBSs or the primitive haphazardly engineered backbone links between them?
When I look around, that's what I see. The user base has moved on to faster
and more capable systems. Those systems largely aren't based on amateur
radio anymore because those building and operating most amateur networks
haven't remained competitive in the quality of service their networks provide.
Instead, they've squabbled among themselves about ethnic purity issues, or
simply haven't adopted the proven engineering techniques which would have
allowed the network to function at a satisfactory level.
It doesn't have to be that way. The GRAPES network is an example of
the sort of maintainable network which can be built, and which can meet
its user base's rising expectations. We had 56 kb when the wirelines were
still at 2.4 kb. Today the wirelines have reached parity, and frankly, even
GRAPES is going to have to upgrade its network if it wishes to remain
competitive in the near future. ADSL and other broadband technologies
are going to make it seem as quaint as a 1.2 kb system before long.
So we will have to move to megabit rates, or quietly fold our networking
tents. Fortunately, we will be able to do that, since we considered that
possibility when we laid out the network topology. Our network paths will
support those rates, and even faster ones, because they were properly
engineered from the beginning.
We can't offer the global reach of the wired internet, but then we knew
that from the beginning too. We didn't promise that to our users. What
we can and do offer is very competitive performance inside our service
area. That's been sufficient to maintain a loyal user base. A user of a
voice repeater in Atlanta doesn't expect to talk with hams in Oregon,
and a user of our digital network doesn't expect to be able to do that
either. But that doesn't stop our repeaters, or our network, from being
popular and well used. We fill a niche that our users find to be a fun
To be continued in digest: hd_99_241J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
