| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 27.09.99 14:38l 213 Lines 7932 Bytes #-9757 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_242F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/242F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<
DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<
PI8VNW
Sent: 990926/2247Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:3133 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_242
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20031 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 22:18:10 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016003 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 23:32:29 MET
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 23:30:03 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_242F>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/242F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> understand the fact, or perhaps too lacking in character to care.
>
> The US and Australian packet nets have both diminished and gone to the
dogs
> where the practice is tolerated, and grown where it is not. The rest of
the
> world has not suffered so severely from this outbreak of self-absorbed
> ignorance, and so their packet nets have generally kept right on growing
and
> developing.
>
> In other words, you and Gary are on the "side" that has nothing to show
for
> itself except decline and decay brought on by ignorance, isolation and
> self-centered greed, no matter what the expense to others.
>
> Where your kind of "thinking" has taken hold, the packet net has declined
> and packet users have left the hobby in droves. Where your type of
thinking
> is not tolerated, the packet net there has grown and developed, and
> thousands of enthusiastic Hams enjoy the network every day.
>
> Gary can be congratulated for building a slightly more elaborate isolation
> from the world than most LandLine Lids manage, but in the long run he is
> still divorced from the rest of the Amateur Radio community by the
> limitations of his thinking.
>
> The one and only place in the US where hams are now excited again about a
> growing, developing packet net is where your kind of thinking has been
> rejected and not allowed within the network. (They have tcpip of course,
but
> not the "LandLine Lid" variety you boys espouse). These are REAL HAMS
using
> amateur tcpip in a way that is beneficial to the hobby instead of a
> liability.
>
> The next step is to outlaw "Amateur Telephone" in fact, with protective
> national legislation such as the European Hams enjoy.
>
> Sorry, but Hams are becoming more sophisticated and harder to fool. They
> will look at what happens where LandLine Lids are tolerated, see the
> progress where they are not, and make the obvious choice.
>
> That leaves you out.
>
> --
>
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Sep 1999 01:48:17 GMT
From: Brian Mullaney <mullaneb@tecoma.mccc.edu>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
> Thanks for confirming that ham radio is not involved in any of the
> communications I mentioned, Brian. I knew Gary was a LandLine Lid, and he
I've noticed something, Charles - you think all but a small handfull of
hams are landline lids.
> knew it, and now you have confirmed it for us all. It figures that Gary
> would try so hard to weasel... He knows he's in the wrong.
Maybe you should go to your local college and take a course in basic
networking. Then, perhaps, you can learn the difference between network
hardware and software that uses the network
> You can hang any name on it you want to, or try to weasel around like Greg
> Jones, but the fact remains that "Amateur Telephone" is an ignorant,
I knew that you couldn't go very long without mentioning Greg Jones.
> backward practice that can only serve to further set back the US packet net,
adhoc BBS forwarding isn't a network, Charles. Are you that bitter that
people have moved on past 1200 BBS use?
Instead of a phantom US Packet Net, Charles, how about you start a bit
closer to home? You can further your own cause by maintaining some of the
TPRS links that go over wire - and which got switched to wire because
nobody would maintain them.
> US tcpip community, and within an equally ignorant bunch in Australia. Only
Wow, Charles, you went almost half a message before including TCP/IP in
your rant.
> rejected and not allowed within the network. (They have tcpip of course, but
> not the "LandLine Lid" variety you boys espouse). These are REAL HAMS using
Where would this be, Charles? The NYC Metro area, where they decided on
switching to Flexnet without coordinating with anyone else on the network?
I know you don't care that TCP/IP was cut off for a while, but there was a
decent size group that did care.
> The next step is to outlaw "Amateur Telephone" in fact, with protective
> national legislation such as the European Hams enjoy.
Ah yes, the answer to everything.
Brian
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:09:07 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hank:
Yes there is. In the high speed access part of the network. Their
proposals could easily lead to the complete saturation of most of our
UHF/uWave bands with amateur radio ingress and egress traffic.
High speed long haul on amateur frequencies is not possible for two reasons:
there is not enough bandwidth ffor high speed long haul on MF/HF and, on
VHF/UHF/uWaves there is not enough critical mass at a national level (the
wide open spaces) to get it together.
Ergo, to save our UHF/uWave frequencies from being raped by the commercial
interests, we MUST load those frequencies up with traffic or lose them!
Clearly high speed access LAN's is the proper use for those frequencies.
And . . . we've got to get tons and tons of amateur users sending and
receiving traffic on those frequency bands. If not, it'l be bye bye bands!
Low speed long haul is possible on MF/HF amateur frequencies and is clearly
the preserve of RTTY/PSK31 and the xTOR modes and is perfect for narrow band
non-real time interactive applicationa like email. I love it and use it
often myself, but it is LIMITED.
Get with it Hank. Your approach is similar to that proposed by Charles, and
clearly needs to be completely re-thought. Your retrograde approach is BAD
BAD BAD news for the future of amateur radio on the UHF/uWave bands in this
country.
The Europeans are clearly running at least 10 years behind America in the
telecom revolution. Please don't use them as an example of the future!
They are an example of the past! You and Charles simply get nostalgic when
you correspond with the Europeans on this issue. I know you long for the
good old days, but Europe is behind, America is leading, and hams in America
need your help.
I love old dogs, but I don't take them to the dog races!
Comments, thoughts?
Best Regards,
Peter AB4BC QCWA #21317, FISTS # 5946
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:7sjpur$dj1$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:7sj3l8$i9e@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...
> > Charles, Hank:
>
> > My point is that it is my perception that Charles and Hank exhibit a
> certain
> > distasteful elitist attitude towards those of us who are willing to
> > participate and use the technology, but sit on the side and do little or
> > nothing about building, designing, deploying and experimenting ...
>
> You confuse me with someone else.
>
> The only hams I complain about are those who DO "experiment"
> and "build" in a way to PREVENT other hams from using their radios.
>
> These are the Land Line Lids.
>
> Anyone wants to use the internet, good for them. Just don't FORCE
> my ham radio traffic to use the internet, don't BYPASS radio links
> that I and other hams have built, and don't claim that being on the
> internet is somehow "Making QSOs via ham radio. (And I've got
> the QSLs to prove it!)"
>
> Read TAPR's "Let's give away the ham bands" proposal, and also
> read the WinLink "Vision of the future" to see what we're talking
> about. Both available on the web. Not much in the way of ham radio
To be continued in digest: hd_99_242G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
