| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 28.09.99 01:21l 221 Lines 7360 Bytes #-9756 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_243C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/243C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<OK0POK<9A0YRB<PP5BLU<IW9EXL<
SV1AAW<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990927/1922Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:3608 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_243
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20112 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 19:06:36 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016023 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:41:41 MET
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:38:43 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_243C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/243C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Just asking?
Regards,
Peter AB4BC
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:cvjuN+99Xo4iCGsAAI1uUxO6wY3Y@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:43:11 -0500, "Peter O. Brackett"
> <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Folks, all day today I tuned up and down the 7 amateur radio bands
between
> >70 cm and 24 GHz.
> >
> >It was kinda spooky, not a single station was heard!
>
> <list of bands deleted>
>
> >Total 7 bands, grand total available bandwidth 1111 MHz.
>
> >Wow . . . 1.111 GHz is ours for the taking, heck we already have it.
>
> I do not know what the exact situation is in USA, but in general, the
> amateur microwave allocations are on secondary basis, while the
> primary user is the radiolocation (i.e. radar). In the days of fixed
> frequency systems no-one wanted tho share the band with radars, but
> the more frequency agile amateur systems could cope with this.
>
> The free running magnetrons and the sharp radar pulses required quite
> a lot of bandwidth in order to have a few radars coexist on a single
> area on one band.
>
> Those amateur secondary allocations are in danger, when the primary
> users do not need the full bands anymore. I would be much more
> worried, if no primary users could be heard. When the primary user
> will loose the primary allocation, the amateur secondary allocation is
> also gone.
>
> The real value of very broad microwave allocations is that it allows
> experimenting with simple gear such as free running Gunnplexers,
> without the risk of running out of the band e.g. in extreme
> temperatures. Apart from that, I do not see a need for more than 100
> Mhz allocations on a single band, realistically speaking, we do not
> have enough genuine data to move around, even if we are talking about
> live video.
>
> Paul OH3LWR
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:09:05 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Kinda spooky - Bandwidth to burn . . .
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:
>The real value of very broad microwave allocations is that it allows
>experimenting with simple gear such as free running Gunnplexers,
>without the risk of running out of the band e.g. in extreme
>temperatures. Apart from that, I do not see a need for more than 100
>Mhz allocations on a single band, realistically speaking, we do not
>have enough genuine data to move around, even if we are talking about
>live video.
Well, over here (Netherlands) the 3cm band is quite densely filled with FM
ATV relays located at high sites. They have different output frequencies
and many are equipped with receivers that are tuned to other relays.
They usually have picture-in-picture systems (4 or 16 pictures) that
display an overview of activity on several relays. One or more active
contributors to the relay often have a private link to it.
This of course requires several different channels, wide enough to
accomodate an FM ATV signal. While the official standard is "15 MHz
bandwidth", for practical reasons these relays use the satellite-TV
standard of 27 MHz bandwidth.
I have no exact bandplan of these relays, but they certainly use more
than 100 MHz of the 500 MHz-wide band.
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: 26 Sep 1999 12:21:21 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
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
> 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.
Charles, I agree with your general sentiment, but insulting people
like Gary on this newsgroup just makes you look a fool.
> The US and Australian packet nets have both diminished and gone to the dogs
Your source for info on the VK packet situation?
Hamish VK3SB
--
Hamish Moffatt Mobile: +61 412 011 176 hamish@rising.com.au
Rising Software Australia Pty. Ltd. http://www.risingsoftware.com/
Phone: +61 3 9894 4788 Fax: +61 3 9894 3362 USA: 1 888 667 7839
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:57:49 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Wow, next Charles will want the government to take away my guns!
Peter AB4BC
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7skr6h$npo@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> <steve_sampson@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7sjn41$kru$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > This is the "limit" theory as opposed to the "technology" theory.
> > Even the Central States VHF club proposes a "limit" rather than
> > "technology." Technology will build membership and save our spectrum.
> > Those who want to limit Ham radio, will destroy the hobby.
>
> Yes, I couldn't agree more, Steve, with your assessment. When a LandLine
Lid
> takes traffic intended for the Ham digital network and routes it over
> non-ham links instead, he in effect tells the packet users who originated
> that traffic, " I won't allow you to use Ham Radio to communicate".
>
> This is what TPRS did under Greg Jones' watch, and what TAPR is advocating
> now.
>
> Those who want to limit Ham radio, will destroy the hobby.
>
> That's why we need protective legislation to eliminate this limitation
from
> the US digital network, once and for all.
>
> --
>
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:17:58 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Rob:
Well, Rob that's simply not true!
The monopolists and cartels who "owned" the switch business were not the
ones who introduced the "new switches" rather it was the new upstart
competitors.
You owe the deployment of new low cost technolgy to competition whether or
not the technology actually is invioced by new era competitive or legacy
cartel suppliers, the newcomers and their fierce competition forced the
issue. Eliminate competition and go back to the monopolistic past? Heck,
that's why all of the immigrants left the "old countries" to come to America
the land of competition and low prices.
Do you really think that Seimens, Bell Telephone, Ericson, Nokia, Alcatel,
Lucent, Nortel, Fujitsu, NEC, etc would be offering new packet switching
equipment if it were not for Cisco, Wellfleet/Bay, Stratacom, Cascade,
To be continued in digest: hd_99_243D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
