| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 29.09.99 04:12l 188 Lines 7462 Bytes #-9754 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_244A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/244A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PRG<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990928/2155Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:3937 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_244
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20175 ; Tue, 28 Sep 99 21:39:27 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016052 ; Tue, 28 Sep 99 23:26:38 MET
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 99 23:24:36 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_244A>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/244A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Tue, 28 Sep 99 Volume 99 : Issue 244
Today's Topics:
Anti Lid Law (2 msgs)
Business Jargon 60732
Caldera Linux 2.3 and AX.25
Double Posts!
Kinda spooky - Bandwidth to burn . . . (7 msgs)
Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales (12 msgs)
LOOKING FOR PSK QSOS
N5PVL - Digital Pioneer! (2 msgs)
N5PVL - Digital Pioneer! #2 (2 msgs)
PSK31 and the interface (3 msgs)
Win 3.1 host mode application for MFJ-1278 ? (3 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Ham-Digital-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Ham-Digital:99/244
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:48:12 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Anti Lid Law
Here's a blurb from another discussion, where I outline my proposal for
eliminating the "LandLine Lid" problem. My proposal is a bit different than
what is already being done elsewhere:
Our US Packet net was damaged the worst by the introduction of non-ham links
(Mostly Internet) that served to "route around" legitimate Ham digital
links,
depriving them of traffic so that the hams operating them tended to lose
heart and shut them down. Then, of course, you get a domino effect of
disillusionment, decay and apathy such as we have experienced here during
the last decade or so.
Packet users who previously were proud to participate in an independent, all
Ham digital network were told that they could no longer depend upon messages
entered into a Packet BBS to arrive at their destination via Amateur Radio.
This, along with a constant barrage of negativity about the US Packet net
from the US tcpip community, led in spirit by Greg Jones' articles and
presentations, served to further disillusion and discourage US Packet users
and networkers.
The Europeans avoided all of these difficulties by simply enacting
legislation which made it illegal to route Ham Radio digital traffic over
non-Ham networks.
The proper wording, if you care to make a proposal, is to outlaw the use of
non-ham means for the primary routing (ham to ham) of amateur radio digital
traffic.
This leaves intact the routing of information by non-ham means for secondary
purposes such as delivering NTS messages to non-hams, autopatches to non-ham
telephone links, and of course exchange of information between ham and
non-ham networks, (Internet) for applications like APRS, callbook lookup,
emergency communications, and a number of other such applications we haven't
imagined yet.
By way of comparison, remember the Australian regs concerning this matter?
>
>Restrictions on connection to a public telecommunications network
>
>11. The licensee must not, directly or indirectly, connect an amateur
> station to a public telecommunications network if the station is:
>
>(a) an amateur repeater station; or
>(b) an amateur beacon station; or
>(c) using automatic mode (including, for example, packet mode
> and radioteletype mode); or
>(d) using computer controlled mode (including, for example,
>packet mode and radioteletype mode).
So when you communicate with an Australian gateway station, don't forget
that you are talking to a criminal.
The Europeans do things pretty much the same way, from what I understand.
Notice any difference between what is done overseas and what I am proposing?
(No babies being tossed out with the bath water.)
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:51:22 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Anti Lid Law
Here's a blurb from another discussion, where I outline my proposal for
eliminating the "LandLine Lid" problem. My proposal is a bit different than
what is already being done elsewhere:
Our US Packet net was damaged the worst by the introduction of non-ham links
(Mostly Internet) that served to "route around" legitimate Ham digital
links,
depriving them of traffic so that the hams operating them tended to lose
heart and shut them down. Then, of course, you get a domino effect of
disillusionment, decay and apathy such as we have experienced here during
the last decade or so.
Packet users who previously were proud to participate in an independent, all
Ham digital network were told that they could no longer depend upon messages
entered into a Packet BBS to arrive at their destination via Amateur Radio.
This, along with a constant barrage of negativity about the US Packet net
from the US tcpip community, led in spirit by Greg Jones' articles and
presentations, served to further disillusion and discourage US Packet users
and networkers.
The Europeans avoided all of these difficulties by simply enacting
legislation which made it illegal to route Ham Radio digital traffic over
non-Ham networks.
The proper wording, if you care to make a proposal, is to outlaw the use of
non-ham means for the primary routing (ham to ham) of amateur radio digital
traffic.
This leaves intact the routing of information by non-ham means for secondary
purposes such as delivering NTS messages to non-hams, autopatches to non-ham
telephone links, and of course exchange of information between ham and
non-ham networks, (Internet) for applications like APRS, callbook lookup,
emergency communications, and a number of other such applications we haven't
imagined yet.
By way of comparison, remember the Australian regs concerning this matter?
>
>Restrictions on connection to a public telecommunications network
>
>11. The licensee must not, directly or indirectly, connect an amateur
> station to a public telecommunications network if the station is:
>
>(a) an amateur repeater station; or
>(b) an amateur beacon station; or
>(c) using automatic mode (including, for example, packet mode
> and radioteletype mode); or
>(d) using computer controlled mode (including, for example,
>packet mode and radioteletype mode).
So when you communicate with an Australian gateway station, don't forget
that you are talking to a criminal.
The Europeans do things pretty much the same way, from what I understand.
Notice any difference between what is done overseas and what I am proposing?
(No babies being tossed out with the bath water.)
I do not see how a Ham could come up with a legitimate objection to what I'm
proposing, but I'm ready to hear somebody try.
To be continued in digest: hd_99_244B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
