| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:12l 219 Lines 7748 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0BOX<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0IZ<DB0QS<DB0PKE<
PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2208Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4284 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20244 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 22:00:15 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016087 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:41:52 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:36:58 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
the
> > internet to forward packet messages etc.I agree this could be done via
packet
> > but considering the time to transfer a 8k message via HF and the
internet.
> >
> > We,as hams, should use this internet to expand our network but still
keep the
> > odd HF rig ready for transfers in emmergencies.Perhaps a time of looking
forward
> > needs to be undertaken so we can develop the next internet if there is
going to
> > be one.I believe we as hams could perhaps generate a faster more
reliable method
> > of data transfer over and above TCP/IP and AX25.
> >
> > Stop your moaning as the gateway users are not going to shutdown because
you say
> > so.Accept what cannot be changed and develop something new.
> >
> > Just for interest sake I am a restricted licence holder who has never
operated
> > HF as I feel that in doing the morse I should at least be able to use
it.Apart
> > from that VHF and UHF provides plenty of enjoyment for me and so does
packet to
> > such an extent that I will be establishing a internet-packet gateway in
about 6
> > months.
> >
> > >From the windy Simons Town,South Africa
> > 73 de ZR6HPC
> > Hylton
> >
> > ---
> > Submissions packet@qth.net
>
> --
> 73,
> Dick, KA1TUZ
> ka1tuz@arrl.net ka1tuz@email.com ka1tuz@rcn.com
> http://www.gis.net/~ka1tuz/
> KA1TUZ@KA1TUZ.FN42JH.EMA.MA.USA.NA
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:11:42 -0700
From: Mark VandeWettering <markv@pixar.com>
Subject: Anti Lid Law
Charles Brabham wrote:
> 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.
We don't have a nationwide packet network because nobody is willing to
invest the time
and money necessary to make it happen. In the commercial sector,
networking types make
lots of bucks to do this. Why? Because it is a mindnumbingly tedious
and thankless job.
Everyone is the first to bitch when it doesn't work, and nobody pats you
on the back when
it does. You typically carry a beeper so that people can bitch at you
on your time off.
Who would _ever_ aspire to do this as a hobby?
You can point fingers at the Landline Lids, and bitch and moan, but the
fact of the matter is,
you can't build the network you want because you can't convince enough
people that it is an
interesting thing to invest your heart, soul, and checkbook in.
> 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.
"If we just keep digging, I'm sure we'll get out of this hole soon!"
Amateur radio has whole classes of messiahs, each professing the true
faith, and warning
the dire peril that will result if their message isn't heeded. It is
perhaps good that the
majority of people can just ignore them and proceed in enjoying their
hobby, and in serving
their local communities in the best way they know how.
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <markv@pixar.com> http://www.idle.com/~markv/
>.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 1999 21:29:10 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Anti Lid Law
n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in <7spven$296k@enews1.newsguy.com>:
>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.
>
>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.
>
>--
>
>73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
>N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
>http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
With your description of "(ham to ham).. amateur radio digital traffic", I
assume that when and until it finds its way onto the amateur radio digital
traffic networkout, it is plain ol' digital data. If my understanding is your
intent, it will not change my life or operating habits one iota. How would it
effect the operating habits of others that choose not to use the rf network?
How will it promote more traffic by insuring that anyone using the rf system
will be held hostage to its inefficiencies and limitations with no options for
LL forwarding? Why would those living with the problems of the rf network
today
chose to use it tomorrow when it will be crippled worse? Will the volume of
traffic, "secured" by regulation, compensate for that traffic lost from those
no longer willing to commit messages to a network of lesser reliability?
I would communicate my ham interests by any means I found preferable to the
PBBS/NTS/Whatever you propose, as I do now with my ham and non ham related
communication, for reasons such as:
I prefer to use my own point to point hf and vhf rf equipment.
Greater speed by LL.
Greater reliability by LL.
More convenience by LL.
Lower cost by LL.
Given the reasons I have stated and others that do not occur to me at present,
I find no value in your proposal unless the purpose is to drive another nail
into the coffin of the amateur radio digital traffic network.
Maybe I am missing something in your logic or the facts of the premises.
Why would I choose to send or receive a message by a slow, archaic, broken
digital traffic network when I have other choices, assuming the prime reason
to
send or receive a message is other than the use of an amateur radio network?
Based on my understanding above, of your suggestion to control the primary
routing of all (ham to ham) .. amateur radio digital traffic, I care not. The
actual implementation would mean nothing to anyone, except those that do use
the rf network. If they chose to live with the effects, that is their
business.
If they are held hostage to the effects (such as those that have no option but
to use rf to get a message out or in), my sympathy.
I would oppose federal regulation of routing because I am aware of no reason
that would justify government regulation of a facet of this hobby, regardless
of what has been done in other countries. The rf network should live or die by
its own merits, or lack thereof.
Pete/wa4hei
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:41:00 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Anti Lid Law
Deja Vu:
In the early days of amateur packet BBS message forwarding back in the 70's
and early 80's, the whole ARRL NTS, especially the CW traffic men, were up
in arms about the fact the BBS forwarding, AMTOR and APLINK was siphoning
off all of the traffic from the NTS nets.
That new fangled packet BBS forwarding system was "starving" the NTS system
of traffic and slowly killing it!
The NTS'ers wanted the ARRL to ban NTS traffic handling on the BBS
forwarding system. Heh, heh.
The perceived problem was that the manual skills involved in both CW and
voice traffic handling would fall into disuse and atrophy. Without traffic
the CW and voice net participants would become bored with little or no
activity and the whole NTS net system would break down.
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
