| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:14l 208 Lines 7705 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<DB0PKE<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2243Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4293 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20252 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 22:21:23 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016099 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:42:35 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:37:12 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245F>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
with that.
Still maybe with these new Lan cards, this kind of thing is possible.
Though likely it would require some kind of tower or mast at the
user end to get a good path. Honestly, I'm not completely
averse kind of thing. I think it's always been one of the delightful
insanities of ham radio, that people spend $4000 on equipment,
so they can talk to people over the air 20 meters to save 55cents
on phone bills -- talking to people they don't know. This is not a new thing.
And perhaps there are applications where having 'free' connections
would make a difference as opposed to having cheap connections.
You know, put your septic tank on the internet or something. Err,
have internet in goofy remote places, where it wouldn't justify paying
a monthly fee for this, but maybe you could collect some remote
data or interact in a way that APRS isn't quite capable of. It sounds
silly, but I do think there is potentially something to the 'free' thing and
the 'remote' thing combined.
All this talk about all the spectrum going down the drain is just depressing
-- and I think just scares away potential users. If you want
users, you gotta' hype the 'fun' thing. That's what'll bring 'em in, in my
humble opinion. Doom and gloom just brings everyone down.
>.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:11:23 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
> I don't "log on to a packet BBS" to send messages via ham radio
> either, I do it right here from this same program I'm typing in.
> Can you do that?
No, I can't. If I were interested in doing so, I'd find out how and
get it working. I'm not though.
Hamish
--
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: 28 Sep 1999 03:10:20 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> That's probably just fine for Australia which got its' constitution approved
> and signed into law by the British Monarch in 1901.
Yes, we did. (Just for information's sake, in November we are having
a referendum on becoming a republic.)
> Of course the USA is a republic and has no Monarch.
> I can understand it myself, certainly if I were a Monarch I would never
> grant my citizens the right to bear arms, would you?
No. I don't consider it desirable for citizens to have the right to
bear arms though -- I certainly do not want one, and do not want to live
in the sort of culture where I would ever feel I needed one.
> should be free to find and continuously optimize solutions to their own
> problems. I like to err on the side of too little government, not too much.
> That seems to be a general trait of most Americans compared when compared to
> subjects of Monarchs.
I am undecided on whether these regulations are good or not.
> Just a viewpoint Hamish.
Interesting -- thanks Peter.
Hamish
--
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: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:27:23 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hank:
Ironical isn't it. Your comments below are identical to the comments of the
NTS gang when packet came along. They said packet, and other new
technologies like AMTOR, APPLINK, etc. were siphoning off all of the traffic
away from the CW nets and the TCC. (Hint I'm an old CW traffic handler
myself! Used to be an NTS CW NCS, cdma before Ethernet, heh, heh.)
Now the shoe is on the other foot, here are Charles (And sometimes even
yourself!) complaining with exactly the same language as the old NTS'ers did
back in the 70's and 80's. In fact your BBS software (God bless it!) was
the major offender was it not? Now the shoe is on the other foot.
Technology has passed packet by in the same way that packet passed the CW
NTS nets, and the NTS nets bypassed the old original Trunk Lines.
BTW. . . the CW NTS nets still meet and operate all cycles every night.
Traffic is getting thinner all the time though. Familiar fists keep passing
on to the great hamshack in the sky. And whenever I meet some of my CW
friends for an eyeball at a hamfest or NTS meeting, even though they still
have very snappy fists, I see a lot of white hair and white beards, and not
many youngsters.
Is that the future of packet now?
Have we come full circle?
Or is there a younger generation who will run with new technology, and
provide a better route to cause all the traffic bypass the old routes.
Best Regards,
Peter AB4BC
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:7squ87$d15$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Exactly the point I have been making for ten years.
> Get the ham radio networks back to ham radio.
>
> Those hams who want to play ham radio on the internet should
> certainly do that, it can be fun. But when they intentionally interfere
> with the radio networks (by FORCING traffic intended for the
> radio networks to go to it's destination over the internet) they
> have killed those radio networks. > ... Hank - W0RLI
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:56:05 -0700
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett wrote in message <7sr1ad$3t1@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>...
>Hank:
>
>Ironical isn't it. Your comments below are identical to the comments of the
>NTS gang when packet came along. They said packet, and other new
>technologies like AMTOR, APPLINK, etc. were siphoning off all of the traffic
>away from the CW nets and the TCC. (Hint I'm an old CW traffic handler
>myself! Used to be an NTS CW NCS, cdma before Ethernet, heh, heh.)
>
>Now the shoe is on the other foot, here are Charles (And sometimes even
>yourself!) complaining with exactly the same language as the old NTS'ers did
>back in the 70's and 80's. In fact your BBS software (God bless it!) was
>the major offender was it not? Now the shoe is on the other foot.
>
>Technology has passed packet by in the same way that packet passed the CW
>NTS nets, and the NTS nets bypassed the old original Trunk Lines.
>
>BTW. . . the CW NTS nets still meet and operate all cycles every night.
>Traffic is getting thinner all the time though. Familiar fists keep passing
>on to the great hamshack in the sky. And whenever I meet some of my CW
>friends for an eyeball at a hamfest or NTS meeting, even though they still
>have very snappy fists, I see a lot of white hair and white beards, and not
>many youngsters.
>
>Is that the future of packet now?
>
>Have we come full circle?
>
>Or is there a younger generation who will run with new technology, and
>provide a better route to cause all the traffic bypass the old routes.
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
