| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:24l 207 Lines 7772 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2347Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4353 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20260 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:01:18 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016108 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:43:08 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:37:19 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245I>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245I
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> Use it or loose it.
>
> Comments, thoughts?
>
> Peter AB4BC
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:40:51 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Cathryn Mataga <cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote in message
news:xg8I3.613$9d.8281@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
> 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.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> > Peter AB4BC
>
>
> To me it just seems pointless to run PBBS on the internet. Why not use
nntp or
> something with a better user interface? What's even the point of having
> a 'network' on the internet -- since it makes more sense to run a
messaging
> system from a single server with a fat data pipe, and then take
connections
> from the entire planet. It's just a waste of bandwidth to move all that
data
> around, if the users can connect in at just as fast. I could replace the
entire
> Westnet with my DSL line and a few Linux machines here if people
> came in over their net connections-- but what would be the point of it?
If you're
> going to do internet stuff, it makes more sense to do proper state of the
art
> internet stuff. Like real time games -- or 3d interactive VR stuff, or
maybe real
> voice or video chat or something like this? Running PBBS over the
internet
> seems about the equivalent of dialing someone up on the phone and
> using morse code. Why bother?
Why not use nntp (and smtp/ftp/pop et al) on ham radio?
I do. Works fine. Doing it to read and respond to your post.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:35:29 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
George:
Yes, I believe as you seem to, that there will be "land grabs" for our UHF
and uWave spectrum anyway.
But . . . squatters rights has a certain credibility and, as they say in the
legal profession, possession is 9/10 ths of the law.
And so . . . . ,as you suggested, if we can occupy some of that spectrum it
will be tougher for them to simply take it for commercial purposes. The
better the uses we can make of it, especially if those uses pushe the state
of the art and make contributions to "society" in several ways, the better
off we are with our claims to retain those frequencies.
The ARRL is trying to do this in another way, by initiating proposals for
and supporting bills in Congress to force the FCC to swap Hz for Hz any
bandwidth taken from us with other equivalent bandwidth. But as you stated,
if we are not using it, it makes a pretty hollow argument. BTW . . . those
bills are not likely to see the light of day in the current Congress.
It seems that the ARRL is set on "helping" this situation only by working at
the political level. On the technical level for developing new modes and
bands that work has been largely abandoned by the ARRL today. Who is to
blame for this? The board, Dave Sumner, the ARRL lab guys, the members,
who? Anyway, on the technical level it seems that it is all in the hands of
other groups like say TAPR, or the folks that hang out on this NG, or lone
wolves like Hank W0RLI, and Peter G3PLX, etc. . . etc . . .
I believe now that our HF allocations are safe, but that save was really a
slam dunk" since no one else really wanted them. And so . . . I believe
that our "sacred" HF bands will be like our National Parks, simply preserves
for the use of nostalgic older communications modes. the ARRL needs to work
on the UHF, uWave and broadband applications.
HF will be like sailboating today, a fun hobby, and an interesting activity
ffor a few diehards, but not really technically relevant.
We really need to get moving on finding applications, traffic and uses for
the higher bands.
Thanks for the comments George,
Peter AB4BC
George T. Baker <w5yr@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37F173DF.8E1BC675@swbell.net...
> Peter, I am having trouble with a point that appears repeatedly in your
> postings - which I find uniformly interesting, by the way.
>
> You present the premise that the amateur VHF and UHF and uwave spectrum
> is secure as long as it is "occupied" by amateur activity. Keep those
> kilocycles busy with ham rf and nothing can touch us.
>
> I find this very difficult to believe.
>
> When push comes to shove, the FCC et al is highly unlikely to just take a
> census of amateur activity and if it meets some expectation continue to
> let us use spectrum when big $$$ are snapping at the gates. Remember what
> happened to the 220 band and it was busy . . .
>
> I agree that we "make a better case" for our supporters and benefactors
> in high places when we can demonstrate high levels of activity, but that
> case is almost without basis when the realities of spectrum need/greed
> are considered.
>
> Bottom line is that we would have a rough time defending any spectrum if,
> for example, we based the defense of certain HF frequencies on the
> traffic volume of the NTS. NTS is a large, well-organized, practiced,
> publicized, ARRL-supported "network" of great historical significance.
> Sheer volume of usage just doesn't cut it.
>
> I do not know what it will take - if, in fact, anything is "sure" - to
> ensure that we retain our current spectrum, but somehow the notion that
> we can win largely on the claim that say 200,000 or so amateurs are
> sending email to one another solely by radio waves just doesn't strike me
> as a winning posture.
>
> Without a doubt, Charles will find ample meat here for another tirade but
> that is beside the point you and I are addressing here.
>
> You asked for comments?
>
> 72/73, George AMA 98452 R/C since 1964
> Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 54th year and it just keeps getting better!
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
