| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 17:43l 214 Lines 7615 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_246D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/246D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0HBN<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<
PI8ZWL<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/0737Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5221 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_246
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20375 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:11:23 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016137 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:18:02 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:05:22 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_246D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/246D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
that operate on UHF-SHF bands and are fullduplex, and "user access
transceivers" that operate on VHF-UHF bands and are half- or semiduplex.
These days it would be much more sensible to use ethernet for the
interconnecting bus than the "microprocessor bus backplanes" used in
older designs like the RMNC.
While ethernet requires more processing and electronics in each unit,
this is now available at low cost. The advantage is that you can
interconnect a large number of transceivers, but still are able to
start small. And you can connect one or more computer systems as well,
to provide services on your network. These computers need not be PC's,
as Ethernet interfaces are available for anything that is to be taken
seriously.
Furthermore, in the case of microwave links you can put everything in
an outdoor box mounted at the antenna and use the ethernet as the cabling
between your units.
Funny that the amateur equipment manafacturers don't come up with something
like this. Sell one of them to each HAM, and a couple of them to each
node operating group, and you can easily construct a working packet
network. Use TCP/IP on the ethernet and it will work with a Windows PC
without even requiring extra software to be installed (at most a
line-oriented chat program to talk to the nonconverted).
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: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:35:44 +0000
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: Anti Lid Law
On 28 Sep 1999, pmarkham wrote:
> 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.
I agree with the above statement. Also, the other problem I see is that there
may be areas isolated by geography where no one in that area has an HF link.
I
have no doubt that via the proposal, you are encouraging that such an area
should do something [wireless] about that, but there's the problem:
- Most of amateur radio is anarchist in nature. Only rarely, does one
find groups of amateur operators who come together for a common goal, and
sporadically at that. What this comes down to is: Who will flip the bill
and/or maintain the equipment? I bet no one will step forward or there will
be
a conflict over how it's run, etc.
- Allowing other means allows that area to remain connected during
equipment problems, failures, etc., without loss of traffic.
It's easier to just let the network die than to fix it, especially when higher
speed "alternatives" exist individually. That wasn't the case when the
network
started - it was just as fast, and cheaper than the alternatives.
Although others in my area do have a problem with any amateur radio traffic
going via other means than wireless, I do not, AS LONG AS THERE REMAINS
sufficient digital links to move the traffic when there's a complete failure
of
all other means. Also, some traffic may be inappropriate (not in content, but
size and/or volume) for slow-speed links (e.g. "rec.radio.amateur" newsgroups,
call-server lookups where multiple [say 50+] records are returned, e-mails
with
graphics/binaries), and such traffic is likely to be limited and/or stopped,
certainly during emergencies, if not blocked all together.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:50:03 GMT
From: "Radio Club F6KBF / MAISONS-LAFFITTE" <f6kbf@multimania.com>
Subject: DxNet from F5MZN on the WEB
DxNet, the packet cluster software from F5MZN is now available from
http://www.dxnet.free.fr
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:45:58 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Charles:
Are you saying that sailors are ignorant?
The America's Cup participants use the latest aeronautical technology on
their keel designs.
Peter AB4BC
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7ssgil$2oqo@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> The single most ignorant declaration I have seen expressed on this
> newsgroup.
>
> And that's saying quite a lot.
>
> --
>
> Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:25:34 -0500
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Charles Brabham wrote in message <7ssgij$2oqo@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
>Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:7sr737$9uv@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> What? We desparately need to find new applications, but . . .Charlie
>wants
>> us to stop the application mantra.
>
>Oh, just as long as you quit using it as a lame excuse for doing anything, I
>suppose it's allright to chant it to yourself, if you feel you must.
>
>Of course, if I ever saw any evidence that a lack of new applications really
>was a sticking point, I might feel differently.
>
>Right now, it's just a rather lame excuse for sitting on your hands, and
>when you parrot this mantra you not only discourage yourself, but others as
>well.
>
>My feeling is that the need for new applications was so desperate, somebody
>would have a clue as to what purpose these new applications might serve.
I agree 100%. For at least 2 years now, I've seen a number of people in
this ng say that we "need new applications" to revitalize packet radio. But
I've yet to see any of those people actually NAME any applications that might
be interesting.
IMHO, if they really feel that strongly about it, they should quit wasting
their time
whining about it, and instead look into what THEY can do to make packet more
interesting in their local area. If they did that, then they could get out
here and
brag about their wonderful new application and how it's so much better than
plain
old BBSes, and they can tell us all about how activity on their new high-speed
LAN
is growing, rather than dying out. We might even end up modelling other LANs
after theirs.
What's ironic (and sad) about the whole thing is that these folks chant their
applications mantra, yet the packet network isn't being obsoleted by some
To be continued in digest: hd_99_246E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
