| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 17:55l 190 Lines 7426 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_247B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/247B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SRS<DB0MW<DB0NHM<
DB0SHG<DB0OBK<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<
PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/0919Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5224 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_247
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20381 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 08:40:39 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016146 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:18:33 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:07:12 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_247B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/247B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> I fail to see how such a box would fit in a network node... or are you
> suggesting to start a network *now* that is layed out like the network the
> SV station described yesterday?
>
> A successful network has nodes linked to 3 or more neighbors on dedicated
> duplex links, plus one or more user access channels.
That is one way to architect a network. There are many other
ways to architect a successful network.
> The dedicated links do not require 100w.
Why?
> The user access most likely does not require 50w.
Why?
Same old arguments. "The network MUST be built of flea power
stations located very close to each other. Nothing else is useful."
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:49:43 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Mike Wiley <nospam-wb5gmk@flash-nospam.net> wrote in message
news:37F2C62B.2B823409@flash.net...
> Wanted Ericcson to build a AMATEUR NODE SYSTEM;
> must have in one box.
> 1. 56k baud 100w UHF port, PC freq programmable single channel.
> 2. 19.2k 50w VHF port, PC freq programmable single channel.
> 3. serial port or network interface for use with PC NOT reqd for NODE.
> 4. Modular construction for ease of repair/adaptablility to site.
> 5. Price to amateur clubs less than $1000.00.
>
> Matching 5-50w adj. single channel 19.2kb VHF Radio with built-in TNC
> thats sells for no more than $180.00
>
> Ok would that get our networks back up?
It sounds like a great idea, Mike.
- But I do not believe that a lack of equipment is the big sticking point.
The setup you described sounds excellent and should be pursued, but it will
not get our networks back up, in itself. (OTOH, it sure can't hurt, either!)
Your best bet to see rapid progress is to lobby for the "Anti-Lid Law" that
I recently proposed here on this ng in the post entitled "Anti-Lid Law".
Check it out. Nobody who has a positive, caring attitude about Amateur Radio
could possibly have any valid objection to it.
Basically if you want to see our network fly again, you will have to expose
the US tcpip community. Shine a bit of light on their negativity and
ignorance. Point out the way their negativity and ignorant behavior is
hurting Ham
Radio, Hams, and Ham Radio manufacturers in the US.
These clowns are EXTREMELY predictable about this behavior. - It's all they
appear to know how to do. Point it out to your fellow Hams. All US Hams
should know where the "Radio is not good enough for Ham Radio" attitude in
the US Packet community is coming from and how it is being perpetuated. Once
the LandLine Lid behavior pattern is pointed out and understood, it's pretty
hard to miss.
Talk to the FCC. Talk to the ARRL. Tell them you've had enough negativity
and lame-o excuses and want to see some folks with positive, caring
attitudes about Amateur Packet Radio get an even chance at running things
for a change.
Greg Jones, president of TAPR has, on many occasions, expressed his disdain
for the US Packet network, and in fact of ANY large-scale packet network. -
Do you see any reason to tolerate or support any organization that
admittedly is working in direct opposition to your goals as Ham? If not,
SPEAK UP about it!
As long as LandLine Lids are tolerated, and allowed to urinate all over
Amateur Radio with their crappy attitudes, their negativity, their
ignorance, their endless excuses, their baseless "mantras" (anti-ham
propaganda) and their seeming determination to undermine and destroy the
hobby at all costs, we are not likely to see any progress on the US packet
net.
Manufacturers associated with Ham Radio will continue to see hard times, and
the US will continue to be the laughingstock of the global Packet Radio
community.
Want to see a change for the better? Support the US Packet Radio net, and
show no tolerance for those who do not.
There IS one place in the US where the Packet net is growing and advancing
again.-- The one place where US Hams decided to quit tolerating and
listening to "LandLine Lids", rejected their way of thinking altogether, and
simply started building and enjoying the Packet Net again.
Hank Oredson suggested that the best bet is to simply ignore the LandLine
Lid types and start building the Packet Net despite their efforts. That's an
excellent suggestion, and it is working just fine in the NE USA.
To see RAPID progress on a national scale, get behind me on the "Anti-Lid
Law", and push.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 03:19:59 GMT
From: Mike Wiley <nospam-wb5gmk@flash-nospam.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Maybe my power levels are to high for a populated area.
Part of our problem is the wide expanses between populated areas and
hams here in Oklahoma. As to Rob's suggestions I have no knowledge of
backbones, could be all run on one feedline? it would be a heck of a lot
faster than the 9k6 backbone we have.
As for Charle's comments we really do need some fast out of the box plug
and play rugged stuff, not to many real experimenters left, but for
myself I dont see any need for more laws. As for the ARRL they need to
get their heads out of the sand, CQ's KA4ABT Buck Rogers writes more
about packet than WA1LOU has ever done. If it were a system spin-off
from maybe a commercial system for state and local networked digital
police/highway patrol or state radio systems without the required
encryption a commercial manufacturer might be persuaded to sell us a
real wing ding system.
If the only VHF port is in Oklahoma City I may very well need 50w to
stay in the link if there is activity. As to Charles's comments about
TCP/IP, Im not opposed to that stuff, having had a lot of fun with
running it here in central Okla. Gee I even got the code and compiled
the executable myself. Ive used internet gateways when I had no access
to ham radio, like at work to check DX clusters or send mail to friend.
I see no reason to allow commercialization of the packet system by
allowing the internet commerce garbage into amateur radio. I also see
no reason to put my 1200b stuff back on the air if there is no one to
talk to or a BBS anywhere near.
Mike WB5GMK
Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrn7v660r.lo2.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> > Mike Wiley <nospam-wb5gmk@flash-nospam.net> wrote:
> > >Wanted Ericcson to build a AMATEUR NODE SYSTEM;
> > >must have in one box.
> > >1. 56k baud 100w UHF port, PC freq programmable single channel.
> > >2. 19.2k 50w VHF port, PC freq programmable single channel.
> > >3. serial port or network interface for use with PC NOT reqd for NODE.
> > >4. Modular construction for ease of repair/adaptablility to site.
> > >5. Price to amateur clubs less than $1000.00.
> >
> > >Matching 5-50w adj. single channel 19.2kb VHF Radio with built-in TNC
To be continued in digest: hd_99_247C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
