| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 22:35l 184 Lines 7268 Bytes #-9730 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_248D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/248D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/1659Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5709 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_248
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20502 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 16:45:07 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016185 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:20:41 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:09:22 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_248D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/248D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
to as well.
Unfortunately, after a number of years of seeing it suggested, it has become
evident to me that "route around them" simply does not work. It's a great
concept, but in execution it's been a failure. - For whatever
reason/reasons.
Let's leave it to the LL Lid community to endlessly repeat "feel good"
statements that have no basis in fact. If an idea does not work after a
reasonable period of time, it's time to talk about doing something more
effective. Rational people do not need to parrot "mantras" as a substitute
for reason, and we need effective action, not excuses for the poor results
that follow a lack of effective action.
I'm looking for rapid, widespread results that will get the US Packet net
back on it's feet in short order, on a national basis. I'm not willing to
wait another five or ten years for something to happen.
The most effective strategy currently in use involves using an "MFILTER"
program to automatically delete incoming messages with certain key LandLine
Lid callsigns in the R:lines... This is being done effectively in the NE
USA. It's only been in use for a year or so, but so far it does appear to be
effective.
By eliminating messages forwarded by non-Ham means, you leave the way open
again to receive them via Amateur Radio, thus short-circuiting the entire
concept of "Internet Forwarding". It works for ALL non-Ham means of
bypassing Ham Radio, by the way, including CB stations that insist upon
"helping out" the Hams in the same way the LandLine Lids do.
But even this idea has it's shortcomings. The NEDA folks in the NE USA have
managed to pull together as a group due to the high level of cooperation
between the Hams who are participating in that network. We cannot, however,
reasonably expect that level of cooperation to exist on a national basis.
To re-cap my proposal:
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 traffic.
This leaves intact the routing of information by non-ham means for secondary
purposes such as delivering NTS messages to non-hams, autopatches to non-ham
telephone links, and of course exchange of information between ham and
non-ham networks, (Internet) for applications like APRS, callbook lookup,
emergency communications, and a number of other such applications we haven't
imagined yet.
Notice that the proposal in no way restricts the use of amateur tcpip or of
Packet/Internet gateways, except for those activities that serve to
undermine the use of Radio by Hams. This is a great improvement over similar
laws existing in other countries, that serve to "toss the baby out with the
bath water" by outlawing
Packet/Internet gateways altogether. - Duh!
This is a chance, in other words, for US hams to provide a bit of leadership
in demonstrating a beneficial way to interface the two networks without
harm.
Note that no legitimate Ham Radio activity is or can be affected in a
detrimental way by this proposal.
IMHO, the law would finally force amateur tcpip in the US to become a
legitimate Amateur Radio application, in contrast to it is current misuse as
a way to undermine Amateur Packet Radio and The US Packet network.
Those who then insist upon destructive, anti-ham behavior would soon find
themselves either straightening up their act, or they would find themselves
trying to explain their activity to the FCC enforcement division.
This is the only truly effective and rational way I see of dealing with the
problem. However, I do not share the LandLine Lids' essential lack of
confidence in the ability of his fellow Hams, or the arrogant attitude that
if *I* cannot think of a more effective solution then nobody else possibly
could either...
Any other ideas that would work as well, or as fast, or as effectively? I've
seen Hams come up with some really great ideas. I'm all ears.
However, I feel that if you CAN'T think of anything more fair and effective,
you should ask yourself if you are ready for another five or ten years of
the current situation, and act accordingly.
We have a number of similar regs that are intended to protect Ham Radio from
damage from non-ham influences such as commercial activity, indecent
material, and encroachment into our bit of spectrum by non-Hams such as
CB'ers, and these regs have served the hobby very well. What I am proposing
is simply another such regulation to cover a danger to the hobby which has
only recently reared it's ugly head.
Just think it through. That's what I'm asking my fellow Hams to do.
I'm looking for rapid, widespread results that will get the US Packet net
back on it's feet in short order, on a national basis. I'm not willing to
wait another five or ten years for something to happen.
How about you?
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 1999 15:15:16 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in <7t2cfb$1omh@enews1.newsguy.com>:
>
>I'm looking for rapid, widespread results that will get the US Packet net
>back on it's feet in short order, on a national basis. I'm not willing to
>wait another five or ten years for something to happen.
>
>How about you?
>
I will leave you arbiters of morality and the future US packet net determine
the rules and technology. I will continue my absence and support and do other
mundane rf and LL activities and never look back. My best wishes to those that
work to integrate technologies and create a unique network that meets their
requirements and inspires support from the "great unwashed".
Chiao
Pete/wa4hei
--
Eschew obfuscation.
>.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Oct 1999 06:01:40 GMT
From: jeffreyh@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: List of the rec.radio newsgroups
Archive-name: radio/personal-brief-introduction
In an effort help ensure a poster's article reaches the appropriate
audience, below is a list of the rec.radio newsgroups. In most cases,
a group's name will explain its purpose. Cross-posting should rarely
be necessary.
*rec.radio.broadcasting (devoted to the broadcast industry; moderated)*
rec.radio.cb
rec.radio.info (periodic informational bulletins; moderated)
rec.radio.scanner
rec.radio.shortwave
rec.radio.swap (for buying, selling, and trading; not a discussion group)
rec.radio.amateur.antenna
rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors (tube-type communications equipment)
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc (packet, pactor and other digital modes)
rec.radio.amateur.dx (long-distance amateur communications)
rec.radio.amateur.equipment (questions, comments regarding commercially-
built amateur gear; not for buying/selling)
To be continued in digest: hd_99_248E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
