| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 07.10.99 22:45l 181 Lines 6980 Bytes #-9727 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_251D
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/251D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991007/1618Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5877 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_251
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20665 ; Wed, 06 Oct 99 00:15:08 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016260 ; Tue, 05 Oct 99 14:05:11 MET
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 99 13:56:33 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_251D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/251D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
the applications and users that might wish to use it. Quite literally,
"you can't get there from here".
Mark
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <markv@pixar.com> http://www.idle.com/~markv/
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:55:56 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Mark VandeWettering <markv@pixar.com> wrote in message
news:37F918A3.A6FDA1C7@pixar.com...
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> > Note that all the above comments are about a particular pair of sites.
> > A response of "Choose different sites" simply misses the point.
> > If different sites are chosen, one still has to do the same work
> > to determine if THOSE sites are worthwhile.
>
> After all, we know that the first solution which jumps into your head is
> the best one!
Did you read what I wrote?
There already is a route, using two hops.
You assumed it might be possible to improve the performance of
one or both of those hops. Your assumption is wrong.
> Honestly, you've done this long exposition about how you desired to
> build a single hop link between these two stations, with absolutely no
> justification that it is better or even desireable to do so. The
> shortest distance between two points isn't always the straight line that
> you imagine.
What would you like in the way of justification?
This is a hobby. We don't have to "justify".
> Your "solution" to overcoming the large amounts of local noise at
> station B by upping the ERP at station A is mighty un-neighborly.
> Spraying all that extra power around limits the abilities of others to
> use that spectrum space that you're polluting.
I said no such thing. Read what I wrote.
> As hams, we are supposed to operate within the bounds of good amateur
> practice. This governs not only what we should do, but also what we
> should not do. We should not needlessly pollute spectrum with excessive
> QRM just to satisfy our largely egotistical need to generate a single
> hop link.
Another idiot speaks up. Nothing to contribute so you denigrate
those who do try and contribute.
> When a network WORKS like a network should, multi-hop links aren't the
> bug-a-boo that people seem to think they are. Heck, a network without
> any multi-hop links isn't a network at all, it is just a bunch of people
> yelling at each other.
I never said multi-hop links were a problem.
Read what I wrote.
> I've seen the argument made here that "any network is better than no
> network". In fact, I know of at least one reason why that isn't true:
> investing your time in networking strategies and equipment which provide
> only marginal utility keeps you from devoting your time, money and
> energies to strategies which will work.
How is this different from what I said?
In either case you have to create the links.
There ain't no magic.
> You can't convert the 1200
> baud BBS packet radio infrastructure into a real network that services
> the applications and users that might wish to use it.
I never said you could. In fact I don't RUN any "1200 baud BBS packet
radio infrastructure". I don't run a BBS. I run tcp/ip, CLOVER and PACTOR.
Try paying attention.
> Quite literally,
> "you can't get there from here".
Nonesense. Perhaps the lazy and not-so-clever can't.
> Mark
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > ... Hank
> >
> > http://horedson.home.att.net
>
> --
> Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
> Email: <markv@pixar.com> http://www.idle.com/~markv/
>.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Oct 1999 23:57:40 GMT
From: "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote:
> Now, the EU requires us to open these markets for competition. This
> has resulted in lots of extra efforts by the existing companies that had
> not been structured in a way to support multi-access to the infrastructures
> they manage, and also in a lot of rework on the infrastructure itself.
> So what do we have now? The railroad company has been split into
> infrastructure and operating companies, had to raise tariffs to allow that,
> a "mickey-mouse" 2nd operating company was introduced and has already
> terminated its services. So we are left with just the costs.
> The mobile phone market is now services by 5 different networks (and even
> more "service providers" operating on those networks). Antennas are
> popping up literally everywhere, not a pretty sight both in urban and rural
> environments. It has become nearly impossible to select a good deal.
> The phone company had to make difficult "interconnect" arrangements and
> technical modifications, and therefore could not properly service its
> regular customers for a long period of time. And when it (KPN) wants to
> introduce some new service it first has to wait until the competitors can
> offer it as well... thus, competition is hampering progress.
> The local electricity company is being sold to an American company. I hope
> this does not mean they will adjust the quality to American standards!
> Who knows what will happen with the water and gas, but looking at what
> happened it GB does not promise much good...
I know this probably doesn't help much but you've just experienced the
classic missteps when moving from a regulated monopoly environment to
a competitive environment. You can't make a market just by breaking
up an existing monopoly. There's a transition period in which the
split the existing monopoly into the highly regulated natural monopoly
and a regulated operating company. competitors are allowed to come in
unregulated and the balancing act between the regulated original
operate company and the unregulated competitors must exist for a
period ranging anywhere from 20 to 50 years depending on the rate of
change within the market segment.
as for your telephone company interconnect problems, they are either
highly mismanaged or they are flat out lying. I would put my money
down flat out lying based on experiences here in the states with the
regional Bell operating companies. one of the classic tricks the
telcos pull is to "standardize" on the most expensive, trouble prone
interconnect technology available. Then because of the problems, they
will convince the local regulators to require the use of their people
to perform all the work in the central offices. This effectively
To be continued in digest: hd_99_251E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
