| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 12.10.99 15:28l 178 Lines 7703 Bytes #-9721 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_257C
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/257C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991012/0859Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:7512 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_257
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21133 ; Tue, 12 Oct 99 08:12:34 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016342 ; Tue, 12 Oct 99 07:46:58 MET
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 07:44:19 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_257C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/257C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hank Oredson wrote in message <7top8a$55k$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Networks are not always built by a single person. Sometimes one
>ham works with another ham to use what equipment they might
>both have available or might be willing to purchase. So one might
>make trade-offs, as I pointed out in a different post.
>
>I understand these things never happen in your narrow minded view
>of Ham Radio Networking. They do happen in the real world. Often.
That has been my experience, too. Sometimes it results in far less than
optimum equipment or sites. Buy hey, whatever it takes to build a link.
Not everybody has deep pockets, or is an electrical engineer, or lives
on top of a hill. If everything had to be just perfect, then I doubt that the
amateur packet network would have existed at all.
Sometimes I think people lose sight of the fact that it is, in fact, a hobby.
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:09:44 -0400
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:24:24 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:e1v=N1IBV7xwV00WtHBg+PxnWmoB@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:27:34 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
>wrote:
>> >Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >news:Xw34NxHJf+EF064afvXkDcnPO0tB@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> >"... well engineered .." makes no sense. The paths are what they are.
>> >> >They go, for example, from my house to your house.
>> >>
>> >> That's where they end up, perhaps after several intermediate relay hops.
>> >> But each hop path has to be properly engineered. That means proper
siting,
>> >> proper link margin, and proper consideration of multipath issues. This
isn't
>> >> Olde Tyme Radio, we don't have to make the entire trip in one hop.
Digital
>> >> networks are naturally suited to automatic relay.
>> >
>> >> >This is the long haul case we are talking about. You don't *normally*
>> >> >put large dishes or large yagi arrays anywhere except on your own
>> >> >property. Way too hard to maintain if they are not local. Exceptions
>> >> >exist of course, but I've never personally encountered one.
>> >>
>> >> Nor have I. With an adequate number of properly engineered relay sites,
>> >
>> >Gary,
>> >
>> >Do you intentionally misread?
>> >We were talking about a single link.
>> >A path between two stations.
>> >Between exactly two relay points.
>> >One of those hops in the network.
>>
>> Yes, I understood that. What you don't seem to understand is that
>> if the numbers work out to an unreasonable solution, as in the cases
>> you've given, you don't do that single link. You do a different topology
>> instead that will give acceptable numbers. That will involve more than
>> one hop, but total network performance will improve.
>
>You *do* intentionally misread!
>Imagine my surprise.
>
>As stated many times, "... different topology ..." is not always possible.
A different topology may require efforts you don't want to expend,
or levels of cooperation you aren't willing to achieve, but different
network topologies are almost always possible. It is just a matter
of how determined you are to meet your networking objectives.
I will concede that there are exceedingly rare circumstances where
your topological choices are extremely limited by geography. In
those cases, there may not be a viable choice at all within amateur
means, so we can't extend network services to that point. But if there
is at least one choice, then there is almost certain to be others as
well. Saying that there is only one topology is saying you haven't
seriously considered alternatives.
>These are not commercial networks. These are hams, playing around
>with digital modes on their ham radios. As hams, we can do what we
>want. We are not constrained to build only perfect networks. We get
>to have some fun!
>
>Your narrow view of ham radio networking precludes such fun.
>But everyone already knew that.
There is no such thing as a perfect network. But we can certainly
engineer networks to levels of performance far in excess of the sorts
of helter skelter random flailings you seem to espouse. Doing a job
you want to do, and doing it well, *is* fun and very satisfying.
Failing is not fun. The sorts of things you expouse are a recipe for
disappointment and failure. You and Charles rail about network bypass
and collapse, but you can't seem to see that your approach dooms any
network you build to failure and collapse.
In a society of free choice, building a sustainable network, amateur or
commercial, requires a commitment to excellence of system engineering.
If you can't deliver the performance and services your user base demands,
the network won't be sustainable. Only a legally enforced monopoly can
get away with mediocre performance for long.
>> >> however, there is never a need for such large antenna structures
>> >
>> >> >For the long haul case, it is rare that the path is line of sight.
>> >> >Usually it is a scatter path of some nature.
>> >> >Example: the troposcatter path from the Lowell, MA area to
>> >> >Southern NJ on 2M 1200 baud. Worked quite well for us when
>> >> >we used it. KW and 4 long yagis in NJ, 200W and two long yagis
>> >> >in MA. Antennas at 170 and 120 feet above local terrain.
>> >>
>> >> Incredible. I bet you were *real* popular with the other people
>> >> trying to use that segment of the band across at least 3 states.
>> >> And for nothing more than a half duplex 1200 baud link at that.
>> >
>> >Yes, totally terrible that we should carry on a QSO on 2 meters over
>> >a long haul path. My oh my. Better see the "coordinator" and see if it
>> >is ok to call CQ using high power on 2M SSB, find someone to talk
>> >to a few states away, and then decide to play with digital communication
>> >over that path. Oh dear! Next thing you know one will have to get
>> >permission to work Aurora or Troposcatter, much less EME!
>> >
>> >You seem to have misread "... when we used it ..." and pretended
>> >that I said "Network link always up."
>>
>> You presented it as a network link, and the context of the discussion,
>> as you reminded me in another post, is network links. Network links
>> are coordinated (at least they are if one wants to be responsible),
>
>You mean hams are not allowed to play with digital modes and link
>things together without permission from some coordinating group?
>When did this happen?
You do like to twist. Amateurs can play with what they like, provided
that they do it in ways that don't adversely impact other amateurs.
Network links, by their nature, are something with the possibility of
having adverse impacts on others, so coordination is good practice,
just the same as repeater coordination is good practice. I suppose
next you'll try to twist and say that repeater coordination is also a
bad thing and amateurs should just put them up helter skelter without
concern for the impact they may have on others.
>> and such monster troposcatter links wouldn't be coordinated because
To be continued in digest: hd_99_257D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
