| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 29.02.00 18:46l 194 Lines 7762 Bytes #-9563 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_59F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/59F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DK0MAV<DB0FC<DB0CL<DB0PDF<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000229/1310Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55132 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31125 ; Tue, 29 Feb 00 09:54:00 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018180 ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:02:28 MET
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 00 06:53:56 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_59F>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/59F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> What that means, is emergency communications equipment that can get
> data out of the area point-to-point, and then tie back in to the commercial
> system (Internet). For example, there is multiple T-1 communications
> gear in each skyscraper. All you have to do is vocode telephones onto a
> multiplex data-link to any of the skyscrapers, and you have phone systems
> in place for emergencies. You can string them like the Army strings phones
> in a war zone. (fast and furious).
>
> I think an excellent solution, is these new 10 Mbps Spread Spectrum
> gear from Lucent and Proxim. These could handle a couple-hundred
> data and voice channels. Even the 1 Mbps system could handle 20
> phones or data links. Drop the phones, aim the antennas, make the
> hops needed to get to a T-1, and interface the two systems. Using
> my imagination, these phones can be wireless (even Ham repeaters)
> or home style portable phones. The gadget you need to interface with
> is the PRI. It is basically a channelized T-1 that provides 22 phone
> circuits. ISP's use these for you to dial-up to the Internet with.
>
That's a constructive proposal. To me, I think to
get people interested, ideally, this kind thing would have both
a 'practical use' and a 'hobby use.'
Do those telescoping masts, that TV Stations use on their
vans ever end up surplus? You know, the gadgets, where
the little dish gets raised up in the air from a van, to talk
back to the station I guess. I assume ideally, you'd have
that or some kind of remote antenna you could hook up, and
then a mountaintop site, with a repeater -- that could link
to somebody's house with a cable modem or something.
I did talk to some hams on wwconverse from Turkey, and they
said that they setup some kind of remote link to the parts
of Turkey that were destroyed by the quake. Not sure what
kind of equipment they used. So, I don't think this kind
of thing is too out of the question.
Me, I'd think maybe little easier would be to setup an 'emergency email'
system -- so that you'd setup a table with a bank of laptops
running on emergency power at the emergency site. And,
then people who had messages to send could sit at one of
the laptops, and type in their message -- which would
then relay out to somewhere that had an internet connection.
Maybe then a printer and a bulletin board could handle incoming
traffic.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:22:54 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Tower Space
> Taking full advantage of this opportunity so as to get a good start on a
> National Packet Network will require (step up on soap-box) a more serious
> approach in structuring and funding large-scale packet organizations. None
> of the existing large-scale packet networking organization have, to my
> knowledge, the "grunt" to fully take advantage of this opportunity.
Sounds like a job for the ARRL. They're the only ones making money in
Ham radio. They've never been much interested in data though. But if you
want a national network, you are not going to do it without them. What does
the West Gulf director think? What is his budget for this?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:54:31 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
> > Now, tell me what you could use it for? Is this wonderful new protocol
> > going to transport out-of-band mods? WW filler? Dogma? What?
>
> Steve appears to believe that Ham-to-Ham communications are useless because
> he doesn't approve of what Hams tend to say to each other. "Why have a
> packet network?" Steve seems to be saying... It'll just be Hams using it,
> and Steve has trouble understanding why Hams would want to communicate with
> each other. If it's not what he is personally doing or saying, then of
> course it has no relevance and should be supressed, downgraded, denigrated.
Blow me.
I'm saying that Hams have abandoned packet radio because the data that is
being transported is of little value. If Hams won't participate at 1.2 kbps
reading
and writing this junk, why would they suddenly read and write it if the baud
rate
were 1.2 Mbps, or the protocol was a bit protocol, or a byte protocol.
I'm not denigrating anything. I just don't see the logic.
> > Tell me what I'm going to do with this new infrastructure, or tell me
> > what problem requires a solution. I don't see a need for host to host
> > communications in Ham radio anymore. I see only add-on features,
> > like digital data between radios (position, callsign, etc). This can be
> > done with a preamble burst just before you begin talking.
>
> Here Steve describes (in part) the limits of his vision.
Blow me.
OK, well if host to host communications are dying faster than hogs at
a slaughterhouse, I don't see data communications growing, outside of
fascilities to voice communications.
> > I say that, because Part-15 radios have surpassed Part-97 radios,
> > and have an Ethernet card form-factor, with speeds 10,000+ times
> > faster than what Hams are fighting and jamming each other over.
> > Netrom, Rose, Flexnet, Jimmy-net, Bobby-net, him-nos, she-nos,
> > give me a break...
>
> And here Steve expresses the opinion commonly held among LandLine Lids that
> if digital Ham communications do not go at a great rate of speed, then of
> course they could have no relevance or utility.
Blow me.
I'm saying that given that Ham radio is limited in free speech content, and
Public radio is not, why choose Ham radio over Public radio?? I can
say "the seven FCC non-words (shit, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits)"
and show mammary glands on Public radio infrastructure (Part-15), but I
would be fined or lose my license for those words and pictures on Ham radio.
It's obvious to me which one has more freedom and function, even for those of
us who don't collect mammary gland or hydraulics photos.
> > HF protocols are good enough for the limited channel they have to
> > operate in. Bits, bytes, who really cares anymore?
>
> Hams do. Too bad Steve doesn't. (In a way... In another way, it's just as
> well.)
Blow me.
Shit, Hams are too cheap to buy a good HF protocol that is available now.
You have to buy this stuff, because it takes an engineering degree to
understand
the DSP functions, and algorithm required to achieve the transport. You can't
homebrew something you can't understand. It's not resisters and capcitors
anymore. You really do have to know how to A/D, D/A, and do digital
DSP based algorithms. I know Hams who can do DSP without an engineering
degree, but they have equivelant knowledge to what is taught at the
undergraduate
level, more-so actually, as most undergraduates work with Matlab simulations,
and not real hardware.
> Steve has done a great job here, as usual, in descibing the intellectual
> limitations and character flaws inherent in the LandLine Lid community.
Blow me,
What's a "LandLine Lid?" Sounds like something a CB radio
person might use? 10-4? Good-Buddy?
> Thanks, Steve!
Blow me,
You're welcome.
>.
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #59
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
