| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 01.06.00 22:56l 172 Lines 7043 Bytes #-9460 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_153D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/153D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8VAD<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000601/1452Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:46441 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_153D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 00 15:39:56 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_153D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
interested in tcpip that each any every one of them would be willing to go
to a lot of extra expense and trouble over it is just plain unreasonable. -
It ain't going to happen in the present market, not on any significant
scale.
"Joe Ham" does not see amateur tcpip as being worth a lot of additional
expense and difficulty to do right, does not wish to do it (tcpip) wrong
(slow), so he works with what works well with commonly available,
inexpensive (slow) equipment and allows access to a network that offers
somebody else to talk to in thousands of more places than expensive,
complicated high-speed stuff can even start to offer. He wants to use widely
available equipment, reasonably priced, that is simple to set up and use so
that he can "talk" to the other "Joe Hams" out there. "Joe Ham" is not an
experimenter, and expecting him to be one on a wide-scale basis is just
plain stupid.
Next time you find yourself ready to heap a lot of blame on "Packet Users",
try examining your own basic grasp of the facts of life first. Your
negativity originates within yourself. Blaming "Joe Ham" for the situation
is equivalent to searching for a lost wallet under a bright street light
because it was too dark to see anything in the alley you actually lost it
in.
As long as doing tcpip right requires equipment and software that is
significantly more expensive and difficult to utilize than the standard run
of the mill Ham equipment, it will not be used on a wide-scale basis. Get
over it, move on.
Instead of unreasonably expecting thousands of "Joe Hams" to suddenly become
experimenters, try asking yourself why high-speed radios and modems are so
hard to find, so complicated to set up and run, so expensive, and so
difficult to standardize so that when you buy the stuff and hook it up, you
cannot reasonably expect to find someone else out there that you can "talk
to". These are the realities behind the general resistance to utilizing
high-speed/tcpip, not any deficiency on "Joe Ham's" part. Get off his back.
Get real.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:23:05 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: TCP/IP not welcome (was Re: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote:
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> > Like the nodes in Southern Oregon that have an ID string that says
> > something like "No TCP/IP allowed on this frequency!".
> >
> > Idiots.
>
> I used to have JNOS system camped out on 145.01MHz, essentially as a
> PBBS. There was no IP gateway functionality. Several years ago, shoot,
> it might five or six, if not more, I noticed that someone had connected
> to me apparently from the Modesto area (several hundred miles away).
> Wow! Must have had some unusual 2m conditions, but they'd faded,
> leaving a lingering connection. Too bad I hadn't noticed it at the time.
>
> A few weeks later, I received a letter in the mail, with no return address
> and a postmark from Stockton (if I recall correctly). The contents of the
> envelope was a photocopy of the Northern California Packet Association
> plan, with "145.79 TCP/IP Systems" marked in yellow highlighter.
>
> At first I was mystified; why did someone anonymously send me the
> packet bandplan for Northern California even though I'm in Los Angeles
> County? Eventually, I realized that my transient visitor had noticed
"TCP/IP"
> was available at my station and wanted me to conform to the NCPA bandplan.
>
> Forgive me for being so frank, but I eventually chalked it up to another
spineless
> ignorant amateur radio control-freak.
I agree, especially since a LOCAL bandplan is just that - local - and in this
case, the bandplans DON'T match. This can sometimes be a problem where
adjacent areas overlap (or when propagation causes an unusual overlap).
The bandplan for Southern California is at http://www.qsl.net/scdcc site
(click
on bandplan - the exact file may have its URL adjusted in the near future) -
and adjacent areas have links, either at the bottom of the bandplan page or
via
the links page to the other neighboring organizations - just for reference.
I also agree that this guy should have noticed that you were in a different
geographic area (he obviously found your address - duh!). He needed to be
educated that California is split in two for coordination, and in FOUR pieces
for packet bandplans (roughly corresponding to the WestNet BBS indicators
#NCA,
#SCA, #WCA, and #CCA - with #SCA and #WCA being the closest matching plans).
I also find it strange that at that time, 145.79 had APRS.....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:20:47 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: TCP/IP not welcome (was Re: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!)
As a previous member of NCPA, I will refrain from commenting
on this issue, other than to note that "control freak" is perhaps an
understatement when applied to the "coordination" activities of
that organization.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
"Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <Dana@Source.Net> wrote in message
news:3934A823.29321812@Source.Net...
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> > Like the nodes in Southern Oregon that have an ID string that says
> > something like "No TCP/IP allowed on this frequency!".
> >
> > Idiots.
>
> I used to have JNOS system camped out on 145.01MHz, essentially as a
> PBBS. There was no IP gateway functionality. Several years ago, shoot,
> it might five or six, if not more, I noticed that someone had connected
> to me apparently from the Modesto area (several hundred miles away).
> Wow! Must have had some unusual 2m conditions, but they'd faded,
> leaving a lingering connection. Too bad I hadn't noticed it at the time.
>
> A few weeks later, I received a letter in the mail, with no return address
> and a postmark from Stockton (if I recall correctly). The contents of the
> envelope was a photocopy of the Northern California Packet Association
> plan, with "145.79 TCP/IP Systems" marked in yellow highlighter.
>
> At first I was mystified; why did someone anonymously send me the
> packet bandplan for Northern California even though I'm in Los Angeles
> County? Eventually, I realized that my transient visitor had noticed
"TCP/IP"
> was available at my station and wanted me to conform to the NCPA bandplan.
>
> Forgive me for being so frank, but I eventually chalked it up to another
spineless
> ignorant amateur radio control-freak.
>
> --
> Dana K6JQ DoD #j
> dana@source.net
>
>
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #153
******************************
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
| |
