| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.06.00 15:00l 197 Lines 7122 Bytes #-9439 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_168E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/168E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0ROF<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<
PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8VAD<PI8HGL
Sent: 000618/0131Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:52497 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_168E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 00 00:20:02 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_168E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
>The WinLink "transport frequency" is the internet. All RF use of WinLink
>in it's "AirMail" incarnation is from user to host. i.e. it's a bunch of
>RF email drops hanging off the internet.
>
>> We have to trust fellow Hams to do the right thing. We trust
>> them every day to not commercialize the spectrum, using modes
>> that can't be monitored directly.
>
>Har!
>
>> I think when Hams finally accept high speed data pipes as
>> carrying pure data, it will be the day they enter the 20th Century.
>
>As opposed to "impure data"?
>
>> If you don't want people to send "data" over your data system,
>> then don't put up a node. If all you want is to be a limit on
>> what Hams can transport, you're in the wrong hobby.
>
>You failed to understand the main point below:
>
>> "Markus Lenggenhager" wrote
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> > My personal opinion is that this WinLink2000-AirMail alliance is
>> > definitely going in the wrong direction. Ham BBSs should be accessible
>> > using any commonly available client software.
>
>Ever since the original author of WinLink allowed someone else to
>take over development of the system, it has moved more and more
>toward a closed, proprietary system. Forcing (or attempting to force)
>the use of WinLink-specific clients appears to just be part of the
>strategy: to lock out competing software. Keep in mind that the commercial
>use of WinLink and similar systems can produce a good deal of income.
>You only need to "beat" Inmarsat on price, which is probably not hard.
>
>> > Furthermore, all
>> > WinLink2000 BBSs are interconnected via Internet, which means it becomes
>> > obvious their main purpose is to act as a cheap e-mail replacement. The
>> > fact that all tfc is compressed (unreadable by thirds) makes it very
>> > difficult to check if this network is not misused by pirates of all
>> > kinds.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> > It's a pity that PACTOR-II has been kind of devaluated and is being used
>> > almost entirely as a workhorse to carry binary BBS tfc. It's getting
>> > more and more difficult to find a live QSO partner amidst all these
>> > signals produced by unattended systems. No wonder PSK31 has become so
>> > popular: Behind every signal you monitor there's a human being!
>
>Well ... the value of bulk transfer protocols like PACTOR-II and CLOVER
>is that they work very well for BBS-BBS movement of messages. This allows
>hams to time-shift: i.e. carry on QSOs with other hams who are not on the
>air at the same time, etc. It's real convenient. PSK31 is not useful for this
>mode,
>so all use will, by the nature of the protocol, require a human to
interpolate
>the errors out of the datastream.
>
>> > 73, Markus HB9BRJ
>
>
>--
>
> ... Hank
>
>http://horedson.home.att.net
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:59:50 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Packet Radio
David Findlay <nedz@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> It sounds like you want to set up a TCP/IP high speed network for
>commercial
>> use (and profit). If you want to do that, you will likely have to compete
>> for special licences with all your Telco and ISP providers.
>Definately not. I want to set up a high speed, experimental wireless network
>for scientific and educational use or science enthusiests. Basically what
>the internet was before commercial stuff came in, but free. It would only be
>over a small geographic area.
You will have the problem that it will be both non-free in the sense that
you cannot use it for anything you like (limited by license conditions),
and non-free in the sense that it will cost *a lot* to build, and someone
has to pay for it. If not the users and/or contributors, who else?
Most attempts to do what you are trying to do (there have been many, at
least on paper and in late-night chats) have failed because of this.
Everybody wants to have a network for free, a lot fewer people would want
to pay for it, and even less would want to spend a lot of time building and
maintaining it. So, after a while it will turn out that you have 100
users, 10 who contribute $10/year as a generous donation, and only 2 or 3
who are doing all the work to keep it running.
Worse: 10 of those 100 users, 7 of them from the group "that paid for it",
will call you at 23:00 because "their link is down", or will spread
messages that "the link has now been down for a week and it is all so much
better managed in <fill in your neighboring state>".
I can assure you this is not going to be fun for long. I have been in it
myself.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:48:24 +0300
From: Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
Subject: Packet Radio
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:47:42 +1000, "David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>Couldn't you just do it like ethernet?
In Ethernet, the transmitted and received signal levels are nearly the
same.
>Shared medium/frequency. Only one
>station can talk at a time. If two transmit and the same time, this would be
>detected by the transmitting stations, then one would pause, wait for the
>other to transmit then continue.
In radio communications, the received signal can be more than 120 dB
weaker than the transmitted signal. If you try to do this even with
highly directional antennas, some of the signal will escape towards
the ground, trees or buildings and a small fraction of this will be
reflected back and get into the receiver. As soon as you start to
transmit, your receiver will get the spillower, stopping your
transmission.
Paul OH3LWR
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:48:24 +0300
From: Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
Subject: Packet Radio
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:47:42 +1000, "David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>Couldn't you just do it like ethernet?
In Ethernet, the transmitted and received signal levels are nearly the
same.
>Shared medium/frequency. Only one
>station can talk at a time. If two transmit and the same time, this would be
>detected by the transmitting stations, then one would pause, wait for the
>other to transmit then continue.
In radio communications, the received signal can be more than 120 dB
weaker than the transmitted signal. If you try to do this even with
highly directional antennas, some of the signal will escape towards
the ground, trees or buildings and a small fraction of this will be
reflected back and get into the receiver. As soon as you start to
transmit, your receiver will get the spillower, stopping your
transmission.
Paul OH3LWR
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:52:46 +1000
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_168F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
