| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 03.09.00 22:57l 165 Lines 5761 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_239B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/239B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SIF<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<
PI8HWB<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000903/2027Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:9870 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_239B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 00 21:39:09 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_239B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:10:35 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <8oou73$7vc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
K0HB <k0hb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8oot9g$6qs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > So, there is no doubt that MURS offers more potential than
> > GMRS, and there is a potential impact to Amateur Technician
> > Class growth.
>
> Why would a technically capable person opt for 5 discrete CHANNELS
> and a limitation of 2W under MURS, when the Technician license
> allows 1500W and literally hundreds of available MEGAHERTZ of to
> build out their data, voice, or image network? Your notion
> of "potential impact" to Amateur Radio disappears under the simplest
> reality-check.
Because they wouldn't be hamstrung by the Amateur limiations on
performing business, or freely accessing the Internet. Those are HUGE
advantages.
There are quite a few of the digitally-oriented hams out there that
take the position that most ANY ham Internet access is "verboten",
because it is so commercialized.
> > I wonder if the 9600bps-capable Kenwood TH-D7A(with builtin
> > TNC) can be modified to operate on the MURS channels(150Mhz)?
>
> The modification would be easy, but it would be illegal to use
> on MURS.
I'm sure it will be a slam-dunk for Kenwood to produce a MURS-specific
TH-D7A, and get it FCC type accepted. Radio Shack and Motorola won't
be far behind.
> 73, Hans, K0HB
------- Stewart - N0MHS --------
Wireless High-Speed Networking and
Public Radio Services Information(MURS,FRS,GMRS,ARS,CB):
http://www.pubcel.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:43:50 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: MURS potential
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> ...
> Now, let's look at digital modes. I think that this is where MURS
> offers the most potential. The lack of repeaters is actually a benefit
> for digital modes(as the use of dedicated repeaters for packet are
> extremely rare). Also, there is a renewed chance to try to build a
> 9600bps network on VHF. In the 80's, there was massive growth of the
> 1200bps Amateur packet network. There actually was a time when Hams
> were using 1200bps, when most telephone modem users were at 300bps.
> But the 1200bps standard soon became an anchor around the neck of
> Amateur packet radio. In the 90's, as telephone modem users saw their
> communications rates climb to 2400, 4800, 9600, 14.4, 28.8, and then to
> 56kbps - the hams were STILL slugging along at 1200bps. ....
2400 Baud for telephone modems was in place well before 1990.
> ...
> BTW, with the 2W ERP limitation, and no repeaters, the 5 channel
> limitation also sounds worse than it actually is. Besides, very few
> people are using any the Amateur 2m channels, at least here in Southern
> California. There are a few busy repeaters, but that is it. The rest
> of the channels are "dedicated" to silent, unused repeaters. Albiet,
> there is one channel dedicated to 1200bps 2m APRS use that is well
> utilized; but the few other channels where packet activity is seen, are
> just filled by hi-level nodes incessantly "blabbering" to each other at
> 1200bps - filling the channel bandwidth, while not performing any
> useful function. At least at 9600bps, it is possible to use TCP/IP,
> and get away from THAT nonsense.
What "5 channel limitation?" The DX-cluster channels are also quite active,
and if 9600 baud were really in use, the ONE frequency that is allocated to it
would not be idle 99% of the time. Also, the net/rom node interchanges are
less than 50% of the traffic on the bands - there are BBS users and other
things happening too.
If you want to justify a spectrum grab on 2m for digital, the existing digital
allocations had better be utilized at more than "full capacity" (meaning that
INTERACTIVE stations [as in a real person is there] have problems
communicating
because of collisions with other interactive stations passing traffic 80%+ of
the time).
Consider also that there are several frequencies in the other bands (notably
70cm and 23cm; maybe 6m) which aren't reserved for specific uses yet.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:27:31 GMT
From: Tom Currie <Tom.Currie@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
K0HB wrote:
>
> In article <8oot9g$6qs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > So, there is no doubt that MURS offers more potential than
> > GMRS, and there is a potential impact to Amateur Technician
> > Class growth.
>
> Why would a technically capable person opt for 5 discrete CHANNELS
> and a limitation of 2W under MURS, when the Technician license
> allows 1500W and literally hundreds of available MEGAHERTZ of to
> build out their data, voice, or image network? Your notion
> of "potential impact" to Amateur Radio disappears under the simplest
> reality-check.
You make the assumption that the idiot making the original post is (or
even could recognize) "a technically capable person."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:16:38 -0500
From: "J. Hoffa" <J.Hoffa@underground.net>
Subject: MURS potential
The price of these FRS radios is what draws many to them.
The fact that they are better than the 6 meter and 11 meter
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_239C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
