| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 00:55l 187 Lines 7173 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_243A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/243A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<
PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000910/2255Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12320 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_243A
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 00 20:35:37 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_243A>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Wed, 6 Sep 2000 Volume 2000 : Issue 243
Today's Topics:
MURS potential (4 msgs)
THROB
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Ham-Digital-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Ham-Digital:2000/243
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:56:58 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <8ou609$o4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
K0HB <k0hb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8otsf6$ecu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You always seem to be critical of low-power, cell-based systems.
>
> MURS is not a cell based system. It is a technologically simplistic
> point-to-point channelized system, several technology-generations
> inferior to amateur radio.
Using TCP/IP as the communication protocol, and "cell" hubs connected
to Internet thru cable modems/DSL connections - there is no reason
a "cell"-based system can't be made to work.
One of the biggest problems with the 2m Amateur packet systems was(and
still is) the existance of high-powered, wide-coverage "high-level"
nodes. With one of them on a channel - it basically becomes unusable.
In the Los Angeles area; 145.01, 145.03, 145.05 are perfect examples of
this(K6VE seems to be the biggest blow-hard). At times these "blabber-
mouths" even affect San Diego and Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.
The 2W ERP and repeater limitations actually assist the "cell"
technique - they do NOT "cripple" it.
> I thought you were the fella hyping
> what "technically aware" would do if you could just find a few 12-
year-
> olds to help you out.
Why not. All most hams know how to do is argue, criticize, block
progress, and put up old-fashioned high-power jamming stations - so
that they can be king-of-the-channel. Building functional
communication networks seems to be one their lowest priorities.
> 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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:46:06 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p3c51$1kj$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8ou609$o4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> K0HB <k0hb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8otsf6$ecu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > You always seem to be critical of low-power, cell-based systems.
> >
> > MURS is not a cell based system. It is a technologically simplistic
> > point-to-point channelized system, several technology-generations
> > inferior to amateur radio.
>
> Using TCP/IP as the communication protocol, and "cell" hubs connected
> to Internet thru cable modems/DSL connections - there is no reason
> a "cell"-based system can't be made to work.
The protocol makes no difference at all. You have to build the RF part of
the network correctly before you can run ANY protocol over it!
Why this focus on using wires instead of radio? Why not connect
the cells together using radio links?
> One of the biggest problems with the 2m Amateur packet systems was(and
> still is) the existance of high-powered, wide-coverage "high-level"
> nodes. With one of them on a channel - it basically becomes unusable.
> In the Los Angeles area; 145.01, 145.03, 145.05 are perfect examples of
> this(K6VE seems to be the biggest blow-hard). At times these "blabber-
> mouths" even affect San Diego and Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.
> The 2W ERP and repeater limitations actually assist the "cell"
> technique - they do NOT "cripple" it.
Please read past comments about cell based ham radio networks.
You need to hook the cells together, using super-cells, and hook
the super-cells together, etc. This is well-known technology, just
not used by the cell phone people (because they use wires to connect
the lowest level cells together). What you described is simply a network
topology designed by someone who has not paid attention to work
done in the ham radio networks 15 years ago. It ain't hard to build
WORKING wide area ham radio nets. But you do have to think
about how you will create small cells, and then how you will create
large cells to hook the small cells together, and then how you will
trunk those large cells together from city to city.
You mentioned only 2M frequencies.
Your solution seems to be "I don't know how to figure this out,
so I'll just punt and use the telephone company instead."
There IS much better (RF based) technology available. No, I don't
mean commercial frequencies, or anything like that. I mean reasonable
network topologies instead of the junk you described above.
> > I thought you were the fella hyping
> > what "technically aware" would do if you could just find a few 12-
> year-
> > olds to help you out.
>
> Why not. All most hams know how to do is argue, criticize, block
> progress, and put up old-fashioned high-power jamming stations - so
> that they can be king-of-the-channel. Building functional
> communication networks seems to be one their lowest priorities.
Oh bull. Hams know how to build network, and have proved it in Europe,
and in some parts of the US. The "Gee, let's just use wires instead of
wireless."
folks sure make a real mess of things! Pure laziness in my view.
> > 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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:07:46 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: MURS potential
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8ou609$o4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> K0HB <k0hb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8otsf6$ecu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > You always seem to be critical of low-power, cell-based systems.
> >
> > MURS is not a cell based system. It is a technologically simplistic
> > point-to-point channelized system, several technology-generations
> > inferior to amateur radio.
>
> Using TCP/IP as the communication protocol, and "cell" hubs connected
> to Internet thru cable modems/DSL connections - there is no reason
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_243B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
