| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 01:44l 203 Lines 7307 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0ROT<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0033Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12336 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:22 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> > > 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.
>
> ...And speaking of that, just why haven't you voiced your opinion
before one of
> the Southern California digital amateur radio organizations? Instead
of
> complaining about it, do something about it.
Actually, it really isn't a complaint, but an observation that high-
level nodes are a drawback when it comes to backboned systems.
I'm pushing for a medium-speed(~9k6)public wireless voice/data network
using the Internet as the backbone. The fact that amateurs can't do
business communications is a major drawback in establishing such a
network on ham frequencies. I'm just pointing out that, because MURS
offers both business AND digital applications, and is limited to low
power(but not too low) with no repeaters - it is a better choice than
ARS for establishing such a network.
Now that MURS is going to become a reality, you KNOW that Radio Shack,
Motorola, et. al. are working on something like I'm talking about.
Hams could actually "beat 'em to the punch" by moving their 9k6 stuff
over and "staking a claim".
Modified Part 15 devices on 2.4Ghz sounds cool - but there is that
little problem with "no business" communications that throws a wet
blanket on things. Besides, feedline loss is a "killa" on 2.4Ghz, and
the scuttlebutt is that propagation characteristics are less than
desirable.
------- 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 17:12:17 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p5q7q$pnv$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009060107040.6945-100000@exp.bde-
> arc.ampr.org>,
> kd6lvw@att.net wrote:
> > will virtually guarentee an effective ERP greater than 2W,
> unless
> > someone forces him to use a milliwatt radio (most amateur equipment
> comes with
> > 1W min. [HT's] or 5W min. [Moblies] in that frequency range). Try
> working with
> > him, not against him, and see where that gets you.
>
> In the usual sense, he has a great location - but for the cell concept,
> he has a bad location.
Totally wrong.
He has a perfect location for a top level cell, which connects super-cells,
which then connect local cells. (Assuming you architect with three layers
of cells, as has been done in the successful ham radio networks.)
> > As Hank Oredson says in a different response, just how do you expect
> to "glue"
> > your cells together without some sort of backbone or meta-cell?
> >
> > Also, what's the deal with using just 2m? You treat it as if there
> are no
> > other digital amateur radio allocations whatsoever.
>
> MURS is kinda on 2m(~156Mhz), and that is the only personal service
> that allows digital AND business comms.
So what? This is alt.radio.amateur.digital.misc. MURS is off topic.
You want to go commercial, there are *tons* of different frequencies
available, in *many* different bands. Build whatever you want, or
lease it. No big deal.
> However, I've got both 2m and 70cm amateur radios(lots of 'em), and a
> bunch of UHF-based FRS/GMRS stuff too. In general, I prefer the
> propagation characteristics and reduced feedline loss of VHF vs. UHF.
> The main reason that I even started using 70cm was because 439.025
> was/is the defacto 9k6 standard channel is SoCal.
"... the ... channel ..." ???
Only one cell for all of Southern California?
No wonder it doesn't work!
> > > > 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.
> >
> > ...And speaking of that, just why haven't you voiced your opinion
> before one of
> > the Southern California digital amateur radio organizations? Instead
> of
> > complaining about it, do something about it.
>
> Actually, it really isn't a complaint, but an observation that high-
> level nodes are a drawback when it comes to backboned systems.
Um ... "high-level" (by which I assume you mean "wide coverage"
and not "high-ERP") *are* the backbones. Duh ...
> I'm pushing for a medium-speed(~9k6)public wireless voice/data network
> using the Internet as the backbone.
Why do you persist in avoiding RF solutions?
There is *no* radio networking involved at all. It's just one little
tit off the internet serving one or a few users. Trivial. Old stuff.
First done over ham radio in 1984 for heavens sake!
What you suggest is simply totally trivial. You hang a TNC and radio
on your computer. Load your choice of *NOS software. Finished.
I have some spare radios and TNCs. Let's try it.
The whole task took me about ten minutes to accomplish on the
computer in the other room. Now it links that computer to the
internet over a 9k6 link on 424.750 to this computer.
Whew! That was hard! Oh neat! I can browse web sites via radio!
(The radios are TEKKs running 2W into dummy loads.)
> The fact that amateurs can't do
> business communications is a major drawback in establishing such a
> network on ham frequencies. I'm just pointing out that, because MURS
> offers both business AND digital applications, and is limited to low
> power(but not too low) with no repeaters - it is a better choice than
> ARS for establishing such a network.
Huh? Boring. Totally boring stuff.
> Now that MURS is going to become a reality, you KNOW that Radio Shack,
> Motorola, et. al. are working on something like I'm talking about.
> Hams could actually "beat 'em to the punch" by moving their 9k6 stuff
> over and "staking a claim".
Huh? What's the point?
> Modified Part 15 devices on 2.4Ghz sounds cool - but there is that
> little problem with "no business" communications that throws a wet
> blanket on things. Besides, feedline loss is a "killa" on 2.4Ghz, and
> the scuttlebutt is that propagation characteristics are less than
> desirable.
If you want to build a commercial network, do so.
It's off topic for this newsgroup.
> ------- Stewart - N0MHS --------
> Wireless High-Speed Networking and
> Public Radio Services Information(MURS,FRS,GMRS,ARS,CB):
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:55:10 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:uk8cpwmxy.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
