| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:00l 217 Lines 7297 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0CWS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0114Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12395 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:24 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> To use your example of 100 users in the community, the end-user link
> would be 256 kilobits per second. Guaranteeing them the full
> bandwidth all the time would be very expensive proposition. However,
> if you purchase a T1, you can oversell a 256 kbps chunk of bandwidth
> 25 times which is a reasonable oversell factor for high-speed
> service. This means, at worst you would get 10.24 kbits per second
> which is slower than a modem but the condition would not persist.
You have a cite for that number? I think it is way off the mark for
current internet users. That's 100 users "active online" not "100
users signed up for the service".
Perhaps you should remove rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc from
your crossposting, since this is simply not something that can be
done using ham radio. It is a commercial service you are talking
about. Has nothing much to do with this newsgroup.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:58:58 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <RVut5.72$LS.2544@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
> > 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.
Ahhh... but you have to *pay* for a license, and the radios aren't
cheap, and there aren't common nationwide frequencies, and you would
have the problem of high-power high-level nodes...
.. and how do you figure it is off-topic? This is a good segue - no
MURS newsgroup exists yet. I'm not even sure that the FCC report and
order is final, as there is very little information available on it at
the FCC site. My guess is that Radio Shack, Motorola, and company,
want to keep this thing under wraps - so that they can get a leg up on
the competition. I'm trying to tell people about it so that they
can "stake their claims".
> > 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!
Ahh, but it DOES 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 ...
Maybe in 1990, but not in the 21st century.
> > 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.
EXACTLY.
> 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.
NOS? More medieval technology. Just run straight TCP/IP.
> 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.)
EXACTLY! And now that you can't bitch about the *commercial* content -
because it is MURS and not ARS; you try to say it is "off-topic".
Handheld voice/data wireless communications is the RAGE right now.
This is "where its at", as far as radio is concerned.
> > 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.
???? That's why Motorola, Qualcomm, and Radio Shack, et.al. are
investing $BILLIONS$ in it???!!! And that's why the FCC releases
annual reports on it?! Who are you trying to fool?
> > 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?
Get in while the getting is good.
> > 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.
Ha!
> ... Hank
------- 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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:29:08 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p8dvj$s2g$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <RVut5.72$LS.2544@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
> > So what? This is alt.radio.amateur.digital.misc
> ... and how do you figure it is off-topic?
This newsgroup is about amateur radio.
MURS has nothing at all to do with amateur radio.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:35:35 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
