| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:01l 218 Lines 7306 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0CWS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0114Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12396 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:27 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
news:8p8dvj$s2g$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <RVut5.72$LS.2544@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
<off-topic stuff chomped>
> > > 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.
Make up your mind.
> > 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.
Explain.
> > > 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.
So you advocate abandoning ham radio.
> > 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.
Explain.
How is *NOS (you forgot the '*') different than any other
tcp/ip stack? Do you even know what you're talking about?
> > 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".
424.750 is an amateur frequency. You can drop the MURS obsession.
> Handheld voice/data wireless communications is the RAGE right now.
> This is "where its at", as far as radio is concerned.
Whoop-de-doo.
> > If you want to build a commercial network, do so.
> > It's off topic for this newsgroup.
> Ha!
<plonk>
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: 07 Sep 2000 13:53:54 -0400
From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S. Johansson)
Subject: MURS potential
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> writes:
> "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
> news:uk8cpwmxy.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
>
> > 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".
No cites because it is empirical. You oversell bandwidth until people start
to complain then you add a little more bandwidth. Publicized oversell
ratios are frequently lies. In the dial-up ISP world, small
pops oversell at a 10 to 1 ratio. very large-scale pops (2000
modems+) oversell at close to 30 to 1. The math behind this is based
on queuing theory.
the world gets different when you're talking about ethernet type
competition for bandwidth versus competition for a phone line. You
can use very high oversell rates because traffic tends to be bursty
and you can interleave on a time basis to achieve overall higher
utilization of the channel.
> 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.
let me bring things back to the original point. I argued that amateur
radio should be able to provide/carry traffic for community access
Internet. In theory, one should be able to do with a commercial
service but you can't in practice. There are no licenses left for
deploying such a wireless service. All of the big players are sitting
on the LMDS/MMDS licenses until they can figure out how to deploy a
service that will generate them billions of dollars to pay the
overinflated auction based license fees.
because the FCC lets licensees play "dog in the manger", there is
significant pressure to dig up more spectrum. Guess where is going to
come from? within the next five to ten years, I believe amateur radio
will lose most of the spectrum above 440 to commercial interests. The
only way to stop it is to occupy it. Converting more taxi radios and
filling the bands with idle repeaters isn't going to help.
I want to keep amateur radio around for a while and doing interesting
things even if it means slitting the throats of a few sacred cows.
this means thinking outside of traditional roles and operations such
as providing datacomms for underserved/not profitable communities (ie
rural and 2/3ed tier cities, university researchers, poor schools
etc.)
I'm asking you to not just think out side the box but to punch holes
in the side and climb out.
--- eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:28:53 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:ubsy03x71.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
>
> I'm asking you to not just think out side the box but to punch holes
> in the side and climb out.
>
It's an old, old song that you are singing. Everybody is familiar with the
lyrics.
(Yawn)
Got anything new or interesting to say?
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 19:47:55 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <ubsy03x71.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us>,
esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S. Johansson) wrote:
> > 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.
>
> let me bring things back to the original point. I argued that amateur
> radio should be able to provide/carry traffic for community access
> Internet. In theory, one should be able to do with a commercial
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
