| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:04l 190 Lines 7343 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244G
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0115Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12398 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244G
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:32 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244G>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> 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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:40:21 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: MURS potential
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009060107040.6945-100000@exp.bde-
> arc.ampr.org>,
> kd6lvw@att.net wrote:
>
> > The reason why K6VE is there is because he is the ONLY ONE LEFT who
> is holding
> > things together. Remove his system and the entire packet network for
> Southern
> > California dissolves. (Also, K6VE's system is not on ALL THREE of
> those
> > channels.) As for his ERP, his station's location, being AT HIS
> HOUSE on Mount
> > Wilson,
>
> lucky devil.
>
> > 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.
Yes - but he's not operating a cell. He is operating the central hub.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
It's NOT the only 9k6 channel in 70cm. 438.950 - 439.075 (in .25 steps) are
all 9k6. There are also a handful of 9k6 allocations at 431 MHz. If you
prefer
2m, then why didn't you go with 9k6 on 144.99 MHz?
> > > > 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.
>
> 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.
Modified part15 devices on 2.4GHz usuallyjam legitimate, WELL-DESIGNED amateur
operations on 2.4. Right now, I've got an interference issue up there with a
neighbor's 2.4 cordless phone that has yet to be resolved.
Also, if you don't want the LA County Sheriff's conditional permit to become
permanent, you should advocate PROPER amateur use of the band. Most 2.4
equipment made under part 15 are a bit too wide banded for proper use.
[2.4 lan stuff will go outside of our band. 2.4 cordless phones sometimes
suck
up an entire MHz - too wide. Many problems with conversions.....]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 21:47:26 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:ubsy03x71.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
> "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.
Um ... yes ... that is what the citations would show, it is called
"measurements."
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 21:57:08 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10009071958500.9921-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org...
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244H
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
