| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:37l 204 Lines 7033 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244J
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244J
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0CZ<F6KFG<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<ON0RAT<ON0LVN<
ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0117Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12401 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244J
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:38 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244J>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> The "tcp/ip folks" have left 1200 baud for good. The problem wasn't the
> technology;
> indeed, once they saw what the payload was, they just lost interest. Who
the
> hell
> wants to transport out of band mods, and WW scrotum scratching from Brazil
or
> West Africa. If you took all of what Hams exchanged on their BBS and TCP/IP
> networks, and weighed it, it would be 1/2 Ton of shit.
The "tcp/ip folks" left 1200 baud and moved to the internet.
Darn few of 'em can manage to create even a minimal RF network anymore.
> What has really taken off in Ham radio, is the old RTTY in a new form called
> PSK31,
> MFSK16, PSK125F, etc, where people can talk about substantive topics.
You bet! Fabulous discussions going on there! I was amazed!
Even better than the high end of 75M.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:43:34 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <srgeccetljn93@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Hoffa" <J.Hoffa@underground.net> wrote:
> Actually though, most of the people in this group wouldn't know what
Linux was,
> and would miss the fact that anything Phil wrote is ancient history.
>
> The "tcp/ip folks" have left 1200 baud for good.
Ah, but it was GREAT for learning the TCP/IP protocol! You could
actually WATCH all the handshaking going on - ESPECIALLY the
retransmissions that you don't normally see on an Ethernet :) Once I
convinced everyone in our area to turn ARPing off, 1200bps
TCP/IP "kinda worked". At 9k6, TCP/IP over AX.25 actually starts to
become usable.
> The problem wasn't the technology;
> indeed, once they saw what the payload was, they just lost interest.
Who the
> hell
> wants to transport out of band mods, and WW scrotum scratching from
Brazil or
> West Africa. If you took all of what Hams exchanged on their BBS and
TCP/IP
> networks, and weighed it, it would be 1/2 Ton of shit.
<snicker>
> What has really taken off in Ham radio, is the old RTTY in a new form
called
> PSK31,
> MFSK16, PSK125F, etc, where people can talk about substantive topics.
That's cool.
> Jimmy
------- 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, 7 Sep 2000 21:50:47 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Ed Hare, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:olXt5.580$u95.1495895@news.ntplx.net...
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I heard somewhere(I think it was on TAPR's Spread Spectrum mail list)
> > that 900Mhz devices "do better" than 2.4Ghz devices, as far as
> > propagation is concerned. I think someone mentioned an "evil"
> > multipath problem. Are they just covering their asses for choosing
> > 900Mhz for the FHSS radio project, or is this a legitimate concern?
>
> Do you really think that the fine folks at TAPR would put all the work
they
> do into promoting digital radio, then promote 900 MHz if it was second
best
> because one TAPR project uses 900 MHz?
After watching the "fine folks at TAPR" actively discourage Amateur Packet
Radio networking for years, insisting that Packet Radio be totally dependent
upon the Internet for all "networking functions" instead, years after this
policy was shown to be self-defeating and sverely counterproductive, nothing
they say or do surprises me.
> The leadership at TAPR cares very
> much about what they are doing and I have confidence that if they are
> recommending 900 MHz, it is not to cover their butts over the 900 MHz FH
> project.
I would say that TAPR has a "chance" to recover, now that Greg Jones is no
longer President of that organization, but I have seen the shape Greg left
TPRS in, (The Ham organization he "headed" prior to his move to TAPR). GOOD
managers leave an organization in better shape than when they first took the
helm.... Greg's ego doesn't allow that, so he tends to leave them in a
shambles. - Like TAPR is today.
Give Greg's cadre of butt-kissers and LandLine Lids a few years to hit the
bricks, and TAPR just may recover and once more become a fine Ham Radio
organization. Until then, don't put your money on TAPR coming up with
ANYTHING actually useful. You'll get lots of hot air and hype from them, but
no usable, useful results. That is the "LandLine Lid" way, and THAT is what
has lost the US it's leadership position in the world of Amateur Packet
Radio.
The European Packet Radio net is at least ten years in advance of the US
"net" now, and to a very large degree, this can be directly traced to the
activities of TAPR under Greg Jones' alleged "leadership". Greg is gone, but
his moronic, self-defeating policies remain. I'd like to see a fast
recovery, but am not optimistic after seeing what happened with TPRS. (Texas
Packet Radio Society)
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 03:19:30 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Ed Hare, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:olXt5.580$u95.1495895@news.ntplx.net...
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I heard somewhere(I think it was on TAPR's Spread Spectrum mail list)
> > that 900Mhz devices "do better" than 2.4Ghz devices, as far as
> > propagation is concerned. I think someone mentioned an "evil"
> > multipath problem. Are they just covering their asses for choosing
> > 900Mhz for the FHSS radio project, or is this a legitimate concern?
>
> Do you really think that the fine folks at TAPR would put all the work they
> do into promoting digital radio, then promote 900 MHz if it was second best
> because one TAPR project uses 900 MHz? The leadership at TAPR cares very
> much about what they are doing and I have confidence that if they are
> recommending 900 MHz, it is not to cover their butts over the 900 MHz FH
> project.
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Remember the NNC?
TNC-1, then TNC-2, then NNC, which was planned to give the
hardware base upon which we could build networks. That was ...
.. without digging out my NNC architecture diagrams and looking
at actual dates but relying on memory ... about 1985. As far as
I know, none were actually built, although a few boxes of similar
design were created by more than one group. Nothing comparable
to the TNC-2 done since then.
When did TAPR become divorced from Modular Mining?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #244
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
