| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:38l 206 Lines 7318 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244H
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244H
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0HBN<DB0SWR<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<ON0RAT<
ON0LVN<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0116Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12399 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244H
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:33 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244H>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> On 7 Sep 2000, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> > "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.
>
> More specifically: The premise that not every node (customer) will request
> traffic (passage through the queue - the ISP's network) at the same time.
Some
> nodes will be idle when others are active. In the real world, some people
> work (or at school), while others are retired, etc.... The question comes
down
> to: What is the average concurrent usage? Then they plan around that
> (possibly with a 10% overestimate).
For the reading disabled: "100 users" above meant "100 users active at the
same time from one community." Assume they all run Napster or Gnutella.
This was intentional: I left it ambiguous (100 what?) to see how the responses
would run. Nobody took the obvious reading of "100 active users". Wonder
why that is? Because MURS is totally useless in that case. In fact, there is
probably NOTHING a hobbiest could build that would support such use.
Who will pay for the T3 link to cover the radio bandwidth?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 21:50:45 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net> wrote in message
news:DUTt5.612$Hf4.50138@nnrp2.sbc.net...
>
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8p8rd3$dbo$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >tons of mindless crud snipped<
>
> Yah yah, blah blah... I've heard a goodly number of geekoids, over the
> years, sing the same old tired song about how stupid Hams are, how stupid
> the ARRL is, etc etc etc.. How we ought to use the high bands more, blah
> blah blah.
>
> (Yawn)
>
> Not one of them ever DID anything useful, not even to further thier own
> alleged "cause"... But they sure are good at carping about everyone ELSE!
Some of them post here to drum up business ... and get everyone all
pumped up about MURS so they can sell more radios.
> Ignorant jerks. After hearing this same old tired crud for so many years,
> followed up by ZIP, by way of action along the lines they allegedly propose,
> I've come to the conclusion that this particular brand of blowhard is only
> there to SPAM legitimate discussion of Ham radio issues, and attempt to drag
> Hams down to their own sorry level. Many of the loudest ones work for
> companies that would stand to benefit if Hams were to lose heart and lose
> spectrum. - Thus their rabid negativity, followed by ZIP, by way of
> constructive ACTION.
Like the tcp/ip folks.
16 years of hype, almost zero progress beyond the original code Phil wrote.
Some good progress on HF, and some good VHF/UHF packet progress
in Europe, where they don't have the internet crutch.
> (Yawn)
>
> It's best to ignore them. This geekoid is a prime example of what Ham Radio
> could do with a lot less of.
>
> --
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> n5pvl@swbell.net
> http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:44:59 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p8rd3$dbo$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>tons of mindless crud snipped<
Yah yah, blah blah... I've heard a goodly number of geekoids, over the
years, sing the same old tired song about how stupid Hams are, how stupid
the ARRL is, etc etc etc.. How we ought to use the high bands more, blah
blah blah.
(Yawn)
Not one of them ever DID anything useful, not even to further thier own
alleged "cause"... But they sure are good at carping about everyone ELSE!
Ignorant jerks. After hearing this same old tired crud for so many years,
followed up by ZIP, by way of action along the lines they allegedly propose,
I've come to the conclusion that this particular brand of blowhard is only
there to SPAM legitimate discussion of Ham radio issues, and attempt to drag
Hams down to their own sorry level. Many of the loudest ones work for
companies that would stand to benefit if Hams were to lose heart and lose
spectrum. - Thus their rabid negativity, followed by ZIP, by way of
constructive ACTION.
(Yawn)
It's best to ignore them. This geekoid is a prime example of what Ham Radio
could do with a lot less of.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 23:10:21 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009071947220.9921-100000@exp.bde-
arc.ampr.org>,
kd6lvw@att.net wrote:
> 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.
Interesting.
> 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.
I'm actually from Riverside/San Diego Counties :) That's one of the
biggest reasons I don't go to the SCDCC meetings anymore. That, and
the fact I usually stay at my place in Rosarito on the weekends.
Believe it or not, I can hit ELANOD(East LA node) super-reliably on
145.09 in one hop from Rosarito(~140 miles) thru a beam using just 5W.
It is amazing what you can reliably accomplish on 2m with a clear
channel.
> 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.....]
Wow. Do you see any solutions in the near term?
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"
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244I
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
