| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:37l 211 Lines 7341 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_252D
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/252D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/2015Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16300 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_252D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 00 16:38:16 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_252D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> free access to the Internet or worldwide conference bridges at
> 9600 baud or greater speeds via a "free" ham radio duplex
> repeater.
>
>
>
> 73 de Rick K6VE @ K6VE.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM Pres. & Trustee - Mtn Rptr
Assn.
> CHAIRMAN - "SCAPS" SYSOP - "LABBS"/"METBBS" QCWA - #26731
> ASST. DIRECTOR - ARRL MEMBER SCDCC - 1996
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:52:15 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: internet repeater linking
What *are* you guys talking about?
500 - 1000 messages per day was the norm, when the network
was working. Was a rare month I didn't handle 20,000 messages..
Posted those stats by year to this group some time ago.
The drop-off occured *after* the Land Line Lids began to bypass
the radio network, and continued to the present, as the radio network
was little by little taken off air.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
"Ed_Woodrick" <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:e7qQ1YlHAHA.327@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Rob,
>
> 30 messages is an unrealistic expectation. If only 1% of the Amateurs sent
> only one message a day, that would result in over 500 messages per day. And
> that's not really enough to support the infrastructure needed . The BBS
> message passing concept was doomed from day one, just because of how it was
> designed. It wasn't really designed bad, it just wasn't designed to support
> the numbers of users that it needed to support.
>
> As to Junk Mail? One person's junk is another's treasure. Comparing to the
> Internet Spam, what most people don't realize is that Spam is profitable, if
> it wasn't, why would so many people be doing it?! It's part of any messaging
> system and you have to design for it and live with it.
>
> Ed
>
>
> "Rob Janssen" <nomail@rob.knoware.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrn8s109v.qs.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> > Ed_Woodrick <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > >And I've delivered 35,000 message in 4 hours across the Internet. And
> that's
> > >message about 10k long. To destinations around the world. And the server
> or
> > >circuits weren't working hard.
> >
> > >And that is the issue!
> >
> > >The Amateur Packet System showed most folks, years ago, that it was not
> > >capable of handling the amount of traffic that was needed of it.
> >
> > Of course it can be questioned if high traffic capacity is needed.
> > Usenet shows that no matter how far you increase capacity, people will
> > always use it up. The average quality of the messages will just decrease,
> > and their average size will increase.
> >
> > In the early days, both on terrestrial packet radio and on pacsats, one
> > would come home and eagerly connect to see what interesting bulletins
> > there were. Maybe 30 of them on a good day.
> >
> > Over time, their number increased but the fun reading them decreased.
> > Kill filters were required and built. But it became increasingly
> difficult
> > to receive content interesting enough to warrant the effort to weed it out
> > of the junkpile.
> >
> > And so, a year or two, I (and many, many others) just quit connecting to
> > the BBS. My personal messages are forwarded to my station, and the
> > bulletins I just skip.
> >
> > Of course there will always be enough users to send junk around, but the
> > good days of discussions and useful information are gone. You won't fix
> > that by increasing capacity. That will just make it worse.
> >
> > Rob
> > --
> >
> +----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> > | Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob
> |
> > | AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU
> |
> >
> +----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:46:16 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: internet repeater linking
"Ed_Woodrick" <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eDEnnelHAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09...
> We couldn't even think at moving this thread to packet radio. The delays
> would have made what has been a few days stretch into a few weeks. I've got
> 200ms delays from one coast to the other. Packet would have 200s at it's
> absolute best, more like 200m or even 2,000m.
Never mind Ed.
Just can't get over your "digital modes of ham radio must be JUST
like the internet or they are useless" fixation.
Just go away, this newsgroup is for hams who want to do things
over radio links. It is not for you, since you don't want to do that.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:56:35 -0400
From: "Ed_Woodrick" <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com>
Subject: internet repeater linking
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:GESv5.5666$6i1.519969@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > Oh, and in Loma Prieta, the Internet was still active and handle
> > significantly larger number of messages than 6,000.
>
> My wife was at work at Seagate Technology in Scotts Valley when the
> quake occured. There was no dialtone in Scotts Valley. When she reached
> our house about 2 miles away, there was dialtone and she called me.
> The line dropped a few minutes later, and stayed out for 3 days.
> The internet handled zero messages during that time.
Wrongo Big Time!
You might not have had access, but there was definitely a lot of Internet
access available during and after the quake. You see, the Internet was
originally designed as a fault tolerant network designed to live through the
worse disasters. As such, there are many core Internet circuits that are
extremely fault tolerant. It's very common for many locations to be served
by multiple faul-tolerant circuits from multiple central offices. This
doesn't include the satellite connections that many organizations have.
What about all of the Amateur facilities that went off-line? My review of
the disaster showed a lot of repeaters going off the air, as well as VHF/UHF
digipeaters. It seems as if very few of the Amateur Radio installations were
earthquake hardened, unlike a large number of Internet facilities.
>
> In the Marina there were no functional telephones for several days after
> the quake. There were two mobile packet systems however, set up in
> vans that went from shelter to shelter handling health and welfare. That
> traffic went out on HF via N6VV.
>
> > Oh, and in your 1357 message, was the total data transferred? I'll guess
> > most messages to be less than 500 bytes and with a few R: headers,
average
> > size would be about 1k. If you were to look at the numbers that I
presented,
> > a 4k message to 20 stations, that would represent a total transfer of
80k.
>
> You guessed wrong. Try again. You are not even close.
So what's the answer? Or do you know?
>
> As with most of the Land Line Lids, you don't seem to have a clue how
> much traffic can be, and has been, moved over HF links and long haul
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_252E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
