| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:39l 160 Lines 7405 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_252E
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/252E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/2012Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16297 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_252E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 00 16:38:19 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_252E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> VHF/UHF links. Your "guesses" are simply silly propaganda.
>
> If you want the real numbers, you can retrieve the log files collected
> by the ARRL and analyze them yourself.
And just what type of log files are you talking about? Or are you talking
about ARRL messages?
>
> > Hank, if Internet forwarding is so bad, then how come your customers
aren't
> > yelling and why are the other forwarding stations doing it?
>
> I don't have "customers". It is the internet that is a business, not ham
radio.
Yes, you are right, you don't have any customers because you aren't
providing a needed service.
Customers don't mean that they have to pay with money. Customers are the
users of your service. In Amateur Radio, we have many customers. Repeater
owners have the repeater users as customers. Clubs have members as
customers. Digitial networks have those who send and receive messages as
customers.
Those Amateurs who work Emergency Services have the world as their
customers.
>
> The following quoted verbatim:
>
> To the S.C.D.C.C. and other interested parties......
> ...an open letter to Jim, N6HNY, who runs the SCDCC re-mailer
> on Internet
Ham radio cannot compete with Internet, nor should it have
> to! Ham radio does it's best job in emergencies, when it's not
> required to send recipes and similar bulletins "ad nauseum". Ham
> radio doesn't have to compete with Internet; it just has to GET
> THROUGH, and not a lot of data at that! If most people want the
> ease and reliability of a 1200 baud connection to their local
> BBS, that's fine. What is most important is that they have a
> reliable and workable connection and that they have a RADIO
> STATION that's capable of operating from their home or place of
> employment, to assist others in case of a disaster. IT ISN'T
> IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE ABLE TO SEND 15,000+ RECIPES FOR DIABETIC
> POUND CAKE, just that they send the words "HELP...need medical
> supplies as follows...etc." It's absolutely crucial that we have
> as many HAMS as possible, and not that they have the fastest
> technology on the planet. It's better to have more hams with 300
> or 1200 baud equipment than it is to have a few hams with 9600
> baud communications tied to a single repeater with a port to the
> internet! Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket! That
> just doesn't make sense! The ham radio network that we have in
> place right now, works very well for what it needs to do now, and
> in the event of an emergency. That's what is important. If you
> want to do something good for ham radio, get the word out to
> everyone that YOU CAN BE A VALUABLE PART OF AN EMERGENCY
> COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, and not the current pitch of offering
> free access to the Internet or worldwide conference bridges at
> 9600 baud or greater speeds via a "free" ham radio duplex
> repeater.
>
>
He's right, Amateur Radio cannot compete with the Internet. So let's follow
the situation. BBSs sprung up on the telephone network. Ham's copied the
concept for packet radio. BBSs on telephones migrated to the Internet due to
it's significant advantages. BBSs on packet radio mostly migrated to the
Internet due to it's significant advantages.
Do you see a slight problem here Hank? You are asking us to believe in a
concept that you are calling "landline lids" from which the whole BBS
concept was stolen. The way that the BBS system was put together never
worked well, it will never work well. If you want 1200 bps data to work, you
are going to have to find another "killer app" aside from a BBS. Packet,
passing messages around just can't compete with the Internet. But there are
many things that packet can do that are competitive. One of the easiest
modifications to the existing network is just what you are complaining
about, replacing slow long-haul circuits with the Internet. And then using
the faster VHF/UHF connections for dissemination of information to end
users. In the event of a disaster, you should be able to provide routing via
a VHF/UHF link until you get to a station that has connectivity to the
Internet. That's the best of both worlds. It's not the Internet taking over.
The Internet has some significant advantages, instead of fighting it, why
not use it.
Although I hate to mention it, it's a lot like CW, a few die-hards wanting
to use it, but no longer a significant factor.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:15:37 -0400
From: "Ed_Woodrick" <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com>
Subject: internet repeater linking
First rule is disaster planning, never rely on anything. You should always
have a fallback solution. There are just as many problems that can knock a
wireless system out of operation as can knock a T1 out of operation.
You point about "you only have to reach the national network" is right on
the money. After designing and implementing a transcontinental network for
another service, it's not worth the effort. In every disaster that I can
think of, all you need is to provide communications for about 200 miles
before you reach reliable services. And in many cases, all you need is about
50 miles. So, far disaster recovery, we don't need to be looking at
transcontinental links, we need to be looking a short-haul with interconnect
into other networks.
If a packet station can provide RF links to stations in each of the 4
cardinal points, at distances of 50 miles, as well as an interconnect to
higher-capacity networks, then the station should be significantly more
disaster resistant. Redundancy is what creates reliability in disasters.
You'd have to naive to rely solely on HF to transfer traffic, a good solar
flare could bring forwarding to a halt.
Amateur Radio Operators used to be looked at as being the "innovators" Sadly
this distinction has now passed us by. Let's let CW go and let's create
something else that we can rally around!
Ed
"Steve Sampson (K5OKC)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net> wrote in message
news:ss0dqdh0ct627@corp.supernews.com...
> > My wife was at work at Seagate Technology in Scotts Valley when the
> > quake occured. There was no dialtone in Scotts Valley.
>
> The recent fire in Los Alamos was a similar example. The Information
> Systems manager for the county needed to link all the fire departments
> together, and sent out a request for proposals on a new system. He found
> that a wireless system was actually cheaper than the T-1 based system
> proposed by another proposal.
>
> Turns out during the fire, that the phone system was dead (shut down
> to prevent damage during the fire). If he had relied on a T-1 based
> solution, he would have had zero communications.
>
> What this shows, is that a lot of technology has matured since the
> quake you mention.
>
> The object isn't one of handling 6000 messages, it is one of on-line
> communications, both voice and data. The wireless networks available
> today only have to reach the next point into the national network.
>
> FEMA often provides this service now, by rolling in a Satcomm truck
> and hooking in to whatever infrastructure you have left. They also
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_252F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
