| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:41l 148 Lines 7389 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_252C
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/252C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/2016Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16301 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_252C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 00 16:38:15 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_252C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > If my guess of your 1k message size is close to correct, that then
indicates
> > that you transferred 1357k. At your fastest rate, that would then
indicate
> > that 80k would take about 1.4 hours to be sent. While maybe "hours"
wouldn't
> > be a good description, it's not that far off.
>
> Your guess is wrong. Try again. You are not even close.
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
> I want to advise you about the danger of following the advice
> of certain "techno-nerds" who are promoting the idea that ham
> radio must become an extension of Internet and provide access to
> that medium. Beware of where they're leading you! Their ideas are
> flawed, and tend to undermine the concept of what ham radio is
> all about. I'm talking specifically, about one or two people who
> are trying to convince the SCDCC and a repeater owner to
> establish a 9600 baud duplex packet repeater. Having just that,
> is one thing, but their "hidden agenda" is to have a duplex
> repeater with a connection to Internet and/or conference bridges
> all over the world. A sort of "free access" to the Internet, if
> you will. Well, I have drawn a line in the sand, with regard to
> Ham radio and Internet, and I think you need to as well. I am
> in agreement with Hank, W0RLI, and people who think as we do. I
> understand that the entire Pacific Northwest has taken a stand
> against forwarding via Internet, and I am with them!!! It is no
> contest when you compare the speed and volume of traffic that
> W6VIO (the BBS of Jet Propulsion Laboratories) can handle, when
> compared with the K6VE BBS, or other BBS's without an Internet
> connection. W6VIO wins "hands down!". But, W6VIO relies almost
> entirely upon Internet forwarding to accomplish it's goal to get
> traffic where it needs to go. What's the point? To kill ham
> radio?
> At the last SCAPS meeting (sorry you missed it, Jim), the
> SYSOPS took the first step towards assuring the fact that the HAM
> RADIO network can and will handle HAM RADIO messages. Files,
> simply copied from Internet or other sources, are no longer
> mandatory baggage in the #SOCA and #CENCA portions of WESTNET!!!
> In other words, if you want to learn how to make fudge brownies,
> check out the Internet, but if you want to send a message (or a
> bulletin that's authored by a ham about a topic that's relevant
> to hams), then check in to your local Westnet BBS!!! The SYSOPS
> do not consider their individual refusal to post and/or forward
> such bulletins as censorship, as they're available to any sysop
> who wants them, from the Internet! If you want to send out a 35
> page manual, then you'd better be prepared to put it on disk and
> get it out via means other than Ham Radio!!! Of course, you can
> use ham radio to notify hams that the information you have is
> available, and some sysops might even want to post such data in
> their BBS files which may be available for LOCAL DOWNLOADS during
> "off-peak" hours. If, on the other hand, you want to send a
> message independent of commercial circuits, then HAM RADIO is
> your best choice. Hopefully, in the event of a disaster, HAM
> RADIO will be there to help. My sysop told me that sending a 38
> page manual via ham radio is like carrying a pile of lumber in
> the family car! It's not meant for that purpose! THINK ABOUT
> THAT! 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
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_252D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
