| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.09.00 21:00l 199 Lines 7223 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_261B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/261B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8WFL<
PE1NMB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000926/1836Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:18330 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_261B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 00 19:50:25 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_261B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
on digital unless they compete with commercial networks."
> We aren't radio amateurs anymore, we're just radio users, not much
> different from CBers. Even Hank and Charles, who moan so much,
> are just radio users, stuffing bits through their Japanese radios instead
> of through a Taiwanese telephone modem. If they started building and
> using high performance RF modems, then they might be able to say that
> they're putting the radio back into radio amateur.
Smelt your own copper too Gary? Roll your own sheet metal?
Some of us have interests other than building the low level
bits and pieces of the internals of things. Been there, done that.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:46:27 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: Compression et all
"Gary Coffman" <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:us7pssgkl7e154a642iu4kscrpuha943hi@4ax.com...
>
> snip<
>
> We aren't radio amateurs anymore, we're just radio users, not much
> different from CBers. Even Hank and Charles, who moan so much,
> are just radio users, stuffing bits through their Japanese radios instead
> of through a Taiwanese telephone modem. If they started building and
> using high performance RF modems, then they might be able to say that
> they're putting the radio back into radio amateur.
Thousands of Hams cooperated to build the AX25 packet network and HF
forwarding nets that the tcpip goons showed such intolerance about and
actively worked to undercut. - So your "theory" does not hold water.
You are just indulging in some of the very behavior I described...
"The constant insults and accusations directed against the general Ham
community didn't go over too well, either."
I guess that sort of behavior is so deeply ingrained that it has become a
"knee jerk" or just plain "jerk" reaction by tcpip buffs such as yourself.
Thank you for the direct verification of my opinion. It's nice to be proved
right.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:53:34 -0400
From: "ed_woodrick" <ed_woodrick@email.msn.com>
Subject: Compression et all
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:wcWy5.3542$tl2.259621@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Where would emergency communications be if we were always forced
> to use nothing but commercial power?
Hank, you just missed my point. My point is that to provide adequate
emergency communications, we have to be prepared to use all methods
available to us. Even if it comes down to flying homing pigeons back and
forth. but I guess that does put us at odds with one another. If a person is
laying on the ground dieing, I will try to help them using any means
possible. I'm assuming that you will help only if you can use a radio to do
so.
>
> > It's a pretty impressive thing to see two field day operators talking to
> > each other during a disaster. Yep, two stations that can pass messages.
But
> > to whom? You have to interface to the rest of the world. You can't
create
> > islands.
>
> Um ... you miss the entire point. The emergency creates the islands.
> Ham radio bridges them back together. That's the whole point.
> Stop thinking "bypass ham radio over the internet" and start thinking
> "bypass broken internet access over ham radio."
>
> > To rely on the Internet completely is just as dumb,
>
> But this is EXACTLY what the Land Line Lids have forced on the US
> ham radio networks. They're dead Jim.
No Hank, that's only the way that you think things are. Even if the Internet
passes all of the messages before you can do so, isn't just exchanging the
BIDS and MIDS with your other radio stations showing that the network works?
And if the Internet connections go down, wouldn't the traffic automatically
start being carried on the RF links?
>
> > BUT, as you so
> > eloquently put it, sometimes we just can't compete with the dollars of
big
> > business. And guess what, the dollars have created a really disaster
> > resistant network that we might be able to use to assist us in doing our
> > job.
>
> Oh really?
> Our job is to provide communications when those commercial
> links ARE NOT WORKING.
> Understand now?
Jeesh, I'm beginning to think that you paid someome to put your name on some
software, it certainly doesn't seem as if there is any logic behind your
thinking anymore.
The point is that if we depend ONLY on emergency power, we couldn't get our
job done. How often does your station run on emergency power? 0.001% of the
year? If that much? Just because we don't primarily rely on generators,
batteries, and other alternative power sources doesn't mean that we can't
use them when we need to.
The analogy between power and the Internet are similar. During "normal"
times we can use the cheapest, best performing network. During "emergency"
times we use alternative networks. Power companies and the Internet during
normal times, Generators and RF during other times. Why does this make the
Internet a bad thing?
>
> > Remember that Arpanet/Internet was created as a disaster resistant
> > network with a lot of our tax dollars. Their is more routing redundancy
in
> > the Internet then probably any other network, including the telephone
> > network.
>
> Baloney.
> Go read the history of Arpanet.
> Think just a little bit about the telephone network. Do some math.
>
No Baloney, just Hank.
Yes, the Arpanet was created as a disaster resitent network with many
circuit being highly protected and highly redundant. It was started back
during the cold war. Thinking of the telephone network, I don't believe that
there has EVER been a nationwide outage, especially in recent years. Even
during disasters, there have been many areas that have had significant
amounts of service. And in those areas where service wasn't available,
seldom have you had to go over 50 miles to find reliable service. But even
when portions of the telephone network goes down, that doesn't mean that the
Internet is down. First, there are many locations that don't use dial-up
connections. They use dedicated circuits which bypass a lot of telephone
network. Even ADSL is split off of the cable before it hits the switch. You
don't get the overloading effect that you have on the telephone. And it's
usually not the failure of service during a disaster, it's an increased
capacity requirement that causes most of the problems. Not anywhere near as
big of an issue on the Internet circuits.
And there's a good number of businesses that use satellite of microwave to
get their Internet connections. Maybe a little rain fade, maybe a dish needs
realigning.
No, I'm not saying through away radio. No, I'm not saying use the Internet
exclusively. What I am saying is that we should combine the networks and use
the best of both.
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>
>
>
------------------------------
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_261C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
