| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 10.07.99 23:25l 200 Lines 6231 Bytes #-9800 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_157B
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/157B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0AHO<DB0KFB<HB9OS<HB9H<HB9OK<IW2FPO<IK2QCA<IK2YHJ<I4UKI<
IK5CKL<IK0XUM<IK0VTC<IW0QMN<IW7CHV<IW9EXL<SV1AAW<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<
PI8VNW
Sent: 990710/1456Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:34605 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_15
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17277 ; Sat, 10 Jul 99 14:24:59 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014420 ; Sat, 10 Jul 99 14:50:30 MET
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 99 14:41:51 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_157B>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/157B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
digital communications such as pactor?
What kinda equip did you have?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:03:45 -0400
From: "Chris Shadow" <shadow@wxhc.com>
Subject: Internet email via ham radio?
Why would it be illegal? Is it not third party traffic and the sending
station of the packets to the rv the control operator?
As long as the conent of the email is ok for ham radio whats the problem.
Used to do it with my brother all the time.
Chris
Walter Dunckel <wdunckel@best.com> wrote in message
news:3783E2DB.E30065B2@best.com...
> It is possible to send E-mail through ham radio, but it would be illegal
> to receive messages over ham radio from anyone other than a licenced ham
> radio operator.
>
> One of the easiest ways to send E-mail is by using WinAPRS, or the APRS
> compatible TH-D7a from Kenwood. These use a form of Packet radio. You
> can enter a short message on the TH-D7's keypad to any e-mail address.
>
> You can find out more about the TH-D7 at:
> http://www.radiohound.com
>
> Walter
>
> john63401@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I am a General class ham but have been out of it
> > many years and have no experience with packet or
> > other forms of dig radio communications.
> >
> > Is it possible to send & receive email to all my
> > friends and family who are on the Net via ham
> > radio??
> >
> > Example..... say I want to take a trip in my
> > RV.... can I send them daily email via ham radio?
> >
> > If yes..... what "form" of ham radio
> > communications do I need.... 2M packet, pactor,
> > what?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:48:44 GMT
From: jmorris@nemonet.com
Subject: Internet email via ham radio?
>Lot of trouble to go through, when you could simply get full Internet
>access, like you did to make your post.
Reason I asked abt sending and receiving email
messages via ham to friends and family on the Net
is supposing you are on a boat in the ocean.....
or house in the desert... or in an RV traveling
where having a land line might NOT be possible.
>You LandLine Lids are batting 1000... All self-centered, irresponsible
>morons, incapable of understanding even their own arguments.
>
>73 DE Charles Brabham,
>N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
>http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Charles.... what is a land line lid?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:07:26 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Internet email via ham radio?
Robert Lyons wrote in message <3785F3DA.FEF16F5A@umich.edu>...
>Jim wrote:
>>
>> I agree. Hams pass third-party traffic all the time. So long as an
unlicensed
>> person is not the one "activating a transmitter" then there should be no
problem.
>> Of course, the occasional "purist", including those who still have not
heard
>> about the FCC allowing "ordering pizza via ham radio", may disagree.
>> Jim W5AOX
>
>The usual argument is that messages passed via an *automatic* packet
>gateway aren't checked for content, and thus are potentially disallowed.
>If the control operator checks the content before triggering a 'send',
>no prob.
Except for the control operator, who has to read all of that crud, and for
the users, who may not want the control operator reading all of thier
private E-mail. Then you get to the problem of "tag-lines" advertising for
juno-com, etc.. All highly illegal on the Ham bands.
Lot of trouble to go through, when you could simply get full Internet
access, like you did to make your post.
ampr.org addrsses are well known within the Internet community as a good
source of bounced messages and other problems. Maybe that's why you used
your .edu access to post your load of crapola on this reflector.
>
>In my opinion, digital ham radio is a cute toy and is of some use in
>passing emergency traffic and in a few specific applications like APRS.
That's because you are ignorant. That's right; Ignorant... Look it up.
>However, the only real future to digital radio is in linking to the
>internet.
That would pretty well end any future for packet, for the very reason stated
in your next paragraph. Noty very used to thinking things through, are you?
>In the next few years, commercial concerns will build a nation-
>wide wireless network linking portable computers and palmtops to the
>greater internet. Hams will be completely locked out of that process
>because of the FCC-imposed restrictions on the content of ham xmissions.
I supposed it's a good thing that you are so obviously ignorant.. It keeps
people from making the mistake of paying attention to your "farina".
Anybody who can't comprehend why the FCC limits the content on the Ham bands
is a complete idiot.
>
>What would YOU do with packet radio if there were no content barriers
>between the Internet and the packet net?
The packet net would die off in short order, so I don't suppose I or anyone
else would be doing ANYTHING with it.
You LandLine Lids are batting 1000... All self-centered, irresponsible
morons, incapable of understanding even their own arguments.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:06:39 -0400
From: Robert Lyons <boblyons@umich.edu>
Subject: Internet email via ham radio?
Jim wrote:
>
> I agree. Hams pass third-party traffic all the time. So long as an
unlicensed
> person is not the one "activating a transmitter" then there should be no
problem.
> Of course, the occasional "purist", including those who still have not heard
> about the FCC allowing "ordering pizza via ham radio", may disagree.
> Jim W5AOX
The usual argument is that messages passed via an *automatic* packet
gateway aren't checked for content, and thus are potentially disallowed.
To be continued in digest: pr_99_157C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
