| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 01.03.97 19:03l 162 Lines 7382 Bytes #-10704 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_27A
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/27A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0BOX<DB0FP<DB0SWR<DB0RBS<DB0SAO<DB0NDR<PI8AWT<
PI8JYL<PI8WFL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970301/1210 51476@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30333 ; Sat, 01 Mar 97 11:49:32 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001818 ; Sat, 01 Mar 97 12:33:43 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001814 ; Sat, 01 Mar 97 12:31:13 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009209 ; Sat, 01 Mar 97 12:30:40 MET
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 97 12:19:40 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_27A>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/27A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
TCP-Group Digest Fri, 28 Feb 97 Volume 97 : Issue 27
Today's Topics:
Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
Change (2 msgs)
Flame-bait ..
Ham Radio to me
Rules in your street
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:52:44 +1100 (EST)
From: Graham Broadbridge <grahamb@peachy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Dana H. Myers wrote:
> Charles is sure generating a lot of traffic on the otherwise quiet tcp-
group,
> but he's destroying the normally good S/N ratio in the process.
Charles is obviously a troll.
We've been spared trolls like this in the past, but based upon traffic volume
we're not immune to them.
Troll's rely upon normally sane people replying to something that is
absurd. In the future maybe tcp-group people (including myself) will
only respond to messages posted by other tcp-group people.
Graham.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Broadbridge Internet <grahamb@peachy.apana.org.au>
Marsfield NSW AmprNet <vk2yui@gw.vk2yui.ampr.org>
Australia <vk2yui@amsat.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:50:16 -0500
From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <fgoldstein@bbn.com>
Subject: Change
At 10:16 AM 2/27/97 +1100, John Day wrote:
>Sadly much of the mystery and mystique of amateur radio has gone. I will
>still spend my time designing things to use on the amateur bands, as long
>as we have amateur bands. But what pull does amateur radio have for the
>teenager of today? The excitement of contesting (really it is multi-user
>game playing on a world wide basis with some natual phenomena thrown in for
>added thrills!)? The thrill of QRP, the satisfaction of home brewing? Sure,
>we are go ing to attract them away from the Internet and all their other
>pursuits with these small satisfactions!
>Like you I am sure that hams will always find something to do and someone
>to do it with, but the ham radio of the 21st century will be a very
>different animal to the one you and I grew up with!
I too have been reading this thread with disgust, and was thinking about my
own response to Charles B, but then I decided he was sufficiently self-
discrediting and I needn't join in such a one-sided flame war. A troll
couldn't have done better. But now we have an interesting digression. What
*is* the role of the Amateur Radio service looking ahead?
I've been a ham for over 30 years but other than a test kerchunk, I
haven't been on the air for three years or so. Having two kids in short
order was a good reason to not have the time or resources, for sure, but
I can't say I miss what passes for packet radio here in Boston.
But one sentence above gives me hope for amateur radio. We gringos are so
hung up on the 1940s-era ARRL propaganda that we forget how to "market" it. In
many countries amateur radio thrives under the name "Radiosport".
Contesting isn't a waste of time any more than football or motor racing.
It's a better sport because it's participatory, it's more intellectually
challenging, and it can be played by people of any age, sex, or physical
shape and size. As recreational sports go, radio can be one of the better
ones. Fox hunting (which doesn't require a transmitting license) is another
popular variant, albeit more physical. Even plain-old DXing is a sporting
pursuit, more akin to hunting and fishing than to timed sports like
football, only it doesn't kill anything. Why are we not trying to sell these
to the younger generation?
Technologically, amateur radio is already in the paleolithic category.
Obsolete rules and attitudes have doomed it. Packet's just the worst
example; it's the biggest "new" mode in decades and it is disastrous
misapplication of trailing-edge technology (LAPB, Aloha, BBS
message-switching, AFSK, etc.). I tried my part, developing the RSPF
protocol, but the rest of the network isn't worthy of the effort and it
isn't developing the critical mass of users.
If I get around to another release of the RSPF protocol spec (you know, to
keep Craig VK2XLZ on his toes :-) ) it'll be written as a general-purpose
protocol for wireless nets, not a "net 44" with AX.25 thing. I see some
potential application for building unlicensed "community networks" in the
new Part 15 "U-NII" band that the FCC has recently authorized (4 watts EIRP
at 5.7 GHz, minimum 20 MHz bandwidth, for "high speed data" only). Given a
supply of low-cost type-approved U-NII radios, there's more chance of
getting widespread noncommercial (as well as commercial) wireless networks
going on U-NII than in the Amateur service. So let's hope the radiosport
crowd can keep the ham bands going, since they're the main hope for a
long-term constituency.
fred k1io
___
Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com
BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:50:31 -0700 (MST)
From: Shawn Rutledge <ecloud@goodnet.com>
Subject: Change
> What happens when it breaks down? The system I mean. We have an increase in
> complexity and an increase in reliance on all of these technologies. Ham
> radio fits in somewhere. While I too see the hobby changing in some
> disturbing ways is it any different than wide-area telephone service was in
> the 30's and 40's?
Exactly. We can still be prepared for emergencies in the digital age, but
to do so effectively we've got to have a network as high-tech as the
conventional ones, whatever is conventional at the time. It's just getting
to be a bigger and bigger challenge as time goes on, both in staying
"with it" and the political hurdles (for example SS isn't going to become
widespread on the ham bands until somebody talks the FCC into letting us do
it freely. And we can't have a completely automated network capable of
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_27B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
