| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 03.04.97 13:29l 172 Lines 7901 Bytes #-10670 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_28K
Read: GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/28K
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0MW<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<ON4RAT<
ON7RC<ON1BWP<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 970403/0822Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:10940 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32827 ; Thu, 03 Apr 97 07:33:50 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00002250 ; Wed, 02 Apr 97 22:02:49 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00002220 ; Wed, 02 Apr 97 21:59:22 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009307 ; Wed, 02 Apr 97 21:59:16 MET
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 21:53:19 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_28K>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/28K
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> A real RF devotee would use the Internet explosion as a capability
baseline
> in order to promote the development of ever more capable RF networks.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 00:00:43 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
According to Dr. Rich Artym....
>(Flame bait snipped)
> A real RF devotee would use the Internet explosion as a capability
baseline
> in order to promote the development of ever more capable RF networks.
Semantic content: Null.
We can safely assume that everyone knows the telephone is faster, will
always be faster, and why.
>There
> is no future in defending a hilariously inadequate and antiquated RF
system
> through protectionist policies like "keep out the Internet" -- if it's
old
> and lousy then it deserves to die. Amateurs will then put something
better
> in its place, whereas at present there is very little sign of the current
> AX25/BBS dinosaur giving up the RF ground to more interesting RF systems.
>
For my part, I would question the amateur TCP/IP "destructionist
policies".. Hams are not supposed to intentionally engage in activities
designed to limit the enjoyment of other hams.
Most hams realize that the HF bands, 2 meters and 440 MHz. which carry
over 90% of the AX25 Packet Radio network, is of little (or no) interest to
devotees of either amateur TCP/IP or high-speed RF networking, particularly
in the case of most experimentors.
Crying "They (mainstream packet) won't let us in" comes across as being
particularly silly or insincere for this reason.
Most hams realize that the frequencies where experimentation and high-speed
networks are likely to develop are precisely those bands and freqs which
are currently empty (for the most part) since mainstream packet radio
hardly ever uses them. Blaming mainstream packet for your current lack of
tangible progress is what is laughable, OM. Your stated intention to "put
something better in it's place" rings hollow, as everybody knows that the
lower bands are no good for higher baudrates. You obviously have not taken
the time to give this matter much thought.
Many of the arguements I hear from amateur TCP/IP devotees are obviously
picked up from their peers, then parroted mindlessly with no effort to
examine the concepts for validity or accuracy. This, from a group of hams
who fancy themselves as being particularly intelligent, possesing enhanced
reasoning abilities..
Where's the evidence?
> Which reminds me: I've yet to see a fanatic "RF or nothing"
fundamentalist
> who doesn't use a telephone to talk to other amateurs to make up for the
> lack of capability of his handheld. I bet that even Charles does.
Yes, but I never pretend it's amateur radio when I do.
I have no trouble differentiating between the telephone and amateur radio.
>By the
> same token, we use the Internet in a variety of interesting ways to the
> benefit of our RF hobby. The idea of a single-medium communications net
> is completely unrealistic anyway in a world where connectivity is
paramount
> and isolation is the kiss of death. I'm sure Charles knows this, so it
> must have been a troll.
It's difficult to credit claims of benefit to our RF hobby when the primary
effect of gateways has been to reduce our long-haul RFcapabilty across the
board.
Don't forget that a four-state high-speed packet network is currently
slated to be routed around by internet links. It's not just the HF
forwarders and slow speed stuff which is suffering.
Why?
Once you "normalize'" the use of the telephone instead of radios to carry
amateur radio traffic, there is no logical end to it. Eventually, it will
develop to the point where amateur TCP/IP ops will be using the phone lines
to communicate across town, not to mention across country. ( Actually, I'm
sure it happens right now.. Why not? )
"It's cheaper".
"It's faster".
"Every time the radios become too much of an expense or of a technical
challenge, we'll just use the telephone and pretend it's a radio instead".
"We'll put a radio on either end of an Internet link, and pretend it's
'advanced amateur packet radio networking', even though it's really not
amateur packet radio at all".
"It's just temporary, until the megabaud RF network suddely springs up on
it's own, without my help or participation in it's development because I'll
be using the telephone. It's cheaper. It's faster, ect...".
There's no end to it. Take a good look around.
Sad to say, simple base expediency appears to be the primary motivation
behind the current drive to "normalize" amateur telephone, not concern with
the advancement of radio technology by a few experimentors.
The "connectivity" which is of interest to the amateur radio community is
the "connectivity" which can be achieved with RADIOS. When regulatory
agencies look to our achievements, they have absolutely no interest in what
we do with the telephone.. They want to see what we are doing with RADIOS.
- And this in turn has much to do with our stewardship of the ham bands.
They won't care WHAT you may be PRETENDING.. They will want to see what
you're DOING. A large segment of the ham community using the telephone as
their primary means of moving information will simply be an embarassment. -
Much more so than even a 300 baud RF digital net, slow as that would be!
The point is that if we are USING RADIOS, and thus chipping away at the
limitations we find in their use, we will then be doing precisely what we
are supposed to be doing and our actions will be to our credit. In other
words, we would then be responding constructively to the challenge of
amateur radio, instead of avoiding that challenge and responsibility by
using the telephone.
As I have pointed out before, the higher freqs which are prime territory
for the stated aims of most amateur TCP/IP devotees is relatively "open
country". There's absolutely nothing or nobody keeping any experimentor
from utilizing those bands. As an "RF purist", my first wish is that you
folks WOULD utilize those freqs, instead of endlessly talking about it.
Somebody needs to! Let's see some action, instead of endlessly argueing how
many contradictory theories can be balanced on the head of a surface-mount
chip. Prove your ideas!
The incursions into bands you have no reasonable use for though, (too
slow), for the purpose of disrupting the different things which other hams
DO use those freqs for is simply inexcusable. There IS NO good reason for
that sort of behaviour, if the stated aims of amateur TCP/IP devotees are
to be believed. ( High-speed )
This sort of activity has gone out of control, and it is up to THIS
community of hams (Amateur TCP/IP) to provide oversight and control of
these activities, just as it would be the repeater organization's lookout
to see no voice repeaters are put up on packet freqs.
Attempting to purposely denigrate or destroy another network which does not
even compete with yours for resources (bands) is the ulimate expression of
exclusion and isolationism. It does not make amateur TCP/IP "look good"
when this sort of behaviour is justified and even encouraged within your
ranks. No responsible leader in the amateur radio community should be even
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_28L
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
