| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 22.07.97 22:03l 149 Lines 7519 Bytes #-10283 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_54C
Read: GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/54C
Path: DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0MW<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0RWI<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<
PI8WFL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970721/1700Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:18801 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA38786 ; Mon, 21 Jul 97 16:41:06 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.64/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00003717 ; Mon, 21 Jul 97 17:51:24 MET
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 08:22:26 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_54C>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/54C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
sort of need. Amateur Radio operators DO have a mission, however, in
developing Radio-based networking.
"Radio based" means that you limit yourself to using radios for ALL of your
primary communication tasks, and develop systems which work as well as
possible in THAT environment. Your concern with other networks using
telephones, smoke-signals, and even non-ham radio nets is limited to
developing an interface for communicating WITH those other networks, not
OVER them.
Amateur Radio operators contribute to the technology base not by attempting
to emulate existing systems, but by developing systems of their own.
"Radioless Ham Radio" is a direct roadblock to this sort of progress by
Amateur Radio operators and networkers.
> I've long wished that I could find a truly radio oriented ham to work
> with on the sorts of packet networking projects I envision.
My vote is that the guy be rich, too, and have plenty of extra time on his
hands along with a need for lots of vigorous exercise. He doesn't drink,
and he is on a strict diet so he doesn't hog up all of the groceries
either. He has all this extra money, time, skill, and desire to get off his
can, but he's sad because he doesn't know what to do with it all. He needs
direction. Don't you want to help this poor guy out? ;-)
Hey, when he gets through over there, would you dust him off, pat him on
the back and send him over here to north Texas?
> I'm personally a little bit of a generalist, meaning I'm not superskilled
> in either camp, but I'm slowly leaning toward computing more heavily.
> I'd love to have a hard radio engineer to work with, someone who wouldn't
> be daunted by the thought of building/modifying a radio capable of
> some high speed packet, or antenna construction.
You were almost certainly daunted by computers too at one time... It didn't
last long, did it?
Apply the same will to learn RF networking, and you'll soon be the local
"expert". If nobody is volunteering to step in and help you, that indicates
a local need you could fill. YOU be that guy!
> In Australia it isn't even legal for me to be digitally routed or
repeated
> onto H.F., so H.F. holds very limited interest to me. Therefore if I
think
> packet network I think VHF, UHF where the radio techniques are so much
> more complicated. I can't be a master of all arts. (any ? :)
Although I will be soon using HFagain, I tend to lean toward the VHF/UHF
stuff too. I just like working with it better. It's a personal preference
in my case, though. Maybe I like it better because the antennas are so much
easier to haul up a tower and install.. It's hard to say...
> There is bugger all sense of community in amateur radio these days.
> Not only do I find people aren't interested in helping, more often than
> not I find those with the skills I need in a team are actively working
> against me. So I end up working with what I have, and if that means
> that I use radio where radio is easy to use (local area networks)
> and other technologies to bridge the gaps then I do that with a free
> and clear conscience. I'd be overjoyed for someone to approach me and
> suggest that a Sydney/Canberra link should be built with radio
> infrastructure "would I help ?".
That's where we part ways. You can use the telephone with a "clear
conscience" and I can't.
I have tried using the telephone to move amateur packet radio traffic in
the past, and at one time I even offered BBS EXPORT files on a LandLine BBS
I operated at that time. This was before Internet had made such operations
so cheap and easy. At that time, you had to cough up long-distance charges
to do the "Amateur Telephone" thing, which made it self-limiting.
Even so, I looked at what I was doing and noticed that it was a crutch,
preventing me from developing my amateur radio station to do what I wanted
with Radios. Self-limiting or not, I was able to recognize that the
practice was also bad for the the network so I quit doing it.
There is no "self-limiting" aspect to it now, Terry, and for this reason no
Ham should touch "Amateur Telephone" with a ten-foot pole. It's a virtual
guarantee that you will not progress as a ham, and that progress of your
Ham Radio digital network will be seriously stunted as well.
It's like a drug, Terry. It may feel good, but you would be much better off
without it, and using it contributes to a serious problem which affects
other people too. You're not just hurting yourself, by a long shot.
> I want a radio based data network as much as anybody, it's been a dream
> of mine for nearly a decade. But I don't have sufficient hard radio
> skills to answer all of the questions that need answering, nor do I
> have the time to go and learn them. There is an economy of scale issue
> for me, I work in the computing industry, learning computing related
> skills works for both parts of my life and is therefore the most
> efficient thing for me to learn.
Your statements lack consistency. You "want a radio-based nertwork as much
as anybody", but are not willing to invest the time or effort needed to
make any contribution to this goal. ( Money is often appreciated by
networkers even more than "expertise", by the way. Why not throw money at
the problem if you lack expertise and want to make a contribution? ) If you
are not willing to contribute your time, thought or money, I have news for
you... There are MANY others who desire a radio-based network MUCH more
than you do!
Since you already are studying landline networking at work, you'll study
that instead and "pretend" you are expanding your knowlege of amateur
packet radio.
I suppose you realize that from the standpoint of Radio networking, you
might as well be studying how to bake cookies at work and decide to apply
THAT to Packet Radio networking... If your subject of study does nothing to
prepare you for using radios, then it's not helping you get a radio network
built, is it?
> I've recently taken a step back and thrown some support toward the Rose
> protocol. In NSW the Rose Network offers what I see as the last hope
> of any promise. It's a compromise for me, but that's ok, I can do that.
The TCP/IP ( Radio ) folks around here are quite happy with ROSE, as far as
I can tell. The mainstream packet guys like it too. In this part of the
world, the ROSE net is reserved primarily for amateur TCP/IP and "keyboard
QSO's". It works good, in my experience. I think you'll like ROSE.
MY opinion on why there is no Amateur Radio TCP/IP network? I think many
TCP/IP buffs really want to be "Internet providers", but without the
annoying trouble and expense of doing so for real. They don't use radios
because they don't CARE about radios. They only care about networking, and
within that they sub-specialize on TCP/IP networking. If they can pretend
to be a big fish in a little pond by trashing amateur radio, they have no
well-developed social awareness to stop them from doing so.
My observation is that many of the amateur TCP/IP devotees I have seen
display some narrow, technical knowlege, but are prone to arrested social
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_54D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
