| |
G8PZT > WLAN 14.09.03 22:28l 72 Lines 3016 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 000908256PZT
Read: DB0FHN OE5RCO DK5RAS DO6NP GUEST
Subj: Re: It's not ham radio
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0HOT<OK0PBX<OK0PHK<OK0NAG<9A0BBS<HA5OB<YO2KJY<
GB7YKS<GB7PZT
Sent: 030914/1934Z @:GB7PZT.#24.GBR.EU [Kidderminster] #:90800 XSERV407j
From: G8PZT@GB7PZT.#24.GBR.EU
To: WLAN@WW
Subject: Re: It's not ham radio
X-Mailer: XServ v407 WebMail
G0TWN wrote:-
>then, this was the case anyway. Most users plugged their commercial TNC into their commercial radio.
>A basic install of programs such as TPK and Winpack bought packet news bulletins to their screens
>without even having to understand the basic AX25 or TCP/IP TNC commands, let along the transport
>protocol they were using.
Agreed, and I was waiting for someone to bring this one up.
For some lucky people it just worked, and they didn't give it
another thought.
Others couldn't make it work, or found it very slow, and thus
began to question why. They asked questions, read articles,
turned MON ON and took screen dumps of the protocol exchanges,
got expert help, and learned about things such as pre-emphasis,
synthesiser settling time, desense, and just about everything
else radio-related
In short, they satisfied one of the most important raisons
d' etre of the amateur licence, namely "self training".
Some of them became packet experts in their own right, going
on to run nodes or BBS's, where they had to deal with duplexing,
link engineering and a whole host of new issues.
Some got sick of the status quo and went on to develop new
software to keep the hobby fresh and interesting. Where would
we be if we'd got stuck with the old Net/ROM tnc-based nodes?
G8BPQ provided something better. Likewise Baycom, Winpack,
UI-View, AGW - you can't develop products like these without
a thorough understanding of Packet Radio.
Others, like G3RUH and many others went on to develop new
hardware and new protocols.
My point is, if the clever people who keep packet radio going
waste too much effort trying to use boring domestic appliances
such as WiFi, there will be no incentive, and no-one left to
develop new hardware and networking protocols which will take
Packet Radio into the future. After all, what's the point if
you can just plug in a card from Dixons?
Millions of people all over the world are setting up WiFi
access points - Internet Magazine will tell any geek step by
step how to do it, and no radio knowledge is required. So
you're not offering anything more from the user's point
of view - why should they keep a ham licence to use YOUR
access point when they can use the next-door neighbour's,
who isn't a ham?
As for inter-node linking with WiFi, as radio hams we should
be developing our own unique, state of the art hardware and
protocols, not simply accepting what the commercial world
spoon-feeds to us! Is spread-spectrum REALLY the best way
to operate a point to point LINK???
I'm all in favour of experimentation, and I would probably
have a go with these things myself, but I wouldn't be
kidding myself that it was ham radio.
WiFi is radio, but it's DOMESTIC radio, NOT ham radio.
You don't need a licence, and anyone from child to granny
can do it. An interesting toy, but taking valuable effort
away from proper cutting edge ham radio.
73, Paula
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
