| |
ZL4AJS > WLAN 20.05.05 15:39l 45 Lines 1710 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 0A0248ZL4AJS
Read: DK7JAN DK5RAS GUEST DO6NP
Subj: Re: Packet vs WiFi
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0HGW<ON0DXC<IW2OAZ<ZL2BAU<ZL2WA<ZL4AA<ZL4GQ
Sent: 050519/0312Z @:ZL4GQ.#95.NZL.OC #:25800 [Invercargill] FBB7.00i
From: ZL4AJS@ZL4GQ.#95.NZL.OC
To : WLAN@WW
PE1BIV inscribed:-
> I get the impression that you are trying to find any argument possible
> why packet should not be on any band other than 2m and with a bitrate
> of more than 1200 bps.
No, I am trying to get people to understand that WLan does not work for
stations 60 km from the BBS.
I went back to the original bulletin from Mark VK3JMA that started all
this and this is what was said:
> Installing a wifi card (or AP) into the present BBS PC is a simple
> task, set up FBB to allow Telent connections and run an antenna. Not
> much different to what we do now, just have to be a bit more careful
> and picky with the quality of the install (read low loss coax, good
> connectors, short runs, mast mounted transceivers (ap's) etc.
>
> Naturally well sited systems are needed but why not give the marriage
> between HAM and Wifi a go, it would breath new life into Amateur
> Digital communications.
This would work wonders in a city, but not for country folk like me.
But if the majority of hams live in cities, why not add WLan access to
the BBSs? At least most hams will benefit.
All things considered, and taking note of what people have said in reply
to my bulletins, I think that adding WLan to BBS systems would be great
and a real benefit for amateur digital coms. But it can never replace
1k2 VHF Packet.
Seventy-Three.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::: Andrew ZL4AJS@ZL4GQ.#95.NZL.OC :::
::: High School Student :::
::: Ohai, Southland, New Zealand :::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Message sent: 19-May-2005
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
