wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Daugherty wrote:
I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.

Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF

Ah! Now I understand.

Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait
for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.

If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting"
system.
A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency
isn't
being used. This is called time-shifting.

Of course.

Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about
the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time
on the air.

But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send,
those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to
be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense,
it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced.

That's what on VHF here in Illinois So much qrm and interference from
fowarding.

This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.

Well, that's *your* opinion...

It's not my opinion it a fact.

It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-)

Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?

1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the
higher
speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb.

Of course!

The problem
isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up
fast
enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.

So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio
amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio
services
that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of
certifications and such.

So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio
from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch....

better yet idea is to figure out how those wireless cards operate and a way
to convert them into the ham bands.

The
problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran
by
BBS's
automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200
baud would
work if the network was set up right.

You mean, set up the way you'd like.

It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.

NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here
in
Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't
move
their fowarding to the backbone system.

Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system?

I really have no idea but I have a system that would resolve all those
problems.

Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the
forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is
like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and
then complaining because there are so many late trains.

So true.

Instead they were running it on the
Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So
the BBS
were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out
of
packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the
network
got ****ed off about it and shut it down.

Ah! Now I understand.

Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame
the
*owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes,
right?
He's got the responsibility for them, right?

SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS!

That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes?

No one wants to get back into packet...to them packet is dead and a useless
system (this idea is based on how the network was set up)

Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.

That's simply not true.

yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC
is
barred to
control the content of any station.

I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that?

Well here's the rule read it for yourself
(47 USC 326)
§ 326. Censorship
Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition
shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with
the
right
of free speech by means of radio communication.

OK, fine.

Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the
FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours.


the only content the FCC is allowed to
control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.

How about commercial content on the ham bands?

How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes?

Are those things allowed under 326?

Those are under other rules and regulation.

Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of
amateur radio are under other rules and regulations.

The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and
Indecent material and Commerical type messages.

But who decides what is obscene and indecent?

The Supreme court pretty much defined obscene and in indecent in MillerVs
California, it's that three prong that the courts and the govenment looks
at.


Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the
alternative....the Internet.

For certain subjects, that's the right medium.

Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part
than
you
realize........

Interesting!

In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the
internet"
- or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups,
identity
theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to
become
disenchanted with it.

I really dout the internet will die.

Me too. But I see its potential dying.

As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now
out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact)
and
government
agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about
two to
three
years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and
downloading
will
be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie
within
minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die
anytime
soon.

If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original.

If you want different content than what is found on current
amateur
packet,
why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale
folks,
but
on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and
more
features?

Because the cost would be too much.

Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'.
Nor
should it.

Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of
communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody
will
want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their
going to
get.

What "useless modes"?

Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get
more
people into it.

Oddly enough, most of the new hams I know are fascinated by both the
old and
the new.

There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high.

For whom?

The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there
is no
Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on
the
user frequency.

That's not a cost issue; it's an organization issue.

It is a cost issue because if you were set up node the old way you have to
pay for radio's, TNC, computers, space, antenna, coax.


A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing

If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling
others
assholes.
What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new
idea's and
new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him.

Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be
leading the way, not demanding others do it.

I'm not demanding but one person can't do it all..


As for that
*asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
"Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from
the
packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a
ASSHOLE.

Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do...

73 de Jim, N2EY




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----