You are 100% correct... Lack of interest is, in my opinion, the largest
single factor.

The speed is also a big deal, as you say... 1200 bps vs. a 2-4 Mbps cable
connection seems to be a slam dunk.

But, keep in mind that we are talking about is an easy to build and use
device that, with a 15+ year old design, was known to 80 Mbps over a fairly
short path.

That sort of makes mucking about with 802.11 junk sort of a wasted effort.

The mistake was made about 15 years ago when the drive was to effectively
duplicate the Internet on the ham bands. Simply put, there are not, never
have been, and likely never will be enough hams in the world to do that.
Besides, why try to duplicate a defective system?

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps, we may
even be able to get close to that...

Imagine a large metropolitan area, like maybe Dallas/Fort Worth, ringed by
an 8 Gbps nodes with spokes at 8 Gbps "dropping" into and through the city.
A series of 1 Gbps nodes come off of the spokes to feed into the
neighborhood. In the neighborhoods, picture a bridge node that users can
connect to at, say, 100 Mbps. Lastly, picture these "City Wheels" being
connected to other city wheels at 10 Gbps.

Are you drooling yet?

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM



"n3soz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've been a ham for almost eleven years. The year I got started (1994)
was the same year the Web became open to commercial traffic, and I
guess the decline of packet began around that time. I keep an APRS
snipped for space's sake