"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01...
Charles --

Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing
what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please
drop
them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet
forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM.

You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is
actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be
doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur
radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a
result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States.

I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF
digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and
am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed
the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and
most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it
worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were
starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way
beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global
HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most
significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever.
Unregulated gateways destroyed that.

I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF
packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb
backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within
a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of
the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of
them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big
packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time
it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links
are the kiss of death.

I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under
regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without
exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the
US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those
folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone
being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet
and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800
miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission
and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard
to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a
reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so
we can get back on-mission again.

Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US
packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the
most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet?

I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the
US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham
links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio.
They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to
show for it.

The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF
network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF
network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them
available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that
banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole
time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the
imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf
ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference,
and should be regulated as such, for that reason.

Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of
gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two
networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose
throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested.
The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency
communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY
tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit
if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits
improper use of gateways.


I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding
should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly
disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to
you
here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding
poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and
stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for
forwarding
in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say?

I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I
will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will
do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said.


Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts
after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have
you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet
or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome.


Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF
these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that
we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL