|
Yea.
"charlesb" wrote The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and deciding to scratch it's ass. |
Yea.
"charlesb" wrote The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and deciding to scratch it's ass. |
Actually, there wasn't an RF path on UHF or VHF between Omaha and Des
Moines. I'm not sure what hf frequency RVX was on, but I was on 14.098 and he wasn't there. I'm not lying about anything. RVX never told me he didn't want to forward. As for what you've done for the last five years, I think that you've spent a lot of effort spewing out negative opinions on everything rather than mentoring hams who want to learn more about packet networks or maybe showing them how to forward using HF. The guy who helped me set up my HF port spent many hours teaching me how things worked, why they worked, and how HF forwarding is different from VHF. It was a great learning experience and I'm looking forward to getting back on an HF network. Here's a question for you. I have a good friend who's a ham. He has a microwave path from Omaha to Des Moines on a frequency that is shared between ham radio and other services. Ham frequency, ham license. If I forward over that link would you call that acceptable? By the way, his company is an ISP and the link is his backbone connection to Des Moines, but he's a licensed ham and he's running over frequencies allocated to both amateir radio and other services. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Hank Oredson" wrote in message ... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01... No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game, What game? Why would I want to "win"? you have to do more I don't "have to" do anything. than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I had a better rf path than you did. My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you. Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ... You know all that, but you lie about it. If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around and whine. Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care? -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
Actually, there wasn't an RF path on UHF or VHF between Omaha and Des
Moines. I'm not sure what hf frequency RVX was on, but I was on 14.098 and he wasn't there. I'm not lying about anything. RVX never told me he didn't want to forward. As for what you've done for the last five years, I think that you've spent a lot of effort spewing out negative opinions on everything rather than mentoring hams who want to learn more about packet networks or maybe showing them how to forward using HF. The guy who helped me set up my HF port spent many hours teaching me how things worked, why they worked, and how HF forwarding is different from VHF. It was a great learning experience and I'm looking forward to getting back on an HF network. Here's a question for you. I have a good friend who's a ham. He has a microwave path from Omaha to Des Moines on a frequency that is shared between ham radio and other services. Ham frequency, ham license. If I forward over that link would you call that acceptable? By the way, his company is an ISP and the link is his backbone connection to Des Moines, but he's a licensed ham and he's running over frequencies allocated to both amateir radio and other services. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Hank Oredson" wrote in message ... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01... No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game, What game? Why would I want to "win"? you have to do more I don't "have to" do anything. than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I had a better rf path than you did. My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you. Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ... You know all that, but you lie about it. If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around and whine. Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care? -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"charlesb" wrote in message m... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01... If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around and whine. Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a problem anymore. Things start working better. Great. I'm glad it's working for you. What does that have to do with my gateway? What would you say if internet forwarders decided not to allow any stations that forward via RF links because they're so slow compared to internet links? This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by persons hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would still be a good idea. I think you'd have a hard time claiming interference. You still haven't answered my question. By non-ham links do you mean forwarding with non-ham systems or do you mean travelling over links that are not amateur radio (such as the internet)? Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still, we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about what amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide emergency communications is being undermined. That's great. Eventually they might even upgrade to something faster than 1200 baud. Put things in perspective. Manufacturers stopped shipping 1200 baud modems in 1988 because they were obsolete technology. Why would you build a new network on something like that? Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this area should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum. I looked at your forum. Doesn't look like you have any takers. Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio equipment have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon, this would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while protecting it from vandalism. I didn't see QST, but the AES catalog I got about a week ago has some radios from Icom that are digital and even have ethernet ports. Looks like manufacturers are promoting digital voice, not abandoning it. I think Alinco has had an HT with digital capability for a couple of years. Yaesu is selling it's WIRES interface. Do you think you can get one of those things passing digitized voice over a 1200 baud packet link? Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves. Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others to join them in their mindless insect gluttony. You're a real poet. The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a re-energized, faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal like that. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Go for it. Re-energize America's packet radio infrastructure. I'm glad you have a cause to keep you busy. 73, Jeff N0WJP |
"charlesb" wrote in message m... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01... If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around and whine. Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a problem anymore. Things start working better. Great. I'm glad it's working for you. What does that have to do with my gateway? What would you say if internet forwarders decided not to allow any stations that forward via RF links because they're so slow compared to internet links? This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by persons hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would still be a good idea. I think you'd have a hard time claiming interference. You still haven't answered my question. By non-ham links do you mean forwarding with non-ham systems or do you mean travelling over links that are not amateur radio (such as the internet)? Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still, we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about what amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide emergency communications is being undermined. That's great. Eventually they might even upgrade to something faster than 1200 baud. Put things in perspective. Manufacturers stopped shipping 1200 baud modems in 1988 because they were obsolete technology. Why would you build a new network on something like that? Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this area should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum. I looked at your forum. Doesn't look like you have any takers. Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio equipment have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon, this would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while protecting it from vandalism. I didn't see QST, but the AES catalog I got about a week ago has some radios from Icom that are digital and even have ethernet ports. Looks like manufacturers are promoting digital voice, not abandoning it. I think Alinco has had an HT with digital capability for a couple of years. Yaesu is selling it's WIRES interface. Do you think you can get one of those things passing digitized voice over a 1200 baud packet link? Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves. Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others to join them in their mindless insect gluttony. You're a real poet. The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a re-energized, faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal like that. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Go for it. Re-energize America's packet radio infrastructure. I'm glad you have a cause to keep you busy. 73, Jeff N0WJP |
/usr/bin/dosemu On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote: And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. 73, Jeff N0WJP DE KB6IBB :-) |
/usr/bin/dosemu On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote: And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. 73, Jeff N0WJP DE KB6IBB :-) |
In article ,
(Jeff Stillinger) wrote: /usr/bin/dosemu On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote: And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. 73, Jeff N0WJP DE KB6IBB :-) http://www.oldos.org/history/o2/os.html Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com