"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