Walt Davidson wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:35:34 +1100, G-S wrote:

No the defining issue is if it's a licenced amateur sending lawfully, the
method of sending is irrelevant.

Applying that logic, if a licensed amateur speaks on a cellphone,
that's ham radio.


Now you're being silly again!

That statement of mine assumes 'amateur traffic' (and I know you knew that,
you just wanted to be difficult like normal :-)


G-S VK3DMN

First off....with your example of a repeater linked to another via
land-line AND NOT VIA THE INTERNET THAT CAN BE ACCESSED BY OTHERS is
perfectly fine.

The IRLP CANNOT be accessed by others. It is STRICTLY designed for radio to
radio access only.
ECHOLINK can be accessed by others and is NOT the topic of conversation.

Since, by design, IRLP has radios at each end, as does a landline system or
a CAT5 system, where does it differ?

Brad.

Narrow view or not. You sir, are attemting to confuse the issue and
comparing Apples and Oranges. Sorry, that won't play. Again...stick on
the subject.

I am on topic. I want to know just where you draw the line as to what does
and does not constitute Ham Radio, because I fell you actually have the
systems mixed up! I believe it is you who needs the education.



You know dang well what the differences are. If you don't then you need
an education.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...
Your right to a point Kate. I'll give you that LL linking of repeaters
are indeed ham radio, so would be control of a repeater or say a remote
base. Thats also fine.

However using the internet where anyone on the net can access the system
is not ham radio. Its a radio connected to the WWW. Thats not ham radio.

Again, you are mistaken at this point Dan. No-one on the net can access the
IRLP system via the internet. It is NOT a radio connected to the WWW, it is
indeed the LL linking of repeaters and simplex radios using a digital
protocol. Check your facts. Don't confuse it with Echolink.

Brad.


I am not saying the idea and the system is not good, or it's bad. I'm
saying stop calling it ham radio. How about a new term...such as
INHAM....."Internet Ham" perhaps?

Dan/W4NTI

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:35:34 +1100, G-S wrote:

No the defining issue is if it's a licenced amateur sending lawfully, the
method of sending is irrelevant.

Applying that logic, if a licensed amateur speaks on a cellphone,
that's ham radio.

celphone frequencies are not amateur frequencies


What rubbish.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Applying that logic, if a licensed amateur speaks on a cellphone,
that's ham radio.

Well, applying USA logic, if I had a phone patch from a cellphone to a 2m
radio, then yes, it would still be Ham Radio. Just as their LL phones
patched into their repeaters are classed as Ham Radio. There is NO
difference.

Brad.


What rubbish.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...

[SNIP]


You *MUST* be a licensed Amateur to use IRLP, you *MUST* use a radio to
access IRLP. Therefore it is getting *LICENSED AMATEURS* on air.

It in *NO* way interferes with your on air activities so leave it alone
and enjoy your hobby without *INTERFERING* with others.


--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/

How is that "LICENSE" proven? Who or what checks it? How is that done?

Dan/W4NTI

The same way any valid licence is checked when you use any ham frequency -
by "self regulation".

Using IRLP is no different than firing up on your local repeater that is
linked to some other repeater in the distance. There is the exact same
potential for unlicensed users on IRLP as there is on any other amateur
frequency, no more, no less. Yet you don't seem to be claiming that 2m is
open to CBers, or that 40m is not a valid ham band.....

If you accept that linking amateur repeaters via land line is OK, then you
have no basis upon which to reject IRLP - it is the same, linking repeaters
via land lines, except it uses internet technology to make that affordable
for anyone rather than the expense of a dedicated leased line.. Without the
VOiP linking repeaters by landline can be rather costly, so the number of
repeaters you could link would be limited. Now that expense has been
removed so that any local club, or local ham, can establish a node and allow
the repeater to be linked to any one of thousands of other ham repeaters
worldwide. Seems that all they have done is expand existing technology -
isn't that what ham radio is all about??????

Then again, we faced this kind of narrow minded, arrogant discrimination
when they proposed access to amateur frequencies by operators that hadn't
learnt CW... Seems it is just another example of the old timers stomping
their feet because times are changing - must've been real hard when valves
were replaced!


--
Martin, VK2UMJ

To reply by e-mail, replace ".invalid" with ".com.au"


"I cannot help but notice that there is no problem
between us that cannot be solved by your departure."

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...

[SNIP]



Your right to a point Kate. I'll give you that LL linking of repeaters
are indeed ham radio, so would be control of a repeater or say a remote
base. Thats also fine.

However using the internet where anyone on the net can access the system
is not ham radio. Its a radio connected to the WWW. Thats not ham radio.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!...

IRLP does NOT allow ANYONE on the internet to access the system, it is NOT
connected to the WWW, you are mistakenly thinking of EchoLink, which we are
not debating here... Again you show your ignorance..

The ONLY reason IRLP uses 'the internet' is to make the linking of repeaters
via landline affordable to the average ham, rather than an expensive
exercise obtaining a dedicated leased line. There is the exact same
potential for unlicensed users as there is on your local 2m repeater, or on
40m....

If you support the landline linking of repeaters then you MUST also support
the IRLP system, it is the exact same concept except using technology that
makes it affordable to almost every ham....

If you wish to argue against systems that allow access from the internet
rather than from & to radio, then please go pick on EchoLink..

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kate" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
k.net...

[SNIP]

Gawd Almighty you Ausies are a thick headed bunch, ain't ya?

Ham RADIO is communications with a RADIO or a RADIO system.

INTERNET is communications with a NETWORK of interconnected computers
organized in such a manner to send "packets" of data world-wide.

Do you see any mention of RADIO there?

Yes, as a matter of fact, because the correct name for IRLP is Internet
Radio Linking Project. See www.irlp.net Note that is a USA website
describing IRLP, not an Aussie site...

A quote from the irlp.net website:

"The aim of this project is to reliably and inexpensively link amateur
radio systems without the use of RF links, leased lines, or satellites."

So, next question?


--
Martin, VK2UMJ

Not a question, a statement. If it is linked by ANY means other than
radio, it is not ham radio. End of discussion.

Dan/W4NTI

So basically, what you're saying is that if you have a few repeaters
linked together by a landline, then those ham repeaters aren't ham radio?
Or if a club likes to control a repeater site via a phone line, then that
too isn't ham radio?

I used to be very active on the TCP/IP packet nets, using my VHF radio and
TNC to link to a gateway and on into the world wide converse net. Again,
the very thing you say isn't ham radio.

I'd say your definition is way too pure for the rest of us hobbyists, and
we'll all keep right on enjoying the part of our *hobby* that we find we
like the best, and if that just happens to be IRLP, Echolink, SSTV, CW,
ATV or whatever other mode/method then, sorry, that's the way it is. Deal
with it.

Kate vk4xyl


Your right to a point Kate. I'll give you that LL linking of repeaters are
indeed ham radio, so would be control of a repeater or say a remote base.
Thats also fine.

However using the internet where anyone on the net can access the system is
not ham radio. Its a radio connected to the WWW. Thats not ham radio.

I am not saying the idea and the system is not good, or it's bad. I'm
saying stop calling it ham radio. How about a new term...such as
INHAM....."Internet Ham" perhaps?

Dan/W4NTI

........

For what it is worth? I agree with Dan on this one. INHAM is entertaining
and has merit. I, however, am of the opinion that 'real' Amateur comms take
place when two or more stations use transmitters, antennas and communicate
via the airwaves. Echolink and clones can be enjoyable, but it is not
nearly as rewarding as using the airwaves.

Martin, VK2UMJ wrote:

Then again, we faced this kind of narrow minded, arrogant discrimination
when they proposed access to amateur frequencies by operators that hadn't
learnt CW... Seems it is just another example of the old timers stomping
their feet because times are changing - must've been real hard when valves
were replaced!

Exactly martin! I do have to say though that things have gotten somewhat
better in the last 25 years I've been licensed.

Back then new Novice licenses were pretty much scum of the earth to the old
timers.

I got my full call pretty quickly and it was amazing the difference in the
way I was treated (for no _real_ reason).

Although that often changed when I voiced opinions about how morse shouldn't
be a requirement for HF (even though I'd passed the fast morse) or that
this new fangled packet radio was the first wave of the future.

G-S VK3DMN

In article , Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message
...


Get over it! Go back to your CW if you want, who bothers you or bags you
for using it, I know I certainly don't.


--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/

Thanks for bringing this up Mate!.

My major problem is folks refering to interconnecting "hams" over the
internet as "ham radio". Ham radio is R A D I O . Not INTERNET connected
to Nodes then to a radio somewhere. Call it whatever you want, but it is
NOT ham radio.

Dan/W4NTI



You have to be kidding Dan. The internet is used as a long haul transport
medium with Amateur Radio equipment at either end. Where in **YOUR
AMATEUR RADIO BIBLE** does it say EXPLICITLY that long haul links cant
use the internet...

Back to your model T my friend