|
Jock. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:59:45 -0000, "Brian Reay" wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... It seems to me the ONLY person here having a problem is Brian. The problem I have is understanding the bitterness I see over something that, for most people, would rank below picking tomorrow's breakfast cereal. . If someone wants to call VOIP 'amateur radio' so what? Because it demeans the hobby and brings it down to a level akin to that of CB. That doesn't bother you? 73 de Jock. You must really think you are better than everyone else around you, you really are a SNOB! Get over it, whether you like it or not Amateur Radio is evolving, it is changing. You can still play with your spark gap transmitter if you want, nobody is going to stop you. So you are wasting your time trying to stop others to enjoy the hobby of *AMATEUR RADIO* in the way they see fit within the *GUIDELINES*. -- 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/ |
Simon VK3XEM wrote:
Walt Davidson wrote: Simon VK3XEM wrote: What is there to debate, there is a large network of IRLP nodes all over the world on Amateur Radio which proves it is a popular and valid part of the hobby. There are plenty of CBers all over the world, but that doesn't prove CB is part of amateur radio. 73 de G3NYY You are clutching at straws now, only *LICENSED* Amateur operators can use IRLP, so why bring CB into it. Not true. You are making an assumption that only *LICENCED* amateurs ever press a PTT and transmit. IRLP is no more secure from unlicenced transmissions than amateur radio itself. IRLP does *NOT* interfere with your use of Amateur Radio, so **** off and leave it alone! Debating is not one of your strong points, it appears. 73, -- Chris |
Chris Kirby wrote:
Simon VK3XEM wrote: Walt Davidson wrote: Simon VK3XEM wrote: What is there to debate, there is a large network of IRLP nodes all over the world on Amateur Radio which proves it is a popular and valid part of the hobby. There are plenty of CBers all over the world, but that doesn't prove CB is part of amateur radio. 73 de G3NYY You are clutching at straws now, only *LICENSED* Amateur operators can use IRLP, so why bring CB into it. Not true. You are making an assumption that only *LICENCED* amateurs ever press a PTT and transmit. IRLP is no more secure from unlicenced transmissions than amateur radio itself. IRLP does *NOT* interfere with your use of Amateur Radio, so **** off and leave it alone! Debating is not one of your strong points, it appears. 73, Sure, anyone could key up and talk but that does *NOT* make them a licensed Amateur though. They can't just log in on a computer and start talking, that side is VERY Secure. -- 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/ |
"Chris Kirby" wrote in message
... Simon VK3XEM wrote: Walt Davidson wrote: Simon VK3XEM wrote: What is there to debate, there is a large network of IRLP nodes all over the world on Amateur Radio which proves it is a popular and valid part of the hobby. There are plenty of CBers all over the world, but that doesn't prove CB is part of amateur radio. 73 de G3NYY You are clutching at straws now, only *LICENSED* Amateur operators can use IRLP, so why bring CB into it. Not true. You are making an assumption that only *LICENCED* amateurs ever press a PTT and transmit. IRLP is no more secure from unlicenced transmissions than amateur radio itself. IRLP does *NOT* interfere with your use of Amateur Radio, so **** off and leave it alone! Debating is not one of your strong points, it appears. But if we look at it from that view then the whole of Amateur Radio should be considered nothing more than CB... |
"Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote in message ... "Chris Kirby" wrote in message ... Simon VK3XEM wrote: Walt Davidson wrote: Simon VK3XEM wrote: What is there to debate, there is a large network of IRLP nodes all over the world on Amateur Radio which proves it is a popular and valid part of the hobby. There are plenty of CBers all over the world, but that doesn't prove CB is part of amateur radio. 73 de G3NYY You are clutching at straws now, only *LICENSED* Amateur operators can use IRLP, so why bring CB into it. Not true. You are making an assumption that only *LICENCED* amateurs ever press a PTT and transmit. IRLP is no more secure from unlicenced transmissions than amateur radio itself. IRLP does *NOT* interfere with your use of Amateur Radio, so **** off and leave it alone! Debating is not one of your strong points, it appears. But if we look at it from that view then the whole of Amateur Radio should be considered nothing more than CB... In the UK... It is! Sadly...... |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Not a question, a statement. If it is linked by ANY means other than radio, it is not ham radio. End of discussion. *looks outside at his antennas in the back yard* *looks at the computer in front of him* *looks towards the shed where the radios are* So... becuase I remote control my radios from the house via Cat5E computer link and use the on screen computer control in the house (where it's warm!) it _isn't_ ham radio... Doesn't sound very logical to me Dan *grin* G-S VK3DMN |
The problem I have is understanding the bitterness I see over something
that, for most people, would rank below picking tomorrow's breakfast cereal. . If someone wants to call VOIP 'amateur radio' so what? Because it demeans the hobby and brings it down to a level akin to that of CB. That doesn't bother you? 1. It doesn't demean the hobby, it widens it's appeal to a more inclusive group. 2. CB isn't better or worse than amateur radio, it's just less technically orientated. So... no... not only does it not bother me, I approve of people calling VOIP amateur radio. G-S VK3DMN |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. Yes we understand what you are _wrongly_ saying. Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? No, that is you! ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. ONE MORE TIME! IT _IS_ HAM RADIO, THE INTERNET BIT AND THE RADIO BIT COMBINE TO MAKE AN IMPROVED RADIO SYSTEM. AND YES I WILL CONTINUE TO CALL IT HAM RADIO BECAUSE IT IS. Can we stop shouting now *grin* G-S VK3DMN |
"Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Brian Reay wrote: Well, in that case why don't you call it something else. Then come back when someone makes you call it by the name that upsets you. Untill then, 'mellow out'. Dan, why are IRLP fans so quick to tell people to shut up and go away when someone disagrees with them. Are people like you and "concerned amateur" typical of what we might meet if we sample the mode? I don't think anyone is saying "shut up" etc. I'm saying unless ILRP impacts you, why worry? Over the years I've come across many amateurs who hated some aspect of the hobby- packet, anything computer based,........ Not one ever seems to have found a niche they really do like. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 There you go putting words into my mouth again Brian. I never said I hate IRLP. I said I don't like it being called Ham Radio. And I don't much care if you like my opinion or not. So there. Dan/W4NTI What I don't like is the way you are putting down a legitimate part of the hobby. Whether you like it or not it IS a legitimate part of Amateur Radio. -- 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/ You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. Dan/W4NTI 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/ Simon When your IRLP or EchoLink Node or even EchoIRLP node is up and running PLEASE let us all know . IF at the moment you are active on either EchoLink or IRLP you could also advise us of the node numbers you use. Finally **** Listed , a QUAINT turn of Phrase being a dim and ignorant POM I'm having problems fathoming that one out. With Very Best Regards DieSea |
Jock. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:03:42 +1100, Simon VK3XEM wrote: What is there to debate, there is a large network of IRLP nodes all over the world on Amateur Radio which proves it is a popular and valid part of the hobby. There are probably thousands of 6 MHz (and other) pirates and illegal CB-ers around. Are you saying they too are a valid part of the hobby? No the defining issue is if it's a licenced amateur sending lawfully, the method of sending is irrelevant. G-S VK3DMN |
"DieSea" wrote in message ... "Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Brian Reay wrote: Well, in that case why don't you call it something else. Then come back when someone makes you call it by the name that upsets you. Untill then, 'mellow out'. Dan, why are IRLP fans so quick to tell people to shut up and go away when someone disagrees with them. Are people like you and "concerned amateur" typical of what we might meet if we sample the mode? I don't think anyone is saying "shut up" etc. I'm saying unless ILRP impacts you, why worry? Over the years I've come across many amateurs who hated some aspect of the hobby- packet, anything computer based,........ Not one ever seems to have found a niche they really do like. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 There you go putting words into my mouth again Brian. I never said I hate IRLP. I said I don't like it being called Ham Radio. And I don't much care if you like my opinion or not. So there. Dan/W4NTI What I don't like is the way you are putting down a legitimate part of the hobby. Whether you like it or not it IS a legitimate part of Amateur Radio. -- 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/ You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. Dan/W4NTI 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/ Simon When your IRLP or EchoLink Node or even EchoIRLP node is up and running PLEASE let us all know . IF at the moment you are active on either EchoLink or IRLP you could also advise us of the node numbers you use. Finally **** Listed , a QUAINT turn of Phrase being a dim and ignorant POM I'm having problems fathoming that one out. it's called blocking sender Alf VK5ZKL With Very Best Regards DieSea |
Simon When your IRLP or EchoLink Node or even EchoIRLP node is up and running PLEASE let us all know . IF at the moment you are active on either EchoLink or IRLP you could also advise us of the node numbers you use. Finally **** Listed , a QUAINT turn of Phrase being a dim and ignorant POM I'm having problems fathoming that one out. it's called blocking sender Alf VK5ZKL With Very Best Regards DieSea Thanks for the explanation Alf , being an elderly Pom it takes time for things like that to sink in . Perhaps SENIOR MOMENTS will take over and I'll have trouble remembering that. Again Thanks DieSea . |
"nana" wrote in message ... http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/ You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. Dan/W4NTI There are mighty linked repeater networks across the USA. These are Ham Radio? If I choose to link two Ham Radio Repeaters via a landline - This isn't Ham Radio? Even though two Ham Radio service areas may be served? I've been using my computers on PSK31, but one is in the family room, connected to this computer via CAT5 cable, and then to my HF radio. Is this NOT Ham Radio? You guys have a very NARROW view of what constitutes Ham Radio. It appears that NOTHING less than a 100% Radio circuit is good enough for you, yet if you analyse systems around the world, MANY are not 100% Radio. Brad. 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. 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. You know dang well what the differences are. If you don't then you need an education. Dan/W4NTI |
"Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Brian Reay wrote: Well, in that case why don't you call it something else. Then come back when someone makes you call it by the name that upsets you. Untill then, 'mellow out'. Dan, why are IRLP fans so quick to tell people to shut up and go away when someone disagrees with them. Are people like you and "concerned amateur" typical of what we might meet if we sample the mode? I don't think anyone is saying "shut up" etc. I'm saying unless ILRP impacts you, why worry? Over the years I've come across many amateurs who hated some aspect of the hobby- packet, anything computer based,........ Not one ever seems to have found a niche they really do like. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 There you go putting words into my mouth again Brian. I never said I hate IRLP. I said I don't like it being called Ham Radio. And I don't much care if you like my opinion or not. So there. Dan/W4NTI What I don't like is the way you are putting down a legitimate part of the hobby. Whether you like it or not it IS a legitimate part of Amateur Radio. -- 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/ You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. Dan/W4NTI 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 |
"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 |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... I can understand where you're coming from, Stan. But unfortunately no self-respecting contester would have anything to do with something as banal as an "IRLP Contest". 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com Tell me about it. Dan/W4NTI |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:33:16 -0000, "DieSea" wrote: Finally **** Listed , a QUAINT turn of Phrase being a dim and ignorant POM I'm having problems fathoming that one out. Australians seem to have a preoccupation with lavatorial matters. I discovered that a lot of them think it's amusing to fart in company too. (An unpleasant trait that they share with Cardiff people of both sexes!) 73 de G3NYY So which part of the establishment is to blame for that Walt? could it be the CBers, the RSGB. Ofcom or the M3's.... Surely you don't have anything new to say you boring old bastar* |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... "Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... I can understand where you're coming from, Stan. But unfortunately no self-respecting contester would have anything to do with something as banal as an "IRLP Contest". 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com Tell me about it. Dan/W4NTI Local Node OP has Pulled "PLUG" until late April , says he's got better things to do than listening to "you are 001599 in Timbuktu your report pse om gd lk in the contest " . By the way aren't all contest reports 599 . Now if it was a bit more skilled rather than punching buttons and 27 days less then he may have a different idea. Still interested in finding out the node numbers Simon is using Regards to all (Well Almost ) DieSea ( A mere Jait ) |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I am not saying the idea and the system is not good, or it's bad. I'm saying stop calling it ham radio. Why should we stop calling it what it is though? How about a new term...such as INHAM....."Internet Ham" perhaps? How about not! G-S VK3DMN |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
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. So why does it make a difference if the land line link is internet land line or non internet land line? 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. No, they are two different sorts of apples! You know dang well what the differences are. If you don't then you need an education. A differnce that makes no difference _is_ no differnce :-) G-S VK3DMN Dan/W4NTI |
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 |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:36:25 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: Your about as relevant as the Monarchy....[NOT] Interesting, then, that a majority of Australians voted to keep the Monarchy last time they were asked. I wonder what proportion of Brits would vote to keep on allowing Aussies to come and live in the UK, if we were asked the question. 73 de G3NYY Sure olle Bean, I would love to live in a country that never sees sunshine.. |
In article . net, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. Dan/W4NTI Your so called arguements are **trolling**. It all started with a posting about an IRLP contest. No, you added nothing about wishing to join the contest, all you and your buddies have managed to do is make total assess out of yourselves, ****ing about with definitions. IRLP and Echolink have demonstrated how Amateur Radio and the Internet can work together in harmony. All you and your **Trolling mates** have done is act like total Pratts. IRLP is an **extension** of Hamradio, get over it.... |
In article . net, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"nana" wrote in message ... http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/ 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. 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. You know dang well what the differences are. If you don't then you need an education. Dan/W4NTI Dan, you really need to move out from under the stairs and begin the **LONG PROCESS** of developing your little used SOCIAL SKILLS. Currently you have none and hence your **TROLL** tendencies |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:33:16 -0000, "DieSea" wrote: Finally **** Listed , a QUAINT turn of Phrase being a dim and ignorant POM I'm having problems fathoming that one out. Australians seem to have a preoccupation with lavatorial matters. I discovered that a lot of them think it's amusing to fart in company too. (An unpleasant trait that they share with Cardiff people of both sexes!) 73 de G3NYY Exactly why youself and Walty are **TROLLS**. Your easily distracted to discuss matters that you have great experience at. May I suggest you join the alt.farting.troll.uk newsgoup where you can exchange pleasantries with your ilk... |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:24:16 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Dan, why are IRLP fans so quick to tell people to shut up and go away when someone disagrees with them. Are people like you and "concerned amateur" typical of what we might meet if we sample the mode? They are very typical, Mike. They all have one thing in common ... they are CBers masquerading as radio amateurs. 73 de G3NYY At least you add no ambiguity.. Your idiots masquerading as idiots |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:42:09 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: Your ability to draw useless conclusions is only surpassed by the lack of any support you seem to be able to muster in your fight for *TRUTH, JUSTICE and the American WAY* :-) Dear me. It's beginning to sound like "Everyone's out of step except the Aussies!" 73 de G3NYY Seems like only you and your Walty mate dont seem to get it. Everyone else in this newsgoup seems to have no issues with IRLP, Hamradio yet you do.... Your ability to conduct any constructive reasoning is overcome by your **trolling** techniques.... Let enthusiastic folk expand the boundaries of Amatuer Radio and we'll leave the bull****ting to you.. |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:26 +1100, G-S wrote: Well If I use IRLP (and I don't contest btw) then I talk into my "radio" and someone else talks into thier "radio" "Talking into thier radio" (sic) is what CBers do. Radio hams *operate* their radios .... and sometimes even build them. The middle bit is "packets" like my old VFH "packet" radio A VFH packet radio? Is that some kind of CB rig? 73 de G3NYY **TROLL** |
In article , Jock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:08:56 +1100, Simon VK3XEM wrote: Besides, how many operators are going to be contesting all month? Most I would expect will just jump on in their spare time, just as they would for normal operating. Are you seriously labelling the morons who indulge in this sort of nonsense "operators"? Seriously? 73 de Jock. Morons are like you Jock....cant accept a broader concept of radio. If it doesnt meet your **SPECIFIC** interpretation, out come the labels. You really should go back to your Black Model-T ford |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:26:02 GMT, "Stan" wrote: Whether it is radio or not, if you are not a fan of contests, (and I am not), then those contesting via IRLP may well result in a decrease in HF radio traffic, leaving the DX clear for others. Which I appreciate... I can understand where you're coming from, Stan. But unfortunately no self-respecting contester would have anything to do with something as banal as an "IRLP Contest". 73 de G3NYY There you go, if it **DOESNT** meet your **NARROW** definition of Amateur Radio, it must be nonsence. You REALLY are a pompus **TROLL** |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:53:39 +1100, "Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote: 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.... But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. Now we see the true problem with IRLP... If it isn't HF, spark-gap and pedal powered it just isn't amateur radio, is it! I guess you also build your own radio gear, totally, don't you? I mean, using commercial built gear just isn't what amateur radio is all about, is it! So, satellites, ISS, space shuttle, packet, ATV and SSTV should all be removed from the hobby as well? Just good old CW and spark-gap or valve gear only, home built on a piece of ply-wood............ People like YOU are the main reason newcomers decide to dump ham radio or not even start in the first place. Stuck up, pompass, arrogant old fossils stuck in the past and unwilling to even consider new or changing technology. I guess you also have your very own group of fellow hams (those that haven't been moved to a nursing home yet) that you regularly chat to on HF, refusing to admit any newcomers to the QSO because, let's face it, if they didn't have to totally build their own radio using nothing but safety pins, paperclips and the wire from an old AM wireless, AND have a written reference from Morse himself, then they just aren't hams, are they.... Oh, and by the way, you really need to keep up with the thread - some of your fellow 'debaters' have already admitted that repeater linking by landline is perfectly acceptable, so you can't even manage to get your own side to agree with your opinions!! What a JOKE!!! Sorry Walt, but IMHO (In My Humble Opinion for the oldies) ham radio would be far better without YOU, and those like YOU. Otherwise, the hobby will no doubt die as operators like you constantly alienate new technology and newcomers alike. Hope you enjoy the onset of BPL!!! -- 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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com