Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Greg wrote:
Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X? Sssssshhhhhh!! Not everyone knows about that. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Todd Daugherty wrote: No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official quotes from the FCC? I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death of Amateur Radio" in my opinion. If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band. No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. "amateurs should broadcasting"? There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only limits on content were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated". As I stated in my paper a good example of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups. Such as? A BBS with discussion on antenna designing, Another BBS with discussion on on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to name a few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the set up. The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse of other BBS on other subjects. Sounds good in theory. But in practice, how would that work? Could hams all over the world, or even all over the USA, access that particular BBS? If so, how? Well, it could be set up on VHF and HF allow. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is interferning with their system. How many years ago? And would it have interfered? It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if you know anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could use a voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet would have moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean someone would actually have to build a radio to do it... There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech? Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes. If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post, they're legal. The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who feel that information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel the transmission is illegal. Jamming is an enforcement issue. Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal. Agreed! I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached. Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views. The FCC shouldn't even suggest it. Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental to the ARS. Which they do. Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) § 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing Todd N9OGL 73 de Jim, N2EY ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official quotes from the FCC? I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location. I don't know, that comment that Hollingsworth sent to me I think would constitute what your looking for. Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Brabham wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Ya missed the point, Charles. 1200 baud packet is a make-do, chosen to be quick and cheap. All you have to do is interface to an FM voice radio. Getting a significant improvement in bandwidth would mean actually *building radios* designed for the purpose. Which simply hasn't happened in large numbers. Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio, hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a mix of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in *building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are still in use. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:58:27 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:
There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. For our county-wide ARES/RACES operation we have a four-node local network that uses four VHF packet frequencies (1200 baud) and four pairs of UHF frequencies (9600 baud), the latter for inter-node and backbone automatic forwarding. We have about 40 users - ten "served agencies" and thirty individual participants. The net is "up" 24/7 and carries a fair amount of inter-user messages -- classic ham radio traffic handling. Several of us including myself have a dedicated radio/TNC/computer running 24/7 just for this purpose. No reason that it can't work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:58:27 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote: There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. For our county-wide ARES/RACES operation we have a four-node local network that uses four VHF packet frequencies (1200 baud) and four pairs of UHF frequencies (9600 baud), the latter for inter-node and backbone automatic forwarding. We have about 40 users - ten "served agencies" and thirty individual participants. The net is "up" 24/7 and carries a fair amount of inter-user messages -- classic ham radio traffic handling. Several of us including myself have a dedicated radio/TNC/computer running 24/7 just for this purpose. No reason that it can't work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Well, the problem here was the operators of the BBS's were told to move their fowarding to the backbone system but they wouldn't. So the guy who ran the vast majority of nodes here in the state of Illinois got basically ****ed off and turned the whole system off. that was back around 1998. I think a newer system would work instead of the "old" packet system. First the Speed 1200 baud is ok, it work. However, I think if amateur's could figure out how these wireless networks work and apply that to the amateur radio service. Instead of having a bunch of "nodes" going across the United States on a radio frequency have only a "Local Access" point say on a 2 meter frequency which would go from that node through the internet and backout on 2 meters. Instead of having traditional BBS software remove it and use a Peer to Peer (P2P) this would be more practical in the sense that all a person has to do is search for something and get a list. A bbs would inpractical because in sense that a person would have to monitor the hard driveand clean it out when it gets full and BBS's uses fowarding while a P2P system there is no fowarding all the forsale stuff and stupid jokes stays in the users share file. Just an Idea.... Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Brabham wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! I thought the topic was how slow packet is compared to just about everything else. Not hooking a phone modem to a rig. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Ya missed the point, Charles. Nope... You did, along with quite a few others. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1415 Â September 24, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1400 Â June 11, 2004 | General | |||
209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx |