"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:29:51 GMT, "Charles Brabham"
wrote:


I have a 1-meter rig that works on 2-metres.


What does the one meter say, when you are on two metres?


Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Charles Brabham wrote:

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.

The "hooking a phone modem to a rig" part was me making fun of the "how slow
packet is" whiners.

Packet is (within reason) as fast as you want it to be.

The whiners here are upset because not everyone shares their desires and
expectations. - The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of
Packet users just don't give a hoot about high-speed Packet, or IP either.
It's always been that way and will probably continue to be that way for a
very long time.

They whine and they complain... Why, they'll do just about anything - as
long as it is negative and reflects poorly upon the hobby.

One thing you won't see them doing is transforming Packet over to high-speed
and IP. - It's so much easier and natural for them to whine because somebody
else ( or everybody else ) hasn't done it for them.

Meanwhile - Life goes on, and the whining of frustrated protocol warriors is
really a very little thing.

"How I Won the Protocol Wars" - http://www.uspacket.org/l_protowars.htm


Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...


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.



However, requiring the various radio services to stick to the rules for
their particular radio service is not censorship. For example, the amateur
radio service is defined as a two way communications service with a very
strict limitation on broadcasting or one way only transmissions. This in no
way limits the content of those two way communications. Two or more hams
engaged in a discussion can talk about any subject they want to so long as
they do not use obscenity (and note that the courts have upheld that
obscenity is not protected by free speech). Naturally people can also be
held liable in civil court if they engage in slander and the slandered party
chooses to sue.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Heil wrote:


If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.



Oh, Lord. That would be a sight and a half!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


ULX would chew toddyboy up and spit him out in a Nu York minute.

So?

bb wrote:

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Heil wrote:


If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.

You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the
above.

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:10:01 -0500, "Weebus RF Meter"
wrote:


"Greg" wrote in message
...

Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X?

Unfortunatly.....yes.

We were hoping that there was a Planet X.
This way if there was, when it appears there
would be another group like the Heaven's Gate cultists
that would go and perform some kind of a mass suicide
for our mutual viewing and reading enjoyment of the same.

(see http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hale.html )

Untill then however, we'll just have to settle for right wing
militialoons that get their sorry ass shot out from under them
or tossed into jail, along with the occasional loon who goes
apeshi+ and shoots up a suburban shopping mall someplace.

(I don't think we'll be seeing another 9/11 for a very long time to come)

Oh well, as Andy Warhol said - "15 Minutes of Fame is our mutual
allocation"

Ciao baby!
xoxoxo

Here's everything you need to know about "Planet X"

http://www.planet-x.150m.com/

Todd Daugherty wrote:
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 have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.

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.

Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.

This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.

Well, that's *your* opinion...

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.

Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?

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 mean, set up the way you'd like.

It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.

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)
=A7 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.

OK, fine.

Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the
FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours.

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.

Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of
amateur radio are under other rules and regulations.

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.

Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor
should it.

There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high.

For whom?

The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing

If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?

K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others
assholes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Todd Daugherty wrote:

"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

Which is?

I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.

Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF




Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.

If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting" system.
A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency isn't
being used. This is called time-shifting.

This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.

Well, that's *your* opinion...

It's not my opinion it a fact.



Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?

1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the higher
speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb. The problem
isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up fast
enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.
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 mean, set up the way you'd like.

It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.

NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here in
Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't move
their fowarding to the backbone system. Instead they were running it on the
Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So the BBS
were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out of
packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the network
got ****ed off about it and shut it down.SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN
ILLINOIS!


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.

OK, fine.

Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the
FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours.


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.

Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of
amateur radio are under other rules and regulations.

The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and
Indecent material and Commerical type messages.

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.

Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor
should it.

Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of
communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody will
want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their going to
get. Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get more
people into it.


There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high.

For whom?

The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there is no
Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on the
user frequency.

A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing

If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others
assholes.
What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new idea's and
new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him. As for that
*asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
"Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from the
packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a ASSHOLE.
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 =----

Todd Daugherty wrote:
I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.

Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF

Ah! Now I understand.

Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait
for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.

If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting"
system.
A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency
isn't
being used. This is called time-shifting.

Of course.

Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about
the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time
on the air.

But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send,
those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to
be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense,
it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced.

This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.

Well, that's *your* opinion...

It's not my opinion it a fact.

It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-)

Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?

1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the
higher
speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb.

Of course!

The problem
isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up
fast
enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.

So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio
amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio
services
that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of
certifications and such.

So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio
from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch....
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 mean, set up the way you'd like.

It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.

NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here
in
Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't
move
their fowarding to the backbone system.

Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system?

Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the
forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is
like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and
then complaining because there are so many late trains.

Instead they were running it on the
Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So
the BBS
were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out
of
packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the
network
got ****ed off about it and shut it down.

Ah! Now I understand.

Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame
the
*owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes,
right?
He's got the responsibility for them, right?

SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS!

That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes?

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)
=A7 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.

OK, fine.

Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the
FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours.


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.

Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of
amateur radio are under other rules and regulations.

The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and
Indecent material and Commerical type messages.

But who decides what is obscene and indecent?

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.

Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'.
Nor
should it.

Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of
communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody
will
want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their
going to
get.

What "useless modes"?

Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get
more
people into it.

Oddly enough, most of the new hams I know are fascinated by both the
old and
the new.

There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high.

For whom?

The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there
is no
Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on
the
user frequency.

That's not a cost issue; it's an organization issue.

A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing

If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling
others
assholes.
What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new
idea's and
new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him.

Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be
leading the way, not demanding others do it.

As for that
*asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
"Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from
the
packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a
ASSHOLE.

Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do...

73 de Jim, N2EY