|
Dave Heil wrote: 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 David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb |
wrote in message oups.com... 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. That's what on VHF here in Illinois So much qrm and interference from fowarding. 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.... better yet idea is to figure out how those wireless cards operate and a way to convert them into the ham bands. 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? I really have no idea but I have a system that would resolve all those problems. 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. So true. 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? No one wants to get back into packet...to them packet is dead and a useless system (this idea is based on how the network was set up) 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. But who decides what is obscene and indecent? The Supreme court pretty much defined obscene and in indecent in MillerVs California, it's that three prong that the courts and the govenment looks at. 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. It is a cost issue because if you were set up node the old way you have to pay for radio's, TNC, computers, space, antenna, coax. 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. I'm not demanding but one person can't do it all.. 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 ----== 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 =---- |
|
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: 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 David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Dave K8MN Who you gonna believe? |
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Yeah Dave...You gonna believe an archiving system known for it's flawless recordkeeping, or a guy caught in numerous mistruths, deceit and blatant lies? Think reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal hard....... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote:
Who you gonna believe? GHOST BUSTERS! - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: The reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to offer. There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you. Feel free to move on. Find another interest. Heil actually has a point, smug as it is. I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little dance. If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. Can you figure out the attributions? |
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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. David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Given your track record, especially in recent times (see: """.....""" posts by "bb"), I'm going to have to believe my eyes. You have an attribution problem. You can attempt to argue the point if you like. That won't change what was posted. Dave K8MN |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com