[FADCA] HAMS using Internet <NOW PANDORAS BOX GOT DROPPED...>

Sat Oct 20 23:14:46 EDT 2007

Jerry and others, Good evening.

OK, now my opinion, not that it matters, BUT you opened that
door a little to wide, so here comes the flood waters....

NOW, you talk about getting into the age of things, internet,
web browsers, yahda yahda yahda....

(FLAME OFF) why then not take what we have and port it to
D-Star? I mean, we now have technology for 128Kbps links
with the ability to have a HTTP server attached to the darn
things, and yeah, 1.2 is a far cry from 440 or 144 and has it's
issues with propagation, free space loss and above normal near
line of sight issues.... but good golly miss molly, put it up
to it upmost use among the ham community.
OK 2m / 70cm DStar low speed data is some what a lack luster
for speed, but when have you been able to use your laptop
to log into a dstar network to push traffic out of a troubled
area??? Even if your doing it with 1.2 gig???? better yet, 1.2 gig
your pulling up an EEI form to submit information for your
SAR Team Leader to TLH... and yes, TLH now has a DStar system
in the works, or online (except for the gateway I think).

HELLO??? can you hear and READ me now, I mean, why just port
TELPAC to analog, I am rolling over in my grave here at home,
and making the members of the house mad at me too, trying to find
a way to port the Bartow FADCA pc to my DStar radio, crude but
my gosh, someone here is trying to do something other then
re inventing the wheel of TCP/IP communications... do it DIGITAL STYLE!

With DStar and gateway access to the US_TRUST server, one can send
low speed data traffic across the net with ease now... HOWEVER
there are draw backs to this, yes I said there are problems with
that.... That is why I feel compelled to try and find a way to
port FPAC to DStar so any one with a laptop computer, be it
low speed data or 1.2 gig 128 data (web page server) can access
winlink, TELPAC, FPAC, so on so forth.. it is on the table...
bulking at it will not make it work any better.

Enough of the ramble, I know that some ill thoughts of DStar are
not going to make it through the admin filters... but the need
to move forward is here today, not 20 years down the road when
it's a problem and this cycle starts all over again....
12.5 channels not enough for what 22nd century digital is doing.....

73
Evans
Lakeland

-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Jerry DeLong
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:27 PM
To: 'Charles S. Schuman'
Cc: 'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'
Subject: [FADCA] HAMS using Internet

Charlie,

First off, I welcome your opinion.

This is entirely my opinion and since you opened the door and I am going to
share with others.

History will show that this isn't entirely true there are a lot of reason
why packet radio has gone to the

way-side. From what I have seen in this area first hand is the politics and
narrow minded thinking have

killed our radio networks time and time again. I believe the internet has
played a small part in this but

very small and slow speeds a close second. 

You need to look into the future TCPIP is and always going to be the norm
and works well at all speeds

even on RF. These days all PC have Web Browser and everyone at almost every
age group knows how

to use them. This is a easy way for people to login from the Internet and/or
RF so they **will** become 

interested again. We need users in order to grow our network, users need to
see that Packet is cool and 

exciting or they will just continue using the Internet and packet will die.

We are at the point now were we could be supplying end users with free
Internet access and free email,

digital voice traffic with just the cost of their own equipment. This type
of technology will bring back 

users but these type of network require TCPIP. The equipment needs could be
purchased pretty cheap.

Don't get me wrong I really do believe in RF but a combination of the two
can make for a more robust

network.

Example:

My first Internet connection ever was via 19.2K baud packet link to KD4IDR
in the mid 90's and work

like a champ.

I was using the World Wide Web via Ham Radio downloading software and
sending email the real deal.

We brought this to the attention of the local packet groups and no one could
see the big picture. Infect

only 2 people in the entire SWF area would participate and would finally
lose interest. Actually one lost 

interest and the other was pushed toward ROSE/Fpac because he didn't
understand TCPIP. 

This was 10 years ago.  

We control the destiny of Packet Radio so if it die it's because we didn't
keep up with technology and

not because HAMS would rather use the internet.

Best regards, Jerry, KD4YAL

  _____  

From: Charles S. Schuman [mailto:k4gbb1 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:29 PM
To: kd4yal at tampabay.rr.com
Subject: RE: Fpac __TCP__

Normally I would applaud your effort, but The idea behind FPAC is to use the
internet to extend HAM radio.  A Web based FPAC node would extend the
internet. Internet e-mail killed radio based BBSes.   Web based interfaces
into radio interfaces would encourage HAMs to use the internet and forget
about the radio end of the  network. Pretty soon the guys and gals that
maintain the radio part move on and the network goes to HELL again. 

This is not a condemnation of your work... just a Old Fart's point of view.

<<Charlie>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry DeLong
Sent: Oct 20, 2007 1:38 PM
To: "'Charles S. Schuman'" 
Subject: RE: Fpac __TCP__ 

Charlie,

I agree with you but I have anther project I was working on a while back
using

Java base telnet via a secure http connection. This would give Fpac a sudo
web

Interface.

I did have this working for Xnet and wanted to try it with Fpac.

Jerry

_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca