[FADCA] HAMS using Internet

Sun Oct 21 07:20:07 EDT 2007

You hear it earlier Joel, they don't need BBS's anymore.

73 Dave n4zkf

David Calder
n4zkf at n4zkf.com
www.n4zkf.com
dxc.n4zkf.com
DX cluster node 

-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Joel Yates
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:39 PM
To: Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association
Subject: Re: [FADCA] HAMS using Internet

Hi Guys, I have to use telnet and UDP connects to and from my N4JOA BBS to
other BBS's only because our local packet lan network can't connect to any
other BBS's on RF. I don't like the idea of having to use the internet for
packet but I have no choice. I can connect to only one other packet BBS via
RF at no fault of my own ...73's...Joel N4JOA at N4JOA

On 10/20/07, Royce, Philip <proyce at alachuasheriff.org> wrote:
> I agree with the principle of the TCP-IP based RF links because I use them
for Public Safety needs.  But the we as public safety are limited to the
secure IP addresses that are for the equipment they are serving(audio and
video).
>
> Having an open internet service over an amateur radio service is not only
expensive system but is not allowed in FCC rules, no commecial use of
amateur radio frequencies is allow.  The minute that you allow someone to go
onto a website (IE google, msn, ect.) you have brought in a commercial means
of a non commercial service.
>
> But if you use the internet as a TCP-IP RF link between hardware and only
are sending non-commercial audio, video, or data from one amateur service to
another one it's is fine.
>
> People have a 20 sec mentality with anything radio, packet, internet, it's
gonna have to be how you sell it and how you really need to use it and how
much money you have to operate it.
>
> And I'm not sure how it is figured that packet has gone to the wayside we
have promoted and use on a daily basis our telpac and emergency traffic
handling. I do agree that we don't have need for BBS's due to the internet
but I believe that we are in a uphill climb with the  use of packet due to
the Emergency Management in the county's and the State that have finally
shown interest.  There won't be any internet in residence home when a storm
hits but we will still have data capabilities in our hardened telpac sites.
>
> But I don't want to stir up another ant's nest like the last series of
emails, but without having a statewide or regionalwide nonprofit
organization that can take donations and afford to purchase equipment, tower
rents, and personnel to service this type of system a high baudrate wide
bandwidth system will not happen any time soon, we would be better off all
buying a Dstar system for every county and installing it at a mutual aid
tower site under the umbrella of interoperability with the state.
>
> 73 Phil
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net on behalf of Jerry DeLong
> Sent: Sat 10/20/2007 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
>
>
> .-=== Message Scanned by Alachua County McAfee Webshield Appliance ===-.
>
>
>
>
> .-*** Message Scanned by Alachua County McAfee Webshield Appliance ***-.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
>
>

--
Joel Yates
yate4899 at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca