this might surprise you :P... but I agree!
I wish that packet/ham radio would open up a little bit (if only on certain
bands like 2mtr) so as to allow this type of stuff.
-James, N9XLC
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Lemieux <
>
To: 
<>
Cc: 
<>
Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Mobile Comm.
>
>>Amateur (packet) radio...has it's limiations. Here's
>>what I found out as of about one year ago. Perhaps there
>>have been some improvements (see my second and third points).
>
>There must be someone on one of these lists who is in the loop here...My
>knowledge is dated approximately to the same degree.
>
>This fact may also mean that my impressions noted below are erroneous now,
>but they were seemingly valid at the time.
>
>>Third, you can only communicate with other hams except for a few
>>bbs machines that will gateway to/from internet/email. I'm not sure
>>how many gateways exists. They fear letting the internet/email
>>onto the packet system as business or profanity may be present.
>>Typically gateways to email are only allowed to/from hams. Other
>>email can't get into the system unless forwarded by an ham.
>
>The insular quality of the Ham community is one thing that's always kept me
>from really "getting into" it. I've had the knowledge base to get my
>license for quite some time, and radio in general is an interest,
>but...I've met some pretty obnoxious hams in my short lifetime, and the
>general attitude puts me off.
>
>And you're definitely right about this nearly superstitious fear wrt the
>internet. I seem to recall gigantic threads on Usenet a while back with
>people vehemently opposing internet gateways. Seems to me that one way to
>increase interest in packet would be to _encourage_ it as a wireless
>alternative.
>
>Hell, that's the only reason I want to use packet...Without internet
>gateways (telnet is all I need), it simply has nothing to offer me. I'm
>certain that this is in violation of the Esteemed Ham Ethos, but oh well.
>(of course, requisite apologies for stepping on anyone's swollen ... pride
;)
>
>That said...The lists I've seen of internet gateways do seem rather
>extensive. ie...Multiple nodes in pretty much every state, to the extent
>that the coverage is better than CDPD, and certainly better than Ricochet,
>even if the service is likely of a lower quality and level of
functionality.
>
>Hrm...For reference purposes, the lists I'm referring to are at the Tapr
>site, http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/pkthome.html .
>
>In the BBS & Gateways section there are several pieces on Internet
>Gateways, and specifically the file
> ftp://minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au/hamradio/gateways/resource
>Lists internet gateways.
>
>However, again, note that the date on this is 1996/02/20, which is ancient
>by tech standards.
>
>
>Vandibere Hanson/Jeremy Lemieux ()
>http://www-edlab.cs.umass.edu/~jlemieux ICQ#1861093
>Resistance is puerile.
>
>
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail