Subj : Packet Radio
To   : Raymundo
From : Angus Mcleod
Date : Sat Apr 30 2005 09:13 am

  Re: Packet Radio
  By: Raymundo to Angus Mcleod on Sat Apr 30 2005 02:15:00

 >  >  > Not crap. I can remember when my resources were not so great and the I
 >  >  > was in its humble commecialization beginnings and I was one of few peo
 >  >  > our area with Internet access. Dial-up of course, but once or few time
 >  >  > phone was disconnected for lack of payment, but because of packet radi
 >  >  > the N0ARY bbs and packet gateway into the Internet I could still do In
 >  >  > e-mail. Slower yes, but still effective. Packet radio was an aid to th
 >  >  > existing Internet and hams have always been involved.
 >  >
 >  > Don't take this wrong, but I could care less if you have internet access
 >  > or not.  I certainly don't see amateur radio as a mechanism for you to ge
 >  > online on the cheap!
 >  >
 >  > Like I said, packet radio is great technology.  Technology that is misuse
 >  > by every jerk who thinks that it would be cool to put up a node and
 >  > forward 17-month old ARRL bulletins back and forth, around the world, ove
 >  > and over again.  You only have to monitor some of the traffic on HF to
 >  > realise what a complete waste of time and bandwidth packet really is.

This is the last time I am replying to any top-posted messages in this 
thread.

 > I didn't mention being online now did I? I merely stated I could still get
 > my e-mail and that is far from "Being Online" now isn't it.

Sorry, but technically, you have to get "online" in order to retrieve 
internet e-mail.  Still, I take your point.  Anyhow, it seems my "Don't 
take this wrong..." opener was a waste of time, because it seems you took 
it wrong anyway.  

 > I am on cable an packet is by far millions of bits per seconds slower. 
 > Packet is still a viable means of communication.

Like I said, it's great technology that is wasted.

 > Let's say an earthquake hits eastern USA and now all normal means of
 > communication is gone including much of our cellphone technology. What means
 > are you going to use CW? 

If necessary.  Or FM Fone (close range) or SSB (longer range) or satelite 
comms or whatever.

 > Maybe, but packet could and will be used by emergency communications.

Not packet, because there will be so much QRM from other packet nodes 
sending outdated ARRL bulletins that no emergency traffic will get 
through.  You would do better with a piece of paper held in the cleft of a 
forked stick and carried by a runner.

 > Incidently I also stated "When my resources were not so great..." it was no
 > attempt to get illegal access to the Internet. The N0ARY gatewat and bbs was
 > and may very weill still be a link to and from (HAMs only) the Internet.

Once again, you are on the defensive.  I'm not hammering at you for using 
the internet via packet radio.  I'm just saying that the ability to do 
this does not make it a useful amateur service.  The point of amateur 
radio is *NOT* to assist in providing non-amateur services.  

---
 þ Synchronet þ CQ DX!  The ANJO BBS calling on 56K dial-up...

.