From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Link between BBS via Amateur Radio
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:21:34 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug27.202805.17419@watson.ibm.com>, uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.220803.14284@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
 
>>> The ham radio packet bbs network is really nothing more than a toy.  It
>>> is far too limited as far as restrictions on content, bandwidth, and
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> reliability to be used in a production BBS environment of the type that
>>> land-line-based BBS users have been accustomed to seeing for more than
>>> a decade.
>>   Nonsense.  
> How about your posting? (:-)

  Naah, I only spout nonsense at parties. :-)
 
>> We can achieve much higher bandwidths using good compression strategies
>> and by moving up into the microwave region.  My reading so far indicates
>> that 30-40 mile microwave links running 10 Mbit/sec should be possible
>> without outrageous investments.
> Well, there's a lot of things which *COULD* be done, if <long list>.
> Today's reality is - you don't have even 9600 bps.
 
  What do you mean we don't have 9600 bps?  The nodes around Houston
are mostly running 19.2 backbones.  It would be no great trick to
bring up the user ports to 9600 if the demand were there.  And 9600b
TNC's exist; it's only a matter of time before they become the standard.
  If there's a problem with the current network, it's that it's
underutilized, and therefore generates little need to improve it.
Yeah, I realize that this is a Catch-22.

>>   The existing packet network is very poor, but that's just because
>> it's dated.  Technology very quickly becomes obsolete these days, and
>> we hams don't have barrels of money to burn.
> OK, so the existing PBBS is very poor (and how does it contradict
> the original statement about land BBS technology being a decade
> ahead), and hams don't have barrels of money to burn to bring
> the PBBS from obsolete to current level... Very nice. So far
> you're proving the points of what you called "nonsense".
 
  Perhaps I read too much into the original posting.  My gut impression
was that the REAL message was "The packet network is not and NEVER WILL
BE more than a toy."

> And there's very important point which you chose to ignore:
> RESTRICTION ON CONTENT. Don't you think it counts?
 
  Not really.  There are restrictions in the content of Usenet postings
too.  The original posting listed three problems, too technical and one
not.  I have very little influence over political problems, but I can
always hack some hardware together. :-)  In other words, I simply chose
not to address that issue, because it has never been an issue for me
and I don't expect it to become one.

>>   Ultimately, the packet network needs to put its backbones up in the
>> microwave region and run Internet speeds.
> Yeah, sure...and just when do you think this wish will become true?

  Real Soon Now.  Take a look in the 1992 Handbook; read the article in
Section 32 on 10/24 GHz connections running at 2 Mbit/sec (with 10 Mbit/sec
possible).  I would guess another five years or so.  Look how quickly
the current packet network came about!  When was the first commercially
produced TNC offered for sale?
  Of course, I readily admit that if the landlines switch over to optical
fiber and start running another order of magnitude of speed, we are not going
to have the bandwidth available to match that.  But we can certainly reach
today's Ethernet speeds with a 10/24 GHz backbone, and from what I've found
so far it needn't cost all that much.  (I'm getting ready to do some
experiments in the 10 GHz region, but so far it's still in the talking stage.)

> Regards,
> Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         
                 N5WVR                                                  
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       
  in Hell." -General Sheridan