From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Link between BBS via Amateur Radio
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: Are you cleared to know?

In article <1992Aug27.222134.16560@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:

|>   Naah, I only spout nonsense at parties. :-)

(:-)

|> What do you mean we don't have 9600 bps?  The nodes around Houston
|> are mostly running 19.2 backbones.  

Any details, please? Technical preferrably? What kind of equipment?
Frequencies? Bandwidth?

|> And 9600b
|> TNC's exist; it's only a matter of time before they become the standard.

Yeah, that was my slip. Of course 9600b TNCs were there even several
years ago. Still they don't seem to enjoy much usage...

|> If there's a problem with the current network, 
|> it's that it's underutilized, and therefore generates 
|> little need to improve it.

Well, I disagree. Today's PBBS is pain in *** to use, because
it takes almost MINUTES to get ONE string through. Surely,
higher speeds could improve response time, which I'd
think would be welcomed by everybody?

What's then the reason(s) it's not used? Just the lack of 
widely available 19.2Kbps and faster TNCs? 

|>   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."

Yes, I think you read too much there. I think it was an answer
to something like "whether it's worth to try to establish
Internet-like network on the radio?". And the answer
was: "No, today land-line BBS is much cheaper and
far more effective than PBBS." Which I 
completely agree with.

About "never will be more than a toy"? Well, I don't know.
If military can transmit zillions of data over very wide
band UHF links - why can't we utilize similar approach?
On the other hand - apparently we haven't so far...

|> > 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.  

Well, Usenet restrictions are MUCH less, err, "restrictive". And
you don't lose your license for violating them either (:-).

|> 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. :-)  

Yeah, sure,  but the point is - if this political problem 
[potentially] can deter [potential] users...   What's the
reason for building a complicated [and expensive] network
you only a handful of users,  if most of those, who could
benefit from such a Net would go elsewhere (since there's
at least one choice - Usenet, to say nothing about lots'n
lots of land-line BBS's)?

I doubt that those who'll start HighSpeedPBBS project can
ignore this issue.

|> 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.

Ah, that's understandable. But that it's not an issue for you still
doesn't mean that it can't drive many other "customers" away.


|>   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?

Well, I believe about 1989? One or two years earlier?

|>  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.)

So unlike me, you are doing something constructive in this area (:-).
--
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet