Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!alberta!ers!lyndon From: lyndon@ers.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,comp.dcom.modems Subject: John Gilmore switches feet! Message-ID: <171@ers.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 15:21:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ers.171 Posted: Wed Aug 19 15:21:06 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 05:57:55 EDT Organization: Nexus Computing Corporation Lines: 204 Keywords: stupid stupid stupid Xref: mnetor rec.ham-radio.packet:452 comp.dcom.modems:831 The following quotes are courtesy John Gilmore (gnu@hoptoad.uucp) from an article in comp.dcom.modems: >As a 15-year computerist who got a ham license to experiment with >packet radio, let me comment. The ham fraternity is seriously >reactionary. Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more >frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and >report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate >under. Everything you do is under control of government regulations >which take years to update, and the army of reactionary spies makes it >hard to operate outside the rules. The ham fraternity is anything BUT reactionary. Nuclear war wouldn't wake half of them up! Perhaps hams in the US have the attitude that "it's mine, go play in your own sandbox." This does not seem to prevail outside of the US. Perhaps that's why the FCC has the wisdom to start the US phone bands above the international allocations... Perhaps you consider federal legislation "mickey mouse." The rest of the world (for the most part) does not (thank God). Of course in California murder is also a "mickey mouse" law ("don't change lanes so close to me a**hole or I'll blow your brains out!"). I hate to make you face reality John, but most things in life are under control of gov't regulations. It's a good thing there are "reactionary spies" to keep people operating within the rules. If the FCC is faced with having to enforce the regs in the ham bands, there won't be hams bands in very short order (in the US anyway... hey, that's not a bad idea). >In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas >and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you >get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way >or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can >plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether >you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford >to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it. The only time you need to ask the FCC about hooking up a piece of equipment is when the act of "hooking it up" might effect another persons ability to use whatever it is you are hooking up to. If you wire your printer cable wrong, you will zap your own computer - not someone elses. If you wire your phone wrong you could impact all the users on your exchange. If you transmit spurs and/or harmonics you are going to bother a lot of non-hams. The regulations are in place to ensure that these other users have some recourse in the event you interfere with them. >I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for >computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio >Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the >hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just >send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that >THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental >packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting >the bull over the radio). Sounds like you want to become a common carrier. If you think getting a ham license is so damn difficult, then you should get a license to become a common carrier. I would be interested in talking to you about the application process when you're done (you should be finished in about 1990). The cost of the application should not be a problem. As you indicated above, the nice thing about the computing hobby is that you can buy anything if you have the money. C'mon John, let's see you finance a country wide packet network. >What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982 >would fill a thimble, maybe. There are a few people like Phil Karn who >span both computer networking and ham radio, but the rest were >basically ignorant. Their "networking" consisted of passing 10-word >messages from one person to another, by voice or Morse code, down a >line of humans, on a fixed nightly schedule. This was (is) mostly done >by people who have nothing better to do than read other >peoples' messages over the air. This has nothing to do with >computer networking, though these people have finally realized that >they can automate the processing if they can ever get their packet >radios to work reliably enough. So now they want a few computer people >to come in and fix 'em up so they can do their same old same-old, >without, of course, letting many new computer users in to crowd the radio >spectrum. > >[They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications >service. However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for >REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be >needed, since the regular service would continue to work in >emergencies. E.g. the cops don't rely on hams, they have their own >radios for regular and emergency use.] As you may be aware, those of us in Edmonton had the misfortune of experiencing a rather nasty tornado a couple of weeks back. It hit at roughly 1507, and had passed over the city by 1530. At that time I was doing work for one of our clients (Alberta Public Safety Services - the Provincial gov't organization that handles peacetime disasters). By 1600 I had activated the amateur station at APSS (VE6ACD) and was putting together a list of hams and equipment available to help with communications. At 1700 we received a request from the City of Edmonton police dep't to assist them with communications in two of the hardest hit areas. By midnight we had dispatched over 40 amateurs to these sites to assist in locating victims buried in collapsed buildings, and provide logistical communications support for the people bringing in food and medical supplies. It is very obvious that in a disaster of this magnitude no single emergency service has the ability to handle the volume of traffic generated. These amateurs continued to assistthe police at the Evergreen trailer park until late Sunday afternoon. In addition to the above activities, we set up an emergency station at the Red Cross offices, and handled over 2000 messages in a 48 hour period from people around the world trying to find out the status of freinds and relatives in the disaster area. Part of this traffic was carried via HF packet links (at a dastardly slow 1200 baud - sorry). I operated a total of almost 72 hours over that weekend. I don't recall hearing you volunteer to handle any traffic to the US. >That's funny, the hams who are currently doing packet radio are doing >it at 1200 baud. It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over >ham radio in the United States. Ham packet radio was started in >Canada, where the government didn't get nearly as much in the way. >It took an immense amount of work in the US just to get the use of ASCII >legalized over the air -- before that, it was Morse or Baudot or >nothing. 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like >Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet >Radio. When will the American people realise that their problems are NOT the rest of the worlds problems? The amatuer services is an experimental service - if you present a reasonable case to the FCC, you should be able to obtain a waiver for 56KB operation under the existing regs. Of course this assumes you're going to do something with it besides spouting more hot air... Not *all* hams run 1200 baud. We are currently building a network through the province running on a 56 KB backbone with fanout at 9600 baud. The Calgary hub will be tied to a network in Ottawa via a 9600 baud satellite link. I believe similar networks are *already* operational in the US. >> Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using >> digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such >> links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to >> the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking. > >As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking. >This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where >acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end. This data >is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX -- between >each relay point. If you connect directly (no repeaters), you might >get 1000 baud since you have to turn the line around once in a while >for acknowledgements. If you use one repeater, divide by more than 2, >since each packet has to go to the repeater, then, from the repater to >the destination. (Each of these hops involves a delay of up to .3 >seconds while switching from receive to transmit, depending on the >quality of the radio.) Just going through one repeater, you drop under >300 baud; two repeaters gets you say 100 baud, or 10 cps. That is, >when all the data gets through error-free. No wonder it "bogs down" on >more then two links! Well John, CP/M and Apple DOS 3.x are pretty crude too. I wonder why the people using these systems are not burning them and running out to buy the latest, greatest Sun workstations? Could it be that they are content with what they have? It's funny, but as I look out the window I see a lot of four and six cylinder cars driving around, but very few dragsters. Oh well, that's government regulations for ya... >> I am saying only that computer hobbyists >> should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio >> modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who >> obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks. > >How about rejecting the option on the basis of MY statements, made by >someone who DOES know whereof he speaks. I tried it. I still have my :-) >ham license (KB6DQC, technician's). I'm gone though. I'm building >free software rather than building packet radio networks, because there >is no government actively standing in the way of building and using >free software. Great! You're saving the world! Care to explain why TWO MONTHS after I sent in my PRE-PAID order for the Gnu distribution tape I still haven't received it? It took FOUR phone calls to the FSF answering machine to get someone to call back. This despite the fact that I included with the order a phone number and email addresses that I could be reached at in the the event of a delay. I was informed that the FSF had run out of tapes, but that new tapes were now in and that my tape would be shipped via special delivery mail that day. That was TWO WEEKS ago and I still don't have the damn tape! Maybe you should start a FREE BUSINESS SCHOOL and enroll everyone from the FSF. And no, I don't give a damn that it's FREE software. You took $200 of my money so you bloody well better show me something for it! > I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to >die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the >amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong. The world owes you a living? If you don't like it, why don't you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? >{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu >My name's in the header where it belongs. Any your foot is in your mouth... Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM alberta!ncc!lyndon pyramid!ncc!lyndon winfree!ncc!lyndon