peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/22/88)
In article <13@n0atp.UUCP>, barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: > I had hoped to put USENET onto packet radio... I think the legalities of this have been hashed out enough, but... It might be possible to set up a top-level distribution, moderated by Hams. This would satisfy any requirements that Hams originate messages sent over Ham frequencies, and would obviate the obscenity problem. The question is, how do other Hams feel about having some of their rapidly-vanishing bandwidth taken up by Usenet? Comments solicited from splut!jay and any other Hams on the net. -- -- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. Remote UUCP: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter.
" Maynard) (06/23/88)
In article <977@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <13@n0atp.UUCP>, barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: >> I had hoped to put USENET onto packet radio... >It might be possible to set up a top-level distribution, moderated by >Hams. This would satisfy any requirements that Hams originate messages >sent over Ham frequencies, and would obviate the obscenity problem. Well, it would help, but wouldn't completely obviate the problem. There's always a way around moderation (witness Bob Webber's attempted takeover of news.stargate shortly before its demise). >The question is, how do other Hams feel about having some of their >rapidly-vanishing bandwidth taken up by Usenet? Considering some of the junk floating around the packet waves, I'm not sure at all that Usenet wouldn't be a huge improvement. Certainly more interesting, anyway. (That's IMHO, of course.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (06/24/88)
In article <977@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >The question is, how do other Hams feel about having some of their >rapidly-vanishing bandwidth taken up by Usenet? Comments solicited >from splut!jay and any other Hams on the net. With the increasing popularity of Phil Karn's TCP/IP packet software, it won't be very difficult to set up a USENET like news network for hams based on NNTP. I can appreciate Jay's comments about some of the drivel found in the ham bands these days :-) Just as USENET has news.groups vs comp.arch, the ham's have 80 metres vs the local "high-tech" repeaters ... Because packet radio is a small subset of the diverse areas of activity taking place in the amateur bands, I don't think you'll find enough people with the gear or time to commit to building a parallel USENET. --lyndon VE6BBM -- {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA