milo@ndmath.UUCP (08/27/87)
I wonder, with all the discussion of late about Hams setting up 9600 & 56K-baud links do you think at some point one of the larger ham stations (perhaps the ARRL ones?) might consider doing broadcasts of usenet news feeds? There could be several set times of day when the news would be sent, the data in the broadcasts could be overlapped in case someone missed part of it. It would certainly save a lot of people a lot of phone bills, all you would need to receive the feeds would be a decent receiver and modem (since you wouldn't be transmitting you wouldn't need a license). Since usenet is a not-for-profit non-commercial service I would imagine that broadcasting net feeds would fit in nicely with the Ham's non-commercial charter (and public intrest goals). Not to mention a lot of computer people would probably get addicted to the Ham hobby and vice versa. Greg Corson ...seismo!iuvax!ndmath!milo
narten@arthur.cs.purdue.edu.UUCP (08/27/87)
In article <275@ndmath.UUCP> milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes: >I wonder, with all the discussion of late about Hams setting up 9600 & 56K-baud >links do you think at some point one of the larger ham stations (perhaps the >ARRL ones?) might consider doing broadcasts of usenet news feeds? There could >be several set times of day when the news would be sent, the data in the >broadcasts could be overlapped in case someone missed part of it. > >It would certainly save a lot of people a lot of phone bills, all you would need >to receive the feeds would be a decent receiver and modem (since you wouldn't >be transmitting you wouldn't need a license). An underlying assumption being made here is that it is possible to get end-to-end reliability without feedback from the receiver to the sender. This cannot be done. Furthermore, packet loss of 50% or more is not uncommon in packet radio, essentially requiring the receiver to send acknowledgments indicating what he has and hasn't recieved. Secondly, to get reliability between a single sender and multiple receivers requires specialized protocols. TCP only works in the single sender, single receiver paradigm. Several such protocols have been discussed in the literature [Chang&Maxemchuk 83, Birman&Joseph 87], but whether they are suitable for this environment (e.g. high packet loss, longer delays than LANs) would have to be examined. -- Thomas Narten narten@cs.purdue.EDU or {ihnp4, allegra}!purdue!narten
bill@westpt.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) (08/28/87)
In article <275@ndmath.UUCP>, milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes: > I wonder, with all the discussion of late about Hams setting up 9600 & 56K-baud > links do you think at some point one of the larger ham stations (perhaps the > ARRL ones?) might consider doing broadcasts of usenet news feeds? Broadcasting is not permitted by the Amateur service except for certain situations (ie. morse code practice,emergencies). > Since usenet is a not-for-profit non-commercial service I would imagine that > broadcasting net feeds would fit in nicely with the Ham's non-commercial > charter (and public intrest goals). I have heard numerous people on the net say that USENET is non-commercial. I have never been able to figure out where this idea came from. A look at any single days articles would discount this concept -- new product announcements -- equipment for sale -- job listings. I also see no way that this could be in any way interpreted as public interest. I have doubts about some of the other things hams do now in the name of "public service" but this would be by far the furthest from the mark. The obvious solution is the PDRS that has been discussed lately. It has more promise than most people realize. The only problem is getting someone to propose it and then set it up in a realistic manner. I have been looking at this for some time now and would be interested in hearing from others who are interested (by email please). 73's bill gunshannon UUCP: {philabs,phri}!westpt!bill PHONE: (914)446-7747 US SNAIL: Martin Marietta Data Systems RADIO: KB3YV USMA, Bldg 600, Room 26 AX.25 KB3YV @ WA2RKN West Point, NY 10996
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/29/87)
Every six months this comes up and every six months it has to be explained. You can't use HAM RADIO for USENET. First. Ham Radio must be explicitly non-commercial. Second, there is this thing called "THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC." Unregulated third-party traffic is explicly prohibitted. It would have to be moderated, and we all know how well moderation has been working out.
leonard@qiclab.pdx.com (Leonard Erickson) (08/30/87)
I was under the impression that hams are _specifically_ forbidden to broadcast. (ie point-to-point communications only). The only thing they are allowed to send without a _specific_ recipient is a CQ (ie "anybody out there want to talk"). Of course the ARRL station has an exemption for the code practice and ARRL bulletin transmissions, but news would be stretching things a _lot_!!
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/31/87)
> ... You can't use HAM RADIO for USENET. > First. Ham Radio must be explicitly non-commercial. Second, > there is this thing called "THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC." Unregulated > third-party traffic is explicly prohibitted... Anyone who thinks these restrictions are Bad Things should consider that in their absence, the ham bands would quickly cease to exist. The commercial folks would promptly move in and crowd the hams out. Like it or lump it, radio spectrum space is scarce and valuable, and there just isn't any way of getting it for free. Those parts of it that are available free of charge, to people like the hams (whose spectrum allocations are justified by their major contributions to radio technology, by the way, not by "historical right"), *must* have strings (of some kind) attached if they are to be preserved for such uses. Even the Public Digital Radio Service proposals are going to have to do something to keep the big boys from moving in. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP (09/01/87)
The ARRL does not have an exemption on broadcast. The rules permit one-way transmission for a few things. The priniciple in use here is "Messages of Interest to All Radio Amateurs". These messages are usually preferenced by the identifier QST. In addition to the ARRL code practice/bulletins, our local radio club used to have its own code practice and bulletins on two meters. -Ron
clements@bbn.UUCP (09/01/87)
This is a flame about people posting pure nonsense to the net. Why do people do things like this? It means you can't trust anything you read on the net (probably including this message, too). Damn. I have deleted the poster's name, since it's just one example of a general problem - failure to engage brain before putting mouth in gear. A totally uninformed poster writes: >I was under the impression that hams are _specifically_ forbidden to >broadcast. True, but with a _specific_ definition of "broadcasting". At least s/he admits it's an "impression", but why post if that's all it is? It certainly doesn't help anyone. >(ie point-to-point communications only). Total hogwash. >The only thing they are >allowed to send without a _specific_ recipient is a CQ (ie "anybody out there >want to talk"). Again, total hogwash. Section 97.91 reads: "In addition to beacon operation and radio control operation [discussed elsewhere in the rules], the following kinds of one-way communications, addressed to amateur stations, are authorized and will not be construed as broadcasting: (a) Emergency communications, including bona fide emergency drill practice transmissions; (b) Information bulletins consisting solely of subject matter having direct interest to the amateur radio service as such; (c) Round-table discussions [...]; and (d) Code practice transmissions intended for persons learning or improving proficiency in the international Morse code." Section 97.113 prohibits broadcasting and defines it for the amateur radio service: "Subject to the provisions of 97.91 [above], an amateur station shall not be used to engage in any form of broadcasting, that is, the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received BY THE PUBLIC [emphasis added] directly or by the intermediary of relay stations, nor for the retransmission by automatic means of programs or signals emanating from any class of station other than amateur." Nothing about point-to-point, or about specific recipients. >Of course the ARRL station has an exemption for the code practice and >ARRL bulletin transmissions, Also total hogwash. Lots of other stations transmit bulletins and code practice sessions. No exemption needed. (But see below *) >but news would be stretching things a _lot_!! Finally something true! But the reasons are the third-party rules and the non-business rules, as previously posted. * There IS a paragraph which was written to allow the ARRL to pay their full-time operators. This is a narrow exception to the "Thou shalt not make any money from thy ham station" rule, for stations which send at least 40 hours per week of code practice and bulletins, and which meet some other requirements. It allows only salaries for their time while sending such bulletins and code practice. W1AW meets this paragraph and nobody else does, though they could if they wanted. See section 97.112. Sorry, this is getting a bit far from the original comp.dcom.modems article about using Amateur Radio to distribute USENET articles. But I just couldn't let such falsehoods stand. /Rcc (K1BC) clements@bbn.com