Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BPQ32] flamp and BPQMail?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Brabham
    I do not think it is currently possible to do so, Andre, but I am gratified to see the question asked as I am a long-time advocate of distributing Packet
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I do not think it is currently possible to do so, Andre, but I am gratified
      to see the question asked as I am a long-time advocate of distributing
      Packet bulletins addressed to ALL via HF multicast, as opposed to the
      point-to-point networks that have traditionally carried that kind of
      traffic.

      Free of the square peg in a round hole job of distributing bulls addressed
      to ALL, the point-to-point Packet network would finally have a chance to
      realize its full potential.

      I am currently off of HF due to a move to a new location. When I am set up
      again for HF, I intend to see what FLAMP can do in this area. To do so will
      require a new, parallel HF multicast network to work in conjunction and
      cooperation with the Packet net. Once something like that is demonstrated, a
      way to operate the AMP2 protocol from or with BPQ would be on a lot of folks
      minds.

      Right now, there are few who would see the utility there, as most FLAMP
      operation has been within the EMCOM community. As far as I know, nobody
      besides myself has utilized it yet with bulletin distribution in mind. (
      Almost all of my test transmissions with AMP protocol over the years has
      been with ARRL bulletins. )

      I'll see what I can do about that soon, assuming that I can find others
      interested in the experiment here in my hemisphere.

      Here's an article I wrote some years ago about the advantages of a combined
      point-to-point/multicast HF network:

      http://uspacket.org/network/index.php?topic=42.0

      73 DE Charles, N5PVL


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "PE1RDW" <pe1rdw@...>
      To: <BPQ32@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:36 PM
      Subject: [BPQ32] flamp and BPQMail?


      > Does anyone know if it is posible to get bullitains from BPQMail
      > automaticly broadcasted using flamp?
      >
      > --
      > 73 Andre PE1RDW
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Kris Kirby
      ... We have a radio band at 3.3-3.5GHz. WiMax manufacturers are selling equipment that covers that band because outside of our ITU region, it is not a ham
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Charles Brabham wrote:
        > Here's an article I wrote some years ago about the advantages of a
        > combined point-to-point/multicast HF network:
        >
        > http://uspacket.org/network/index.php?topic=42.0

        We have a radio band at 3.3-3.5GHz. WiMax manufacturers are selling
        equipment that covers that band because outside of our ITU region, it is
        not a ham band. This begs the question:

        What would you do if you had 100Mbit/s over the air?

        It's possible _today_. MIMO, multiple antennas, multiple bands, and both
        polarizations.

        --
        Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
        Disinformation Analyst
      • Charles Brabham
        Kris: If I had a radio at 3.3-3.5 Ghz, it would end up serving as a door-stop, perhaps. The ARRL HSMM group put in over a decade desperately trying to find
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Kris:
           
          If I had a radio at 3.3-3.5 Ghz, it would end up serving as a door-stop, perhaps.
           
          The ARRL HSMM group put in over a decade desperately trying to find something useful for hams to do to do at very high speed, over very short distances - and they drew a blank, too.
           
          A few tried playing ISP - which was about as far as thier imagination would go - but those danged PART97 regulations kept getting in the way.
           
          In the end, after trying and failing to have PART97 repealed multiple times and being serially rebuffed or ignored by both the FCC and the Ham Radio community, they finally realized that they comprised a tiny minority that most amateurs just didn't give a hoot about, one way or the other.
           
          After some years of being bitter clingers, they faded off into obscurity - with the exception of a few hardened cranks.
           
          I could give the 3.3-3.5 Ghz radio equipment to one of those guys I guess but it would be a cruel act, much akin to scraping out a line of detergent on a mirror, before a crack cocaine addict suffering from the "Jones".
           
          No, far better to just use it as a door-stop, or something.
           
          73 DE Charles, N5PVL
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:48 PM
          Subject: Re: [BPQ32] flamp and BPQMail?

           

          On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Charles Brabham wrote:
          > Here's an article I wrote some years ago about the advantages of a
          > combined point-to-point/multicast HF network:
          >
          > http://uspacket.org/network/index.php?topic=42.0

          We have a radio band at 3.3-3.5GHz. WiMax manufacturers are selling
          equipment that covers that band because outside of our ITU region, it is
          not a ham band. This begs the question:

          What would you do if you had 100Mbit/s over the air?

          It's possible _today_. MIMO, multiple antennas, multiple bands, and both
          polarizations.

          --
          Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
          Disinformation Analyst

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.