Check out this website for packet data radio info http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/pktf.html
Day Brown wrote: > Bob George wrote: > >> Well, for your dial-up, email-only alternative network scheme, your 486 >> running even an older Linux system, updated as necessary, would work >> fine. If you're just talking to a partial mesh of compatriots >> (conspirators?), then you could easily set up uucp to dial one, some or >> all of the "Intermesh" on a schedule according to rates and preferences, >> or simply whenever there's something outbound (trusting them to call YOU >> for any inbound.) You don't need to reinvent anything, and any mix of >> old and new Internet-standards based apps will work for reading and >> composing messages and "news." One or more of the 'mesh crowd with good >> Internet connectivity could offer up gateway services between your >> multitude and the rest of the Internet world, even doing spam filtering >> and the like. This all exists and works just dandy, but of course you >> need to find other like-minded folk to make it actually happen. > > > Yes, there are Hams using packet. But even if just ascii email, I dont > think that > the bandwidth they now have would support nearly the numbers of email > users. > They are also into long-range continental communication, whereas the > hardware > needs of a local COOP ISP would be much more modest. And yes, there are the > BBS people, and a communitarian effort to organize internet access. > >> >> >> For dial-up access to an existing provider that insists on advanced >> authentication options, just update any workable Linux distribution on >> that same 486 with reasonably current ppp software and you're in >> business. No changes to hardware required here either. > > > Your Kharma may vary. I tried that, but nothing ever installed properly > on any > of the distros I tried it on. Like with document formats, there is a > proliferation > of Linux archive formats, and one of the problems I had was that I > needed to > upgrade the archive tools. Which needed an upgraded compiler, which needed > a more uptodate library, when when downloaded needed an new archive tool. > >> >> >> For your wild-eyed, damn the FCC wireless scheme, as you repeatedly >> state, if you can find other individuals with an equal disregard for the >> law and legitimate bandwidth users, by all means, do it. Just don't >> expect applause from the masses, and heed the cautions of the >> isp-wireless list: rocks ain't trees, and if you're in the hills, best >> account for those too. > > > The speed limit on US 65 a couple miles from my home is 55. Everyone > goes 64. > But of course, we have a culture clash. The hillbillies were the first > to figure out > what it meant when people from the government arrive saying they were there > to help. But I will repeat yet again Bob- that it aint *my* scheme. I am > simply > mentioning the result we have already seen with CB radio. > > I had no interest in disobeying regulations, and even sent in the card > that came > with my CB. But just like folks drive fast, they ignored the FCC too. > And given > that *fact*, I look at the way hardware prices are falling, power output > increasing, > and software proliferating, and see that the FCC will loose control. The > problems > I have had with the internet interface dont seem to be that rare, so > there will be > others motivated to get around the whole setup... and come up with, among > other things, bootleg wireless connectivity. > > Which will work whether the FCC likes it or not. Will work whether > saboteurs or > Murphy's law crashes the internet or not. Kazinsky cases are not only > illogically > angry, they are creative. And if the net crashes, sure Hams will try to > fill in, but > I have visited some ham links recently, and it looks to me like the > interest in ham > radio communications, like with the BBSes, is waning. > >> Don't update to a newer distribution when you run into a stumbling block >> then. Figure out what's not working, and make the adjustments. If you're >> really the rugged survivalist you pose as, you would consider your >> ability to actually maintain the system in the absence of an annual >> distribution update as important as the hardware and operating system. A >> box you can't fix yourself is useless if there's nobody around to snivel >> to for help. > > > Well, I could try to write my own operating system in binary too. Why spend > hours of my own time trying to track down the problem when I can get a new > distro install disk for 5 bucks? > >> >>> The Internet was setup by government to facilitate the functionality >>> of organizations. >> >> >> >> Wrong. It was designed to provide a network to operate in the event of >> total meltdown of centralized control. I would think that would be >> appealing to you. > > > We seem to live in different Virtual Realities. The original network that I > know about was between university mainframes doing defense research. > >> Been done. All of it. Back in the 1980s. On pre-486 systems. At 1,200bps >> and slower. Wireless. No need for the bloat of 16MB RAM and a 486 and >> any stinkin' TV frequencies. No need for connections to any central >> network, unless you want it. > > > It looks to me that gray market SURVPCs are around capable of much faster > speeds. > >> I suspect you prefer to rant against government and what you don't >> understand rather than work to actually build any sort of alternate >> network. > > > Let me try to be clear. I live in a region which has lots of ranters. > Given my > choice between rule by the ranter and the government, I'd take the > latter. But > I dont think it's upta me. You are arguing with the messenger cause you > dont > like the message. People who live in rural areas live with regulations > which > were written by people who live in urban areas. They aint really happy > about > that, and since in a democracy, the majority rules, and the urban > majority is > 98%, rural folks have no choice but to rant. > > We tend to have more time to think, and a more critical eye. Since you > brought > up the automotive example, let me clarify a couple points. When Huckabee > took > over in Arkansas, he came on TV, and said that he looked at the > statisticis, and > could not find where motor vehicle inspections actually reduced > accidents. So- > he abolished them. 2nd, my 48 dodge would be a deathtrap.. for someone > in an > accident. It was made out of a ton of steel. I shudder to think what > it'd do should > it hit a new car. But in any case, I dunno what the rules are where you > live, but > in Arkansas, I can drive my dode without using a seatbelt. There are no > seatbelts > in it, and the antique car nuts would go ballistic if regulations were > applied. > > Then too, we have the case of the 1955 DeSoto, which came out with a > totally new > user interface, the 'push button drive'. No gearshift. Just buttons on > the dashboard. > Lotsa buttons. looked like a GUI interface. But after it wasnt so new > anymore, for > whatever reason, folks went back to the old (like ansi scrollbar) shift > lever interface, > and the widely proclaimed death of the 'standard transmission' never > actually > happened. > > So, I am somewhat skeptical that all the goodies presented to us now > will be all > that durable either. And if people find out that they can use their PC > to wirelessly > communicate in their local area without paying a phone bill- they will. > whether the > FCC likes it or not. The numbers will be so vast that the Ham bands will > be ignored, > along with their limits on bandwidth, and of course... speed limits. > They wont need > a design from me. > >
