James: I think the real issue is repiticious HYPE (Extreme promotion of a person, idea, or product.). For the past four or five years there has been a reoccurring rambling story of what is obvious to an Ozark technogeek and still unclear to me. Some of the ideas suggested are taking "advantage" of locally unused part of the FCC licensed TV frequencies to transmit data among friends based on an old BBSer protocol like the FIDOnet infrastructure.
Since these ideas were bandied about several years ago they have been regularly questioned on: the authors muddy interpretation of FCC regulations and his offhand comments about the consequences of his proposed appropriations, using available technology versus inventing from scratch hardware and infrastructure - including the authors ongoing comments which amount to nobody, no place, can get new technology to work in rural topology with hills and valleys, unannounced left turns into historical philosophy which is far from any known documented interpretations of that wide ranging subject matter, along the way there are rambling hints that some hardware projects are functioning but never clearly spelled out, plus what appears to be a total antitheses to RTFM (read the freaking manual) when dealing with non-DOS operating systems. The above technogeek with his wanderings around the Ozark hill country looking for spare electrons has tossed this approach onto at least one discussions list specializing in wireless communications of data. Where they were promptly labeled troll bait ... Since nearly anything is possible with tenacity, the above ideas could still be potentially viable? However, like the 1970's Wendy Hamburger TV commercial of the little old lady asking "where's the beef". All of us on this list have been awaiting a technology demonstration for a very long time ... John O James Miller wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Bob George counter-prognosticated: > > >>Day Brown prognosticated: >> >> >>> [...] 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. >> >>Why is data sent via wireless at low data rates over extended periods >>any less viable than the "5 minutes per day via long-distance" over >>56Kbps (or less) modem speeds? True, you'd get more sent in 5 minutes >>(though I suspect THAT number is optimistic), but they'd have hours at >>no additional charge. Using compression and other (readily available) >>techniques, along with queueing of messages, and quite a bit flows in a >>short period. > > > I've lost any grasp of what's really at issue here. Could someone please > summarize for me the precise points in dispute? Or is it just a > prognostication contest? > > But, to more substantial issues, just in case. Bob, you never managed to > give us the most important details of your networking experiment with > DOSEMU. At least I didn't get them. It seemed like the listserv hardware > was having some of its typical glitches about the time you were getting > down to brass tacks with your project. How did it finally come off? Did > you get it working? Details, please. > > James > >
