Sorry this took so long. But when I tried to add another username at another ISP the connection wizard crashed, I lost internet access. But I had other projects ongoing on the dos partition, like the http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] webpage, where I hope to yet post some of the design parameters and my own experimental results. So I didnt get a round tuit till now. I dunno if I should bother sending a bug report.
I have built Yagi antennas on 12 foot booms at 33 foot masts that I know can establish vox into the deepest canyons in my neck of Ozark woods. I also used one of that scale, hooked up to the guts of a 50mhz cordless telephone to go about a mile beyond normal range.... 250mw. And I've used FM transmitter boards with ordinary electret mics tuned to 90mhz at up to 2 watts that can go a mile or so... right thru the canopy in leaf and around a 200 foot bluff face, that none of the commercially available FCC approved designs can cope with. You can get the boards with parts to solder on, not a whole lot more complex than Tinkertoy directions, for 15$, or assembled FM transmitters for 25$. Which, if you value your time at all, is the way to go. I havent tried a phone patch yet, or tried hooking the audio in/out to a modem. But that dont seem like it'd be a biggie. If I can get the ANZI website up, someone will prolly tell me what worked for them. One of my friends is a ham who lives in Little Rock, who plans a trip up here, so I let that sit on the back burner until she shows up here. And I decided to front burner putting up an ANZI BBS running on dos. And if I get the website up, I'll try to integrate the two of them. We use two different ISPs here because, several weekends a year, an ISP will crash friday afternoon, and not be back online until monday morning. The rural customer base is too low to pay for tech help over the weekends. I guess they like to spend time on trout streams like the rest of us. Anyway, one or the other ISP is always working, and I should be able to relay stuff from the BBS to the internet during an outage. Then there's the matter of local culture, which has a large portion of Armageddonites who think these are the last days, and another portion of New Age 1st or 2nd generation Hippies, all of whom would be interested in better local community organization in the event of a significant terrorist attack. Not that the rural communities worry about being a target, but worried about a mass of panicked rednecks coming up from Little Rock or whereever. I dont know, maybe this election will be the most important one ever. But that dont mean that the men best able to cope with crisis will be elected. So there's some indigeneous interest in a rural civil defense system and a data communications system which does not depend on urban hubs to function, at least for the local region. If there is a serious problem, FCC regulations will be moot. And even if there is not, there remains the problem rural folks have now with data, just as they have always had with the telephone system. Even if a local communications service operates within FCC regulations, that dont mean that it is *actually operating*. We've seen a lotta dead lines and vaporware. It aint *my* design we are really taking about here. Maybe it offends your sense of order, but the fact is, that if the FCC regulatory authorities dont get with the program permitting entrepeneurs to meet the rural communications niche market, people will *ignore* the regulations. Just as they did with CB radio. I am not debating the merits of this, just pointing out the natural sociological evolution. The cost of the hardware needed to use bandwidth is just too low, while the dispersal of offenders across the landscape is too wide for the the FCC to afford the costs of maintaining regulations. Bob George wrote: > Day Brown wrote: > >> [...] 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. > >> They are also into long-range continental communication, whereas the >> hardware needs of a local COOP ISP would be much more modest. > > > The same technology works equally well at shorter distances, but of > course at lower speeds, it'd be a less attractive option than local > dial-up for example. So you'd use it to avoid tolls. Why's that a > problem? Some users might connect via dial-up, others via ham radio, and > others via fiber. IT STILL WORKS. > >> And yes, there are the BBS people, and a communitarian effort to >> organize internet access. > > > Not to mention the ham bbsen. > >> [...] Your Kharma may vary. I tried that, but nothing ever installed >> properly on any of the distros I tried it on. > > > While I have no doubt that you've encountered problems, that's a far cry > from "it can't be done." Recognize your own limitations and attribute it > to that. But please don't turn around and claim that such things can't > be done without updating to a current distribution. You're apparently > expecting a new distribution that will run on a 486 with low memory, and > offer features comparable to those you'll get on a full-blown P4 or > better. Not likely. BUT if your true goal is to get the most out of that > older hardware, well then there are plenty of ways to get it done... IF > YOU ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE EFFORT. > >> 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. > > > As mentioned in another thread, any debian distribution should be able > to handle all dependencies well. That's a feature of debian. > >> [...] 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. > > > If it's not *YOUR* scheme, why do you continually come back to it when > any number of other, viable and LEGAL and VIABLE schemes to do the same > thing are pointed out to you? Cause they dont work out here. >> 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. > > > That's a political debate, not a technical one. IF you indeed are > looking for solutions, THEY ALREADY EXIST. If instead you just want to > debate the merits and shortcomings of existing communications > regulations, there are probably better forums. You do need to be clear > about which you desire. > >> 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. > > > Does it exist? Sure. Is it the only, or even most practical way? No. Are > you after a solution, or just arguments? > >> 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. > > > Wait... now you want a system to back up the Internet as a whole? Not > just your little gang? > >> 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? > > > Presumably for the same reason one might prefer a car that can actually > be maintained without advanced diagnostics and computer hookups. > Independence. The satisfaction of "knowing how it all works." Bull > headed obstinance. > >> > [...] 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. > > > And the specific research was ...? It was NOT "setup by government to > facilitate the functionality of organizations" -- at least not if you > meant that to imply that it was to support "big business." > >> > 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. > > > Uhm, yeah. Of course. It it was already done at SLOWER speeds, then > surely even older systems now (which are 10 years newer than those I > described) can do it FASTER. > >> 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. > > > So you're not actually after a solution, just a platform to rant? > >> But I dont think it's upta me. You are arguing with the messenger >> cause you dont like the message. > > > No, I'm trying to tell him that what he professes to desire exists, and > that I and others have done it using hardware and technologies FAR FAR > older than those he's proposed using! > >> 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. > > > Doesn't explain farm subsidies and the like, but OK. But you can also DO > something about what you started out talking about -- namely use older > hardware and technologies to build a "separate" Internet-like > communications system. > >> [...]There are no seatbelts in it, and the antique car nuts would go >> ballistic if regulations were applied. > > > Which is exactly why I put the "in some jurisdictions". So, keeping with > the analogy: One some roads (ISPs), newer technology is mandated, > whereas with others it's not. YOUR ISP may require specific ppp options > your software doesn't support. You COULD update the ppp software, but > you chose not to. That doesn't mean your older distribution CAN'T do it. > >> [...] So, I am somewhat skeptical that all the goodies presented to >> us now will be all that durable either. > > > Yet you resist maintaining the usability of your existing system > (distribution.) Odd. > >> 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. > > > Ah, so this is a fictional work in progress? Some grand prediction of > "that which is yet to come?" You certainly seem to have convoluted > goals, and a resistance to actually accomplishing anything that would > WORK for people today! > > 1. People CAN use their PCs to communicate wirelessly in their local > area (as well as world-wide) with no recurring costs. Today. Legally. > WITHOUT violating FCC regs, or stepping carelessly on legitimate users. > > 2. If these are the same numbers that simply give up and upgrade their > distributions whenever they can't figure out something, I seriously > doubt they'll be up to what you describe. > > 3. They certainly do not need a design from you. > > - Bob >
