| |
G4EBT > PACKET 23.08.08 21:55l 134 Lines 5575 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 558942G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: g4ebt article on packet radio
Path: IZ3LSV<IK3GET<IW2OHX<OE6XPE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<GB7FCR
Sent: 080823/1013Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:12371 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:558942G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : PACKET@WW
Ian, G0TEZ wrote:-
> I find myself having to agree with david, G4EBT on this one.
Thanks for reading it Ian, and for responding.
For the sake of accuracy, I should say that the text which I wrote, and
which Ian G3ZHI put out in his packet bull recently, was written about
four or five years ago as an article for the Southgate Amateur Radio
Society posted on their webiste.
My views remain as stated in the article, the original of which, entitled
"The Fascination of Packet Radio" can be found here, with mug-shot of me
(looking a bit po-faced I have to say):
http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/g4ebt/packet_radio.htm
>Five years ago, under an aerial ban, I was forced to use Winpack purely
>because of the Telnet. Then came the sysops who helped me first with
>another Telnet BBS then GB7FCR with all his help.
>I have recently renovated a couple of rigs and found that there is life!
>In fact we now have four other regulars apart from me. Two have broadband
>and don't really want to mess with TNCs even using the sound card so I
>have given them Trevor M1CUK's URL, mentioning that they can download
>Winpack from it. We now have a good chance that we will get two more
>contributors.
>One of the four on 70cm has been on packet for a long time but only reads
>bulls. One is new, he is 20 and the other is his father who didn't know
>about Telnet and is now keen to try it.
>I know Trevor is forced to pack it in November but I am sure we will
>find others even if it has to be 'down under',Hi!
Trev has stated the up-to-date situation with GB7FCR, which, happily,
has had a reprieve so is as likely as any UK BBS to continue for the
foreseeable future.
I hadn't realised how many "users" GB7FCR still has. (Close on seventy).
It confirms what I've always thought, packet has many more "SWLs" who read
bulls on topics that interest them but never write anything, than it does
regular bulletin writers.
I get lots of mail and e-mails from people who just don't want the hassle
of risking being flamed by someone who doesn't see things their way.
It's a sad fact of life that you have to be made of stern stuff to put
your head above the parapets on packet. One quirk is that those who are
quick to find fault but slow to praise rarely initiate anything themselves
- they seem to trawl through the bulls to find something, or somone, they
can pick fault with.
It discourages activity.
>Perhaps there is hope for AR yet. We'll see.
It depends what you mean by "AR".
How many of us would come into the hobby today as it is, and stick with it
for the long haul? I'm set up for 160-10m but haven't had a QSO for years.
I got fed up with people saying they were non-technical and reeling off a
list of gear, telling me what the weather was like in Bristol and giving
me a run-down of their aches and pains or whatever.
And I got fed up with the silly jargon - using Q codes on SSB, and WX, 73,
hi, etc - talking in a way in which, if you talked in any other aspect of
life people would think we were a little bit potty. It's just so
yesterday.
There are more than forty modes but the practical and technical aspects of
amateur radio has almost completely fallen by the wayside. The heydays
were the 50s - 70s when ex-Service personnel and radio/TV engineers
brought a lot of expertise into the hobby.
In the cash-rich time-poor throwaway consumer society, people know the
price of everything and the value of nothing. Prices of amateur radio
gear have plummeted in real terms so it's become a plug-n-play hobby.
To my mind, there simply isn't the appeal in using a commercial rig that
there as in using perhaps a home-brew CW transmitter with an ex-WD RX
heavily modified for amateur use, any more than there was in using an
ex-PMR rig modified for packet.
But we can re-create the past.
On packet - even packet "radio", such that it is these days, we don't
actually operate the radio - the computer does. We type away, hit send,
the software operates the TNC which operates the PTT and sends packets
via RF. It either works or it doesn't.
Almost all of the issues which cause problems with packet aren't radio
related - they're software issues - configuring the software, setting
up the TNC and so on.
You only have to look at the "help" bulls on packet - many are about
software issues rather than anything to do with RF. Once the rig and
antenna work ok, the rig is tucked under the desk or wherever and the
mouse and keyboard come into play.
Good fun to set up, especially if you built your own TNC and modded an
ex-PMR rig etc - a lot of fun on a shoestring.
One of the best aspects of packet from my perspective is that it's not in
real time. You can be in touch with people or read their views anytime to
suit yourself.
But the same can be said of internet forums, and the downside of packet is
that we've never been able to capture the spirit of moderated internet
forurms and I doubt we ever will. We either accept packet warts and all,
or go QRT and QSY to internet, as rather too many have done.
The other unique benefit of packet is that it's "multi-topic" whereas
moderated internet forums are mono-topic.
Others will have a different perspective of packet, which is fine.
As in my original articile, these are just my own views - I'm not
trying to foist them on anyone else who has a different take on things.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 11:04 on 2008-Aug-23
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
