P-P AND Repeaters are needed comma dammit!
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: P-P AND Repeaters are needed comma dammit!
- From: "k1io@fn42jk 17-Jan-1991 1523" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 13:01:34 PST
In response to the "MAC Protocoll" discussion, I'm going to wrap up
with th is one.
Look, Glenn n6gn is right when he says that p-point to point channels
have advantages. We need them for high-volume links, which means
most of our backbones.
But I'm a bit tired of an ti-repeater diatribes based on the alleged
wrongness of the LAN model. Look: If we were ONLY p-p directional,
then every single ham would need to buy two radios and two poirts, one
at his qth and one at the "node", to join a "net". Even to be on
the air ten m inutes a week, an antenna would have to be beaming right at
him. Yeah, right. For the end-users, at 1200, 9600, 56000, or even
at decent high speeds, there is still a need fr point to multipoint
(MAC) access. Period. That way each end user can use his own one radio,
and share the one at the "node/repeater/what-have-you" central site.
The rest will be left to the marketplace to decide.