SEDAN

[wb4old]

Greg, nice to see you again. Hope everything is going well with you.

Quote kc7gnm

Dave,

I used to log into SEDAN there in WR but that system was about as useless as you know what on a bull. There were no PBBSsor any type of BBS'sallowed on SEDAN. Just a bunch of TNC'ssitting there broadcasting their node lists out. I asked the coordinator of SEDAN about putting a BBS on and got told NO. I asked them how do they maintain a network if no one is using it to stress it out and he said they test it all the time however I never saw any traffic on SEDAN after copying log files for about a month. I finally took my TNC off SEDAN and put it on 14.105. At least there are systems there that have folks that love to do packet.


SEDAN was formed by a group of packeteers that enjoyed keyboard to keyboard QSOs started on 145.05 MHZ . Started building a LAN. There was a few BBS on the freq. but we thought it would be alright, and at first it was, but as the LAN expanded the traffic caused by the BBSs started to lag and time out the keyboard QSOs.
We coordinated with the FCC that using 145.77MHZ was okay. We moved to 145.77Mhz where no other packet LAN had ever been so we would not interfere with any other operation. We spend our time effort and money building a LAN that served our purpose., keyboard to keyboard QSOs.
I got a phone the morning that I moved my nodes {which I paid for and put up} from 145.05 MHZ to 145.77 MHZ telling me the LAN was down. I told them I and all the SEDAN nodes had moved to 145.77 MHZ. I was told to put mine back on .05 since they didn’t want to built a LAN just work BBSs.
So the problem that the BBSers seem to have is people who took the time,effort and money to put up a LAN did not operated in the way that suited their interest.
After the death of my daughter I was out of ham radio for a number of years so I was not around when the towers were coming down. One node equipment was saved for me, but I did lose 5 nodes worth of equipment.
Again I hope life is treating you good.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (wb4old @ Dec. 05 2007,20:43)]So the problem that the BBSers seem to have is people who took the time,effort and money to put up a LAN did not operated in the way that suited their interest.
I know this was directed at GNM, but I'll pipe up anyway...

That's a big problem... they didn't invest time/equipment/money building the system, but wanted to dictate how it was used...

I didn't want to do the keyboard-keyboard thing on 2m, and several club members wanted a local BBS, rather than having to go through 2 digipeaters (Milledgeville and Macon) to MCNBBS, so I built MVLBBS.

I never ran into the problem of folks wanting to dictate how the BBS was run - did have a few requests to gateway Internet mail, which I declined.

Quote[/b] ]I was not around when the towers were coming down. One node equipment was saved for me, but I did lose 5 nodes worth of equipment.

I guess the LAN wasn't important enough for folks to find other locations - I know Georgia Public Television has offered use of their towers, but the cost of coax for one thing is prohibitive.

[wb4old]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 05 2007,19:18)]I guess the LAN wasn't important enough for folks to find other locations - I know Georgia Public Television has offered use of their towers, but the cost of coax for one thing is prohibitive.
It was important but about that time issurance came into play along with cell towers.
WhenI got back on ham radio i tried getting a site for a node and qsonode. Went to the city and all water tanks. tower or any building was leased to a company, I talked with them and for only $1500 a month I could get a site. Talked to several cities and it was pay us or our issurance wont allow it.
I do miss packet at least the early part.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (wb4old @ Dec. 05 2007,22:09)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 05 2007,19:18)]I guess the LAN wasn't important enough for folks to find other locations - I know Georgia Public Television has offered use of their towers, but the cost of coax for one thing is prohibitive.
It was important but about that time issurance came into play along with cell towers.
WhenI got back on ham radio i tried getting a site for a node and qsonode. Went to the city and all water tanks. tower or any building was leased to a company, I talked with them and for only $1500 a month I could get a site. Talked to several cities and it was pay us or our issurance wont allow it.
I do miss packet at least the early part.
No question the liability angle has become important - most government sites are now "managed" by outside companies, and insurance/bonding is required for anyone to climb.

We've run into that for both VHF machines here in town. Even if you can convince an agency to allow you to be on their tower/water tank for free, it's still going to run over $1000 to get anything installed.

I suspect that even with antennas at the 400-600 foot level on various GPTV towers, there'd be a lot of gaps in coverage due to the wide spacing of those TV towers.

The possibility does exist for putting a node on one of the Macon TV towers, if you're interested, I'll make a few calls. I know that a 440 machine is going on 58's tower soon, on an abandoned 600 foot length of 1 5/8" coax there.

[N5PVL]

The hams in Europe have it even worse, as most if not all tower sites there are changing hands right now. - If I understand the eMails I have been getting on the subject lately.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,22:35)]The hams in Europe have it even worse, as most if not all tower sites there are changing hands right now. - If I understand the eMails I have been getting on the subject lately.
Notably, the ATV networks are suffering in Europe, according to several stories on just that topic.

It follows that repeaters and packet nodes would be similarly effected.

I haven't tried, but I wonder if it could hurt to explain the community service aspects of these operations and point out the goodwill value of allowing ham activity on their towers.

The worst that could happen is they say no, right?

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (wb4old @ Dec. 05 2007,21:43)]Greg, nice to see you again. Hope everything is going well with you.

Quote kc7gnm

Dave,

I used to log into SEDAN there in WR but that system was about as useless as you know what on a bull. There were no PBBSsor any type of BBS'sallowed on SEDAN. Just a bunch of TNC'ssitting there broadcasting their node lists out. I asked the coordinator of SEDAN about putting a BBS on and got told NO. I asked them how do they maintain a network if no one is using it to stress it out and he said they test it all the time however I never saw any traffic on SEDAN after copying log files for about a month. I finally took my TNC off SEDAN and put it on 14.105. At least there are systems there that have folks that love to do packet.


SEDAN was formed by a group of packeteers that enjoyed keyboard to keyboard QSOs started on 145.05 MHZ . Started building a LAN. There was a few BBS on the freq. but we thought it would be alright, and at first it was, but as the LAN expanded the traffic caused by the BBSs started to lag and time out the keyboard QSOs.
We coordinated with the FCC that using 145.77MHZ was okay. We moved to 145.77Mhz where no other packet LAN had ever been so we would not interfere with any other operation. We spend our time effort and money building a LAN that served our purpose., keyboard to keyboard QSOs.
I got a phone the morning that I moved my nodes {which I paid for and put up} from 145.05 MHZ to 145.77 MHZ telling me the LAN was down. I told them I and all the SEDAN nodes had moved to 145.77 MHZ. I was told to put mine back on .05 since they didn’t want to built a LAN just work BBSs.
So the problem that the BBSers seem to have is people who took the time,effort and money to put up a LAN did not operated in the way that suited their interest.
After the death of my daughter I was out of ham radio for a number of years so I was not around when the towers were coming down. One node equipment was saved for me, but I did lose 5 nodes worth of equipment.
Again I hope life is treating you good.
I am doing fine here in AZ now. I now do APRS full time since that seems to be the way to go now. There are plenty of digipeaters on the air for APRS and it still is a form of packet radio. I now only do packet on HF but now that is getting pretty hard to do since winlink came around. Now we are getting hams on the air that only got their license to transfer email using the ham bands and they really can care less about who is on the freq first. They only care that their email gets from point A to point B.

Good to hear from you again too. Maybe one day we can connect to each other on hf packet.