P-P AND Repeaters are needed comma dammit!

["k1io@fn42jk 17-Jan-1991 1523" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com>]

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.
    fred k1io