You bring up a good point and this is a good time to bring it up. The definition of the Amateur Service in the US (and I think the ITU's is the same) indicates the service is for radiocommunications between duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim (paraphrased by me).
Why such a "need for speed" for radiocommunications between amateurs? Is the difference between sending Joe Blow, XX0XXX an email from me at 200 wps versus 1000 cps a REALLY big deal? What real advantage does it buy the regular amateur? It seems like the "need for speed" has become a goal unto itself with little advantage to the broad majority who have to live with the wide bandwidths that higher speeds require. I'm curious as to why the need for speed is driving some folks when it comes to amateur to amateur communication. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. It appears obvious from Rick's comment that a lot of amateur radio software developers seem to get more kicks out of working on lower speed, low snr protocols. I also keep seeing the "need for speed" touted as technical innovation when in reality it is using off the shelf commercially produced modems. Where's the innovation that a bandwidth limit is going to stop? Is it just that it will keep us from using faster commercially produced modems? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "vk4jrc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Rick, > > Well, I had a go at Pactor and could not make it work, between the > SCS PTC-IIex and the SCS PTC-Pro I have here. The radios were the > problem, they would kerchunk away here and go nowhere, so I gave up > on it. I guess the radios were not suited to the switching times > required for Pactor. > Those same 2 radios are great on Packet though and I think the SCS > TNCs probably offer better performance on Packet than my Kantronics > TNCs (I have about 6 of them, various models!) I even have an old > original Paccom Pactor modem here :-) > Whilst Winlink and Pactor 3 may offer good data throughput, I have to > ask that is this bandwidth needed for simple text messaging? Next, > people will be wanting to stream Video over HF :-) > As far as emergency comms go.....involving a third party bearer in > the links is scary (the Internet). > Call me a Dinosaur but, I don't wish to use the Internet in any part > of transferring data in my Ham HF data comms operating. > In my case of portable operation, I don't want to be lugging a > laptop, so a small radio, Buddipole antenna, Packet TNC and either of > my 2 Psion palmtops in Terminal mode can operate the TNC just fine, > and they run on AA batteries! > I am going to give PSK31 a shot with the new NUE-PSK modem I have > ordered, but it is only a keyboard to keyboard unit. > As I said, I have a specific requirement for ham HF operation from my > motorcycle, mainly because of where I ride, my luggage space and > power budget. > As far as the FCC petition....everyone has their case to put, based > on how they will be affected by any potential FCC changes, I won't > argue with that but it seems that there are some long held grudges > between groups of operators using various modes. There is only so > much spectrum available and everyone is clamouring for a space or > MORE space, in their area of interest. > I guess U.S. Hams are lucky in that they are able to make submissions > to the FCC, rather than the FCC just mandating what they want, and > the U.S. Ham community simply having to suck it up and accept it. > As I said before, I just hope this FCC stuff does not sour people > against each other in the hobby. Like, Ham radio is meant to be fun! > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <mrfarm@> wrote: > > > > Hi Jack, > > > > There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical > issues. The > > difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the > average > > person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing > > process on groups like digitlradio. > > > > There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift > in > > the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always > is!) > > There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they > are > > losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal > > standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means > that > > extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and > we do > > not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the > > individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who > are > > not able or willing to do that. > > > > What we have on groups like this one, is a "Letters to the Editors > > Column" without an editor who had the power to filter out things > that > > they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good > or > > bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these > views, > > then these groups would have little or reduced value because you > never > > knew who or what was being blocked. > > > > The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for > well > > over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, > however > > they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher > > bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires > a > > relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. The Aplink > system > > was set up with the Amtor protocol, to allow HF connections to BBS > MBO's > > (Mail Box Operations), since Amtor was nearly (not completely) > error > > free and could work much deeper into the noise. It only has a > single > > character case, so was similar to messaging sent via CW or voice > nets. > > These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems > so > > that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days > to > > get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF > > although there were "wormholes" (practically speaking, the early > > internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. > > > > When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to > > these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows > GUI > > interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. > > > > In the late 1990's the Winlink controllers realized that the system > > traffic load was very limited and that the internet could be used > to off > > load most of the traffic. A Netlink system was added to Winlink, > but I > > did not get involved in that so only read a little about it in the > RTTY > > Digital Journal which at that time was THE vehicle of information > for > > digital operation until its failure. > > > > The Winlink controllers met and came up with a new topology for > Winlink > > and developed an internet centric system that now uses the internet > to > > route traffic on a worldwide system with varying distances for the > RF > > side to gain access to the internet. This can be a mile or 1000 > miles or > > more, can be on VHF or HF, but removes the forwarding traffic off > the > > amateur frequencies. If they had not done this, the necessary BBS > > forwarding would not be possible to support on HF. And instead of > > messages going through the internet in a few seconds, it would > still > > take days to reach the recipient. > > > > Unattended HF Beacons are generally not legal to operate here in > the > > U.S., but perhaps your rules allow you to do this? Using a non > standard > > mode will limit you to few other potential users. Pactor is not > very > > hard on switching of rigs. Amtor was a bit much at times, but with > many > > rigs intended to be QSK these days, or close to it, I would not be > the > > slightest bit concerned about using Pactor due to switching issues. > > > > Your experience with PSKmail is similar to mine. Many, many, hours > spent > > trying to get it to work with no practical results. Even when I > have a > > Linux system that I can dual boot into for experimenting. > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > >
