OK, Bruce. Rereading my post, maybe I forgot to emphasize that "one size does not fit all".
I am not against development at all, actually, I try to follow it as closely as affordable, but discarding what works in favor of newer, more "fashionable" is somehow singing in the same tune of the marketing hype, allowing it to suck money from your pockets at its pace. It is clear to me that not everybody can follow that trend, or cannot do that simultaneously. And the newer stuff has new risks of its own, that must be acknowledged. For one case, the military in more than one country have already reevaluated the role of HF communications, that, while not achieving perfection, are far simpler to mantain than satellites or wired links, which have also their own weaknesses. Paraphrasing the final line of an old movie, "Some like it hot", NOTHING is perfect. It is actually better to have a variety of solutions available, and being capable of selecting the most appropiate or convenient in each scenario. It is just not safe or fair to extrapolate that my best solution is everybody's else best solution. It is something that we should be able to accept. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- bruce mallon wrote: > Yep you sure had that right ! > > --- "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> It is amazing that the "developists" in highly >> developed places forgets >> that the world is far from being equally developed >> and connected, with >> high speed digital repeater networks, easily >> accessible Internet, etc, >> etc... >> >> Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa >> or anywhere in the >> Third World to find it the same case... >> >> Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened >> recently in the US west >> coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in >> my country several >> times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 >> hurricane, only HF >> works...who is going to keep a satellite dish >> properly aimed in such a >> situation? >> >> Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in >> no more than 10 years >> periods. >> >> How many times has the ionosphere been substituted >> since 1900 ? None, >> that I remember. >> >> Jose, CO2JA >> >> --- >> >> John Becker, WØJAB wrote: >> >>> Sure it would but what are you going to do away >> from the >>> big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other >> then satellite >>> is useless. I have one portable radio this is used >> for Emergency >>> Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You >> got to >>> remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the >> *only* >>> link that we have that is working. >>> >>> John, W0JAB >> ----- >> >>> At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >>>> I see the point about document transfer, but >> wouldn't higher speed modes >>>> at higher frequencies be more efficient? For >> situations where >>>> infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well >> planned DSTAR network be >>>> much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable >> radio located almost >>>> anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful >> tool than a painfully >>>> slow HF link. __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
