We should not rule out certain applications of amateur radio just
because the majority of hams currently doesn't find them interesting
or useful; that's the road to technical stagnation.
We need only insist that all amateur applications be responsible in
their stewardship of our shared commons, and have no negative impact
on the operations of other amateurs.
Where I part company with the ARRL and its "segmentation by
bandwidth maxima" proposal is that they not only tolerate operation
that negatively impacts other amateurs, they propose its expansion.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> N6CRR,
>
> You sure did hit the nail on the head with this one. That is
exactly what the one want that is pushing this stuff. The want to
turn ham radio into an email forwarding service. I just wonder how
many of those guys ever work any other mode other than passing
email. Most all emergency communications is going to be defined to a
local area of the country anyway. (Emergency is defined a threat to
life and property). I am not against the handling of important
traffic, as a matter fact I am all for it. What I am against is the
automatic control stations. I believe every station operating on HF
should have an operator present.
>
> As I have said many time I don't think the ARRL know what is
actually going on on the bands except what they want to know. They
have no idea of what the average operator want nor do they care.
PSK31 had been operating for well over a year before anything ever
appeared in QST about it.
>
> As for developing sound card software that will decode below the
noise level, I don't think that will ever pan out because the
software can only decode what it hears. This is going to have to be
address in the radio end of things. Also if someone is in QSO with
one of these modes and another operator can not see the signal or
hear it how is he going to know that there is a qso going on. Yes
there is some software that copies in noise better than others.
>
> Joe
> W4JSI
>
> Age is mind over matter
> If you don't mind,
> it does not matter
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: N6CRR
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:49 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on HF
>
>
> However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose
> > of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes
HF. The
> > issue is that there is little incentive to further develop
digital
> > protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part
97.221,
> > there is little space to use what already exists.
> >
> >
> > Steve, k4cjx
>
> So that's the thing in a nut shell from your statement from
above,
> incentive to further develop digital protocols for high speed
binary
> transfer. Who thinks this is a good idea? Is this a case of just
> because you can, should you do it and at what price to existing
> operations?
>
> From what I can tell, most of the Amateur community is neither in
> favor of the ARRL's vision statement expressed in a recent ARRL
letter
> towards delivery of digital content over HF and VHF frequencies
nor
> the vision would appear to provide email, weather maps, position
> reporting and other connectivity between the internet and remote
> users. The current allocations seem to support all the users
that want
> to use this sort of capability. Where is the traffic analysis
> published that shows that there is a demand for an expansion of
this
> service that would justify potentially impacting ordinary Joe's
and
> Jane's just wanting to have a yack on the radio? Where is the
data
> content analysis that shows that the data being transferred over
these
> sorts of services are within the current regulations in terms of
> non-business communications, no profanity, and not just the
usual spam
> that flood all our email boxes? The burden of proof is not on the
> incumbent services, it's on those who wish to change.
>
> It may be technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the
ARRL and
> others may want to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated
to
> these services, but by doing so is the resulting environment
still
> Amateur Radio? I think the Amateur community is saying not only
No,
> but HELL NO!
>
> The argument for me is philosophical, I am obviously on a
different
> wavelength frequency than those who are advocating for this
change.
>
> Cheers
> N6CRR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan
policy discussion)
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply
> Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
