Certainly an education and informative exchange? How about some
informatgion instead? Moderator?
At 02:41 PM 10/3/2007, you wrote:
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>snip<
By your own admission, your operating experience with digital modes
has not progressed beyond PSK31.
>>>What arrogance. So the VE5MU figure of merit ranks PSK31 at the
bottom? How then do you explain the complete lack of broadscale
adoption of digital modes other than PSK31 or RTTY? Given the wide
array of free soundcard software available, there is zero switching
cost; hams are naturally inquisitive, and can easily download any of
several free soundcard applications to run Olivia, Dominio, ALE, or
whatever new flavor of the month that Patrick F6CTE has concocted.
The development of new modulation techniques and protocols is useful
and important, and may some day bear fruit. But so far, no one has
developed a protocol sufficiently better than PSK or RTTY to
instigate any significant migration. Might these new modes be better
than PSK or RTTY in one or two interesting dimensions; sure, but then
they're either too difficult to tune, or consume too much spectrum,
or don't work unless the SNR is unrealisticly good. I and many others
who have listened to MFSK, MT-63, Throb, and Hell QSOs found no
reason to go further. Like anyone else, hams vote with their feet.
I challenge you to try some of these new modes, and I and others would
welcome your opinion of these new technologies.
>>>I have, and just did.
At the same time would encourage you to put some of your considerable
technical ability into developing busy frequency software In
cooperation with one of the authors, rather than simply complaining
about it at every opportunity.
>>>I have no interest in operating an automatic station, or
connecting to an automated station to send messages. If others want
to do this, that's fine as long as they follow the rule of common
amateur courtesy and ensure that their equipment never transmits on
already-occupied frequency. My "to do" list is full of wonderful
suggestions from the DXLab community; that's where I'll be spending
my time.
>>>When the "WinLink doesn't listen before transmitting" issue first
exploded, I signed up Peter G3PLX and Bob N4HY to work with me on
developing and implementing a new shared-channel message-passing HF
protocol with busy frequency detection that WinLink could use instead
of Pactor 3; Bob presented our thinking at a DCC a few years back,
but the WinLink folks made it very clear that they would never move
to anything not of their own design. Too bad, because Peter had some
promising ideas for error detection/correction, and Bob was chomping
at the bit to employ trellis coding. I then spent some time on the
phone with Rick KN6KB, encouraging him to add busy detection to
SCAMP. At the time, Rick feared that anything less than perfect
performance would be unacceptable, but I helped persuade him that an
80-20 solution would be an immense step forward. His first-cut
implementation performed far better than either of us expected.
>>>My postings here are not complaints. They are rebuttals to bogus
technical statements you and others continually make here in
painfully transparent attempts to rationalize the use of unattended
automated stations when such stations clearly violate a fundemental
tenet of amateur radio: no one owns a frequency. These posts aren't
targeted at you or your friends, John; that'd be a waste of time.
They're aimed at newer hams who might not yet see your position for
what it really is: a callous disregard for operators using modes that
you consider unimportant.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1046 - Release Date:
10/3/2007 10:08 AM
