RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
It's unfortunate that this group is losing members because of a silly, off topic discussion. The group is DIGITALRADIO. There is a hint at the beginning of the topic name as to what this group is interested in.. If you don't care for digital modes...unsubscribe yourself, but don't pontificate about analog vs. digital here. It's really unfortunate that a few people stuck in their ways dating back to the 1960's have to chase people away that are looking to new and innovative ways to communicate. BTW - as a hobby, HAM radio is dying. The new people that may or may not decide to keep it alive are the people who can SMS and text with lightning speed and accuracy. This generation cares not about CW and little about 1200 bps packet on VHF. They care even less about voice. But there are a few who care about keeping the hobby alive. Don't chase them away. I have a 18 year old son who loves networking and can configure a Cisco router in his sleep. He looks at my radio gear, sighs and says wow. Kind of placating me. RE: the people that are saying what we are doing mirrors the Internetwow - you have a whole lot more confidence in the Internet that I do. AS qualification, I have built a few ISPs in my life as well as more than one satellite based service. The Internet is very vulnerable to natural and man made disasters, exactly the opposite of what DARPANet was intended to do.. Yes OC-3's and the like are more efficient at exchanging messages, but what happens when the OC-3 fails? What happens when the CO is under water? What happens when the power is lost to a significant region? We in California know what that is like as do the people who live in the South East. So please, If you have a beef with digital modes, this is probably not the best place to gripe. Flames automatically extinguished with the delete key. 73 Matt KI6NCU in Northern CA. KI6NCU-1 on 145.050 -Original Message- From: John Simon [mailto:jrsi...@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 8:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams Well that's about done it for me. To all those Op's who at least tried, my thanks. This is my last msg. 73, John de VK2XGJ Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it gets boring. So I go back to being me! - Original Message - From: "David Little" To: Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:51 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Christian Crayton > Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:05 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brent Gourley" wrote: >> >> But humans provided the emcom traffic to the machines, and the > machines at >> the far end of the communication deliver it to humans. Without the > humans, >> there is no "communication." > > I agree. What I was referring to are store-and-forward links where HF > is used as a internet replacement, instead of a mode in which a human > operator relays a message to another human operator. > > *** > > Efficient use of resources dictates that we use the mode efficient > transport layer and delivery system. Using a repeater to spell the > names phonetically of shelter occupants looking for family members in > another shelter hardly makes sense, if there are working fax machines > and telephone lines. This has nothing to do with the art of radio; it > addresses the concepts of common sense and efficient operations. We are > not only Amateur Radio Operators, we should be resourceful in our > utilization of the tools available. > > Also, it is hard to relay a multi-part form (IS-213) via voice, when a > binary format retains formatting... This is not in the realm of voice > operations; sitreps, on the ground intel, real-time info gathering that > fills the formatted form are the realm of voice ops. The two can > co-exist. > > WL2K is not a store and forward system like packet networks were in the > past. In the WL2K system, the traffic goes from point to central > repository (with redundant storage), where it is directly retrieved by > the addressee (or their assigned operator). > > The fear of more efficient transport layers will do more to destroy > amateur radio than being resourceful and making use of available > infrastructure. We are supposed to think on our feet; not fear > technology. > > > >> For genuine, this-is-no-drill emcom, we should us
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
Well that's about done it for me. To all those Op's who at least tried, my thanks. This is my last msg. 73, John de VK2XGJ Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it gets boring. So I go back to being me! - Original Message - From: "David Little" To: Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:51 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Christian Crayton > Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:05 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brent Gourley" wrote: >> >> But humans provided the emcom traffic to the machines, and the > machines at >> the far end of the communication deliver it to humans. Without the > humans, >> there is no "communication." > > I agree. What I was referring to are store-and-forward links where HF > is used as a internet replacement, instead of a mode in which a human > operator relays a message to another human operator. > > *** > > Efficient use of resources dictates that we use the mode efficient > transport layer and delivery system. Using a repeater to spell the > names phonetically of shelter occupants looking for family members in > another shelter hardly makes sense, if there are working fax machines > and telephone lines. This has nothing to do with the art of radio; it > addresses the concepts of common sense and efficient operations. We are > not only Amateur Radio Operators, we should be resourceful in our > utilization of the tools available. > > Also, it is hard to relay a multi-part form (IS-213) via voice, when a > binary format retains formatting... This is not in the realm of voice > operations; sitreps, on the ground intel, real-time info gathering that > fills the formatted form are the realm of voice ops. The two can > co-exist. > > WL2K is not a store and forward system like packet networks were in the > past. In the WL2K system, the traffic goes from point to central > repository (with redundant storage), where it is directly retrieved by > the addressee (or their assigned operator). > > The fear of more efficient transport layers will do more to destroy > amateur radio than being resourceful and making use of available > infrastructure. We are supposed to think on our feet; not fear > technology. > > > >> For genuine, this-is-no-drill emcom, we should use the most effective > mode >> possible. Effective being the balance between speed and required > accuracy. > > Again I agree. However, there is a distinction between this-is-no-drill > emcomm, and the other 99.95% of the time that these automated messaging > systems are just handling traffic that could be handled on the Internet. > Please don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that these systems be > shut down. I am not against email, Pactor or technology. > > I am concerned that the people who are creating the HF to Internet links > don't really understand Internet security issues to know what they are > doing. I am also concerned that these technologies will, if taken to > the extreme, do significant damage to the art of radio. My opinions > only, other opinions may vary. :) > > > > The other 99.95% of the time is spent making sure the system is a > working piece of infrastructure during the .05% of time it is needed. > It is a time in which new operators come on line and learn to be a part > of the network, where system operators improve their system's > effectiveness, where new methods of more efficient operations are tested > and perfected, where the outgoing system operators are replaced by newer > ones, or more remote areas come on line; which further increases the > redundant appeal of the system. This is amateur radio; not Fear Factor. > Why should we be so afraid of using newer technology to enhance or value > to those we serve? > > I am primarily a voice operator. I spend time on the air improving my > technique, time off the air improving my skillsand technical > understanding. I am certainly a long way off from understanding > everything, and the most important part of that statement is that I > understand this limitation. Having said that, I don't include fear of > emerging technology as a skill-set that is important to the continuation > of the Amateur Radio Service. > > I also try to use as many of the digital modes as I am able to try. An &
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
-Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian Crayton Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:05 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brent Gourley" wrote: > > But humans provided the emcom traffic to the machines, and the machines at > the far end of the communication deliver it to humans. Without the humans, > there is no "communication." I agree. What I was referring to are store-and-forward links where HF is used as a internet replacement, instead of a mode in which a human operator relays a message to another human operator. *** Efficient use of resources dictates that we use the mode efficient transport layer and delivery system. Using a repeater to spell the names phonetically of shelter occupants looking for family members in another shelter hardly makes sense, if there are working fax machines and telephone lines. This has nothing to do with the art of radio; it addresses the concepts of common sense and efficient operations. We are not only Amateur Radio Operators, we should be resourceful in our utilization of the tools available. Also, it is hard to relay a multi-part form (IS-213) via voice, when a binary format retains formatting... This is not in the realm of voice operations; sitreps, on the ground intel, real-time info gathering that fills the formatted form are the realm of voice ops. The two can co-exist. WL2K is not a store and forward system like packet networks were in the past. In the WL2K system, the traffic goes from point to central repository (with redundant storage), where it is directly retrieved by the addressee (or their assigned operator). The fear of more efficient transport layers will do more to destroy amateur radio than being resourceful and making use of available infrastructure. We are supposed to think on our feet; not fear technology. > For genuine, this-is-no-drill emcom, we should use the most effective mode > possible. Effective being the balance between speed and required accuracy. Again I agree. However, there is a distinction between this-is-no-drill emcomm, and the other 99.95% of the time that these automated messaging systems are just handling traffic that could be handled on the Internet. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that these systems be shut down. I am not against email, Pactor or technology. I am concerned that the people who are creating the HF to Internet links don't really understand Internet security issues to know what they are doing. I am also concerned that these technologies will, if taken to the extreme, do significant damage to the art of radio. My opinions only, other opinions may vary. :) The other 99.95% of the time is spent making sure the system is a working piece of infrastructure during the .05% of time it is needed. It is a time in which new operators come on line and learn to be a part of the network, where system operators improve their system's effectiveness, where new methods of more efficient operations are tested and perfected, where the outgoing system operators are replaced by newer ones, or more remote areas come on line; which further increases the redundant appeal of the system. This is amateur radio; not Fear Factor. Why should we be so afraid of using newer technology to enhance or value to those we serve? I am primarily a voice operator. I spend time on the air improving my technique, time off the air improving my skillsand technical understanding. I am certainly a long way off from understanding everything, and the most important part of that statement is that I understand this limitation. Having said that, I don't include fear of emerging technology as a skill-set that is important to the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. I also try to use as many of the digital modes as I am able to try. An emergency is no time to discover the inherit weaknesses of handling a served agency's traffic in a manner usable by them; via voice.. Some things just aren't compatible, and the quickest way to get uninvited from a disaster party is to dictate how the hosts require their info to be disseminated. We need to embrace the future, not fear it. It is the only way we will remain relevant. David KD4NUE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
Your response above does not clarify your original post; if anything, it increases the ambiguity NO IT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION . Same old stuff its digital or the highway . Have a nice day Bruce
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
EVEN the arrl is calling us LEGACY modes .. the excuse is it is used in industry for anolog modes. Now It seems to me that if they want to matain members and digital; want to win people over this is not going to help .. --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Dave Bernstein wrote: From: Dave Bernstein Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 10:25 PM >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, bruce mallon wrote: > I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of "everyone should > operate the way I do". While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we are > free to ignore it. Hummm Then you oppose using LEGACY mode users when talking about CW and SSB ham's ? >>>I don't know what you mean by "LEGACY mode users", and even if I did, I >>>still wouldn't understand your question. Please elaborate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
Although I don't necessarily accept the idea that any of the modes, digital or analog, can be considered inherently evil, my main concern is whether they have value for various amateur interests. Clearly, ragchewers, contesters, weak signal folks and all other niches have their specific mode(s) of interest. As long as they follow the rules, we should not fault them. Although I partake of these things in moderation, a significant focus is whether ham radio is useful for public service and if so, how to improve on it . Digital modes can be useful, but so can analog. I do have concerns about the use of our very finite HF resource specific being used to provide commercial e-mail routing. Although I favor allowing it so that it may be available for some lower priority public service traffic, we must not lose sight of far overreaching even liberal interpretation of the rules. Otherwise it becomes contrary to non commercial use of the ham bands. Ask yourself this practical question, and I have tried this myself: If you are trying to make a contact out of your immediate area, (and maybe not that far), whether for fun, public service, emergency, or whatever, how would you be able to do it almost anytime 24/7/365? It probably won't happen on VHF, assuming you are close enough to reach someone. It won't happen on e-mail as there would be no one to read it at all times. But it will happen on the lower HF bands barring a total ionospheric disturbance. Even then there is almost always someone on at all times. If you operate CW, then you increase your chances even more. This really became clear this fall with the hiker in the remote part of the Pacific NorthWest who broke his leg. Even though he received help from passing hikers, it would take several days for them to reach the authorities to help evacuate him. With his CW rig he was able to make contact and get help by the next morning. No other system can do that. If I need to raise help, even if it is 2 am, I can be almost assured of making a contact on one of the bands, and although it might be a digital mode if I have a computer and interface, CW or SSB would be far more likely. Once you make contact, others can be alerted and you may be able to switch to a digital mode to pass traffic, if you have ops on both ends who are savvy enough to do this. We may not yet have the best error free sound card modes, but we are fortunate in getting a lot better in the past year with NBEMS (which can use a number of protocols) and FAE40 (which although is not used in an ALE format, uses a modified MIL-STD-188-141A ALE protocol). 73, Rick, KV9U Christian Crayton wrote: >> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? >> > > I think there are several issues at play here. > > On one hand are the proponents of mode x, who think it's the best mode, and > will argue its superiority in the face of any logic or reason. That's a > technology thing. It's no different than PC vs Mac, Icom vs Yaesu vs Kenwood > vs Orion vs Ten Tec, etc. > > When it comes to Winlink 2000 and ALE the main issue, at least with me, is > that modes dehumanize Amateur Radio. > > ALE and email are the two technologies most directly related to the > elimination of human radio operators in commercial communications. That's > what they were designed to do. Many amateurs are ex-commercial radio > operators and have every right to despise these modes. > > Take the idea of emergency communications in amateur radio. This started > because hams had the capability and skill to provide communications, so it > was natural to help out in times of need. But a new school of people only > interested in emergency communications, wanting to use HF radio and not > interested in learning the skills required of a good operator, turn to > Winlink 2000 and ALE. > > Winlink 2000 and ALE are a cancer to amateur radio. They are evil because > they represent machines talking to machines, and we have too much of that in > this world already. > > If amateur radio is not about people talking to people, then what are we in > this for? Most hams I know don't really have a beef with digital modes as > long as they are used to hold a QSO between human operators. It's when the > mode supports machine to machine communications that people get mad. > > Just my opinion, but I think digital modes will get a better reputation if we > successfully communicate what they are really good for. For example: with my > antenna and power restrictions I am only able to communicate with other hams > at all via digital modes. For me, they are the Great Equalizer. > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of "everyone should operate the way I do". While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we are free to ignore it. Hummm Then you oppose using LEGACY mode users when talking about CW and SSB ham's ?
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
re "WinLink 2000 and ALE are a cancer to amateur radio. They are evil because they represent machines talking to machines, and we have too much of that in this world already." I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of "everyone should operate the way I do". While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we are free to ignore it. Amateur radio encompasses many different operating styles and techniques; every amateur is free to pursue the ones they enjoy as long as in doing so they don't compromise any other amateur's enjoyment or violate applicable regulations. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Christian Crayton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams > Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? I think there are several issues at play here. On one hand are the proponents of mode x, who think it's the best mode, and will argue its superiority in the face of any logic or reason. That's a technology thing. It's no different than PC vs Mac, Icom vs Yaesu vs Kenwood vs Orion vs Ten Tec, etc. When it comes to Winlink 2000 and ALE the main issue, at least with me, is that modes dehumanize Amateur Radio. ALE and email are the two technologies most directly related to the elimination of human radio operators in commercial communications. That's what they were designed to do. Many amateurs are ex-commercial radio operators and have every right to despise these modes. Take the idea of emergency communications in amateur radio. This started because hams had the capability and skill to provide communications, so it was natural to help out in times of need. But a new school of people only interested in emergency communications, wanting to use HF radio and not interested in learning the skills required of a good operator, turn to Winlink 2000 and ALE. Winlink 2000 and ALE are a cancer to amateur radio. They are evil because they represent machines talking to machines, and we have too much of that in this world already. If amateur radio is not about people talking to people, then what are we in this for? Most hams I know don't really have a beef with digital modes as long as they are used to hold a QSO between human operators. It's when the mode supports machine to machine communications that people get mad. Just my opinion, but I think digital modes will get a better reputation if we successfully communicate what they are really good for. For example: with my antenna and power restrictions I am only able to communicate with other hams at all via digital modes. For me, they are the Great Equalizer.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
But humans provided the emcom traffic to the machines, and the machines at the far end of the communication deliver it to humans. Without the humans, there is no "communication." For genuine, this-is-no-drill emcom, we should use the most effective mode possible. Effective being the balance between speed and required accuracy. KE4MZ, Brent Dothan, AL bg...@comcast.net www.wb4zpi.org - Original Message - From: "Christian Crayton" To: Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams >> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? > > I think there are several issues at play here. > > On one hand are the proponents of mode x, who think it's the best mode, > and will argue its superiority in the face of any logic or reason. That's > a technology thing. It's no different than PC vs Mac, Icom vs Yaesu vs > Kenwood vs Orion vs Ten Tec, etc. > > When it comes to Winlink 2000 and ALE the main issue, at least with me, is > that modes dehumanize Amateur Radio. > > ALE and email are the two technologies most directly related to the > elimination of human radio operators in commercial communications. That's > what they were designed to do. Many amateurs are ex-commercial radio > operators and have every right to despise these modes. > > Take the idea of emergency communications in amateur radio. This started > because hams had the capability and skill to provide communications, so it > was natural to help out in times of need. But a new school of people only > interested in emergency communications, wanting to use HF radio and not > interested in learning the skills required of a good operator, turn to > Winlink 2000 and ALE. > > Winlink 2000 and ALE are a cancer to amateur radio. They are evil because > they represent machines talking to machines, and we have too much of that > in this world already. > > If amateur radio is not about people talking to people, then what are we > in this for? Most hams I know don't really have a beef with digital modes > as long as they are used to hold a QSO between human operators. It's when > the mode supports machine to machine communications that people get mad. > > Just my opinion, but I think digital modes will get a better reputation if > we successfully communicate what they are really good for. For example: > with my antenna and power restrictions I am only able to communicate with > other hams at all via digital modes. For me, they are the Great > Equalizer. > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
What I would like to know is what "negativity and misinformation" was even mentioned. From now on lets be fair about making such statements by actually quoting the alleged negative and misinformed statement so the rest of us can make an informed decision whether such claims are even appropriate. Sometimes individuals making such statements are reflecting their fears and negativity in their own minds and extrapolate it far beyond what is reasonable. Thank you. Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations > that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has > nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular > mode (Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as you say > there's a lot of misinformation being propagated. > > Its particularly disgusting when the defenders of "transmitting without > listening" characterize any criticism of it as "anti-innovative". In point of > fact, the application of 3-year old technology would largely mitigate the > problem. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > wrote: > >> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? >> >> Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity >> and misinformation being spouted about various >> digital modes and methods by those who profess >> to be proponents of digital ham radio? >> >> Why is it necessary for a person who advocates >> some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean >> and nasty against another flavor? >> >> I ask these questions, because I've watched so many >> positive people and technology innovators driven >> away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham >> radio forums. >> >> Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. >> QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices >> of some of the most positive and beneficial >> individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a >> rough place to begin with, but aren't the same >> individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing >> the same thing here on digitalradio? >> >> If we let the negative people control the level >> of discourse in forums for discussion, where will >> this lead the future of ham radio digital? What >> have we already lost in digital technlogy? What >> will we lose in the future? >> >> Bonnie KQ6XA >> >> > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.8/1985 - Release Date: 03/05/09 > 07:54:00 > >
