| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 23.03.00 07:48l 229 Lines 7005 Bytes #-9538 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_79C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/79C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<
PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000323/0232Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:58789 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31720 ; Thu, 23 Mar 00 02:18:43 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018459 ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:28:32 MET
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 00 21:26:32 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_79C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/79C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
long before you did anything digital on the ham bands. Assuming of
course that you have done any digital ham radio at all. What is your
experience with digital ops??
>
>and why experimentation on HF can add to the
>available communication capacity of HF
>
Explain just how digital voice will add user capacity to HF ham radio.
>
> I'll have more respect for what you
>know about HF ham radio. Which is obviously not to say that I'll only
>respect you if you stop using Morse as your personal favorite mode.
>
Zzzzzzz . . I got my phone dxcc a jillion years ago, Fact is that I
probably log more time running FM than I do running cw.
>
>73, Mark KF6KYI
>> >
>> rv
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:05:01 -0600
From: "Richard McCollum" <rmccoll@radiks.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:sd7r2kq4fja98@corp.supernews.com...
> James Rosenthal wrote
> > :> Steve Sampson wrote
> > Charles Brabham wrote:
> > : > The fact is, that after April 15th, CW is effectively dead as a
political
> > : > tool. Get over it.
> >
> > "Political"?? ;-))))))
> >
> > : Fact is, CW never was big as a "political tool".
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Political, in the sense that the ARRL destroyed Ham radio by delaying the
> No-Code license, and impeded everything with a call to arms of its CW
> membership ranks. They destroyed Ham radio by slicing up the bands
> into a CW class system that only a Hindu could appreciate. It wasn't the
> FCC that wrote the rules, it was the ARRL that forced the incentive
> licensing "Hindu" class system.
>
> That system (politically motivated) is over.
>
> Steve
Makes a great novel but lousy history Steve
Dick BK
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:52:06 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
James Rosenthal wrote
> :> Steve Sampson wrote
> Charles Brabham wrote:
> : > The fact is, that after April 15th, CW is effectively dead as a
political
> : > tool. Get over it.
>
> "Political"?? ;-))))))
>
> : Fact is, CW never was big as a "political tool".
>
> I agree.
Political, in the sense that the ARRL destroyed Ham radio by delaying the
No-Code license, and impeded everything with a call to arms of its CW
membership ranks. They destroyed Ham radio by slicing up the bands
into a CW class system that only a Hindu could appreciate. It wasn't the
FCC that wrote the rules, it was the ARRL that forced the incentive
licensing "Hindu" class system.
That system (politically motivated) is over.
Steve
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:01:26 -0600
From: Brian <burke1@icss.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Richard McCollum wrote:
> No one is dumping on digital as such. What needs to happen is some small
> and immature minds to get beyond "Code Old, Bad. Digital New, Good" when
> the reality is that they don't understand either one.
>
> Dick McCollum N0BK
Dick, your Extraness is showing again. You presume that they don't understand
either one, and thats part of the problem.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:52:47 -0600
From: Brian <burke1@icss.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:52:43 GMT, "Mark VandeWettering"
> <raytracer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >When I see you demonstrate any working knowledge of digital modes or
respect
> >for users of such modes,
> >
> Gimmee a freaking break I was running packet eons ago, most likely
> long before you did anything digital on the ham bands. Assuming of
> course that you have done any digital ham radio at all. What is your
> experience with digital ops??
You were running packet cluster, merely an extension of your HF hobby. If you
had not, you wouldn't be even close to being competetive in the HF DX circles.
Today, internet spotting has pretty much replaced packet cluster. But of
course
you know that since u used to be on packet *eons* ago.
>.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Mar 2000 00:19:43 GMT
From: jeffreyh@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
>Jeffrey Herman <jeffreyh@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in message
>> As communicators first and foremost,
>Hams are not communicators first and foremost, Jeff.. They are Radio
>operators first and foremost.
Broadcast engineers at radio transmitter sites are "radio operators" who
are not communicators, while we're actually in the intersection of the
two catagories.
Our boss, the FCC, even views us as communicators:
97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur
radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following
principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the
public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The title of our national organization even reflects our image as
communicators: American Radio RELAY League; relaying communications
traffic was, in the beginning, our primary mission -- it remains
important to this day.
73, Jeff KH6O
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:18:12 -0500
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:56:24 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> I am a bit confused by this. Doesn't this radically blur the distinction
between
>> digital and voice modes? It seems pretty silly to limit datarate for
digital
>> communications when the data rate for phone isn't so limited. Imagine that
I
>> used some form of steganographic encoding for voice that allowed me to
superimpose
>> a data channel (perhaps as some kind of power control signal for instance).
Would
>> that be in violation of FCC regulations?
>
>It's not datarate per se, it's bandwidth. The bands are essentially
>divided into narrow bandwidth modes and wide bandwidth modes.
Well, if they actually wrote the rules that way, it would be Ok. But they
didn't, they invoked other factors which are both overly restrictive to
amateur experimentation, and irrelevant to the objective of dividing
usage into wide and narrow mode segments. If the rules said, "These
band segments can't use an emission wider than 1 kHz, and these
band segments can't use an emission wider than 6 kHz", and left it
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_79D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
