| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 01.07.00 14:57l 213 Lines 7580 Bytes #-9416 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_173G
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/173G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000701/0142Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:57092 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_173G
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 00 01:50:18 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_173G>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
proper (since one CAN do everything that's allowed). Those who don't care
about CW or HF appear happy with simply holding a "technician" license (which
doesn't really forbid any other operating mode), so, since there's a license
that already addresses your view, exactly what is your problem? Where's the
"CW emphasis" for that license class?
Those who want to do everything should be tested on everything. Those who
don't can settle for the lower class license that covers what they want to do.
What you haven't demonstrated is: What is there that you want to do that your
current license doesn't cover but a higher class does?
Perhaps you want to know why you're getting such hostility? Perhaps you need
to be clued in on the "Modern ARS." The code requirement for having an
[entry-level] AR license disappeared in 1991; 9 years ago. However, it is
self-evident that your personal perception didn't change then (or now).
Your comments about digital modes not being high speed is merely a LOCAL issue
- other parts of the country [allegedly] do have 38k-56k or higher operations.
In Southern California (where you are), we can't do what people won't agree
on.
You want to fix that? Try running for an SCDCC spot at the next election
meeting (October). [Web site: http://www.qsl.net/scdcc]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:13:07 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8itl2j$f61$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Walter Gesundheit <w2dne@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8itk4j$ehk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8itg1p$b3m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > K0HB <K0HB@arrl.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > If your interests are in high speed data transfer, then Morse
> is
> > > > > > not for you.
> > > >
> > > > > EXACTLY my point - so why the over-emphasis on this dead mode.
> > > >
> > > > You're the one who is making the emphasis, not me. If your bag is
> > > > UHF/VHF high speed data, then CW doesn't affect you one way or the
> > > > other.
> > >
> > > Ah-ah-ah, but it DOES affect me in that an ARS license structure
> that
> > > does not reflect modern-day reality, because it places too much
> > > emphasis on HF/CW, rather than UHF/digital, depicts the ARS as a
> > > backwards-thinking group of individuals, who are not interested in
> > > modern communications methods, or in attracting young individuals to
> > > the hobby.
> >
> > Well, I gotta jump in on the side of Hansl on this one.
>
> I'll jump in with Gretal :)
>
> > If, as you proclaim, you are interested in UHF/digital, then there is
> a
> > license class (Technician) which gives complete access to UHF/digital
> > operations and has ZERO emphasis on CW or HF.
>
> But why then is it the LOWEST license class - when it actually offers
> all of privileges that anyone interested in modern communications
> techniques would need?
Conversly, then why isn't everyone simply a technician license holder? Why
does anyone upgrade? All the next class up (general) really does is provide
for HF access, which includes your dreaded CW - as REQUIRED by treaty (plus
minimal volunteer examiner duties). Beyond that, all the extra class does is:
Give a few more kHz here and there, allow an amateur to put up a satellite,
and
become a VE able to administer ALL exams.
It's the lowest class because:
- It doesn't include the minimum required for the other classes
- It was what the amateur public said was needed 10 years ago to
attract "new blood." (And was implemented NINE YEARS AGO.)
Try coming up with a statement that isn't 10 years old.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:03:02 GMT
From: marsgal42@hotmail.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <8irnid$s25$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> (snip...)
> Y'all's comments on CW show that you know almost nothing about
"digital"!
> CW is digital and it embodies most of the modern concepts of source
coding
> and channel coding into its ancient methods. Jeesh!! You guys
probably
> don't even know the difference between source and channel coding!
Digital
> people, har, har... wake up and do something!!
>
> If any of you did know about digital maybe you could do something with
the
> UHF,SHF, uWave frequencies, but y'all don't, so there!
Say what?
I'd hate to think the vast sums of money I've spent on university
education, playing around with various modes, and so on, were
wasted. And my employers (Glenayre) would be shocked to learn
that I apparently know nothing about digital communications.
Personally, I think ham radio's preoccupation with narrowband
modes is silly. I think everybody should be on 10 GHz - 500 MHz
of spectrum to play with, dead easy to use, dirt cheap to
get going.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." - Hospital/Shafte
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:44:14 GMT
From: f1dfr@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <1547b994.988b2a66@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
horseshoe7 <horseshoe7NOhoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Uri Blumenthal <uri@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > If your interests are in high speed data transfer, then
> >> > Morse is not for you.
> >>
> >> EXACTLY my point - so why the over-emphasis on this dead
> >> mode.
> >
> >Don't you see that EVERYTHING that HAM radio has today
> >(and is likely to have in the near future) is dead from
> >the practical/high-data-rate point of view?
> >
> >Or are you planning to deploy 1+Gbps wireless...?
>
> Just about!
>
> >If so, you might successfully compete with Internet-2 (:-).
>
> That would be foolish. Instead we should use the Internet as a
> backbone, and use Linux boxes as gateways, see my page at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html
>
> >Regards,
> >Uri
>
> Stewart - N0MHS
The only problem that you have missed is the question of ENERGY.
Worldwide digital communications over Internet "eat" many energy and
without AC power you can't run your digital network for a long time
while you can operate a ham transceiver with a little solar or wind DC
generator equipment and a car battery.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:53:16 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
Laura:
Young lady, you are preachin to the converted...
Peter (not-a-yankee) k1PO
Madison, AL (near Huntsville)
<marsgal42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8itrda$kf4$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8irnid$s25$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip...)
> > Y'all's comments on CW show that you know almost nothing about
> "digital"!
> > CW is digital and it embodies most of the modern concepts of source
> coding
> > and channel coding into its ancient methods. Jeesh!! You guys
> probably
> > don't even know the difference between source and channel coding!
> Digital
> > people, har, har... wake up and do something!!
> >
> > If any of you did know about digital maybe you could do something with
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_173H
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
