| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.09.00 22:51l 188 Lines 7219 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_261D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/261D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0CWS<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<DB0OVN<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000926/1901Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:18348 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_261D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 00 19:50:27 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_261D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
downwards. My personal target would be a lowered resolution, lowered rate
signal in the bandwidth occupied by a FM voice signal. This would be well
within the compression capabilities of current CPUs running openly
avialable software.
> Having observed amateurs for 35 years, I think not. If it can't be added
> as a simple accessory to their analog radios, they aren't going to do it.
>
I yea, I am aware there are two kinds of hams, those that do, and those
that don't. I don't think it particularly matters, since those that don't
pay a lot for their hobby, and eventually buy from the do's (like packet
radio).
> I'm sorry to be so down here, but this is the reality we've been facing
> in digital amateur radio. Enough people won't get off the dime to let
> anything better than what we've been doing for the last 20 years achieve
> a critical mass unless it is a pure plug and play that they can use with
> their existing Japanese analog radios.
>
> We aren't radio amateurs anymore, we're just radio users, not much
> different from CBers. Even Hank and Charles, who moan so much,
> are just radio users, stuffing bits through their Japanese radios instead
> of through a Taiwanese telephone modem. If they started building and
> using high performance RF modems, then they might be able to say that
> they're putting the radio back into radio amateur.
>
I agree in general, but I don't think I would bother saying "anymore".
The same complaint existed when I first read about ham in the 1970's.
I'm betting that you could find the same thing printed about the 1960's,
1950's and 1940's.
> Gary
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
> 534 Shannon Way | We break it |
> Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:35:40 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Compression et all
"ed_woodrick" <ed_woodrick@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ODe606XJAHA.250@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
> news:wcWy5.3542$tl2.259621@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Where would emergency communications be if we were always forced
> > to use nothing but commercial power?
>
> Hank, you just missed my point. My point is that to provide adequate
> emergency communications, we have to be prepared to use all methods
> available to us. Even if it comes down to flying homing pigeons back and
> forth. but I guess that does put us at odds with one another. If a person is
> laying on the ground dieing, I will try to help them using any means
> possible. I'm assuming that you will help only if you can use a radio to do
> so.
Hardly missed your point!
Please read what I write.
Perhaps even try responding to the questions.
Try to keep focused on ham radio, what it can or should do.
> > > It's a pretty impressive thing to see two field day operators talking to
> > > each other during a disaster. Yep, two stations that can pass messages.
> But
> > > to whom? You have to interface to the rest of the world. You can't
> create
> > > islands.
> >
> > Um ... you miss the entire point. The emergency creates the islands.
> > Ham radio bridges them back together. That's the whole point.
> > Stop thinking "bypass ham radio over the internet" and start thinking
> > "bypass broken internet access over ham radio."
Did you think about the above?
> > > To rely on the Internet completely is just as dumb,
> >
> > But this is EXACTLY what the Land Line Lids have forced on the US
> > ham radio networks. They're dead Jim.
>
> No Hank, that's only the way that you think things are. Even if the Internet
> passes all of the messages before you can do so, isn't just exchanging the
> BIDS and MIDS with your other radio stations showing that the network works?
No. Think about it.
> And if the Internet connections go down, wouldn't the traffic automatically
> start being carried on the RF links?
No. There are no RF links any more. Think about it.
> > > BUT, as you so
> > > eloquently put it, sometimes we just can't compete with the dollars of
> big
> > > business. And guess what, the dollars have created a really disaster
> > > resistant network that we might be able to use to assist us in doing our
> > > job.
> >
> > Oh really?
> > Our job is to provide communications when those commercial
> > links ARE NOT WORKING.
> > Understand now?
>
> Jeesh, I'm beginning to think that you paid someome to put your name on some
> software, it certainly doesn't seem as if there is any logic behind your
> thinking anymore.
Does that mean you do not understand?
> The point is that if we depend ONLY on emergency power, we couldn't get our
> job done. How often does your station run on emergency power? 0.001% of the
> year? If that much? Just because we don't primarily rely on generators,
> batteries, and other alternative power sources doesn't mean that we can't
> use them when we need to.
Where did I write "ONLY"?
The truth is that my station tends to be run about 1% of the time on emergency
power during the usual year. Some years a bit more, some years a bit less.
Sometimes when I'm on emergency power there is no telephone service,
sometimes there is no telephone service but there is power. Depends on
exactly what fell down, blew down, or was knocked down by some pickup
going off the road. There has always been working cell service though, so I
should rely on it and forget ham radio according to your argument.
> The analogy between power and the Internet are similar. During "normal"
> times we can use the cheapest, best performing network. During "emergency"
> times we use alternative networks. Power companies and the Internet during
> normal times, Generators and RF during other times. Why does this make the
> Internet a bad thing?
There are no longer any alternative networks.
The Land Line Lids killed them off.
They ain't there. We can't use them.
> > > Remember that Arpanet/Internet was created as a disaster resistant
> > > network with a lot of our tax dollars. Their is more routing redundancy
> in
> > > the Internet then probably any other network, including the telephone
> > > network.
> >
> > Baloney.
> > Go read the history of Arpanet.
> > Think just a little bit about the telephone network. Do some math.
> >
>
> No Baloney, just Hank.
> Yes, the Arpanet was created as a disaster resitent network with many
> circuit being highly protected and highly redundant. It was started back
> during the cold war.
You are confusing MILNET with ARPANET. Read the history.
> Thinking of the telephone network, I don't believe that
> there has EVER been a nationwide outage, especially in recent years.
So what? Straw man. You didn't do the math to support your claim.
> Even
> during disasters, there have been many areas that have had significant
> amounts of service.
And many areas that had no service at all. Ignore them?
> And in those areas where service wasn't available,
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_261E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
