| |
PE1BIV > BAN 07.09.05 17:17l 68 Lines 3012 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 29268PE1BIV
Read: GUEST DK3EL
Subj: Re: IARU and packet
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<ON0AR<PI8WFL<PI8DAZ<PE1BIV
Sent: 050907/1405z @:PE1BIV.PI8DAZ.#TWE.NLD.EU JNOS #:1963 $:29268pe1biv
Hm, Andy! And everyone else,
----- Original Message -----
From: <gm7hud@gb7esx.#31.gbr.eu>
> Hey Angela, here's a great idea....
> Let's not ever move forward. Let's keep using old junk that is bandwidth
> hungry and not particularly efficient just so we can use some old tosh
> PC.
You know this is one of your BS replies, Andy!
NOT BANning HF Packet has nothing to do with experimenting with more modern
and possibly more efficient solutions.
Or, would you suggest also to ban CW as this is an ancient mode and we even
have more modern solutions available that are at least just as efficient? I
guess this is not what you would suggest! Even not you when winding up
people!
Just as CW can be done using very simple equipment, so can HF packet be done
using simple equipment.
But, as written, that does not keep us from looking for more efficient and
more modern techniques.
>
> Let's not advance forwards. In fact HF300 packet is a bit too modern! Why
> did we ever do away with spark transmissions?
Hm, do I have to explain? No, that would be totally waisted on you.....
Grin!
Well, maybe because you would be transmitting outside of the amateur bands.
No, everything was amateur band, untill the gouvernments did take it away...
>
> Spark was wonderful and anyone could take part with any stuff. That pesky,
> new fangled tuning rendered all our old spark gear obsolete.
Yep, what a waist! you had to have more receivers if you wanted to listen to
everybody transmitting at the same time..
>
> Yes, let's stay in the past. It's the way forward and means we dont have
> to spend peanuts on a new PC.
Yep, that's why every professional quit using CW, we closed most maritime
coastal station and as amateurs we still use CW big time. We even have
people who enjoy using it..... Those savages!
Only stupid that most of them have spent thousands on buying a TRX, while a
cheep home build one could do well. Guess that must be status.....
Hm, maybe we could let those HF packeteers have spent money on buying the
latest most powerfull PC's, as Packet is only a few frequencies, they could
just build cheep TRX's... Or, I guess enough old TRX'es were discarded not
having all WARC-bands...
If something works; DON'T fix it! Having the basic, simple and cheep options
still available does not mean we can not work on, or promote, more modern,
and generally more expensive, techniques.
I wonder how many in GB, if using radio at all when playing with Packet
(yep, left out Radio!), are using something more than 1k2..... What is the
percentage of 4k8 (VE9DNL), 9k6 (G3RUH/DF9IC) or even higher speeds...
Well, I even have got discarded 9k6 modems from GB, as no-one wanted to use
it...
After all, the Internet is much more efficient that HF300..... Just a small
disadvantage: we still have an area in a very advanced country where for
days probably only those people with old HF equipment and enough batteries
did have communication. But, GSM is much more modern and efficient.....
Angela
M1SCH / PE1BIV
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
