| |
VE2HAR > MT63 10.03.05 18:15l 153 Lines 5028 Bytes #-7496 (0) @ WW
BID : 64302SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: [MT63] 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VE3FJB<W4JAX<VK4TRS<VA2HAR<
VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/1553z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41096 $:64302sentto
This is rapidly devolving into a "'chewers vs techies" argument hi hi.
Hey I would rather ragchew on any mode than experiment. I would rather work
a public service event than experiment. Do I know how to
ham software? no, but I"ll happily play with the fruits the genius of
others. Can I do much beyond building simple antennas? no. But I know how to
organize public service events, I am a respected member of our communities
emeregncy services providers, and I understand how Search and Rescue
operations work. I put my hobby and my communications skills to work helping
others, and that's what rocks my boat.
The point being that the hobby has always appealed to both the communicators
and the techies. it's a great marriage!
I like WINLINK and the service it provides to ARES and other users world
wide. I don't like their frequency allocations for automated mailboxes, and
feel that they should concentrate these in a smaller portion of the band, so
that other users can avoid those frequencies and therfore not run into
interference problems.
Instead of trying continually to trying to beat the stuffing out of WINLINK
, the smart guys in the digital community should maybe consider working with
them to develop alternatives to Pactor. I agree that pactor should be public
domain, open text, and available to all, and am encouraged by WINLINK folks
working on Scamp, which is supposedly better and would be in the public
domain.
I don't understand how these modes work, but I love using them, and are
constantly looking at their applications for emergency communications and
other areas.
Thank goodness for both tinkerers and talkers!!!
John
VE5MU
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul L Schmidt <k9ps@arrl.net>
To: <MT63@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MT63] 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
>
> Tomi Manninen wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>I'd say that any experimentation trumps ragchewing anyway, which is
> >>what the regular CW and phone operators are doing. (Sorry if you don't
> >>want to hear this).
> > Seconded.
>
> Thirded? (Apologies to Robert's Rules of Order)
>
> >>On the other hand I'm not in favour of establishing *services* on HF.
> >>For example I'm not happy about Winlink being on HF amateur bands.
> > Seconded!
>
> Thirded, with an additional comment --
>
> We aren't "in the business" of being a common carrier; we aren't
> "in business" at all - which is why it's AMATEUR radio. On the
> other hand, we DO need to have (and have a long history of doing
> so) established "networks" running.
>
> What a "network" is has changed over time -- from back in the
> days when that meant relaying a CW message from station to
> station for long-haul communications, to the era of voice
> traffic nets, to the era of the VHF packet systems, and so on.
>
> Where are we now? Where does the Winlink system fit in? Where
> do the old-fashioned traffic nets fit in?
>
> Our "business" is in establishing CAPABILITIES. Historically,
> many of these capabilities have proven themselves valuable in
> times of emergency, and frequently have been proven valuable
> enough for adoption by the commercial world. The things that
> were at one time the domain of the hard-core fringe experimenters
> on ham radio are now considered essential commercial services.
>
> Winlink -- and in particular PACTOR II and PACTOR III -- have
> actually REVERSED this trend. Instead of a new capability being
> developed by ham radio ops, a commercial product -- one that is
> restricted by commercial patents and CAN'T be freely replicated
> by experimenting hams -- has come into the ham bands.
>
> What is our business model for survival of the amateur service?
>
> If it's using our licenses, our frequencies, and our reputation
> as a marketing opportunity for the vendors of proprietary products,
> we'd might as well call it quits.
>
> If it's developing newer and better publicly available, OPEN SOURCE,
> non-patent-encumbered means of communicating... we might just be
> able to succeed with the plan.
>
> My two cents...
>
> 73,
>
> Paul / K9PS
>
>
>
> << Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
>
> - The MT63 Reflector -
> MT63@egroups.com
>
> (To unsubscribe. send email to
> MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Music that listens to you.
LAUNCHcast. What's in your mix?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/8mKGzA/FARHAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
