| |
VE2HAR > MT63 10.03.05 13:37l 88 Lines 2915 Bytes #-7497 (0) @ WW
BID : 7153SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: [MT63] 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0HGW<ON0DXC<WA7V<RZ6HXA<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<
VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/1127z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41022 $:7153sentto
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
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out Music Videos, Internet Radio, Artist Photos, Music News!
LAUNCH Music on Yahoo!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/wmKGzA/JARHAA/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
| |
