"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 17, 2:19�am, "Dee Flint" wrote:


[snip]

On the pro side, it really makes a lot of sense in theory. If we hams
could offer this kind of capability to emergency agencies, it would
provide a much-needed communications capability in times of disaster. But
it would need to be stand-alone and not depend upon repeaters that might
be out of service, which to me implies HF.

On the con side, a real disaster is the worst possible scenario for trying
to get this technology to work reliably. You're potentially in a
high-noise low-signal poor-antenna situation. The equipment required is
fairly complex, and you need a fair amount of technical knowledge to set
it up. When I build a mental image of someone at a shelter trying to set
up this gear, it's hard for me to see success. Finally there's the issue
of what data gets sent; some of it probably is not appropriate for
transmission using amateur radio.

Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes stronger,
hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst disasters. Not only
do you have the bad signal to noise ratio and poor antennas, you may be
power limited. People remark on the low power capabilities of PSK31 for
example but they are only looking at transmit power. You really need to
look at power consumption. That means adding in the computer/monitor combo.
One might actually be better off with voice.



Second, there are plenty of times in an ordinary QSO when it
would be good to be able to send a picture, station description,
article, a sound clip, etc. directly by radio, and have it in digital
format at the other end. In the past, such modes as SSTV have
gained limited acceptance because they required lots of extra
apparatus, but with the widespread acceptance of PCs today
the big limitation is software, not hardware.

This one I find intriguing. I do think that if the capability existed,
and did not require purchase of hardware in addition to a PC, that it
would be interesting to enough hams to create a critical mass. It
provides an alternative playground for hams who prefer to experiment using
the keyboard of their PC rather than their soldering iron.

73, Steve KB9X


I agree that the fun of it is the most probable driver. Yet SSTV has not
grown as rapidly as one might expect when it became possible to do it all
with one's computer.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 17, 1:19 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:


My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on
amateur radio?


"Because we can"


Now that is the best answer I've seen. It embodies the spirit of amateur
radio and the idea of experimenting be it hardware or software.

Actually, I agree that there may be no particular ongoing NEED for an
Amateur Radio high volume data channel, but neither was there a NEED
for LEOs, APRS, and similar "tinkerer" modes, many of which had their
genesis in ham shacks and now have morphed into commercial
applications.


That is how I view amateur radio. The concept is to develop something new
and different not to try to integrate commercial developments into amateur
radio unless it were necessary to use as a basis for that "new and
different" development.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote:


That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all
and is extremely poor policy.


I understand your view, Phil, especially coming from your long
background in a regulatory environment.

But I think one of the failures of the FCC stewardship of Amateur
Radio has been over-regulation.

Pause here, and refresh your mindset on the difference between
"regulation" and "enforcement".

One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is
experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has
historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try
unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. (As an
example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a
decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.)

Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, "That government is best which governs
least." I believe "that agency regulates best which regulates
least."

Give us a sandbox to play in, make sure we don't trash the surrounding
neighborhood, and let us play our game. Use enforcement, not over
regulation, to make sure the public interest is served.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 17, 2:19�am, "Dee Flint" wrote:

My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data
on amateur radio? *

I can think of a couple uses for it, Dee.

First there's emergency/public service comms. The served agencies
are used to being able to send emails with sizable attachments through
the usual networks. A mode that would let them do that via amateur
radio
when the usual networks are not available would be a really good tool
in the emcomm toolbox. IMHO it's the thinking pushing WinLink.

Second, there are plenty of times in an ordinary QSO when it
would be good to be able to send a picture, station description,
article, a sound clip, etc. directly by radio, and have it in digital
format at the other end. In the past, such modes as SSTV have
gained limited acceptance because they required lots of extra
apparatus, but with the widespread acceptance of PCs today
the big limitation is software, not hardware.

I think that emergency comms might make use of large amounts ot data
transmission, but the average ham needs to use the modes in order to
have the modes available during those emergencies. IOW, it's a matter
not of what I get for emergencies, but what Joe Ham is going to get
along with me so we can use it when there isn't an emergency. Otherwise
it isn't of a whole lot of use.

And then there is that old bugaboo of bandwidth. HF really isn't
the place for wide bandwidth modes.

...

I disagree. One of the big problems is that such development
tends to be protected by the developers, and *not* made
open-source. PSK-31 and Linux are exceptions, not the rule.

Our "hamness" tend to make us gravitate towards those open source
modes. And it isn't just my ceap tendencies. I've tried most of the
digital modes at least once. That would not have happened if I had
to pay for every mode.



The "bell-the-cat" question is still *who* is going to develop
such new modes and then just give them away for free.
Groups that have tried (TAPR and the spread-spectrum idea)
have taken years without much to show.

Often people will wonder why Hams don't run to every new mode that
comes along. Some assume that we are not adaptable as a group. I
would say it has a lot more to do with simply having someone on the
other end to talk to. We need an early following to get the ball
rolling, then there needs to be a good reason to use the mode. The
difference between say Spread spectrum and say PSK31 is that PSK
apparently serves some purpose for a growing number of Hams, and SS
doesn't.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 17, 7:31�pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote:



That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all
and is extremely poor policy.

I understand your view, Phil, especially coming from your long
background in a regulatory environment.

But I think one of the failures of the FCC stewardship of Amateur
Radio has been over-regulation.

Pause here, and refresh your mindset on the difference between
"regulation" and "enforcement".

One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is
experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has
historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try
unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. *(As an
example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a
decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.)

Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, "That government is best which governs
least." I believe "that agency regulates best which regulates
least."

Give us a sandbox to play in, make sure we don't trash the surrounding
neighborhood, and let us play our game. *Use enforcement, not over
regulation, to make sure the public interest is served.

In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs
for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or
at the very least don't work well.

The proposed bandwidth subdivisions will be a disaster if they
ever come to fruition.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 14, 1:47�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. *Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would
it be appropriate for Amateur Radio?

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:47�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would
it be appropriate for Amateur Radio?

Because amateur radio is supposed to be self regulating.

Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio that
gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be sufficient.
Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly hope.
Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs to
stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to do on
our own.

73, Steve KB9X

On Mar 17, 4:37 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message


If it doesn't seem useful to them, people will pass on it.

ever heard of APRS? for some time it existed and described as a
solution is search of a problem

what is needed in digital mode "sexiness" for want of a better term.
if it fun to do nobody (but grousers) will care how usefull it is

"Steve Bonine" wrote ...
Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio
that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be
sufficient. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly
hope. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs
to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to
do on our own.

OTOH, Why should we be surprised if Amateur Radio
appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general?
It would be nice if we were better behaved, but perhaps that
is too high an expectation.

Richard Crowley KE7GKP

On Mar 18, 2:10 am, wrote:


In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs
for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or
at the very least don't work well.


Thank you, Steve. Your point is very real, and the historic
'solution' has been for the government (FCC) to impose regulatory
handcuffs on the market-based arbitration of that tension. This has
the practical effect of total regulatory favor of the legacy use over
the exploration of new ideas.

New ideas not only have to overcome regulatory hindrance to
feasibility trial (STA's, etc.) but once on the air must fit into a
regulatory mishmash of allocation buckets already dominated by old
legacy uses. This is the ultimate irony in the only radio service
chartered to "advance the state of the radio art".

73, de Hans, K0HB