Leo wrote:

Mike,

I didn't get very far with this concept when I tried to introduce it a
few months back either. I thought at the time that it might at least
get some out-of-the-box thinking going, and remove the bonds of
history and tradition which so often form the basis of reason for
discussions in this forum -- but alas, it met a simlilar fate......

Ironicaly, one of the responses that you received was, with respect to
the history of amateur radio, "Take that away, and it could not be
anything close to what it is now". Say, wasn't that the whole point
of the discussion?

Good try, though!

Hey Leo, Good to see you on my screen again! Tell you what. I'll start
with what I think would happen, and if you like, you can join in. Maybe
we can P**s off someone that they might comment..........;^)

Okay, here goes:

With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital
voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz
band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would
be allowed to send images as well as voice.

Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten
material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember
that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed,
would not happen for some time.

Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and
here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used.
This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB.

Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious
difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in
the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In
addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those
questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot
easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be
questions regarding proper operating etiquette.

A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness
(RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this
year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^)

One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols. However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote


Please add or subtract from this list at will!

73, Leo


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip

Okay, here goes:

With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital
voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz
band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would
be allowed to send images as well as voice.

Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten
material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember
that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed,
would not happen for some time.

Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and
here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used.
This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB.

Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious
difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in
the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In
addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those
questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot
easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be
questions regarding proper operating etiquette.

A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness
(RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this
year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^)

One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I thought I replied to this post, but maybe not. I think that Digital
voice takes up more BW than SSB, so there will probably be a wait for
future developments.


I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

Probably. Ham/Internet functions would probably be a lot better than
what they are now, and people like me, that don't think that the
Internat is Ham radio would not have time to form their biases.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols.

I agree about the CW. That would probably come about as a minimalist
thing, kind of like QRP is now, but with extremely simple equipment.

I don't think that RTTY would come about. I think amateurs got started
on RTTY after getting surplus writers. There probably wouldn't be many
of them left today. And the encoding scheme wouldn't likely be adopted


However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Agreed.

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

hmmmm. not sure if I like that!


With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote



HAR!!

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Thanks for your comments - mine are below:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:52:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:



Leo wrote:
Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I thought I replied to this post, but maybe not. I think that Digital
voice takes up more BW than SSB, so there will probably be a wait for
future developments.

True, but maybe one of the roles of the 'new' amateur service would be
to serve as a testbed for new technologies like this one. With all of
the new licensees concentrating on playing around with it, and no old
low-tech stuff to impede them , improvements may come more quickly
than in our current scenario.


I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

Probably. Ham/Internet functions would probably be a lot better than
what they are now, and people like me, that don't think that the
Internat is Ham radio would not have time to form their biases.

Make that one 'us' - I don't consider any Internet-linked radio system
to be a 'real' radio - more like a telephone, at best. But, you are
absolutely correct, this bias of ours would not exist at all! Folks
who grew up in the age of the 'Net may see the new Radio service as an
extension of it.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols.

I agree about the CW. That would probably come about as a minimalist
thing, kind of like QRP is now, but with extremely simple equipment.

I don't think that RTTY would come about. I think amateurs got started
on RTTY after getting surplus writers. There probably wouldn't be many
of them left today. And the encoding scheme wouldn't likely be adopted

I was thinking more of those folks who had been monitoring some of the
commercial RTTY utility broadcasts (like the Canadian Army's aviation
forecasts out of Halifax, NS at a blistering 75 Baud, for example),
and who would want to try it out for themselves. With a PC, encoding
schemes are relatively simple to create and play around with - maybe
some nut would do it just to see if they could? (Maybe even this
nut..... )



However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Agreed.

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

hmmmm. not sure if I like that!

Me either - concepts like this scare the heck out of me. But, the
potential for some unsavoury character or terrorist to acquire a radio
with the capability to communicate globally (and stealthily - pretty
hard to find one, especially if it transmits on a random schedule!!)
and use it for whatever nefarious purpose may prompt the government
who created the 'new' amateur service to build this in right from the
start. It's very technically possible, and cheap and practical if
done en masse right from the beginning. (after all, who ever thought
that an innocuous little computer in your car could be used to produce
data to nail you in court over an accident?? Hmmmm. That wasn't in the
Owners Manual....)

Included as a discussion point......we'll see if anyone else shares
this view / concern.


With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote



HAR!!

Yup - the seeds are already sown for "NORTTY International".....I can
hear 'em growing from here!

- mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!

73, Leo

"The best way to predict the future is to create it."
-Thomas Edison


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Hey Leo, Good to see you on my screen again! Tell you what. I'll start
with what I think would happen, and if you like, you can join in. Maybe
we can P**s off someone that they might comment..........;^)

Leo wrote:
Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!


Well, no one can say we didn't give them the chance. Too bad too, since
it allows us to form some new ideas. Not every idea is practical, but
one comes along every once in a while that gives you a Eureka moment.

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

and, lastly

- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

In summary - you go, girl!

73, Leo


On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:54:30 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

What you say is true, anyone has the right to exercise bad taste.

On 01 Jan 2004 08:56:39 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?

What should the testing regimen be?

Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Yeah but, following this new "history" of amateur radio, technology as
we know it today might not be the same. There might be no other
"services" to give up spectrum, seeing as how amateur radio has
pioneered much of the technology that people these days take for
granted.

73 de Keith
--
KC8TCQ
ARRL Member - ARES
SKYWARN

Keith Hosman wrote:
On 01 Jan 2004 08:56:39 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?


What should the testing regimen be?

Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Yeah but, following this new "history" of amateur radio, technology as
we know it today might not be the same. There might be no other
"services" to give up spectrum, seeing as how amateur radio has
pioneered much of the technology that people these days take for
granted.


Well, Keith, UR free to contribute what you think it *might* be like!
It was an exercise in imagination.

As for things being different, no kidding!!!!! That was the idea! What
would happen? What would the new amateurs use in the way of modes and
the like?

Use of imagination is seen in things like the few posts that Leo and I
made on likely modes and licensing methods.

Lack of imagination is shown in posts just saying "things would be
different, so there is no use speculating".

- Mike KB3EIA -