Generally, WE ALL are familiar with the ease in which we can work the world on the Internet. We're all pretty familiar, more or less, with text messaging on cell phones and IM with YAHOO, AOL and the like. Teens and young adults are fairly well-versed with the new technologies and "wants 'n gimmies" available today, that's for sure, and they expect nothing less today.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather use the faster PSK or 100 wpm RTTY, etc when typing 'cause I do type around 78 wpm. I can fill up a type-ahead buffer fairly easily and it becomes a game with me to do so. The only thing that "multi-gigibit bandwidth" would provide us is the ability to transfer data in some form. I'm not sure how that would fit into daily Ham ops that do not involve data other than SSTV or DRM or one or two of the other modes. I consider SSTV and DRM simply data despite the technical definitions and hair-splitting. I know we could start a hard discussion on this involving definition of terms and I suppose anything not voice could be called "data." I differentiate between PSK, etc keyboard-to-keyboard as not being data as such; it involves slow speed with intermittant, manual information transfer. I'm just saying that high speed would be useful with large blocks of "data" or information that is not typed manually during transmission. High speed would allow it to be sent between two or more points rapidly. ARRL broadcasts could be sent high speed for example, telemetry blocks from ISS, EMCOMM information and status reports, support requests, etc. Most operators would not have a need for high speed comms in my opinion. That said, the lack of need and maybe the assumed lack of interest would not help to promote the advancement of our hobby technically speaking. Experimentation leads to innovation and subsequent use/need development. I didn't have any use for the Internet and any of its tools for Ham Radio until I started to use/experiment with it. Restrictive and ill-conceived FCC rulings or equally ill-conceived band plans serve mostly to stifle ground- breaking technological growth and development. They can also stifle the technology now in use. I'm rambling here but from my perspective, the notion of the lack of high speed isn't the issude for newbies. Your comment about the magic of doing it without wires is quite accurate. I experience it frequently with the neighbors while talking to someone abroad, DIRECT, without Internet connection. They're simply fascinated and quite interested, both YOUNG and old......even while holding their IPOD and cell cam phone. The younger ones aren't spoiled with the technology today; they simply have it available and we as olders did not when young. It doesn't make me proud to have had to "walk 20 miles through the snow to deliver a message" as it were. Sometimes, there's things about the "good ol' days" that just aren't so nifty. I'm 62 and I wish I could have been born just a little later when I think about the advances that'll be happening to the hobby and the world's technology in general. Keeping a "snail's-paced approach" overall just doesn't cut it any more. IMHO of course........ Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other. I would almost bet there are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids? >SNIP< >SNIP<
