----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:21
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306
Rant
Lost in the rhetoric against Winlink....is the
real reason for RM-11305/6.....
There is a third Camp...those of us who love to
experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are
kept in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by
mode....
US Hams are falling further and further behind in
"advancing the art of radio" because we are shackled by the archaic
rules..
And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far
enough in freeing us from Technolgy Jail...
Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to
the model that the rest of the world is adopting...and which we will
ultimately adopt some time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we
can do for now...
And I am constantly amazed at the provincial
attitudes of US Hams who we can ignore the rest of the
world.
If the rest of the world is or will be regulation
by bandwidth...and we share those same frequencies with the rest of the
world... What is the point of keeping us in Technology Jail?....when
everyone else on those same frequencies is not?
__________________________________________________________
Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Website:
www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished"
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:16
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] RM-11306
Rant
The whole bandwidth RM issue brings what I think is a
philosophical
argument to Amateur Radio and it is probably a good time to
put the
discussion in those very simple philosophical points of view.
On the one hand we have the Winlink, and email over HF radio
camp,
which seem to view Amateur Radio in general as an ends to a means.
The
means appears to be well intentioned and altruistic in nature, but
is
fraught with conflicts of interest due to financial interests in
terms
of equipment providers by parties who are advocates of this sort
of
service. While the RF and radio aspects of Winlink are important
is
some ways, the payload or content of the information appears to be
the
driving force. From personal communications from amateurs to
non
amateurs via email to access to sources of information to the
amateur
radio operator which are not readily available by other means,
such as
weather forecasts etc, it's the information content which is
important.
On the other hand are the traditionalists who view
Amateur Radio
communications as a direct person to person form of
communications.
Third parties operating on scare spectrum resources for
the benefit of
content, at least in the form of "Robot" servers are alien
to this
point of view. The information content in the traditional view
of
Amateur radio is not structured and is in some sense, the
information
content is what ever a fellow amateur wishes to convey.
This point of
view values the art and pleasure of communications higher
than the
content. (I'm in this camp by the way)
Turning from
the fundamental philosophical issues, there are other
issues at play that
range from the use of proprietary modulation
formats and techniques on
what are public spectrum resources, to the
role of automation of use of
radio spectrum along with allocation of
spectrum resources to tasks.
The ARRL in it's infinite wisdom has seen fit to ignore
the
fundamental differences in opinion on this fundamental point of
view
which may be present membership of the league, while at the same
time
those that are more interested in the content of the
communications
have done exactly what their point of view tells them is
the correct
thing, namely advocated with rule making that empowers their
point of
view. I'm not quite sure if the ARRL is merely
incompetent, tone deaf
or bought and paid for, I leave that for others to
decide.
In short, the debate turns over a fundamental view of what
is amateur
radio is, and what it will become in the future. In the
final
analysis, it is the role of the FCC to listen to the public, for
who
they work, and issue rules which seek to balance the two points of
view.
Comment, don't comment, but at the end of the day, things will
either
change or not change based on comments made by the owners of
the
spectrum, you.
