Maybe the approach at fancy (a/k/a expensive) mode use should be changed. Rather than requiring CW ID -- which only lets the world know who's talking -- how about requiring posting of all message to a web page for some short period of time? For example, messages must be posted to a common website within 24 hours and kept available for review for 72 hours?
The page could be userid/password protected with reasonable restrictions on access (licensed hams, SWL's, etc. with verified identity) Require message posting for all modes for which there is not a FREE program available which will allow reception on an above-average, but not high-end system. (At this time, that would probably be a 1 GHz Pentium and Win2K). In other words, if everybody with a modern receiver and modern computer can't read it for free, post it. Who knows? Maybe the PACTOR II and III folks might come up with a FREE receive-only sound-card demodulator? Just something to think about... > Next up is the self policing monitoring issue, if we follow the above > identification guidelines, we'll know both the 'who', and the mode. So > what's left is to make it possible for the average ham with a desire to > 'read the mail' to be able to do so. The soundcard modes and free > distribution of the software, seems to solve this quite nicely. The > real fly in the ointment, is the existing 'standardized' > infrastructure, which is largely based on PACTOR I, II, and III. While > it's no great burden to decode PACTOR I (lots of surplus tnc's have > this capabiility, as well as a linux based soundcard solution). The > fact remains that it is a big financial burden to decode PACTOR II and > III, and our own organization is pushing this as the preferred > solution. Perhaps this was understandable back in the pre-soundcard > mode days, but I would say that with all the work done on digital modes > that don't require a large single use proprietary hardware expense, its > seriously time to make a 'course correction'. We should suggest in the > strongest terms that our 'standard' infrastructure not be based on > proprietary hardware, and should hold our own organization to task to > make that change happen. I wonder if the Winlink2000 crowd wouldn't do > themselves a great service by abandoning PACTOR for a mode that anyone > with a computer could decipher. How much of the resistance in the ham > community is because it is seen as an 'exclusive' club for those with > the dedicated hardware as a requirement for membership. One might also > wonder if they might not have a larger support and user base, if anyone > could 'play' without joining the '$1,000 club'. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
