I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers
( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to
have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they
can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have
spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a
QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a
couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet
capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public
library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and
hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them.
Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial
phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it
was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the
bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and
welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad
satellite communicatiions for.
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Ivey
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what
would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the
traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the
communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be
allowed on the ham bands.
Joe
W4JSI
----- Original Message -----
From: kv9u
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe,
I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first
came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily
to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was
influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very
great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to
say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF
bands.
The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to
place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands
providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were
fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of
the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then
they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done
primarily to accomodate Pactor 3.
While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands,
good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become
aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle
potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for
emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be
some priority and heath and welfare traffic.
E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done
deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now
without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't
seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use
or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something
that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain
access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and
the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not
always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you
might want it.
My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available,
preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be
accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have
been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000
system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail,
which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of
Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Joe Ivey wrote:
> I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the
> ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an
> internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related
> to ham radio.
>
> I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and
> would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a
> purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the
> term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to life,
> injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a
> general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from
> the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a
> great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when
> we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check
> is email should not be allowed on the ham bands.
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
> Joe
> W4JSI
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007
10:58 AM
