Karl and the Group:
I do see some possibilities in what Karl is saying. Loosing 70cm??
Possible given enough time, loosing 2m? Kinda doubt it. What industry
would want 2m?? Consider the millions of radios out there on 2 and it
would be like Gates and company going after 11m. I see hams loosing the
vast majority of the unused microwave stuff first, before any attempt is
made to go after highly populated bands. I think this is where hams need
to build independant, high speed networks using 10 GHz, standard
ethernet cards, etc for local stuff. Probably 95% of traffic that is
generated is for local use only. Just think about forgetting ISPs, phone
companys, ARINC et el. The higher speed could support voice, video, etc
just fine. Use HF for the things that don't need lots of bandwidth,
email is about the only example I can think of right now. Why settle for
using a proprietary protocol?? What's wrong with developing open source
protocols?? Aside from fighting the FCC on this, example, trying out
PSK31 - is that legal in the US?? All development done on DSP with
frequency agile radios, etc to adapt to changing HF propagation?? I'm
not talking HF spread, just the ability to change bands when condx at a
remote site degrade. Almost all newer rigs can be controlled via a
serial port. Amateurs world wide are going to have to adapt to the
changing landscape, just like in the past. How about open source
hardware?? Nothing is really different here, other than the passing of
time.
Just my $.02! es 73!
.mark
=================================================
Mark Schoonover KA6WKE IS Manager
Trail Runner,HAM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ka6wke@wb6dgr.#sca.ca.usa.noam
http://www.qsl.net/ka6wke ka6wke-1 145.05
Mobile: 146.52 & 28.470
Long: 32.85380 Lat: -117.00980 Grid: DM12LU
=================================================
>----------
>From: Karl F. Larsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:47 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: A dose of reality
>
>
> The End of VHF/UHF
>
> Karl Larsen K5DI
>
> March 7, 1999
>
>
> Last summer the President of ARRL spoke at the Alamogordo NM
>Ham-fest and said the ARRL legal team is busy daily around the year
>fighting companies that want to co-use or take away our VHF and UHF
>Ham bands.
>
> I talked to my Senator Pete Domenici and he said Motorola
>and Microsoft are spending big money in congress this year and
>pushing "reform of the FCC rules". It is a matter of the greatest
>good for the largest number of people that drives Congress.
>
> To get a feel for the kind of money I am talking about,
>Microsoft is spending 12 Billion Dollars on their near earth system
>and Motorola has spent 9 Billion and is spending at the rate of 2
>Billion per year.
>
> It is common to spend 5-10% of a projects money on obtaining
>the proper Government lean towards the companies work. So assuming
>they use only 5% you still have at least one Billion dollars for
>getting Government on your side. That is 1000 Million Dollar bribes
>or like that.
>
> Now we Hams have history and a few good lawyers on our side.
>We will not be a push-over to beat but the fact is we will lose. I
>expect the method will be to "share" frequencies. And after just a
>few years we will lose it all.
>
> My guess is the first to go will be the 420-450 MHz band. We
>share it with the Defense Dept. and while Defense was strong we were
>safe. But now Defense is weaker and I believe industry will get
>420-430 MHz in the year 2000.
>
> Then 144-148 MHz will be hit with industry getting 146-148
>MHz and this will happen around 2003. As time passes industry will
>get more and more until there is no more.
>
> For good technical reasons industry doesn't want the HF
>bands. They are noisy and un-reliable and not useful for wide band
>data. So my Ham activities are going towards HF, and by accident the
>bands are getting better.
>
> The cute idea of using HF packet called PACTOR to send and
>receive Internet e-mail to mobile hams looks good and I plan to try
>it. Alas at this time the only PACTOR driver I can find is high
>priced from Kantronics and WinLink which is free and both run in
>Windows 98. I d/l Winlink and it's very nice software. Done in Visual
>C and the loader looks like any of the new Microsoft software and it
>does run.
>
> Looking at PACTOR II which seems to be the very best HF
>system but can't yet get a price from PacComm for the modem. And when
>I get the price that may make straight PACTOR more attractive...:-) I
>can get a MFJ 1276 "Packet/Pactor controller" for $139.95 from AES
>and that is quite cheap. This is what most people are using I think.
>
> I hope someone good at programing gets interested and writes
>a driver for Pactor in Linux. I get my Internet e-mail on Linux and
>use procmail to sort it. So no problem putting mail to me in a
>special place.
>
>Best wishes
>
> - Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303 -
>
>
