Karl F. Larsen wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
KFL> Mike those very hard words we heard from Hank W0RLI and
KFL> others were not born of a technical consideration, they were
KFL> from money basis. I am not at all sure CLOVER works as well as
KFL> the users would have us believe, but since the protocal was
KFL> held secret you could only find out by buying a CLOVER unit.
KFL> That was the outcome they hoped for. Instead it was found that
KFL> Gateways using the Internet were cheaper and faster.
Well, I don't really agree in the case of Clover. First of all, my
understanding is that Petit has a patent on at least some of Clover, which may
well afford a very high degree of protection for a limited time, but I really
don't know the details. Patents and copyrights are radically different.
Second, Clover boards are made under license by HAL Communications, whose bread
and butter business is commercial communications. When I was handed one of the
first prototypes of the Clover board at a CNC, I practically fell off my chair:
just from reading the numbers off the chips, I concluded that the $1000 amateur
price tag was obviously fair. That board was, of course, effectively
superseded for amateur use by HAL's much cheaper P38, but that board has
slightly reduced capabilities relative to the original and was designed several
years later, so it is no surprise that it is cheaper.
While my personal view is that proprietary protocols should be deprecated in
ham radio, I think Clover is a special case, and that HAL was not setting out
to rake the ham community pricewise. HAL's goal was to sell Clover primarily
into the commercial HF data market, where it has clear advantages over common
techniques such as SITOR. The fact that there is amateur pricing on what is
intended as a high-end commercial product is itself a major concession and
courtesy from HAL. Also, while I would regard a copyright claim on a protocol
to be absurd on its face, a patent claim has to be taken far more seriously.
KFL> This you can get from the ARRL Handbook.
Thanks. :)
KFL> MB> FSK and PSK are essentially the same thing as far as this
KFL> MB> issue goes, and you } can regard FSK as a special case of
KFL> MB> PSK.
KFL> Exactly. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp,
KFL> but FM and PSK are in the same units and are the same thing.
KFL> PSK is usually used if the phase shift is less than 360
KFL> degrees. FM is used when phase shift is thousands of degrees.
I would have to say that I've never heard it described quite that way.
Tell me, what is it called when the phase shift is exactly 360 degrees?
KFL> MB> I don't want to get into this issue in detail because
KFL> MB> experience has shown that it provokes religious arguments,
KFL> MB> but the math is clear.
KFL> Like I say it isn't a religious argument. It is over money.
I do not want to be misinterpreted on this: I refer to the FSK vs. PSK issue as
liable to provoke religious warfare, not anything else.
-- Mike
