Hi Bonnie, It seems to me that it is more freedom in my "socialistic" country than in US regarding ham radio, but the politics are not my strong side. Have you tested the MIL-STD-188-110 PSK modem yet ( http://neurosis.hungry.com/~ben/radio/188-110/rfsm2400_v037.zip) ? It is really a nice piece of software.
73 de LA5VNA Steinar Norway expeditionradio wrote: > > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > While some of us try to calm down from the Part 97 revisions in the > > USA, I wonder how big a deal having to use <500 HZ data modes really > > is? Take Olivia for example , what real performance differencs are > > there between 16/500 Oliva and 32/1K oLivia ? > > > > Hi Andy, > > Slow texting modes like Olivia are not the problem we are facing with > the recent FCC fiasco. > > The problem is that fast data is in crisis. The rest of the world is > moving ahead with fast data. Some of us (including me) have been using > "new" HF software modems that run 4800 bps in a 3kHz bandwidth. Some > of us (including me) would like to use fast digital to do HF "chat > room" nets with file and image. Some of us would like to continue to > advance with HF communications. > > Please tell me, what difference does it really make whether the > content we send on digital is digital images, digital voice, digital > data, or digital text? The RF signal is exactly the same. The RF > bandwidth is exactly the same. > > Why should USA hams be forced to go back to the Digital Dark Ages? > > To answer your question: The real "big deal" is that a stupid mistake > by FCC staff is causing us to lose more freedom to advance the art of > digital radio communications. > > What if the FCC had eliminated AM phone on HF? AM takes much more > bandwidth than any of the fast data modes. Presently, there are more > hams on HF using fast data than AM. > > FCC should be expanding digital data communications, not stifling it. > > Bonnie KQ6XA > >
