My life experience has been that most people resist
change especially when it comes to new technology and more especially when it
involves a paradigm shift...I was around for the SSB wars and the FM wars and
clearly remember the initial fights with the "old guard" to get them
adopted . The comments then almost perfectly mirror the comments
today about DV.... Once the "early adopters" got enough traction to
get the new technologies past the "Luddites" and built up a critical mass of
users, then the economic engine took over, the prices dropped and the majority
finally followed suit.... Frankly I have done very well economically by
always being ahead of the curve...and understanding the natural resistance of
people to even inevitable change.
So yes.. the majority is resistant to almost every
change...until the economic case becomes overwhelming...
Yes ... I am probably overly optimistic about the
current state of DV... but we need to be able to experiment with the many
possible variations of the technologies... without having to constantly consider
arcane regulations...that were written for the last century...There is probably
some ham out there...like Nino, IB8BLY, who might just come up with a Spread
Spectrum 2400 baud HF system (not legal under current US regs) that works at
acceptable S/N rations and yet enables multiple QSO's in the same bandwidth of a
HF phone QSO.
Yes D-Star looks very interesting.. and maybe there
may be a way to make it or some similar technology work on HF...
Yes ... I agree that the proposed changes the ARRL
is requesting is nowhere near enough to give us the freedom we need to
experiment... but it is at least a small first step...
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
"No Good Deed Goes
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital
voice on HF
Your clear implication was that the
majority of hams are resistant to
new technologies. The facts do not
support your contention if you look
long term at how things have evolved.
While there were a few people who
poked fun at the audio quality of SSB,
most of us were very interested
in moving toward SSB as economics
permitted. We were not resistant due
to some nostalgia issue.
this time, DV does not seem to have enough advantages over SSB. And
never have. There seems to be some limitations due to the science
the technology. With the relatively narrow bandwidth proposals,
be some severe limits put upon DV on HF bands. Perhaps there
will be some
kind of breakthrough eventually but I am somewhat skeptical
of it due to
the scientific limits.
At this point, DV appears to offer higher
quality audio, with good
frequency response and low noise but the tradeoff
is that signals have
to be quite good or else you have no signal at all.
Because HF is often
running close to the edge on many signals, this is not
a useful mode. It
can work on spot frequencies, so that stations are able
to tune in the
Your belief that DV will lead to an order of
magnitude of capacity seems
very unrealistic. Again I am skeptical that
this is technically possible
with narrow BW's. The cell phone systems do
not use narrow technology.
When you consider the amount of traffic on cell
phone frequencies, the
BW used per user is very high.
rules do NOT impede DV experimentation. DV is used now by
those who wish
to use it.
I would suggest that if the new BW limitations are adopted,
likely have more restrictions for the development of DV since the
are so limited. Even the narrowest DV used on commercial circuits are
much wider than anything we currently have on HF. It can work on VHF, of
course, and we are seeing some movement toward that direction with
D-Star. But it does not seem to be useable on
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> I did
not call the majority "stupid" - you did... I said that the
usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace
> the new
technologies....Harking back to the economic argument of AM vs
I recall very clearly that the AM forces were using exactly the
economic argument against SSB.. ie why abandon perfectly good AM
radios and buy expensive SSB radios... Well 50 years later you are
> using the same unrealistic argument against DV.
> In reality we need to experiment with these new technologies...and
> with experimentation just like with SSB they will get much less
> expensive.... The equivalent example is your cell phone which
> very inexpensive DV transceiver wherein upwards of 20 QSO's
> single analogue voice channel without any QRM... For
Ham use, there
> does not need to be a central server.. in fact thats
one of the
> interesting areas we can experiment with. DV
opens up all kinds of
> interesting possibilities that neither you or I
have yet to imagine.
> Like with the Cell Phone industry which
has totally adopted DV, it
> will give us the potential of having an
order of magnitude more
> communications capacity within the existing
bands. The cool things to
> do will be to experiment with it on
HF and figure out how to optimize
> it for Ham use...
> Time frame: Currently every time you want to experiment with
> something new on the ham bands, you have to perform some witchcraft
> decipher the current rules to see if you are legal.. the new
> proposals should make experimentation
> realistically there is a lot of
existing DV technology in the cell
> phone industry that we could
adopt...just like in the old FM days when
> we used older Police and
Fire radios...because they were cheap...So we
> may be a lot closer to
inexpensive DV than you think....