--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Scott Erwin <n4zou@y...> wrote:
> While we are changing
> bandwidth use on HF lets turn loose wideband FM in the
> phone sections of the HF band's where the HI-FI audio
> people can have truly great sounding audio! Lets also
> not forget AM operators who must use old gear or
> homebrew there own E-class transmitters. We need to
> get some commercial company to mass produce both
> "classic" AM and wideband FM for use on our HF bands.
> While we are at it let's get fast scan TV going on HF,
> so what if it takes up the entire band, the wideband
> digital proponents must think there is plenty of space
> available for use with there amateur to Internet mail
I can not support your views on promoting wide bandwidth modes:)
However, we do need to have equity between those who use a voice width
channel for different purposes.
Please tell us what is the difference between a digital voice
transmission or a data transmission or an image transmission? Why is
one more important than another.
> We really don't need fast baud rates for
> sending simple and small text files between amateur
> emergency stations or even the Internet although I
> would not want to be dependent on access for the
> system to properly operate.
We do need to have much faster throughput in order to send documents
through amateur radio channels. Many of us currently do use
unconnected narrow modes for casual keyboard chatting but they do not
work adequately for practical message traffic. Nor for sending data
that we would like to share, such as images, mixed with data, audio, etc.
And in order to enhance amateur radio's emergency abilities, we
certainly must have a way to deliver messages in a timely manner.
There were those of us who were active in NTS in the past, and who
often found the delivery times not only unacceptable, but actually
embarrassing and that was 20 years ago! Today we only have one way to
do it and that is by melding two technologies which by themselves can
not get the job done, but together allow us to do something that was
heretofore not possible. And almost no one else can do it except us!
> I was around when Packet
> was the in thing to do and you could send messages all
> across the country using 300 and 1200 baud rates on HF
> and VHF ...
I was one of the earliest packet adopters. In fact, at the time there
was resistance by some to use this new mode in place of vhf rtty:) But
that eventually changed. While we never had a serious RF packet system
for sending messages in real time, there were wormholes (actually the
internet, for all practical purposes) that helped make it work better
even with the "H" routing system. Today that is mostly obsolete due to
everything going over to e-mail routing.
Packet died because the average ham was not interested in supporting
an expensive infrastructure that could not compete with the advancing
technologies. I could not even get any interest in 9k6 speeds in my area.