Len:

Don't tell them that digital voice is really a "stream" of numbers which
describe your voice/words/tone/etc really, and the other phone (computer
really) decodes the instructions and recreates a "clone" of the original analog
signal which you will hear.

Also, skip the part about these numbers being encased in packets with a CRC
(cyclic redundancy code, read about it on the net, simple to the point of being
boring--think "error checking" here) and if there is a "error worth noting" the
packet is discarded and a copy of it resent (if it can't be done within a
reasonable length of time--microseconds, a defective packet is "played" hoping
you can "decode" the error with your ear), so that digital audio can be about
as close to perfect as can be obtained (indeed, it can be perfect, if that is
what you want--or not at all!) Also, the phones have loads of memory (the good
ones) so that packets can be stored and ordered and time spent holding one
packet while a previous is being "error corrected."

Well, in a nutshell description, that is... but just don't mention all that,
too confusing for "Neanderthal hams", and the few others here probably already
know...

John
wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:52

K4YZ wrote:

QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS

In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often
work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal
Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service
across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the
agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service.

I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that
digital is not better.

You've had experience with a lot of digital voice, have you?

I can show you were MOST folks in here have had experience
with digital voice. Bet you won't know where, though...


While it performs well under many circumstances,
it has it's own set of shortcomings.

Such as?

The U.S. military doesn't think so. [but, what do they know,
right?] The WLAN users and installers don't think so. [but,
what do they know, right?] The commercial and government
radio users don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?]
How about the telephone people...do they think so? [but, what
do they know, right?]

Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio,
from what I have seen so far.

What have you "seen so far?" Do your ears see? Or is all your
"experience" with digital voice that of others' writings in
here?

'Fess up, Mikey. You HAVE used digital voice and aren't aware
you are using it when you do. shrug

There's not even a STANDARD for digital voice on amateur radio
bands yet. There's no way it can be directly compatible with
old-time analog voice...it will need both encoders and decoders
as peripherals with purely-analog radios...or it will need a
radio that has such things built-in. Building-in digital voice
(and data or whatever) will incur a development charge which has
to be recouped by amortizing that over a specific time in the
manufactured equipment sales prices.

That you can't envision such a thing is of no surprise to me.
Few radio amateurs are either flexible enough or experienced
enough with new modes and methods, therefore are extreme
conservatives when it comes to new developments...if QST
hasn't run an article on it, then "it doesn't exist" and
"can't be done!" :-)

doo dah