Posted by on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:23:33 EST

On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.

STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards,
make up nearly everything in the component parts of any
manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment
for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners
(nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry
standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors,
transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes).
There's industry standards on aluminum and magnesium
alloys, even some on castings of same. There's industry
standards on rack panels even though that was once
started by AT&T for the telephone infra-structure. There's
industry standards on wire (American Wire Gauge ruling
through the market demand)...although those standards v.
government specifications blur for heavier guages.

The 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% logarithmic-sequence of parts
values has become a de facto standard because of its
ease in equating the parts' tolerances. The 'UHF' series
of common RF connectors on amateur radios was
originally a military specification but has become a de
facto standard through its incorporation; the military
doesn't use it now, hasn't for years, the patents on it
have run out and it is a relatively cheap coaxial connector
compared to other, better coaxial connectors.

2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
means less sales

Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a
commercial company engaged in providing air-ground
communications with aircraft before our government
got its act together and created the air traffic control
system. They still do that but ARINC is better
known to commercial avionics equipment makers as
an industry Standards Group that, by common
agreement of members, establishes standards on all
civilian avionics equipment. Those cover everything
from cases, their mounting equipment, even the control
wiring with specified connectors and specific connections
for control functions. ARINC standards have been
acceptable to manufacturers and users for fifty years.
The civilian avionics market is smaller than the USA
amateur radio market.

The 'D-Star' VHF-UHF standard, currently under large
promotion by Icom, may or may not become a
standard. A lot of opposition to that standard is from
US amateurs because it originated in Japan and was
conceived and tested there. shrug

'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to
receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use'
standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet
most are under the impression that all S Meters are
calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely
report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-)

Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
are designed and made for stand-alone use.
Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
connector devices or different speaker boxes and
other audio processing things. The external
connections are standardized as to power input
(AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
or DC power from the auto industry), computer
interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those
are included for read-out or computer control, and
'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna
tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by
independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker,
morse key connections still aren't standardized
fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows
more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-)

I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.
Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same
aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement
terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at
the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities
and may change at any time dependent on that nation's
politicking for sub-band use. :-)

I've seen a LOT of different human factors documents and
guides, but have yet to see a specific arrangement for
manual control functions on any consumer electronics
product. The 'need' for that seems to be no different for
remote control via computer. Computer interfaces are
very standardized now but that industry has had a
quarter century to work those out; they evolved in
the same manner as all standards did. Some have
disappeared such as the 5 1/4" floppy and the
'Centronics' connector (Amphenol Blue-Ribbon); the 8"
floppy and CP/M OS disappeared so early that few
computerists of today know they once existed. :-)
PC operating systems are standardized on the MS
Windows package through agressive marketing and
buyers agreeing to that despite the 'Linux' alternative.

De facto 'standards' will come about through a
combination of manufacturer's marketing efforts and
public acceptance...plus other manufacturers
offering 'compatible' things to work with the apparent
market-leader that started the de facto standard.
That's how it was "forty years ago" and that's how it
will continue to be. shrug

AF6AY