On Nov 5, 7:23 pm, AF6AY wrote:
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).

The standardization being discussed was about things like power
connectors and the possible feature of the rig not transmitting
outside
the licensee's privileges (such as no 'phone in the CW/data subbands).

btw, many of the parts in consumer and amateur electronics today
are "house numbered", particularly ICs, and replacements can be a
real problem.

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.

Key factor there is "common agreement of members".

'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.

Even if S meter readings were standardized, differences
in antenna systems would make the readings meaningless
on an absolute scale.

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. :-)

Who are "most", Len?

None of my homebrew receivers or transceivers has ever
had an S meter. Yet I give signal reports as part of most
QSOs.

Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
are designed and made for stand-alone use.

Most are, but not all. For example, the Kachina 505DSP,
introduced about a decade ago, requires connection to a
computer. Same for the Ten Tec Pegasus, introduced
about a year after the 505DSP.

The inexpensive PSK31 transceivers commonly known as
the "Warbler" is another example.

More recently, some software-defined rigs have been produced
that require computer connection to operate.

Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
connector devices or different speaker boxes and
other audio processing things.

Isn't being "outside" the definition of "peripheral"?

Many rigs nowadays have numerous *internal* options as
well, such as filters and firmware upgrades. These are almost
always manufacturer-specific if not model-specific.

At least one company (Elecraft) makes their transceivers
available with a wide variety of internal options that can be
added at initial construction, or later.

For example, their basic K2 transceiver is a 10 watt CW-only
80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10 rig. Options include an antenna
tuning unit, SLA battery, analog and DSP audio filters,
SSB, 160 meters/second receiver antenna input, noise blanker,
60 meters, 100 watt amplifier, and serial port. Their other
products offer similar options. But they are all specific to the
manufacturer.

www.elecraft.com

The external
connections are standardized as to power input
(AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
or DC power from the auto industry),

Not on amateur gear. Some use Molex, some use PowerPoles,
some use other connectors for DC power.

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. :-)

My point exactly.

I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.

What's the puzzlement? It's just a proposed feature.

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. :-)

The idea was that the rig could prevent an amateur from
accidentally transmitting where s/he wasn't supposed to.
Not just out-of-band but out of subband, even when the handy
frequency chart isn't available, or the operator doesn't look at it.

73 de Jim, N2EY