Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

Transmitting 50 kilowatts from a single site capable of covering most of
North America, using groundwave propagation, independent of solar
activity, is an "outrageously inefficient way to distribute a small
quantity of information?" Well, I do hope that you are hurrying to
write your Congressman to demand that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology put an immediate end to this grave outrage, and
profound waste of taxpayer's money that has been going on for decades.
After all, what does the NIST know about technology, or useful
communications? Perhaps as little as the engineers and marketers in the
economically successful and useful product field of WWVB watches and
clocks, in your estimation.


Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.


[...]
I think you are underestimating the power of SMS. As for the comparison
to E-mail, I don't have to ask, as journalists have already done so,
including this recent article from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/

Simply put, young people find appeal in the immediacy of small, but
low-latency messages sent in relatively large numbers over a long period
of time, and the information transmitted is far more rich and meaningful
that what you imply above. In many respects, this type of communication
is not stilted or limited, but almost provides the immediacy of a
conversation, without having to run up your voice minute charges or
leave your other callers unable to reach you due to the long-term busy
signal.

Young people do still use E-mail, but in circumstances for which it is
the better choice. They are not seeking some overall best "general
purpose communications" to get their messages across to each other.


I don't see anything in that that contradicts my statement that SMS
is mainly used for messages of little importance. It is also called CMS,
for casual messaging service.


I didn't realize that only "general purpose communications" were
considered worthwhile.


A multi-purpose system that can match a single-purpose system on the
performance of the objectives of the single-purpose system is generally,
if not universally, considered superior.


Your previous reply argued that it was
undesirable to use such a low-speed technology as Morse code given that
there were many higher-speed alternatives (faster by "orders of
magnitude" you said). I replied to you that fastest is not always best.
Other issues (previously enumerated by me) might actually dictate the
choice of lower-speed communications as the best choice.

I also don't see "general purpose communications" mentioned in Part 97.
Many "single purpose, dedicated systems" are used by amateurs, and
help fulfill amateur radio's Basis and Purpose. In many cases, a
"single purpose" technology is far more useful than a misfit,
one-size-fits-all, "general purpose" one.

Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?


Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
(condensed from Part 97.1):

* emergency communications
* contribute to the advancement of the radio art
* advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
the art
* expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
* continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill


Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data," in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?


A single quantity, like time or location


What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"


Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND location or course
AND speed.


So, in other words, you are actually agreeing with my previous reply to
you that there are many useful Morse code based communications
technologies that do not actually require memorized, in-head, copy of
Morse code. I'm glad that we agree on something.


There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other, better suited languages
available. This includes aeronautical beacons. You are grasping at
straws, now.


Wow, these curmudgeons must have been very powerful and effective in
their obstructionism if they undermined entire areas of communications
technology development in this country over the last 30-40 years. I
didn't realize that our national technology infrastructure was so
inflexible and lethargic that it could not recover from these
influences, even after so many decades.


When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body. There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers." Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in amateur radio.
But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by. It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation. I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.


Just the introduction to your previous article, where you directly
compare the Baud rate of Morse code with that of "obsolete" telephone
modems. You stated that their data rates differed by "orders of
magnitude," implying that communications technologies that were "orders
of magnitude" slower than telephone modems could be dismissed as
obsolete.


An amusing interpretation. It follows that trains and ships should be
discarded because they are much slower than airplanes.


Following the natural extension of that argument, then the
only technologies that could be favorably compared to such telephone
modems, and meet your argued standard of non-obsolete, could only be
realized on high VHF and up. As I argued previously, use and advocacy
of Morse code has no bearing on the current deployment of such
technologies, as no Morse code test has been required to access them for
at least 17 years. The Technician-class license has existed for far
longer, and has only a minimal Morse code examination.


You left out the faster mode of communication known as "voice." It is
widely used on HF. Further, I once looked at a band plan that showed how
DV could be used on HF. They described a system of HF DV that took up
just slightly more bandwidth than SSB and substantially less than AM.


So, to summarize:

slow-speed (less than 100 baud) PSK31 : "Good"

similar order-of-magnitude speed Morse code: "Bad"

So, it's not the speed you object to, it's the use of Morse code?
Couldn't you have just stated that, and not gone to the trouble of
bringing in other arguments like speed and bandwidth, or whether a
communications technology is sufficiently "general purpose" or not,
regardless of whether something "general purpose" would be the best
choice in a given circumstance? Just say that you don't like Morse
code. Others would at least give you credit for honesty.


Who are these "others" and when did they appoint you as their
spokesman?


References please? A Google search returns no evidence that Navy
stations like NAA in Cutler, Maine have gone off-line. Are you possibly
thinking of their ELF experiments that were recently ended? Even if so,
what competing technology is the Navy contemplating that will reliably
contact our submarine fleet that has "gone deep" under many fathoms of
RF-attenuating sea water?


I am thinking of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the
increased reliance on TACAMO aircraft (at the time of the shutdown).


I also didn't realize that amateur radio had similar "networks" that
would need to be shut down.


The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive use.
I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions). There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios. It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys. I don't think
they will last long.
While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse requirement for an
HF license. Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations. How do you explain that? To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.


Looked pretty coherent to me, but for your benefit, I'll dissect it in
detail:

"If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies ..."

In other words, amateur radio has failed to meet some standard of
technology development. Other people were somehow "wasting" their time
doing other things.

"... (other than you, of course) ..."

What have you done to make amateur radio a better place? Have you
written your Congressman? Petitioned the FCC? Worked in the
communications engineering and technology field? Developed amateur radio
software and hardware solutions? You seem to be knowledgeable on many
technical subjects, including the history of that technology over many
decades. Did you try to change things, or are you asserting that you
did not have the skills or abilities to help do so, even working with
others over many decades?


I have worked in the electronics industry. I have made my views clear
to any and all who had an interest in the subject. I made those views as
clear then as I have done in this newsgroup.


"... and since they haven't, then someone *must* be blamed, ..."

I was implying that you were seeking scapegoats, as it is easier to
blame others than look in the mirror.

"... well, you can't really dictate how the world should turn out
without taking an active role to help make it that way."

In other words, Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way. "Sidewalk
Superintendents" have very little influence on society. What is your
choice?

Also, some people seem to confuse actual solutions to problems (whether
in amateur radio, or on the newsgroups) with a contest over who can
become the most "outraged." To quote Jim Kelley, AC6XG:

"Outrage, and a buck-fifty, will get us exactly what?"

--
Klystron