RadioBanter - View Single Post

Klystron · March 24th 08, 10:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated

wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?

Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.

See my response to Phil Kane. A computer running ntpd can get
metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use radio
only, Internet only or both.

Then, there is the matter of GPS, which has a time capability
that is incidental to its navigation function.

GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
receiver.

In or near the continental US, that is not an issue.

The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.

No, it's an incidental benefit. It does not require the transmission
of additional information.

There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.

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.

Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.

I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.

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.

Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.

Utter hogwash. It started out as a network of Universities and a few
defense contractors' laboratories. Much of the funding came from the
individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary. Besides, after the
Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet
(with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the
small slice of that pie.

There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers."

Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.

Again, that is preposterous nonsense.

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.

How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.

The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1994. At that
time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities that
covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics. You had to learn
it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
architecture.

That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of
determined, driven advancement of technology that was once
seen in amateur radio.

The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.

The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a violation
and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that was long
ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.

[...]
The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.

What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.

The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voice. Until
fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data." There was some RTTY,
but it was never a major issue. For many decades, the traffic in the HF
ham bands was SSB voice or CW. A pie chart would show a very small slice
labeled "other."

[...]
It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.

There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.

What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is
that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there
are very many first time key buyers today.

[...]
I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.

So you admit that different countries interpreted their treaty
obligations in different ways?

[...]
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.

[...]

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?

I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research for you, but
there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
modified over a period of years. No-code HF licenses came about over
time in a number of countries. The US was either one of the last to drop
code or was dead last to do so.

--
Klystron