Phil Kane wrote:

...
I do believe that the thrust of this group is to further Amateur
Radio, not "the 'net".

Then there are those of us who are professionals in spectrum
regulatory management who believe that this is a harebrained idea
from the get-go that violates good professional practice.

My NSHPO.


Regards,
JS
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net


Phil:

Interesting point ... the not-too-distant-future (year? two? few years?)
should either prove you right, or wrong ... "harebrained idea", huh,
we'll see ... professional? Huh, I am one myself--does that mean "I am
never wrong?" -- NO! (I find crystal balls are that way.) Professional
means I must revise my facts constantly to keep up with new developments
and be ready to revise "accepted notions" at any moment -- i.e., stand
corrected! I am sure you are prepared to do the same -- being a
"professional" and all ...

However, there are those who are like me, basically, we envision
communication for what it is--freqs, protocols, purposes, reasons,
traditional-justifications/historical-justifications, equipment,
firmware, software, etc. be damned ... we/I see amateur radio simply
interfacing to the net as seamlessly as the other forms of
communications are/have done ... I frequently use magicjack/voip--I am
certain this worries AT&T ... the possibilities with amateur radio are
mind boggling -- and YET to be developed.

This means, your amateur broadcast may begin on your xmitter, transverse
a cell tower, a hard phone-line, a trans-atlantic cable, satellite, etc.
before it arrives at the fellow amateurs' shack--in Australia!--and the
packets decoded to voice/video/data.

Regards,
JS