On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:09:58 EDT, John Smith
wrote:


These freqs, being opened up for the net, is a very exciting development
... I believe the opportunities and access provided will greatly expand
the availability to the net under adverse circumstances, and make
greater speeds available to those who were lacking the same ...

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 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

On Jul 28, 2:35�am, John Smith wrote:

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 ...

There's a fundamental problem with that viewpoint - see below.

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.

There's a difference between what can be done and what should be done.

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.

The problem is that such a mindset as you describe misses a
fundamental point about what amateur radio is all about. Indeed, it
misses a fundamental point about what *life* is all about.

What you describe is what could be described as "the mindset of the
destination" or "the mindset of the message". Meaning all that matters
is getting there, not the method or the journey. And for a lot of
things, that's perfectly OK; I don't really care what exact path or
technology routes my phone call or my email as long as it gets there
reliably and at low cost. Most people don't care if the TV show they
watch is delivered by magnetic tape, optical disc, RF in the air, RF
in a cable, or light in a fiber, it's the program content that matters
to them.

But there's another mindset to consider as well, which can be
described as "the mindset of the method" or "the mindset of the
journey". It's the mindset where the route, the technology, the
experience, etc., *do* make a difference to the person. In many cases
the journey is more important than the destination. And it's a big
part of what Amateur Radio is all about.

Because one of the main reason for Amateur Radio to exist is that it
is "radio for its own sake". A thing done for its own intrinsic value
to the doer, not just for the final result.

It's like asking why anyone goes fishing non-professionally when they
can buy fish cheaper at the market. Or why anyone rides a bike, walks
or runs when they have a perfectly good car, or cooks when they can go
to a restaurant. Why anyone would paint or draw when there are
perfectly good cameras of many types.

The answer is that they are doing those things for the doing, not just
for the end result. A QSO from my radio to another ham's, direct by
ionosphere, troposphere, aurora, etc., is not the same journey as a
net-simulation, just as my homemade bread is not the same as a loaf
bought in a store.

More than ten years ago, I saw discussions about how practically all
that we radio amateurs do on HF from fixed points could be done on the
net using various forms of simulation/emulation. And I'm sure it could
be done.

The folks who proposed this simply didn't understand the difference
between the journey and the destination.

That difference is very important.

---

There's another factor: Having an alternate system. Too much
dependence on a single system is not always a good thing, because when
(not if) that system fails there's no alternative - no backup. Too
much dependence on a single system also stifles creativity because all
thought tends to be conditioned to that system.

--

None of this means Amateur Radio must never ever connect to the 'net
or to other communications systems. What it does mean is that such
connections are an enhancement and/or interface, not a replacement for
"A Boy And His Radio" (to use K0HB's phrase).

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:35�am, John Smith wrote:

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 ...

There's a fundamental problem with that viewpoint - see below.

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.

There's a difference between what can be done and what should be done.

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.

The problem is that such a mindset as you describe misses a
fundamental point about what amateur radio is all about. Indeed, it
misses a fundamental point about what *life* is all about.

We often get a mistaken notion, even among some Hams, that the whole
point of Ham radio is for Hams to talk to each other. I've been taken to
task time and again for saying that isn't the point, or at least it is
only one of them.

If talking was the main point, I can pick up my cell phone and call
around the world - to an absolutely huge base of people to talk to. Many
more people to talk to than using Ham radio. Why use a radio at all?

A lot of Amateur radio is not about talking. It is about putting a
system together, building antennas and other equipment. tinkering with
software, having fun doing stuff. Learning things. For my self, I'm
probably at about a 10 to 1 ratio of doing other Ham radio activities to
talking.


What you describe is what could be described as "the mindset of the
destination" or "the mindset of the message". Meaning all that matters
is getting there, not the method or the journey.

I am always a little worried that it can give rise to "The ends justify
the means".




And for a lot of
things, that's perfectly OK; I don't really care what exact path or
technology routes my phone call or my email as long as it gets there
reliably and at low cost. Most people don't care if the TV show they
watch is delivered by magnetic tape, optical disc, RF in the air, RF
in a cable, or light in a fiber, it's the program content that matters
to them.

But there's another mindset to consider as well, which can be
described as "the mindset of the method" or "the mindset of the
journey". It's the mindset where the route, the technology, the
experience, etc., *do* make a difference to the person. In many cases
the journey is more important than the destination. And it's a big
part of what Amateur Radio is all about.

One of the reasons that I stopped taking the interstates whenever
possible. I decided to let the majority white knuckle it out with the
trucks, the crazies going 100 mph, and the last mile dash to the
construction zone so that the driver is first in line to stop and wait.

While I take the old road at 5 miles over the speed limit, arrive stress
free, and surprisingly enough, at just about the same time as if I would
have taken the interstate.

It's the journey.


Because one of the main reason for Amateur Radio to exist is that it
is "radio for its own sake". A thing done for its own intrinsic value
to the doer, not just for the final result.

And yet, the knowledge gained is most useful. SO many of the things
done by Amateur radio operators have a value in real life, even though
they seem like games, or reinventing the wheel.

As Riley Hollingsworth pointed out, contesters could give a lot of
pointers for emergency communicators. He made a comment about them
teaching NTS handlers lessons in rapid comms. Indeed to the point of
saying that by comparison, the contest would be over by the time the NTS
folks made the first couple exchanges. This is paraphrased.

Point is, learning how to put up a station, learning *how* the radios
work, learning how to listen to and work weak/noisy signals. Learning
how to make an accurate exchange of information. All those things are
fun, but a serious sort of fun.



More than ten years ago, I saw discussions about how practically all
that we radio amateurs do on HF from fixed points could be done on the
net using various forms of simulation/emulation. And I'm sure it could
be done.

The folks who proposed this simply didn't understand the difference
between the journey and the destination.

Boy howdy they didn't get it. Some people get the end result mixed up
with the process.

It is similar to a discussion about unmanned/automatic contest stations.
While it is possible to do such a thing, who the heck would do it? At
least beyond a "look what I can do" level. Set the station up, and do
something else while it is contesting for you. I dunno, maybe another
hobby? Because that certainly wouldn't be interesting.

Those arguing for such things, and those up in arms about such things
coming to pass just don't get it.


That difference is very important.

---

There's another factor: Having an alternate system. Too much
dependence on a single system is not always a good thing, because when
(not if) that system fails there's no alternative - no backup. Too
much dependence on a single system also stifles creativity because all
thought tends to be conditioned to that system.

This has been proven time and time again, Jim. Systems that rely on a
lot of structure will go down, and usually go down hard. And the people
who work these systems have no idea on how to put them back together
again when they do. They have to get a team of manufacturer techs in at
great cost in time and money. By then the disaster is over.

Oddly enough, the "cure" seems to always be the addition of more
complexity and structure.

Whereas Amateur radio (or whatever else works in these situations) is
much closer to the raw physics, and is operated by people who know a lot
more than just "push the button and talk". They know how to get things
working and keep them working.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:35:49 EDT, John Smith
wrote:

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.

There are still some of us who cling to the motto "When all else
fails...amateur radio". My concept of ham radio is to be free from
any non-ham intermediary transmission systems.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

Phil Kane wrote:

There are still some of us who cling to the motto "When all else
fails...amateur radio". My concept of ham radio is to be free from
any non-ham intermediary transmission systems.


As a person who works with computers every day, I have to say that
trusting one's well being would not be the wisest of moves. I would
rather trust that there is some way of getting an rf signal through.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -