On Mar 19, 11:49�am, wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 10:07:30 -0700, "

wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:45?am, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

debate I call it whing maybe you are being polite

* Not "whining." *It's a technical barrier to reach "high speed"
* approaching T1 rates on small slices of bandwidth. *ALL radio
* services face that same problem.

well I plead a matter dates at first it did just seem to be whing more
debate like discussion seems to ensued

Mark, please slow down on replies and try to think of
what you wrote. Now, I'm fairly good at interpreting
what was written, including intent, but that single
sentence has me baffled.

I will repeat. RATE of information conveyed in ANY radio
or wired communications service is a function of the
comm circuit BANDWIDTH. That is a definite law of
information theory.

Except for the amateur 10m band, the bandspace on
amateur HF frequencies is LIMITED for any "high speed"
(presumably Internet-quality data) communications.
That presents a technical barrier that is immune to
human legislation, emotions, desires, whatever.

"High speed" information transfer is itself a subjective
label. An adaptation of the common 56 KBPS method
used by most modems might put such rates into US
amateur radio but right now the regulations hold it to
an equivalent 300 WPM rate. Now, to some that is
"high speed." To someone selling DSL or "better"
service it is very low speed.

Just saying "high speed" without quantifying it doesn't
make it an argument pro or con. Saying one "must have
high speed" isn't an argument or debate or discussion,
it is just a troll, a phrase looking to be a flame war
igniter.

73, Len AF6AY