Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Here is a hypothetical situation: Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their access to the airwaves after WW1. Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn, with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004. What should the testing regimen be? - Mike KB3EIA - It wouldn't be amateur radio. Amateur radio derives from that time and place where radio began. It was there before there were rules, or most of the technology that came later. It also came before there was much clue about what the new technology could be used for, and before there were well defined radio services. Anateur radio exists because hams staked out the territory before most people knew about radio. Amateur radio did not see others making use of the technology and then claim they needed space; they put the technology to use, and helped push the technology and the applications that came later. For something to start now, one has to wonder what the purpose would be? It's certainly not about getting in on emerging technology. Without the history of radio behind it, then there is no way it would be the same sort of service. Even things like contesting derive from those early days, when being able to reach further and further was a reflection of the effort put into the equipment and antennas, and the contests were a means of testing it, or testing radio itself. Witness the TransAtlantic Tests in December of 1921; a form of contest yet the whole point was to see if those useless shortwave frequencies where hams had been relegated once rules were set in place could actually be used to span the Atlantic. People are forever saying that amateur radio can't compete with today's technology, when everyone can get a cellphone or an FRS transceiver, and use the internet. Put in those terms, there is no point to amateur radio. And anything created today would take that into consideration. A very important part of amateur radio is it's history, because it's an important history, not just to the hobby but to radio itself. Take that away, and it could not be anything close to what it is now. Michael VE2BVW |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike,
I didn't get very far with this concept when I tried to introduce it a few months back either. I thought at the time that it might at least get some out-of-the-box thinking going, and remove the bonds of history and tradition which so often form the basis of reason for discussions in this forum -- but alas, it met a simlilar fate...... Ironicaly, one of the responses that you received was, with respect to the history of amateur radio, "Take that away, and it could not be anything close to what it is now". Say, wasn't that the whole point of the discussion? ![]() Good try, though! 73, Leo On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:08:49 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote: snip Okay, I give up. This was an attempt to get people to use their imaginations, but other than Hans, no one want to play. Let's get back to debating Morse code!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Leo wrote:
Mike, I didn't get very far with this concept when I tried to introduce it a few months back either. I thought at the time that it might at least get some out-of-the-box thinking going, and remove the bonds of history and tradition which so often form the basis of reason for discussions in this forum -- but alas, it met a simlilar fate...... Ironicaly, one of the responses that you received was, with respect to the history of amateur radio, "Take that away, and it could not be anything close to what it is now". Say, wasn't that the whole point of the discussion? ![]() Good try, though! Hey Leo, Good to see you on my screen again! Tell you what. I'll start with what I think would happen, and if you like, you can join in. Maybe we can P**s off someone that they might comment..........;^) Okay, here goes: With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would be allowed to send images as well as voice. Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed, would not happen for some time. Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used. This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB. Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be questions regarding proper operating etiquette. A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness (RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^) One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense! I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed. I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and built-in cameras, for example. I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting though antiquated protocols. However, truly outmoded forms of communication common today would not exist at all, such as the repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator. No more personal phone calls, though!). Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc. equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway), would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem, digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)? I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And, as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with homebuilt equipment, though? With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security. There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various emergency management agencies, upon governmental request? I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which would remove these restrictions. Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes, with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power output equipment. Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote ![]() Please add or subtract from this list at will! 73, Leo On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote: snip Okay, here goes: With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would be allowed to send images as well as voice. Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed, would not happen for some time. Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used. This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB. Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be questions regarding proper operating etiquette. A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness (RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^) One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Leo wrote: Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense! I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed. I thought I replied to this post, but maybe not. I think that Digital voice takes up more BW than SSB, so there will probably be a wait for future developments. I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and built-in cameras, for example. Probably. Ham/Internet functions would probably be a lot better than what they are now, and people like me, that don't think that the Internat is Ham radio would not have time to form their biases. I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting though antiquated protocols. I agree about the CW. That would probably come about as a minimalist thing, kind of like QRP is now, but with extremely simple equipment. I don't think that RTTY would come about. I think amateurs got started on RTTY after getting surplus writers. There probably wouldn't be many of them left today. And the encoding scheme wouldn't likely be adopted However, truly outmoded forms of communication common today would not exist at all, such as the repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator. No more personal phone calls, though!). Agreed. Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc. equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway), would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem, digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)? I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And, as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with homebuilt equipment, though? hmmmm. not sure if I like that! With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security. There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various emergency management agencies, upon governmental request? I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which would remove these restrictions. Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes, with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power output equipment. Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote ![]() HAR!! - mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1400  June 11, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1398 Â May 28, 2004 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1367 – October 24 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366  October 17 2003 | Dx |