Mike,

Thanks for your comments - mine are below:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:52:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:



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.

True, but maybe one of the roles of the 'new' amateur service would be
to serve as a testbed for new technologies like this one. With all of
the new licensees concentrating on playing around with it, and no old
low-tech stuff to impede them , improvements may come more quickly
than in our current scenario.


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.

Make that one 'us' - I don't consider any Internet-linked radio system
to be a 'real' radio - more like a telephone, at best. But, you are
absolutely correct, this bias of ours would not exist at all! Folks
who grew up in the age of the 'Net may see the new Radio service as an
extension of it.

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

I was thinking more of those folks who had been monitoring some of the
commercial RTTY utility broadcasts (like the Canadian Army's aviation
forecasts out of Halifax, NS at a blistering 75 Baud, for example),
and who would want to try it out for themselves. With a PC, encoding
schemes are relatively simple to create and play around with - maybe
some nut would do it just to see if they could? (Maybe even this
nut..... )



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!

Me either - concepts like this scare the heck out of me. But, the
potential for some unsavoury character or terrorist to acquire a radio
with the capability to communicate globally (and stealthily - pretty
hard to find one, especially if it transmits on a random schedule!!)
and use it for whatever nefarious purpose may prompt the government
who created the 'new' amateur service to build this in right from the
start. It's very technically possible, and cheap and practical if
done en masse right from the beginning. (after all, who ever thought
that an innocuous little computer in your car could be used to produce
data to nail you in court over an accident?? Hmmmm. That wasn't in the
Owners Manual....)

Included as a discussion point......we'll see if anyone else shares
this view / concern.


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!!

Yup - the seeds are already sown for "NORTTY International".....I can
hear 'em growing from here!

- mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!

73, Leo

"The best way to predict the future is to create it."
-Thomas Edison


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

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..........;^)

Leo wrote:
Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!


Well, no one can say we didn't give them the chance. Too bad too, since
it allows us to form some new ideas. Not every idea is practical, but
one comes along every once in a while that gives you a Eureka moment.

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

and, lastly

- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

In summary - you go, girl!

73, Leo


On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:54:30 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

What you say is true, anyone has the right to exercise bad taste.

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

Well, "Leo", maybe you have an offensive call; maybe you don't. It is
your perogative to keep us in the dark.

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.


- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

Not the required thing, Dave - the courteous thing. Considerate, even
- like the Amateur's Code says:

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

You can read the whole thing if you like at the following address:

http://www.arrl.org/acode.html

Friendly is in there too. Worth a read sometime.


- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

Well, "Leo", maybe you have an offensive call; maybe you don't. It is
your perogative to keep us in the dark.

Thanks!

Personally, I don't suffer from some Freudian thing that causes me to
find call signs offensive. People can be offfensive, but not call
signs - it's just a license number, Dave......


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Not the required thing, Dave - the courteous thing. Considerate, even
- like the Amateur's Code says:

Kim wasn't being considerate of the views of others in choosing that
particular call, was she?

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.


Personally, I don't suffer from some Freudian thing that causes me to
find call signs offensive. People can be offfensive, but not call
signs - it's just a license number, Dave......


Actually, I have only one number in my call. The rest are letters. I
have had a couple of calls which had two digits. I've never referred to
any past or present calls as license numbers.

Dave K8MN

Leo wrote:


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

Neither can good taste, as Kim proves, but we can expect it.