Todd Daugherty wrote:



I'm running an information bulletin you dickhead and no matter what the ****
you think their ****ing legal so get over it!

Toddyboy, why don't you go away until you pass through puberty and
become mature enough to post something of revelance without the use of
jr. highschool language? Do you really think that makes anyone take your
rantings more seriously? NOT!!!!!!!!

Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
N9OGL wrote:

The old modes of communication isn't going to
cut it anymore.

They seem to be cutting it just fine, Todd. What new mode do you use in
your clandestine "broadcasts"?

I'm running an information bulletin you snipped and no matter what the
snipped you think their snipped legal so get over it!

Wow! That's quite a vocabulary, Todd. You've referred a number of
times to your "broadcast". Your information bulletins are apparently
quite hard to find. That would apparently limit their usefulness.

Care to answer the question about what new modes you are using in
delivering your broadcasts/information bulletins?

The vast majority of people would rather get on the
internet
instead of getting into a hobby which has nothing to really offer in
terms
new modes of communication.

The vast majority of people are never going to become hams. It has
always been that way and will always be that way.

No, not all people well get into amateur radio, but unless you can come up with new idea's the service will die.

Not even a significant segment of "all people" has ever been a part of
amateur radio. Do you see anything wrong with that?

I was talking to other amatuers about
this subject odd of the internet and agree that amateur radio will probably
die off in a few years.

Some people believe that we'll be ruled by a "New World Order" and that
they should start hoarding can goods and MRE's. That doesn't mean that
it is likely to happen. Your term "odd of the internet" might be a good
description of the folks who believe such things.

Many amateur radio operators can face the
fact
that amateur radio is slowly falling behind in technology and thus in
turn
is slowly dying off.

You've managed to dump a couple of false premises in one sentence.
You're wrong about technology and about amateur radio dying.

Oh really, what NEW technologies has amatuer radio come up with worth
getting into? Amateur are falling behind that's the truth.

How about defending one wild idea at a time before moving on to the
next?
You didn't write anything earlier about amateur radio coming up with new
technologies worth getting into, you wrote about amateur radio falling
behind in technology. It isn't. Individual people who happen to be
radio amateurs have often been on the cutting edge of technological
development.
"Amateur Radio" as a whole doesn't create technology. Individuals do.

Amateur radio will not grow if you can't get
people
into the service.

Amateur radio licensing numbers are near an all time high.

Not true, according to the statistics last year amateur radio went up and
down in the number of people entering the service. last month it was down by
over 1,000 people.

What percentage of 600,000 or so individuals is 1,000? Do you think
that
599,000 people is near an all time high number of American radio
amateurs?

You can drop the licensing structure down to nothing
but
no one will come into a hobby without dated modes of communication.

I'm too busy laughing at your sentence to give you a serious reply,
Todd.

Anything further on those hobbies without dated modes of communication?

Dave K8MN

"N9OGL" wrote in message
ups.com...
The point of the argument is for amateur's radio to grow amateurs are
going
to have to compete with the internet. Compete in the sense of getting
people into the hobby. The old modes of communication isn't going to
cut
it anymore. The vast majority of people would rather get on the
internet
instead of getting into a hobby which has nothing to really offer in
terms
new modes of communication. Many amateur radio operators can face the
fact
that amateur radio is slowly falling behind in technology and thus in
turn
is slowly dying off. Amateur radio will not grow if you can't get
people
into the service. You can drop the licensing structure down to nothing
but
no one will come into a hobby without dated modes of communication.


Todd N9OGL


How can you compare the internet to ham radio? Ham radio is using the
'ether', not wires and computers. There is no competition between
internet and ham radio. Those that are actually into real radio will choose
ham radio, those into computer things will choose the internet. Of course
there is a spill over between the two. But that only enhances the
experience, not competes with it.

There will always be a ham radio. Probably not in the form it is today.
And what is wrong with liking the modes we use? Hams still us AM, and we
would still be on spark if it were allowed. Just because it is old, does
NOT make it bad.

Hams do contribute to the state of the art. Where do you think SSTV came
from ? Just one example.

Dan/W4NTI

From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Thurs, Feb 24 2005 10:08 pm

Hams do contribute to the state of the art. Where do you think SSTV
came
from ? Just one example.

Bell Labs and the "PicturePhone"? :-)

Went into service on the Bell System over four decades ago, got
deleted for lack of interest/use some years ago. Worked on a
very limited bandwidth.

The genesis of Slow-Scan TV began in several places. One could
say its start was the first Facsimile...very slow data rate. A very
close cousin was early television, also done at a very slow data
rate considering their dependency on mechanical scanning. A
few amateurs tried to advance into professional ranks with the
mechanical scanning TV but none were successful.

All that was before the USA got into WW2. During WW2, TV
was rather limited but "wirephoto" facsimile got popular on wired
communications circuits. A medium-scan-rate TV system was
used on some experimental guided bombs late in WW2. "FAX"
got its acronym-name during that war and was used for graphics
such as weather maps sent out over HF radio circuits.

With the end of WW2 began the virtual explosion of broadcast
television and the availability of TV camera tubes, TV picture
tubes, newer circuit technology (DuMont "flying spot" system,
a sort of reversed light-subject-camera arrangement) and wide-
band modulation (6 MHz in the USA, included audio). There
began lots of research into Information Theory and Bandwidth
in the late 1940s which resulted in insight to necessary
bandwidths to maintain low error rates ("Shannon's Law" of
1948). Many different experiments began to send "live" TV
at reduced bandwidths and the Bell "PicturePhone" was just
such a system which did go into service in the NYC area.

Information Theory got a few boosts from greater efforts of
cryptologists during the Cold War trying to devise better codes
for sensitive communications. Information Theory eventually
morphed into the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) which
had formed about the same time as the explosion of the
desktop personal computer during the 1980s. MPEG was
based on earlier work using "blocks" of picture elements and
their examination of redundancies plus the availability of new
and better digital logic circuits to process the image blocks.

Nearly all amateur "slow-scan TV" is little more than high-rate
facsimile...on the order of the "PicturePhone" imaging. None
of it is the moving picture quality found on the modern enhanced
cellular telephones using MPEG compression-expansion of
image data.

"Modern television" (defined as all-electronic scanning) is wide
bandwidth to preserve image quality. What is broadcast, even
with old-style black-and-white "original" NTSC standards, is
quite good. Any "NEMO" watcher (NEtwork MOnitor) viewing
the direct input from a microwave relay link can tell you that.
The same with the "air monitor" checking transmitted video.
Early domestic-production TV receivers deliberately limited
bandwidth to reduce costs, resulting in receiver picture quality
being awful to poor compared with what was transmitted. The
picture quality on amateur SSTV is approximately the same
as early domestic-production TV receivers, but SSTV cannot
handle motion nearly as well.

Modern FAX standards use some data compression but that
is limited. Picture quality there is reduced compared to what
was possible with older, uncompressed facsimile.

Amateur SSTV is NOT an "original" thing from hams but rather
an adaptation to stay within shrinking RF spectrum on VHF and
above available to amateurs. If it were ever standardized as to
scan rates and bandwidth, there would be a chance for
improvement. As it is, it remains a novelty, something good for
the editors of QST to crow about. "PicturePhone" went into the
dumpster long ago and SSTV will probably wind up there.

wrote:

...but SSTV cannot
handle motion nearly as well.

Motion? SSTV doesn't handle motion at all.

Amateur SSTV is NOT an "original" thing from hams but rather
an adaptation to stay within shrinking RF spectrum on VHF and
above available to amateurs.

VHF and above? While there are those using SSTV on 2m and above, most
SSTV is done at HF, Leonard. Real ATV is done at 70cm and above.


If it were ever standardized as to
scan rates and bandwidth, there would be a chance for
improvement. As it is, it remains a novelty, something good for
the editors of QST to crow about.

SSTV has been in wide use on the HF bands for some decades now, old boy.
That would hardly seem to be a novelty.

Dave K8MN

N9OGL wrote:

The point of the argument is for amateur's radio to grow
amateurs are going to have to compete with the internet.

Nothing new about that! Amateur radio has always had to compete with
other pastimes ... TV, video games, baseball, stamp collecting, chasing
girls (boys), skateboarding, fishing, .....

It's not an "either/or" deal. I have many pastimes .... amateur radio
doesn't get tossed out the window because I gain some other new
interest.

Your point doesn't hold water.

73, de Hans, K0HB