Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do
you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up
some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!


This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary
importance to opinion.

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go
along, so why do it?

It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for
invisible facts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.


HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we
ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M

when was that Jim

Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner
as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but
along the same lines
Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way
to HF digital soon. 8^)

Dave K8MN