Mike Coslo wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:

"David Stinson" wrote in message
news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07...

Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline,
the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local
broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down."
Count on it.



Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and
emergency
communications.

The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially
considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference from
just
about anywhere in the world.

Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using
higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good
solution for
a battery powered portable..


Indeed, Frank. I wonder if many of those people who would propose to
use HF as if was the new frontier of digital communications know exactly
what they are dealing with.

About the only feature of HF vs UHF or microwave is that distant
nodes or stations can directly talk to each other without
supporting infrastructure (phone lines or Internet). Same
thing that attracts ham radio operators. Though the fact that
a pair of users will hog the same bandwidth world-wide is not
such a hot feature.... Unless digital shortwave broadcasting
is desired, forget it. And how well will digital handle QSB
and QRM and QRN? Assuming the modulation method is designed
to cope with such...

HF is an unruly beast, where sections can be entirely shut down
depending on solar activity, or a small signal can sometimes be
propagated across the world. In addition, it has nowhere near the
bandwidth capacity of the higher frequencies. And finally, the ham
sections are such a small portion of the HF spectrum, that it would not
make much difference if they went away or stayed.

Most modern "wireless" apps *need* the characteristics of GHz +
frequencies.

- Mike KB3EIA -