giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (07/26/84)
In my anger I forgot one of the fundamental rules of the net: no
sarcasm. So, for those of you who did not read the message for the
words, here they are with in black & green. (vote card at end of
article).
(1): I oppose the code as archaic, but I can see the need for it
as an emergency communication means. It was generally agreed
that 5 wpm is acceptable. *I* am currently working on a
computer program so I will learn code at *25* wpm, therefore
several years in the future I will still be able to copy
emergency transmissions. However, that is a personal choice,
rather than one I would force on others.
(2): Whether you like it or not, a lot of traffic is going to
travel in packet & digital form, and there will even be
transceivers that can send *only* digital signals. Therefore,
if everyone agrees that Morse is required for emergencies, it
follows that digital should also be available for emergencies.
I specified the digital control of transceivers because that
is the easiest way of ensuring that if you are the only station
in range of a digital emergency transmission, all you need to
do is press the 'ascii' button in and copy the message.
(3): That heavy sarcasm on my earlier messages was because of
the point recently made my another author -- a large number
of you come across to non-hams as the playground bullies
who don't want to let the new kids in. Quite honestly, I
was just about to throw away all of my books on ham radio
after monitoring this new group for the last year, and had
posted my previous article (of several months ago) in a
last, desperate attempt to disprove my suspicions. I had
been planning to remove this group from my .newsrc file and
discard all of my ham books when this discussion came up.
Frankly, it was only because of those who at least considered
the no-code option (even if they decided they still believed
code is best) that I decided to start seriously studying for
the exams. But, once again I have a sick feeling in my stomach;
that all I see implies:
(4): Within 25 years, ham radio operators will have lost almost
all bandwidth below 220 MHz, unless things change very
rapidly.
I grew interested in ham radio not because of the prospect
of talking to someone around the world (or in orbit), but
because in college I saw just how much of radio we now take
for granted was developed by hams. As I recall, it was hams
who developed AM (as opposed to spark-gap generators), SSB,
spread-spectrum, and several other important techniques.
Now, the hardware is unable to progress much further (because
of Nyquist's theorem), at least below the microwave range, so
*needed* progress must come from a different source -- the
`software'. Packet promises to offer better capabilities than
Morse, and I can think of several ways to improve telephony by
using techniques developed for speech sythesis. Yes, these
techinques will require years to perfect, but there is the
promise of fitting far more hams within the same bandwidth.
I fit in because I am in that very narrow age group that feels
confortable with both analog & digital equipment. (I was born
in 1961). The computer classes at the local university had just
begun to offer something besides card-input to the remote mainframe
the year I entered (and you could still see slide-rules), and the
year I graduated the CS dept. was running some intro courses on
Apples & IBM PCs. (1978 vs. 1983) This is important because in
very few years nearly all prospective hams will be interested in
digital communication *only*, and they will turn away if they do
not see it there. (Packet would be the *main* mode, not phone).
To them, anything that doesn't involve bytes and registers will
seem just as baffling as the 8080 must have first seemed to people
who grew up with vacuum tubes, but they (the current teens and
beyond) won't have the same incentive to learn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, I am willing to work with you (the ham community), if
you are willing to work with me (part of the `hacker' community).
If you feel that the heavy computer `flavor' I and my type will
bring in will destroy the ham community you know and love, let me
know now and I will toss my books and warn all others who would
intrude on your turf. And for *my* children, I will watch so that
when the FCC decides that ham radio no longer is serving its
various purposes (including R&D of new techniques), I or my friends
will be there to step with the INCN (independent node computer
network).
Finally, I know that hams have already developed packet, but you
must realize that that is only a first step. What you need to make
packet a useful tool is not a digital AMSAT, but software & system
engineers who can bring these independent transceivers together
into a working system. I don't consider two hams connected my
packet a working system, not when compared to the potential of all
local hams being connected into a coherent whole.
Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who wish to respond directly, here is the voting card:
[9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1] Should code be required?
[9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1] Should more or less knowledge of analog devices be reqd?
[9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1] Should more or less knowledge of digital devices be reqd?
9 = much more 5 = about the same 1 = much less.
For example, my vote would look like this:
[9 8 7 6 5 4 3<*>1] Should code be required? (5 wpm min, more encouraged)
(but not reqd for any license).
[9 8<*>6 5 4 3 2 1] Should more or less knowledge of analog devices be reqd?
[9<*>7 6 5 4 3 2 1] Should more or less knowledge of digital devices be reqd?Andreas.Nowatzyk@CMU-CS-A.ARPA (08/03/84)
I think that digital operations modes are fundamentaly different to analog ones, even if modulation and tranceiver have some similarities: The digital mode does not stop at the receiver: The whole range of networking, protocols, virtually error free communications, automatic message routing and the access to the attached computer systems have no analog counterpart. Digital/analog methods are as different as is the sending of this message is to using a telephone: yet both are using wires. -- Andreas DC5ZV BTW: The call sign is a German C-class license, no-code of cause.
stephany.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (08/14/84)
Protocols, error-free communications, and message routing have been done for years by people on CW and phone. There is no fundamental difference in digitalizing it, you are only letting machines do the work of people. Error free messages in analog are common: it consists of a guy saying "did you get that ?" or "repeat back". There is nothing fundamentally different between anaog and digital except a machine is doing it instead of a person, all the methods are the same and have not changed in decades. I also do not understand how CW is different from digital, except it is slower and uses a different code and a machine is used. On the other hand we uses simple machines to send and receive code: a key and earphones, which are defined as machines. Only the complexity of the machines has changed, the principles are the same. Joe N2XS
karn@mouton.UUCP (08/16/84)
I'm not sure I saw the original note that prompted Joe's response, but I do have some observations on what he said. Saying (in effect) that automatic digital communications is just a mechanized form of CW is like saying jet airplanes just do the same thing that people do with their feet. Even though the basic job may be the same, the speed, reliability and cost of the job makes all the difference. Even if the differences between two systems are quantitative instead of qualitative doesn't mean that a newer, faster way of doing something can't make major changes in our lives and allow us to do completely new things that were previously impossible. Phil Karn, KA9Q
stephany.WBST@XEROX.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/23/84)
You are right: I only meant that what goes over the air is Radio and not computers. The FCC is only concerned with what is on the air not where it comes from. computers are not radio. thats all I meant. The FCC has refused to give digital licenses because what goes over the air is the same (with a few parameter changes). They will not licese a form of communications in which the source of data is mechanized. The FCC would be licesing where you get the data instead of what goes over the air. Since the FCC does not licese sources of data, it refuses to licese different sources that use the same modulating techniques as separate licenses. Joe N2XS
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (08/26/84)
In England we can send computer data by hooking an accoustic coupler to a rig
and transmitting F3E or J3E (ie simple audio). You have to establish the QSO
using speech and would need to repeat calls every 15 minutes thereafter. My
hope is to work our university Multics system /M (obviously you need a
license at each end).
Ian G. Batten, G1FVC.
--
Barry Gold/Lee Gold
usenet: {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!ucla-s!lcc!barry
Arpanet: barry@BNL