On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:27:55 -0600, John T. M. Lyles wrote:
>>U.S. Moving Away From Shortwave?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the IBB and the State Department¹s younger computer
>>generation seem to believe shortwave radio broadcasting is now passé.
>>
_________________________________________________________________
This post reminds me of the arguments back in the '50s and '60s which
stated that SSB will never replace the "much superior" AM mode. After
all:
1. AM transmission has a long and impressive history of success.
2. AM transmissions are of much higher fidelity.
3. The equipment is simpler and cheaper. (Not true, but it was
hawked that way).
4. It would be far too expensive to change equipment over.
5. The users are quite satisfied with AM.
6. SSB is too hard to tune in.
7. On and on and on....
The time has come for direct FM satellite broadcast to replace
shortwave AM. As with any other major change, just grit one's teeth
and do it and within a few years the "problems" the critics complain
about will have faded away. When the changeover is completed, we will
have:
1. Shortwave bands free of broadcast interference.
2. Superior audio quality. (A real no-brainer)
3. Less jamming, not more. UHF and up receiving antennas can easily
be made very directional, unlike the typical SW receiving antenna.
4. And perhaps most attractive of all, channelization. VOA on ch 34,
Russia on 277, Italy on 149, whatever. Far simpler and easier than
the hassle of finding something on SW. Channels would be assigned by
international treaty and reserved for the sole use of the particular
government. With 20 kHz spacing, 5000 channels would fit in 100 MHz
of bandwidth.
And finally, I don't know how this thread got started on the AMPS
reflector, so I promise to make this post my last on the subject.
73, Bill W7TI
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|