Random thoughts:
We do need to consider the issues in moving forward. My opinion at the time of
eliminating the requirement to actually copy code as opposed to a multiple
choice test was that it was a bad idea. That was about 40 years ago and was
the only thing I can remember which led me to write letters of protest. Where
did that change lead us? I think it has dramatically increased the number of
ham licenses and dramatically decreased the activity on the bands. More is
better? Not sure about that.
Memorizing the answers to a few questions to get a license does not make you a
ham radio operator (by my definition). How many people with licenses have ham
radio on their mind more than a couple hours per week? Used to be one in a
thousand were hams.
Sure, we are in a transitional period.
Sorry to say that we are one small step away (eliminating an easy multiple
choice test from a question pool) from combining amateur radio with CB when the
only requirement to becoming a ham will be to have enough money to buy some
kind of communication device at the next truck stop.
Used to be that I was way more proud to tell someone I was a ham radio operator.
In the meantime, let us not take steps to accelerate the inevitable.
73... Stan, K5GO
> On Aug 24, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, it's an important conversation - this is a transitional period in ham
> radio (just like at several points in the past) and we need to consider the
> issues in moving forward.
>
> I don't see any of the human-copy modes going completely away. Like Charly
> said, they're fun, and like a lot of other sports, music, and recreations,
> they will likely remain popular despite there being more effective means of
> communication. And I think they can hold their own in the face of
> competition - IF their practitioners are willing to be flexible and adapt to
> the changing circumstances. We've already come quite a long way, truth be
> told, but getting along requires accepting the validity of someone else's use
> of the ham bands. There's that behavior thing again :-)
>
> Anyway, from a separate conversation about RTTY, there is a need for a
> reasonable-speed, session-less (what the Handbook's chapter 16 refers to as
> "unstructured"), keyboard-to-keyboard mode. Like RTTY but with a fuller
> character set (like 7-bit ASCII), more robust encoding, and less
> susceptibility to selective fading. Maybe a variant or derivative of DominoEX
> or Olivia? A higher-speed phase-locked version of PSK31? We use RTTY out of
> inertia because it was the only game in town for a long time and could be
> decoded by simple circuits and microprocessors back in the day. Maybe RTTY
> is "good enough" for DXing and contesting but I'm sure we can do better.
> With software like FLDIGI supporting dozens of modes over a common audio
> interface, changing modes would only involve a menu selection. Protocol
> development is a hotbed of innovation and a real feather in the amateur's
> technical cap.
>
> Whatever. I understand why people are concerned.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
>
>> On 8/24/2016 7:15 PM, Ktfrog007@aol.com wrote:
>> Ward, I'm in general agreement with you but have some comments. Many of the
>> most committed and enthusiastic hams (and most vociferous) are DXers and
>> contesters who use CW, RTTY and SSB. These may be archaic modes, but nothing
>> better has come along for DXing and contesting so these modes will stick
>> around for a long time and may need protection from indicriminate wide modes.
>> The future of CW is in doubt and it will likely fade away except for DXing
>> and contesting. Most recently licensed hams are not proficient in CW. This
>> is obscured somewhat because skimmers, the RBN, clusters and pretty good
>> code readers make CW usable for DX and contests even if you don't know it
>> well.
>> Your post was courageous but don't get wrapped up in endless defenses.
>> You'll just get dragged down into the muck.
>> 73,
>> Ken, AB1J
>> In a message dated 2016-08-23 9:05:13 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
>> hwardsil@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> First, I do agree with N9NB that there needs to be a bandwidth
>> limit in
>> the amateur bands -
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|