[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

[Ron Kolarik]

All of the proposed digital modes referenced in the RM have but one 
purpose, file transfer or email.
They rely on having a dedicated channel to function as designed, how are 
users supposed to spin the big
knob when 'their' channel is busy and they want to get their email? They 
can't spin the knob so the
poor guy already there gets hammered until he is forced to move and take 
a chance on landing on
yet another little radio landmine waiting to fire up. The band isn't 
busy so data should use it? Sorry
it's the channel thing again, virtually none of the wider data modes are 
keyboard to keyboard, can't
move, won't move, bug off it's legal. It's not all the wider modes 
either, some of the <500Hz mailboxes
are a plague on the bands.

The thing about not being able to attract new blood to ham radio because 
are data rates are antiquated
is a bit silly. Why would any kid with the internet in his back pocket 
care about sending email on HF?
It's amateur RADIO, not amateur ISP, Facebook, or Snapchat and you can't 
play Pokemon GO! on it.....yet.
You want new hams it's you'll likely snag more from the makers who are 
more interested in
the tech than 'push this button for email'.

Finally, "I am fully willing to mix it up and compete", how do you 
compete with a mode that keeps banging away
on an already occupied frequency until it makes a connection?

Ron K0IDT


On 8/24/2016 8:25 AM, Ward Silver wrote:
>
> That said, setting aside fully half of the available data sub-band for 
> it (and RTTY) is not justified on any number of considerations.  Band 
> usage by the different modes should ebb and flow with need, 
> effectiveness, and preference.  If there's a big CW contest on, I 
> expect to hear lots of signals up to the edge of the data/RTTY 
> sub-band and beyond.  When Bouvet comes on, I suspect the data 
> stations will experience radiation pressure from thousands of CW 
> geezers having fun.  Other times, I have no problem with data modes 
> filling up the otherwise unused space and requiring CW operators to 
> tune around the band.  I am fully willing to mix it up and compete - 
> that's what we're supposed to be doing according to 97.1.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX