more on NewSci: Net noise threat to emergency radio

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Rupert Goodwins <rupert.goodwins () zdnet co uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:21:19 +0000
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on NewSci: Net noise threat to emergency radio

Radio amateurs are just that - amateurs. That we (yes, I'm one) can and
do provide emergency services when everything else has failed is part of
the deal. We buy (or make) our own equipment and spend our own time in
training ourselves. It is possible - and I've done it myself - to make
something for ten dollars out of spare parts that can communicate around
the world. Bad legacy system, or efficient minimalism?

On the other side of the coin, radio hams are doing very interesting
work with ultra-weak signal communications and DSPs. We have some
deliciously advanced receivers, if you have the skills, money and time
to build or buy them. Not everyone does: ham radio is a very broad
church. 

Also, some of that '1940s' radio design is still alive and well in your
cellphone and WiFi. I wouldn't care to say how many of the engineers who
have invented and refined these technologies have callsigns, nor how
many of them got into radio by building their own equipment as kids. All
that would be lost.

The radio spectrum on the long-distance bands is a worldwide resource,
and radio hams don't have much of it. It's not a question of not
allowing cars because they frighten horses, it's of not allowing the
factory to dump toxins in the lake where the fishermen live. Why, don't
they know they can buy a Filet-O-Fish from MacDonalds?

All the amateurs want is for their bands to be left alone, as
international treaty states. Use that advanced receiver technology to
make sure you can communicate without interfering with other services,
and everyone will be happy.

Rupert Goodwins, G6HVY

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf
Of David Farber
Sent: 24 January 2005 23:16
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] more on NewSci: Net noise threat to emergency radio


------ Forwarded Message
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:58:24 -0500
To: Bob Frankston <rmfxixB0406 () bobf frankston com>
Cc: 'Paul Saffo' <pls () well com>, 'Bob Frankston'
<jerrys-retreat () bobf frankston com>, <dave () farber net>, 'Ip'
<ip () v2 listbox com>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () dandin com>
Subject: Re: [IP] NewSci: Net noise threat to emergency radio

I'm no fan of Broadband over Power Lines for technical reasons.
However, it's absurd to be having a completely uninformed debate that
ignores the advances in radio technology beyond the primitive receiver
systems that the Amateur service continues to operate.

The FCC Spectrum Task Forceunder Powell rightfully supported the view
that receivers need to improve, and that systems can do much better in
performance if they cooperate in using the spectrum.

Protecting bad legacy systems designs (especially of receivers) from
harm is like saying that we shouldn't allow automobiles on the road
because they scare the horses.

The regulators shouldn't preserve the right of Amateur Radio Service to
protections based on 1940-era radio designs.



------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rupert.goodwins () zdnet co uk
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/