[By Subject] [By Date] [By Sender [By Thread]
Previous In Time

Next in Time

From: karn@qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: REALITY CHECK!
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:32:55 -0800 (PST)

>May happen but I actually can't imagine any commercial interests being
>interested in purchasing our HF allocations. I would think that VHF/UHF/SHF
>and satellites would be of more interest.

Don't underestimate the appeal of *any* piece of spectrum, including HF. Consider shortwave broadcasting...


>Is what hams are doing with SS really advancing the state of the radio art? I
>thought that the SS techniques in use by hams have been pioneered by
>commercial and military interests 20 years ago. Also I thought that much of
>the SS technology in current use was designed and built by commercial
>interests.

Probably not -- the ham community has trailed the commercial and military world since the 1950s. Of course, what you say about ham SS is just as applicable to what you guys do. It was amusing to read in The Puzzle Palace about the NSA's attempts to use moonbounce back in the 1960s for eavesdropping.


>Promoting technical education?? I am not against that. I just question
>whether SS is a suitable starting point for increasing the education of most
>hams, since many probably can't understand the workings of a super het

I don't expect every ham to understand it, but you can't hold back everyone to the least common denominator. I just want to broaden the opportunities for whoever wants to learn, even if it's a minority.


>Phil, I find what you guys are doing with SS very interesting, just probably
>not something that I am going to want to rush into.

Which is just fine. I would of course be gratified if I could convert much of the weak signal community, but ham radio is a volunteer activity by definition. All I ask is that those who are not interested in an activity like SS not stand in the way of those who are. (As the saying goes, "lead, follow or get out of the way.") In return, it's quite reasonable to ask those who use SS to do whatever they can to minimize harmful interference to existing narrowband operations.

Again, I can't guarantee that SS will *never* interfere with an existing operation. Nor do I think it reasonable to set such a stringent standard when occasional QRM has long been a part of ham radio even with narrowband communications. We're an experimental service, not a safety-of-life service, and we're all much better off when the FCC lets us work things out among ourselves.

Phil ------ Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu