From: vbreault@rinhp750.gmr.com (Val Breault)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: "Digital" instead of "Morse" requirement?
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:59:18 GMT
	<1992Nov12.204446.10950@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Motors Research Labs
In-reply-to: markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com's message of 12 Nov 92 20:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.204446.10950@newsgate.sps.mot.com> markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com (Mark Monninger) writes:

   Ya know, I really don't understand this fixation on 'digital' modes. Maybe  
   it's because most of the people on the net are computer weenies. What is  
   so holy about digital modes? How many of the 500,000+ hams out there use  
   the digital modes and how many of them know any more about them than how  
   to connect their KAM or PK232 to their radio? I mess with packet and RTTY  
   and find them enjoyable but no more or less so than SSB or (gasp) CW. High  
   speed digital would be interesting but probably less than 0.1% of the hams  
   in the country ever get above 1200 bps. I just don't understand why  
   'digital' modes are put on a pedestal.

Well Mark, some people think the hobby involves communication.  You know,
like we're doing right now.  Writing things down and sending them off
to friends around the world.  However, due to the primitive nature of
the digital modes on amateur radio, REAL digital communications still
relies on wires.  

I suppose I'm one of those "computer weenies".  I've been in computing
for the last 21 years or so.  I've been involved with computer networking
and teleconferencing for about 17 years.  I use IEEE-488, ethernet and 
HYPERchannel systems to move information about.  I've gotten used to 
being able to transfer information at the rate of tens of kilobytes per 
second.  1200 baud just simply isn't fast enough to hold my attention.
Spoiled rotten kids...   :-)  :-)      (no, we're about the same age)

"What's the fixation" you ask?   For some people it's experimentation.
For some people it's an answer to a communications bottleneck.  Some 
people believe that CW and SSB have been pretty much stabailzed and that
the new fronteer for state-of-the-art communications is in the digital
arena.  There may be other reasons Mark, those were just a few off the
top of my head.  

While I have NO idea what portion of the operators gets above 1200 baud,
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that your .1% figure was within an 
order of magnitude.  I don't think that's alarming.  It took folks a
while to migrate from spark to CW, from there to AM, to SSB.... it may
just take a while for high speed digital to reach critical mass.  
(Critical mass - that point where there are sufficient people using 
the mode to make it "the 'in' thing to do".)

I'd like to see (and believe I will see) computer networks based on
a radio at the transport level as common as 2 meter repeaters are now.
I believe that the ability to quickly, easily and reliably move large
volumes of information from one arbitrary point to another will eventually
come, and that it will come from the amateur radio community.
 
   As for the proposal to substitute a test on digital modes for Morse code,  
   what would it cover? What would it prove? There are already questions on  
   the exams that address that area.

As you probably recall, I have been promoting my idea of a base license 
with endorsements.   The endorsements would require a rather deep
knowledge of a narrow field.  I envision a digital modes endorsement
requiring knowledge of more than just the plug-n-play or of frequency
shifts.  It would have perhaps a few questions about network topography 
and knowledge of the ISO procotol stack.  Rather than identifying the SCR 
in a schematic, I would want the applicant to be able to describe a 
routing table or be able to troubleshoot a networking problem (What is 
wrong with this picture?).  Questions like that are not currently in the 
exam.  People that study for an upgrade aren't required to know those 
things and (no surprise) most of them don't take the time to learn them.  
They are content to get their plug-n-play system on the air and call it 
"digital".  It's digital all right, but it's the kind of point-to-point
low speed digital that was in common use 15 years ago.

   Don't construe this to be advocating CW or anything else, I personally  
   don't care one way or the other about whether CW should or should not be a  
   requirement for a license so don't flame me about it.

Don't worry Mark.  Life is too short to waste time flaming.  Others may take
issue with me as well.  They are free to say what they please.  I hope I've
shed some light on the issue.

   Just my $0.02 worth...

   73...     Mark   KG7JL

Just my $0.20 worth...

-val-





--

Val Breault - GM Research - vbreault@gmr.com - N8OEF
Instrumentation dept., 30500 Mound Rd., Warren, MI 48090-9055
The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect 
those of GMR or those of the General Motors Corporation.
 

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc