I don't know enough to say when it comes to DStar to give an opinion other
than I don't think it's worth the money or it will ever be the standard for
what it is. I have no problem with contacts that are mostly or all RF based,
but when they're mostly computer based, they're not radio. radio implies, at
least to me, RF. 1 mile out of 200 isn't even worth mentioning. Like using a
cordless phone doesn't count as a radio contact, it's still the phone.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Is echolink Anti-radio?
> it's easy to say echolink is anti radio when you have lots of space to put
> up decent HF antennas and decent VHF/UHF antennas.
> It's not a question of laziness at all. Some folks either don't have the
> know how, or physically cannot put up antennas that will work well enough
> to
> make HF or VHF/UHF a reasonable thing to do. Sticking wire up inside your
> apartment or rented room doesn't work well in conditions like we are
> experiencing. Sometimes, for the elderly, echolink and IRLP are the only
> way to go if they wish to speak to other hams. Lots of places don't have
> club stations set up, and lots of older people wouldn't be mobile enough
> to
> get to those club stations anyway. Often good club stations are setup
> well
> off the beaten path and out of range of bus routes and on the edges or
> outside the major population areas. Basically, unless you can drive or
> get
> a ride, you can't get to most of them.
> I'm sure when SSB came out, and FM, many hams were saying it was anti
> radio
> too because it altered the way in which one communicated. Technically, I
> would agree that echolink is not necesarily always radio bassed, but it
> often is at some point in the communications chain. PC to PC is
> definitely
> not radio, but echolink is not "anti radio" its just not fully and
> completely RF bassed.
> Can you say that modern transceivers are anti radio too because they use
> micro processers and computers to control their various parts? Is a true
> radio something built out of original standard electronics parts? I see
> it
> the same way. One would not hesitate to use all the modern features
> offered
> by digital radios, so then how different is that from using a computer to
> communicate with a radio system over the internet?
> Is DStar anti radio too because it's different and uses alternative forms
> of
> communication?
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Senk, Mark J. (CDC/NIOSH/NPPTL)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:01 AM
> Subject: Is echolink Anti-radio?
>
>
>>
>> My opinion is that using echolink is no more anti-radio than using this =
>> email list to communicate.
>>
>> I was surprised when people used the PA QSO party list to report where =
>> the W3OK bonus station was operating and to ask about certain counties.
>> =
>> Even before the Internet there were printed newsletters and DX spotting
>> =
>> nets. I suppose these have been replaced by e-mail and DX clusters.
>>
>> Notice that I fixed the message Subject and appreciate when people =
>> include e-mail, phone numbers, or echolink numbers.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> Mark J. Senk | 412-386-6513 | [log in to unmask]
>> <img =
>> src=3D"http://212.179.113.209/QRCode/img.php?d=3DBEGIN%3AVCARD%0AN%3AMark=
>> %20J.%20Senk%0ATEL%3A412-386-6513%0AEMAIL%3Azia7%40cdc.gov%0AEND%3AVCARD&=
>> c=3DContact%20Mark%20Senk&s=3D4"
>> alt=3D"QR4Senk" />=A0
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Dresser
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:30 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Introduction
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I think it's a bit of an over-reaction to say that Echo Link is "anti =
>> radio." On most Sunday mornings, a group of us in the Boston area have =
>> a schedule with a friend of ours in New York city. We use a local =
>> repeater, but our friend connects to the repeater through Echo Link. =
>> Since he doesn't have room for an HF station in his apartment, and =
>> several others in the group are in similar situations, I think it's =
>> perfectly reasonable for us to use Echo Link to maintain our schedule. =
>> The only alternative is using the telephone, which would mean that none =
>> of us used our radios. To me, that's a lot more anti radio than using =
>> Echo Link.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:50
>> Subject: Re: Introduction
>>
>>
>> > As I see it, it's not radio, it's anti radio, and is absolutely =
>> murdering
>> > ham radio. I'll either be actually on the air, or doing something else
>> > =
>> but=20
>> > I
>> > didn't work so hard to get my license to use the computer to make my
>> > contacts for me because I'm too lazy to setup a station and work for =
>> the
>> > contacts. I had a simplex link up for a while but it was a couple=20
>> > statements
>> > I heard on it that made me wake up and realize just how bad echolink =
>> is
>> > hurting things and it was then that I pulled it down for good. I =
>> suppose=20
>> > if
>> > a sponsoring group wants it on 1 of my repeaters, I may consider it =
>> but I
>> > won't be using it and probably won't put it on at all.
>> > ----- Original Message -----=20
>> > From: "Buddy Brannan" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:59 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Introduction
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, John Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> My CW is very slow, I much prefer phone, and would be absolutely
>> >>> ashamed to
>> >>> be on echolink
>> >>
>> >> Well....there's one great way to improve that cw speed :) And as for
>> >> Echolink, why not use it? I mean--you *are* allowed to connect radios
>> >> to it, y'know, so it really *is* radio, except when it isn't.
>> >=20
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date:
>> 10/27/2008
> 7:57 AM
>>
>>
|
