Internet linking, radio or no?
I'm afraid this reply got kindof long. My apologies. I hope this is sill
interesting to everybody.
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:16:59AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Do you call this amateur 'radio'?
> >
> > Connecting Radio-based repeaters and VOIP networks together?
>
> A big part of EchoLink seems to be users talking to each other directly
> on their PCs, with no radios at all. That is no different than simply
> using SpeakFreely.
I would agree that users doing PC to PC is obviously not radio. I doubt very many
people are in that catagory though. When I hear people talk about echolink, I hear
about repeater linking and computer to repeater communication. It's hard to get
excited about a speakfreely session.
> > Definately. Take out the radio and what do you have. Yahoo chat. Would
> > anybody use Echolink if it were just like Yahoo Chat? Not likely.
>
> Really? That's all I've heard it used for.
You don't have Echolink on any of your REPEATERS? That's hard to believe! Repeater
linking is the entire point. That's rather like buying a car just to listen to the
radio.
If this is truly the case, you should let people know they're missing out on the most
useful component of echolink.
> I'm applying a fairly simple test here: if there's absolutely no RF
> on amateur bands involved, how can it be amateur radio?
No issues with your definition, just I don't think many people would fall into that
PC to PC catagory. I also don't think those who do are asking for people to
consider their use of echolink "amateur radio" anyway.
> I'm not much of a fan of IRLP either. At least the end users are using
> radio though, always. That's not true of EchoLink. I can understand that
> people want to keep in touch with friends while the HF bands are closed
> but don't call it amateur radio please.
Considering your prefrence for RF to RF, you should have no problems calling IRLP
amateur radio. If you still don't feel confortable with the definition, then you
should consider if you are really evaluating the situation fairly.
Those that only use PC to PC communications are under no delusions that they are
using any form of radio communcation.
Echolink, or internet linking in general is just another tool for hams to use and
like all of our other tools, it has its own pros and cons.
I think a lot of people don't like internet linking just because it's easy. You
should ask yourself - if a new form of RF communication (some sort of switched ham
radio network perhaps?) made it just as easy to connect audio world-wide as internet
linking, would you be saying it was not "amateur radio"?
When the difficult becomes easy, that just means its time to move on to new
frontiers. Perhaps that movement moves the technology beyond what you consider ham
radio today. So what?
Communication and technological advancement are certainly major parts of what ham
radio is about, and we're not done communicating or innovating.
Internet linking also gives hams a huge advantage in providing emergency service.
When local municipalities don't even talk on the same frequencies, consider the
advantage of a group that can hook up not only the local folks, but to any potential
disaster sites world-wide as well. (all on a 20 dollar per month internet
connection!)
By your definition hams using "light" based CW are not "amatuer radio operators"
since they do not use RF. Are you sure such a strict definition is in order?
Hams are doing some really neat things with lasers nowadays...
Whatever you call this "other" group of people that doesn't stop innovating when they
hit RF boundaries - count me in.
:-)
73s. KC0LQL.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
______ _ __ Military Intelligence
/ ' ) ) -KC0LQL- Honest Politician
/ o ______ / / _ . . Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / < / (_</_(_/_ -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu
Reply to: