[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: digitial/non-digital debate

on 10/12/00 9:29 AM, Tim Cunningham at tim_cunningham@mindspring.com wrote:

> There is an enormous difference between electronics and rocket boosters.
> The electronic revolution is moving at a very fast pace.  If you snooze
> in this industry, you lose.  Time to market plays a very big role in whether
> a company stays in business or gets replaced by new technology.  The
> demand in the electronics industry is customer driven.

My entire point is that just because a technology is old does not mean it
should be abandoned!  This is true with consumer items as well.  Sure, they
get improved, but if you techno-elitists think that technology itself is the
answer, then why was Iridium a miserable failure?  It failed because even
though it was "new" technology, it didn't have a PRACTICAL purpose.  Old
technologies that still work that do not have COST EFFECTIVE new
technologies to replace them still stay around.  Most folks are very
utilitarian.  If it works, don't fix it.

Sure the world is changing.  Sure we should change with it.  But that
doesn't mean we have to abandon something just cause it isn't in the latest
techno trend.  
> Rocket Boosters on the other hand are not a consumer item.  Budget
> constraints in researching new fuel technologies and government
> politics are some of the controlling factors in the solid rocket booster
> market. 

That happens to be true for consumer items too and when you don't take that
into account you get Iridium, Globalstar, etc.

> We also have government politics hindering certain electronic
> technologies from emerging.  One example would be that of Time Domain
> right here in Huntsville.  Their impact to the wireless communications
> industry has not been realized at this moment, because it is such a paradigm
> shift in how we think of electronic communications that it does not fit
> within the framework of the FCC regulations.  Of course, it also raises the
> noise floor on existing primitive forms of wireless communications even
> though their website contradicts this notion.  What Time Domain brings to
> the table is a paradigm shift in how we think about utilizing the frequency
> spectrum more efficiently.

The fact is that who knows what time domain technology will do to exisiting
users.  Should we just screw everyone that is using current frequency domain
technology just because it's "new"?  Should we possibly endanger our
emergency communications just because it's thinking "outside the box"?  I
think not.  Time domain may be a great thing, but there's not been any
studies done of a lot of usage.  It sure has to raise the noise floor.  The
company might claim it doesn't and perhaps with one or two signals the
change isn't noticeable.  But put 100s or 1000s of users out there with it
and you will likely hose all the other users of spectrum.  The FCC is just
about ready to let all this come about.  In fact, the ARRL petitioned
against it because we have no idea what it will do to existing users.



Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)



"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org