The only angst I see is your bitching and the only dead bands are due to propagation, so there is plenty of activity on the bands when propagation is favorable, so don't try to tell me what I don't know. In my last job I designed avionics weather radar and avionics SDR transceivers up to 1 kW, so don't tell me I am behind the technology curve. I also occasionally work PSK31 digital. As far as the money goes, read the original text in the post: "...In 2012 or so, Yaesu introduced Wires which is much like Echolink and AllStar. There are servers with rooms, not unlike chat rooms, where you connect a node to and in turn your radio...." "...Two years later, ICOM started developing D-STAR hardware which resulted in actual physical radios less than a year later. Today you can get D-STAR hardware from ICOM, Kenwood and FlexRadio Systems..." ..."For many years D-STAR and DMR-MARC, the DMR Motorola Amateur Radio Club World Wide Network, were the main digital radio systems around in amateur radio. That changed in 2013 when Yaesu introduced System Fusion..." Yes, it all sounds very geeky and tekky but is it really ARS? Phil
I think you have that backwards. For linked systems, utilizing the Internet extends amateur radio. Pre-internet, linked repeater systems needed RF links to tie them together, or private wireline. This can still be done, but is very expensive to do and maintain. The internet is a cheap way of tying machines together, whether they be analog (via VoIp based systems like IRLP, Echolink, Allstar), or digital (D-STar, DMR, Fusion, etc.) NONE of these networks REQUIRE the Internet, and there are many digital linked systems built entirely on a private backbone. I happen to use one here in Colorado Springs - a linked DMR system covering a good part of the state as well as into Wyoming and New Mexico. Private microwave. Expensive. If the FCC requires an amateur radio license to operate it, I'd say that it's amateur radio. Experimentation and enjoyment are my goals with amateur radio. To the OP - good summary!
Here in the UK if you RX or TX no matter if its amateur, broadcasting, aeronautical, maritime and so on you are governed by the rules set out in the WIRELESS Telegraphy act, i assummed from your comment that you felt that you only listen to a wireless,hello is anybody home .
Though I've not been involved in DMR a long time, I have already begun appreciating its way of making my morning walk around the neighborhood more interesting. My IC-7300 won't fit in my back pocket for such walks, but my MD380 nestles nicely in my hand while I'm listening to others and occasionally throwing in my two cents' worth. Anytime something changes, there will be folks who complain that "amateur radio just died" or some such rubbish. I've seen a few of those changes over the past 40 years and, guess what, amateur radio continues to percolate right along. Jon, NM0O
Something to Cogitate upon... If we look at what the generally accepted definition of radio "the transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves of radio frequency", one must logically conclude that a transmission that propagates over a medium other than "the ether" is not truly radio. If something is psychically connected between the sender and receiver (telegraph wires) , fiber optic cable (photons not electrons) etc. it is by definition not radio. If a transmission is to truly be classified as a radio transmission in its purest form it must be wireless. If you are using the internet (a network) as part of the link to reach a wireless TX then the internet network is a routed network relay point that in my opinion is not different than a repeater or satellite hop. If communication is strictly VOIP or packets on a network it is not radio. It can be related to a radio activity such as ham radio but, it cannot stand alone as Ham radio. With respect to contesting and not allowing terrestrial relays; I think this is correct. So as we ply our craft in the spirit of Tesla, Faraday, Marconi and others; let us excite our transmissions with what ever modulation scheme we have now or dream up in the future and "Work the World with Wireless!"
I'm not sure what people mean when they say "So-and-so is not ham radio", but I don't think they always mean the same thing. First off, saying that something is not ham radio is in no way a criticism of that thing or of the people who use it. Dentistry is not ham radio, but that's consistent with the fact that, when you have a toothache, you should go see a dentist. In my personal opinion, things like echolink and (internet assisted) d-star are not ham radio, but that does not imply that people shouldn't use them and enjoy them. I myself use d-star on a regular basis. I am not the least bit perturbed by my belief that it is something other than ham radio because, whatever it is, it's a convenient way to chat with some folks. Why should I care, or even be particularly interested in, whether it is ham radio? If I enjoy it, I enjoy it. Describe it however you like.
Or more to the point: Why should you care what somebody on the internet thinks of the technology you decide to use?
All of those things you mentioned above are indeed "ham radio". Tunnelling communications through the internet is not. I'm a big fan of digital modes myself, which are generated at my QTH and transmitted via a small amount of RF to arrive at it's destination and then hopefully solicit a reply. I can see the use for internet tunneled communications for emergency communications, but it really isn't any more ham radio than chinwagging on a Discord server. I don't need thousands of dollars worth of radio and antenna gear or a licence to do that though. Why even buy a radio?
Why? Because you don't like the idea? Plenty of people said FM repeaters weren't ham radio. "How can that be ham radio? Your signal is tunneling through another transmitter and being rebroadcast!" Ham radio is what hams do.
