Topic: SWL version. ? (21 replies)
#21     Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:12 pm
Marietta, GA
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2

VE3EFC wrote:

1) Receiving consumes the same server resources and bandwidth as transmitting, so the price would be the same for SWL version.

2) Currently we are averaging about 4 to 5 listeners for every talker. If there was a quick and easy SWL sign-up, we could easily jump to 1000 listeners for every talker. The system archecture may need to be upgraded to handle this situation. The 90 day free trial would be maybe 15 days for SWL.

3) Many real hams who are just curious about the system would choose to try the SWL route instead of enduring the effort to upload their license. The result would be stations who would have been talkers are now just listening. Anything that reduces the number of talkers has a negative impact on the enjoyment of the system. Its the talkers who make it worth something.
.. Doug

Would they? If the cost were the same and you had to choose between being able to talk and not being able to talk, which would a ham choose? You could make it so that the money spent on SWL could not be transfered to a Ham account, which would further influence their decision.

Just a thought I had that I wanted to share.


Fred, WB4AEJ
#22     Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:11 pm
Mansfield, Ohio
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 25

I would like to see something like a real radio receiving Short wave broadcasts and such. I have briefly mentioned the winradio in other posts with its cool interface and the fact it can receive from 9Htz to 1800 Megahertz more with addons.. but of course you need an external receiver or a PCI card with an antenna hook I cannot at this time afford the high prices that winradio costs.

But if something could be done here for receiveing various real time broadcasts Shortwave or other things that would be awesome. If I am not making alot of sense sorry, sometimes I just ramble on over nothing.
Larry N8RGO

Copyright ©2013 Cormac Technologies Inc.