Denver Puts Out A Call For Licensed Amateur Radio Operatorsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
This from the Monday, March 15, 1999 issue of the Denver Post, page 2A:
This morning's Dick Kreck column had the following item which, I guess, reiterates Denver's Fix-On-Failure mentality:
"In the current issue of Spotlight, its newsletter for employees, the city and county of Denver sends out a call for licensed amateur radio operators because of "contingency plans being made for Y2K."
I can hear the refrain throughout the front range:
"Don't worry, be happy!"
-- Kalani Hanohano (email@example.com), March 15, 1999
At least they've realized they'll need contingency planning ... progress ;-)
-- not in denver (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 15, 1999.
Is anyone aware of any assessment of Y2K problems inherent in radio transmitters and receivers?
Almost all of this equipment now is digital. Does this mean that in some sense, and to some degree, they're computerized? (And potentially vulnerable to the rollover?)
-- Tom Carey (email@example.com), March 15, 1999.
The major makers of amateur radio equipment have already put y2k compliance statements about their product lines on their web sites. I haven't checked lately, but I heard a rumor that ICOM or YAESU came up with one or two that they said may need upgrades.
By and large, most, if not all, ham gear is y2k compliant, even though many functions, including tuning control, are digitized. Personally, I see it as a non-issue, but it's a valid concern for those unfamiliar with ham equipment.
-- LP (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 15, 1999.
Didn't see your post here re: Y2K compliant rigs until today, LP... guess we were thinking along similar lines, see this thread.
-- sparks (email@example.com), March 16, 1999.
you also need to check repeater controllers, the digital equipment, etc although packet transmission itself will be ok.
-- jocelyne slough (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 17, 1999.