3 ms·
> Voice communication on modern 2-way radios Then why didn't you (or the FAA for example) just call them "phones" but "2-way radios"? That undermines the rest
by close04 7y ago
> Voice communication on modern 2-way radios
Then why didn't you (or the FAA for example) just call them "phones" but "2-way radios"? That undermines the rest of your point.
The concept of a modern phone* implies simultaneous 2 way voice and also dialing functionality. A "phone mode of operation" just mimics some of that functionality. Otherwise every 2-way voice radio ever used would be called "phone". But they're not because they aren't.
Defending such a clickbaity definition of "a phone" is surprising especially in a community like HN where I expect people to be more precise with terminology.
*and that's the concept that matters. Today using a 100 year old definition of a phone is just as inappropriate as a 20 year old definition of broadband.
- kube-system 7y ago"phone", as you are asserting, is a colloquialism for "telephone". Radios don't have a "phone" mode of operation because they mimic telephones. "Phone" does, and always has meant "audio". We don't call radios "phones" for the same reason we don't call them "audio". Likewise, phonographs aren't named after telephones, either.
- close04 7y agoBut you brought the argument that radios have "a phone mode of operation". The "voice" mode [0] is colloquially called "phone" because of the telephone-like functionality. This is why it's also called radiotelephony and not just telephony. To highlight the similarity to telephony but still make it clear that it's a radio and not a telephone. Now the article is written in 2020, when "wireless phone" means only "wireless telephone", something different from the radio presented in the article. And clickbaity titles are all the rage. Which was my point. [0] http://www.arrl.org/voice-modes http://www.arrl.org/voice-modes