Bruce, You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules changed. But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that: "If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz .... a 45 MHz limit up to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz. http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S. 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 > meters with 200 khz wide signals? > > Nice very nice ..... > > > --- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Rod, >> >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the >> FCC >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious >> trouble"? >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our >> service was established! >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be >> so heavy handed? >> >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur >> barracks lawyers >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left >> trying to develop new >> technology. They're always writing "That's illegal" >> while they just sit on >> their fat b---- doing NOTHING else but trying to >> find something in the >> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the >> road. >> >> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a >> wonderful avocation! >> >> 73, >> John >> K8OCL >> >>
