OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J
At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote: >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>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>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 <<mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com>[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 > >> > >> > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: >3/17/2007 12:33 PM
