Rick, You are not in possession of all the facts.
The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and other modes on frequencies above HF. The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish the task. The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 the board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific works. The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force. I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed specific needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project. WE did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97. Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as long as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97. I agree. Some don't. As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose of control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any citations. It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the FCC telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not received a citation. Walt/K5YFW 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 > > 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 >>>
