Walt, I certainly hope you are right. Joel is a progressive fellow.
Since that meeting I have certainly become more appreciative of all the work that Chris Imlay did with all the FCC on behalf of the HSMM Working Group. For example, look now at the new rules on SS on the 222 MHz band! They didn't make that change on there own. I get the feeling John's code won't handle more than 100 kHz anyway! (HI) But that still is ~140 kbps. Sure beats AX.25! And the ground wave range on 222 MHz is as good as on 2M too! 73, John K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600 Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and with a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are changing. I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the OFs. John Champa wrote: > PS - Rick is correct about one item. Those > policy recommendations were part of the reason > the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group. > > They didn't like hearing those sorts of things. > Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change > no matter how painless we tried to make it. > > I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope > the service survives beyond my life, but I am > not making taking any bets. > > This is the digital radio forum isn't it? (HI) > > 73, > John > K8OCL > > > > ----Original Message Follows- > From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500 > > 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 > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
