Walt, It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request continued, if not even, expanded activity.
Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been working closely with him. I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either. As I recall, the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some time ago? The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. Otherwise you would not need encryption. I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to more secure control links such as landline has been used. Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other countries that may truly be in a technology "jail," if they can not even run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct? 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: > 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 >> >> >>
