The problem with worrying about "people interfering with this hobby", you have
to narrowly define "this hobby".
OK, staying with your analogy, we'd have to set surface street speed limits in
concrete based on how fast a Ford Model T could have been safely driven,
leading to a national maximum speed limit of what? 40 MPH? Lanes probably
should be subsequently narrowed, too.
Restricting research and innovation to VHF/UHF bands is not the answer. It's a
little hard to test the NVIS or ionospheric characteristics of a new mode on 6
meteres and up.
I've yet to hear a rational reason why a DSB AM transmission should be allowed
to utilize 6 Khz of bandwidth, but not a digital one.
Please note that I am not suggesting that hams should use 6 Khz. wide modes on
a daily basis for ragchewing. From a practical standpoint, 3 Khz. is probably
a PRACTICAL limit, for the time being, if we are discussing sound card modes
modulating SSB signals. But I'd also like to see spread spectrum
experimentation on HF, too. Maybe some fruitful experimentation would wind up
earning us MORE HF spectrum, if we could show it could be put to good use.
--
Dave Sparks
AF6AS
----- Original Message -----
From: DANNY DOUGLAS
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with
aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed "off-road", and did not interfere
with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by
aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally
made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are
developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as
new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited
to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain
speeds/locations, just like
the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and
cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and
sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would
not break the sound barrier over US land?)
If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other
stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed
, I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their
developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new
modes and methodology is great, and should be encouraged, but should be
targeted to use the bandwidth which is already legal, and not push to suddenly
widen, therefore take over that which is presently being enjoyed by operators
who use them as a hobby, and personal enjoyment. I salute those with the
technical knowledge, ability, and drive to develop these new modes, but ask
them to direct their long term targeting to share, not take over amateur radio,
for purposes other than what the large majority are using it.
The government welcomes enhancements for emergency servies, so let the
government assign spectrum for its development and use. This stuff of pushing
the legal limits by using several channels (each within the bandwidth limit)
but needing those several to get a message across,: thus using up the space of
several users, on the amateur bands, is just plain wrong.
Having said all that: know that I served as a telecommunications officer in
several different federal positions for some 29 years, and would have readily
accepted and used some of the recent developments in that job. But I remind
you - it was a JOB. We had our own spectrum, and one of the most aggrivating
things I saw, and stopped, was our operators sliding into the ham bands when
they thought those small pieces of spectrum were the best place to go. I did
not and will not condone other users interfering with this hobby.
