Amateur radio started and will continue to be about the exploration and experimentation with new technologies. Hams worlwide are developing new operating modes daily. Band regulation by mode is outdated the moment someone devises a band plan.
RM-11306 is not the correct solution, but it appears to be the most politically acceptable plan in the view of the ARRL. It is better than we have now and the doctor is correct that in the world of political compromise it is a good first step.
Kim - AC7YY
On 1/25/06, Dr. Howard S. White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lost in the rhetoric against Winlink....is the real reason for RM-11305/6.....There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by mode....US Hams are falling further and further behind in "advancing the art of radio" because we are shackled by the archaic rules..And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far enough in freeing us from Technolgy Jail...Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to the model that the rest of the world is adopting...and which we will ultimately adopt some time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we can do for now...And I am constantly amazed at the provincial attitudes of US Hams who we can ignore the rest of the world.If the rest of the world is or will be regulation by bandwidth...and we share those same frequencies with the rest of the world... What is the point of keeping us in Technology Jail?....when everyone else on those same frequencies is not?__________________________________________________________
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Website: www.ky6la.com
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"----- Original Message -----From: N6CRRSent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:16 PMSubject: [digitalradio] RM-11306 RantThe whole bandwidth RM issue brings what I think is a philosophical
argument to Amateur Radio and it is probably a good time to put the
discussion in those very simple philosophical points of view.
On the one hand we have the Winlink, and email over HF radio camp,
which seem to view Amateur Radio in general as an ends to a means. The
means appears to be well intentioned and altruistic in nature, but is
fraught with conflicts of interest due to financial interests in terms
of equipment providers by parties who are advocates of this sort of
service. While the RF and radio aspects of Winlink are important is
some ways, the payload or content of the information appears to be the
driving force. From personal communications from amateurs to non
amateurs via email to access to sources of information to the amateur
radio operator which are not readily available by other means, such as
weather forecasts etc, it's the information content which is important.
On the other hand are the traditionalists who view Amateur Radio
communications as a direct person to person form of communications.
Third parties operating on scare spectrum resources for the benefit of
content, at least in the form of "Robot" servers are alien to this
point of view. The information content in the traditional view of
Amateur radio is not structured and is in some sense, the information
content is what ever a fellow amateur wishes to convey. This point of
view values the art and pleasure of communications higher than the
content. (I'm in this camp by the way)
Turning from the fundamental philosophical issues, there are other
issues at play that range from the use of proprietary modulation
formats and techniques on what are public spectrum resources, to the
role of automation of use of radio spectrum along with allocation of
spectrum resources to tasks.
The ARRL in it's infinite wisdom has seen fit to ignore the
fundamental differences in opinion on this fundamental point of view
which may be present membership of the league, while at the same time
those that are more interested in the content of the communications
have done exactly what their point of view tells them is the correct
thing, namely advocated with rule making that empowers their point of
view. I'm not quite sure if the ARRL is merely incompetent, tone deaf
or bought and paid for, I leave that for others to decide.
In short, the debate turns over a fundamental view of what is amateur
radio is, and what it will become in the future. In the final
analysis, it is the role of the FCC to listen to the public, for who
they work, and issue rules which seek to balance the two points of view.
Comment, don't comment, but at the end of the day, things will either
change or not change based on comments made by the owners of the
spectrum, you.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
73's
Kim Aiken - AC7YY
AMSAT #26076
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
SPONSORED LINKS
| Ham radio | Craft hobby | Hobby and craft supply |
| Icom ham radio | Yaesu ham radio |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
