This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.
Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first
introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus couldn't
self-police?
Demodulators for soundcard-based digital modes aren't free; they
require a PC, a soundcard, and a receiver. Considering new equipment
prices, the combination of a PC and a soundcard is actually more
expensive than an SCS modem.
If I develop a fabulous new mode that runs on a dedicated array of
56000 DSP chips, provide comprehensive public documentation for this
mode, and send one of these arrays to a friend in California, should
he and I be precluded from using this mode because no other hams
have chosen to build the required DSP array (though they could if
they wanted to)?
I think the current regulation is correct: the mode must be publicly
documented in a form that would allow someone reasonably skilled in
the art to create a functioning modulator and demodulator. Adding
any kind of cost constraint to the regulation would inhibit
innovation, and would be incredibly complex to administer.
If comprehensive documentation were publicly available for Pactor 3,
then you would be able to build your own Pactor 3 modem using a
spare PC and soundcard running a realtime operating system. Such a
configuration would cost no more than what you're using to run
soundcard PSK or RTTY.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Secondly, you certainly do have the right to decode PactorIII if
you
> > wish, but there is no godgiven right for you to get a free
modem.
> > What makes you think you have the "right" to get something for
nothing
> > (albeit many hams have been acustomed to it with many soundcard
digis)?
>
> It is my view that proprietary modes that disallow free
> decoding should never be allowed on spectrum designated for
> Ham use.
>
> A proprietary mode that disallows free decoding renders the
> FCC requirement for self-policing functionally improbable for
> financial reasons -- unless the proprietors of the proprietary
> mode provides free decoding hardware to all of the OO's -- and
> even that would fall well short of the self-regulatory
> expectations of the FCC.
>
> I would be happy to sign-on to proposed FCC action that
> would make proprietary modes that cannot be freely decoded via
> commonly available sound card technology illegal on Ham spectrum.
> This would not limit experimentation -- special restricted
> and temporary permits are available through a FCC process
> for that.
>
> When a proprietary mode gets into "the wild", as they say
> in computer virus terms, then control is lost. The probability
> of abuse and/or misuse is inversely proportional to the
> likelihood of transmissions being monitored.
>
> If someone wants to add a mode to those legally available
> to Hams they should be required to make *decoding* (not
> transmission) freely available.
>
> They may still profit from the sale of proprietary *coding*
> technology. This is the same as Adobe giving away their
> PDF reader but charging for their coder.
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> http://bibleseven.com
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
