Laws are laws, whether you like them or not. And, in this particular context, is it actually necessary to go on the air to carry out experiments of this type? As has been mentioned in several posts. there are ionospheric simulators that permit the testing of different modes.
The amateur bands are not just an experimenter's playground. They are also used for communication. And communication becomes increasingly difficult when you have a Tower of Babel of different, mutually incompatible modes competing for the same frequencies. There are dozens of data modes that have been developed in the last few years and most now simply lie unused because not enough people were interested in using them to make it possible to have everyday contacts. Would it not be better to make more use of the modes we already have than keep on inventing new ones? I think that before any mode is allowed off the simulator and into general use it should be proven to have benefits not provided by any pre-existing modes, as well as to justify its use of bandwidth. I think there is an argument for setting aside a small section of space for on-air experimentation with unapproved modes. But the situation where existing users of the bands suddenly have their activities disrupted when people start going mad with some flavour of the month new mode is unacceptable, and the controls the FCC exercise over amateurs in the USA do at least go some way to prevent this. Julian, G4ILO --- In [email protected], "iv3nwv" <nico...@...> wrote: > > Of course we need to regulate the access to our bands. > But should we need to comply with rules that has been written tens years ago? > What forbid us to take on our shoulder the weight of experimenting something > more modern than a RTTY technology which is based on what has been > experimented almost one century ago? > > Are we cows? Should we not exploit the knowledges which matured in these last > years? Should we be constrained to collect vacuum tube receivers and show > them proudly to our retired friends? > Should we ignore that a HF channel is a smart object with its delay and > doppler spread. > What kind of experiments could we do if we are allowed to make experiments > which pretend we are still in the '60s? > How could we claim that the amateur radio service could bring innovation in > communications if we are not allowed to test our ideas?
