| |
VE2HAR > MT63 11.03.05 00:32l 133 Lines 4616 Bytes #-7495 (0) @ WW
BID : 5274SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: [MT63] Re: 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/2207z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41119 $:5274sentto
Paul:
Some good points, but how do you seperate OS/GPL religion and
personal feelings from what is "fair"?
We are human so we can't. The only way to approach something like we
are discussing is from the physical layer, and quite frankly, that is
the best way to approach it from a regulatory standpoint. You really
DON'T want the FCC analayzing message content or banning applications
like Winlink because they don't suite our personal idea of what
amateur radio should be.
Point in fact. Today, in the U.S., one station can essentially tie up
a 3khz wide channel on HF almost 24x7. Is this legal? Yes, is this
fair? I think most of us would say no. Yet, with certain stations,
this is exactly what is happening.
Yet, how do we not stand in the way of progress?
I think ETSI (Europe's FCC) got it right with their version of the
ISM bands (868mhz). This band is similar to our ISM bands, such as
900mhz (Part 15) with a very unique difference. DUTY CYCLE
LIMITATIONS. Your transmitter is limited, with I believe a sliding
time window, with how much time it could occupy the air.
This, in my opinion, would translate very well to the amateur HF
bands. Of course, a sliding window, both related to short term and
long term use, as well as bandwidth, would be used. This would assure
a OS/application neutral stance, and allow regulatory agencies to be
able to enforce the rules without a underlying knowledge of the
application.
73
Jeff King wb8wka
--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <k9ps@a...> wrote:
> Tomi Manninen wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>I'd say that any experimentation trumps ragchewing anyway, which
is
> >>what the regular CW and phone operators are doing. (Sorry if you
don't
> >>want to hear this).
> > Seconded.
>
> Thirded? (Apologies to Robert's Rules of Order)
>
> >>On the other hand I'm not in favour of establishing *services* on
HF.
> >>For example I'm not happy about Winlink being on HF amateur bands.
> > Seconded!
>
> Thirded, with an additional comment --
>
> We aren't "in the business" of being a common carrier; we aren't
> "in business" at all - which is why it's AMATEUR radio. On the
> other hand, we DO need to have (and have a long history of doing
> so) established "networks" running.
>
> What a "network" is has changed over time -- from back in the
> days when that meant relaying a CW message from station to
> station for long-haul communications, to the era of voice
> traffic nets, to the era of the VHF packet systems, and so on.
>
> Where are we now? Where does the Winlink system fit in? Where
> do the old-fashioned traffic nets fit in?
>
> Our "business" is in establishing CAPABILITIES. Historically,
> many of these capabilities have proven themselves valuable in
> times of emergency, and frequently have been proven valuable
> enough for adoption by the commercial world. The things that
> were at one time the domain of the hard-core fringe experimenters
> on ham radio are now considered essential commercial services.
>
> Winlink -- and in particular PACTOR II and PACTOR III -- have
> actually REVERSED this trend. Instead of a new capability being
> developed by ham radio ops, a commercial product -- one that is
> restricted by commercial patents and CAN'T be freely replicated
> by experimenting hams -- has come into the ham bands.
>
> What is our business model for survival of the amateur service?
>
> If it's using our licenses, our frequencies, and our reputation
> as a marketing opportunity for the vendors of proprietary products,
> we'd might as well call it quits.
>
> If it's developing newer and better publicly available, OPEN SOURCE,
> non-patent-encumbered means of communicating... we might just be
> able to succeed with the plan.
>
> My two cents...
>
> 73,
>
> Paul / K9PS
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Create your own customized LAUNCHcast Internet Radio station.
Rate your favorite Artists, Albums, and Songs. Skip songs. Click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r4oloD/xA5HAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
