| |
VE2HAR > MT63 11.03.05 02:04l 128 Lines 5005 Bytes #-7494 (0) @ WW
BID : 64763SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: [MT63] Re: 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0HDF<DB0ERF<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<DB0RES<ON0AR<VA2HAR<
VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/2342z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41177 $:64763sentto
wb8wka wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> Some good points, but how do you seperate OS/GPL religion and
> personal feelings from what is "fair"?
I don't think it's really that hard, and "Fair" isn't really the
point. The point I was making had to do with the way the various
modes, etc. fall into our purpose for existence.
Open Source is potentially a OS/GPL religion thing, but in the
context of ham radio, shouldn't be. When computer software
becomes a part of a mode itself (not just logging software,
station control, etc.), it shouldn't be permitted on ham radio
frequencies unless there is a way that a sufficiently skilled
ham could build up a system to use it.
If we turned the clock back a half century to the introduction
of SSB onto the ham bands, what would have happened if SSB had
been encumbered by patents, and only a large company or two (say,
for example, Collins and one or two other major manufacturers)
were the only companies licensed to build the stuff? The sale
of 2Q4's would have been tracked to look for potential patent
infringers, all of those ARC-5 transmitters would still be
in the junk pile (not turned into Cheap and Easy SSB exciters),
and only the wealthy hams could use the mode.
At least in that case, John Q. Ham could listen in, since a CW
receiver would pick up SSB transmissions.
Taking a look at the ARRL's web page with the mode descriptions
and the FCC's correspondence regarding sound card modes, it seems
clear that the purpose of the regulation on publicly disclosing
encoding techniques is aimed at allowing anyone to construct
their own modem. Reading through the documentation, I don't
really see how "you decode this mode by forking several hundred
bucks over to a licensed manufacturer" fits into that.
> 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.
OK... so we address the physical layer. The regulations do that
as-is. So given specs, parts, and time, I can put together -- getting
parts from a variety of sources -- an FM transmitter, an SSB receiver,
a kilowatt amplifier, a 3-element 20-meter beam, a PSK31 set-up,
something to run MT63, Olivia, MFSK16, Throb, or whatever...
I don't think that's a "personal idea" -- allowing proprietary
modes on the ham band is inconsistent with the tradition of ham
radio, as well as the spirit of the current regulations.
Maybe I should set up a new mode for a few of us to use, with the
mode description of the mode being: It sounds like XXX carriers
phase modulated spaced YYY Hz apart. If you want to actually see
what is going across the link, send me $1000 and I'll send you a
box to watch it.
Oh, wait... that has already been done. It's called PACTOR II and III.
> 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.
Fair and Legal are often not the same.
> Yet, how do we not stand in the way of progress?
By setting up the rules which permit a level playing field?
> 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.
How about just enforcing the reg that says that all communications
are to be consistent with good amateur and engineering practice?
Forget trying to regulate it.
> 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
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Music that listens to you.
LAUNCHcast. What's in your mix?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/8mKGzA/FARHAA/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
| |
