K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and
it all goes downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened.

Pactor is already in the HF bands, it's a royal pain in the tush and
the FCC will probably bring it's use under control based on all the
griping about it.

Considering the rapid pace of development work in the field of
high-speed wireless comms I expect it'll become technically much easier
as time goes on to get some form or another of wireless broadband
hardware running in the HF ham bands. Which would immediately raise
more hell on the bands than anything we've seen in the modern era.
Which it hasn't and it won't because those modes are not allowed to
happen under the current regs. So I disagree with your "unregulated
equal opportunity mode playground" concept.

The US is one of only a
very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

No counter, we've been very pointedly marching to our own drummer since
1776 and I sure hope we never become international sheep.

We have a whole pile of sweeping "restructuring" schemes before the FCC
and everybody is all atwitter over the minutia and their parochial hot
buttons, etc. The usual. Lotta nonsense, I have yet to read one of 'em
which if implemented wouldn't make conditions on the bands *worse* in
some way or another than what we have now. The bands ain't broken, why
are we so hell-bent on "fixing" something which ain't broke??

Bleh. =20
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv