Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going to do about that?" In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. How about this, for a two step approach? 1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient" about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information encoding scheme without special authorization or STA. 2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15 years. All of 160M. 3550-3600KHz. 3900-4000KHz. 7050-7150KHz. 7250-7300KHz. 14050-14100KHz. 14300-14350KHz. 21050-21100KHZ. 21400-21450KHz. All of 10M. 146-148MHz. 222-225MHz. All bands above 432MHz. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 11:02�pm, wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote: Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going to do about that?" It's not misdirection, Hans. It's a plain and simple question, meant to focus on the fact that not all kHz are created equal. In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. Perhaps. How about this, for a two step approach? 1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient" about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and keep the question pool secret. I like it! The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept secret? How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class needed a different exam system than all the rest? *Holders of this license could experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information encoding scheme without special authorization or STA. The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or 'deliberate interference'? I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband restrictions, rather than real experimentation. 2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15 years. *All of 160M. *3550-3600KHz. *3900-4000KHz. *7050-7150KHz. 7250-7300KHz. *14050-14100KHz. *14300-14350KHz. *21050-21100KHZ. 21400-21450KHz. *All of 10M. *146-148MHz. *222-225MHz. *All bands above 432MHz. Which means that 160, 10, 220 and all above 432 would no longer be available for the use of SSB, DSB, AM, FM, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, SSTV, TV, PSK31, and CW. Plus considerable segments of the rest of the amateur bands would lose those modes as well. Not by voluntarily abandonment of old modes but by law. I don't think that's a good idea. Just because something isn't brand new doesn't mean it should be legislated off the air. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
oups.com On Apr 22, 11:02?pm, wrote: On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote: [snip] So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. Perhaps. Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction outside of the US. 73 Ivor G6URP |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over
here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction outside of the US. I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC ![]() -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS# 9666 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:
Which means that 160, 10, 220 and all above 432 would no longer be available for the use of SSB, DSB, AM, FM, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, SSTV, TV, PSK31, and CW. Plus considerable segments of the rest of the amateur bands would lose those modes as well. Not by voluntarily abandonment of old modes but by law. Exactly. The point of the exercise is to precipitate a "crisis" or a "challenge" similar to the "200-meters-and-down" event which is widely claimed as the catalyst which launched the "golden age" of amateur radio advancement. Only this crisis would leave some residual segments for those not inclined to accept the challenge. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC ![]() -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL I wholeheartedly agree, Jack, and I didn't mean to imply that FCC had any jurisdiction outside of the USA. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 10:38 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? It would have no regulatory effect at all outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, and your operations wouldn't be directly affected at all. However, presuming the idea gained traction, obviously the secondary effect would be that hams in other countries would want to also experiment with any new modes or techniques they heard on the air and would petition their regulators to allow it. I'm reminded of a "reverse" example of this which happened here in North America awhile back. For several years Canadian amateurs were allowed on-the-air development and use of AX-25 (packet radio) but FCC regulations prohibited W/K hams from participating. Eventually we were able to convince FCC to allow this mode. Thus in this example, the action of the Canadian regulators had an indirect secondary effect of eventually changing the mind of the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:
The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept secret? At this point in the discussion, I'd certainly consider that a question which would need to be addressed in the implementation. How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class needed a different exam system than all the rest? By a well constructed proposal which effectively demonstrates the benefits of a renewed spirit of experimentation and innovation by hams. The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or 'deliberate interference'? Who defines 'deliberate interference' now. K4ZDH comes to mind. The definition of what would qualify as an experimental mode (not currently in use) would be a trival administrative exercise. I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband restrictions, rather than real experimentation. Yes, Jim, there will always be some sea-lawyers who will try to exploit 'cracks' in the regulations. Obviously my PBI above is not a finished product and does not address all the potential 'problems' and 'abuse opportunities'. I'd like to consider it as a starting point for positive discussion. Thank you for your participation in that spirit. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Antenna | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew |