Hi Rick, You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion. The outcome of what takes place within the Amateur Radio Service as to what is and what is not accepted as technology and practices needs to be driven by the development of technologies and the choices made by the Amateur Radio community where the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service allow for the needed experimentation and development of new technology and practices rather than tightening of the rules to limit such.
I have no love for proprietary PACTOR x or any proprietary protocols or for automation systems based stations that just sit parked on one frequency rather than frequency multiplexing. I believe the future of the Amateur Radio Service will be based on open standards, the best of which currently are U.S. Federal, Military and NATO standards which the ARS can adopt as they exist of use as the basis of derived protocols adapted to the exacting needs of the ARS. However we need to be moving in the opposite direction of RM-11392, we need 3Khz bandwidth and relaxation of a number of existing rules here in the U.S. to keep pace with the world Amateur Radio community. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 03:21 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >Hi Mark, > >It is interesting that the opposition to your petition is overwhelming. >I would have expected it the other way, based upon the discussions we >all have on groups such as digitalradio. > >As they say, those who show up for the meeting get to decide the >outcome, even if they are in the extreme minority. > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > > > >Mark Miller wrote: > > At 10:53 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote: > > > > > >> I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would > >> many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is > >> a major issue with the digital amateur community. > >> > > > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > I did submit a news article to QRZ.com, but it appears that there is > > a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum. Some other > > threads have popped up too. > > > > I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments > > were in opposition to the petition. > > > > 73, > > Mark N5RFX > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > >View the DRCC numbers database at >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
