Bill, These are proposals by many groups and individuals, including the ARRL, and while they may, or may not, be accepted by the FCC, the main political reality is to not take away anything from existing interests. (The ARRL may have learned that from what happened with the incentive licensing debacle). I don't see anyone using wide bandwidth HF digital modes and I sure don't support it either on such limited bands. Other than the SDR1000 type of transceivers, there would not be many rigs that could even do these kinds of wide digital modes.
I will say that if AM transmissions were very common, they would likely be banned since a huge majority of hams would insist that this be done. Since AM operation is relatively quite rare, and usually on a few spot frequencies, often on the lower HF bands, and often during daytime, it doesn't cause a problem it doesn't cause a problem like it would for wide BW digital modes. When you have a shared resource for so many users, there has to be some kind of fair use and it doesn't require any financial transaction. Only what reasonable people agree is fair. PSKmail has shown what can be done with very narrow digital modes on HF. It seems to me that we should focus more on things that are amateur based, developed, and operated. Especially if we can do it without single source proprietary products or software. For the higher frequencies, where there is more room, the wider modes can work well. This weekend our local amateur radio club was at our county fair and one of our tests included transmission of real time video on 2.4 GHz wifi from a basic camera/WAP/high gain vertical antenna to a portable laptop. Works very nicely for at least 1000 feet. And with gain antennas on both ends I think can go a few miles. And you don't even have to use amateur radio as such, but inexpensive COTS equipment. 73, Rick, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>What ARRL regulations are those? >> >> > >Same old discussion. If the ARRL Regulation by Bandwidth proposal is >accepted, I'd be able to run 8 KHz AM (which, of course, has it's place) >but I wouldn't be able to do 6 KHz or 9 KHz or 12 Khz data... One of >those two modes was availabe in the 1950's. The other is available today. > Guess which one would be allowed? > >Maybe it's time we started charging for transmission time on the air. >One penny per kilohertz per minute should about put things in perspective. >:-) or !:-) > > >73 >Bill - WA7NWP > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
