What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting. We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands.
There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500 Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that can be done. For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to be counterproductive and a step backward. I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC is very supportive of what you want to do. Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One could use a "civil disobedience" type of protest, as Bonnie has suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the directions that your group wanted to go. The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be difficult to steer the ship in a new direction. KV9U John Champa wrote: > Rick, > > Paul as the CTO was our reporting person. However, > he did not come into the picture until the last year. > A lot of frustration had built up by then. > > It was also his recommendation to the Board that the > HSMM Working Group be founded. That's why we > called him the "Father of HSMM". > > Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved > in what we were trying to do, and we had their support. > > The Technology Task Force still exists! It consists of > the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects. > They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less > on policy and regulations. > > But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA. It could only go > operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course. But first > John KD6OZH must get it to work! (HI). > > 73, > John - K8OCL > Former HSMM Chairman > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500 > > Walt, > > It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing > technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this > technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request > continued, if not even, expanded activity. > > Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured > out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any > information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been > working closely with him. > > I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty > substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either. > > As I recall, the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some > time ago? > > The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. > Otherwise you would not need encryption. > > I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham > controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to > more secure control links such as landline has been used. > > Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other > countries that may truly be in a technology "jail," if they can not even > run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Walt DuBose wrote: > > Rick, > > > > You are not in possession of all the facts. > > > > The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed > data and > > other modes on frequencies above HF. > > > > The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to > accomplish the > > task. > > > > The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. > 2007 the > > board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific > works. > > The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force. > > > > I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed > specific > > needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem > project. WE > > did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97. > > > > Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption > as long > > as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97. I > agree. > > Some don't. As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM > and > > ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the > purpose of > > control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued > any > > citations. It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to > the FCC > > telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz > > frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not > received > > a citation. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > > > kv9u wrote: > > > >> Bruce, > >> > >> You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very > >> different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented > >> hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend > >> deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules. > >> > >> It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not > >> agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules > >> changed. > >> > >> But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too > >> extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors > that: > >> > >> "If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz > >> limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz .... a 45 MHz limit up > >> to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz. > >> > >> http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf > >> > >> Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working > >> Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on > >> amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz. > >> > >> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html > >> > >> I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that > >> the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S. > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Rick, KV9U > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster > telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > >
