No I don't have any inside info. I have to admit I don't pay much attention to HF.
What usually detours ham from trying something new is when they aren't sure if it's permitted. I think just the opposite... no biggie once and a while. If something becomes regular someone might want to have clarification or a rules change if warranted. And thats usually prompted by whatever the current trends are. I know if it was the commission, in the grand scheme of things I'd rather not have to address a rather small issue. As for your question, while you didn't specify the underlying transmission method, I'd have to say image. You could also compare it against ITU designators. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve, > > I would agree except for one important consideration .... namely that no > one is trying this. Sure, if it was going on regularly, it might be > better not to ask. > > Or do you have some inside information where hams are sending docs and > other files that have text on the phone/image portions of the bands and > feel uncomfortable in getting a reading on this from the FCC? > > If the FCC said that this would be OK, within reason, don't you think > that more hams would be trying this approach? I know that I sure would. > > After all, if you send a document with an image, is it text or is it > image? Or do you need to send the text down in the text digital part of > the band and the separate image in the voice/image part of the band? > > Personally, I think that the rules are not reasonable. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Steve wrote: > > I think it would be best not to ask. Some things are purposely left > > out of Part 97, to give us flexibility for experimentation purposes. > > Many of the Amateur band plans are voluntary agreements, often known > > as "Gentlemen's Agreements" We are known for "self > > regulating/policing" to ask FCC intervention makes us appear that we > > can't do that. > > > > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > > > > >
