Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed "off-road", and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?)
If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed , I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new modes and methodology is great, and should be encouraged, but should be targeted to use the bandwidth which is already legal, and not push to suddenly widen, therefore take over that which is presently being enjoyed by operators who use them as a hobby, and personal enjoyment. I salute those with the technical knowledge, ability, and drive to develop these new modes, but ask them to direct their long term targeting to share, not take over amateur radio, for purposes other than what the large majority are using it. The government welcomes enhancements for emergency servies, so let the government assign spectrum for its development and use. This stuff of pushing the legal limits by using several channels (each within the bandwidth limit) but needing those several to get a message across,: thus using up the space of several users, on the amateur bands, is just plain wrong. Having said all that: know that I served as a telecommunications officer in several different federal positions for some 29 years, and would have readily accepted and used some of the recent developments in that job. But I remind you - it was a JOB. We had our own spectrum, and one of the most aggrivating things I saw, and stopped, was our operators sliding into the ham bands when they thought those small pieces of spectrum were the best place to go. I did not and will not condone other users interfering with this hobby. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Interesting analogy. I guess we'd never have invented jet airplanes, then, if "no one needs to travel faster than XX MPH". If getting data disseminated in an emergency has lower priority than an RTTY contest, then so be it. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS ----- Original Message ----- From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow That is exactly the question. The next person may say that 9.6 is too slow for him. We refer back to the speed limit on road, and knowing human nature. Danny Douglas
