Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
You really had me going with the length of time it takes to get an STA. Glad to hear it is of a more reasonable time. I do wish they would allow longer STA testing periods, but I quite agree that since they will likely allow any reasonable experiment, you are fairly safe in getting the everything ready before the STA goes into effect. While I don't fully agree with Bob's view on regulations, I do respect his amazing programming abilities. The WiMax setup here is just a very common ISP installed RF link using Alvarion equipment. I use the term WiMax as a generic higher powered version of WiFi. Alvarion did not wait for the final IEEE specification and started marketing their products much earlier. I have seen these kinds of system other communities. They do throttle back the throughput since you are sharing the sector with anyone else on that connection. It can run over 1 Mbps, but they have it below 500 Mbps I have heard. My understanding is that they have a hexagon array of antennas with each covering 60 degrees beam width to cover the full 360 degrees. The power level is a few watts and runs on 2.4 GHz. It can not tolerate the slightest blockage from distant buildings or trees so is truly LOS. The neighbors barn just happens to be in line with a water tower located about 5 or 6 miles away that has one of their access points so there just is no useable signal at my location. Luckily, after cutting down some trees on the other side of the highway, I was able to open up a LOS link to a more distant tower about 7 or 8 miles. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Rick, Sorry. Did I write years to get an STA? My bad. It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help. HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize the software, hardware, etc. There have too many cases when the time on the STA ran out before anything actually got tested on the air! It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM Modem testing. I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so we had to request a renewal. I supposed they got it as that is the HSMM follow-on project. Again, sorry for the confusion. If you would like to see your WiMax solution published, just let me know. I am editor of the HSMM column in CQ VHF magazine. As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame approach. It definately fits for the FCC: It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission! (HI) 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
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
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, 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
RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of date. Actually I didn't know the account still existed. I wonder who is paying for it? Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn from one of my bank accounts. :-) Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, 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 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- 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 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Results were published in our WG report to the Board twice a year. The Board would then publish them with their minutes in QST. John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:25:56 -0500 http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of date. Actually I didn't know the account still existed. I wonder who is paying for it? Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn from one of my bank accounts. :-) Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, 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 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 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Rick, Sorry. Did I write years to get an STA? My bad. It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help. HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize the software, hardware, etc. There have too many cases when the time on the STA ran out before anything actually got tested on the air! It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM Modem testing. I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so we had to request a renewal. I supposed they got it as that is the HSMM follow-on project. Again, sorry for the confusion. If you would like to see your WiMax solution published, just let me know. I am editor of the HSMM column in CQ VHF magazine. As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame approach. It definately fits for the FCC: It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission! (HI) 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:53:35 -0500 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
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Rodney Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Sir, There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them. Not to mention that there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious trouble. So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting legalities, should the need arise! If people don't obey the laws that are already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is what takes AWAY freedom! Rod KC7CJO Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Tony, I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut. The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC Part 97 for data. Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is published. /s/ Steve, N2CKH - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Bruce, that is an extremely offensive posting. I happen to LOVE 6M and have operated the band for almost 50 years. Sorry, you feel the way you do. You are of course, in error once again. The excellent response from John, KD6OZH, clarified that our OFDM testing will not be on the AM calling frequency, but only on portions of the band seldom utilized even when the band is open. That is a lot of normally empty spectrum in a huge 4 MHz wide band. I hope we that we will ALWAYS be able to enjoy the 6M band together. 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Not destroy it - save it... Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders. Today its the last bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding. Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't hold on to them at the expense of the future. I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL.. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, 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.pdfhttp://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.htmlhttp://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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
John, I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments to assist someone else who may not be sure of how to proceed with new technology in the age of rapid software modem developments. However with your approach, sooner or later if you have not already, you will likely receive one or more FDS-213's or direct FCC correspondence. All of my Amateur Radio activities are in accordance with the rules, I would like to think that everyone who reads and understands the rules operate likewise. It is obvious however that some just don't care, your comments exemplify that position. End of story. Sincerely, /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:17 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote: Steve, You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police anything. IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out your new mode experiment in the middle of their net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK. 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Thank you, Bill! I couldn't have written it any better! 6M is a huge band, that even when it is red hot, as we hope it is again in a few years, is very coveted by many businesses, in addition to BPL. The ARRL HSMM Working Group was trying to save 6M, in addition to finding a spot to operate SS. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:18:24 -0700 This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Not destroy it - save it... Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders. Today its the last bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding. Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't hold on to them at the expense of the future. I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL.. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Chuck, Yes, it is character assassination. All I am saying is don't go crazy with the FCC rules. The FCC publicly has stated the purpose of the rules was NEVER intended to hamper technological experimenting and other progress by Hams. Nonetheless, that is the FIRST question many Hams ask when you want to tray an experiment, when it should be Will we QRM any of our Ham brothers? All I know as a wireless pro is that if we Hams insist on sticking with all the legacy modes while the rest of the world goes digital, all we will have for frequencies aare those not wanted by anybody else. Read the book 200 Meters and above if a history lesson is needed. Hope that helps. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500 OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, 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.pdfhttp://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.htmlhttp://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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
PS - Rick is correct about one item. Those policy recommendations were part of the reason the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group. They didn't like hearing those sorts of things. Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change no matter how painless we tried to make it. I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope the service survives beyond my life, but I am not making taking any bets. This is the digital radio forum isn't it? (HI) 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows- From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500 OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, 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.pdfhttp://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.htmlhttp://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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and with a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are changing. I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the OFs. John Champa wrote: PS - Rick is correct about one item. Those policy recommendations were part of the reason the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group. They didn't like hearing those sorts of things. Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change no matter how painless we tried to make it. I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope the service survives beyond my life, but I am not making taking any bets. This is the digital radio forum isn't it? (HI) 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows- From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500 OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, 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.pdfhttp://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.htmlhttp://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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM 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 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Walt, I certainly hope you are right. Joel is a progressive fellow. Since that meeting I have certainly become more appreciative of all the work that Chris Imlay did with all the FCC on behalf of the HSMM Working Group. For example, look now at the new rules on SS on the 222 MHz band! They didn't make that change on there own. I get the feeling John's code won't handle more than 100 kHz anyway! (HI) But that still is ~140 kbps. Sure beats AX.25! And the ground wave range on 222 MHz is as good as on 2M too! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600 Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and with a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are changing. I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the OFs. John Champa wrote: PS - Rick is correct about one item. Those policy recommendations were part of the reason the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group. They didn't like hearing those sorts of things. Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change no matter how painless we tried to make it. I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope the service survives beyond my life, but I am not making taking any bets. This is the digital radio forum isn't it? (HI) 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows- From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500 OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, 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.pdfhttp://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.htmlhttp://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 bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM 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 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
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
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
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
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Hi Les! Been a long time since we worked MT63 on 20m! The KT2Q is a vanity, old call was AB2CJ... Good to hear from you... Tony PS: Would like to eliminate the 300 baud rule, but I don't have that kind of pull with the FCC : ). - Original Message - From: Les Keppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines KT2Q wrote: All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT Les VK2DSG
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Tony, I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut. The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC Part 97 for data. Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is published. /s/ Steve, N2CKH
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Hi Steiner, It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather than a hope. P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052 FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were to be published then it would be ok. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Sir, There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them. Not to mention that there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious trouble. So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting legalities, should the need arise! If people don't obey the laws that are already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is what takes AWAY freedom! Rod KC7CJO Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Tony, I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut. The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC Part 97 for data. Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is published. /s/ Steve, N2CKH - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
I strongly recommend that any new mode specifications be placed on the ARRL site with all the other mode specifications. Then anyone can refer to them easily. You do not have to be an ARRL member to access this information. It is a bit hard to find under support/regulatory information/FCC rules and then the first item under Additional Resources, 97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions or: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/ As far as the 300 baud speed or greater, just move the mode to the phone sections of the band where facsimile can be sent. This will allow for pictures, faxes, etc. I am willing to bet that the FCC would accept the idea of an attached doc file with text since it is more of a FAX. Wouldn't it be a bit mapped image? I don't think anyone has asked. But if we point out the enormous value for emergency use where you can coordinate a transmission on voice and also send the document, they may accept this as being reasonable. Especially when you have a mix of pictures and text on a page. If I understand it correctly, some Winlink 2000 users are sending weather maps through the Winlink 2000 system and, if so, that would seem to be illegal based on Part 97, since the Winlink 2000 system operates only in the text data part of the bands. The Winlink 2000 owner has promoted this as a feature of their system. 73, Rick, KV9U Les Keppie wrote: KT2Q wrote: All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT Les VK2DSG
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Ok , I was only curious . Every time someone discover a new mode or rediscover an old one like this MIL-STD-188-110 modem, this U.S. FCC rules initialize the same discussion . Don't forget the rest of the world. It is not very interesting to have to read through a lot of text with the same old arguments before getting to the point. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Steiner, It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather than a hope. P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052 FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were to be published then it would be ok. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Rodney Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Sir, There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them. Not to mention that there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious trouble. So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting legalities, should the need arise! If people don't obey the laws that are already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is what takes AWAY freedom! Rod KC7CJO Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Tony, I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut. The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC Part 97 for data. Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is published. /s/ Steve, N2CKH - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Steve, You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police anything. IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out your new mode experiment in the middle of their net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: AAR2EY/AAA9DHT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:06:54 -0400 Hi Steiner, It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather than a hope. P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052 FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were to be published then it would be ok. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
KT2Q wrote: All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT Les VK2DSG
