"Maybe someone at ARRL ...."
Ha! Funny.
It's been many folks' experience that the ARRL does nothing that is not in its own interest. Unless they can be persuaded that XYZ technology is good for them and Ham Radio they won't lift a finger. It should also be noted that the ARRL speaks for less than 20% of the US ham population (see membership figures posted in QRZ). We are 700K+ hams here in the US. ARRL has less than 100K members. That said, they are the only group able to engage the FCC and push for changes etc. It's an expensive proposition!
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Tony Langdon vk3jed@vkradio.com wrote:
On 2/09/2017 7:19 AM, K7VE - John wrote:
Personally, I think our rules are over restrictive and should be
modified, Maybe we need to look at two variants of some devices (should be easier these days) - one that meets US specs, and an "international spec" device, so the rest of the world can push further. Maybe someone at ARRL or otherwise in a position of influence will then see the US is falling behind and campaign for more modern regulations. So many times, new idea that are perfectly legal in most of the world get squashed by US regulations that are irrelevant to the rest of us.
but not ignored. I also believe our patent laws grant patents for many things that should not be patented, but if there is a patent, we should follow the law or get the law changed, or fight a particular patent in court.
Patent law is a mess, but yes, we should respect those laws and try and effect legal change, or use alternatives. AMBE(X) is a particular pain, because of the need to hang a piece of hardware off something to encode or decode these formats. Not very useful for those of us who run on virtual servers. At least I now have a 100/40 connection, so there's scope for running data between here and the main server, for applications like an xlxd transcoder.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net