3 Mar
2016
3 Mar
'16
3:22 p.m.
+1 agreed
I'd just LOVE to see some movement on this, however slow it might be...
On 16-03-03 03:00 PM, Steve L wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
There were some attempts/news a couple years ago to modernize this:
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-files-symbol-rate-petition-with-fcc
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-s-symbol-rate-petition-nears-top-of-fcc-s-mos…
The problem is it takes a very long time for the FCC to act on pretty
much anything ham radio related.
It took 3 years for the Mototrbo/TDMA rule change.
Prior to that I recall the spread spectrum automatic power control
rule change took about half that.
I agree though, a STA is a good idea to make a case and bring the
issue to the forefront.
In the FCC arena, one of the better ways to get
technical restrictions
removed is to apply for and operate under an STA - Special Temporary
Authority, a document from the FCC that basically allows you to operate
an exception to the normal rules. Typically the only requirement is
that you make a good case for it technically and that you write up a
report afterwards. In the past, STAs have been the basis for changes to
the rules. Someone who writes well may want to consider submitting one to
allow higher data rates based solely on bandwidth and then experimenting
with it.
Another possibility is to apply for a Experimental Radio Service license
which basically allows you to do just about anything if you can make a
good case for it. They used to be a little expensive and they require
a written report on what you found out with your experiments but it does
allow nearly anything you can think of.
- Brian
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:42:09PM +0200, Demetre - SV1UY wrote:
> Not good for US though, "thanks" to FCC's 300baud symbol rate
restrictions of HF.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net