24 Apr
2014
24 Apr
'14
2:02 p.m.
On 24.04.2014 18:53, Tom Hayward wrote:
One of the big problems with our rules regarding HF
data (not directly
related to this mailing list) is that the rule is too closely tied to
a technology. There is a symbol rate limit, when I believe the intent
of the law was a bandwidth limit. If they had simply made it a
bandwidth limit we would be allowed to use modern digital modes with
greater symbol rates. Rules tied to a specific technology will not
remain relevant over time and should be avoided.
Indeed... This is an unnecessary limiting factor.
Some limitations here came initially from the local amateur radio
community and now we are claiming to be limited :) We are limited to 15W
ERP for automatic stations... And we have a 10 MHz bandwidth limit for
Digital, but 20 MHz for ATV ?!? Changing the rules takes time. Since the
regulator can't just ignore the rules but even know it will change with
the new law, we found a solution (two side-by-side digital channels from
A to B with 10 MHz bandwidth each ;).
But I was *not* talking about rules which will only affect locally. I'm
moreover interested in similar rules in terms of interconnecting amateur
radio over public networks. E.g. I would like all countries to allow *at
least* the usage of the Internet as a transport medium:
A <-radio-> B <-internet-> C <-radio-> D
If the tunnel B to C is properly secured so that you can say it is a
transport medium only, I want local regulators to take B and C out of
responsibility for transmissions from A to D and vice versa (e.g. if a
pirate is active on A).
There are so many examples and *somebody* needs to write them out, make
nice diagrams and so on... Then we could start discussion :) But in my
opinion there is no need to hurry.
73,
Jann
DG8NGN
--
Jann Traschewski, Faber-Castell-Str. 9, D-90522 Oberasbach, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn