3 Sep
2017
3 Sep
'17
10:10 p.m.
Well we just heard a few days ago that some foreign hams don't have a
bandwidth restriction, other than it fits in the band. I haven't
heard of any ill effects from over there, but maybe someone from
abroad can chime in.
I can see it being a concern on HF, where the spectrum is more
limited, but I am pretty much with Brain for above 50 MHz. Further
more is takes a least a dozen years to make any headway with the FCC,
so I highly recommend futuristic thinking when writing comments.
Bruce Perens recommended basically do away with the bandwidth limits,
and let gentlemans agreements take rule. I think that seems logical.
Especially when the alternative is a 10-15 year re-revising the rule,
piece meal approach game like we have been playing, that really just
impedes innovation. But no one has to agree with me. You just have
to file comments to make me happy :-)
Further more, I see like less that 5% of the ham population being
actually capable of sending a 2 MHz wide signal, so the point is
pretty much moot (Everyone else has a Beofeng HT.)
Now imagine someone sending a signal 2 mhz wide on 447
mhz not really cool for the rest of the >Ham community. That is why we need band with
limitation
4 Sep
4 Sep
1:02 a.m.
New subject: Outdated regulations [Was: OFDM Modem]
On 4/09/2017 12:10 PM, Steve L wrote:
Well we just heard a few days ago that some foreign
hams don't have a
bandwidth restriction, other than it fits in the band. I haven't
heard of any ill effects from over there, but maybe someone from
abroad can chime in.
In Australia, Advanced licence class holders have no bandwidth
limits
other than the width of the amateur bands themselves on any band from
430 MHz and up. Yes, we could use the full 70cm band if we wanted to.
Particularly useful for spread spectrum, ATV and high speed data. In
reality, I probably wouldn't use such bandwidths here below 1240 MHz,
because there is already an ATV repeater using the top 7 MHz of 70cm,
and there's no other appropriate places in the band for such bandwidths
(other than spread spectrum).
I can see it being a concern on HF, where the spectrum is more
limited, but I am pretty much with Brain for above 50 MHz. Further
more is takes a least a dozen years to make any headway with the FCC,
so I highly recommend futuristic thinking when writing comments.
Even on HF, I
believe hams are better positioned to manage the bands
than the authorities. US HF restrictions cause a number of issues
around the world, from limiting technical innovation, to making some
contacts impossible, without resorting to odd frequency splits. It's
also had an impact on our authorities (e.g. the Australian "80m DX
window" - 24 kHz of extra spectrum required to enable phone contacts
with countries like the US).
Bruce Perens recommended basically do away with the bandwidth limits,
and let gentlemans agreements take rule. I think that seems logical.
Especially when the alternative is a 10-15 year re-revising the rule,
piece meal approach game like we have been playing, that really just
impedes innovation. But no one has to agree with me. You just have
to file comments to make me happy :-)
I happen to agree with Bruce on this one. To
me, part and parcel of ham
experimentation is larning to live together. We might even learn
something that helps the authorities manage other parts of the
spectrum. Not all innovations have to be technical.
Further more, I see like less that 5% of the ham population being
actually capable of sending a 2 MHz wide signal, so the point is
pretty much moot (Everyone else has a Beofeng HT.)
Yes, at this point in time,
it's pretty much self limiting. :)
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
2448
days inactive
2448
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Steve L -
Tony Langdon