Here's another question regarding the advancement of our technical abilities and also, enhancement of the services we can provide to others...     Are the current FCC regulations (Part 97) actually LIMITING our     ability to advance the state of the art, rather than encouraging it? As commercial RF moves to integrated voice and data on the cellular bands (via TDMA and/or CDMA) all sorts of additional services become a realistic possibility.  This makes possible a single, portable RF/computer-_base_d device that combines digitized voice, paging, voice mail, FAX, Email, and network access.  Digital encryption added to all of the above would also be a definite plus. Under the current regulations, we cannot encrypt.  Also, we cannot pass traffic, data or voice for others without a licensed radio amateur acting as a control operator. No technical advancements come without first having a demand for the services that those advancement can provide. Imagine how much more incentive we would have to build advanced systems if the rules were relaxed such that...    * A non-amateur could initiate a real-time voice conversation with      a licensed amateur.  (Here, the rules would have to be changed      so that amateurs are responsible for a properly functioning      station, but not the initial triggering of the message.)  It's      kind of like extending the concept of a reverse auto-patch on a      repeater.   I am assuming a closed, private channel here.  NO      interruption of a repeater-_style_ round-table QSO on the part of      the non-amateur.  The non-ham would have access to a specific      channel (or group of channels) controlled by a system (computer      _base_d or otherwise) designed/programmed/operated by the licensed      amateur.  While the non-ham, WOULD have access to the available      communications, it would be controlled by a system for which      the licensed radio amateur is responsible.    * Amateur paging systems.  (Yes I, know paging tramsmitters require      multiple sites and a hell of a lot of power to reach those tiny      little receivers that attach to your belt.)  And, no, I don't      consider DTMF decode on an HT (opened via tones passed through      the repeater) a realistic substitute.    * Fully private encrypted conversation using digitally encoded voice.      Usefull for talking to your spouse, your banker or boss via the phone      patch.      (We are so concerned with the anti-business related traffic laws that      the only conversations allowed preclude the demand for any non-amateur      initiated/related communications.  I am not suggesting offering the      services to anyone but immediate family.  An emergency situation, of      course, is different.) These are just a few examples.  Imagine the potential for enhanced public service (and technical advancement) if we had such systems! And so I say to the FCC:  Get the hell off my back!!  You cannot take away my spectrum for lack of technical competence/pubic service and give it away to commercial RF when the very rules by which I must abide PROHIBIT me from designing the systems that would allow us to be a greater (and FREE) public service in the first place!

In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ,             kevin jessup < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes: |    * A non-amateur could initiate a real-time voice conversation with |      a licensed amateur. We have this capability now with reverse autopatch. |    * Amateur paging systems. Some controllers already have this capability, in a limited sense. |    * Fully private encrypted conversation using digitally encoded voice. |      Usefull for talking to your spouse, your banker or boss via the phone |      patch. This I disagree with. Do we want people to get involved in amateur radio because they're interested in radio, or because they're looking for a cheap alternative to a cell phone? | These are just a few examples.  Imagine the potential for enhanced public | service (and technical advancement) if we had such systems! There is really nothing limiting technical enhancement today. Who is preventing you from designing a new STDM repeater network which uses digitally-encoded voice and a system id to allow multiple repeaters to exist on the same frequency? Who says you can't set up a cell-like repeater network? As long as the information is public domain so anyone can listen in , so to speak, there is no claim of encryption. I think there is no technical innovation because amateurs today are more interested in yacking on the local 2-meter good-buddy box instead of being interested in radio. In this sense, amateur radio has disintegrated into what CB radio was supposed to be in the 1970's. MD

I think there is no technical innovation because amateurs today are more interested in yacking on the local 2-meter good-buddy box instead of being interested in radio. Ok Mike, what technical innovations do YOU propose that we do not yet have that are legal under current part 97 rules?  Besides extending coverage or upping baud rates so we can move the same boring packet traffic at a faster rate?   How do you propose to finance them? Certainly a private fully digital system incorporating the previously described features would solve the CB problem for a closed repeater club. Anyone who behaves illegally or who you just don't care for could have his radio locked out by the system. I acknowledge that such systems are already available commercially for those who can afford them AND the FCC license required for spectrum access.  And hence the problem : big business, wealthy individuals and the government get all the high-end goodies.   Such resources would not be beyond the means of a large repeater club with dues large enough to cover the costs.  Perhaps several repeater clubs would have to combine resources to cover the cost.  But it would then be THEIR system, and not one on which they'd simply be renting air-time.  Imagine the systems we could build if the members of a large repeater club, rather then spending $500 to $1000 for that 2nd or 3rd rig that they don't really need anyway, were to all pool their money in a research or experimental effort. The above is the extreme case for a wide coverage system.  At the neighborhood or village level, a group of technically competent amateurs could implement a cost effective scaled-down system. A single, technically competent individual in a good location (height) could implement such a system for personal use. If I were operating a digital (narrow band with encryption or maybe even spread spectrum) system, hypothetically of course, in the 900 MHZ or higher bands, how many amateurs would really know that I was doing so?   Be honest now.  Oops!  Guess the FCC will be paying me a visit! The rules for SS emmisions are actually quite humurous.  While you CAN send limited SS emmisions conforming to the limited part 97 sequences, you must ID via a narrow band method.  Gee, what could they be afraid of? )

And so I say to the FCC:  Get the hell off my back!!  You cannot take away my spectrum for lack of technical competence/pubic service and give it away to commercial RF when the very rules by which I must abide PROHIBIT me from designing the systems that would allow us to be a greater (and FREE) public service in the first place! Well, your suggestions above indicate you think the FCC should allow amateurs to use amateur radio as alternatives to the existing radio services.  If this is the case, why *not* just give the amateur frequencies to the commercial services? My point is, amateur radio is not intended just to deploy more radios like we already have all over the commercial services.  Amateur radio is intended to be experimental, and a test bed for new technologies.  Allowing too much end user consumer _style_ use already stifles the technical development in amateur radio.

In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , kevin jessup < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes: (We are so concerned with the anti-business related traffic laws that the only conversations allowed preclude the demand for any non-amateur initiated/related communications.  I am not suggesting offering the services to anyone but immediate family. << We  have good reason to be concerned with business related traffic. There is nothing more powerful than a financial interest... and given the opportunity, financial interests wil override all other interests on the ham band.  Financial interests are usualy short term, and care not a whit about the long term or about other users. If we are cnocerned that business interests not grab our spectrum by havnig the government auction it off, we should also be concerned that we don't surrender the spectrum to our own business interests...by permitting business use too librerally too  quickly. Jose  KD1SB

My point is, amateur radio is not intended just to deploy more radios like we already have all over the commercial services.  Amateur radio is intended to be experimental, and a test bed for new technologies.  Allowing too much end user consumer _style_ use already stifles the technical development in amateur radio. Yes.  It should be test bed.  What do you suggest we start testing? My point was, that as local digital networked services via RF begin to appear, we continue to play with AX.25, analog, interference prone repeater systems and the like.