Steve Lampreur (and Stroh), I fully agree with you regarding modernizing the rules. But there's a reason the proposals languish for so long, and it's NOT the ARRL or the FCC. It's that they're opposed by certain amateur circles. If you don't believe me, check the FCC comment files; you'll see me in there, along with Ted Rappaport. I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems to take a rather more restrictive view of the basis and purpose of the amateur service. So unless we can get the whole amateur service behind what we want to do, you're unlikely to get very far.
We have our work cut out for us. I still remember a very unpleasant experience at a ham convention in the early 1990s aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach. Having worked for Qualcomm for a few years, I thought hams would be interested in an introductory talk on spread spectrum: its features, advantages, disadvantages, etc. I wasn't going to argue that it should take over ham radio, only that hams should be aware of it because it was an up-and-coming technology in the "real world", and hams are supposed to be informed about the radio art.
I got a negative reception, to put it mildly. The attendees weren't interested in learning about spread spectrum; they only wanted to make damn sure that it would never, ever see the light of day anywhere in the ham bands. They were convinced it would end ham radio as they knew it. These are the kind of people we have to inform and win over, as hard as that may seem.
Phil, Thanks for your comments. I really wish someone in leadership (ARRL, FCC etc) would make decisions based on logic rather than the social outpour of a proposal. Again it would be idea of the ARRL would use that editorial space in their precious rag to steer the hobby to the future and attempt to to change or at least inform those with what I call backward thinking.
If we fight against innovation because it might end ham radio as we know it, it will end ham radio as we know it. I am very glad that Canada is already using bandwidth as the only constraint, although sad that we don't take advantage of it.
Steve Lampreur (and Stroh), I fully agree with you regarding modernizing the rules. But there's a reason the proposals languish for so long, and it's NOT the ARRL or the FCC. It's that they're opposed by certain amateur circles. If you don't believe me, check the FCC comment files; you'll see me in there, along with Ted Rappaport. I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems to take a rather more restrictive view of the basis and purpose of the amateur service. So unless we can get the whole amateur service behind what we want to do, you're unlikely to get very far.
We have our work cut out for us. I still remember a very unpleasant experience at a ham convention in the early 1990s aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach. Having worked for Qualcomm for a few years, I thought hams would be interested in an introductory talk on spread spectrum: its features, advantages, disadvantages, etc. I wasn't going to argue that it should take over ham radio, only that hams should be aware of it because it was an up-and-coming technology in the "real world", and hams are supposed to be informed about the radio art.
I got a negative reception, to put it mildly. The attendees weren't interested in learning about spread spectrum; they only wanted to make damn sure that it would never, ever see the light of day anywhere in the ham bands. They were convinced it would end ham radio as they knew it. These are the kind of people we have to inform and win over, as hard as that may seem.
Phil, Thanks for your comments. I really wish someone in leadership (ARRL, FCC etc) would make decisions based on logic rather than the social outpour of a proposal. Again it would be idea of the ARRL would use that editorial space in their precious rag to steer the hobby to the future and attempt to to change or at least inform those with what I call backward thinking.
If we fight against innovation because it might end ham radio as we know it, it will end ham radio as we know it. I am very glad that Canada is already using bandwidth as the only constraint, although sad that we don't take advantage of it.
73,
Chris VE3NRT