[Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

[jeff at aerodata.net]

Tim told us:
> I am not against high power being used on SS. I *am* against it being
>used indiscriminately.

Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns are
already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the minimum
transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. ).

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#313


>APC should not hinder experimentation in any way.

Says you. Algorithms have to be written, handshacking done. You continue
to think hams in their basement have access to chip fabs. APC is not that
hard to do, yet it is just another layer of complexity which in many cases
is not even needed (like on a fixed point to point link).

>Yes, it might increase complexity slightly but
> so what? Single Sideband increased complexity over AM. That didn't
> seem to hinder its development much.

Exactly! And do note that SSB was not mandated by law, and AM was not
outlawed. Yet even though the goverment didn't force it, the development
you cite still happened. Believe it or not Tim, when it comes to the
goverment, less is more.

>That is
> just another non sequitur put forth by those who just want to hang bricks
> on
> their transmitting chains to make up for other inadequacies in the design.


Do you really believe all this crap you continue to spew out? "Oh my gosh,
oh my gosh, if we don't pass a law, Johnny Ham will put a kicker on his
802.11b card, and tune for maxium smoke!! We must protect the unlicensed
part 15 users from those hams!"

Cut me a break... Your chicken little tactics may play well to the WISP
audience, but they don't amount to much in fact.

You don't get it Tim. APC is a good idea, we do agree on that, yet I don't
think it should be mandated by law on part 97. I think the less rules we
have in the amateur service, the better, since that broad canvas best
faciliates experimentation and the advancement of the state of the art.
And guess what? It has served us well over the last 80+ years.

If anything, you have made a defacto case for implementing APC on the WISP
industry, as 1 watt is not a magic number by any means. Hams passed a test
so they COULD tinker with radios, the part 15 user, as far as the FCC is
concerned, it is a black box and they are are not expected to be able to
do path calculations.

And at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is the same ARRL that 10
years ago asked for APC dispite the protests of TAPR, Phil Karn and
others. Now, I am glad they saw the error of their ways, and are trying to
correct it, however I want to point out that once again, with bandwidth by
regulation, they are asking for unneeded regulations on amateurs. Lest I
point out the obvious, we need to learn here from history. Ask your ARRL
director to not support limiting bandwidth by regulation, but only by good
amateur practice, as has been the standard since almost day one of amateur
radio. Amateur radio operators can be trusted, and don't need to be told
what is right and what is wrong.