Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
  1. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    In principle no problem to disclose it. Let us think "a moment" about all the legal implications (copyrights etc...).
     
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    By disclose, I just mean telling people at the FCC that you wrote it. Not giving away rights!!
    Look at the first draft I just sent you.....
     
  3. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hihi, That's OK of course. I thought of publishing the complete source code or so.
    Then I first would have to clean up the code... ;)
     
  4. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    2nd Draft is now being reviewed. I added an Executive Summary to assist the reader.....and some pointed requests from me. This kind of disaster needs to come to an end. People need to work TOGETHER.
     
  6. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thank you. A helpful and smart individual had fowarded it to me.

    Siddall writes extremely well. He's working for the ARRL, that's his job. I sent him one question about something I didn't understand, i don't know if he is allowed to answer or not.

    I disagree with two of their proposals. For one they have no objective data; it is merely based on intuition. For the other, the objective data are against their proposal....not good. But that's the way it goes. They had a job to do and they took their vote and did their job. That's the way representative groups work.
     
  8. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    The data we have, based on comments posted to the ECFS, may seem to point to broad opposition to one of those points, but that is only a few hundred hams at most. I'm not sure what the other one is, so if you want to message me, please do.
     
  9. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Oh,, I'm not trying to be secretive, sorry!
    1 The data are ADVERSE to forcing 500 Hz ACDS into the 97.221b slivers
    2 There are no data [other than anecdotal??] on the supposed need to remove privileges from ordinary amateurs to use wider-than-500 Hz data techniques in the regular cw/data portions. Without such data, it seems unwise to further remove privileges.

    A whole SLEW of techniques that FLDGI can do, will be unnecessarily restricted, including one of it RTTY techniques. If they had real DATA that there was a real problem, I would look much more favorably on such a restrictive proposal. WEFAX and a slew of other modes will now be unnecesarily restricted. Understand that I rarely USE those modes --- i prefer smaller stuff....but doing things without objective reasons just isn't good. My opnion, yours may differ.
     
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    4th Draft is now out being reviewed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page