On Mar 4, 9:52�am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

* ...

Probably the most important aspect of all, the source code should be
open and download-able right along with the compiled
application--allowing personal "tweaking" by individuals.

Also, it should be easily compilable by some free compiler available for
download on the net. *And, should probably use a sound card with line
out or mic outputs. *This way anyone can pull a computer out of a
dumpster and run it ...

This would guarantee that rich or poor alike have equal access to the
new developments.

JS, you've overlooked some of the regulatory-political aspects.
This isn't about the ARRL "jockeying for position in leader-
ship" but a potential REGULATION CHANGE of Part 97.

This isn't about "freedom" (or neo-anarchy as you seem to
want) but a very real pumping for MODE CHANGE (going
for higher rates) in REGULATIONS. There's the real
POLITICAL issue of allowing radio amateurs too much
freedom and possibly "using means to obscure the content
of communications" (more or less) as given in ITU radio
regulation S25. The USA is a signatory to the ITU and
takes that seriously. It should.

LIke it or not, the ARRL does have some POLITICAL
clout. It has a DC law firm on retainer plus a lobbyist
business. While we both have expressed misgivings
about the ARRL they still have an effect on Regulation
Changes. The League is a NAME even though it is
small compared to hundreds of other, bigger special-
interest groups in the DC area. That's where the law
of the land is run.

If you want to pump up Linux and Freeware, fine, go
ahead. I can't agree with you despite your longer
experience with software. I can't agree with academic
types who put "freedom" ahead of commercial interests
because they think they are "better" than crass
capitalists. shrug That's just the usual lot of hooey
which is disguised self-defined, self-centered "better-
than-othersism."

One BIG proposal by a Name group that has both
researchable technical smarts and proper Legalese
language is going to do more and has a better chance
of passing the FCC's scrutiny on mode advancement
than any retreaded 60s-style rhetoric. The FCC has
more smarts there than all the "me-firsters" think and
they have a LARGE task in managing ALL civil radio
in the USA. FCC R&Os show that they DO think
about things from their lawful regulation role. It may
not be what YOU like in their decisions but it IS a
decision coupled with all the reasons of that decision.

The ARRL hasn't submitted that proposal yet. That's
why they put that notice out...they are gathering
material to put into a Petition for Consideration. I
will side with the ARRL's effort on improving the
technical side of US amateur radio regulations. It is
a good sign of their (finally) leaving the old 1930s
style of hamming behind. Don't knock it.

73, LA