It may be that the FCC is preparing hams for voice meaning any human voice equivalent including digital or analog. My view is that some modes don't play very well together, but when it comes to wide band digital modes, we are now at the point that all kinds of content can be inside a digital transmission and you would have no way to determine the content by ear, only by machine decoding.
It is possible that the FCC might drop all automatic operation on 80 meters. Currently, that is what we have with the current R&O. My strong preference would be to have a small area just above the non-phone areas for digital wide band modes and automatic/semi automatic modes but that is probably impossible now. What we really have is a significant loss of data frequencies, the complete opposite of what some of us wanted to see happen and expected to happen. As far as automatic modes go, they always need to be carefully segregated from human modes, unless they have real time busy channel detection. That should be written into the rules now that it is technically possible to do this. Luckily, the damage has been done on a band that is mostly used for shorter range transmission and is less often used for inter-region traffic. Imagine if this had been done on 20 meters! At least many of us can agree that this R&O is flawed and has created some serious errors and conflicts. Somehow, the engineering people dropped the ball and did not explain to the commissioners the interrelated effects some of these decisions would have. You can not expect the commissioners themselves to be all that aware of the technical aspects as they have to look at this more as a political decision. But they still need to insure that the decisions are sound policy. (By the way, when I say political decision, I do not necessarily imply that means something bad). 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: >Hi Rick and others, > >I noticed something peculiar about this recent FCC R&O: they are >talking about "Voice" instead of "Phone". Previously, the only >definition for subbands was "phone". The only ham band having a >"Voice" rule that I know of is the 5MHz channels. The rest of the >bands are "Phone". In particular, the 5MHz "Voice" rule has the effect >of keeping us from using selective calling there :( > >Isn't it getting very clear that the "content" of our transmissions >should no longer be a method of defining them? Isn't this nearing the >point of being absurd? With digital, it is much too difficult to >control the "content" or for anyone to easily check what the content is. > >ARRL mentioned in their new band chart available on their recent FCC >R&O FAQ: >"There are some apparent errors in the rules as released. The charts >reflect ARRL's best understanding of what the FCC intended. >Clarifications are being sought and the chart will be amended as >required." >See the band chart at: >http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt04-140/faq.html >http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt04-140/Hambands3_grayscale.pdf > >As for the supposed "loss" or "disappearance" of the automatic band at >3620kHz to 3635kHz, I do not believe this FCC error should be allowed >to stand for very long. > >Perhaps the FCC's interim correction to the rulemaking will be one of >these options: >1. Simply move the automatic band to 3575kHz-3600kHz, although this is >incompatible with bandplans of other IARU regions. >2. Drop all band restrictions for automatically controlled stations on >80 meters. Some form of automatic control will be working its way into >many of the different systems we use, anyway. So the definition of >what is automation, and what is operator-helping computer programs is >becoming as blurred as the antique definition of mode itself. > >But there is a bigger problem! Internationally, this area of 80m above >3600kHz is used by "all modes" at bandwidths of 2.7kHz or more in the >various IARU bandplans, including automatic data stations. In IARU >Region 1, the area below 3600kHz is confined to bandwidth <500Hz. If >USA shoves all digi below 3600kHz, this now presents a step backward >in the larger international compatibility issue that will actually >prevent communication between the various regions for 2.7kHz bandwidth >data or digi stations! :( > >Another possible FCC option exists where they will issue a larger >omnibus bandwidth-based rulemaking that will either make all of this >previous stuff moot or create even more confusion! I don't give this >option a very high probability within the next few months, so we may >be sadly at the mercy of their mistakes for while. > >Bonnie KQ6XA > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
