Warren,
Guess I should have better said, "there is 'currently' no way".
Universal use of RSID would make it possible to change to the other mode
to communicate, but it has to be universally used, of course. Once you
use the same mode, nothing special is needed. Just negotiate frequency
changes using the interfering mode and then switch back to the one you
were using.
The point is only that there must be a way to communicate between
stations trying to use the same frequency in order to have sharing.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Skip,
"since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual
interference."
This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for
over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to
come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on
my team.
It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved
by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a
defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID
protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode
we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet,
for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY.
Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and
many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem
solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with
a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good
of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain
storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my
RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of
discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here.
Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here.
Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has
the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Warren - K5WGM
--- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /<kh...@comcast.net>/* wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types
from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM
Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required
as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to
request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are
shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in
unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one
mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The
problem already exists between digital operators, but the
regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only
phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW.
I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the
problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution,
especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to
cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the
ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn
after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been
arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries
(perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will
not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone
has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from
phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space,
leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is
still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to
create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the
benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future
restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need
and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to
restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be
a "common language" for frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the US license
restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at
www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report
(page June 1976) says
"Rather than further complicate the present rules," the
Commission said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the
petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all
references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules.
"We propose, instead," the Commission continued, "to replace the
present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth
which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur
frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission
would be permitted."
It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is
exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the
FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777
Trevor
