"something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)"
At least this is an idea.
Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first
might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think
in an entirely new way.
--- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ /<aa...@ambersoft.com>/* wrote:
From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com>
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types
from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM
(unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
*From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi
o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Dave AA6YQ
*Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM
*To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Subject:* RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types
from Part 97
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include
the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer
connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be
unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
*From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi
o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley
*Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
*To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types
from Part 97
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
<http://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
