A "roger beep" that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com> wrote: > > > 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:digitalra...@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 > > 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 > > > > >
