"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
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
