Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97

[KH6TY]

Warren,

I have several electronics patents and am often asked by laymen how one 
invents something, and what to do if they invent something. I advise 
them that very few inventors come up with something new and just make 
money off the patent royalties or sale itself. Instead, document and 
witness the idea, keep it a trade secret, and manufacture the item 
yourself. I had to do that when I created the first consumer VHF FM 
weather-alert radio in 1974 and, believe me, it was a difficult 
struggle, because so many thought the idea was worthless and would not 
back it. Nevertheless, I went ahead anyway, designed the radios, and 
built a factory to make them. Today, 27 years later, that concept has 
blossomed into an entire industry.

With your extensive background in software, maybe people are looking to 
YOU to research and provide a workable solution. "This will never work" 
is just part of the discussion and brainstorming process, and not 
necessarily a negative statement. The idea is to keep throwing out ideas 
for criticism and discussion, even if at first glance the idea may 
appear to be unworkable to many.

Yes, suggesting a successful solution often takes lots of thought, and 
sometimes hard work, if it is to be a reasonably good solution. Saying 
something "will not work" often spurs others to want to prove that it 
might. So, don't write those comments off as being completely negative - 
they just might well become the catalyst of an idea that will work.

I had to go to the extreme step of teaching myself to program in Delphi 
just in order to write DigiTalk for the blind ham. Not being very smart, 
nor much of a programmer, it took me many months, but in the end, the 
program that speaks the PSK31 text as it comes in is in use by the blind 
ham community (Courage Hams) and I am almost ready to release an updated 
version for XP, VISTA, and W7 that works with Fldigi and Multipsk.

So, solutions often only come about from long periods of struggle. 
Fldigi is open source, so anyone who wants to modify the source to add a 
solution and test it is welcome to do so. Maybe YOU can do it, since you 
already have a head start with your software experience.

It is a good idea - now show us the solution! ;-)

73 - Skip KH6TY




Warren Moxley wrote:
 

I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it.  Some 
are using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and 
just 73's. It is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX 
and Video ID. I have seen many that will use video ID but do not use 
or refuse to use RSID.

The issue I see on many post is negative. "That will never work 
because..."
I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution. 
Maybe guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone 
will shoot it down anyway so why try?

It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one 
time a long time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not 
working, he never makes any mistakes.

--- 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, 1:40 PM

     

    Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is
    not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds.

    FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI,
    using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was
    sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would
    probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID,
    as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and
    was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16
    footprint is recognizable, but not who it is.

    73 - Skip KH6TY

              



    Warren Moxley wrote:
     

    "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