"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