True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs.
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> Reply-To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500 To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: > > > > But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. > > > > > From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com> > Reply-To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 > 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 > ³universal QRL² 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 > <http://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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
