[digitalradio] FCC Petition to Re-Establish Narrowbnad RTTY/Data Subband Comment Period Open
The FCC has released http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519820340 Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment period for http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392. RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the RTTY/Data subbands. Stations under automatic control have taken advantage of loopholes created by terminology in the commission's rules that is not applicable to new operating modes. Please read RM-11392 . and make comments to the FCC. Here are the steps. 1. Read http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. 2. Look at the other comments filed. To do this go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi FCC EFCS Search for Filed Commentsand enter RM-11392 in box 1 labeled proceeding. 3. Enter your own comments by going to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi FCC Electronic Comment File Submission page. 73, Mark N5RFX
[digitalradio] Season's Greetings
SEASON's GREETINGS to all the nice people in this group Omar YK1AO
Re: [digitalradio] Digest Number 3730
I filed my comments today on Mark's petition, which is very well written and logical, and encourage everyone else who values space to work without interference from email robots also to do so. Merry Christmas to all! Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] New release of FDMDV - Amateur Radio Digital Voice
New release of FDMDV - Amateur Radio Digital Voice A new version (10a-Dec-07) of the Digital Voice mode FDMDV is now available from the N1SU.com website. This mode is remarkable in that it occupies a bandwidth of only 1.1 kHz as against the 2.4 kHz needed for an SSB signal. The new version adds two main features - the ability to re-center the tx/rx frequency (QRG button) and enhanced AFC (also the FDMDV icon for the executable). FDMDV page http://n1su.com/fdmdv/ FDMDV Download also has Usage Documentation v1.1 http://n1su.com/fdmdv/download.html melp_1400.dll http://www.ku7pdx.com/files/melp_dll.zip WinDRM Email Group http://groups-beta.google.com/group/windrm Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower priority. 73 de Demetre SV1UY The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. de Roger W6VZV OK Roger, To you it might be a bad idea sending e-mails over the air, but to many others it is a good idea. It is a good as having a voice QSO, a CW QSO, a contest, chewing the rag, etc. Any form of communication that uses Ham Radio equipment and the Ham radio bands to allow radio amateurs to communicate with each other is Ham Radio (being WINLINK, PSKMAIL, FLARQ, TCP/IP over PACKET RADIO, AX25 over PACKET RADIO, APRS, etc. does it matter?)!!! Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! Merry Christmas everyone 73 de Demetre - SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Petition to Re-Establish Narrowbnad RTTY/Data Subband Comment Period Open
This is a very well thought out solution to a on-going vexing problem on the HF RTTY/data bands. I have submitted my comments to the FCC in concurrence with Mark's petition and I strongly suggest that those who agree or those who disagree with the petition, submit your comments. If the petition was to be accepted, the wider digital modes such as 2 kHz MT-63, Olivia, and the wide form of ALE, would no longer be permitted to operate in most of the HF RTTY/data sub bands. Of course the wide form of ALE can still operate in the voice portions for signaling purposes which is probably a more appropriate use and other wide modes can also operate there for the purpose of sending image/fax. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the RTTY/Data subbands. Stations under automatic control have taken advantage of loopholes created by terminology in the commission's rules that is not applicable to new operating modes. Please read RM-11392 . and make comments to the FCC. Here are the steps. 1. Read http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. 2. Look at the other comments filed. To do this go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi FCC EFCS Search for Filed Commentsand enter RM-11392 in box 1 labeled proceeding. 3. Enter your own comments by going to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi FCC Electronic Comment File Submission page. 73, Mark N5RFX
Re: [digitalradio] Season's Greetings
Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings to all 73 de Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 6:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SEASON's GREETINGS to all the nice people in this group Omar YK1AO -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) attachment: coexist-static.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Packet Radio Frequencies
Packet can be easily found on 30M, the APRS stations on 10151 use packet. . Try also 14095 for packet BBS traffic . on HF it is 300 baud packet (below 10M) Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 1:31 PM, kaboona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all and Merry Christmas. I just recently discovered packet radio. The fact that it exists in VHF makes it interesting to me. Now, I understand that it also exists in HF. I use two of the Kenwood radios that have a TNC built in for this purpose and a signalink interface for the HF rig at home. The difficulty I am having now is the finding of frequencies commonly used for packet. Where can I find such a list if one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction? thanks in advance Jim -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Packet Radio Frequencies
FYI, here is some traffic I just copied on 14095 [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 It looks like BBS forwarding using the FBB software. Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 2:32 PM, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Packet can be easily found on 30M, the APRS stations on 10151 use packet. . Try also 14095 for packet BBS traffic . on HF it is 300 baud packet (below 10M) Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 1:31 PM, kaboona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all and Merry Christmas. I just recently discovered packet radio. The fact that it exists in VHF makes it interesting to me. Now, I understand that it also exists in HF. I use two of the Kenwood radios that have a TNC built in for this purpose and a signalink interface for the HF rig at home. The difficulty I am having now is the finding of frequencies commonly used for packet. Where can I find such a list if one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction? thanks in advance Jim -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:21 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower priority. 73 de Demetre SV1UY The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. de Roger W6VZV OK Roger, To you it might be a bad idea sending e-mails over the air, but to many others it is a good idea. It is a good as having a voice QSO, a CW QSO, a contest, chewing the rag, etc. Any form of communication that uses Ham Radio equipment and the Ham radio bands to allow radio amateurs to communicate with each other is Ham Radio (being WINLINK, PSKMAIL, FLARQ, TCP/IP over PACKET RADIO, AX25 over PACKET RADIO, APRS, etc. does it matter?)!!! Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! Merry Christmas everyone 73 de Demetre - SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Well, Can you admit that there are people with different points of view Dave? I'm afraid you can't. We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is acceptable in the hobby OM. Merry Christmas and a Happy New year and smile a bit OM! Winlink, PACKET RADIO or e-mail, etc. are not evil! They are just another form of DIGITAL MODES which you might not like but others like them so there!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ OK Dave, You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. Some people like e-mail on HF, some like chewing the rag to death, some like contests, some like exchanging pictures or faxes etc. We should all get along and be tolerant otherwise there is no hobby. And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. Merry Christmas!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Dave AA6YQ wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. Hear hear!! de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form of networking on HF. Wrong. My problem is with unattended stations that transmit without first listening to see that the frequency is clear. I have no objection to networking or email over HF. My objection is to incompetent implementations of any protocol that result in QRM to other amateurs. A WinLink PMBO that transmits on a frequency that is already in use is no different than a tranmitter with key clicks or an amplifier that splatters -- its defective equipment that should be taken off the air until its unacceptable behavior has been corrected. WinLink PMBOs can be corrected by adding busy frequency detectors; were that accomplished, I would have no objection to WinLink whatsoever. The absence of local regulations or enforcement is no excuse for amateurs to abandon good hygiene. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Demetre SV1UY wrote: OK Roger, Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a few years from now. They are dying out as RVers get Wi Fi internet access in their parks, and boaters are increasingly using satellite telephone/internet. Few hams bother with Pactor or own TNCs any more. This is a problem that will likely take care of itself over time, as most problems do. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
- Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies OK Dave, You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. SNIP And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. Merry Christmas!!! Uh, Demetre Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments. Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's agreements? There's more of you outside the Continental U.S., therefore that's where the power lies? Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want, without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands because, as you wrote, in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours? Thanks for making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre. My heart goes out to Dave. He'll never win this thread's debate. More's the pity, for us all. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
My objective is not win an argument with Demetre or any other proponent of operating practices that QRM other operators, but rather to illuminate the flaws and obfuscations in their arguments to the readers of this reflector. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of w6ids Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 6:39 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies OK Dave, You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. SNIP And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. Merry Christmas!!! Uh, Demetre Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments. Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's agreements? There's more of you outside the Continental U.S., therefore that's where the power lies? Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want, without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands because, as you wrote, in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours? Thanks for making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre. My heart goes out to Dave. He'll never win this thread's debate. More's the pity, for us all. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Dave I agree with you but how about a new twist to this. Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4 Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if he did hear the pactor signal and his reply was a yes. He also said well it was one of them robots WRONG... So it not just the Pactor station. This happens a number of times. There are a lot of KB2KB pactor QSO out there no matter what Roger says. John, W0JAB At 02:40 PM 12/25/2007, you wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
You were having a Pactor QSO and someone called CQ nearby in another mode. You were able to identify the CQing operator. From your after- the-fact email conversation with this person, its clear that he heard your signal. If he assumed that your Pactor signal was coming from a robot and that it was therefore ok to CQ nearby or worse, then he behaved badly; I hope you set him straight. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave I agree with you but how about a new twist to this. Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4 Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if he did hear the pactor signal and his reply was a yes. He also said well it was one of them robots WRONG... So it not just the Pactor station. This happens a number of times. There are a lot of KB2KB pactor QSO out there no matter what Roger says. John, W0JAB At 02:40 PM 12/25/2007, you wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high- speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. Only you can save the future of digital radio, by your comments to FCC. It only takes a few minutes on the web. Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, then write your comments in the lower part Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in) Here are suggested examples of comments, below. Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service. 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data to the 20th century. 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data emission is too narrow for established international standard transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently through rapid data time division methods. 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency communications networks currently in service and utilized by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international communications standards. Many of the present digital data communications standards require bandwidths in excess of 1.5kHz. The normal amateur radio service bandwidth limit by governments of other countries is 6kHz or more. 10. Thousands of licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be disenfranchised if the objectives of RM-11392 were to be adopted. 11. The RM-11392 petition is comparitively similar to an Analog Cellular Phone service entity trying to eliminate newer Digital Cellular Phone service. The fact is, Amateur Radio is now using faster time-multiplexing digital methods to enable more stations to efficiently use the same frequency channels simultaneously or in rapid succession. These time division techniques require at least 3kHz of bandwidth. 12. RM-11392 petition has not presented a compelling need to change the rules for Automatically Controlled Data Stations on the HF bands. END Read the petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. Enter your comments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi .
[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Hey Bonnie You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes. I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands (7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended. I have issues with that. Maybe I just don't understand? Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make an educated comment to the FCC: 1. Why can't larger bandwidth transmissions (ALE, etc) move above 7100 and 14100? 2. How will this RM will KILL digital radio? I would like to see narro bandwidth (PSK31, RTTY) modes only in the first 100 khZ segments. 3. Why do we let unattended operations take place? That seems contrary to the spirit of the hobby, especially since these transmissions don't check to see if the frequency is clear first. To me, that violates Rule 1 of the hobby - don't interfere with others. I appreciate your time answering my questions - I want to be an educated ditigal operator. Mark Lunday WD4ELG [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wd4elg.net http://wd4elg.net/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. Only you can save the future of digital radio, by your comments to FCC. It only takes a few minutes on the web. Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, then write your comments in the lower part Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in) Here are suggested examples of comments, below. Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service. 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data to the 20th century. 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data emission is too narrow for established international standard transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently through rapid data time division methods. 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency communications networks currently in service and utilized by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international communications standards. Many of the present digital data communications standards require bandwidths in excess of 1.5kHz. The normal amateur radio service bandwidth limit by governments of other countries is 6kHz or more. 10. Thousands of licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be disenfranchised if the objectives of RM-11392 were to be adopted. 11. The RM-11392 petition is comparitively similar to an Analog Cellular Phone service entity trying to eliminate newer Digital Cellular Phone service. The fact is, Amateur Radio is now using faster time-multiplexing digital methods to enable more stations to efficiently use the same frequency channels simultaneously or in rapid succession. These time division techniques require at least 3kHz of bandwidth. 12. RM-11392 petition has not presented a compelling need to change the rules for Automatically Controlled Data Stations on the HF bands. END Read the petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_doc\ ument=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 11:47:13 pm expeditionradio wrote: Read the petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. Enter your comments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi I just Googled for RM-11392 and found literally nothing. No discussions, no arguments for or against, nothing. I'm not a lawyer. Is there an unbuised laymans interpretation of this document?
[digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Read the Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements click here: http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 click here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology. In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes. expeditionradio wrote: Read the Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements click here: http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 click here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
- Original Message - From: W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology. In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes. I agree with this petition, the author has given much thought to it. I also don't think that digital modes will be of much use in an emergency - I have often thought that this is just an excuse to promote the technology. Simon HB9DRV
RE: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Actually this is a Petition For Rule Making and it is for an AMENDMENT of PART 97. Nowhere does it state it is a Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements It's a good petition that a lot of thought has been put into and should be supported by all amateurs. Barry VE3CDX/W7 _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement Read the Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements click here: http://hflink. http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 click here: http://fjallfoss. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Hi All..as this petition only has to do with Hams in the USA i would suggest that argument from both sides be taken to a group especially for the subject and not be put on the other many Hams outside the USA.this petition has already engendered some very bad slanging between the 2 opposing sides that other Hams not involved should not have to put up with 73 Davdi VK4BDJ Simon Brown wrote: - Original Message - From: W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:w2xj%40nyc.rr.com I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology. In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes. I agree with this petition, the author has given much thought to it. I also don't think that digital modes will be of much use in an emergency - I have often thought that this is just an excuse to promote the technology. Simon HB9DRV
[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Mark WD4ELG wrote: Hey Bonnie You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate me. ... Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make an educated comment to the FCC: Hi Mark, I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below: How will this RM will KILL digital radio? It will prevent present digital data technologies that now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast digital technologies than enable many stations to use the same frequency simultaneously. It will kill all the great new types of interaction with new technologies, now and in the future. I would like to see narro bandwidth (PSK31, RTTY) modes only in the first 100 khZ segments. The FCC does not limit bandwidth of ham digital data because there is still active innovation and technology being invented for digital time-sharing, a technique that enables many hams to use the same HF frequency to send very fast data nearly simultaneously. Most other countries set 6kHz (or more) as the limit. There is enough ham spectrum for all of these different bandwidths to peacefully coexist. We don't need a 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on all data. Why do we let unattended operations take place? There are no unattended stations in USA under FCC rules. All stations have control operators, by some means. There are automatically controlled data stations, and these stations already operate under FCC rules, and have severely restricted and limited ways that they operate, and special sub-bands that they operate in under the rules. See the FCC Automatic Data Sub-Bands chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg' The petition seeks to send us back to the stone age of ham radio digital, by eliminating all types of digital data transmissions that are more than 1.5kHz bandwidth, whether or not they are manual or automatic transmissions. This will effectively kill or hobble the only 24/7 HF emergency data communications services we have in USA. It will kill technological innovation in ham radio digital data time-division digital techniques, in favor of the 20th century's method of frequency-division techniques. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Read the Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology here: http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. Only you can save the future of digital radio, by your comments to FCC. It only takes a few minutes on the web. Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, then write your comments in the lower part Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in) Here are suggested examples of comments, below. Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service. 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data to the 20th century. 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data emission is too narrow for established international standard transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently through rapid data time division methods. 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote: How will this RM will KILL digital radio? It will prevent present digital data technologies that now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast digital technologies than enable many stations to use the same frequency simultaneously. It will kill all the great new types of interaction with new technologies, now and in the future. That's not how. That's what.
