[digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined Data below 30MHz at less than 500Hz... data in the common way that 99% of hams send data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers. I've often said that the antiquated content-based FCC rules have been like a Technology Jail for USA hams. Just when it appeared that we might be given our freedom, joining the rest of the world's hams using state-of-the-art HF digital technology... someone at FCC just sentenced us back to the Digital Dark Ages. Was this cruel act done by intention or was it just a sloppy error? Who knows? 15 December will be a very sad day indeed... USA hams will be sitting on Technology Death Row for HF data. :( Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Omnibus rules published in Federal Register
Bob, Steve, K4CJX, the Winlink 2000 co-owner, had been quite pleased with the ability of Winlink 2000 to be more secure from casual viewing not only because of Pactor 3's de facto encryption, but also with their B2F compression system. The unintended result (some would say, intended, but I think it just worked out that way) was that it was impossible from any practical method to decode a P3 connection with another station ... EVEN if you have the proprietary modem. At least one ham has come up with a program to get around that, to the initial chagrin of some of the Winlink 2000 folks, so it can be done assuming that you have access to the modem. But hardly anyone would ever do this other than maybe some OO hams. This is not a minor problem because, we know that there have been improper messages going through the Winlink 2000 system due to some hams experiments to see if certain kinds of message would be allowed through that would normally not be allowed in amateur radio. Instead of admitting to this fact, sadly the Winlink 2000 folks attacked the messenger! That is when I realized there was a serious problem with the existing system since it is not transparent like all other avenues in amateur radio. Some groups, such as MARS, will still be able to continue running their digital network through the Winlink 2000 system, as will hams in most other countries of the world. While K4CJX has recently indicated that the FCC knew about the oversight, and it was his impression that they were going to do something about it before publishing the RO, this did not happen. It is his belief that this will be corrected in the future. As moderator of the Winlink2000 Yahoogroup, which promotes interoperability of all e-mail systems of this type, I hope that the FCC will eventually reconsider their actions since they also eliminated the fully automatic network frequencies on at least 80 meters and eliminated all wide band (over 500 Hz) semi-automatic operation. I believe that narrow (500 Hz or less) semi-automatic operation can still be done. Since the ARRL had made major proposals to create three different areas on the bands with varying maximum bandwidth allowances, 200, 500, and 3500 Hz, this seems to be a simplified approach by the FCC to have two areas for the lower HF bands. Now that this has been done, I question whether or not the FCC would reverse one of their key components of this change in policy toward having the 500 Hz areas as intentionally being narrow. Remember, that in the RO, they specifically pointed out that they did not agree with the ARRL on this matter 19. ... We understand ARRL's concern, but we note that eliminating or relaxing the bandwidth limitation would de facto eliminate the separation of narrow bandwidth and wide bandwidth emissions. We believe that separation of emission types by bandwidth is accepted in the amateur service as a reasonable means to minimize interference on shared frequencies and bands and, therefore, we will not replace the 500 Hz bandwidth limitation with a 3 kHz bandwidth limitation. I guess I have answered one of my earlier questions about whether the FCC meant that ALL modes in what is now a 500 Hz area have to remain 500 Hz or under. But I am still not clear what the heck the FCC meant by: To accommodate the concern raised by ARRL, however, we will revise our rules to clarify that the 500 Hz limitation applies only to the emission types we are adding to the definition of data when transmitted on amateur service frequencies below 30 MHz. By amending the rule in this manner, the 500 bandwidth limitation will not apply to other data emission types or amateur service bands in which a higher symbol rate or bandwidth currently is permitted. If anyone could interpret what this means, I would appreciate it. It seems to me that this could also be looked upon as an opportunity to continue to promote narrower modes in the CW/data area and thereby develop new modes that maximize the use of non-proprietary techniques and return amateur radio communications toward what I consider to be the right way, which is an open source approach rather than the proprietary one that we had been moving toward. After all, that has been our history of working together to come up with practical solutions that actually improve communications technology and often do it for a very reasonable cost. 73, Rick, KV9U Robert McGwier wrote: Dan: Why would the ARRL do this? It is my opinion that coupled with the parts of Pactor-III that are considered trade secrets, Pactor-III is in violation of Part 97 making it an encryption. There is no provision in part 97 for being able to receive it with ridiculously priced hardware, it simply MUST be a completely reproducible specification available for open reading to not be in violation of Part 97. The League does not help the situation by aiding SCS continue to be a scofflaw. Bob N4HY
Re: [digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
It is ironic that the FCC decision is actually much more restrictive than what some digital proponents were expecting. Based on my earlier comments, I am doubtful that the FCC would reverse what seems to be their new concept of having narrow bandwidth areas and wide bandwidth areas. What I really think has to happen, is for the FCC to realize that it would be a reasonable compromise to allow wide bandwith data in the wide bandwidth phone/image areas. Although there is opposition by many non-digital hams, I think the main reason for this is that they do not realize that the signals are often identical sounding whether image (FAX)/digital voice/digital data. To highlight this, if I scan a document and send it as an image, it should be completely legal on the phone/image portions of the bands, but if I conserve on the bandwidth, and use a text based method, then it would not be legal. It just seems to me that reasonable people would find this ... unreasonable. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined Data below 30MHz at less than 500Hz... data in the common way that 99% of hams send data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers. I've often said that the antiquated content-based FCC rules have been like a Technology Jail for USA hams. Just when it appeared that we might be given our freedom, joining the rest of the world's hams using state-of-the-art HF digital technology... someone at FCC just sentenced us back to the Digital Dark Ages. Was this cruel act done by intention or was it just a sloppy error? Who knows? 15 December will be a very sad day indeed... USA hams will be sitting on Technology Death Row for HF data. :( Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
Somehow, the Federal Register posting neglected to resolve the conflict concerning automatic digital forwarding on 80 meters. There is no change to section 97.221. Forwarding is allowed, but it isn't, yet it is? Raising the lower end for voice to 3.635 would fix a few problems. ... Duane N7QDN Hi Duane, They were asleep at the wheel, and now they have driven off a cliff. Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
I have to agree it dosn't seen like they even lissened. --- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow, the Federal Register posting neglected to resolve the conflict concerning automatic digital forwarding on 80 meters. There is no change to section 97.221. Forwarding is allowed, but it isn't, yet it is? Raising the lower end for voice to 3.635 would fix a few problems. ... Duane N7QDN Hi Duane, They were asleep at the wheel, and now they have driven off a cliff. Bonnie KQ6XA . Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
Re: [digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
Bonnie- I would like to see a reference for your claim of 99% for Data mode users. Or is this just an exageration to over state a wish? Facts, please. Bill-W4BSG At 02:38 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined Data below 30MHz at less than 500Hz... data in the common way that 99% of hams send data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers.
[digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
As of Dec 15 Pactor-III running at a bandwidth of greater than 500 Hz (such as Winlink) is not permissible below 30 MHz. This is one of the petition to reconsider items being considered by the ARRL Board of Directors. Of course any digital mode 500Hz bandwidth on any frequency =30Mhz is not permissible now. Bummer. Digital imaging with embedded symbols (stegenography) anyone? Please? When I read the rules a few weeks ago I did not think too much about them, if I am reading this correctly...some sub-modes of Olivia , MT63, and Dominoex would not be legal ?? Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
What is there in the digital realm except data, image and digital voice? Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Aycock Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:57 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data Bonnie- I would like to see a reference for your claim of 99% for Data mode users. Or is this just an exageration to over state a wish? Facts, please. Bill-W4BSG At 02:38 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined Data below 30MHz at less than 500Hz... data in the common way that 99% of hams send data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
Andy, Yes, the new rules will not allow any modes to be used in the MF and HF CW/Data/RTTY portions of the bands unless they are 500 Hz or less in bandwidth. Many of the modes can greatly exceed 500 Hz, such as the wider submodes of the modes you noted. Other modes that will no longer be legal would seem to include Chip 64 and Chip 128, Contestia and RTTYM when they exceed the 500 Hz width, PAX2 (although PAX might be legal), and wide shift RTTY. DominoEX, being a fairly narrow mode, even at the 22 baud rate, should be OK. I use Patrick's Multipsk help file as a guideline for bandwidth's. It is interesting that he considers 170 Hz RTTY to be 600 Hz BW and therefore would not be legal to use. However, it depends upon the way you measure the bandwidth, and I expect the FCC would take a liberal view on that. Therefore, the above modes that are nominally 500 Hz will likely be OK to use. Maybe the ARRL Technical Department or some other independent technician(s) can measure some of these bandwidths in order to insure that those emissions that are borderline are meeting the new rule. Due to the fact that the ARRL requested 200/500/3500 Hz areas, this is not all that different from that request. The only problem that I see is that it does not allow the wider data modes in the wide phone/image portions. It seems to me that we would not want to change the 500 Hz areas, especially if they are a small area such as we now have on 80 meters. What we should do is ask that digital data be added to phone and image portions of the bands. That is an uncomplicated request although it will garner some strong opposition from those who consider SSB voice to be the main mode of amateur radio and therefore should not have any competing technology in the phone area. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: When I read the rules a few weeks ago I did not think too much about them, if I am reading this correctly...some sub-modes of Olivia , MT63, and Dominoex would not be legal ?? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
Remember, that the FCC was responding to a number of competing petitions. While the ARRL has a strong influence, it only has one petition. Any individual can make proposals as well, and they did. Note how the FCC used those arguments to support their changes to the rules. In terms of automatic forwarding, this can still be done if the bandwidth is 500 Hz on the bands that still have the fully automatic areas. Semi-automatic, with a bandwidth of 500 Hz can be done anyplace in the CW/Data/RTTY areas. What can no longer be done is operate semi-automatic with the wide bandwidth modes, since you will no longer be able to use bandwidths over 500 Hz in these sub band areas. That is a huge change for the users of Pactor 3 since at this time they were really the only wide bandwidth modes used on automatic operation. The other effect is that the Winlink 2000 users will be forced to move down below 3600 KHz when using the 80 meter band and while that is going to add to the congestion, the continued use of Pactor 3, and any other wide bandwith mode, would be completely unacceptable. We should see some relief though on 20 meters without these wide BW modes. There does seem to be a near consensus of radio amateurs that Pactor 3 simply does not belong on the amateur bands. On the other hand, P3 could be used to send a FAX in the phone area, couldn't it? But I would not think that would be very common. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Somehow, the Federal Register posting neglected to resolve the conflict concerning automatic digital forwarding on 80 meters. There is no change to section 97.221. Forwarding is allowed, but it isn't, yet it is? Raising the lower end for voice to 3.635 would fix a few problems. ... Duane N7QDN Hi Duane, They were asleep at the wheel, and now they have driven off a cliff. Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
There does seem to be a near consensus of radio amateurs that Pactor 3 simply does not belong on the amateur bands. If that is true then BPL has won. P3 is a good first step towards modern communications technologies. A mouse going SQUEAK SQUEAK SQUEAK. He's making lots and lots of racket. The Mr Mouse sees with a big chunck of cheese. Mr Mouse thinks it's the best bonanza ever and all that SQUEAKING was worth it. Does he have time to be surprised when the trap snaps shut with a SNAP! Will we hams have time to be surprised when the trap Snaps with you're not using modern 'useful' technologies with the frequencies. BPL is... Could it be a conspiracy? Bill
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure FCC Success
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There does seem to be a near consensus of radio amateurs that Pactor 3 simply does not belong on the amateur bands. If that is true then BPL has won. What, please, do BPL and P3 have in common? (Other than frequent and well-founded complaints about QRMing other spectrum users?) P3 is a mode that is best utilized on dedicated spectrum vs multi-mode shared spectrum. It is more suitable to commercial, public service, and maritime communications and there is tons of spectrum assigned to those services. It does not play well with others. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
Not good logic. BPL is not good because many deployed systems do not meet the FCC's specifications, the FCC knows this and does not enforce its own administrative law. Pactor III will violate Part 97 when the new rules go into affect and in fact may violate Part 97 now due to other problems associated with the mode. No one is saying that Pactor III is a bad mode, just that it is not (or many feel it is not) in compliance with administrative Law, i.e. Part 97. Because one or the other modes is non-compliant with the law does not make the other mode bad or good. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure There does seem to be a near consensus of radio amateurs that Pactor 3 simply does not belong on the amateur bands. If that is true then BPL has won. P3 is a good first step towards modern communications technologies. A mouse going SQUEAK SQUEAK SQUEAK. He's making lots and lots of racket. The Mr Mouse sees with a big chunck of cheese. Mr Mouse thinks it's the best bonanza ever and all that SQUEAKING was worth it. Does he have time to be surprised when the trap snaps shut with a SNAP! Will we hams have time to be surprised when the trap Snaps with you're not using modern 'useful' technologies with the frequencies. BPL is... Could it be a conspiracy? Bill Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
In my opinion, this is absolutely WRONG. I have said this here before, it all comes down to what is considered data. The new restrictions only cover content type D, which is Data, telemetry or telecommand. It does *NOT* include type B, which is telegraphy for automatic reception. It is already established that RTTY is content type B in common use. Therefore, the same type of traffic being sent with a mode like Olivia, MT63, Pactor-III, etc. must be considered type B as well, the modulation scheme is irrelevant to that. My interpretation, which is as good as any at this point, is that telegraphy is plain text to be read and interpreted by a human operator on the spot, whereas data is information (including plain text) which was or is intended to be stored as a file or interpreted by a computer. Thus: Keyboard-to-keyboard QSO: Telegraphy (J2B) Automated exchange of QSO information: Data (J2D) MultiPSK's Reed-Solomon mode ID feature: Data (J2D) Loading and sending a text file: Data (J2D) Manually delivering/forwarding NTS traffic: Telegraphy (J2B) Automatically forwarding NTS traffic: Data (J2D) Forwarding mail: Data (J2D) Reading mail: Data (J2D) (it was stored in a file on the BBS) Sending a PDF/ODF/etc: Data (J2D) Sending a JPG/PNG/etc: Image/Fax (J2C) Sending a MNG/animated GIF/etc: Television (J2F) So, if you're simply having a keyboard-to-keyboard QSO, a 1 or 2 kHz-wide mode is legal. As an aside, as long as you don't send any text (other than the Pic: statement), the MFSK16 image mode is legal to use in the phone bands right now. Though it does send a little incidental digital text, consider the VIS codes in wide SSTV, and the QSO data burst that MMSSTV sends. No one has ever lost their ticket over that... -Joe, N8FQ Andrew O'Brien wrote: When I read the rules a few weeks ago I did not think too much about them, if I am reading this correctly...some sub-modes of Olivia , MT63, and Dominoex would not be legal ?? Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
Pactor III will violate Part 97 when the new rules go into affect and in fact *may violate Part 97 now due to other problems associated with the mode. *Walt, please elaborate on the second part of this statement. Thank you. 73... Jon W1MNK
[digitalradio] USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
expeditionradio writes: Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined Data below 30MHz at less than 500Hz... data in the common way that 99% of hams send data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers. I've often said that the antiquated content-based FCC rules have been like a Technology Jail for USA hams. Just when it appeared that we might be given our freedom, joining the rest of the world's hams using state-of-the-art HF digital technology... someone at FCC just sentenced us back to the Digital Dark Ages. Was this cruel act done by intention or was it just a sloppy error? Who knows? 15 December will be a very sad day indeed... USA hams will be sitting on Technology Death Row for HF data. :( Bonnie KQ6XA I agree that the present arrangement is bad, but I'm hoping that the FCC acts soon on regulation-by-bandwidth, at which point all modes less than 3KHz wide will presumably be legal from 3.6 to 4.0 MHz, with regional band-planning rather than government regulation to split the available spectrum among voice, data, SSTV, and whatever we haven't thought of yet. I certainly wish that regulation-by-bandwidth had been rolled into the current rulemaking, but the next-best choice is for the Commission to act promptly on that matter now that the current rules are out. (I also think that the bottom of the extra-class phone or widemodes area should have been at 3650 KHz or higher, because the new rules interfere with existing CW traffic nets, but that's another discussion.) Even so, of course, there will still be isses: the band plan for IARU Region 2 between 3.6 and 4.0 MHz should be such that US General class licensees can use up-to-3KHz data modes to communicate with hams in other countries in the region, or better yet, world-wide, without violating the band plan. 73 DE KW6H (ex ae6vw) Chris
[digitalradio] FCC Omnibus Loophole for 500Hz Data Limit AM or DSB?
I wonder if there is a loophole in the new 500Hz HF Data limit. Since the J2D limit applies to SSB transmitters, why not transmit data on DSB or AM ? Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] NEWEST RULES....
PERHAPS IF WHAT IS TRANSMITTED IS NOT FOR DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND GRATIFICATION, THEN IT IS NOT DATA. JUST GONNA HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE AFTER ALL THE SHOUTING IS OVER. DAVID/WD4KPD
[digitalradio] Fw: [MT63] Question about new rules for US amateurs
I just took aquaintance with the message repeated below. Will such a bandwith limitation be imposed on US amateurs for all other digital modes, like OLIVIA, CONTESTIA and so on ??? 73 de Germano, PU2NTC - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:50 PM Subject: [MT63] MT63 Hi Guys, New rules for US amateurs , as of December 15, 2006, we will have to use the 500hz bandwith for mt63. we will no longer be able to use 1khz or 2khz bandwith. Richard k6ipc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[digitalradio] Re: USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell ae6vw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I certainly wish that regulation-by-bandwidth had been rolled into the current rulemaking, but the next-best choice is for the Commission to act promptly on that matter now that the current rules are out. The FCC was not unaware of the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal when they issued the current Omnibus rules. If the FCC thought the ARRL proposal had merit, they would not have roled out Omnibus rules that move in the opposite direction (e.g. the new limits on data). I strongly suspect that the new Ominbus rules *are* the FCC's response to the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal was deeply flawed; it would have removed the constraints on unattended (semi-automatic) operation without providing any means of controlling QRM from the hidden transmitter effect. If this proposal is indeed dead, I'm pleased. However, the loss of 500hz data below 30 mHz is highly unfortunate, and puts a crimp in my personal plan to develop an interactive party-line protocol capable of background file transfer. On the bright side, 6m should become more popular... 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
The anti-wide group got their wish. The RTTY DX window on 40 among others is a thing of the past. Life with it.
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
Joe, Your explanation may explain what the FCC meant when they wrote: To accommodate the concern raised by ARRL, however, we will revise our rules to clarify that the 500 Hz limitation applies only to the emission types we are adding to the definition of data when transmitted on amateur service frequencies below 30 MHz. By amending the rule in this manner, the 500 bandwidth limitation will not apply to other data emission types or amateur service bands in which a higher symbol rate or bandwidth currently is permitted. Even though they are actually C or FAX modes, the FCC's decision makes the following into data modes: A1C = DSB AM digital FAX with no subcarrier F1C = FM FAX digital modulation with no subcarrier (MFSK) F2C = FM digital FAX with subcarrier J2C = Digital FAX with subcarrier J3C = Analog FAX from SSB transmitter and then add to that, the regular data of J2D. So it would not necessarily be text modes per se, but whether the ITU emission classification and/or the FCC considers as data. It may be that a wide shift RTTY would still be legal since it appears that they did not change that part of the rules. The critical issue is the type of information to be transmitted and whether it is data or machine readable telegraphy. While the following modes are data (J2D) Pactor 3 = 2K20J2D Clover 3 = 2K0HJ2DEN (but can also be considered BEN so that complicates things) Q15X25 = 2K00J2D PSK, MFSK, possibly Olivia (mostly MFSK), Domino, perhaps MT-63 are J2B modes and not J2D? I still am unable to just know this by looking at the information and I have to look at other definitive sources for delineating the ITU classification. I would expect that we will be able to get some help from ARRL HQ on this since they could publish a list of modes along with their classifications. That would help a great deal. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Veldhuis wrote: In my opinion, this is absolutely WRONG. I have said this here before, it all comes down to what is considered data. The new restrictions only cover content type D, which is Data, telemetry or telecommand. It does *NOT* include type B, which is telegraphy for automatic reception. It is already established that RTTY is content type B in common use. Therefore, the same type of traffic being sent with a mode like Olivia, MT63, Pactor-III, etc. must be considered type B as well, the modulation scheme is irrelevant to that. My interpretation, which is as good as any at this point, is that telegraphy is plain text to be read and interpreted by a human operator on the spot, whereas data is information (including plain text) which was or is intended to be stored as a file or interpreted by a computer. Thus: Keyboard-to-keyboard QSO: Telegraphy (J2B) Automated exchange of QSO information: Data (J2D) MultiPSK's Reed-Solomon mode ID feature: Data (J2D) Loading and sending a text file: Data (J2D) Manually delivering/forwarding NTS traffic: Telegraphy (J2B) Automatically forwarding NTS traffic: Data (J2D) Forwarding mail: Data (J2D) Reading mail: Data (J2D) (it was stored in a file on the BBS) Sending a PDF/ODF/etc: Data (J2D) Sending a JPG/PNG/etc: Image/Fax (J2C) Sending a MNG/animated GIF/etc: Television (J2F) So, if you're simply having a keyboard-to-keyboard QSO, a 1 or 2 kHz-wide mode is legal. As an aside, as long as you don't send any text (other than the Pic: statement), the MFSK16 image mode is legal to use in the phone bands right now. Though it does send a little incidental digital text, consider the VIS codes in wide SSTV, and the QSO data burst that MMSSTV sends. No one has ever lost their ticket over that... -Joe, N8FQ
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
Joe, that was my interpretation when I read it a few weeks ago. I think I will just continue to operate politely with Olivia 1000 Hz and wait until the FCC tells me I cannot do it. Then we would have a good test case - Original Message - From: Joe Veldhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] In my opinion, this is absolutely WRONG. I have said this here before, it all comes down to what is considered data. The new restrictions only cover content type D, which is Data, telemetry or telecommand. It does *NOT* include type B, which is telegraphy for automatic reception. It is already established that RTTY is content type B in common use. Therefore, the same type of traffic being sent with a mode like Olivia, MT63, Pactor-III, etc. must be considered type B as well, the modulation scheme is irrelevant to that. My interpretation, which is as good as any at this point, is that telegraphy is plain text to be read and interpreted by a human operator on the spot, whereas data is information (including plain text) which was or is intended to be stored as a file or interpreted by a computer. Thus: Keyboard-to-keyboard QSO: Telegraphy (J2B) Automated exchange of QSO information: Data (J2D) MultiPSK's Reed-Solomon mode ID feature: Data (J2D) Loading and sending a text file: Data (J2D) Manually delivering/forwarding NTS traffic: Telegraphy (J2B) Automatically forwarding NTS traffic: Data (J2D) Forwarding mail: Data (J2D) Reading mail: Data (J2D) (it was stored in a file on the BBS) Sending a PDF/ODF/etc: Data (J2D) Sending a JPG/PNG/etc: Image/Fax (J2C) Sending a MNG/animated GIF/etc: Television (J2F) So, if you're simply having a keyboard-to-keyboard QSO, a 1 or 2 kHz-wide mode is legal.
