Re: [digitalradio] Re: Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[KV9U]

Leslie,

Without question, the Technician license is going to have the same 
privileges as the Tech +.  The CW segment is not small. It is the same 
segment that the General and Advanced Class operators have. The Extra 
too, except they have 25 more KHz at the bottom. This means that all 
classes of operators will be able to work CW in the same area instead of 
being segregated as it once was where the higher classes could move to 
the "Novice" area, but the Novices could not operate in the main CW area.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Leslie Elliott wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that anyone who is a technician class, such as myself,
>will still have to take the written test, element 3 or 4 depending on
>whether we want General or Extra license, in order to operate on HF
>Voice.  Even those that are Tech + would have to take element 3 to
>operate voice on HF except for the small segment already available to
>Tech + on 10 M and the small CW only segments on 15 M, 40 M & 80 M.  I
>read that they are going to combine Tech and Tech + now, and while I
>may be wrong,I guess that means that a Tech could operate on HF CW
>where the Tech + were allowed.  Of corse, that is a moot point, as
>most Tech's don't know Morse anyway Hi Hi!  Either way, I'm sure that
>they/we will have to wait till published etc.  I hope those in the
>group that were opposed to the elimination of Morse will not hold it
>against those of us that will benefit from this.  I for one love Ham
>Radio, and just wasn't interested in CW, but was going to learn it
>anyway because it was looking like this rule change was not coming
>soon enough.  I may still learn it someday, but for now, I am mainly
>interested in the "other" digital modes like PSK etc.
>
>73 de KCØPTO  
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Yes Dave.  I read it as the latter of your two possibilities.

Andy.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Bernstein 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!


Its ambiguous, Andy. They could mean

"we'll change 97.221(b) from

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a 
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on 
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments.

to

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a 
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on 
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments."

Or, they could mean "we suggest that automatically controlled 
stations use 3.585-3.600, as permitted by 97.221(c)", which requires 
that

(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under 
local or remote control; and 

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station 
occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz. 

Someone forgot to take his or her clarity pills...

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Attention All Amateurs... End of an Era: FCC to Drop Morse Testing for All 
Amateur License Classes (Dec 15, 2006) -- In an historic move, the FCC has 
acted to drop the Morse code requirement for all Amateur Radio license classes. 
The Commission today adopted a Report and Order (R&O) in WT Docket 05-235. In a 
break from typical practice, the FCC only issued a public notice at or about 
the close of business and not the actual Report & Order, so some details -- 
including the effective date of the R&O -- remain uncertain. Also today, the 
FCC also adopted an Order on Reconsideration, in WT Docket 04-140 -- the 
"omnibus" proceeding -- agreeing to modify the Amateur Radio rules in response 
to an ARRL request to accommodate automatically controlled narrowband digital 
stations on 80 meters in the wake of rule changes that became effective today 
at 12:01 AM Eastern Time. The Commission said it will carve out the 3585 to 
3600 kHz frequency segment for such operations. Prior to the long-awaited 
action on the Morse code issue, Amateur Radio applicants for General and higher 
class licenses had to pass a 5 WPM Morse code test to operate on HF. The 
Commission said today's R&O eliminates that requirement for General and Amateur 
Extra applicants.
Full Story 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Leslie Elliott 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:03 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code


  I'm pretty sure that anyone who is a technician class, such as myself,
  will still have to take the written test, element 3 or 4 depending on
  whether we want General or Extra license, in order to operate on HF
  Voice. Even those that are Tech + would have to take element 3 to
  operate voice on HF except for the small segment already available to
  Tech + on 10 M and the small CW only segments on 15 M, 40 M & 80 M. I
  read that they are going to combine Tech and Tech + now, and while I
  may be wrong,I guess that means that a Tech could operate on HF CW
  where the Tech + were allowed. Of corse, that is a moot point, as
  most Tech's don't know Morse anyway Hi Hi! Either way, I'm sure that
  they/we will have to wait till published etc. I hope those in the
  group that were opposed to the elimination of Morse will not hold it
  against those of us that will benefit from this. I for one love Ham
  Radio, and just wasn't interested in CW, but was going to learn it
  anyway because it was looking like this rule change was not coming
  soon enough. I may still learn it someday, but for now, I am mainly
  interested in the "other" digital modes like PSK etc.

  73 de KCØPTO 

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
  >
  > When does this take effect? Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do 
  > we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register 
  > plus 30 days ?
  > 
  > Andy K3UK
  >



   

?attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&view=att&th=10f89312da85fec5
Description: Binary data

[digitalradio] Re: Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[Leslie Elliott]

I'm pretty sure that anyone who is a technician class, such as myself,
will still have to take the written test, element 3 or 4 depending on
whether we want General or Extra license, in order to operate on HF
Voice.  Even those that are Tech + would have to take element 3 to
operate voice on HF except for the small segment already available to
Tech + on 10 M and the small CW only segments on 15 M, 40 M & 80 M.  I
read that they are going to combine Tech and Tech + now, and while I
may be wrong,I guess that means that a Tech could operate on HF CW
where the Tech + were allowed.  Of corse, that is a moot point, as
most Tech's don't know Morse anyway Hi Hi!  Either way, I'm sure that
they/we will have to wait till published etc.  I hope those in the
group that were opposed to the elimination of Morse will not hold it
against those of us that will benefit from this.  I for one love Ham
Radio, and just wasn't interested in CW, but was going to learn it
anyway because it was looking like this rule change was not coming
soon enough.  I may still learn it someday, but for now, I am mainly
interested in the "other" digital modes like PSK etc.

73 de KCØPTO  


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When does this take effect?  Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do 
> we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register 
> plus 30 days ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] cw

[Brett Owen Rees VK2TMG]

Here in VK interest in CW has been increasing one we no-coders got HF
privileges. The code practice beacons are an invaluable resource for those
learning. On-air code practice sessions take place and have increasing
number of participants, including those who did not require the code to get
on HF - I often participate and check-in after the session.

73 de Brett VK2TMG

Re: [digitalradio] Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[bruce mallon]

LETS MAKE THE BEST OF THIS AND GO GET NEW GOOD HAMS !

--- kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> > When does this take effect?  Can no code hams
> start tonight on HF or do 
> > we have to wait for the rules to be published in
> the Federal Register 
> > plus 30 days ?
> 
> I am advised by someone familiar with
> bureaucrat-speak
> that it is 30 days -- January 15, 2007.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> ... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
> ~~~
> Thank our brave soldiers this season:
> http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
> ~~~
> URL:  bibleseven (dot) com
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Yes, Danny.  I agree it was nice to be left alone in that 150 KC on 80.

Andy.

- Original Message - 
From: Danny Douglas
I wish folk would quit saying that CW ops haven't lost anything.  It was 
promised that any changes would not narrow anyone's bandwidth.  Nonsense! 
We CW and digital folks have lost a LOT.  We lost the ability to be left 
alone in 150 KC of bandwidth in the 80 meter band. 

[digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[dshults]

Andy,
I understand the FCC to say:
"We will fix the oversight by shifting all prior spectrum
privileges from 3620-3635 kHz down to 3585-3600 kHz."

This matches the suggested pactor channel table for
Oregon that I created back on November 29th. Just a hunch.

   ... Duane N7QDN


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..
> 
> "The ARRL argued
> that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
> below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
> controlled digital stations operating in the
> 3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
> concluded that these stations can be protected by
> providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency 
segment"
> 
> Is the FCC saying that the auto-controlled digital operators do 
not 
> need protecting?
> 
> Andy.
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dshults"  wrote:
> >
> > Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
> > move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
> > and expected... 
> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
269012A1.pdf
> > 
> >... Duane N7QDN
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[kd4e]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> When does this take effect?  Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do 
> we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register 
> plus 30 days ?

I am advised by someone familiar with bureaucrat-speak
that it is 30 days -- January 15, 2007.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

[digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[Dave Bernstein]

Its ambiguous, Andy. They could mean

"we'll change 97.221(b) from

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a 
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on 
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments.

to

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a 
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on 
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments."


Or, they could mean "we suggest that automatically controlled 
stations use 3.585-3.600, as permitted by 97.221(c)", which requires 
that

(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under 
local or remote control; and 

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station 
occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz. 

Someone forgot to take his or her clarity pills...

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..
> 
> "The ARRL argued
> that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
> below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
> controlled digital stations operating in the
> 3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
> concluded that these stations can be protected by
> providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment"
> 
> Is the FCC saying that the auto-controlled digital operators do not 
> need protecting?
> 
> Andy.
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dshults"  wrote:
> >
> > Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
> > move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
> > and expected... 
> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
> > 
> >... Duane N7QDN
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[Danny Douglas]

Taking an additional 15 KC away from narrow band cw and digital ops.  It
just gets better and better!

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:23 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!


> Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..
>
> "The ARRL argued
> that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
> below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
> controlled digital stations operating in the
> 3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
> concluded that these stations can be protected by
> providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment"
>
> Is the FCC saying that the auto-controlled digital operators do not
> need protecting?
>
> Andy.
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dshults" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
> > move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
> > and expected...
> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
> >
> >... Duane N7QDN
> >
>
>
>
>
> Connect to  telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert
system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date:
12/15/2006 10:02 AM
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[KV9U]

Bert,

I think you have to compare the previous privileges to the current 
privileges. Under the new rules General, Advanced and Extra hams lose 
150 KHz  for Data/RTTY from 3600 to 3750 and is a big impact although 
most data/RTTY did not go much above say, 3650?

But it is a huge impact on the CW nets because only the Extra class have 
the space immediately above 3600 for CW/Voice/image. That means few CW 
nets will operate there, if any, since most CW nets include most classes 
of operators.

Under the old rules, Generals could never operate 3750 to 3850 with any 
mode. Now under the new rules they can not operate from 3600 to 3800. So 
they lose 150 KHz of CW privileges from 3600 to 3750, but they do gain 
50 KHz of voice/image from 3800 to 3850.

Advanced class could never operate 3750 to 3775 under the old rules. 
Under the new rules they lose 100 KHz of CW privileges from 3600 to 
3700, but they do gain 75 KHz voice/image from 3700 to 3775 and that 
includes that 25 KHz that they could not operate before with any mode.

Since there are no new Advanced class operators coming on line, and 
there are fewer of them as time progresses, we may see an even greater 
number of Advanced upgrade to Extra. Compared to the past when we had to 
go to an FCC examining station, and for some such as myself, this was 
very expensive, today all you have to do is take a moderately difficult 
test, but all the questions and answers in the pool are already known in 
advance, unlike in the past. And there is no longer a 20 wpm code test 
either. So upgrading from Advanced to Extra is relatively easy today and 
new Extra privileges seem pretty worthwhile now.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Bert Morton wrote:

>General Class ops have lost all privileges from 3600 to 3800.
>
>Advanced Class ops have lost all privileges from 3700 to 3800.
>
>Thus the reason for CW nets having to move below 3600.
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:08 PM
>Subject: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?
>
>
>Thanks for reminded us Rick.  With all that has been written, I have 
>forgotten what is new.  Would the following rough summary be close?
>
>Some parts of  the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to the 
>former CW or digital portions.?
>
>CW operators have lost nothing, just have to share more ?
>
>Digital modes, other than automated stations , remain mostly unaffected 
>except for the ability to send some images within MFSK16 ?
>
>SSTV folks have to remain in the "phone" portion of the bands since those 
>signals contain "images" and  are wider than 500 Hz
>
>CW net folks maybe miffed and feel the need to move but they don;t have to 
>if they don't mind having SSB signals as neighbours ?
>
>
>What else did I miss ?
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[Andrew O'Brien]

Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..

"The ARRL argued
that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
controlled digital stations operating in the
3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
concluded that these stations can be protected by
providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment"

Is the FCC saying that the auto-controlled digital operators do not 
need protecting?

Andy.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dshults" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
> move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
> and expected... 
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
> 
>... Duane N7QDN
>

[digitalradio] Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code

[Andrew O'Brien]

When does this take effect?  Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do 
we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register 
plus 30 days ?

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!

[dshults]

Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
and expected... 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf

   ... Duane N7QDN

Re: [digitalradio] cw

[Danny Douglas]

Why bother?  They just did away with CW

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:54 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] cw


> now would be a good time to get the arrl cw practice down in the
> area that they themselves recommend for cw.
>
> david/wd4kpd
>
>
> Connect to  telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert
system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date:
12/15/2006 10:02 AM
>
>

[digitalradio] Re: FCC Drops Morse Code

[Andrew O'Brien]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Radioguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   NEWS MEDIA 
CONTACT:
> December 15, 
> 2006 
> Chelsea Fallon:  (202) 418-7991
> 
> FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES,
> ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREMENTS AND
> ADDRESSING ARRL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
> 

HOLY COW !!!


Well, as an avid CW fan ...I must say tha I thinkthis will be good 
for us digital folks.  The many "no-code" hams have a good Christmas 
present and I am sure we will get some fine hams discovering the 
digital bands.

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[Danny Douglas]

Ill bet the VE sessions are loaded with people for the next several months.
That is what incentive licensing is all about. And the reason many of us
upgraded in the 60s.  Why dont all those nets go up above 3800?  People keep
saying that CW is allowed up there.

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Bert Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?


> General Class ops have lost all privileges from 3600 to 3800.
>
> Advanced Class ops have lost all privileges from 3700 to 3800.
>
> Thus the reason for CW nets having to move below 3600.
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:08 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?
>
>
> Thanks for reminded us Rick.  With all that has been written, I have
> forgotten what is new.  Would the following rough summary be close?
>
> Some parts of  the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to
the
> former CW or digital portions.?
>
> CW operators have lost nothing, just have to share more ?
>
> Digital modes, other than automated stations , remain mostly unaffected
> except for the ability to send some images within MFSK16 ?
>
> SSTV folks have to remain in the "phone" portion of the bands since those
> signals contain "images" and  are wider than 500 Hz
>
> CW net folks maybe miffed and feel the need to move but they don;t have to
> if they don't mind having SSB signals as neighbours ?
>
>
> What else did I miss ?
>
>
>
>
> Connect to  telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert
system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date:
12/15/2006 10:02 AM
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

[Danny Douglas]

NOT ANOTHER SHOE - A BOOT.   Take the damn bands and do what you want  AR
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Radioguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
December 15,
2006
Chelsea Fallon:  (202) 418-7991

FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES,
ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREMENTS AND
ADDRESSING ARRL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Washington, D.C. - Today, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Report
and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order)
that modifies the rules for the Amateur Radio
Service by revising the examination requirements
for obtaining a General Class or Amateur Extra
Class amateur radio operator license and revising
the operating privileges for Technician Class
licensees.  In addition, the Order resolves a
petition filed by the American Radio Relay
League, Inc. (ARRL) for partial reconsideration
of an FCC Order on amateur service rules released on October 10, 2006.

The current amateur service operator license
structure contains three classes of amateur radio
operator licenses:  Technician Class, General
Class, and Amateur Extra Class.  General Class
and Amateur Extra Class licensees are permitted
to operate in Amateur bands below 30 MHz, while
the introductory Technician Class licensees are
only permitted to operate in bands above 30
MHz.  Prior to today's action, the FCC, in
accordance with international radio regulations,
required applicants for General Class and Amateur
Extra Class operator licenses to pass a five
words-per-minute Morse code examination.  Today's
Order eliminates that requirement for General and
Amateur Extra licensees.  This change reflects
revisions to international radio regulations made
at the International Telecommunication Union's
2003 World Radio Conference (WRC-03), which
authorized each country to determine whether to
require that individuals demonstrate Morse code
proficiency in order to qualify for an amateur
radio license with transmitting privileges on
frequencies below 30 MHz.  This change eliminates
an unnecessary regulatory burden that may
discourage current amateur radio operators from
advancing their skills and participating more
fully in the benefits of amateur radio.

Today's Order also revises the operating
privileges for Technician Class licensees by
eliminating a disparity in the operating
privileges for the Technician Class and
Technician Plus Class licensees.  Technician
Class licensees are authorized operating
privileges on all amateur frequencies above 30
MHz.  The Technician Plus Class license, which is
an operator license class that existed prior the
FCC's simplification of the amateur license
structure in 1999 and was grandfathered after
that time, authorized operating privileges on all
amateur frequencies above 30 MHz, as well as
frequency segments in four HF bands (below 30
MHz) after the successful completion of a Morse
code examination.  With today's elimination of
the Morse code exam requirements, the FCC
concluded that the disparity between the
operating privileges of Technician Class
licensees and Technician Plus Class licensees
should not be retained.  Therefore, the FCC, in
today's action, afforded Technician and
Technician Plus licensees identical operating privileges.

Finally, today's Order resolved a petition filed
by the ARRL for partial reconsideration of an FCC
Order released on October 10, 2006 (FCC
06-149).  In this Order, the FCC authorized
amateur stations to transmit voice communications
on additional frequencies in certain amateur
service bands, including the 75 meter (m) band,
which is authorized only for certain wideband
voice and image communications.  The ARRL argued
that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
controlled digital stations operating in the
3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band.  The FCC
concluded that these stations can be protected by
providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment.

Action by the Commission on December 15, 2006, by
Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration.  Chairman Martin and
Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.

For additional information, contact William Cross
at (202) 418-0691 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

WT Docket Nos. 04-140 and 05-235.

- FCC -





Connect to  telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert
system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.


Yahoo! Groups Links





-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006
10:02 AM

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[Danny Douglas]

I wish folk would quit saying that CW ops haven't lost anything.  It was 
promised that any changes would not narrow anyone's bandwidth.  Nonsense!  We 
CW and digital folks have lost a LOT.  We lost the ability to be left alone in 
150 KC of bandwidth in the 80 meter band.  Yes- we CAN send almost everywhere 
with CW.  The problem is we cant HEAR in that part of the band that has to now 
be shared with more and more SSB stations moving down on us.  CW filters ARE 
narrow, and allow cutting out the upper and lower sides of a signal position, 
supposedly allowing us to copy better.  What most don't or wont admit is that a 
2.8 kc SSB signal sitting anywhere within the CW signal passband, still is 
there in that narrow CW portion.  You cannot filter out something that is 
supposed to be there.  No matter that I have a dsp filter, and a 200cy cw 
filter, the darn SSB is still there within that passband.  It is the same with 
PSK, RTTY or any of the other narrow digital signals.  The SSB is still going 
to sit right on the same frequency spectrum we are using.  To me, it is much 
like the JC Pennys salesman I heard explaining to the customer, back in the 
60s. "You have 120 channels on this CB.  40 upper sideband, 40 lower sideband 
and 40 AM"  I almost choked!  This guy couldn't put two and two together to 
realize that it was still just 40 channels, no matter what mode was being used 
on them.

Last night, I was sitting on 3.605 -10  working one CW station right after the 
other, just before midnight.  It was just as bout a clear band as I ever heard, 
from QRN.  In fact the S meter hardly moved from noise.  At the (sad) appointed 
hour, I just said goodbye to one guy on CW and switched over to SSB to 
hopefully get the first SSB contact on the same freq - called CQ - and all hell 
busted loose.  There must have been literally hundreds of SSB signals suddenly 
calling each other, or calling CQ.  Including right on the freq I was talking 
on.  I went up the band and that whole 175 KC was literally jammed with callers 
- mostly talking about all their new "rights".  I went on up to 3.750 and 
listened thru the band to the top, and there were less than a dozen QSOs there. 
 So much for the new bandwidth to "allow stations to spread out".  

One of the worrisome things I heard was several stations talking about moving 
their 4 square antennas down to tune in right on 3.600 so they would cover both 
CW and SSB.  They certainly have the right to tune an antenna to where they 
want, but I wonder if these guys are really CW ops, are just want to smash the 
lower end of the band.  

The astounding thing, I went below 3.6 to listen to CW stations again, and the 
noise level had suddenly risen to an S7 up close to 3.6 and slightly decreased 
as I went down the band, but never got as low as before the catastrophe.  I 
cant believe this was due to all the SSB stations about, but it was just a few 
minutes from one point to the other.  I hope this is not indicitave of future 
conditions.  I just now checked again, and the noise levels in the SSB portion 
seem to be s7-8 with pops up to above s9.  at 3.545 the noise is s7 and at 
3.5001 it is s6.  The weather outside is clear, few if any winds and in the 
upper 50s.  

And yes - it also affected the 40 meter band, with CW ops loosing 25 kc( or as 
some would say - SSB Gaining 25 kc)  Its really odd that, just when Europe is 
becoming more able to use 7.1-7.2, so that there is no longer any necessity to 
work split operation on SSB between the states and Europe, and shortly - the 
rest of the world as well.  There is plenty of room for SSB DX to DX on 7.150 - 
7.2 now.  The 7.2-7.3 is left for stateside SSB guys to chat among themselves.  
So - digital ops lost 25 KC of band again.  

Hey - I said it would happen- and it has.  I just heard a DX station calling CQ 
DX on 3.580 SSB - right on top of an on-going RTTY QSO.  It wont be long till 
hundreds have slid down to get away from the US SSB signals - and now where 
does that leave CW and PSK?  I hope cooler heads will prevail and the DX 
settles somewhere away from the low end, but have my doubts.  


Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew J. O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:08 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?


  Thanks for reminded us Rick.  With all that has been written, I have 
forgotten what is new.  Would the following rough summary be close?

  Some parts of  the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to the  
former CW or digital portions.?

  CW operators have lost nothing, just have to share more ?

  Digital modes, other than automated stations , remain mostly unaffected 
except for the

Re: [digitalradio] cw

[kd4e]

David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote:
> now would be a good time to get the arrl cw practice down in the
> area that they themselves recommend for cw.
> david/wd4kpd

Effective today there is no more Morse Code
requirement so the ARRL should suspend CW
broadcasts immediately and release that spectrum
for appropriate 2-way communications.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

[digitalradio] cw

[David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD]

now would be a good time to get the arrl cw practice down in the
area that they themselves recommend for cw.

david/wd4kpd

[digitalradio] Re: 15 dec - New Band Chart

[kd4e]

The black/white version:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/Hambands_bw.pdf

The color version:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/Hambands_color.pdf

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

Re: [digitalradio] Re: AMEN !

[Jose A. Amador]

OK, Dave. No, I had not read Rick's report to ARRL. Thanks.

Dave Bernstein wrote:

> The asymmetric propagation case is impractical to address, whether 
> the stations involved are attended or unattended; fortunately, its 
> not common. The case we can address is that of the unattended station
> that could, if suitably equipped, detect an already busy frequency 
> and thereby avoid QRMing an ongoing QSO.

Let's hope it is not abused when people know that the automatic station 
stops when they sit on top of it.

> The busy frequency detector in SCAMP was a first-cut "see how it 
> works" implementation -- yet expectations were exceeded. From my 
> email exchanges with Rick, it was clear that there remains plenty of 
> opportunity for improvement.
> 
> Appended below is Rick's post to the ARRL bandwidth committee, in 
> which he characterizes SCAMP's busy detector. This was originally 
> made available on the SCAMP reflector, to which you may not have 
> access.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ

73's

Jose, CO2JA

> 
> Rick Muething KN6KB's post to the band width committee:
> 
> 
> I want to take this opportunity to update the bandwidth committee on 
> recent progress made in the testing of a new digital mode called 
> SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Message Protocol). This sound card mode 
> incorporates integrated ARQ (Automatic Retry reQuest) and dynamic 
> encoding levels to deliver error-free digital data at respectable 
> speeds (3-4 Kbytes/minute) over 1.9 KHz HF channels. One objective is
>  to provide performance comparable to Pactor II and III using low
> cost sound card/PC technology and standard voice grade radios (HF and
> VHF).
> 
> On March 19, 2005 we began initial beta testing of SCAMP with Winlink
>  2000 with the exchange of test messages on 17 meters from the client
>  program Paclink SCD W5SMM (Vic Poor) to WL2K SCAMP Server KN6KB. 
> This will be continuing for the next few months using KN6KB's SCAMP 
> Server and one or two additional WL2K SCAMP Servers in selected 
> areas. This marks the the third phase of on-air SCAMP testing which 
> started in November 2004 (
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/12/07/6/?nc=1 
>  )
> 
> Since SCAMP is a "wide band" digital mode (1.9 KHz) SCAMP servers are
>  operating only in the narrow HF forwarding sub bands shared with HF 
> Packet, Pactor III and other automatic/semiautomatic wide band modes.
> These sub bands were envisioned many years ago as a compromise to
> permit unattended HF forwarding between HF packet stations. Clearly
> the abundance of new digital modes including digital voice, data and
> images has exceeded the narrow limitations of these sub bands (only
> 5-10 KHz on some bands)
> 
> The SCAMP clients and servers also incorporate an effective channel 
> busy detector to significantly reduce QRM from either the careless 
> operator or the hidden transmitter (3rd station not heard by the 
> station manually initiating the connection but detected by the 
> automated server).
> 
> While there is and continues to be much comment from groups that 
> would like to banish all automated (full or semi) transmissions these
>  automated modes have proven to be a very useful and popular. These 
> modes have also proven to serve best and be most efficient and 
> reliable in times emergency when sufficient control operators are not
>  always be available.
> 
> The attached screen capture GIFs from the WL2K SCAMP server show that
>  while not perfect the state of the art in automated busy detectors 
> has improved considerably.
> 
> The following GIFs were all made at fairly weak signals...Signals 
> barely moving the S meter above the background noise. The SSB signal 
> is about 1 S unit over the noise.
> 
> Clear channel display (reference) Weak CW (about 1000 Hz on the
> display) PSK 31 signal at about 1000Hz with a weaker CW carrier below
>  Pactor II signal near the bottom of the Pass band Pactor III signal
> showing mode transitions SSB voice at about 1 S unit over the noise
> 
> There is no question that the integrated use of these types of busy 
> detectors can substantially mitigate QRM from automated or semi 
> automates stations even in difficult "hidden transmitter" scenarios.
> 
> This combined with reasonable partitioning by bandwidth (clustering 
> like bandwidth signals in band segments) will allow a peaceful co 
> existence of the myriad of modes now in use in amateur radio 
> including the semi automatic transfer modes now so popular. It will 
> also foster an environment to experiment with and expand the use of 
> digital technology...an important aspect of keeping Amateur radio 
> healthy.
> 
> I think it is also important for the committee to consider that the 
> US is only one country and that several other countries have adopted 
> a policy of minimal regulation of bandwidth and modes. Canada for 
> example permits all HF digital mode < 3 KHz (1 KHz on 30 meters) with
>  virtuall

[digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

[Radioguy]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
December 15, 
2006 
Chelsea Fallon:  (202) 418-7991

FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES,
ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREMENTS AND
ADDRESSING ARRL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) 
that modifies the rules for the Amateur Radio 
Service by revising the examination requirements 
for obtaining a General Class or Amateur Extra 
Class amateur radio operator license and revising 
the operating privileges for Technician Class 
licensees.  In addition, the Order resolves a 
petition filed by the American Radio Relay 
League, Inc. (ARRL) for partial reconsideration 
of an FCC Order on amateur service rules released on October 10, 2006.

The current amateur service operator license 
structure contains three classes of amateur radio 
operator licenses:  Technician Class, General 
Class, and Amateur Extra Class.  General Class 
and Amateur Extra Class licensees are permitted 
to operate in Amateur bands below 30 MHz, while 
the introductory Technician Class licensees are 
only permitted to operate in bands above 30 
MHz.  Prior to today’s action, the FCC, in 
accordance with international radio regulations, 
required applicants for General Class and Amateur 
Extra Class operator licenses to pass a five 
words-per-minute Morse code examination.  Today’s 
Order eliminates that requirement for General and 
Amateur Extra licensees.  This change reflects 
revisions to international radio regulations made 
at the International Telecommunication Union’s 
2003 World Radio Conference (WRC-03), which 
authorized each country to determine whether to 
require that individuals demonstrate Morse code 
proficiency in order to qualify for an amateur 
radio license with transmitting privileges on 
frequencies below 30 MHz.  This change eliminates 
an unnecessary regulatory burden that may 
discourage current amateur radio operators from 
advancing their skills and participating more 
fully in the benefits of amateur radio.

Today’s Order also revises the operating 
privileges for Technician Class licensees by 
eliminating a disparity in the operating 
privileges for the Technician Class and 
Technician Plus Class licensees.  Technician 
Class licensees are authorized operating 
privileges on all amateur frequencies above 30 
MHz.  The Technician Plus Class license, which is 
an operator license class that existed prior the 
FCC’s simplification of the amateur license 
structure in 1999 and was grandfathered after 
that time, authorized operating privileges on all 
amateur frequencies above 30 MHz, as well as 
frequency segments in four HF bands (below 30 
MHz) after the successful completion of a Morse 
code examination.  With today’s elimination of 
the Morse code exam requirements, the FCC 
concluded that the disparity between the 
operating privileges of Technician Class 
licensees and Technician Plus Class licensees 
should not be retained.  Therefore, the FCC, in 
today’s action, afforded Technician and 
Technician Plus licensees identical operating privileges.

Finally, today’s Order resolved a petition filed 
by the ARRL for partial reconsideration of an FCC 
Order released on October 10, 2006 (FCC 
06-149).  In this Order, the FCC authorized 
amateur stations to transmit voice communications 
on additional frequencies in certain amateur 
service bands, including the 75 meter (m) band, 
which is authorized only for certain wideband 
voice and image communications.  The ARRL argued 
that the 75 m band should not have been expanded 
below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically 
controlled digital stations operating in the 
3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band.  The FCC 
concluded that these stations can be protected by 
providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment.

Action by the Commission on December 15, 2006, by 
Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration.  Chairman Martin and 
Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.

For additional information, contact William Cross 
at (202) 418-0691 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

WT Docket Nos. 04-140 and 05-235.

– FCC –

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Signal on 7117 or 7118?

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Nothing heard here.  Is that 7117 USB or LSB ?

  - Original Message - 
  From: kd4e 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:01 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Digital Signal on 7117 or 7118?


  Can someone assist N0XY, please?

   Original Message 
  Subject: Re: GB> Empathy for the Indians.
  Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:30:54 -0600
  From: Michael NØXY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: glowbugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Could someone who can tune in that digital stuff take a llok at 7117
  (7118?) and tell me what kind of sigital station it is and what call
  sign he is sending? It automatically comes on, even if there is a qso in
  progress, usually every 6 to 8 minutes.

  Thanks

  Tired of qrm
  Michael

  -- 

  Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
  ... in sunny & warm Florida :-)
  ~~~
  Thank our brave soldiers this season:
  http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
  ~~~
  URL: bibleseven (dot) com


   

Re: [digitalradio] Best sound card for digital

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Welcome to the group.  I use an el-cheapo Circuit City PC with an integrated 
sound "card".  It works just fine for me on the digital modes.  I think most 
digital mode software  would expect at least a 16 bit sound card.

Andy K3UK


  - Original Message - 
  From: Leslie Elliott 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:35 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Best sound card for digital


  Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first post.  I am 70 years old, 
and although I have a fairly good knowledge of electronics due to having worked 
as a electronics tech and field engineer for many years, I am somewhat computer 
illiterate, since it was BC (before computers LOL) when I was working in the 
field.  I recently bought a nice Yaesu FT-920 and am currently building a Fox 
Delta FD-SC1  interface kit to connect to my "el cheapo" HP Wal-Mart special 
computer, which has only on board sound.  It is a 1.2 Ghz running Windows XP 
Home Edition SP2.  I want to get a better sound card, but don't really know 
what are the important things to look for.  I have read on another forum (HRD, 
which I use for rig control) that an external SC is better because it gets the 
SC out and away from possible hum and noise pickup from the computer itself.  
This seems to make sense to me.  


  My main question is "how important is 8 bit DAC vs 16 bit or 24 bit"?  How 
much does this affect decoding of digital modes?  And how important is the 
speed it runs at, 48 Khz vs 96 Khz?  I have been looking at several sound 
cards, both internal and external USB ones.  One of the less expensive external 
ones I see on Ebay is the Creative Sound Blaster USB MP3+.  It uses USB 1.1 and 
is 16 bit @ 48 Khz with a front/rear/center sub channel S/N ratio of 102 db and 
headphone/side S/n of 96 db.  (I don't know which S/N ratio is applicable to 
digital decoding??)  The next step up from this would be the Sound Blaster Live 
External USB which is a 24 bit and 100 db S/N, but since it is also using USB 
1.1 this is not actually what it does due to the limitations of USB 1.1.  This 
one sells for a bit more than the MP3+. 


  Then you get into the Audigy SC's, , the 2 NX external @ 24 bit/96 Khz and 
102 db S/N (USB 2.0) looks nice but is quite a bit higher priced.  And if I 
went with an internal card, an Audigy SE @ 24 bit/96 Khz 100db S/N is really 
inexpensive used.


  There are a couple of non Sound Blaster cards that I am also wondering about. 
 One is an external Phillips PSC 805 Aurillium USB 2.0 24 bit DAC but I have 
read somewhere that it actually operates @ 16 bits/48Khz.  S/N of 104 db which 
is good, but these are a little higher priced than others.  And I remember 
reading somewhere that Turtle Beach SC's are good for digital modes, think it 
was the Santa Cruz model.  These are a little higher priced than some of the 
Creative cards, and while I am willing to save up for a SC that really does a 
good job, I am not a rich person, so price is somewhat important.  


  I imagine a lot of the features that drive up the cost of high end Sound 
Cards are those aimed at Hi Fi enthusiasts, such as surround sound, Dolby, etc. 
 I am not interested in this aspect, just Digital Mode decoding ability.  So 
I'd appreciate any input as to which SC I should be looking for.  Also, is 
anyone else using a FT-920 and using HRD (Ham Radio Deluxe) for rig control?  I 
am going to customize the interface I am building to meet my specific needs, 
and was originally thinking that I could use the PTT from HRD via the serial 
cable, but someone suggested that when running other Digital software and HRD 
concurrently, I would not be able to do this, since the serial cable would be 
tied up with HRD PTT.  The Interface has a Opto Isolator on it, so I can use 
this for PTT if necessary.  


  Tnks for any and all help and comments, es 73 de KCØPTO
  Les  



   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[Paul L Schmidt, K9PS]

John B. Stephensen wrote:

> and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
> stringent regulations.
> 

Not all of them.

73,

Paul / K9PS
(Life Member of both ARRL and QCWA who doesn't.)

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[Bert Morton]

General Class ops have lost all privileges from 3600 to 3800.

Advanced Class ops have lost all privileges from 3700 to 3800.

Thus the reason for CW nets having to move below 3600.


- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?


Thanks for reminded us Rick.  With all that has been written, I have 
forgotten what is new.  Would the following rough summary be close?

Some parts of  the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to the 
former CW or digital portions.?

CW operators have lost nothing, just have to share more ?

Digital modes, other than automated stations , remain mostly unaffected 
except for the ability to send some images within MFSK16 ?

SSTV folks have to remain in the "phone" portion of the bands since those 
signals contain "images" and  are wider than 500 Hz

CW net folks maybe miffed and feel the need to move but they don;t have to 
if they don't mind having SSB signals as neighbours ?


What else did I miss ?

[digitalradio] 15 dec summary ?

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Thanks for reminded us Rick.  With all that has been written, I have forgotten 
what is new.  Would the following rough summary be close?

Some parts of  the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to the  
former CW or digital portions.?

CW operators have lost nothing, just have to share more ?

Digital modes, other than automated stations , remain mostly unaffected except 
for the ability to send some images within MFSK16 ?

SSTV folks have to remain in the "phone" portion of the bands since those 
signals contain "images" and  are wider than 500 Hz

CW net folks maybe miffed and feel the need to move but they don;t have to if 
they don't mind having SSB signals as neighbours ?


What else did I miss ?


  - Original Message - 
  From: KV9U 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec


  David,

  Most of the new rules are understandable, just a few that were confusing 
  or not completely clear or, at least in one case, in conflict with other 
  rules.

  The ARRL announced today that their late filed Petition for 
  Reconsideration has not been acted upon by the FCC, therefore the new 
  regulation is now in effect.

  The 500 Hz semi-automatic automatic stations will continue to operate 
  just as they have for many years although the ones that formerly 
  operated abover 3600 KHz will have to migrate down below the 3600 
  ceiling here in the U.S. for digital data/RTTY.

  There will be no fully automatic 80 meter stations within the U.S. at 
  this time, since there is no automatic area available under the new 
  rules. This also means that there will be no semi-automatic stations 
  within the U.S. that operate wide band modes either since those stations 
  must operate within the automatic segment.

  That does not mean that there will be no Pactor 3 operation since it 
  would be legal to transmit P3 from a station with a control operator 
  present to an automatic station in other countries, and there may be 
  some who will have a BBS system with a control operator present or with 
  some kind of remote operation, that would allow them to continue to 
  operate in a similar manner to what they had been doing. But it will 
  likely mean a lot fewer P3 stations on the 80 meter band.

  73,

  Rick, KV9U

  David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote:

  >with all the "translations" of the new 80m rules, i just wonder
  >if the auto/semiauto stations are gonna run in the 500hz section,
  >or gonna wait untill clarification.
  >
  >would surely be looked on poorly by the narrow modes, and if
  >not legal, would look poorly to the FCC should they desire to
  >reconsider.
  >
  >just wondering what will happen ?
  >
  >david/wd4kpd
  >
  > 
  >



   

Re: [digitalradio] Best sound card for digital

[Ralph Mowery]

Try the digital modes with what you have.  It may work
fine for your operations.  I have used much slower
computers with built in sound cards and they seem to
do ok for casual use.

73 de KU4PT



--- Leslie Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first
> post.  I am 70 years
> old, and although I have a fairly good knowledge of
> electronics due to
> having worked as a electronics tech and field
> engineer for many years, I
> am somewhat computer illiterate, since it was BC
> (before computers LOL)
> when I was working in the field.  I recently bought
> a nice Yaesu FT-920
> and am currently building a Fox Delta FD-SC1
>   
> interface kit to
> connect to my "el cheapo" HP Wal-Mart special
> computer, which has only
> on board sound.  It is a 1.2 Ghz running Windows XP
> Home Edition SP2.  I
> want to get a better sound card, but don't really
> know what are the
> important things to look for.  I have read on
> another forum (HRD, which
>

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [digitalradio] Best sound card for digital

[Dave Corio]

   Welcome to the group, Les, and welcome to digital radio in general! 
I'm sure there will be several good ideas in response to your questions, 
but I'll just give you my own opinion.


   Try the on-board audio before you spend any money on a separate 
card. You may find it works well enough that an additional card isn't 
necessary. I used the on-board chipset on my PC for quite a while and 
had excellent luck with it. I added a separate sound card for other 
reasons, but it really didn't make any difference in operating that I 
could notice. I added the Soundblaster Audigy, which is an inexpensive 
card. Perhaps a more expensive card would do better, but with what I 
have, if I can hear them, I can generally work them!


   Good luck and have fun!

73
Dave
KB3MOW


Leslie Elliott wrote:


Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first post.  I am 70 
years old, and although I have a fairly good knowledge of electronics 
due to having worked as a electronics tech and field engineer for many 
years, I am somewhat computer illiterate, since it was BC (before 
computers LOL) when I was working in the field.  I recently bought a 
nice Yaesu FT-920 and am currently building a Fox Delta FD-SC1 
  interface kit to 
connect to my "el cheapo" HP Wal-Mart special computer, which has only 
on board sound.  It is a 1.2 Ghz running Windows XP Home Edition SP2.  
I want to get a better sound card, but don't really know what are the 
important things to look for.  I have read on another forum (HRD, 
which I use for rig control) that an external SC is better because it 
gets the SC out and away from possible hum and noise pickup from the 
computer itself.  This seems to make sense to me. 

My main question is "how important is 8 bit DAC vs 16 bit or 24 bit"?  
How much does this affect decoding of digital modes?  And how 
important is the speed it runs at, 48 Khz vs 96 Khz?  I have been 
looking at several sound cards, both internal and external USB ones.  
One of the less expensive external ones I see on Ebay is the Creative 
Sound Blaster USB MP3+.  It uses USB 1.1 and is 16 bit @ 48 Khz with a 
front/rear/center sub channel S/N ratio of 102 db and headphone/side 
S/n of 96 db.  (I don't know which S/N ratio is applicable to digital 
decoding??)  The next step up from this would be the Sound Blaster 
Live External USB which is a 24 bit and 100 db S/N, but since it is 
also using USB 1.1 this is not actually what it does due to the 
limitations of USB 1.1.  This one sells for a bit more than the MP3+.


Then you get into the Audigy SC's, , the 2 NX external @ 24 bit/96 Khz 
and 102 db S/N (USB 2.0) looks nice but is quite a bit higher priced.  
And if I went with an internal card, an Audigy SE @ 24 bit/96 Khz 
100db S/N is really inexpensive used.


There are a couple of non Sound Blaster cards that I am also wondering 
about.  One is an external Phillips PSC 805 Aurillium USB 2.0 24 bit 
DAC but I have read somewhere that it actually operates @ 16 
bits/48Khz.  S/N of 104 db which is good, but these are a little 
higher priced than others.  And I remember reading somewhere that 
Turtle Beach SC's are good for digital modes, think it was the Santa 
Cruz model.  These are a little higher priced than some of the 
Creative cards, and while I am willing to save up for a SC that really 
does a good job, I am not a rich person, so price is somewhat important. 

I imagine a lot of the features that drive up the cost of high end 
Sound Cards are those aimed at Hi Fi enthusiasts, such as surround 
sound, Dolby, etc.  I am not interested in this aspect, just Digital 
Mode decoding ability.  So I'd appreciate any input as to which SC I 
should be looking for.  Also, is anyone else using a FT-920 and using 
HRD (Ham Radio Deluxe) for rig control?  I am going to customize the 
interface I am building to meet my specific needs, and was originally 
thinking that I could use the PTT from HRD via the serial cable, but 
someone suggested that when running other Digital software and HRD 
concurrently, I would not be able to do this, since the serial cable 
would be tied up with HRD PTT.  The Interface has a Opto Isolator on 
it, so I can use this for PTT if necessary. 


Tnks for any and all help and comments, es 73 de KCØPTO
Les 





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.21/589 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 
5:10 PM
  

Re: [digitalradio] 15 dec

[KV9U]

David,

Most of the new rules are understandable, just a few that were confusing 
or not completely clear or, at least in one case, in conflict with other 
rules.

The ARRL announced today that their late filed Petition for 
Reconsideration has not been acted upon by the FCC, therefore the new 
regulation is now in effect.

The 500 Hz semi-automatic automatic stations will continue to operate 
just as they have for many years although the ones that formerly 
operated abover 3600 KHz will have to migrate down below the 3600 
ceiling here in the U.S. for digital data/RTTY.

There will be no fully automatic 80 meter stations within the U.S. at 
this time, since there is no automatic area available under the new 
rules. This also means that there will be no semi-automatic stations 
within the U.S. that operate wide band modes either since those stations 
must operate within the automatic segment.

That does not mean that there will be no Pactor 3 operation since it 
would be legal to transmit P3 from a station with a control operator 
present to an automatic station in other countries,  and there may be 
some who will have a BBS system with a control operator present or with 
some kind of remote operation, that would allow them to continue to 
operate in a similar manner to what they had been doing. But it will 
likely mean a lot fewer P3 stations on the 80 meter band.

73,

Rick, KV9U


David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote:

>with all the "translations" of the new 80m rules, i just wonder
>if the auto/semiauto stations are gonna run in the 500hz section,
>or gonna wait untill clarification.
>
>would surely be looked on poorly by the narrow modes, and if
>not legal, would look poorly to the FCC should they desire to
>reconsider.
>
>just wondering what will happen ?
>
>david/wd4kpd
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Best sound card for digital

[Leslie Elliott]

Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first post.  I am 70 years
old, and although I have a fairly good knowledge of electronics due to
having worked as a electronics tech and field engineer for many years, I
am somewhat computer illiterate, since it was BC (before computers LOL)
when I was working in the field.  I recently bought a nice Yaesu FT-920
and am currently building a Fox Delta FD-SC1
   interface kit to
connect to my "el cheapo" HP Wal-Mart special computer, which has only
on board sound.  It is a 1.2 Ghz running Windows XP Home Edition SP2.  I
want to get a better sound card, but don't really know what are the
important things to look for.  I have read on another forum (HRD, which
I use for rig control) that an external SC is better because it gets the
SC out and away from possible hum and noise pickup from the computer
itself.  This seems to make sense to me.

My main question is "how important is 8 bit DAC vs 16 bit or 24 bit"? 
How much does this affect decoding of digital modes?  And how important
is the speed it runs at, 48 Khz vs 96 Khz?  I have been looking at
several sound cards, both internal and external USB ones.  One of the
less expensive external ones I see on Ebay is the Creative Sound Blaster
USB MP3+.  It uses USB 1.1 and is 16 bit @ 48 Khz with a
front/rear/center sub channel S/N ratio of 102 db and headphone/side S/n
of 96 db.  (I don't know which S/N ratio is applicable to digital
decoding??)  The next step up from this would be the Sound Blaster Live
External USB which is a 24 bit and 100 db S/N, but since it is also
using USB 1.1 this is not actually what it does due to the limitations
of USB 1.1.  This one sells for a bit more than the MP3+.


Then you get into the Audigy SC's, , the 2 NX external @ 24 bit/96 Khz
and 102 db S/N (USB 2.0) looks nice but is quite a bit higher priced. 
And if I went with an internal card, an Audigy SE @ 24 bit/96 Khz 100db
S/N is really inexpensive used.

There are a couple of non Sound Blaster cards that I am also wondering
about.  One is an external Phillips PSC 805 Aurillium USB 2.0 24 bit DAC
but I have read somewhere that it actually operates @ 16 bits/48Khz. 
S/N of 104 db which is good, but these are a little higher priced than
others.  And I remember reading somewhere that Turtle Beach SC's are
good for digital modes, think it was the Santa Cruz model.  These are a
little higher priced than some of the Creative cards, and while I am
willing to save up for a SC that really does a good job, I am not a rich
person, so price is somewhat important.



I imagine a lot of the features that drive up the cost of high end Sound
Cards are those aimed at Hi Fi enthusiasts, such as surround sound,
Dolby, etc.  I am not interested in this aspect, just Digital Mode
decoding ability.  So I'd appreciate any input as to which SC I should
be looking for.  Also, is anyone else using a FT-920 and using HRD (Ham
Radio Deluxe) for rig control?  I am going to customize the interface I
am building to meet my specific needs, and was originally thinking that
I could use the PTT from HRD via the serial cable, but someone suggested
that when running other Digital software and HRD concurrently, I would
not be able to do this, since the serial cable would be tied up with HRD
PTT.  The Interface has a Opto Isolator on it, so I can use this for PTT
if necessary.



Tnks for any and all help and comments, es 73 de KCØPTO
Les

[digitalradio] Digital Signal on 7117 or 7118?

[kd4e]

Can someone assist N0XY, please?

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: GB> Empathy for the Indians.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:30:54 -0600
From: Michael NØXY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: glowbugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Could someone who can tune in that digital stuff take a llok at 7117
(7118?) and tell me what kind of sigital station it is and what call
sign he is sending? It automatically comes on, even if there is a qso in
progress, usually every 6 to 8 minutes.

Thanks

Tired of qrm
Michael

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

[digitalradio] MIL-STD-188-110A on 14.109,5 this weekend

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi all,

I am QRV on 14.109,5 USB (VFO) and "Wait connection..."
with rfsm2400 this weekend.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar

http://rfsm2400.aanesland.com

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[Danny Douglas]

Nor do Germans understand having a speed limit.  That doesnt mean they are 
correct.  Excess speed, proven by scientists, KILLS.  Having rules sets a limit 
on individuals who would never set a limit on themselves, at the expense of the 
masses.  Our ham populations exceeds that of most all European countries 
together.  We have rules to control excesses.  So do the Japanese who have huge 
numbers of hams per square kilometer in their cities.  Were you to live here, 
you would understand it.  I lived there, and do.

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Bradley 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition



  This is the part that those of us in other countries don't understand, not 
one little bit 

  John
  VE5MU


"I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other 
countries 
and
say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP power 
limit
and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
stringent regulations."
 
__,_._,_And this is the part that__ 
   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 
10:02 AM

[digitalradio] anyone round tonight? friday.

[Chris Edwards, AE4XO]

Anyone on olivia t0night? Just wanted to do some psk / olivia trials. 

[digitalradio] 15 dec

[David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD]

with all the "translations" of the new 80m rules, i just wonder
if the auto/semiauto stations are gonna run in the 500hz section,
or gonna wait untill clarification.

would surely be looked on poorly by the narrow modes, and if
not legal, would look poorly to the FCC should they desire to
reconsider.

just wondering what will happen ?

david/wd4kpd

[digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[Dave Bernstein]

Continued failure to eliminate the preventable QRM from unattended 
digital stations reinforces the position that amateurs cannot be 
trusted with "the maximum possible autonomy to determine the highest 
valued use of their spectrum". 

Actual evidence that the operators of such stations "will prevent or 
limit interference among multiple spectrum uses" without regulatory 
coercion might change some minds, including mine.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Look at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html to see what the FCC 
thinks. 
> Their
> spectrum policy report states:
> 
> "As a general proposition, flexibility in spectrum regulation is 
critical to 
> improving
> access to spectrum.  In this context, flexibility means granting 
both 
> licensed users
> and unlicensed device operators the maximum possible autonomy to 
determine
> the highest valued use of their spectrum, subject only to those 
rules that 
> are
> necessary to afford reasonable opportunities for access by other 
spectrum 
> users
> and to prevent or limit interference among multiple spectrum uses. 
> Flexibility
> enables spectrum users to make fundamental choices about how they 
will use
> spectrum (including whether to use it or transfer their usage 
rights to 
> others),
> taking into account market factors such as consumer demand, 
availability of
> technology, and competition. By leaving these choices to the 
spectrum user, 
> this
> approach tends to lead to efficient and highly-valued spectrum 
uses.  In 
> most
> instances, a flexible use approach is preferable to the 
Commission's 
> traditional
> command-and-control approach to spectrum regulation, in which 
allowable
> spectrum uses are limited based on regulatory judgments".
> 
> I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other 
countries 
> and
> say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP 
power 
> limit
> and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
> stringent regulations.
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
> Original Message Follows
> From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500
> 
> So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
> everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
> "someone" complains we don't care?
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[John Bradley]

This is the part that those of us in other countries don't understand, not one 
little bit 

John
VE5MU


  "I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other countries 
  and
  say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP power 
  limit
  and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
  stringent regulations."
   
  __,_._,_And this is the part that__ 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: DigiSSTV maps size

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Bill,

RR for all.

>Am confused as in your MFSK16 help file it states "IMPORTANT: the 
>picture format is not fixed as in classical SSTV but can be anything. 
>The maximum dimensions of the transmitted picture are 1600x1200. 
>Multipsk proposes to use the standard "320x256" to take advantage of 
>the SSTV facilities and the stored SSTV pictures".
MFSK16 SSTV is not a digimode. It is an analogical SSTV mode as Martin, 
Scottie...
The principle is the same: the frequency determines the level of red, green or 
blue.
It is independant from DigiSSTV. It is also much more rapid. 

DigiSSTV (of Multipsk) is a way to send pictures as a stream of bits. It is a 
protocol which organises the transmission of the picture information through a 
given digimode (PSK220F, PSK63F or Packet). 

Note: PSE there are chapters in the help about this.

73
Patrick




  - Original Message - 
  From: Bill McLaughlin 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:27 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: DigiSSTV maps size


  Hello Patrick, hope all is well;

  Am confused as in your MFSK16 help file it states "IMPORTANT: the 
  picture format is not fixed as in classical SSTV but can be anything. 
  The maximum dimensions of the transmitted picture are 1600x1200. 
  Multipsk proposes to use the standard "320x256" to take advantage of 
  the SSTV facilities and the stored SSTV pictures".

  Am sure I am missing something here...

  Thanks in advance, 73,

  Bill N9DSJ

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  >
  > Hello to all,
  > 
  > If you do Digisstv transmission you must use very small pictures, 
  for example the Mini_Map.BMP file (in the Multipsk package) which 
  dimensions are 80x70 pixels.
  > To send this file, it will last:
  > * 1 mn 15 sec in Packet 1200,
  > * 3 mn 50 in Packet 300,
  > * 6 mn in PSK220F.
  > 
  > It's not very rapid...this is due to the compression used. It's a 
  Runlength algorithm which is applied line by line. The transform 
  might be in two dimensions as in JPG to be more efficient, but this 
  line transform permits to get the picture at any time (no block).
  > 
  > PSE: in Packet, don't use "Immediate stop of the picture 
  transmission". There is a bug on this button (fixed now).
  > 
  > 73
  > Patrick
  > 
  > - Original Message - 
  > From: Roger J. Buffington 
  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:54 PM
  > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I am gearing up for sending images via MFSK upon 12/15/06. What 
  pixel 
  > sizes are recommended for MFSK images? Been so many years since I 
  did 
  > it I no longer remember.
  > 
  > de Roger W6VZV
  >



   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[John B. Stephensen]

Look at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html to see what the FCC thinks. 
Their
spectrum policy report states:

"As a general proposition, flexibility in spectrum regulation is critical to 
improving
access to spectrum.  In this context, flexibility means granting both 
licensed users
and unlicensed device operators the maximum possible autonomy to determine
the highest valued use of their spectrum, subject only to those rules that 
are
necessary to afford reasonable opportunities for access by other spectrum 
users
and to prevent or limit interference among multiple spectrum uses. 
Flexibility
enables spectrum users to make fundamental choices about how they will use
spectrum (including whether to use it or transfer their usage rights to 
others),
taking into account market factors such as consumer demand, availability of
technology, and competition. By leaving these choices to the spectrum user, 
this
approach tends to lead to efficient and highly-valued spectrum uses.  In 
most
instances, a flexible use approach is preferable to the Commission's 
traditional
command-and-control approach to spectrum regulation, in which allowable
spectrum uses are limited based on regulatory judgments".

I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other countries 
and
say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP power 
limit
and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
stringent regulations.

73,

John
KD6OZH

Original Message Follows
From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500

So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
"someone" complains we don't care?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[KV9U]

John,

Your response is not one that I would have expected. Until my recent 
retiremen, I worked for the better part of two decades, as an 
environmental safety and health consultant. A substantial part of my 
work involved contacting government bureaucrats at the state and federal 
level to gain a clear understanding of their interpretation of the rules 
that they enforced.

Sometimes you did not get an interpretation that you particularly liked, 
but it was better than making a recommendation to a client without that 
knowledge. As you can guess, there could be huge legal liabilities to it 
any other way.

The letter you reference would not be an interpretation from the FCC, 
nor a communication from the FCC other than an unnamed FCC staffer 
comment. It would not have much, if any legal weight.

What the letter amounted to was an ARRL staff interpretation of the 
rules. This can be helpful as long as their interpretation would be 
reasonably interpreted the same way by the government staff and they did 
it in good faith. But you would have minimum legal recourse if you were 
cited.

One thing that I would never do, nor put any faith in, is to just send a 
cc: to the government without getting some kind of response. You should 
at least receive something in return to document that the communication 
was received., and received by the appropriate staffer.

If there are rules that are not clear or are actually in conflict as we 
saw in the Omnibus R&O, and now codified into Part 97, it is our duty to 
ask for clarification, even if we do not like the answer we receive. 
Then it is necessary to Petition at some future time and ask for the 
rule to be changed to what we perceive as the correct way. Otherwise, 
you can have many quasi-legal activities going on that can be very 
uncomfortable for most of us who follow the rules.

I am very concerned about the ARRL's recent behavior toward the FCC 
which seems strident and even personal. We only have so much capital to 
expend (and you never know where that point is reached), but when we use 
it up, we can pay a rather large price.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Champa wrote:

>Only from the League's lawyer, silly.  That's as good as it gets.
>
>Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's 
>sake?!
>Not I, dear sir.  Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that 
>crash was (HI).
>
>Here is the League's strategy:  Ask them for specifically what you want.
>Document it.  If they don't respond with a "NO", you have it.
>
>Some members of the WG didn't like that passive approach.  They wanted all 
>changes
>to published in the Federal Register.  Fat chance of that ever happening.  
>;o(
>
>Thus the split up started with many of the WG members stating "Who needs 
>this kind
>of support?!".  Unfortunately, that is as good as it gets sometimes.
>
>The FCC just doesn't give a &#$% about Amateur Radio, but Hams don't 
>generally
>understand thatyet  (HI).
>
>73,
>John
>K8OCL
>
>Original Message Follows
>From: Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:19:02 -0600
>
>How is this a response from the FCC?  It looks like an opinion from a
>lawyer, and the FCC was copied.  Where is the FCC response?
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX
>
>At 11:13 PM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
> >Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL: In effect, it
> >states
> >as long as nobody complains, we (the FCC) don't really care what you do!
>
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] TARA Melee Scores Needed...

[ny2u]

Greeting's:
 
I want to thank "ALL" of you that already took the time to submit your  score 
for the recent TARA RTTY Melee held back on Dec 2. To date we've received  a 
good amount of scores but we still need to hear from more of you. 
 
I hope that I can appeal to those of you that kind of think to yourself,  why 
bother, my score isn't that import. I'm also sure we have a good number that  
just feel their score was so small that it's kind of embarrassing to submit.  
Well, get that thought out of your head! I think I can safely speak for every 
 contest when I say, "No score is either TOO BIG or TOO SMALL!" They're all  
import!! 
 
If the growth of the TARA Melee is going to continue we're going to  need 
your help right now. I've been looking at the scores that we've already  
received 
and believe me when I say, "we're totally grateful for every score  we've 
received." However, I want to beat last years banner year. I've always  felt if 
we can get just one more log over the prior year's score that we've done  our 
job. So, please help me if you will. I need as many of you as possible to  
submit your scores on our special online score submission page at:
_http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_score.html_ 
(http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_score.html) 
 
It will take you maybe 5 minutes to complete the score submission form and  
you will be doing us a great favor. Also, keep in mind that we DO NOT require  
you to forward us your contest log. You hold on to your personal log until 
"ALL"  the scores have been posted and finalized, just in case we do need to 
look 
your  log over. Otherwise, we just need for you to take a few minutes right 
now and  submit that score. All scores must be submitted by December 31, 2006. 
 
You can review "ALL" of the scores that have been submitted already at: 
_http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_results.html_ 
(http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_results.html) 
 
Keep in mind that the we review all the scores that are submitted for  
possible errors before they are posted to our web site. If you send a score in  
and 
don't see it immediately that's the reason why. Usually Ernie Mills, WM2U,  
updates the scores each night. 
 
Thank You for reading this message and please help us out. If I can assist  
you in any way simply drop me an e-mail and I'll get back to you as soon as  
possible.
 
73 de NY2U Bill Eddy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[kd4e]

John Champa wrote:
> You would normally be correct.
> However, again, the FCC does not give a %$#& about Ham Radio!
> That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.

Licensed HAM celebrities?  Isn't that counter-intuitive?
Asserting that they don't care about their own hobby
makes no sense whatsoever.

The ARRL cares, they just appear to be "tone deaf"
when it comes to the preferences of active Hams --
perhaps partly because they broadcast more than they
listen and partly because more than half of licensed
Hams are not members and are *never* polled.

Perhaps if all of the ARRL scheduled broadcasts were
changed to interactive 2-way communications (what a
concept, a Ham organization using Ham spectrum to
communicate 2-ways) then they'd really *hear*!

The FCC also cares, partly because they have to and
partly because Hams get better press than they do.
That they often do not appear to understand the
hobby does not testify to an absense of "caring".

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[John Champa]

You would normally be correct.
However, again, the FCC does not give a %$#& about Ham Radio!
That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.

Original Message Follows
From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500

So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
"someone" complains we don't care?

That is contrary to the nature of bureaucracy and
bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats are focused on avoidance of conflict and
expansion of power.

Only so long as they believe the ARRL can make more
of a nuisance of themselves than other Ham groups or
individual Hams they will ignore the bad conduct of
the ARRL.

The question goes to who and how many need to complain
to the FCC about the ARRL to force the FCC to slap the
hands of the ARRL.

The FCC cares about being respected so they are not
harassed.  The ARRL has been making themselves increasingly
dislikable at the FCC, their latest attacks on the FCC
Chairman a case in point.

There is likely to be more rather than less of a friendly
ear at the FCC right now to slap down the ARRL than in a
long time.

Oh, BTW, given the elected officials, celebrities, and
astronauts who are licensed Hams - combined with all of
the good press re. the value of Hams in disasters - it
would not take much to make the FCC bureaucrats very
uncomfortable were they to attack Ham radio in general.

 > Only from the League's lawyer, silly.  That's as good as it gets.
 >
 > Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC,
 > for Cat's sake?!
 >
 >> Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL:
 >> In effect, it states as long as nobody complains, we (the FCC)
 >> don't really care what you do!

--

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[John Champa]

Mark,

I think you might be correct!

TELL...I write again**TELL** the FCC what you want down to the last 
detail.

If they don't respond in a reasonable period (90 days?), well, then ya got 
it!  (HI)
It's called "management by exception", I think.

Although the League, to their credit, did provide many recommendations to 
the FCC.
But the autocrats ...err, ahh.. I mean bureaucrats got pushed by Joel 
Harrison when they took forever and a day to respond.  So they apparently 
assigned some staffer to write the "Uni-Bus" paper and he / she kind of did 
their own ignorant thing...thus our current HF digital mess.

John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:44:01 -0600

Maybe they should have tried this approach instead of petitioning the FCC.

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 09:24 AM 12/15/2006, you wrote:

 >Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
 >
 >Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for 
Cat's
 >sake?!
 >Not I, dear sir. Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that
 >crash was (HI).

[digitalradio] Digital Signal on 3832.51?

[kd4e]

Anyone else hear the LSB Digital Signal on 3832.51?

Carrier is S7 here in west central Florida.

ON LSB it ounds like a rushing wind.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[Mark Miller]

Maybe they should have tried this approach instead of petitioning the FCC.

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 09:24 AM 12/15/2006, you wrote:

>Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
>
>Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
>sake?!
>Not I, dear sir. Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that
>crash was (HI).

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[kd4e]

So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
"someone" complains we don't care?

That is contrary to the nature of bureaucracy and
bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats are focused on avoidance of conflict and
expansion of power.

Only so long as they believe the ARRL can make more
of a nuisance of themselves than other Ham groups or
individual Hams they will ignore the bad conduct of
the ARRL.

The question goes to who and how many need to complain
to the FCC about the ARRL to force the FCC to slap the
hands of the ARRL.

The FCC cares about being respected so they are not
harassed.  The ARRL has been making themselves increasingly
dislikable at the FCC, their latest attacks on the FCC
Chairman a case in point.

There is likely to be more rather than less of a friendly
ear at the FCC right now to slap down the ARRL than in a
long time.

Oh, BTW, given the elected officials, celebrities, and
astronauts who are licensed Hams - combined with all of
the good press re. the value of Hams in disasters - it
would not take much to make the FCC bureaucrats very
uncomfortable were they to attack Ham radio in general.

> Only from the League's lawyer, silly.  That's as good as it gets.
> 
> Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, 
> for Cat's sake?!
> 
>> Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL: 
>> In effect, it states as long as nobody complains, we (the FCC) 
>> don't really care what you do!

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida  :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html
~~~
URL:  bibleseven (dot) com

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[John Champa]

Only from the League's lawyer, silly.  That's as good as it gets.

Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's 
sake?!
Not I, dear sir.  Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that 
crash was (HI).

Here is the League's strategy:  Ask them for specifically what you want.
Document it.  If they don't respond with a "NO", you have it.

Some members of the WG didn't like that passive approach.  They wanted all 
changes
to published in the Federal Register.  Fat chance of that ever happening.  
;o(

Thus the split up started with many of the WG members stating "Who needs 
this kind
of support?!".  Unfortunately, that is as good as it gets sometimes.

The FCC just doesn't give a &#$% about Amateur Radio, but Hams don't 
generally
understand thatyet  (HI).

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:19:02 -0600

How is this a response from the FCC?  It looks like an opinion from a
lawyer, and the FCC was copied.  Where is the FCC response?

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 11:13 PM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
 >Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL: In effect, it
 >states
 >as long as nobody complains, we (the FCC) don't really care what you do!

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition

[Mark Miller]

How is this a response from the FCC?  It looks like an opinion from a 
lawyer, and the FCC was copied.  Where is the FCC response?

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 11:13 PM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
>Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL: In effect, it
>states
>as long as nobody complains, we (the FCC) don't really care what you do!