Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
John 1) I work in 2 way radio and have for 40+ years Here at the S.O. ( JAIL ) we are still analog UHF. 2) I'm on the air almost every day on a number of bands and modes and got my start on 2 meter AM 40+ years ago using converted WW2 aircraft radios. 3) I own digital radio equipment and have ordered a new soundlink module to allow me to work some more. I have asked questions of forum member on and off forum about some modes being used on my band of interest 6 meters other than psk-31 which i already run. 4) I cannot speak for others upset at the ARRL but as a 40 year member and 30 as a life member I do have a right to speak for myself. NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... MYSELF I have tinkered with anything that caught my fancy Sadly NO ONE beleves that somehow our fearless leaders in Newinton are not up to something And the ARRL came over as tring to do just that with 90% of 2 major bands being opened for 1% of all hams. Now back to radio .. Bruce On 6 since 66 --- John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roger: I'm far from being anti US... but I have absolutely no patience for those folks who seldom get on the air , __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Sadly NO ONE beleves that somehow our fearless leaders in Newinton are not up to something And the ARRL came over as tring to do just that with 90% of 2 major bands being opened for 1% of all hams. I don't believe they're up to something sinister. Quite the opposite I believe the recent actions would be far less then what we Amateurs need to survive and thrive in modern times. The problem with the current support of a certain digital message trafficing system isn't that it's being supported, but that it has significant technical shortcomings. Also the ARRL folks should build a real system of their own, not piggy back on another system. Now back to radio .. That is a good plan.. Bill, WA7NWP
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Bill, WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Bill, WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? That's a big part of the problem with the previous proposal. It created new blocks we don't have today. The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? I don't know about SCS -- that's not the point. The critical issue is not to purposely burden ourselves with arbitrary restrictions not based on technology. Keeping tomorrows 20 KHz or 50 KHz soundcard modes off the bands with todays rules is not a good thing. My fantasy is for the Fairy Godmother to wave her magic wand and carve (some?) of the bands into 3 pieces. One for narrow and manual modes. One piece for legacy medium bandwidth voice modes. The remaining piece would be completely open. A place where anything goes where we can experiment and advance the art. It's good to dream! 73 Bill - WA7NWP Jim WA0LYK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz
bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz.
Personally, I have not experienced these but would like
to hear about them.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:30:10 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ..
One problem is that very wide modems are
allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is
reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed
a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From:
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18
UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up
..
I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about
what
the withdrawn petition was to accomplish.
Could you enlighten us on
just exactly what modes are being blocked
by the current regulations.
What bands do these modes operate on?
What is the purpose of the blocked
modes?
The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed
under
current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to
know
that implementation of some better modes are being blocked.
Heck,
pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even
better
modem that works at something over 300
baud?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com,
Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
NO ONE
wants to hamper experimenting but at the same
time no one should
want to crush other older modes ...
No one wants to crush the
older modes -- but they can't block moving
to new modes and that's
what's happening now.
Bill,
WA7NWP
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
--
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
--- Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Explane ? What modes are blocking who ? on 145.900 ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
The petition was primarily intended to restrict modes based upon bandwidth. Looking at this from an HF perspective, I used to think this was a good compromise to take, and even thought of myself as being progressive for supporting this approach. After listening to those who have experienced increased freedom in other parts of the world, often on this group, I am much less supportive. I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital issues of these types, and sharing this information with new people coming on the group, but there are few other ways to find this out through the democratic process which requires each one of us to sift and winnow until we determine what makes sense to us. And our views may change over time, if we are willing to listen to others and make an informed decision. I like to think that the members of groups such as this are much better informed than the average ham. The claim that hams want a mostly unregulated environment is not factual. Most of us want an orderly system of some kind that allows for experimentation but does not penalize the majority of users. If we went to a BW restricted approach what would change? It would prevent wide digital modes from interfering with narrow modes at the lower parts of the bands, although they don't tend to do that now, particularly in the Extra Class portions. The voice modes are not going to fit in a 500 Hz BW, which is the next step up in size, so that would really not change much from what we have now with an admixture of text digital modes at the upper parts of the text data sub bands. The one hope that I had was that we would have wide areas in the phone/fax/image sub bands that would allow text data to be mixed with voice and image data. From my perspective, this is the ONLY thing that I see of real value in the BW proposal. The irony is that the ARRL has said that they intend to develop band plans that would prevent that from happening! That is when I really had to reconsider this whole approach. What possible benefit would it have on the HF bands? The main group that is upset in the extreme is the Winlink 2000 folks who believe it is nearly the end of the world without moving in the direction they expected. They believe that the situation is intolerable that they are being squeezed into the small subbands for their wide Pactor 3 mode and can not expand further. As their administrator put it recently Over 95 percent of the Winlink 2000 operation is within the Auto sub-bands. Also, the view is that Winlink 2000 has NO MORE ROOM on the Amateur bands for its current daily operations much less EmComm or any other expansion. They say this even though they could operate ANYPLACE they want to in the text digital sub bands as long as they operate 500 Hz or less in width. And this is a much more efficient use of spectrum in most cases when you consider our shared frequencies. As it is we lost text digital spectrum on 80 and 40. Even under the withdrawn ARRL proposal, there would not have been ANY wide modes (3 kHz) below 3650. Now we don't even have anything for digital above 3600! What I think Winlink 2000 really wanted badly was the FCC to adopt the change of 97.221 to read: (c) On 160 through 12 meters, a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission may operate under automatic control except it is not permitted to initiate a communication. This is what is known as semi-automatic operation. They initially even tried to stop all fully automatic operation to eliminate any possible competition by AX.25 packet or other automatic forwarding systems, . (Note: This was based upon the ARRL Committee that came up with recommendations to the board. This committee was a stacked deck with pro Winlink 2000 members AND it even had two owners of the Winlink 2000 system on the committee! A dark day for democratic decision making indeed). Thankfully, the Board of Directors saw through some of this and rescinded their decision to eliminate fully automatic stations). Who else really lost anything on HF with the withdrawal of the ARRL proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush
[digitalradio] The ARRL
Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of you folks are having a bad hair day, every day ! G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital issues of these types (..) . Well , let me quote John VE5MU : We've heard all this before . This extreme ARRL/FCC focus has insignificant interest outside US. What will happen if Norwegian hams start spaming this group with Norwegian rules? Why not use: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FCC-US/ or this one: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigiMode_HF_Band_Plans/ ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The petition was primarily intended to restrict modes based upon bandwidth. Looking at this from an HF perspective, I used to think this was a good compromise to take, and even thought of myself as being progressive for supporting this approach. After listening to those who have experienced increased freedom in other parts of the world, often on this group, I am much less supportive. I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital issues of these types, and sharing this information with new people coming on the group, but there are few other ways to find this out through the democratic process which requires each one of us to sift and winnow until we determine what makes sense to us. And our views may change over time, if we are willing to listen to others and make an informed decision. I like to think that the members of groups such as this are much better informed than the average ham. The claim that hams want a mostly unregulated environment is not factual. Most of us want an orderly system of some kind that allows for experimentation but does not penalize the majority of users. If we went to a BW restricted approach what would change? It would prevent wide digital modes from interfering with narrow modes at the lower parts of the bands, although they don't tend to do that now, particularly in the Extra Class portions. The voice modes are not going to fit in a 500 Hz BW, which is the next step up in size, so that would really not change much from what we have now with an admixture of text digital modes at the upper parts of the text data sub bands. The one hope that I had was that we would have wide areas in the phone/fax/image sub bands that would allow text data to be mixed with voice and image data. From my perspective, this is the ONLY thing that I see of real value in the BW proposal. The irony is that the ARRL has said that they intend to develop band plans that would prevent that from happening! That is when I really had to reconsider this whole approach. What possible benefit would it have on the HF bands? The main group that is upset in the extreme is the Winlink 2000 folks who believe it is nearly the end of the world without moving in the direction they expected. They believe that the situation is intolerable that they are being squeezed into the small subbands for their wide Pactor 3 mode and can not expand further. As their administrator put it recently Over 95 percent of the Winlink 2000 operation is within the Auto sub-bands. Also, the view is that Winlink 2000 has NO MORE ROOM on the Amateur bands for its current daily operations much less EmComm or any other expansion. They say this even though they could operate ANYPLACE they want to in the text digital sub bands as long as they operate 500 Hz or less in width. And this is a much more efficient use of spectrum in most cases when you consider our shared frequencies. As it is we lost text digital spectrum on 80 and 40. Even under the withdrawn ARRL proposal, there would not have been ANY wide modes (3 kHz) below 3650. Now we don't even have anything for digital above 3600! What I think Winlink 2000 really wanted badly was the FCC to adopt the change of 97.221 to read: (c) On 160 through 12 meters, a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission may operate under automatic control except it is not permitted to initiate a communication. This is what is known as semi-automatic operation. They initially even tried to stop all fully automatic operation to eliminate any possible competition by AX.25 packet or other automatic forwarding systems, . (Note: This was based upon the ARRL Committee that came up with recommendations to the board. This committee was a stacked deck with pro Winlink 2000 members AND it even had two owners of the Winlink 2000 system on the committee! A dark day for democratic decision making indeed). Thankfully, the Board of Directors saw through some of this and rescinded their decision to eliminate fully automatic stations). Who else really lost anything on HF with the withdrawal of the ARRL proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The
RE: [digitalradio] The ARRL
Yes, we all LOVE the ARRL in reality...it's the only show in town to defend Amateur Radio here in the US. Therefore, it's sort of similar to getting along with the in-laws (HI). John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Mel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] The ARRL Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:38:06 - Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of you folks are having a bad hair day, every day ! G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL
Well being bald, I don't have to worry about the bad hair, but yes the ARRL has got some of us wound up. Kurt/K8YZK - Original Message - From: Mel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] The ARRL Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of you folks are having a bad hair day, every day ! G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
The basic problem is that the current regulations restrict the content of amateur transmissions. It shouldn't matter whether you are transmitting text, voice or images. On HF, you can transmit voice or images in a 3 kHz or 6 kHz bandwidth but to transfer a file during that QSO you have to change frequencies because it is considered data. On the 70 cm band, real-time compressed video could be sent in a 300 kHz bandwidth but not data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Howard Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 16:33 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz. Personally, I have not experienced these but would like to hear about them. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:30:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Bill, WA7NWP
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
Can you give me a regulation that restricts very wide modems within the phone/image segments. If you are talking about using data in the phone/image segment, I'll agree but I don't see a paragraph that limits bandwidth within the phone/image segment. I will agree that wider bandwidths could be allowed on the 70cm band. Wonder why a petition wasn't filed that dealt with this issue only. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL
ahem! the politically correct term is folically challenged .. not bald.. hi hi John VE5MU - Original Message - From: wa8vbx To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL Well being bald, I don't have to worry about the bad hair, but yes the ARRL has got some of us wound up. Kurt/K8YZK - Original Message - From: Mel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] The ARRL Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of you folks are having a bad hair day, every day ! G0GQK -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/782 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:10 AM
Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL
OK Slick 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] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL ahem! the politically correct term is folically challenged .. not bald.. hi hi John VE5MU - Original Message - From: wa8vbx To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL Well being bald, I don't have to worry about the bad hair, but yes the ARRL has got some of us wound up. Kurt/K8YZK - Original Message - From: Mel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] The ARRL Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of you folks are having a bad hair day, every day ! G0GQK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/782 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:10 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/782 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:10 AM
[digitalradio] New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA?
Whether anyone supports mixing of digital and analog modes is not really a matter for debate anymore in USA. The fact is, under USA's present rules, digital and analog already exist sharing all the same ham bands and subbands! The use of digital in all forms of ham radio communications will continue to progress, whether that is text, data, image, voice, or multiple simultaneous forms of content. Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to stop these changes. Under the present antiquated USA FCC rules, there is no bandwidth limit for digital signals on HF. As an example: If two Amateur Extra license operators want to transmit 1.5kW high fidelity digital voice, 200kHz wide, centered on 14250kHz, it would be OK under our present antiquated FCC rules. They could transmit such a wide signal (14150-14350kHz) if it was needed to get the communications quality they required at the signal to noise ratio at which they would be operating. Perhaps they are 150 miles apart, and the signals are weak, so they are using a very redundant FEC type of transmission signal. All they need to do, is get up early in the morning when no one else is on the band, and start up a good ragchew QSO. There is no time limit on their QSO. They could continue to use a major chunk of the 20m band, since they were there first. Under present FCC rules, everyone else wanting to use the upper part of the 20m band would have to avoid interference to their existing QSO, and wait until they are done. Hmmm... what if... these two hams started their 20m ragchew QSO on the morning of a DX contest? Anyone like to set up a digi voice sked? ;) Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ......)
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz. John KD6OZH Hi John, Digital Voice is Phone under FCC's definition. There is no bandwidth limit on a phone signal, implied or otherwise, for a digital voice signal. You either made an error or you are reading your FCC rules wrong. Here is what the rule actually says: == 97.307 (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. == As you can see, that rule is for non-phone. Currently, the non-phone modes defined by FCC in those §97.305(c) frequency bands are image data RTTY multiplexed emission and CW. If you read them carefully, you will find that the FCC rules are really unclear regarding any finite bandwidth limit for these non-phone modes on HF. That is because these ancient rules were written in the middle ages of digital signal technology. I will be happy to provide a examples of how the rules allow very wideband data bandwidth on HF, if you like. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ......)
John, Didn't you read all those many rants on the HSMM pages last year? They were all saying the same thing Bonnie is writing here, i.e., the the ARRL bandwidth proposal takes away privileges because under exisiting regs there is NO BANDWIDTH limit. It's the secret hidden in the proposal that nobody wants to talk about, except Jeff king, WB8WKA, of course (HI). 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ..) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:43:01 - --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz. John KD6OZH Hi John, Digital Voice is Phone under FCC's definition. There is no bandwidth limit on a phone signal, implied or otherwise, for a digital voice signal. You either made an error or you are reading your FCC rules wrong. Here is what the rule actually says: == 97.307 (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. == As you can see, that rule is for non-phone. Currently, the non-phone modes defined by FCC in those §97.305(c) frequency bands are image data RTTY multiplexed emission and CW. If you read them carefully, you will find that the FCC rules are really unclear regarding any finite bandwidth limit for these non-phone modes on HF. That is because these ancient rules were written in the middle ages of digital signal technology. I will be happy to provide a examples of how the rules allow very wideband data bandwidth on HF, if you like. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL
VE5MU John, I have never been one to be PC, but I will have to remember that. Kurt
Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ......)
It seems to me that, that is exactly what we need. 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] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:58 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ..) John, Didn't you read all those many rants on the HSMM pages last year? They were all saying the same thing Bonnie is writing here, i.e., the the ARRL bandwidth proposal takes away privileges because under exisiting regs there is NO BANDWIDTH limit. It's the secret hidden in the proposal that nobody wants to talk about, except Jeff king, WB8WKA, of course (HI). 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ..) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:43:01 - --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz. John KD6OZH Hi John, Digital Voice is Phone under FCC's definition. There is no bandwidth limit on a phone signal, implied or otherwise, for a digital voice signal. You either made an error or you are reading your FCC rules wrong. Here is what the rule actually says: == 97.307 (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. == As you can see, that rule is for non-phone. Currently, the non-phone modes defined by FCC in those §97.305(c) frequency bands are image data RTTY multiplexed emission and CW. If you read them carefully, you will find that the FCC rules are really unclear regarding any finite bandwidth limit for these non-phone modes on HF. That is because these ancient rules were written in the middle ages of digital signal technology. I will be happy to provide a examples of how the rules allow very wideband data bandwidth on HF, if you like. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/782 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:10 AM
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
But content has nothing to do with bandwidth. The original complaint was that bandwidth restrictions in current regulations are keeping us from operating new, and supposedely better modes. The ARRL could have addressed content restriction without addressing bandwidth regulation! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The basic problem is that the current regulations restrict the content of amateur transmissions. It shouldn't matter whether you are transmitting text, voice or images. On HF, you can transmit voice or images in a 3 kHz or 6 kHz bandwidth but to transfer a file during that QSO you have to change frequencies because it is considered data. On the 70 cm band, real-time compressed video could be sent in a 300 kHz bandwidth but not data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Howard Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 16:33 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz. Personally, I have not experienced these but would like to hear about them. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:30:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? What is the purpose of the blocked modes? The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better modem that works at something over 300 baud? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP wa7nwp@ wrote: NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same time no one should want to crush other older modes ... No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving to new modes and that's what's happening now. Bill, WA7NWP
[digitalradio] Off Topic: Foreign hams vs U.S.
Although a minor part of my discussion, one must not forget that radio signals, particularly on HF have no boundaries and affect others outside of a political jurisdiction. Whatever the FCC decides here in the U.S. has effects on the rest of the world, sometimes profoundly so. Particularly when it comes to modes and sub bands. The countries that are close by, such as Canada and Mexico feel the most effect. A good example would be the opening of the phone bands here in the U.S.! While the groups you suggest do not seem to be discussing the subjects at hand, here is a true story from my personal experience: Some years ago while I was on a farming group (list), the person who owned it grew very tired of hearing about dairy farming in the Midwest U.S. He felt that since it was a World Wide Group, regional issues should not be discussed even though the majority of interest was from the U.S. and in particular the Midwest U.S. The owner got abusive with some of the members who were the most knowledgeable about the subject and knew what they were talking about vs. some foreign experts who actually did not. He even removed a key U.S. farmer for daring to challenge the conventional wisdom of dairying from NZ by one their experts. In the end, dairy farmer near my area started a new group which I did not support at first because we would wind of fragmenting hundreds of participants into different groups rather than getting the knowledge in the one group. (Cross pollination to use a farming term, or perhaps critical mass?). The new group grew as the most knowledgeable people posted to that group with more U.S. farmers moving to the new group. Fewer people participated on the World Wide group. Today, I co-moderate the new group along with the person removed from the World Wide Group and the WWG is basically defunct because over time, most the thinking people moved to the new group that allows all discussions to take place in an open forum. Here is the irony of all this: most of the world wide interest is now focused in the new group, not just the regional interest because the group was made available for all. There are always new people coming and going and what seems old hat to some is quite new to them. There is nothing wrong with discussing Norwegian rules that impact digital issues. In fact, we want to know about them. 73, Rick, KV9U Steinar Aanesland wrote: I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital issues of these types (..) . Well , let me quote John VE5MU : We've heard all this before . This extreme ARRL/FCC focus has insignificant interest outside US. What will happen if Norwegian hams start spaming this group with Norwegian rules? Why not use: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FCC-US/ or this one: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigiMode_HF_Band_Plans/ ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA?
Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to stop these changes. So Bonnie using the logic of the above comment, then those that are opposed being informed or not, should not make their wishes known, and just roll over ignore what they think is wrong because it is going to happen anyway. Using that kind of thinking, why get out of bed, because sooner or later you are going to die, and there is no question about that, as everyone days have been numbered since the day you were born. I might not be an expert on digital, but I do have some training in it, and I am not ignorant in any way or form, but my opinion does count, even if to say that I want a valid reason for certain modes to have exclusive right or not. I am not opposed to going digital, but I am opposed to certain modes running ruffshod over the rest, be it Oliva,JT25A,PactorIII, and having certain things shoved down our throats to appease the few. The ARRL if it is suppose to represent All hams of the US, then they should look for a concensus from ALL the hams on what they want not just a few from within their membership, of which I am a member. Kurt
Re: [digitalradio] New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA?
Yes, that is the way the FCC seems to work to They really don't seem to care much what digital stuff we send out... AS LONG AS NOBODY COMPLAINS! John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: wa8vbx [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA? Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:17:25 -0400 Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to stop these changes. So Bonnie using the logic of the above comment, then those that are opposed being informed or not, should not make their wishes known, and just roll over ignore what they think is wrong because it is going to happen anyway. Using that kind of thinking, why get out of bed, because sooner or later you are going to die, and there is no question about that, as everyone days have been numbered since the day you were born. I might not be an expert on digital, but I do have some training in it, and I am not ignorant in any way or form, but my opinion does count, even if to say that I want a valid reason for certain modes to have exclusive right or not. I am not opposed to going digital, but I am opposed to certain modes running ruffshod over the rest, be it Oliva,JT25A,PactorIII, and having certain things shoved down our throats to appease the few. The ARRL if it is suppose to represent All hams of the US, then they should look for a concensus from ALL the hams on what they want not just a few from within their membership, of which I am a member. Kurt
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......
§ 97.307 Emission standards. (a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice. (f)(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. Why do you chose 3 kHz. The FCC recently issued a ruling NOT LIMITING SSBSC to 3 kHz. This allows advancement of the radio art in using SSBSC transmissions out to 4.5 kHz, or as some say ESSB. I would imagine an image transmission could use this bandwidth also, assuming you were using 4.5 kHz for the SSB part of your transmission. Paragraph (a) simply says information rate and emission type. I don't see a specific limitation here. In addition, (f)(2) allows ISB or multiplexing to go out to 9 kHz, i.e. A3E. Again, I don't see any 3 kHz restriction. If you mean you can't use your plain old off the shelf commercial SSB rig for ISB or multiplexed audio/image, then there is a problem, but it isn't the regulations, it is your rig. Keep in mind, the bandwidth petition would have eliminated these options and made you stay within 3 kHz! Lastly, you are mixing content restriction problems with bandwidth restrictions. If content regulation is needed then that can be addressed without bandwidth restrictions. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz. There is nothing allowing data (computer communications) or RTTY (direct printing telegraphy) in the phone/image segments. Unfortunately, image is defined as facsimile and television. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 20:56 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up .. Can you give me a regulation that restricts very wide modems within the phone/image segments. If you are talking about using data in the phone/image segment, I'll agree but I don't see a paragraph that limits bandwidth within the phone/image segment. I will agree that wider bandwidths could be allowed on the 70cm band. Wonder why a petition wasn't filed that dealt with this issue only. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen kd6ozh@ wrote: One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. 73, John KD6OZH
[digitalradio] Re: New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA?
This is exactly what I've been trying to say, there is no bandwidth limitations currently in the regs. Trying to argue that the ARRL's bandwidth petition screwed up experimentation and stops people from using newer, better modes just is not correct. The only problem I have with your example is justifying a 200 kHz bandwidth. With currently accepted standards like DRM there might be a little argument. However, if the FEC requires it so be it! Also, it might be difficult from a spectrum efficiency to justify that kind of bandwidth. You would have to convince everyone that the fidelity used was justified. The big problem I see is that the appliance operator using current amateur transceivers can't go much beyond 3 kHz. THAT IS where the big problem in experimenting comes from! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether anyone supports mixing of digital and analog modes is not really a matter for debate anymore in USA. The fact is, under USA's present rules, digital and analog already exist sharing all the same ham bands and subbands! The use of digital in all forms of ham radio communications will continue to progress, whether that is text, data, image, voice, or multiple simultaneous forms of content. Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to stop these changes. Under the present antiquated USA FCC rules, there is no bandwidth limit for digital signals on HF. As an example: If two Amateur Extra license operators want to transmit 1.5kW high fidelity digital voice, 200kHz wide, centered on 14250kHz, it would be OK under our present antiquated FCC rules. They could transmit such a wide signal (14150-14350kHz) if it was needed to get the communications quality they required at the signal to noise ratio at which they would be operating. Perhaps they are 150 miles apart, and the signals are weak, so they are using a very redundant FEC type of transmission signal. All they need to do, is get up early in the morning when no one else is on the band, and start up a good ragchew QSO. There is no time limit on their QSO. They could continue to use a major chunk of the 20m band, since they were there first. Under present FCC rules, everyone else wanting to use the upper part of the 20m band would have to avoid interference to their existing QSO, and wait until they are done. Hmmm... what if... these two hams started their 20m ragchew QSO on the morning of a DX contest? Anyone like to set up a digi voice sked? ;) Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] There is No FCC Bandwidth Limit for Digital on HF? Communications Quality
Recently, there has been a flurry of concern over whether USA will follow the rest of the world's lead using bandwidth based spectrum management in the Amateur Radio Service. Presently, FCC's rules do not seem to limit a digital signal's bandwidth on the HF bands. The absence of HF digital finite bandwidth limits in USA's Amateur Radio Service rules has been widely misunderstood, leading to much superstition, myth, and angst among operators who want clear guidelines for transmissions... Some have pointed to an obscure FCC rule sentence, to argue that there is a bandwidth limit on digital signals equal to an AM phone signal... but the rules do not say that at all. Here is what the rule actually does says: §97.307(f)(2)No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type... This begs the question: What is a Communications Quality Phone Emission of the Same Modulation Type... ? Communications Quality is a relative term without a clear definition in the Amateur Radio Service FCC rules. It has been widely interpreted that a voice audio response of 300Hz to 3000Hz is adequate for conveying telephony speech, and this might apply to a communications quality speech circuit. But, this is not etched in stone for the Amateur Radio Service, and many hams consider a wider audio response is necessary for them. A simple audio frequency response is not really enough to describe a communications quality telephony speech circuit, and an adequate end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio is also needed for the listener to comfortably understand speech, so some level of signal to noise ratio is needed to maintain a normal end-to-end communications quality circuit. 20dB SNR is adequate for most people. OFDM Digital Voice has become a popular Phone Emission recently. FCC says that OFDM Digital Voice is Phone, in this FCC rule §97.3 (c)(5) definition: Phone. Speech and other sound emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. Here is an example of one possible OFDM Digital Voice Phone Emission: 1. Emission Type = D1E or D2E 2. RF Emission Occupied Bandwidth = 25kHz 3. Communications Quality = Normal 4. Audio frequency response = 300Hz to 3kHz 5. RF Signal Noise Ratio Threshold = 0dB 6. Symbols per second = 300 baud 7. End-to-End Signal Noise Ratio = 20dB As you can see in the above example, this fits a reasonable definition like a glove, for FCC purposes in the Amateur Radio Service for a state-of-the-art Communications Quality Phone Emission. Now we arrive at the final part of the FCC bandwidth limitation for non-phone signals, that must be complied with for digital signals: ...of the same modulation type That final clause appears to limit non-phone emissions, like data or image to the bandwidth of a same modulation type phone signal. Therefore, we can demonstrate compliance by first transmitting the 25kHz bandwidth OFDM Digital Voice signal in the example above, in USA's HF Phone SubBands, and then use exactly the same 25kHz bandwidth OFDM signal for transmitting text or data in USA's HF Data SubBands. Is there an FCC Bandwidth Limit for Digital on HF? Perhaps the finite band-width limit is exactly the width of the Amateur Band or SubBand. Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: There is No FCC Bandwidth Limit for Digital on HF? Communications Quality
Bonnie, Where did the technology jail go that you have touted so many times when discussing current regulations? Secondly, how do you deal with the need to declare your proposal as a standard so that manufacturers will begin to produce equipment? Something this complicated will require a standard definition like the 802.11 wi-fi definition or perhaps the DRM standard. Will the FCC or ARRL need to make it a standard? Once this standard is declared, and amateurs invest in it, how does the next standard get rolled out. Do hams need to start an equipment depreciation expense account so they can roll over their hardware in five years? Will declaring a standard foster experimentation? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recently, there has been a flurry of concern over whether USA will follow the rest of the world's lead using bandwidth based spectrum management in the Amateur Radio Service. Presently, FCC's rules do not seem to limit a digital signal's bandwidth on the HF bands. The absence of HF digital finite bandwidth limits in USA's Amateur Radio Service rules has been widely misunderstood, leading to much superstition, myth, and angst among operators who want clear guidelines for transmissions... Some have pointed to an obscure FCC rule sentence, to argue that there is a bandwidth limit on digital signals equal to an AM phone signal... but the rules do not say that at all. Here is what the rule actually does says: §97.307(f)(2)No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type... This begs the question: What is a Communications Quality Phone Emission of the Same Modulation Type... ? Communications Quality is a relative term without a clear definition in the Amateur Radio Service FCC rules. It has been widely interpreted that a voice audio response of 300Hz to 3000Hz is adequate for conveying telephony speech, and this might apply to a communications quality speech circuit. But, this is not etched in stone for the Amateur Radio Service, and many hams consider a wider audio response is necessary for them. A simple audio frequency response is not really enough to describe a communications quality telephony speech circuit, and an adequate end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio is also needed for the listener to comfortably understand speech, so some level of signal to noise ratio is needed to maintain a normal end-to-end communications quality circuit. 20dB SNR is adequate for most people. OFDM Digital Voice has become a popular Phone Emission recently. FCC says that OFDM Digital Voice is Phone, in this FCC rule §97.3 (c)(5) definition: Phone. Speech and other sound emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. Here is an example of one possible OFDM Digital Voice Phone Emission: 1. Emission Type = D1E or D2E 2. RF Emission Occupied Bandwidth = 25kHz 3. Communications Quality = Normal 4. Audio frequency response = 300Hz to 3kHz 5. RF Signal Noise Ratio Threshold = 0dB 6. Symbols per second = 300 baud 7. End-to-End Signal Noise Ratio = 20dB As you can see in the above example, this fits a reasonable definition like a glove, for FCC purposes in the Amateur Radio Service for a state-of-the-art Communications Quality Phone Emission. Now we arrive at the final part of the FCC bandwidth limitation for non-phone signals, that must be complied with for digital signals: ...of the same modulation type That final clause appears to limit non-phone emissions, like data or image to the bandwidth of a same modulation type phone signal. Therefore, we can demonstrate compliance by first transmitting the 25kHz bandwidth OFDM Digital Voice signal in the example above, in USA's HF Phone SubBands, and then use exactly the same 25kHz bandwidth OFDM signal for transmitting text or data in USA's HF Data SubBands. Is there an FCC Bandwidth Limit for Digital on HF? Perhaps the finite band-width limit is exactly the width of the Amateur Band or SubBand. Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] My First post
Hello group I'm a new member today so here goes ! Currently trying out J63A mode decoder, but not having much sucess in getting callsigns on the screen (Lol) seem to be getting 'RRR' and 'RO' status messages but have yet to get an actual QSO on screen. I get the usual figures for width, dB, Rpt and DF etc Can anyone assist me, only need it for Rx as I am not yet licensed Regards SD
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA?
The VHF and UHF bands have explicit bandwidth limits on data emissions and image has a bandwidth limit on HF. Unfortunately, image transmission benefits the most from increased bandwidth. This maybe a group concerned mainly with RTTY and data but there are other modes that woud benefit from changes in the rules. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 23:50 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New 200kHz Wideband Digital Voice on 20 meters in USA? This is exactly what I've been trying to say, there is no bandwidth limitations currently in the regs. Trying to argue that the ARRL's bandwidth petition screwed up experimentation and stops people from using newer, better modes just is not correct. The only problem I have with your example is justifying a 200 kHz bandwidth. With currently accepted standards like DRM there might be a little argument. However, if the FEC requires it so be it! Also, it might be difficult from a spectrum efficiency to justify that kind of bandwidth. You would have to convince everyone that the fidelity used was justified. The big problem I see is that the appliance operator using current amateur transceivers can't go much beyond 3 kHz. THAT IS where the big problem in experimenting comes from! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether anyone supports mixing of digital and analog modes is not really a matter for debate anymore in USA. The fact is, under USA's present rules, digital and analog already exist sharing all the same ham bands and subbands! The use of digital in all forms of ham radio communications will continue to progress, whether that is text, data, image, voice, or multiple simultaneous forms of content. Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to stop these changes. Under the present antiquated USA FCC rules, there is no bandwidth limit for digital signals on HF. As an example: If two Amateur Extra license operators want to transmit 1.5kW high fidelity digital voice, 200kHz wide, centered on 14250kHz, it would be OK under our present antiquated FCC rules. They could transmit such a wide signal (14150-14350kHz) if it was needed to get the communications quality they required at the signal to noise ratio at which they would be operating. Perhaps they are 150 miles apart, and the signals are weak, so they are using a very redundant FEC type of transmission signal. All they need to do, is get up early in the morning when no one else is on the band, and start up a good ragchew QSO. There is no time limit on their QSO. They could continue to use a major chunk of the 20m band, since they were there first. Under present FCC rules, everyone else wanting to use the upper part of the 20m band would have to avoid interference to their existing QSO, and wait until they are done. Hmmm... what if... these two hams started their 20m ragchew QSO on the morning of a DX contest? Anyone like to set up a digi voice sked? ;) Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ......)
My comment was in regards to a question about why the rules need to be changed. They do because you can't mix voice, image and data on one frequency in the HF bands. The defect in the ARRL proposal for regulation by bandwidth was the 3 kHz limit that they chose for HF. I argued for 25 kHz and then 9 kHz as time went by, but with no effect. There are also limits on data bandwidth of 20 kHz in the VHF bands and 100 kHz in the 70 cm band that need to be changed. There is no bandwidth limit in the HF RTTY/data segments as 97.307(f)(2) is only referenced in the table in 97.305 for the phone/image segments. I agree that digital phone has no bandwidth limit, but image does. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 22:43 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ..) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz. John KD6OZH Hi John, Digital Voice is Phone under FCC's definition. There is no bandwidth limit on a phone signal, implied or otherwise, for a digital voice signal. You either made an error or you are reading your FCC rules wrong. Here is what the rule actually says: == 97.307 (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. == As you can see, that rule is for non-phone. Currently, the non-phone modes defined by FCC in those §97.305(c) frequency bands are image data RTTY multiplexed emission and CW. If you read them carefully, you will find that the FCC rules are really unclear regarding any finite bandwidth limit for these non-phone modes on HF. That is because these ancient rules were written in the middle ages of digital signal technology. I will be happy to provide a examples of how the rules allow very wideband data bandwidth on HF, if you like. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
