RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
re "The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled." I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic when he agreed to give it a shot, and thrilled by the effectiveness demonstrated during the SCAMP beta; even Rick was surprised by the results. When SCAMP disappeared and WinLink failed to upgrade its PMBOs with the SCAMP busy frequency detector, cynicism returned. Many concluded that the WinLink organization simply prefers to keep "its" PMBO frequencies clear by QRMing "trespassers", rather than having to wait for the frequency to become available. WinMor's inclusion of a busy frequency detector -- hopefully one at least as effective as Scamp's -- is excellent. No knowledgeable amateur radio operator should be dismayed by this, though no one will declare victory until WinLink PMBOs stop QRMing ongoing QSOs -- either because they've been augmented with busy frequency detectors, or replaced by new servers that include busy frequency detection. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of David Little Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:03 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Rick, I am excited about Winmor. I have been alpha testing PaclinkW, which incorporates Winmor, Packet, Pactor and Telnet. It provides rig control, accepts email from and ports email to Outlook or Outlook Express. The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled. I hope that the developer will start allowing connects in the near future. His decision to incorporate Trellis Coded Modulation, to me, seems a very good way to increase accuracy without sacrificing speed. I know it put US Robotics head and shoulders above the competition with 9600 bps in a 300 bps world. I had 3 of the USR HST Dual Standard modems when they were retailing at over $1100.00 each, and used them on a 5 node, 4 line dial up BBS with a gigabyte of storage in the late 1980s. I had to do battle with the telco, trying to convince them that dial-up could, in fact, support speeds above 300 BPS. Each Monday for over a year, I wrote to a different commissioner of the Georgia Public Service Commission until I got them to persuade the telco to replace a 1940s vintage switch with something from the previous decade. I finally succeeded. The switch (which was designed to service an Aircraft Carrier) was finally replaced with something designed for residential use. It was a long hard battle, but worth it in the long run. We face some of the same challenges today in the RF Digital arena. I don't think there is a limitation on Amateur radio for certain sound card modes. I believe the limitation is in acceptance of the bandwidth necessary to serve up email that is formatted and compressed. You may be better able to accept what I am saying if you look at the concept of horizontal and vertical chain of command and provision of service. For Ham to Ham, it is a horizontal plane. For Ham to served agency, it is more vertical. When you factor in NIMS, it gets much more specific. Where a text message that does not contain critical amounts, numbers, quantities, order amounts, audit info, etc... BPSK, RTTY, any of the non ARQ modes are fine; it is not critical info. For an IS-213 working through the system from request to supply to delivery, the ability to send compressed binary info in a formatted package requires a more serious protocol, with absolute error correction that doesn't rely on redundancy ( and the resulting decreased through put ) to get the info through. It takes a well planned and implemented transport layer to move that through the system, from RF to Internet and back to RF where internet infrastructure is damaged. I believe that Winmor may bring the sound card into this arena and make this a reality in a very cost efficient package. Perhaps this will attract more folks to give it a try, but it will always be greeted by some in the Amateur Radio Service as "Automated" and "Common Carrier"; even if it saves their Mother's life. This has more to do with being pragmatic than the complexity of the transport layer or protocol. That is the real downside of the entire discussion. We are seeing the stage set for a real battle in the economic universe for superiority of the world exchange choice. It was looking like the battle for the Dollar against the Euro would exert pressure from Governmental entities sole-sourcing the Pactor III protocol, with the revenue ultimately going to the Euro. With China and Russia loosing their appetite for American Debt, along with Opec willing to do anything pos
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
ment teams and assure their safe arrival or shadow their motion from one site to another. NTIA spectrum will be the long-haul backbone of RF communications by volunteer communicators. They have accepted the concept of wide bandwidth protocols, as they are already guarding every 3 KHz slice of their spectrum. A 2 KHz bandwidth mode still provides a guard band of 500 HZ on the top and bottom and still stays within the 3 KHz that is designated as a "Channel". With each assigned frequency, there is an USB and LSB choice, except when it caused the data to migrate into the Amateur band edges. It is actually well thought out. Why would a served agency want to rely on a communications provider that can't stop arguing long enough to move the traffic? I am in and out of this group as the tide tosses and turns, hoping to see some acceptance of the way things are going to be. I am still optimistic. In the mean time, I am still hedging my bets, and utilizing the spectrum that is available to me to explore new and better ways of getting the job done. As an aside, if you really want to see something that is slick, give Easy Pal a shot for sending text. Also ultra high resolution pictures with no scan lines that occupy 20KB of data on each end. 90 seconds to send or receive, with the ability to only request the individual blocks that weren't received properly to be sent again. We are also utilizing it in MARS. As I said, I am still optimistic, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules David, The thing that I find particularly attractive about WINMOR is that it is an open sound card protocol and it can be used in three forms: 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 2000 Hz modes. Putting this capability together with its automatic adaptibility for conditions, it may be the break though of the year for e-mail messaging. It will not require user knowledge of error correction and FEC, etc., since that will be done automatically, just like it was for the SCAMP mode a number of years ago. What it may not have is the emergency features that I see in PSKmail which is peer to peer messaging and chat along with ad hoc server deployment which can never be possible with Winlink 2000. Put the right protocol with the right solutions and you have a fantastic synergy not possible with any other protocol. I don't think that many of us can agree with you about new sound card modes not having a future on ham radio unless they are of a certain type. They just have to be the right protocol that solves an actual need. 60 meters is off the table at this point since you can not even use emergency data modes on those frequencies. What may die is Pactor modes. Having one protocol sourced by one foreign entity is not a good thing. Open source solutions are a good thing. Will many hams use and actually practice using NBEMS? Thus far I have had no luck in my local and regional area. But then again, I can not even get the NTS folks to consider digital messaging other than Pactor, HI. I don't have any interest in NTIA and no one in our area is much involved with non amateur emergency traffic. I suspect that many areas have the same situation. But I appreciate your comments and they are important issues to discuss. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup David Little wrote: > Skip, > > I use FLARQ and FLDigi on the FT-2000 Data Management Unit, when I > boot it from Linux. > > It allows me to do digital modes without an external computer. The > DMU also is networked via Ethernet. > > I was looking at MT-63 2K with FLARQ when WINMOR was announced, but > since it was a 2K wide protocol, I never gave it any more > consideration, as it would just be treated as the same annoyance, just > with different tonal qualities. > > Winlink has no future on Amateur radio spectrum. > > Anything more complex than RTTY or BPSK has little future on Amateur > spectrum. > > Other than a small core of folks willing to take the time to learn > something about ARQ, FEC, redundancy, error correction, and what makes > up a dependable transport layer - There is little future of any > digital mode with the complexity necessary to be efficient in times of > need. > > I do wish you well. I applaud what you are doing, but you are playing > to a hostile crowd if you expect to deploy any digital mode more > complex than RTTY or PSK on the Amateur Radio Spectrum. No matter > what it is, what it sounds like, what it carries, where it is going, > or where it came from; it is "Automated" or &quo
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
David, The thing that I find particularly attractive about WINMOR is that it is an open sound card protocol and it can be used in three forms: 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 2000 Hz modes. Putting this capability together with its automatic adaptibility for conditions, it may be the break though of the year for e-mail messaging. It will not require user knowledge of error correction and FEC, etc., since that will be done automatically, just like it was for the SCAMP mode a number of years ago. What it may not have is the emergency features that I see in PSKmail which is peer to peer messaging and chat along with ad hoc server deployment which can never be possible with Winlink 2000. Put the right protocol with the right solutions and you have a fantastic synergy not possible with any other protocol. I don't think that many of us can agree with you about new sound card modes not having a future on ham radio unless they are of a certain type. They just have to be the right protocol that solves an actual need. 60 meters is off the table at this point since you can not even use emergency data modes on those frequencies. What may die is Pactor modes. Having one protocol sourced by one foreign entity is not a good thing. Open source solutions are a good thing. Will many hams use and actually practice using NBEMS? Thus far I have had no luck in my local and regional area. But then again, I can not even get the NTS folks to consider digital messaging other than Pactor, HI. I don't have any interest in NTIA and no one in our area is much involved with non amateur emergency traffic. I suspect that many areas have the same situation. But I appreciate your comments and they are important issues to discuss. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup David Little wrote: > Skip, > > I use FLARQ and FLDigi on the FT-2000 Data Management Unit, when I > boot it from Linux. > > It allows me to do digital modes without an external computer. The > DMU also is networked via Ethernet. > > I was looking at MT-63 2K with FLARQ when WINMOR was announced, but > since it was a 2K wide protocol, I never gave it any more > consideration, as it would just be treated as the same annoyance, just > with different tonal qualities. > > Winlink has no future on Amateur radio spectrum. > > Anything more complex than RTTY or BPSK has little future on Amateur > spectrum. > > Other than a small core of folks willing to take the time to learn > something about ARQ, FEC, redundancy, error correction, and what makes > up a dependable transport layer - There is little future of any > digital mode with the complexity necessary to be efficient in times of > need. > > I do wish you well. I applaud what you are doing, but you are playing > to a hostile crowd if you expect to deploy any digital mode more > complex than RTTY or PSK on the Amateur Radio Spectrum. No matter > what it is, what it sounds like, what it carries, where it is going, > or where it came from; it is "Automated" or "Common Carrier" traffic. > Even the legitimate traffic on frequencies that amateur radio is the > secondary user of; same thing; always "automated" or "common > carrier". A very intelligent mantra, often used to describe > legitimate traffic by the primary users. > > The Common Carrier and Automated crowd are really having a hard time > dealing with 60m, and the majority of them haven't been able to find > it yet > > As I have stated before, I will use the amateur spectrum to do the > radio checks, and the NTIA spectrum to move the traffic. > > At present, I can handle the entire County EOC with one rig and > antenna, while having another rig and antenna devoted to Voice > operations. We have both Pactor III and Sound Card modes there, > multiple rigs, multiple antennas and in the same room as the 911 > operators and dispatchers. the EOC is a 5 second walk away in the > same building, and I can run much of the station remotely from a VPN > within the EOC complex. > > We have similar stations, with similar capabilities purchased for the > 2 hospitals. > > I have a similar (only better) station at home; currently minus Pactor > III, which I sold my SCS gear last year in anticipation of WINMOR. If > I can pick up another SCS controller reasonable, I will add it back > into my portable kit. > > We will have communications with the Air National Guard that will > handle distribution to the POD sites, as well as the NECN (National > Emergency Communications Network) which will give direct contact with > FEMA, the State EMA and all the alphabet soup entities. Outside of > that, traffic can be moved via voice on SHARES to the same entities, > then by voice or digital on the MARS circuit, and locally via VHF to > the amateur frequencies. We have licensed County police radio cars, > as well as portable VHF stations with antenna launchi
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Skip, I use FLARQ and FLDigi on the FT-2000 Data Management Unit, when I boot it from Linux. It allows me to do digital modes without an external computer. The DMU also is networked via Ethernet. I was looking at MT-63 2K with FLARQ when WINMOR was announced, but since it was a 2K wide protocol, I never gave it any more consideration, as it would just be treated as the same annoyance, just with different tonal qualities. Winlink has no future on Amateur radio spectrum. Anything more complex than RTTY or BPSK has little future on Amateur spectrum. Other than a small core of folks willing to take the time to learn something about ARQ, FEC, redundancy, error correction, and what makes up a dependable transport layer - There is little future of any digital mode with the complexity necessary to be efficient in times of need. I do wish you well. I applaud what you are doing, but you are playing to a hostile crowd if you expect to deploy any digital mode more complex than RTTY or PSK on the Amateur Radio Spectrum. No matter what it is, what it sounds like, what it carries, where it is going, or where it came from; it is "Automated" or "Common Carrier" traffic. Even the legitimate traffic on frequencies that amateur radio is the secondary user of; same thing; always "automated" or "common carrier". A very intelligent mantra, often used to describe legitimate traffic by the primary users. The Common Carrier and Automated crowd are really having a hard time dealing with 60m, and the majority of them haven't been able to find it yet As I have stated before, I will use the amateur spectrum to do the radio checks, and the NTIA spectrum to move the traffic. At present, I can handle the entire County EOC with one rig and antenna, while having another rig and antenna devoted to Voice operations. We have both Pactor III and Sound Card modes there, multiple rigs, multiple antennas and in the same room as the 911 operators and dispatchers. the EOC is a 5 second walk away in the same building, and I can run much of the station remotely from a VPN within the EOC complex. We have similar stations, with similar capabilities purchased for the 2 hospitals. I have a similar (only better) station at home; currently minus Pactor III, which I sold my SCS gear last year in anticipation of WINMOR. If I can pick up another SCS controller reasonable, I will add it back into my portable kit. We will have communications with the Air National Guard that will handle distribution to the POD sites, as well as the NECN (National Emergency Communications Network) which will give direct contact with FEMA, the State EMA and all the alphabet soup entities. Outside of that, traffic can be moved via voice on SHARES to the same entities, then by voice or digital on the MARS circuit, and locally via VHF to the amateur frequencies. We have licensed County police radio cars, as well as portable VHF stations with antenna launching kits to help with the local stuff until we can get the local amateur volunteers to relieve them to allow them to return to patrol. The County Police Chief, EMA Manager and EOC staff are all on board, and have funded the EOC station out of county funds. We are in the process of further training to merge their method of operations into the rules governing the amateur radio license that they must hold to operate one of the vhf stations. Out of the 50 we licensed last year, some are moving toward general.I also work with 2 TSA Hurricane Coast Airports in 2 states, where some of their employees have elected to get amateur licenses and join the MARS program. All the important traffic will be moved in binary format, properly formatted on NTIA spectrum. There is no common carrier or automated when it comes to NTIA spectrum. They are pretty much beyond that, and tend to concentrate on draining the swamp. I tried it on the Amateur spectrum, and found the alligators to be too much of a distraction. Again, I do applaud you efforts and really wish you the best. For the meantime, I will be working with the transport layer that is already in place, on spectrum that allows it to be utilized. If the Amateur community embraces NBEMS, we will add that compatibility into the setup. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:48 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules > Except for the fact that PSK has no error correction, no compression, no > formatting capabilities and no way to accurately > know if the traffic was > delivered properly other than read back, your figures are fairly accurate. David, check out our NBEMS system at www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS Many of the modes in fldigi can also be used with our fla
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Except for the fact that PSK has no error correction, no compression, no > formatting capabilities and no way to accurately > know if the traffic was > delivered properly other than read back, your figures are fairly accurate. David, check out our NBEMS system at www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS Many of the modes in fldigi can also be used with our flarq program, which adds ARQ (just like Winlink uses), for assuring that the traffic was delivered error-free. Instead of going into storage at an unmanned robot, we just insist that there be a live operator at both ends of the link, and that the live operator on the receiving end actually confirm delivery so the message does not lie unnoticed in an inbox somewhere. Since there is a live operator at each end, there is someone always present to check for a QSO that might be in progress on the frequency and also negotiate a QSY when necessary, which a robot cannot do. In the next release of NBEMS, we have a unique utility called "Wrap" which calculates a checksum for the file, and allows ZIP compression to be used very effectively. This makes it possible to "broadcast" messages to many (without linking!), instead of having to link on a one-to-one basis. On MARS frequenices(, which are dedicated 3K channels), instead of ham frequencies (which have to be shared by all), MT63-2000 can also be used with our flarq program for relatively fast, error-free transfers at 200 wpm. For formatting, we use"Qforms", or a Word or Excel document zipped up, "wrapped", and sent with all formatting, using any of the modes we recommend for NBEMS on either HF or VHF. We provide a variety of HF modes, hardened against static crashes, of many speeds, from MFSK16 up to MFSK64, which can be used, depending upon the path S/N and available space, without causing QRM to adjacent stations and without taking up excessive bandwidth. Using our MFSK derivatives, we can also transmit images (without error-correction) either as narrowband FAX, or as compressed zip files with error correction. The redundancy to provide error-free reception using the narrow modes is already part of the MFSK modes (i.e. FEC), which can be used together with flarq (adding ARQ) for error-free reception at a reduction in speed of one half compared to not using ARQ, but in the same relatively narrow bandwidth. Because NBEMS is not dependent upon a handfull of PMBO stations that might or might not be in range and not busy, ANY station with Internet connectivity or phone connectivity can serve as the forwarding station, and once NBEMS gets fully deployed, there can be a unlimited number of forwarding stations, drastically cutting down the time to find a station to connect with and dramatically increasing throughput beginning from first connect attempt to final message delivery. This involves as many amateurs as would like to assist, further supporting the interest in preserving the Amateur Radio Service (as an "amateur" service!), instead of moving farther and farther toward becoming a "common carrier" by using automation. Take a good look at what NBEMS has to offer, and I think you will like what you see! 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Except for the fact that PSK has no error correction, no compression, no formatting capabilities and no way to accurately know if the traffic was delivered properly other than read back, your figures are fairly accurate. Fortunately, most Winlink traffic is moved on NTIA spectrum, where it is able to run full speed. I am not a large Winlink fan, but I do like 2K MT-63, and I am encouraged by the 2K WINMOR mode that is currently being tested. I don't suspect much development of the newer wide-and modes will be wasted on Amateur spectrum in the future, as most of the long haul and critical traffic transport seems to be migrating toward NTIA spectrum, and leaving the short-haul for VHF where wideband and closed-squelch operation are a given. It further divides Amateur Radio, but at least those who move to where their assistance is helpful can take advantage of modern technology. For keyboard to keyboard, where nothing more important than Call, QTH and 59 needs to be passed, BPSK is exceptionally spectrum efficient. It would be wonderful if a single piece of traffic could be moved on multiple BPSK streams in a parallel fashion. However, when you factored in the redundancy needed to provided error-free reception, I would wager the end result would consume wider bandwidth and take more time. But, for the 99% that the other 1% are defending by operating in the true interest of preserving the Amateur Radio Service, wideband digital modes are a waste of valuable DX or contesting spectrum. If it wasn't for DXing and contests, us Rabid digital dinks would never get the lawn mowed. :) And Amateur Radio is a "Big Tent" endeavor; when properly executed, provides something for everyone. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules > " Moving traffic " IS NOT what 99% of hams want to do on > 20 meters working DX IS. > And this band is filled with stations doing just that. I think you are quit right, Bruce, and the Winlink 2000 network is probably currently the most efficient say of "moving traffic", but that interests less than 1% of the licensed hams in the US. A single 3 KHz-wide Pactor-3 channel can, under average good conditions, process about 400 wpm per minute, and this assumes the channel is busy all the time. In comparison, a single 3 KHz-wide "channel" can accomodate 30 PSK63 stations, all simultaneously sending traffic at 100 wpm, for a total of about 3000 wpm. Since the traffic on PSK63 can be passed in parallel, instead of serially, as on the Pactor-3 channel, the narrowband modes are obviously more efficient overall than a sngle Pactor-3 channel. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty. <http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net> home.comcast.net
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Thanks Jim -- your result is within 10% of what's predicted by the formulae in the paper Bonnie cited, which considered a few more factors. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" wrote: > > > > Thanks. > > > > To repeat my first question, "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose > > shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? > > Feel free to parametize as necessary." > > > Using the approximation I just posted, treat it as a pair of > on-off keyed carriers 1 KHz apart. For 300 baud the dot-cycle > frequency is 150 Hz, the frequency of a square wave made up of > 1010101010... So you're going to have the first pair of > sidebands at 150 Hz each side of the carrier, or a total width > of 1300 Hz, with a big hole in the middle. Then depending on > signal shaping you'll have the higher-order sidebands in there, > the third harmonic at 450 Hz each side of the carrier for a > total width of 1900 Hz. With random signals rather than the > square wave the general shape of the spectrum will be filled in > under the shape of the square wave signal. > > Or you can answer the question experimentally by generating such a > signal with your radio and looking at the waterfall or spectrum > display. > > Jim W6JVE >
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" wrote: > > Thanks. > > To repeat my first question, "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose > shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? > Feel free to parametize as necessary." > Using the approximation I just posted, treat it as a pair of on-off keyed carriers 1 KHz apart. For 300 baud the dot-cycle frequency is 150 Hz, the frequency of a square wave made up of 1010101010... So you're going to have the first pair of sidebands at 150 Hz each side of the carrier, or a total width of 1300 Hz, with a big hole in the middle. Then depending on signal shaping you'll have the higher-order sidebands in there, the third harmonic at 450 Hz each side of the carrier for a total width of 1900 Hz. With random signals rather than the square wave the general shape of the spectrum will be filled in under the shape of the square wave signal. Or you can answer the question experimentally by generating such a signal with your radio and looking at the waterfall or spectrum display. Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> " Moving traffic " IS NOT what 99% of hams want to do on > 20 meters working > DX IS. > And this band is filled with stations doing just that. I think you are quit right, Bruce, and the Winlink 2000 network is probably currently the most efficient say of "moving traffic", but that interests less than 1% of the licensed hams in the US. A single 3 KHz-wide Pactor-3 channel can, under average good conditions, process about 400 wpm per minute, and this assumes the channel is busy all the time. In comparison, a single 3 KHz-wide "channel" can accomodate 30 PSK63 stations, all simultaneously sending traffic at 100 wpm, for a total of about 3000 wpm. Since the traffic on PSK63 can be passed in parallel, instead of serially, as on the Pactor-3 channel, the narrowband modes are obviously more efficient overall than a sngle Pactor-3 channel. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave After 40+ years most of them on 6 meters I understand 220 is not going as far as 14 mhz does " Moving traffic " IS NOT what 99% of hams want to do on 20 meters working DX IS. And this band is filled with stations doing just that. PERSONLY i'm on 20 with psk31 as is my brother and so are many others with no effect on DX contesters or nets just doing our own thing .. VERY WIDE anything would have real problems on a band that well used and that small... I know what the contesters do to 20 when they are on and mix that and things would get ugly . Let reason prevail Bruce --- On Thu, 3/26/09, David Little wrote: From: David Little Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 7:22 AM I know some thought went into that reply, and that it has merit if we are only concerned with short-range communications. However, no matter how wide, narrow, thick or thin the emission, you cannot expect the same range on 1 1/4m as you can on 20m - so I am not sure the statement has any merit in this discussion. This discussion has little effect on some, who have long since vacated the Amateur bands for their serious use of digital signals for anything other than entertainment. However, for those who are limited to the Amateur Radio Service Spectrum, pragmatic consideration should be given to the position the regulating body is in when other services that may offer a tangible and beneficial service petition for the spectrum we enjoy. Could it be used to be more of a benefit to mankind with wider bandwidth emissions, which can improve both accuracy and speed in moving traffic that is also beneficial to mankind? What are the basic requirements for moving traffic? I seem to remember Speed and Accuracy to be a major part of the definition.. . It is all a relatively moot point... As the average age of the Amateur Radio Operator continues to increase, attrition will ultimately be the deciding factor. Consequently, I appreciate the merits of 2KHz wide digital modes, which are used daily on NTIA spectrum - and enjoy using the keyboard modes as a form of entertainment where bandwidth is limited. It does boil down to a question of if we appreciate the privileges of the use of the spectrum afforded to us, and how we show that appreciation. Many only consider it a right for their enjoyment, some look to a higher calling that may help preserve the spectrum for their grandchildren. Wider bandwidth digital signals as a vehicle for efficient long range traffic handling is an unavoidable fact. It doesn't matter how many temper tantrums are thrown, how many stress-related conditions are created by those who know how to spell "automated" and "common carrier". It is here, it will stay here, and it will be advanced to the point at any signal that meets the qualifications of providing 2 KHz of through put with a minimum guard band above and below it to prevent moving past the 3 KHz assigned to the channelized concept used in professional communications will be used by the less technical forms of transmitting that is afforded to the public. I don't much like being taxed into submission either. Neither do I like a lot of things that I must do in day to day life. The frog often wishes for wings. Some Amateur communicators will always fall back upon their comfort zone when faced with a new concept that doesn't square with what their grandfathers taught them. Maybe we would be a better service to mankind if we specialized in finding a way to send smoke signals without burning organic material or creating greenhouse emissions. That is a fairly narrow-band emission, and it would pay tribute to times gone by and also not be automated or considered common carrier. See, everyone could get their wish Cause and effect; what a concept... David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of bruce mallon Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:45 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Cc: wa4...@yahoo. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Things go round and around Back 70 years ago the FCC band SPARK GAP because it was wide and interfered with other stations. CLEAN NARROW signals became the standard. With bands like 220 MHz sitting there dead one would think wide band on 20 meters would be the last thing we see. . --- On Thu, 3/26/09, kh6ty wrote: From: kh6ty Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the "
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
I know some thought went into that reply, and that it has merit if we are only concerned with short-range communications. However, no matter how wide, narrow, thick or thin the emission, you cannot expect the same range on 1 1/4m as you can on 20m - so I am not sure the statement has any merit in this discussion. This discussion has little effect on some, who have long since vacated the Amateur bands for their serious use of digital signals for anything other than entertainment. However, for those who are limited to the Amateur Radio Service Spectrum, pragmatic consideration should be given to the position the regulating body is in when other services that may offer a tangible and beneficial service petition for the spectrum we enjoy. Could it be used to be more of a benefit to mankind with wider bandwidth emissions, which can improve both accuracy and speed in moving traffic that is also beneficial to mankind? What are the basic requirements for moving traffic? I seem to remember Speed and Accuracy to be a major part of the definition... It is all a relatively moot point... As the average age of the Amateur Radio Operator continues to increase, attrition will ultimately be the deciding factor. Consequently, I appreciate the merits of 2KHz wide digital modes, which are used daily on NTIA spectrum - and enjoy using the keyboard modes as a form of entertainment where bandwidth is limited. It does boil down to a question of if we appreciate the privileges of the use of the spectrum afforded to us, and how we show that appreciation. Many only consider it a right for their enjoyment, some look to a higher calling that may help preserve the spectrum for their grandchildren. Wider bandwidth digital signals as a vehicle for efficient long range traffic handling is an unavoidable fact. It doesn't matter how many temper tantrums are thrown, how many stress-related conditions are created by those who know how to spell "automated" and "common carrier". It is here, it will stay here, and it will be advanced to the point at any signal that meets the qualifications of providing 2 KHz of through put with a minimum guard band above and below it to prevent moving past the 3 KHz assigned to the channelized concept used in professional communications will be used by the less technical forms of transmitting that is afforded to the public. I don't much like being taxed into submission either. Neither do I like a lot of things that I must do in day to day life. The frog often wishes for wings. Some Amateur communicators will always fall back upon their comfort zone when faced with a new concept that doesn't square with what their grandfathers taught them. Maybe we would be a better service to mankind if we specialized in finding a way to send smoke signals without burning organic material or creating greenhouse emissions. That is a fairly narrow-band emission, and it would pay tribute to times gone by and also not be automated or considered common carrier. See, everyone could get their wish Cause and effect; what a concept... David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bruce mallon Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:45 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: wa4...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Things go round and around Back 70 years ago the FCC band SPARK GAP because it was wide and interfered with other stations. CLEAN NARROW signals became the standard. With bands like 220 MHz sitting there dead one would think wide band on 20 meters would be the last thing we see. . --- On Thu, 3/26/09, kh6ty wrote: From: kh6ty Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the "necessary bandwidth" appears to be "roughly" twice the frequency shift, although an exact calculation is obviously very complicated. More importantly, with regards to the amateur radio service is the summary statement, "The necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service." It has already been concluded, after many months (even years!) of debate, that radio amateurs are "amateurs" and not "professionals" and do not have either the ability or the means to measure "necessary bandwidth" of their signals. Their communications are casual "amateur"communicat ions and not "professional" communications. If the "necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service" were to be codified into the radio amateur service regulation
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Things go round and around Back 70 years ago the FCC band SPARK GAP because it was wide and interfered with other stations. CLEAN NARROW signals became the standard. With bands like 220 MHz sitting there dead one would think wide band on 20 meters would be the last thing we see. . --- On Thu, 3/26/09, kh6ty wrote: From: kh6ty Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the "necessary bandwidth" appears to be "roughly" twice the frequency shift, although an exact calculation is obviously very complicated. More importantly, with regards to the amateur radio service is the summary statement, "The necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service." It has already been concluded, after many months (even years!) of debate, that radio amateurs are "amateurs" and not "professionals" and do not have either the ability or the means to measure "necessary bandwidth" of their signals. Their communications are casual "amateur"communicat ions and not "professional" communications. If the "necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service" were to be codified into the radio amateur service regulations, it would also be necessary to also define what "acceptable" quality is, in particular for the radio amateur service. That definition will obviously be different for casual conversation, DX exchanges, and contest exchanges, than it is for commercial or quasi-commercial "messaging" services. It will probably fall somewhere between PSK31 and MFSK16 or WSJT bandwidths, which provide "casual" communications quality in exchange for the higher bit rates needed for sending long messages. Even narrow bandwith modes, like PSK31, can be utilized to reduce the error rate to zero through the use of ARQ. It is just that the throughput is half that of the non-ARQ use of the mode, but that is generally "acceptable" for casual communications. What would NOT be acceptable is using a 150 KHz-wide signal on a band that is only 350 KHz wide merely in order to achieve faster throughput for two dominating stations at the expense of hundreds of others. Should 150 KHz-wide signals start being used on 20m, for example, it would not take very long for the FCC regulations to be changed (or re-interpreted) to protect the "casual" communications use of the 20m band. To infer that using "low power" would make that acceptable ignores the fact that "low power" to someone distant is "high power" to someone close by. The BPL debacle should have made that clear by now. The regulations already require that the minimum power necessary for communicatons be used, and if a similar requirement were made for emitted bandwidth, it could easily stifle innovation (at least with regard to using wider, or spread-spectrum modes), and not promote it. We might all then wind up having to be content with PSK31 plus ARQ for our casual communications! Better not ask for something you may not want! I agree that the regulations do not "specifically" limit bandwidth on the HF bands, but that does not mean this could not easily happen if there are enough abuses to justify it. It is true that the regulations have not kept up with technology, but the intent to protect casual communications is still there, and that intent could be codified if it becomes necessary. However, we may not be happy with the end result, especially considering the extremely minor interest in digital messaging or using digital modes other than PSK31, CW, and RTTY. With the advent of satphones, cell phones, and the Internet, the relevance of amateur radio as anything more than a hobby activity is rapidly diminishing and we can expect future regulatory changes to further support the hobby interests rather than quasi-commercial interests in amateur radio. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the "necessary bandwidth" appears to be "roughly" twice the frequency shift, although an exact calculation is obviously very complicated. More importantly, with regards to the amateur radio service is the summary statement, "The necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service." It has already been concluded, after many months (even years!) of debate, that radio amateurs are "amateurs" and not "professionals" and do not have either the ability or the means to measure "necessary bandwidth" of their signals. Their communications are casual "amateur"communications and not "professional" communications. If the "necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service" were to be codified into the radio amateur service regulations, it would also be necessary to also define what "acceptable" quality is, in particular for the radio amateur service. That definition will obviously be different for casual conversation, DX exchanges, and contest exchanges, than it is for commercial or quasi-commercial "messaging" services. It will probably fall somewhere between PSK31 and MFSK16 or WSJT bandwidths, which provide "casual" communications quality in exchange for the higher bit rates needed for sending long messages. Even narrow bandwith modes, like PSK31, can be utilized to reduce the error rate to zero through the use of ARQ. It is just that the throughput is half that of the non-ARQ use of the mode, but that is generally "acceptable" for casual communications. What would NOT be acceptable is using a 150 KHz-wide signal on a band that is only 350 KHz wide merely in order to achieve faster throughput for two dominating stations at the expense of hundreds of others. Should 150 KHz-wide signals start being used on 20m, for example, it would not take very long for the FCC regulations to be changed (or re-interpreted) to protect the "casual" communications use of the 20m band. To infer that using "low power" would make that acceptable ignores the fact that "low power" to someone distant is "high power" to someone close by. The BPL debacle should have made that clear by now. The regulations already require that the minimum power necessary for communicatons be used, and if a similar requirement were made for emitted bandwidth, it could easily stifle innovation (at least with regard to using wider, or spread-spectrum modes), and not promote it. We might all then wind up having to be content with PSK31 plus ARQ for our casual communications! Better not ask for something you may not want! I agree that the regulations do not "specifically" limit bandwidth on the HF bands, but that does not mean this could not easily happen if there are enough abuses to justify it. It is true that the regulations have not kept up with technology, but the intent to protect casual communications is still there, and that intent could be codified if it becomes necessary. However, we may not be happy with the end result, especially considering the extremely minor interest in digital messaging or using digital modes other than PSK31, CW, and RTTY. With the advent of satphones, cell phones, and the Internet, the relevance of amateur radio as anything more than a hobby activity is rapidly diminishing and we can expect future regulatory changes to further support the hobby interests rather than quasi-commercial interests in amateur radio. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Thanks, Bonnie. According to the formulae presented in table 2 on page 49 of the document you cite below, binary (2-tone) FSK with a maximum shift of 1 kHz and a maximum symbol rate of 300 baud would require a maximum bandwidth of 2011 hz. for any practical modulation index (i.e. less than 20). §97.307(f)(3) says "Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz." While §97.307(f)(3) does not directly specify a maximum bandwidth, a maximum bandwidth for 2-tone FSK can be computed from the parameters that §97.307(f)(3) does specify: specifically, 2011 hz. Thus the statement "There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction on HF for frequency-shift keying, though there could be debate about what mark and space mean for FSK modes with more than 2 tones" is in fact correct. It would be logical to assume that for n-tone FSK, "mark" and "space" refer to the highest and lowest tones of the ensemble respectively, meaning that that maximum bandwidth for n-tone FSK with a maximum shift of 1 kHz and a maximum symbol rate of 300 baud would also be 2011 hz -- but this is speculative until ruled upon. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" wrote: > > > Dave AA6YQ wrote: > > Please identify the significant factors... > > Hi Dave, > > Some of the answers you seek are in a previous > message: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/30581 > > I will leave the rest up to you to determine. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA >
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Dave AA6YQ wrote: > Please identify the significant factors... Hi Dave, Some of the answers you seek are in a previous message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/30581 I will leave the rest up to you to determine. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Re "The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer". That's why I suggested that you freely parametize. Please identify the significant factors, represent each with a variable, and state the bandwidth in terms of those variables as well as the maximum shift and symbol rate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:27 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules > Dave AA6YQ wrote: > "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose > shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited > to a maximum of 300 baud? Hi Dave, The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Dave AA6YQ wrote: > "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose > shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited > to a maximum of 300 baud? Hi Dave, The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Thanks. To repeat my first question, "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Feel free to parametize as necessary." 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:31 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules > Dave, AA6YQ wrote: > Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to > transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands > like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? Hi Dave, Yes. There are certainly conditions now that would be perfectly fine for 150kHz bandwidth signals to be used at power levels that would not cause harmful interference. There is currently RF digital technology available that can enable >100kHz bandwidth signals on HF to provide many more simultaneous QSOs than our traditional mid-20th century methods are capable of. I predict that in the near future, there will be such advanced radio technologies being used more and more on the ham bands. Through cooperation, goodwill, and planning, new methods can co-exist with legacy modes. Certainly, we can take a lesson from mobile phone technology. As a cellphone RF design engineer, I witnessed significant advancements in spectrum efficiency in that field. It made possible many more users on the same frequency band or channel at the same time, than was ever thought viable when my first cellphone design went to production in 1986. Similar advancement could be forged in ham radio if we open our minds to it and encourage creative talent. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Dave, AA6YQ wrote: > Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to > transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands > like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? Hi Dave, Yes. There are certainly conditions now that would be perfectly fine for 150kHz bandwidth signals to be used at power levels that would not cause harmful interference. There is currently RF digital technology available that can enable >100kHz bandwidth signals on HF to provide many more simultaneous QSOs than our traditional mid-20th century methods are capable of. I predict that in the near future, there will be such advanced radio technologies being used more and more on the ham bands. Through cooperation, goodwill, and planning, new methods can co-exist with legacy modes. Certainly, we can take a lesson from mobile phone technology. As a cellphone RF design engineer, I witnessed significant advancements in spectrum efficiency in that field. It made possible many more users on the same frequency band or channel at the same time, than was ever thought viable when my first cellphone design went to production in 1986. Similar advancement could be forged in ham radio if we open our minds to it and encourage creative talent. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
OK, I'll bite. What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Feel free to parametize as necessary. Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules > Dave AA6YQ wrote: > There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction > on HF for frequency-shift keying, Hi Dave, Sorry, old friend, but you are incorrect. In the USA data/RTTY bands 160meters-10meters, the FSK rule is a "shift restriction". It is not a "bandwidth restriction". The attempt to equate or change the "shift restriction" into a "bandwidth restriction" was denied one year ago by FCC (May 2008). In the "Digital Stone Age Petition" denial FCC Order [paragraph 10] FCC said: "Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands." Plain and simple: FCC has conscientiously chosen to set no specific bandwidth limit for RTTY/data or phone emissions on HF/MF bands. For those who want bandwidth limits, perhaps it is time to reconsider a new bandwidth-based spectrum managagement petition to FCC? I have been a proponent of bandwidth-based spectrum management for ham radio. I don't believe that content-based spectrum management is conducive to advancement of RF digital technology, and I don't believe it is advantageous for hams. However, "The Law of Unintended Consequences" often applies to FCC rulings... and the petitioner may be severely disappointed by the outcome. A good example of unintended petition results was the one that reduced our freedom by making the 40 and 80 meter RTTY/data sub-bands get smaller! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > Under the present "content-based" rules for > hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't > really a specific bandwidth limit for most types > of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the > maximum limit of the "RTTY/data subband" segment... > for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can > legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal > (14000kHz to 14150kHz). > > See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the > "Digital Stone Age" petition: > http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petit ion.PDF > > FCC explained further [in paragraph 11 of the order] : > "We believe that these rules provide amateur > service licensees the flexibility to develop new > technologies within the spectrum authorized for > the various classes of licensees, while protecting > other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. > We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth > limitation on data emissions would result in a loss > of flexibility to develop and improve technologies > as licensees' operating interests change, new > technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands > are reallocated." > > DATA SIGNAL BANDWIDTH LIMIT CHART HF/VHF/MF > > BandData Signal Bandwidth Limit > 160 meters = 200 kHz > 80 meters = 100 kHz > 60 meters = 0 kHz (Data Not Authorized) > 40 meters = 125 kHz > 30 meters = 50 kHz > 20 meters = 150 kHz > 17 meters = 42 kHz > 15 meters = 200 kHz > 12 meters = 40 kHz > 10 meters = 300 kHz > 6 meters = 20 kHz > 2 meters = 20 kHz > 1.25 meters = 100 kHz > > Note1: Amateur Extra License, USA Amateur Radio Service > Note2: current as of 03-2009 > > More information and sources: > http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg > > FCC, Subpart D--Technical Standards > §97.301 Authorized frequency bands. > §97.307 Emission standards. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Dave AA6YQ wrote: > There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction > on HF for frequency-shift keying, Hi Dave, Sorry, old friend, but you are incorrect. In the USA data/RTTY bands 160meters-10meters, the FSK rule is a "shift restriction". It is not a "bandwidth restriction". The attempt to equate or change the "shift restriction" into a "bandwidth restriction" was denied one year ago by FCC (May 2008). In the "Digital Stone Age Petition" denial FCC Order [paragraph 10] FCC said: "Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands." Plain and simple: FCC has conscientiously chosen to set no specific bandwidth limit for RTTY/data or phone emissions on HF/MF bands. For those who want bandwidth limits, perhaps it is time to reconsider a new bandwidth-based spectrum managagement petition to FCC? I have been a proponent of bandwidth-based spectrum management for ham radio. I don't believe that content-based spectrum management is conducive to advancement of RF digital technology, and I don't believe it is advantageous for hams. However, "The Law of Unintended Consequences" often applies to FCC rulings... and the petitioner may be severely disappointed by the outcome. A good example of unintended petition results was the one that reduced our freedom by making the 40 and 80 meter RTTY/data sub-bands get smaller! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > Under the present "content-based" rules for > hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't > really a specific bandwidth limit for most types > of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the > maximum limit of the "RTTY/data subband" segment... > for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can > legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal > (14000kHz to 14150kHz). > > See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the > "Digital Stone Age" petition: > http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petition.PDF > > FCC explained further [in paragraph 11 of the order] : > "We believe that these rules provide amateur > service licensees the flexibility to develop new > technologies within the spectrum authorized for > the various classes of licensees, while protecting > other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. > We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth > limitation on data emissions would result in a loss > of flexibility to develop and improve technologies > as licensees' operating interests change, new > technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands > are reallocated." > > DATA SIGNAL BANDWIDTH LIMIT CHART HF/VHF/MF > > BandData Signal Bandwidth Limit > 160 meters = 200 kHz > 80 meters = 100 kHz > 60 meters = 0 kHz (Data Not Authorized) > 40 meters = 125 kHz > 30 meters = 50 kHz > 20 meters = 150 kHz > 17 meters = 42 kHz > 15 meters = 200 kHz > 12 meters = 40 kHz > 10 meters = 300 kHz > 6 meters = 20 kHz > 2 meters = 20 kHz > 1.25 meters = 100 kHz > > Note1: Amateur Extra License, USA Amateur Radio Service > Note2: current as of 03-2009 > > More information and sources: > http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg > > FCC, Subpart D--Technical Standards > §97.301 Authorized frequency bands. > §97.307 Emission standards. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> k2ncc asked: > ...is it legal to transmit on the digital modes > sub-bands modes that are greater than 1000 wide, > like Olivia 2000? Yes. Under the present "content-based" rules for hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't really a specific bandwidth limit for most types of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the maximum limit of the "RTTY/data subband" segment... for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal (14100kHz to 14150kHz). See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the "Digital Stone Age" petition: http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petition.PDF In that FCC order, [paragraph 10] FCC said: "Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands." FCC explained [paragraph 10] further: "We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees' operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands are reallocated." 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
