Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators. If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition
is dead.
The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and
handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they
have not cited the interfering stations?
Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham
community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules
changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I
believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to
deal with it formally and they probably will.
73,
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve,
We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you
have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest
groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets
as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the
majority of operators.
If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not
have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until
the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in
the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a
50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is
that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many,
many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may
improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide.
Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the
petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000
proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become
ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have
more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to
stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this
increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of
intentional interference.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Rick,
RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion.
As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted.
Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and
RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my
oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily
work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations
have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB
pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+
I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view.
73
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Hi Again, Steve,
I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you
don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes
from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for
them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that
way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the
SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB
operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but
even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and
similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.
Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php
View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad
io/database
Yahoo! Groups Links
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#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
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
The question I have in all this is: Was this interference problem an issue BEFORE the reduction in the Amateur Licensing requirements, OR did this start occurring AFTER it??? Either way, the FCC must make a decision that we ALL have to live with, whether we agree with it or not! This subject is now beating a dead horse! IF you have a complaint, aim it at the FCC, NOT each other on this forum! All too often I've seen threads go on and on without accomplishing ANYTHING good! It usually causes people to leave a perfectly good forum needlessly, but they get hurt feelings and it accomplishes NOTHING! Again, IF you have a complaint or compliment about RM-11392, the information is at the URL given at the beginning of this thread! Write the FCC about it. It would be more effective if you would WRITE a letter to the FCC (you know the old fashioned way, paper and pen)! I'm personally tired of seeing this thread, or any other COMPLAINT thread, continue on and on and on. This Group, Forum, whatever you want to call it, is to help out our fellow Hams interested in DIGITAL RADIO! What it is NOT for is to complain incessantly about a subject! Give out the information needed to address the issue to the proper agency ie.; The FCC, ARRL... then complain to THEM and STOP bashing each other! Moderator, can we PLEASE move on??? Rod KC7CJO Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392 Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators. If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Howard, You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer number of opposed to favoring it has to be at least 80% opposed, if not even 90%. That is overwhelming. It is true that almost all of the hams who claim they oppose the petition have not really read and understood the petition, but instead pasted Bonnie, KQ6XA's, technically incorrect information as a response. Will the FCC see through this and take this into consideration? Probably only to some degree. I am not sure how hams can handle the interference. To my knowledge the ARRL Official Observers are not sending notifications to any of these stations. Same thing with any of the types of operations that appear to be scofflaws or at the very least borderline kinds of activities such as PropNet, APRS, ALE automatic sounding with unattended operation (when they operate in this manner with no control operator). The FCC Enforcement Division will hopefully respond to my multi issue query for clarification on how hams should be expected to behave on each side of the equation. This includes those who operate such stations and those who are affected by such stations. It may be that they will interpret the rules to say that these kinds of operations are appropriate and we will have to continue to live with that or later on ask for specific changes in the rules. The text data bandwidth issue may go away, at least on some bands, because wide modes ( 500 Hz) are specifically not to be operated under the new Region 2 band plans in many areas that they currently operate. While it does not directly have the force of law, it may be a tempering influence. If the ARRL had been able to get its request approved by the FCC to make band plans the force of law, there would be no more wide modes in the U.S. in the text data portion of the bands on 80 meters and nothing below 14.101 on 20 meters. Many of those opposed to the petition are intentionally misrepresenting that this is an anti-wide bandwidth issue. It is not. They should direct their ire at the Region 2 Bandplan, not at a petition that is a reasonable compromise and would allow three times that bandwidth to as much as 1500 Hz in the text data portions of the bands. Voice and image with reasonable quality, and perhaps larger file size mixed documents/data have larger throughput requirements and must have adequate bandwidth to be practical. While any bandwidths in excess of voice communications bandwidth would be inappropriate, due to the shared nature of HF amateur bands. Part 97.307 Emission standards. (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. Now this is currently being stretched a bit beyond the Region 2 band plan recommendation of 2700 Hz with eSSB, but the rules do not exactly specify a bandwidth and unless the FCC issues an interpretation on what that really means, or accepts the band plan, there is some leeway since DSB phone is considered acceptable in some areas of the bandplan. 73, Rick, KV9U Howard Brown wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hmmm. The silent majority methinks maybe. - Original Message From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:31:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392 Hi Howard, You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer number of opposed to favoring it has to be at least 80% opposed, if not even 90%. That is overwhelming. It is true that almost all of the hams who claim they oppose the petition have not really read and understood the petition, but instead pasted Bonnie, KQ6XA's, technically incorrect information as a response. Will the FCC see through this and take this into consideration? Probably only to some degree. I am not sure how hams can handle the interference. To my knowledge the ARRL Official Observers are not sending notifications to any of these stations. Same thing with any of the types of operations that appear to be scofflaws or at the very least borderline kinds of activities such as PropNet, APRS, ALE automatic sounding with unattended operation (when they operate in this manner with no control operator). The FCC Enforcement Division will hopefully respond to my multi issue query for clarification on how hams should be expected to behave on each side of the equation. This includes those who operate such stations and those who are affected by such stations. It may be that they will interpret the rules to say that these kinds of operations are appropriate and we will have to continue to live with that or later on ask for specific changes in the rules. The text data bandwidth issue may go away, at least on some bands, because wide modes ( 500 Hz) are specifically not to be operated under the new Region 2 band plans in many areas that they currently operate. While it does not directly have the force of law, it may be a tempering influence. If the ARRL had been able to get its request approved by the FCC to make band plans the force of law, there would be no more wide modes in the U.S. in the text data portion of the bands on 80 meters and nothing below 14.101 on 20 meters. Many of those opposed to the petition are intentionally misrepresenting that this is an anti-wide bandwidth issue. It is not. They should direct their ire at the Region 2 Bandplan, not at a petition that is a reasonable compromise and would allow three times that bandwidth to as much as 1500 Hz in the text data portions of the bands. Voice and image with reasonable quality, and perhaps larger file size mixed documents/data have larger throughput requirements and must have adequate bandwidth to be practical. While any bandwidths in excess of voice communications bandwidth would be inappropriate, due to the shared nature of HF amateur bands. Part 97.307 Emission standards. (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. Now this is currently being stretched a bit beyond the Region 2 band plan recommendation of 2700 Hz with eSSB, but the rules do not exactly specify a bandwidth and unless the FCC issues an interpretation on what that really means, or accepts the band plan, there is some leeway since DSB phone is considered acceptable in some areas of the bandplan. 73, Rick, KV9U Howard Brown wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
On Thursday 27 December 2007 02:40:01 am Steve Hajducek wrote: I would also like to see the availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency. During emergencies, any operator, any station, any power, any mode goes. As long as it is in support of the emergency at hand. Since this is already law, I don't understand how emergency operations keeps being brought into the mix. If there's an emergency, all of these arguments are superfluous.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters. Now with digital modes, we see the use of either analog or digital SSTV image transmissions interspersed with SSB voice. It may someday be possible to merge DV with image since both need about the same signal strength (steady +8 dB or so) in order to operate.well so they are closely matched. They also sound the same and there is no practical way to filter out multiple OFDM type carriers since they pretty much fill the spectrum in their bandwidth. The segregation of narrow and medium and wide modes (as per the new Region 2 Bandplan) will help clarify things a bit if many hams adopt it. The ARRL attempted to get the FCC to create a new rule that would make bandplans a legal requirement, but the FCC chose not to accept this. Theoretically, you could be cited for not following a bandplan and I understand that this has come up from time to time. Where I find the rules ridiculous is where you can operate analog or digital voice and can operate image, but even though the signals may sound identical, you can not send text. As you know, I have asked the FCC to let us know what they interpret image and fax to be. I have no problem with whatever the FCC interprets, which may surprise you. None of this stuff is that important. What matters to me is that we understand what we can and can not do, even if that causes extreme reactions from proponents of ALE and other modes. It is true that when a government official makes a determination on such matters, it does have the force of law (contrary to what I have seen from other commenters). But once you have this clearly established, you can then ask for adjustments in the interpretation. I have done this professionally in my career in Environmental Safety and Health. Sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. But at least everyone then has the information. If there is a specific rule holding us back, I would like to hear what it might be. Almost no hams would support wide text data modes,on HF certainly not those wider than what would be considered a communications quality voice bandwidth. If you can not meet that standard, it is not much of a technological achievement to just go wider and wider to make something work better. The technological achievement is to use spectrum conserving modes that enhance the radio art. As you know, when conditions deteriorate there are fewer operators on the bands. That is the time that wider modes might be more appropriate to use. When conditions are good, there are a drastically increased number of operators. Remember that we have a shared band, not a specific channel with a specifically authorized bandwidth. Few of the wide modes are all that effective when conditions become poor. Even Pactor three drops to below 1000 Hz in width. As far as an agenda, of course you have an agenda. It is focused on ALE, and rightly so, if that is your special interest area. We all have one or more of them. Mine is to promote technology and cooperation that works for emergency communications. It can be digital or analog depending upon which is a better fit for a given solution. I have several other agendas such as promoting amateur radio as a leader in my county AR club, provide many classes to bring new hams into amateur radio, provide many test sessions over the years to make this happen, etc., etc. You stated that the MILSTD serial tone modem waveforms exceed both symbol rate and bandwidth in the current digital sub bands. This may be true of the symbol rate, but where do you see any restriction on bandwidth? Currently, is there any real bandwidth restriction in Part 97? ARRL's argument was that by their petition for bandwidth, they would eliminate wide bandwidth modes from developing. Hopefully, in answer to the question of attached files and other types of files being sent in the voice/image areas of the bands we will have an answer from my query to the FCC. The reason that I support a mixed voice/data concept in the voice area is because it is very unlikely that we will ever be given voice modes in the text digital area. The voice areas here in the U.S. are the largest part of the bands now. We already can use analog and digital voice and image any place we want in the voice portions of the bands athough a number of hams seem to not be aware of this.
[digitalradio] RM-11392
To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important. I just left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you be in the USA. They may place more importance on your opinions since we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you. I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time. Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the petition. Some of the opposition was clearly mistaken. A couple said the Rule-making would hurt the MARS services. Of course the FCC has nothing to do with MARS, other than issuing the ham license that allows a ham to qualify as a MARS member. In fact, this could enhance MARS operation if some of the hams with this equipment became active MARS members. By the way, the wide modes work much better on MARS since there are 'channels' and assigned frequencies there. A few of the comments were embarrassing. How much weight can your opinion carry if you are not able to spell the word amateur? My opinion: Thank you Mark, for bringing this interference problem to focus. Maybe it will be resolved now Howard K5HB
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #20071226739154. If we want it to pass, we need to make a little more noise where it counts... http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Specify RM-11392 in the first box. Won't take but a minute, and WILL make a difference! -Joe, N8FQ On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:22:02 - Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time. Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the petition.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Rick, You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion. The outcome of what takes place within the Amateur Radio Service as to what is and what is not accepted as technology and practices needs to be driven by the development of technologies and the choices made by the Amateur Radio community where the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service allow for the needed experimentation and development of new technology and practices rather than tightening of the rules to limit such. I have no love for proprietary PACTOR x or any proprietary protocols or for automation systems based stations that just sit parked on one frequency rather than frequency multiplexing. I believe the future of the Amateur Radio Service will be based on open standards, the best of which currently are U.S. Federal, Military and NATO standards which the ARS can adopt as they exist of use as the basis of derived protocols adapted to the exacting needs of the ARS. However we need to be moving in the opposite direction of RM-11392, we need 3Khz bandwidth and relaxation of a number of existing rules here in the U.S. to keep pace with the world Amateur Radio community. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 03:21 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: Hi Mark, It is interesting that the opposition to your petition is overwhelming. I would have expected it the other way, based upon the discussions we all have on groups such as digitalradio. As they say, those who show up for the meeting get to decide the outcome, even if they are in the extreme minority. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: At 10:53 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is a major issue with the digital amateur community. Hi Rick, I did submit a news article to QRZ.com, but it appears that there is a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum. Some other threads have popped up too. I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments were in opposition to the petition. 73, Mark N5RFX Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
It's all about how much of the band you are using. But you know how they like to pick on poor Pactor. Read page 11 line 4,5 and 6 of the PDF file * * * * * page 11 of RM11392.PDF 8. Two bandwidths are appropriate for what is now the RTTY/Data subband, 1.5 KHz and 2.4 kHz. The selection of these two bandwidths should accommodate current modes and not prohibit any emissions currently found in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Pactor III would continue to be authorized, as long as speed levels 1 and 2 are used. 1.5 kHz is appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the RTTY/Data subbands in 97.307(f)(3). As stated above when employing the formulae of Part 2.202 for amplitude or frequency modulation, with a signal with quantized or digital information, and telegraphy without error-correction, the necessary bandwidth derived is 1.5 kHz. 1.5 kHz will accommodate emissions in the RTTY/Data subbands where appropriate and is consistent with the intention of97.307(f)(3). 2.4 kHz is also appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the RTTY/Data subbands in 97.307(t)(4). 1.5 kHz bandwidth is appropriate for the 80 through 12 meter bands and 2.4 kHz is appropriate for the 10-meter band. This action will restore the separation of emissions by bandwidth, which has been lost due to changes in technology. The definitions of data in 97.3(c)(2) can return to the definition of data prior to FCC 06-149 since bandwidths for the current RTTY/Data band will be enumerated. Continuing to enumerate emissions by lTV emissions designator in the Phone/Image subbands will continue to prevent other data emissions from John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Bruce, From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if the the hurts! /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
NO STEVE You and the digi boys need to get it You have entire bands on UHF to use and they sit EMPTY .. Your disrespect for all of those who are happy with analog shows how little you care about the hobby. ONLY YOUR SELF .. IF IT Ain't DIGITAL it ain't radio When you can show that you have enough people who care about digital to show usage of UHF come back and talk to the 99% of us who don't care about you or your modes we really don't CARE as long as you don't deprive all of us of OUR rights to use the bands .. --- Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce, From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if the the hurts! /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can do is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without stepping on someone else. Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes. Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, (OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind of segregation is needed. There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete. I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits. For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is not being held back at all by the rules. As you know, I have submitted questions to the FCC on this very subject and am waiting on a return response. Your fellow promoter of ALE, Bonnie, KQ6XA, was livid that I even dared ask these questions and yet the amateur community has a right to know how the rules should be properly interpreted. And a major one is whether we can operate certain kinds of modes on the high speed portions of the HF bands, otherwise known as the voice/image portions. Maybe they will stretch the rules to allow use of mixed image and text, maybe they won't, but I want to know what we can and can not do. I am convinced that the FCC will support the use of ALE modes, including the very modes you mention below providing that that content is image/fax. I personally have sent many faxes over the years that don't even have one picture in them and were all text. Even if they say we can not send a pdf, or a doc or an xls, we can still send jpg and jp2 files as the WinDRM folks actively do ever day for real world testing. And we can coordinate this with SSB voice too. Something we can not do in the text data portions of the bands. Although I did ask the FCC about the single tone MILSTD/FEDSTD/STANAG modem use in the text data portions of the bands, they would have to make changes to the rules to allow such use. My preference is to keep the narrow modes in the text digital area, and rename this the narrow areas and then allow us to use the wide modes in the voice/image areas. But here is the rub. We can do that any time we want now ... right? All you have to do is make it an image and you have no limits on the baud rate, even 2400 baud ... right? And I have asked this question many times on these groups. No one even wants to try it? Why is that? Is it possible that you have tried it or others have tried it with poor results? The professional contacts I have in the business of emergency/military communication tell me that these modes don't work all that well, even on dedicated channels. Something we don't have in the amateur shared frequency bands. When I asked the ARRL, Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, he felt that the reason we don't use the single tone modems may be due to the need for increased computing power to make it work. Either way, why is no one working on this now? It does not add up. Why do we need wider modes? The reality is that HF is a terribly difficult place to get high speeds with weak signals. The wider modes tend to work less well than the narrow modes in most cases. Even Pactor 3 drops to way under 1,000 Hz and only 2 tones when conditions get really difficult. The wide 8FSK125 ALE mode at around 2000 Hz wide compares very poorly with the narrow 8FSK50 mode at only 400 Hz when it comes to sensitivity. It is very difficult to find 2000 Hz of clear frequency to even
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Rick, At 08:26 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. Which in my opinion is a worst case issue for the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) than the technical challenges being presented. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can do is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without stepping on someone else. As I have stated before what is needed within the ARS is segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes. The approach taken should be to split in half the digital sub bands so that the bottom half is used for emissions below 500hz and the 2nd half for emissions greater than 500hz, regardless of automated operations or not. I agree that we have too little frequency allocation on most bands, period, not just when it comes to digital sub bands, personally I would like to see a 500Khz wide band for each segment below 10 meters, but that's a dream, we come close to that on 15m, a bit less so on 20m ( and about the same for 40m in North America ) and we hit the mark on 80/75m but elsewhere we are no where near being close. With or without 500Khz bands I see no reason why each band allocated to the ARS could not be split 50/50 between Digital and Voice, I actually see no reason why that should not be the case with the allocations already in place personally. I would also like to see the availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency. Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes. Well the problem with a large segment of AM/SSB stations is that they are over driven and splatter, those driving QRO level amplifiers make the situation even worst during their on-the-air pursuits. Its not like AFSK digital mode stations are immune from this either, I see a number of PSK-x stations and others over driven as well. Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, (OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind of segregation is needed. Again, I am all for segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes on a normal basis. There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete. Don't take your Amateur Radio Digital Voice experience to heart and tell Government and Military users that, they will laugh at you. We Radio Amateurs are slapping together various equipments for digital voice operations that are either firmware/hardware digital voice modems or Software/PC OS based modems with common Amateur Radio SSB transceivers, change that paradigm to the use of full up 3Khz radios and Vocoder modems designed for the task and the results are quite different. I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits. You have to be kidding? For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is not being held back at all by the rules. Rick I have NO agenda as you state, I am NOT promoting anything, do you really think that? All my software development which I am involved that has to do with digital waveforms and data link protocols are in support of the MARS program. I am directly associated with G4GUO as my efforts with MARS-ALE is based on his efforts with PC-ALE and he asked that I update aspects of PC-ALE that have to do with Radio Control and interfacing, but I do not do any development of that tool with respect to the digital data operations.
