[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Hi John, No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI) Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different views on the same subject! I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but he earned his wage that day! He also gets impatient with some of the nit picking questions Hams ask, so I am forced to like him (HI). Vy 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 - --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa k8ocl@ wrote: John, I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not include the ARRL legal staff.. Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same as permissions :) 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bill N9DSJ wrote: I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Hi Bill, I think you may want to hold off on applying for and STA for the high speed 6PSK or 8PSK stuff... it may not be necessary... stay tuned for more info on this. As for available spectrum for experimentation with it... there is plenty available at night on 80 meters. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
OK. I'd be glad to helpif Bruce doesn't mind! (HI) I haven't done a search yet. Does anyone have a copy of the protocol? 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0400 Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Found this, but there not much activity yet... http://www.eham.net/forums/Digital/3369 Original Message Follows From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0400 Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bill, Well, I was not planning to go for an STA. I don't think it is needed IMHO, publication and an ARRL legal review will be sufficient. John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:09:50 - Hi John, No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI) Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different views on the same subject! I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but he earned his wage that day! He also gets impatient with some of the nit picking questions Hams ask, so I am forced to like him (HI). Vy 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 - --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa k8ocl@ wrote: John, I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not include the ARRL legal staff.. Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same as permissions :) 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bonnie, I wasn't going to go after an STA, just an ARRL legal review. John Hi John, That may be premature, because the RFSM is still under development, going through changes as we speak. The MIL STD 188-110 standard and FS-1052 that RFSM uses, is printed by the US Govt, for general release, it is a public document, and this qualifies the -110 Standard 8-phase PSK part of the RFSM2400 for street legal for USA hams in the Phone/Image sub-band if the content is Fax, Image, or Voice. For those USA hams who are interested in using RFSM for Texting, FTP, and email, in the RTTY/Data subbands, there may be some interesting developments coming soon on this. I've noticed that there are already many US hams experimenting with it, so it appears that there is a huge popular demand for it :) There is a non-standard part of the RFSM that is 6-phase PSK, and it appears to follow the 8-phase govt standard. This non-standard part may need to be documented and posted on a public website. If and when I am able to get it in an appropriate format, I will put it on the public part of the HFLINK.COM website. Anyone can download it from there, and of course, ARRL can put it on their technical information site also if they want to. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Roger! I will await your posting on HFLINK. Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:28:10 - Bonnie, I wasn't going to go after an STA, just an ARRL legal review. John Hi John, That may be premature, because the RFSM is still under development, going through changes as we speak. The MIL STD 188-110 standard and FS-1052 that RFSM uses, is printed by the US Govt, for general release, it is a public document, and this qualifies the -110 Standard 8-phase PSK part of the RFSM2400 for street legal for USA hams in the Phone/Image sub-band if the content is Fax, Image, or Voice. For those USA hams who are interested in using RFSM for Texting, FTP, and email, in the RTTY/Data subbands, there may be some interesting developments coming soon on this. I've noticed that there are already many US hams experimenting with it, so it appears that there is a huge popular demand for it :) There is a non-standard part of the RFSM that is 6-phase PSK, and it appears to follow the 8-phase govt standard. This non-standard part may need to be documented and posted on a public website. If and when I am able to get it in an appropriate format, I will put it on the public part of the HFLINK.COM website. Anyone can download it from there, and of course, ARRL can put it on their technical information site also if they want to. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same
as permissions :)
73 es be well,
Bill N9DSJ
{snipped for brevity}
As for RFSM2400, I am unaware of any specific prohibitions
by the FCC, but that isn't the same as permission, or so I
was told. I would like to try it out someday, so I would
first get it posted to the ARRL Standards page, then I
would discuss it with Chris Imlay, and if he was cool with
it, I would go ahead and use it.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to post! Can anybody
(Bonnie?) give me the protocol / standard and I will talk
to the appropriateARRL webmaster at the League and get
it posted. After that I will send the URL to the League's legal
guru and ask to schedule a discussion meeting with him.
{snipped)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI)
Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get
an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use
when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different
views on the same subject!
I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but he earned his
wage that day! He also gets impatient with some of the
nit picking questions Hams ask, so I am forced to like him (HI).
Vy 73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same
as permissions :)
73 es be well,
Bill N9DSJ
{snipped for brevity}
As for RFSM2400, I am unaware of any specific prohibitions
by the FCC, but that isn't the same as permission, or so I
was told. I would like to try it out someday, so I would
first get it posted to the ARRL Standards page, then I
would discuss it with Chris Imlay, and if he was cool with
it, I would go ahead and use it.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to post! Can anybody
(Bonnie?) give me the protocol / standard and I will talk
to the appropriateARRL webmaster at the League and get
it posted. After that I will send the URL to the League's legal
guru and ask to schedule a discussion meeting with him.
{snipped)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
- I can't see the FCC spending a lot of time looking for WMD's since the probability of success in the past has been pretty low.. ( I'm speaking of Wide Mode Digital, what were your thinking?) John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:49 AM
