Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Yes, Chris, But that is only in the text data sub bands. The voice/image/fax areas would allow it as long as it is a published protocol. Do you think that it is unreasonable to have some kind of published protocol? If it had the published protocol, would you be opposed to using it on the HF bands in the high speed/wide bandwidth digital image areas? What is your thinking on what would happen if regulation by bandwidth was enacted? Wouldn't it be likely that the narrow BW modes would be in the text data portions of the bands and the high speed (voice bandwidth or close to voice bandwidth) would be in the voice/image portions? An alternative would be to have wide BW modes at the upper ends of what is now the text data areas, but there is not all that much room available on some of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Chris Jewell wrote: kv9u writes: What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 97.307(f)(3) ... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ... That applies to all the cw,data subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. We need regulation by bandwidth only, but that proposal seems to be stalled. :-(
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
I had always heard ( and believed) that our law here was patterned after English Commo Law - until I lived in England for 6 plus years. No Way Jose. Things were done totally different between the two, and then you throw in the English Colony of Hong Kong, and it was even more confusing. I got several calls from a fellow ham who was a high ranking police officer in HK, asking me to translate American English for him. He delt with foreign police agencies, concerning law breakers who affected both countries, etc. One letter in particular give me the willie yet. The Los Angles police had sent him a letter, and he deduced exactly the opposite reply to one of his letter, than I did. I dont remember the wording but how it all came out was he though the LA Police were telling him they were NOT going to return a crook to HK, when what they said was that they WERE. The greatest difference in England and the United States is our common language. By the way, my license here in the states is a small piece of paper, with my call, name, license class on it. My license in England was about 6 double sided pages of informatiion as to what I could, or could NOT do. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:40 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules The cross-cultural part of this discussion reminded me of a broadcast by the late Alistair Cooke. He had just read a book by a U.S. lawyer, who asserted that the thicket of regulations in the U.S. covering every aspect of the law had begun with the Johnson administration and the War on Poverty. Cooke countered with an example of gasoline rationing in World War II. In England there were allotments of gasoline made to various local councils, which were empowered to distribute it at their discretion. In the U.S. there were very detailed regulations at the federal level governing how gasoline would be allotted to individuals. This happened to cause a particular hardwhip with an English military officer who was stationed in the U.S. for liaison with the U.S. military. His position had not been thought of when the gasoline regulations were drawn up, so he had no allocation of gasoline and had difficulty performing his important assignment. It took quite a bit of work to get his situation taken care of. This led me to thinking about philosophical differences in U.S. and English legal systems. In England the gasoline is theoretically the king's to distribute; and he appoints agents to do the detailed work. Theoretically the king is righteous and appoints righteous agents and the gasoline is distributed fairly. If you feel unfairly treated your recourse is to complain to the king, who may replace the corrupt agent or may sustain the agent, in which case you are out of luck. In the U.S. the founding assumption is that kings and their agents will be corrupt sooner or later, so the constitution has many checks and balances to prevent any government agent from having too much power. This philosophy pervades the whole system, so that individuals are not given much discretion in applying the law; there are vast bodies of regulations spelling out precisely how the law is to be applied in every imaginable situation. The notion that a local committee could allocate a supply of gasoline to its constituents fairly is regarded as wishful thinking and absurd. Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK from a NON-DIGITAL Ham's view point. EXPLORING / pushing the boundary's of radio are as old as ham radio it's self. Now how do we do this if the rules don't allow it? Good question Do we break the law then after we prove it will work apply for a rule change or go on until we get caught ... that's up to the ham himself. LETS NOT BECOME FREEBANDERS EITHER .. I don't have any problems with what John and others are doing if it doesn't cause problems for others and support any new modes they or others develop that I MY SELF may one day become interested in PROVIDED all of this is done with out displacing/interfering with existing users. The use of LEGACY MODES does not help your cause only provokes others to want to oppose you EVEN IF YOUR RIGHT . At this point the only open band is 222 MHz which may provide just the room they need to prove out new/improved modes for later legalization on other bands. I have been on that band for many years and it is NOT growing . Here is a place that NEEDS use and is NOT getting any. Bruce WA4GCH ON 6 SINCE 66 expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications. Bonnie KQ6XA Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396546091
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK, Brad, What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are improper? It seems to me that we have found different countries have different rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000 operation, while our country has had Aplink, Winlink, Netlink, and eventually Winlink 2000 for several decades. The only rule that I would like to see changed is to allow operation by bandwidth instead of mode. What I really want, is a subset of this, in order to be able to operate wide BW (voice width) transmissions using SSB, digital voice, and digital data of any kind, whether image or text in the wide bandwidth (voice/image) portions of the bands. The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that segment during a contest, transmitting blind since they are all running splits and listening high on 40M. (I know I'll hear from Danny on this) Sure there will always be lids who have to run power and whatever since it is their right to do so,and no guvmint gonna tell me what to do We have all seen them on PSK31, running enough power to run a small village and basically wiping the band out for everyone. fortunately they are the minority. So why not go for less rules? Maybe the FCC would welcome this since they would not have to enforce the present rule structure, thus saving a little money. The hams in the US would then be allowed to experiment with new technologies such as RFSM2400 without fear of penalties, and this in turn would lead to better modes. It seems to come down to a matter of trust and respect within the ham community to be able to work with few regulations. John VE5MU Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ -- 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
There is really nothing that baffling when you consider that NZ and Oz are so remote that even the lower HF bands are not often going to bother the larger population areas that much. But it works both ways. The Canadians, who are immediately adjacent to the U.S., have in the past had phone sub bands well below the U.S. amateurs and if you recall what happened some years ago, the Canadian hams were none too pleased with the increased downward phone expansion for U.S. hams and moved their phone operations even lower to continue to have an exclusive area. Of course now we are so far down on 80 meters and to a certain extent on 40 meters that there is not much more room to expand into. The more hams you have under a given set of rules, the more impact you will have if those rules are liberalized. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily bad or even good. But it will change the dynamics between countries. If you have a maximum 6 kHz BW, can you still operate AM phone? Aren't the U.S. rules even more liberal with something more like 9 kHz? I personally do not find it good amateur practice for hams to use SSB below 7100 if they have the next few hundred kHz above that available to them for SSB, unless they are working DX stations who can not go up. Split operation means that you are using twice the BW which is not very spectrum conserving. The current lowering of SSB here in the U.S. to 7125 seems a good fit for current useage, but of course I admit that could change depending upon operating trends. What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that segment during a contest, transmitting blind since they are all running splits and listening high on 40M. (I know I'll hear from Danny on this) Sure there will always be lids who have to run power and whatever since it is their right to do so,and no guvmint gonna tell me what to do We have all seen them on PSK31, running enough power to run a small village and basically wiping the band out for everyone. fortunately they are the minority. So why not go for less rules? Maybe the FCC would welcome this since they would not have to enforce the present rule structure, thus saving a little money. The hams in the US would then be allowed to experiment with new technologies such as RFSM2400 without fear of penalties, and this in turn would lead to better modes. It seems to come down to a matter of trust and respect within the ham community to be able to work with few regulations. John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
kv9u writes: What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 97.307(f)(3) ... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ... That applies to all the cw,data subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. We need regulation by bandwidth only, but that proposal seems to be stalled. :-( -- Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ex-ae6vw) Gualala CA USA 95445
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK, Brad, What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are improper? RFSM2400? You know the new mode that triggered this whole hand wringing debate about whether USA hams could or could not use it? 300bd? Ha! Images/Text/Images of text/fax? Ha! It seems to me that we have found different countries have different rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000 operation, while our country has had Aplink, Winlink, Netlink, and eventually Winlink 2000 for several decades. Yes, and we now have a complete new set of bandwidth regulations that will guarantee that this situation will not occur again. The only rule that I would like to see changed is to allow operation by bandwidth instead of mode. What I really want, is a subset of this, in order to be able to operate wide BW (voice width) transmissions using SSB, digital voice, and digital data of any kind, whether image or text in the wide bandwidth (voice/image) portions of the bands. We have precisely that sort of regulation now. For HF it reads Any emission mode with a necessary bandwidth of less than 8khz. End of reg. http://www.wia.org.au/licenses/radam_1of97.pdf Schedule 2 is the relevant section. Compare our few paragraphs with yours. Let me know how you go. The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? Nope, I would not agree at all. We have fewer Regs because we have a Bandplan that is a living document to cater for the changes in technology, and our fewer hams comply with the spirit of it. http://www.wia.org.au/bandplans/Australian%20Amateur%20Band%20Plans%20070113 .pdf But from Danny's post, the reason he thinks you need MORE regs is because you can't trust your fellow American to comply and he wants to carry a big stick. Sad situation indeed. 73 de Brad VK2QQ 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Wilco! You're response has so much class and rationale. Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:23:32 - Generally speaking, gray areas are widely accepted in democratic societies and have a clear connection to the notion of tolerance, whereas in societies of totalitarianism, grey areas are typically not accepted on any level. The notion is, that there may be a gray area in a rule or regulation, as an area where no clear rule or precedent exists, or where the rule has not been applied in a long time... thus making it unclear if it is applicable at all. Many people accept gray areas of life as a natural part of the human experience, whereas others may react with suspicion and a feeling of defectness or uncompleteness of any thought-system (or paradigm) accepting gray areas. It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications. Bonnie KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like laws, ham radio regulatory rules are not black and white. They are subject to interpretation, tradition, politics, and convincing arguments. A gray area is the area of rules where an unclear or unsharp dividing line may apply to a specific instance, a trend, a group, or in this case... a communication signal. Often, a new convincing argument may move a previously gray area situation into a more clear definition. In USA's ham radio rules, there are many gray areas. Gray areas always are present in ham regulations and rules because: 1. Technology always moves faster than regulatory process. 2. Some rules are inherently self-contradictory. 3. Regulation rarely anticipates all things possible. 4. New inventions happen. 5. Users deploy technology that has not been previously in wide use. 6. Spirit of the law may tend to obscure or modify a rule. 7. New valid arguments may modify the way rules are interpreted. 8. Enforcement may be different than actual commonly accepted meaning. 9. Valid loopholes may be found or become boldly evident. 10. Technology may be designed to effectively circumvent rules. 11. Technology may have an inherent higher value under Spirit of the law to preclude enforcement over a long time, thus rendering the rule null in the practical sense. 12. Civil disobedience or long term use of a particular gray area method may effectively render it clearly within the rule through non-enforcement. 13. Pressure through widespread common use in surrounding jurisdictions may render the rule moot, ineffective, or non-enforced. 14. Humans wrote the rules, and humans are not infallible. 15. The value or strength of one rule may overtake or nullify another rule when applied to a situation. 16. Compelling arguments for one side may win over the other side. There are other explanations for gray areas, and ham radio digital communications has many examples. Bonnie KQ6XA
