RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I agree that there were positive aspects to the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal. However, expanding the range of frequencies available to unattended stations without including a requirement that they verify their frequency to be clear before transmitting was a showstopper, in my opinion. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:47 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments. However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic stations up in frequency and out of the areas where people were complaining of interference to narrowband RTTY/data QSOs. They also allowed RTTY/data QSOs to occur anywhere in the band which would seem to provide even more flexibility to avoid interference. I liked this feature of the proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 08:54 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments. However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic stations up in frequency and out of the areas where people were complaining of interference to narrowband RTTY/data QSOs. They also allowed RTTY/data QSOs to occur anywhere in the band which would seem to provide even more flexibility to avoid interference. I liked this feature of the proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 08:54 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:43 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there are very few restrictions on image transmission. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone So sorry John . of course you are right . we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 . I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it could you remind me again about where that rule was located? HiHi In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out is quite untrue . Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) Thanks again
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there are very few restrictions on image transmission. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone So sorry John . of course you are right . we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 . I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it could you remind me again about where that rule was located? HiHi In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out is quite untrue . Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) Thanks again
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
According to the terms of our licenses, each of us is supposed to have read and understood part 97 of the FCC rules and regulations. Here's a summary of the upper limits for RTTY/data emissions in 97.305 and 97.307 as I read it: 1.8-24.99 MHz: 300 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum bandwidth 28-29.7 MHz: 1200 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum bandwidth 50-144 MHz: 19,200 baud, 20 kHz bandwidth 219-220 MHz: 100 kHz bandwidth 222-450 MHz: 56,000 baud, 100 kHz bandwidth 1240+ MHz: no limits The facsimile in HF rtty/data segments exception was put in recently to allow the use of Hellschreiber. There are no data rate (bits per second) limitations on any frequency and no bandwidth limitations on HF except for fax. For phone/image emssions the rules are different. For 1.8-148 and 222-225 MHz non-phone emissions are limited to the bandwidth of communications-quality phone emissions of same modulation type. Given the maximum bandwdths used for each mode in the past, this presumably means less than 3.4 kHz for SSB, 10 kHz for AM/ISB and 30 kHz for FM. Note that image includes B7W, B8W and B9W (ISB) emissions that can contain any combination of rtty, data, phone and image. There are no baud rate limits. There are no limits at all for 420 MHz and above, except that emissions must stay within the band. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 21:50 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Maybe I am growing a little bit confused here . As I follow this thread, am I hearing that there is a flat limit of 300 baud in all aspects of amateur radio? First, can't we use 1200 baud in certain cases, such as above 2 meters? Second, how do we correlate the 300 baud limit when we use such tools as EZPal and other file transfer programs/protocols? Am I to understand that these are working at a maximum symbol change rate of 300 baud? guess I better do a whole lot more reading because this is getting quite complex now --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" wrote: > > The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second on > each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per > subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was a > better method than the current regulation by content rules but was opposed > by too many people. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > - Original Message - > From: Charles Brabham > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone > > > John: > > Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? > > The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are > not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. >
