Recently the ARRL filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC.
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/
The Petition seeks to change from our present Mode-Based and
Content-Restrictive rules, to new Bandwidth-Based and
Content-Neutral rules.
This is especially pertinent to USA hams
Seems logical to me. I think I saw comments here a few weeks ago that
suggested the plan was not a good idea. Why would this not be good ? I
think I also read that the FCC did not want to act on the plan, is the idea
still alive ? One thing that comes to mind is how if would be if American
Title: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA
Can anyone point me to a location for more information
about the PAX mode? Protocol details? A description of how it works,
etc?
Thanks!
73 . . . Steve, WB8IMY
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Hello Steve,
Thre was some information released about PAX on the yahoo multipsk
group, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multipsk/
Then search for message 777.
Then there is some information in MULTIPSK release 3.11 Help file.
Monitored one QSO last week on 30 meters and they were testing PAX,
I think what you will find is that right now, most foreign hams are NOT
confined to modes within a particular sub-band. At least when I was
overseas the locals were anywhere they wanted to be with whatever modes were
available. Maddening when I was trying to work the states within stateside
Here in the Syracuse area people started lining up last
night outside of Best Buy to buy items. They handed out coupons for the items
of big interest. By the time the doors opened at 5am this morning all of the
computers were accounted for
73s Rick
From:
Here in the Syracuse area people started lining up last
night outside of Best Buy to buy items. They handed out coupons for the items
of big interest. By the time the doors opened at 5am this morning all of the
computers were accounted for
73s Rick
From:
Story on AP News about a man who tried to cut in line at a Wal Mart in
Florida for Laptops that were on sale. He was wrestled to the ground
by security guards.
Full story at:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051125/D8E3I2700.html
Jerry - K0HZI
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew J
was wrestled to the groundby security guards.Full story at:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051125/D8E3I2700.htmlJerry-K0HZI--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew J. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...wrote:Just in case you need a new PC for the shack and the digital modes, Isee that BestBuy
Some comments on the bandwidth proposal:
===
1. Any proposal that is not based on usage of various modes is doomed to
failure. The ARRL provided zero backup of what the various usage levels are
for the various modes. Instead, they are relying on the
The ARRL proposal is defective because it eliminates the current
restrictions on semi-automatic operation without ensuring that such
stations will not transmit on already-busy frequencies. There are
demonstrable technical solutions to this problem -- busy detectors,
universal QRL signals --
Dave AA6YQ wrote
Semiautomatic operation with protocols that do not preclude
QRMing of ongoing QSOs must be restricted to band segments
whose sizes decrease with time.
Technology Jail is a fine name for these band
segments, Bonnie;
Hi Dave,
The majority of QRM amateurs experience on
1. The fact that some human operators are impolite is not
justification for allowing an increase of impolite operation by semi-
automatic stations. On the contrary, increasing the spectrum
available to semi-automatic stations without busy detectors and
universal-QRL detectors will increase the
they are jails for those unwilling to apply modern
technology in order to ensure the polite operation expected of all
amateurs.
Just what is the meaning of this comment?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Fair play? Video games influencing politics.
All for this
I just don't like to see that anti wide stuff that has been going
around.
I just love a good RTTY or Amtor ARQ QSO.
At 03:46 PM 11/25/05, you wrote:
It means that if you want to use a semi-automatic protocol that does
not verify that the frequency is in use before
Dave AA6YQ wrote
Allowing everyone to use modes with bandwidths greater
than 3 kHz wherever they want seems like a bad idea.
The ARRL proposal would not permit this, but its been
argued that there's a legal way to do so
under the current regulations.
Hi Dave,
Actually, although other
The last paragraph of my most recent post said
I would not oppose the allocation of band segments in which
operation using bandwidths greater than 3 khz would be permitted.
I am willing to provide some spectrum for wide-band AM for the same
reason I am willing to provide some spectrum for
Bonnie, I note that you moved on to the how wide is too wide?
discussion, completely ignoring
Your position is entirely inconsistent, Bonnie: you argue in the
name of unrestricted technical innovation, and yet you advocate the
unrestricted use of semi-automatic protocols long overdue for
As a non USHam, I would like to comment on
the discussion so far.
1) Canada has done away with a formal band and
mode plan a few years ago, and, so far it has worked on a voluntary basis. I
can also see the possibility that the Brits raise, having a few hams abuse the
Let's not forget ISB. While this proposal eliminates specific mention of ISB,
it will still be allowed under the regulations. There is some research being
done on using ISB to facilitate high-intelligibility speech with low audio on
one sideband and high audio on the other. This maintains
Hi John and the group,
1) Canada has done away with a formal band and
mode plan a few years ago, and, so far it has worked on a voluntary basis.
Yah'but ... in marked contrast to their
southern cousins, Canadians are rational and civilized beings.
How could one expect a voluntary
So we should say to the PSK and RTTY operators QRM'd by semi-
automatic Pactor and Pactor-3 stations given broad frequency rights
under the ARRL's proposal, just switch to Olivia and you'll be
fine?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL
I would disagree with one pont. It is only
one point of view that the band plan up there is working. I cant count the
times that I or someone else was on CW working another station in the states, or
even DX, whenone, or both of us wereQRMd by someone up there,
working SSB. The whole
Universal QRL provides a means of resolving changing propagation
conflicts among QSOs whose participants include one or more
automatic or semi-automatic station. It must be possible to send a
universal QRL from a basic transceiver, and reliably decode it using
standard DSP techniques.
Havingworked from countries with and without
Bandwidth Restrictions.. I speak from the benefit ofoperating inside out
outside of technologying jail...
Simply put.. our US bandwidth by mode restrictions
no longer make sense in the 21st Century...
and have gone a long way to keeping US
25 matches
Mail list logo
