Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Roger J. Buffington
Dave Bernstein wrote: 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 It appears that the ARRL proposal

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Kevin der Kinderen
Hello: There are so many interests here that I couldn't hope to understand all the different issues but I thought I might throw in a couple of comments to show my ignorance and maybe get put straight (kindly please). QRM is a fact of life. When it is the cause of

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
As far as I know, no operational semi-automatic or automatic HF message passing service uses a protocol that supports either busy detection or universal QRL. I'd love to be wrong about this... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
If semi-automatic and automatic stations employ protocols with effective busy detection and universal QRL, then I see no reason to confine them to sub-bands; their access to spectrum should be constrained only by their bandwidth, as would be the case for most stations in a bandwidth-based

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
In the US, there is currently no restriction on semi-automatic operation with bandwidths of 500 hz or less, but semi-automatic operation with bandwidths greater than 500 hz is restricted to designated sub-bands. The ARRL proposal, if adopted, would eliminate the current restriction on

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Roger J. Buffington
Dave Bernstein wrote: In the US, there is currently no restriction on semi-automatic operation with bandwidths of 500 hz or less, but semi-automatic operation with bandwidths greater than 500 hz is restricted to designated sub-bands. The ARRL proposal, if adopted, would eliminate the current

[digitalradio] Is there anybody in the whole wide world using PSK-PAL ?

2005-11-26 Thread Mel
Hello everyone, I have a log problem with PSK-PAL. Is there anyone in the world using this program ? If you are, and you would like to give me a little advice, please don't hold back ! I NEED you ! Contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]Please ! 73, Mel G0GQK

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
If I were confident that an ARRL-sponsored band plan would have teeth, I would agree that the flexibility it provides in comparison with governmental regulation would be the superior choice. Look at the current ARRL band plan: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html This

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
As long as they hold valid licenses, boaters should enjoy the same priveleges as any other amateur. Using HF radio to pass messages is entirely reasonable; RTTY and AMTOR ops have been doing this for a long time, and the recent explosion of sound card modulation schemes and protocols has

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Danny Douglas
"Again... you conveniently forget that the Amateur Bands are used World Wide.. the US Regulations only restrict US Amateurs.. while the rest of the world is free to innovate...and use the allocations... so keeping restrictions on US while the rest of the world does not have them makes

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Tim Gorman
Howard, Point 1: The ability to send image transmissions in the current RTTY/data sub-bands does not require changing to a bandwidth regulation paradigm. It could be done merely by the FCC changing the modes allowed to RTTY/data/image instead. QED You don't have to push Humpty-Dumpty clear

[digitalradio] Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Brad VK2QQ
Message: 3 Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:31:45 - From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA In the US, there is currently no restriction on semi-automatic operation with bandwidths of 500 hz or less, but semi-automatic operation with

[digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

2005-11-26 Thread Brad VK2QQ
Says Dave: In your previous post, you cited the development of Olivia and PSK by non-US amateurs as evidence that current US regulations are stifling innovation. I asked you to explain this; instead of a direct response, you invoked previous conversations and attempted to

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dr. Howard S. White
Thank you Brad for again so eloquently making my point... As you know we in the USA are very provincial in that we believe that entire planet revolves around us... People like Dave still think that if the FCC regulates something those rules that must also apply to the whole planet...

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

2005-11-26 Thread Dr. Howard S. White
Kevin: We in the USA live in possibly the most restrictive regulatory regime in the World People like Bonnie have aptly named it "Technology Jail" For Example: To develop a new Digital Communications Mechanism... one has to go through all sorts of regulatory hoops.. such as

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-26 Thread Dave Bernstein
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Brad VK2QQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, WHY do you need the FCC to apply the restrictions for you? Why do you not feel that USA hams can develop their own bandplan and apply their own restrictions on the digital modes? There is in