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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
