Dave, Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my Director. However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers to the issues.
A the bottom of all this is my suspicions that the FCC really does NOT back the idea of reg by BW. 73, John K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:26:15 -0000 >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >snip< Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. >>>I didn't lay this all on Imlay; I simply quoted Imlay's mea culpa to demonstrate that the error and ensuing confusion were the responsibility of paid professionals, rather than unpaid volunteers as you had claimed. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. >>>This is a non-sequitur. The fact that "uncontrolled 'bots" (by which I assume he means unattended servers like WinLink PMBOs) have been around for quite some time does not refute my assertion that the ARRL is trying to expand the frequencies available for their use. The ARRL's RM-11306 would allow semi-automatic operation anywhere subject only to bandwidth constraints. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. >>>Without seeing the ARRL's newest proposed changes to ยง97.221 (which governs semi-automatic operation) one can't agree or disagree. Taking the author at his word, there is still the problem of unintended consequences, which have plagued recent ARRL proposals. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. >>>As we have discussed here many times, Rick KN6KB developed an effective soundcard-based busy frequency detector 2 years ago as part of SCAMP. The implementation was a first iteration proof of concept, and technology has progressed during the ensuing years; thus, I'm sure that improvements are possible, but reinventing the wheel is unnecessary. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. >>>This is completely backwards thinking. Is it okay to keep using a transmitter with key clicks until we learn how to cure them? No. Is it okay to keep using an amplifier that splatters until we figure out how to tune it correctly? Of course not. Then neither is it okay to be running a PMBO without a busy detector until the WinLink organization gets around to correcting their shoddy implementation. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. >>>Based on the responses to RM-11306, I would say that the broad scale opposition is to the expansion of semi-automatic operation that came as a "side effect" of the ARRL's Regulation by Bandwidth proposal. Had the ARRL taken this feedback into account by retaining the current limits on semi-automatic operation, my guess is that a suitably-modified Regulation by Bandwidth proposal would have been supported by most of the amateur community for both HF and VHF operation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/