John
1) I work in 2 way radio and have for 40+ years Here
at the S.O. ( JAIL ) we are still analog UHF.
2) I'm on the air almost every day on a number of
bands and modes and got my start on 2 meter AM
40+ years ago using converted WW2 aircraft radios.
3) I own digital radio equipment
NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same
time no one should want to crush other older modes ...
No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving
to new modes and that's what's happening now.
Sadly NO ONE beleves that somehow our fearless leaders
in
I must be one of the stupid folks that have a misconception about
what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish.
Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked
by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on?
What is the purpose of the blocked modes?
The
One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image
segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example
is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30
MHz wide.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
Could you enlighten us on just exactly what modes are being blocked
by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on?
What is the purpose of the blocked modes?
That's a big part of the problem with the previous proposal. It
created new blocks we don't have today.
The
John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz
bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz.
Personally, I have not experienced these but would like
to hear about them.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
--- Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they
can't block moving to new modes and that's what's
happening now.
Explane ? What modes are blocking who ? on 145.900 ?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired
The petition was primarily intended to restrict modes based upon
bandwidth. Looking at this from an HF perspective, I used to think this
was a good compromise to take, and even thought of myself as being
progressive for supporting this approach. After listening to those
who have experienced
Well, the ARRL seems to get you all wound up ! Seems to me a lot of
you folks are having a bad hair day, every day !
G0GQK
I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital
issues of these types (..) .
Well , let me quote John VE5MU : We've heard all this before . This
extreme ARRL/FCC focus
has insignificant interest outside US. What will happen if Norwegian
hams start spaming this group with
Yes, we all LOVE the ARRL in reality...it's the only show in town
to defend Amateur Radio here in the US. Therefore, it's sort of
similar to getting along with the in-laws (HI).
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Mel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
Well being bald, I don't have to worry about the bad hair, but yes the ARRL has
got some of us wound up.
Kurt/K8YZK
- Original Message -
From: Mel
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] The ARRL
Well, the ARRL seems to
The basic problem is that the current regulations restrict the content of
amateur transmissions. It shouldn't matter whether you are transmitting text,
voice or images. On HF, you can transmit voice or images in a 3 kHz or 6 kHz
bandwidth but to transfer a file during that QSO you have to
Can you give me a regulation that restricts very wide modems within
the phone/image segments. If you are talking about using data in the
phone/image segment, I'll agree but I don't see a paragraph that
limits bandwidth within the phone/image segment.
I will agree that wider bandwidths could be
ahem! the politically correct term is folically challenged .. not
bald.. hi hi
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
From: wa8vbx
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The ARRL
Well being bald, I don't have
OK Slick
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator
Whether anyone supports mixing of digital and analog modes is not
really a matter for debate anymore in USA. The fact is, under USA's
present rules, digital and analog already exist sharing all the same
ham bands and subbands!
The use of digital in all forms of ham radio communications will
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
47cfr97.307(f)(2) limits the bandwidth of all transmissions in the
phone/image segments to that of AM or SSB communications quality audio
which is usually interpreted as 3 kHz.
John
KD6OZH
Hi John,
Digital
John,
Didn't you read all those many rants on the HSMM pages last year?
They were all saying the same thing Bonnie is writing here,
i.e., the the ARRL bandwidth proposal takes away privileges
because under exisiting regs there is NO BANDWIDTH limit.
It's the secret hidden in the proposal that
VE5MU
John, I have never been one to be PC, but I will have to remember that.
Kurt
It seems to me that, that is exactly what we need.
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL
But content has nothing to do with bandwidth. The original
complaint was that bandwidth restrictions in current regulations are
keeping us from operating new, and supposedely better modes.
The ARRL could have addressed content restriction without addressing
bandwidth regulation!
Jim
WA0LYK
Although a minor part of my discussion, one must not forget that radio
signals, particularly on HF have no boundaries and affect others outside
of a political jurisdiction.
Whatever the FCC decides here in the U.S. has effects on the rest of the
world, sometimes profoundly so. Particularly
Mere opinions, no matter how informed or ignorant, are not going to
stop these changes.
So Bonnie using the logic of the above comment, then those that are opposed
being informed or not, should not make their wishes known, and just roll over
ignore what they think is wrong because it is going
Yes, that is the way the FCC seems to work to
They really don't seem to care much what digital stuff we send out...
AS LONG AS NOBODY COMPLAINS!
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: wa8vbx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
ยง 97.307 Emission standards.
(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more
bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and
emission type being transmitted, in accordance with
good amateur practice.
(f)(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth
of a communications quality
This is exactly what I've been trying to say, there is no bandwidth
limitations currently in the regs. Trying to argue that the ARRL's
bandwidth petition screwed up experimentation and stops people from
using newer, better modes just is not correct.
The only problem I have with your example is
Recently, there has been a flurry of concern over whether USA will
follow the rest of the world's lead using bandwidth based spectrum
management in the Amateur Radio Service. Presently, FCC's rules do
not seem to limit a digital signal's bandwidth on the HF bands.
The absence of HF digital
Bonnie,
Where did the technology jail go that you have touted so many times
when discussing current regulations?
Secondly, how do you deal with the need to declare your proposal as a
standard so that manufacturers will begin to produce equipment?
Something this complicated will require a
Hello group
I'm a new member today so here goes !
Currently trying out J63A mode decoder, but not having much sucess in
getting callsigns on the screen (Lol) seem to be getting 'RRR' and
'RO' status messages but have yet to get an actual QSO on screen.
I get the usual figures for width, dB, Rpt
The VHF and UHF bands have explicit bandwidth limits on data emissions and
image has a bandwidth limit on HF. Unfortunately, image transmission benefits
the most from increased bandwidth. This maybe a group concerned mainly with
RTTY and data but there are other modes that woud benefit from
My comment was in regards to a question about why the rules need to be changed.
They do because you can't mix voice, image and data on one frequency in the HF
bands. The defect in the ARRL proposal for regulation by bandwidth was the 3
kHz limit that they chose for HF. I argued for 25 kHz and
32 matches
Mail list logo
