The deadline is fast approaching to file your comments to FCC RM 11708 and
Docket 16-239 NPRM. The deadline is Tuesday October 11, 2016. 

 

Following is a somewhat shortened explanation of the situation and 2 key
points:

 

1.

The 300 baud limit is an effective, albeit antiquated, method to limit
bandwidth. It must only be removed if it is replaced with a 200 HZ bandwidth
limit in the lowest 50 kHz or so of each HF/MF band, and a 400 HZ or 500 HZ
bandwidth limit in the next 50 kHz or so of each band.  No WARC frequencies
should allow wider data, in keeping with IARU recommendations. There are
several generally accepted standards for a regulation of bandwidth emission,
as found in all 3 published IARU standards, and in the governmental rules of
dozens of countries who have regulations that mimic the IARU standards in
their region, including Japan. This regulated (not voluntary) narrowband
emission approach is necessary to mitigate interference and to ensure the
vast number of amateurs who use narrowband modes (e.g. CW, PSK31, RTTY, JT9,
JT65) may continue their use and experimentation that is vital to the hobby.
This addresses one key question asked by the FCC in the NPRM --whether or
not the 300 baud limit should be removed. It should only be removed if it is
replaced with a 200 Hz/ 500 Hz emission limit on each of the lower portions
of each HF/ MF band. New,  small "mid-band wide band data segments", having
about 30-50 kHz total allocated bandwidth, should be provided having an
emission bandwidth limit of 2.8 kHz (as suggested by ARRL). This approach is
precisely called for in all 3 IARU regions and is implemented in many
governmental regulations, including Japan.

 

2.            

As a licensed amateur operator, I believe a fundamental tenant of the
amateur radio hobby is that ham radio transmissions should  be open and
public so that other amateurs may intercept them easily, without requiring
proprietary technology  not open to hobbyists. Today's Winlink and Pactor 2
and 3 modems (and Pactor 4 which is requested by many commenters) have a
proprietary, non-published compression algorithm owned by SCS, a German
company. Other hams and even the FCC cannot intercept the traffic of these
transmissions in ARQ mode in real world fading channels. This is already a
problem that threatens national security and makes it impossible to police
today's small number of ACDS stations. The problem shall become drastically
worse with much greater data payloads if either the FCC or ARRL proposal is
implemented.  Before allowing wider band data or changing the rules on baud
rate, the FCC should first solve the issue of disallowing proprietary
compression today, before it allows faster data traffic such as Pactor 4
(which is 1800 baud). The FCC should clarify if it wishes for  ham radio
traffic to be open, using readily decipherable public communication methods.
By requiring a CW ID, a listen before talk protocol for ACDS stations, and
by learning about the many violations that currently occur from out of band
ACDS stations, lack of sys op monitoring, improper interpretation of control
operation (which is allowing remote users to "take over" as control operator
when illegally moving 2.2 kHz wide Pactor 3 transmissions out of the ACDS
bands), the FCC should first clarify the part 97 rules regarding Internet or
email usage, and how all traffic can be made public, before allowing any
expansion of data baud rate or bandwidth. 

 

The current violations with the small number of Winlink/Pactor stations
first must be cleaned up, and public/open compression and coding should be
insisted upon in a rewrite of FCC rules to ensure that all hams can buy or
build gear that allows full reception of all data transmissions. All
messages and any internet browsing must be publicly available in real time
and archived on public websites (should the FCC even deem internet browsing
and email are appropriate uses of the hobby - this should be considered
carefully by the Commission) . With clear rules and open transmissions
befitting of the amateur radio hobby, wider band data could be allowed to
flourish in new "mid band wideband data HF/MF segments" that start at about
100 kHz above the lowest edge of each non-WARC band, and end below the
phone/image band. A 2.8 kHz BW limit should be imposed on this new mid band
data segment, in following with the IARU standards and Japan.

 

Please go to aa4xx.com <http://aa4xx.com>  for FCC filing instructions that
include BOTH docket 16-239 (NPRM) and RM 11708. PLEASE FILE IMMEDIATELY IF
YOU ARE A CW, RTTY, PSK OR OTHER NARROW SIGNAL DIGITAL MODE OPERATOR!

 

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT YOUR ARRL OFFICIALS TO ADVISE THEM OF YOUR DISSENT! TIME
IS OF THE ESSENCE! 

 

If you want a more technical explanation, please contact Ted Rappaport at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .

 

Thanks,

 

 

Allen R. Brier N5XZ

1515 Windloch Lane

Richmond, Texas 77406-2553

(281) 342-1882 (Home)

(713) 705-4801 (Cell)

 

_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org

Reply via email to