Leigh, Current FCC rules permit semi-automatic operation by stations operating digital modes of 500 Hz or less bandwidth throughout any area that digital modes can be used. This theoretically means that they can operate across the non-voice areas. On 20 meters that would be 14.000 to 14.150. Bandplans temper what you can do legally with what is considered good amateur practice.
On the other hand, current rules allow for fully automatic operation in very narrow subbands, to wit: "(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments." In addition, the current rules further require that semi-automatic digital stations wider than 500 Hz, must also operate in the above subbands. That means the semi-automatic Pactor 3 stations are currently restricted to that narrow range of frequencies for now. Under the ARRL proposal all semi-automatic stations (of any BW), would be able to operate anyplace where their BW emission is legal. That means that even the wide BW semi-automatic Pactor 3 stations could operate throughout the 14.100 to 14.350 segment. As you can see from above, those kinds of robot stations currently have a very narrow window of frequencies. Add them to the mix above 14.100 under the new proposals and it would even further increase congestion in that part of the band. ARRL further proposes to move all fully automatic operation to 14.100 to 14.112. Bandplans will continue to recommend that specific modes be used in specific bands of frequencies, but the bandplans are much more easily changed than FCC rules. The current thinking is that digital modes will take over much of the ham bands. Personally, I am skeptical about this because there are certain things that are not easily overcome (laws of physics) that may never make it possible for real time weak signal digital voice to work as well as analog SSB. And even though we now have real time narrow digital modes that work better than CW, I expect CW to still continue to be used far into the future. One other point that needs to be stressed is that any radio amateur may operate in the automatic subbands at any time with any legal emission for that subband. They don't necessarily have to be using automatic or semi-automatic operation. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: >Rick, >Don't forget that there are frequencies in the 14.100 region that are >the only ones allowed under current regs for semi-automatic operation. >A new regulation strategy might change that but it is the law for now. >I didn't see that factored into your analysis. >73, >Leigh/WA5ZNU >On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 6:08 am, KV9U wrote: > > >>Dave and group members, >> >>If the proposed bandwidth proposals ever go through, the wider modes >>would be required to operate higher in the bands. For example, on 20 >>meters: >> >>14.000 - 14.065 would be the < 200 Hz modes such as CW and PSK31/63 >>and others that would be made to accomodate this BW >>14.065 - 14.100 would be the 500 Hz and under modes such as RTTY, >>MFSK16, Clover II, Pactor 1 and 2 >>14.100 - 14.350 would be the wide modes up to 3500 Hz such as Olivia, >>MT-63, PAX, Domino, and Pactor 3 >> >>Although the narrow modes could legally be used in the wide band areas, >>you could expect that they would tend to stay in areas that would give >>them the most protection. Wide modes, such as Pactor 3 could no longer >>be used below 14.100 in areas under FCC administration. Same for ALE or >>other wide modes. It also means that Olivia, MT-63 and similar wide >>band >>modes would only be allowed to operate above 14.100, and would compete >>for a much more limited space for wide modes than we have now. >> >>It would be even more difficult than is currently possible, for any >>radio amateurs who want to establish any kind of "channel" dedicated to >>some purpose since they will be more crowded with new digital modes >>that >>will likely be very wide band to maximize robustness and throughput in >>a >>limited 3500 Hz channel in the area above 14.100. And further, ARRL has >>indicated a willingness to come up with a bandplan that would tend to >>segregate analog voice from digital modes. My hope is that there would >>at least be some "interface" point where you could operate either of >>the >>modes, similar to what is currently allowed on SSTV. >> >>While the information at "bandplans.com" is very helpful to see where >>some suggested operating frequencies might be with competing interests, >>the information is NOT in any way a "bandplan." Since no one individual >>or group owns the frequency, and others may use a given frequency with >>an appropriately legal emission for their license class, some of the >>information is more wishful thinking on the part of those who would >>like >>to see channelization of the amateur bands. >> >>73, >> >>Rick, KV9U >> >> >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> 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/
