"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 Norwegian rules? Why not use: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FCC-US/ or this one: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigiMode_HF_Band_Plans/ ?
73 de LA5VNA Steinar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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 increased "freedom" in other parts of the world, > often on this group, I am much less supportive. > > I know there is a group of you who do not like discussions of digital > issues of these types, and sharing this information with new people > coming on the group, but there are few other ways to find this out > through the democratic process which requires each one of us to "sift > and winnow" until we determine what makes sense to us. And our views may > change over time, if we are willing to listen to others and make an > informed decision. I like to think that the members of groups such as > this are much better informed than the average ham. > > The claim that hams want a mostly unregulated environment is not > factual. Most of us want an orderly system of some kind that allows for > experimentation but does not penalize the majority of users. If we went > to a BW restricted approach what would change? > > It would prevent wide digital modes from interfering with narrow modes > at the lower parts of the bands, although they don't tend to do that > now, particularly in the Extra Class portions. The voice modes are not > going to fit in a 500 Hz BW, which is the next step up in size, so that > would really not change much from what we have now with an admixture of > text digital modes at the upper parts of the text data sub bands. > > The one hope that I had was that we would have wide areas in the > phone/fax/image sub bands that would allow text data to be mixed with > voice and image data. From my perspective, this is the ONLY thing that I > see of real value in the BW proposal. > > The irony is that the ARRL has said that they intend to develop band > plans that would prevent that from happening! That is when I really had > to reconsider this whole approach. What possible benefit would it have > on the HF bands? > > The main group that is upset in the extreme is the Winlink 2000 folks > who believe it is nearly the end of the world without moving in the > direction they expected. They believe that the situation is intolerable > that they are being squeezed into the small subbands for their wide > Pactor 3 mode and can not expand further. As their administrator put it > recently "Over 95 percent of the Winlink 2000 operation is within the > Auto sub-bands." > > Also, the view is that "Winlink 2000 has NO MORE ROOM on the Amateur > bands for its current daily operations much less EmComm or any other > expansion." > > They say this even though they could operate ANYPLACE they want to in > the text digital sub bands as long as they operate 500 Hz or less in > width. And this is a much more efficient use of spectrum in most cases > when you consider our shared frequencies. As it is we lost text digital > spectrum on 80 and 40. Even under the withdrawn ARRL proposal, there > would not have been ANY wide modes (3 kHz) below 3650. Now we don't even > have anything for digital above 3600! > > What I think Winlink 2000 really wanted badly was the FCC to adopt the > change of 97.221 to read: > > (c) On 160 through 12 meters, a station transmitting a RTTY or data > emission may operate under automatic control except it is not permitted > to initiate a communication. > > This is what is known as "semi-automatic" operation. They initially even > tried to stop all "fully automatic" operation to eliminate any possible > competition by AX.25 packet or other automatic forwarding systems, . > (Note: This was based upon the ARRL Committee that came up with > recommendations to the board. This committee was a stacked deck with pro > Winlink 2000 members AND it even had two owners of the Winlink 2000 > system on the committee! A dark day for democratic decision making > indeed). Thankfully, the Board of Directors saw through some of this and > rescinded their decision to eliminate fully automatic stations). > > Who else really lost anything on HF with the withdrawal of the ARRL > proposal? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > jgorman01 wrote: > > 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 ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under > > current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know > > that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, > > pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better > > modem that works at something over 300 baud? > > > > Jim > > WA0LYK > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >>> 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. > >> > >> > >> Bill, WA7NWP > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > <http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
