Ever heard of Mic-E protocol?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien <k3uka...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Andy obrien <k3uka...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:26 AM
A "roger beep" that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a
Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft. com> wrote:
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability
in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver
– e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL”
signal.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Warren Moxley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Skip,
"since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference."
This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35
years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a
solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team.
It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using
an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard.
Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using
it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be
put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for
the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already
in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on
this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's
use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY
making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may
not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do
but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point
here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's
not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode
and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM
Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common
mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering
digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission
on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the
user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The
problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were
written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was
required to know CW.
I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with
solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between phone
and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual
interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition to the
FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been
arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with
less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why
legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and
data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using
less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is
still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a
digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there
will probably have to be a
future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and
benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by
bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a "common language" for
frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was
looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June
1976) says
"Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission said, "with
additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein
proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the
Rules. "We propose, instead," the Commission continued, "to replace the present
provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur
signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised
limitations any emission would be permitted."
It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is
needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to
re-introduce Docket 20777
Trevor
