RE: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Thank you Rick. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:56 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Almost everything said by Bonnie, KQ6XA, is misrepresenting the facts. She is correct that we may only have a few days to respond and save the future of digital radio. That would best be done by reasonable and thoughtful hams by supporting this petition. Mark Miller, N5RFX's petition does not eliminate any of the modes that Bonnie claims it does. For example: MT-63 - most of the modes (especially the ones that work a bit better into the noise) are fine. It is only the widest 2000 Hz mode that would not be permitted in the text digital area Olivia, most of the modes that any of us use would continue to be allowed except for the widest which is rarely if ever used by hams who want to play fair with very limited spectrum. How many of you run 2000 Hz Olivia? Fast PSK? The fastest that I have seen is PSK250 for a single tone. This is roughly about 500 Hz bandwidth. The petition has no effect whatsoever on this and even much faster PSK modes if they were developed. Wide bandwidth ALE, which is 2000 Hz or more, would continue to be allowed as a signaling mode in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands. This is a much better match because the wide ALE does not work all that well with weaker signals (same with voice modes). But ALE 400 or any other ALE modes under the maximum bandwidth proposal would have no effect from this petition. Pactor, and Pactor 2 would have no effect on their operation at all. Even P3 would be allowed up to the maximum bandwidth and that includes most of the more robust speeds of P3. What would not be allowed is the use of robots spread across the digital sub bands as we now have. MFSK in most forms is a narrow mode. It is only the wide ALE mode that would slightly exceed the recommended maximum bandwidth under Mark's petition. Now, the final point is that most of these modes can be used in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands for the needed high speeds when you have large image files. This means that the experimentation of these modes is NOT being prevented and anyone who claims that it does is not being truthful. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: > A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate > all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, > MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. > > We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. > > Only you can save the future of digital radio, by > your comments to FCC. > It only takes a few minutes on the web. > > Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: > http://fjallfoss. <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi> fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi > > Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, > then write your comments in the lower part > "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)" > > Here are suggested examples of comments, below. > Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. > Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > === > Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. > > 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller > seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically > controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. > > 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur > Radio Service. > > 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century > digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio > Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data > to the 20th century. > > 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth > limit on data emission is too narrow for established > international standard transmissions and equipment > bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. > > 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, > technology advancement, and emergency data communications > in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. > > 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled > data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume > of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth > is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur > radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently > through rapid data time division methods. > > 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, > and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands > of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Almost everything said by Bonnie, KQ6XA, is misrepresenting the facts. She is correct that we may only have a few days to respond and save the future of digital radio. That would best be done by reasonable and thoughtful hams by supporting this petition. Mark Miller, N5RFX's petition does not eliminate any of the modes that Bonnie claims it does. For example: MT-63 - most of the modes (especially the ones that work a bit better into the noise) are fine. It is only the widest 2000 Hz mode that would not be permitted in the text digital area Olivia, most of the modes that any of us use would continue to be allowed except for the widest which is rarely if ever used by hams who want to play fair with very limited spectrum. How many of you run 2000 Hz Olivia? Fast PSK? The fastest that I have seen is PSK250 for a single tone. This is roughly about 500 Hz bandwidth. The petition has no effect whatsoever on this and even much faster PSK modes if they were developed. Wide bandwidth ALE, which is 2000 Hz or more, would continue to be allowed as a signaling mode in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands. This is a much better match because the wide ALE does not work all that well with weaker signals (same with voice modes). But ALE 400 or any other ALE modes under the maximum bandwidth proposal would have no effect from this petition. Pactor, and Pactor 2 would have no effect on their operation at all. Even P3 would be allowed up to the maximum bandwidth and that includes most of the more robust speeds of P3. What would not be allowed is the use of robots spread across the digital sub bands as we now have. MFSK in most forms is a narrow mode. It is only the wide ALE mode that would slightly exceed the recommended maximum bandwidth under Mark's petition. Now, the final point is that most of these modes can be used in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands for the needed high speeds when you have large image files. This means that the experimentation of these modes is NOT being prevented and anyone who claims that it does is not being truthful. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: > A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate > all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, > MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. > > We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. > > Only you can save the future of digital radio, by > your comments to FCC. > It only takes a few minutes on the web. > > Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi > > Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, > then write your comments in the lower part > "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)" > > Here are suggested examples of comments, below. > Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. > Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > === > Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. > > 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller > seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically > controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. > > 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur > Radio Service. > > 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century > digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio > Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data > to the 20th century. > > 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth > limit on data emission is too narrow for established > international standard transmissions and equipment > bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. > > 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, > technology advancement, and emergency data communications > in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. > > 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled > data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume > of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth > is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur > radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently > through rapid data time division methods. > > 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, > and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands > of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems > with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by > FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless > if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. > > 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency > communications networks currently in service and utilized > by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be > totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the > RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. > > 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international > communications standards. Many of the
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
- Original Message - From: "Stuart Baynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has > some > form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 > modems. > As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves > let > alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban these types of > digital > transmission system from the ham bands. At least all the other types of > digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and > improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or > creators. I agree - this is an abuse of Ham Radio except maybe where used to provide essential services to the yachting community in the oceans. I would only allow Pactor when we are allowed to write our own compatible software. I have raised this with my IARU rep - not my support for ditching Pactor I am afraid. Simon HB9DRV
[digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Dear All, Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has some form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 modems. As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves let alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban these types of digital transmission system from the ham bands. At least all the other types of digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or creators. As a radio ham from outside the USA I dont believe I can object through the FCC website so good luck with your objections. Cheers Stuart ZS6OUN
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 11:47:13 pm expeditionradio wrote: > Read the petition: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume >nt=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and > > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume >nt=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. > > Enter your comments: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi I just Googled for RM-11392 and found literally nothing. No discussions, no arguments for or against, nothing. I'm not a lawyer. Is there an unbuised laymans interpretation of this document?
[digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. Only you can save the future of digital radio, by your comments to FCC. It only takes a few minutes on the web. Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, then write your comments in the lower part "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)" Here are suggested examples of comments, below. Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service. 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data to the 20th century. 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data emission is too narrow for established international standard transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently through rapid data time division methods. 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency communications networks currently in service and utilized by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international communications standards. Many of the present digital data communications standards require bandwidths in excess of 1.5kHz. The normal amateur radio service bandwidth limit by governments of other countries is 6kHz or more. 10. Thousands of licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be disenfranchised if the objectives of RM-11392 were to be adopted. 11. The RM-11392 petition is comparitively similar to an Analog Cellular Phone service entity trying to eliminate newer Digital Cellular Phone service. The fact is, Amateur Radio is now using faster time-multiplexing digital methods to enable more stations to efficiently use the same frequency channels simultaneously or in rapid succession. These time division techniques require at least 3kHz of bandwidth. 12. RM-11392 petition has not presented a compelling need to change the rules for Automatically Controlled Data Stations on the HF bands. END Read the petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. Enter your comments: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi .
