>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Vodall WA7NWP"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
no rules or bandwidth limits and let tec
> There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
> (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
> intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
> (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
> the old Winli
Walt,
Are there really ~500k 'active' operators, and more than 200k on HF? Or
is that just licenses that haven't expired? I personally know 2
licensed 'hams' in my area that don't even know what their call signs
are, let alone have any intention of ever owning or operating a radio,
and they t
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000
active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on
HF?
>>>Yes. Here's the ARRL's characterization back when th
You of course ask a question that only the readers can answer.
For my part it would be Ok to open up the entire band for any bandwidth mode
but
with enforcement of a non-QRM requirment. Since the U.S. FCC does not have
that
capability, any bandplan would have no real enforcement capability.
But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active
amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF?
If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might listen.
73,
Walt/K5YFW
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> Re: " Truthfully from what I hear from
Do you really feel that there is a consensus on this group to support
division by bandwith? Based upon many comments, there also appears to be
a significant number who are uncomfortable with that approach and who
favor keeping mode types separated.
And I would be surprised if the majority was i
Re: " Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL Board members is
that they get few messages from their division amateur radio operators
on most of the ideas that the League proposes", there are 1471 comments
on the ARRL's RM-11306 proposal, the vast majority in opposition. I
have personally
Bonnie,
I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several years.
I truly believe that to just say we need more bandwidth without showing why we
have not case or change to change the League's position.
Show then in as simple terms as possible why more bandwidth is needed or why
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in
the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members
seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from
s
The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in the same
band segments with image and voice transission. Their members seem to have
convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from supporters of
regulation by bandwidth.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message
The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for the
WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their
implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand on
QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate first
step than calling in the FCC as
> Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already
> in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is not
> malicious, but it is clearly willful.
We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
> An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will no
The FCC has been saying until recently that the narrow modes belong in
the text data area, but then they recently made a big change in
reinterpreting what narrow band means in order to include Pactor 3 type
modes which are similar to the passband of a standard SSB signal.
The change to include
John,
I would be perfectly content to leave things in the status quo. If
the ARRL really wants wider digital signals on HF, then I would
prefer they not penalize those of us who operate narrower modes such
as many in the digitalradio group. I would prefer they move up higher
in each HF band. A
What you're proposing is regulation by bandwidth. Once you're in a QSO with
another station it shouldn't matter what you send. The only issue is where the
different band segments for the different bandwidths are located.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: n6vl
To: digit
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave,
Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my
Director. However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers
to the issues.
>>>Please explain why enforcing §97.
It's clear they are starting to listen...
I expect the wall to come down any day now!
Original Message Follows
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Tear Down This Wall
Date: Sun, 25 Mar
If you seek prosperity for ham radio...
Come here to this 300 baud gate!
Mr. FCC, open this gate!
Mr. FCC, tear down this wall!"
---Bonnie KQ6XA
.
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
(perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
the old Winlink softwar
I do not opperate AM so would not know what a "
DIGITAL AN " signal sounded like ..
You have the wrong person since the last AM radio was
a CLEGG 6 in the 1970's
--- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Gee, I am starting to sound like Bonnie now!
> But I think I have he
As long as cw, rtty, and data are allowed on all freqs, it would still be
illegal for them to transmit on top of a known QSO no matter what portion of
the band they are in, including the area where they are only allowed to
transmit. (NOT only they). Thus the need for detection everywhere they
tra
Leigh,
Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any
detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the
technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at
least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago
when Rick, KN6
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC
recommendations?
My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted
to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly
opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Cha
Dave,
Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my Director.
However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers to the issues.
A the bottom of all this is my suspicions that the FCC really does NOT
back the idea of reg by BW.
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follo
There are great possibilities for experimentation in ham radio. Look at all
of the advancements that hams have developed over the years. Even
television was developed by several ham operators. The first non-government
satellite was built by amateur radio operators, etc. Today, it appears that
t
I am new to HF Digital. What I like about Ham is experimentation. I
may be confused but it appears to me that this opens up possibilities.
I fail to see the logic on how this can be a bad thing. I think that
not expanding the technology would be the true death of Ham.
If I am confused about the i
27 matches
Mail list logo
