Just wondering- with a couple years to comment to the FCC -before- it was adopted, why all the discussion now. I guess the boat was missed if there were any real concerns.
73,
Duane, WV2B"Therewardofathingwelldoneistohavedoneit."-RalphWaldoEmerson
Good question.
Relatively Simple answers:
(a) this 'omnibus' ruling combined a lot of petitions and NPRM's, and there are
are many parts that some aren't aware of
(b) the FCC did some things unexpected, such as expanding the 80/75 phone band
all the way down to 3600 kHz, where most expected
Ron,
All this discussion centres
around US use of the bands. As you push down your phone band, hams in countries
like Canada will move some of their phone operations down as well. Your example
on 80 with phone down to 3600 and digital below that may well be more like US
phone to 3600 and
Very true Gerry, and that's why I was surprised that the FCC went as far as
they did on 80. I think the Law of Unintended Consequences will cause us some
grief until it's all sorted out.
From: Gerry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/10/13 Fri AM 09:15:14 CDT
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re:
Title: Message
I guess we'll see how it plays out.
Gerry
- Original Message -
From:
Joe Subich, W4TV
To: 'Gerry' ; dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:27
AM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] After
effects
Gerry,
With the
large amount of
Title: Message
Gerry,
With the
large amount of space between 3600and 4000 - even though there
will be US
signals there - forthe Canadians to move below 3600 would
be very bad
form. The density of US phone activity should be much
less than
the present and considering the essentially
At 08:46 AM 10/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering- with a couple years to comment to the
FCC -before- it was adopted, why all the discussion now. I guess
the boat was missed if there were any real concerns.
Technically the proposed rules were open for public comment for a
Title: Message
Joe,
There is more than enough
"bad form" to go around now.
Might be a thought for
digital to move up in all this large amount of space you mention
(3600-4000).
Gerry VE6LB
- Original Message -
From:
Joe Subich, W4TV
To: 'Gerry' ; dx-chat@njdxa.org
I don't see the problem with moving the digitalsw down below 3600. Those
modes are narrow-banded and don't occupy the space a phone signal does.
Neither does CW. For the digital operators I would suggest they narrow up
their I.F.'s to prevent them from copying adjacent signals, after all PSK
Gerry,
Digital cannot move up. Under the rules and regulations, digital is
not permitted areas where Phone and image are authorized.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
--Original Message-
From: Gerry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:21 PM
To: Joe Subich, W4TV;
In reviewing comments made about the FCC changes, one thing that kept popping
up was that the FCC allocated more (sometimes much more) space for voice
operations than was initially asked for.
For example, the original ARRL proposal was for an extra 25 kHz of phone on 75.
The original FCC NPRM
Jim,
I didn't suggest that Canadians (or the rest of the world) need protection
from US QRM. We can certainly compete on an equal basis. The point is that
we do not have sub-bands and will naturally move to places in the band where
there is less QRM for us and where we not generate more QRM
Joe,
As I said to Jim, Canadians, no more than the US or any other ham
jurisdiction want or need special consideration or private frequencies. We
operate within the limits of our licence and regulations while generally
adhering to the internationally accepted band use norms.
What I was
Title: Message
Joe,
That may be true in the US but in Canada, we can
operate digital anywhere. Can't speak for the rest of the world but I'm sure
there are many other jurisdiction, like SM, that have not mode
restriction.
Gerry VE6LB
Gerry VE6LB wrote:
I've been active since 1956 and don't recall where Canada ever
prevented US sub band expansion. I don't believe we had the
ability to do that then or now.
Prevented, as used by Jim N4JA, may be just a slight
over-statement. I would substitute lobbied strongly and
I am trying to remember the call sign of the guy who wrote the article in the
April 2006 QST Correspondence column attacking the mewsed up vanity call sign
system. My thanks to him and to QST for pushing this problem out in the open.
It really was unfair and needed to be fixed.
John Owens -
My comment years ago, when the NPRM first came out, was that the bottom 25
kHz on 80, 40, 20 and 15M, will be in jeopardy. It won't be long when the
last remaining privilege of attaining an Extra Class license will be gone.
vy 73,
Nick W9UM
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is
ARRL requests members' input on recent FCC "omnibus" Report and Order (Oct 13, 2006) -- The ARRL is requesting members' input concerning the FCC's Amateur Radio proceeding, WT Docket 04-140, released on October 10. The Report and Order will not take effect until 30 days after publication in the
Since when are they concerned with members inputs? A Little late, after the
fact, isn't it?
John K5MO
At 08:53 PM 10/13/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ARRL requests members' input on recent FCC omnibus Report and Order (Oct
13, 2006) -- The ARRL is requesting members' input concerning the
Ron, as a former Federal employee (US Army, US Natl Park Service), I think I
can state you've put your finger on the FCC game plan. They don't like
surprises and are fairly certain we don't like surprises, so they're gonna ease
us into the notion that we're gonna have to learn to live without
20 matches
Mail list logo
