Well, I certainly don't have any say in what happens here, but
personally I don't find any of your arguments compelling in the least.
You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody anywhere in
the world is getting in trouble for not IDing with CW which means the
regulatories don't care, and your "solution" would cause significant
interference that simply creates opportunity for conflict on the data
mode bands. It's not useful functionality if it causes more problems
than it fixes.
I think you are showing a total lack of objectivity here. In any case,
I'm done talking about it.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 10/22/2019 2:22 AM, David A. Behar wrote:
See inline responses below. David / K7DB
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:57 PM David Gilbert
<xda...@cis-broadband.com <mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
Well, now I'm coming to believe you're just making a mountain out
of an anthill.
1. First of all, according to a post I saw from K1JT ..... "since
June 15, 1983 FCC does NOT require US amateurs to use a CWID with
data modes." I haven't found the FCC statement that confirms
that, but at least for now I'll take his word for it.The FCC only
regulates radio emissions in many (not all) U.S. possessions. An
FCC position such as that you stated is irrelevant for stations
located outside of the areas regulated by the FCC.
Out of the millions upon millions of digital QSOs involving hams
from the U.S. and other countries I've never heard of anyone
getting in trouble for not IDing with CW. Have you?Nope.
2. Secondly, we don't want people sending CW IDs in FT8 at all
because it just trashes subsequent transmissions on that same
frequency. Those CW tones you want to send are worse QRM than
other FT8 signals.It would be useful functionality to accommodate
people who want to comply with the regulations to which they are
subject.
3. If it's WSPR you're worried about, why is anyone bothering to
use special callsigns for non-contact purposes?? It's purely a
propagation indicator where nobody gives a rats butt about special
callsigns, and I'd bet that almost anyone with a really weird
special callsign also has a legal, more conventional callsign they
could use for WSPR. Please describe a realistic situation where
that wouldn't be the case if you disagree.
It would be useful functionality to accommodate people who want to
comply with the regulations to which they are subject. It would be
useful functionality to accommodate all callsigns that might be issued
by regulatory bodies. WSJT-X already includes functionality for CW
identification. It lacks the functionality to permit a CW station ID
which differs from the digitally encoded station ID, but it is a
simple change to the software to accommodate that option.
One example of a standard callsign which can't be accommodated in
WSJT-X are amateur stations 3DA0TM, 3DA0AQ, 3DA0VV, and others. These
are standard Swaziland amateur callsigns. It would be a major change
to modify WSJT-X's 28-bit encoding scheme to accommodate these
callsigns... but I believe these stations could operate legally with
an arbitrary callsign (maybe starting with "Q") used for digital
callsign encoding, but with the issued callsign transmitted in CW
International Morse Code.
Another example is that -- as far as I know -- for a period of time I
was the only U.S. station authorized to operate from the U.S. on the
standard 60-meter WSPR band of 5.2886 to 5.2288 MHz. The callsign I
was issued (by authority of the U.S. Department of Defense) had three
letters, a digit, and two letters. It would have been preferable to me
to have been able to use WSPR-X to generate a CW ID to identify my
station, but that option was not available.
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
