RM-11392 Released for Comment:
Timothy P. Gorman (AB0WR)
on
December 31, 2007
View comments about this article!
The FCC has released Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment period for RM-11392.
You may read the document at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574
RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the RTTY/Data subbands. Stations under automatic control have taken advantage of loopholes created by terminology in the commission’s rules that is not applicable to new operating modes.
Please read RM-11392. and make comments to the FCC. Here are the steps.
1. Read http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008575
2. Look at the other comments filed. To do this go to FCC EFCS Search for Filed Comments and enter RM-11392 in box 1 labeled proceeding.
3. Enter your own comments by going to the FCC Electronic Comment File Submission page.
This petition was submitted to the FCC by Mr. Mark Miller, N5RFX. It is a well written petition with significant technical support within the petition.
tim ab0wr
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by G3RZP on December 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He does not differentiate correctly between 'spurious emissions' and 'Out of Band emissions'. Spurious emissions are those separated from the centre of the transmission by more than 2.5 times the necessary bandwidth. Out of Band emissions are those lying in the frequency domain between the necessary bandwidth and 2.5 times the necessary bandwidth, and so include 3rd and 5th intermodulation products. (ITU-R Recommendations SM.328 and SM.329)
Additionally, only theoretically do 3rd order products drop 3dB for every 1dB drop in power. You can get third order products going down as power is increased - see Eimac's Care and Feeding of Power Grid Tubes.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on December 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, I just filed my opposition.
Thanks for pointing this out.
|
| |
|
RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by KT4WO on December 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you run PSK/MFSK etc on 30 meters...
I know you have been QRM'ed by what this is trying
to stop.
You need to support this!!
|
| |
|
RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 1, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This needs your support. The petition is not trying to squash these modes, ir is just trying to get them to play fairly with the other modes on and around the band segment. If this doesn't pass, the winlinkers and the pactor III crowd will just see it as a green light to expand their activities and further just do what they want, and the heck with adjacent frequencies and other digital modes.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on January 1, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading the filing I wonder if that isn't similar to the bandwidth proposal made by the ARRL? I favor something that protects the use of portions of each band from incursions that go wider than those in the segment that was normally used by RTTY, PSK and CW. By not limiting the outputs in the areas where the wider bandwidths cause interference but do not increase the intelligibility of the transmissions, the use of the bands becomes more congested but NOT more utiliized due to the loss of intelligibility due to loss of comprehension of the signals. I favor those restrictions when the users have alternatives for transmitting those signals. I am not sure I have put my idea forward correctly but I believe I understand the problem and feel that RM-11392 would solve the problem.
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by G3RZP on January 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's just a bit unfortunate the arguments are weakened by unnecessary technical inaccuracies.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only technical inaccuracies are minor, do not change the conclusions in any way, and have been corrected in a published Errata filed on the ECFS site.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by KO1D on January 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He is not suggesting the ARRL bandwidth solution all he is saying is stay within the bandwidth the FCC rules allocate and offers places for wideband versus narrowband HF digital ops so they do not crowd each other out.
Dan S
KO1D
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on January 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark Miller's "SEND AMERICAN HAMS BACK TO THE DIGITAL STONE AGE" Petition (FCC RM-11392) was a dismal failure.
Most hams would agree... that it is difficult to get hams to unite on much of anything these days :)
But, that is exactly what just happened over the past week! The ham community spoke with one voice to the FCC:
"NO WAY!"
"We don't want it!"
Over 600 hams commented to FCC, with overwhelming opposition, by a factor of 10 to 1.
This is really good news for hams... not just that the petition was such a dismal failure... but that hams have shown we can really unite when they try to sneak in and take away more of our license privileges.
Best wishes for a Happy New Year to all, no matter which side of the fence you hail from :)
73 Bonnie KQ6XA
.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Of the 600 comments, 540 may have been against. Of those 540, 500 were cookie-cutter comments that the FCC will staple together into one.
That makes the actual count 41 against and 60 for.
Guess what that means?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What does that mean? It means that Digital Stone Age Petition is a Dismal failure.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by OLDEPHARTE on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What does that mean?", Bonnie Crystal asks. What it means is that you are very adept at herding mindless sheep who are easily influenced into your fold. You instruct mindless people who don't know the facts and don't know any better to copy and paste your drivel onto ECFS and sign it with their own manes and callsigns. You play on their fears and inject your propaganda into their heads to further your cause. The fears that you use are:
1. RM-11392 will choke advancement of digital mode development.
2. RM-11392 will inhibit EMOCMM disaster traffic.
Both accusations are entirely false.
Your purpose is to turn amateur radio into what you want it to be- an all-digital wide bandwidth Internet chatroom and E-Mail gateway over the HF airwaves.
WINLINK2K benefits the ARRL's bottom line and allows the wealthy to send and receive E-Mail on their yachts without having to subscribe to a commercial service. They are too cheap to pay for this luxury, and instead want to ruin the amateur bands for those who want to use them for what the bands were intended for. The amateur bands were not intended to be an E-Mail link for the rich.
All this crap about EMCOMM is a lie and makes me sick. WINLINK2K is not about EMCOMM, it is about free E-Mail for the rich on the high seas.
When I found out about this petition, I needed to do extensive research to form my opinion of it. I always do this so that my opinion won't be biased by the lies of others. My first inkling was that if Bonnie Crystal is against a proposal, the proposal is a good one. If Bonnie Crystal is for a proposal, the proposal is a bad one. I keep doing my homework, and you keep proving me right, time after time.
Instead of trying to undermine amateur radio, why don't you put your talents in persuading masses of people to good use by championing a worthy cause, like combating global warming or making the USA independent of foreign-held energy sources (aka petrol)?
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by OLDEPHARTE on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bonnie, I saw your picture on QRZed. If I ever ran into you on the street, I wouldn't recognize you unless you were carrying a computer keyboard. LOL!
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bang on the button, Charles. "Free e-mail on the amateur bands--we don't want to pay a common carrier for it" is their hidden battle cry.
Even though the original intent of winlink becoming a part of ARES and emcomm was to have an e-mail gateway for emergency purposes in an area where all other means of access are down, Steve and Bonnie are hell bent on making it a constant, day in and day out nuisance on the HF bands. They then try to hide their real useage of winlink behind "practicing emergency communications to be sure we're ready".
The next thing they do is turn off the busy detect on the machine/program so the thing just starts up and transmits--right over anybody else who may be on the frequency. If there is someone there, they claim 'harmful interference'. They're right--it is. But on THEIR part. In the meantime the other users who are just trying to play fair are suffering for it.
Winlink is a sham. Pactor III is even more so. Innovation means trying to do more with less--but not for them. They want it ALL. To do more, they want the entire bandspace--and even more. "Give it to us because we're doing emergency communication drills." BULL! Give it to us because we're too cheap to pay for our e-mail is what the message should really be.
Well people, the petition in question is just trying to level the playing field and classify winlink and pactor III for what they are--unattended robot stations. The petition is trying to get them to use the minimal bandspace to get the messages through--as we all try to do.
The petition is saying "You're not the only occupant, so make room and play fairly." and "You can't have the whole sandbox" --but that's exactly what they want. Do you wonder why they're so upset?
Their 'spambot' site has been identified and posted to the FCC in more than one comment. The cookie cutter comments on it were sent to the FCC without alteration over a hundred times. Amateurs crying foul have made up their own comments--no two are alike.
Now, Who do you think the commission is really going to listen to?
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me clarify my last paragraph--
"Their 'spambot' site has been identified and posted to the FCC in more than one comment. The cookie cutter comments on it were sent to the FCC without alteration over a hundred times. Amateurs crying foul ABOUT THE COMMENTS AGAINST THIS PETITION have made up their own comments BOTH ENDORSING THE PETITION AND ATTACKING THE WAY THE OPPONENTS ARE STUFFING THE BALLOT BOX--no two are alike.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by KC7GNM on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie or should I say bonehead. Apparently you do not understand that almost 500 of those were all cookie cutter copied from your original pack of lies. The FCC will treat them as one. The fact that none of the winlink camp can come up with an original thought is not surprising. You guys can't even get your facts straight. This RM has merit and I believe it will go forward. If any of you could actually mount a defense against it that would be surprising because with the idiot responses that you guys flooded the ECFS with will make our case even stronger to make this RM go into effect soon. Thanks for secretly supporting this RM with your ridiculous lies Bonnie. You don't know how much you probably actually helped this RM pass.
Greg
KC7GNM
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember folks, all those boilerplates that talk about a petition by Mark A. Miller will probably get thrown out because the FCC won't have a petition by Mark A. Miller.
The poor fools that follow Bonnie and Steve cannot even be bothered to read the name of the author of the petition in order to get his name correct.
Would *YOU* be embarrassed to have the name of the author of the petition incorrect in *YOUR* comments?
I sure would. And I would be complaining about it loudly to Waterman and Crystal!
The blind leading the blind.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read some 200 of the recent comments today. There were so many cookie-cutter "Bonnie" comments, I just quit reading the comments. Some of the opposition came from those involved with ARES/RACES.
I think this is pure BS. WinLink 2000 is used primarily for e-mail on the high seas by well-healed people who have a ham license for that one purpose and could care less about ham radio.
As for the emcomm excuse, please, give me a break. Winlink 2000 is not necessary for emcomm. If you want to know the truth, ham radio itself isn't really used for emcomm much anymore. I live in South Florida. We were hit pretty hard by Wilma in '05. All I heard on the local repeaters (including the 91 machine that always handled emcomm traffic) the night and morning that Wilma came was hams talking to each other about damage to their houses, antennas down, who had electric power and who didn't. In other words, casual QSOs. Even those were few and far between. Where was the emcomm? Communication at the shelters must have been handled by law enforcement or others in an official local government capacity. South Florida was declared a disaster area after the storm. I was without power for a week. I had no cell service, but I never lost use of my landline telephone. As for emcomm on the repeaters, it was nonexistent. The repeaters were functioning. they weren't down.
I didn't detect any emocmm for Katrina, which came through here as a category 1 storm, or Frances and Jean in '04 either. I remember when the machine on 146.91 MHz in Ft. Lauderdale used to be abuzz with loads of emcomm traffic once the shelters opened for an impending hurricane. It doesn't happen anymore.
RM-1139 is all about eliminating harmful interference to hams in the lower part of the bands using narrow-band digital modes and CW. Why should anybody have to put up with harmful interference from yacht-jockeys using ham radio for e-mail? The SSB hams shouldn't have to put up with it either. RM-11392 suggests limiting Pactor III bandwidth to 1.5 KHz. IMO, that is even too wide for the narrow-band portions of the bands. Fact is, the only place where that wide crap should be allowed is 29 MHz and up.
You coke-tooting yacht jockeys should use some of your coke money for commercial wireless e-mail and stay out of our hair.
Development of new digital modes should heavily concentrate on narrow-band modes that use less bandwidth. If it could be possible to develop digital phone 1KHz wide, that would be great. We need to concentrate on more efficient use of the limited spectrum that we have.
I'm not against development of new digital modes. I'm against bandwidth hogs that take up all the spectrum for themselves. Wide digital modes should be restricted the same way AM is. I have nothing against AM, but it shouldn't take up all the spectrum either. The same goes for the super-wide high fidelity SSB users. High fidelity is their thing? Fine. Pursue it, but don't take up all the spectrum. Others want to use the bands also.
I am going to post my comment on ECFS in favor of implementing RM-11392. I assure you mine won't be copy'n'paste cookie-cutter, like Bonnie's drones.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Too bad we don't get behind regulation by bandwidth.
The problems would all go away.
Some of the most most vocal speaking AGAINST regulation by bandwidth are now enorsing regulation by bandwidth when it suits their particular needs. A few actually supported the Communications Think Tank's idiotic attempt to eliminate all bandwidth regulations.
Personally I think we need regulation by bandwidth. It's a reasonable logical way to handle problems. Until we all get behind regulation by bandwidth we will continue to see narrow modes pushed out or pushed around.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom,
Regulation by bandwidth may well be a good idea, but until someone comes out with a bandplan that can be well regarded by most all hams, it has little chance of happening. You saw what happened to the ARRL plan--it was submitted, then withdrawn, and that because of hams and the ARRL membership that rose up in protest, both to Newington and to the FCC. So, the ARRL is going to try to get it changed through the backdoor. They get the IARU to adopt the region 2 plan, then they get those other region 2 countries to complain we're not in step with them--so why don't we get in step.
Right now we have I believe about 650,000 hams in the country--more than in almost any other country. In small countries, there was no bandplan--because they didn't need one. In the US, the sheer number of bickering hams forced the adoption of a bandplan, for better or worse, and everyone here has learned to live with it. Change, as always, is going to be hard to get done.
Winlink users want more--so much that they leave their stations unattended and operated them in a way that skirts the law. Phone ops want more--never mind that sometimes their band segments are clear and open for the most part. Other digital mode users want more--they claim their band segments are overrun by interference. CW afficinadoes don't want anybody to even think of messing with their bandspace now--but would like to have more. And the weekend contests--well, there is another barrel of apples altogether. Those bandplans a lot of times get thrown out the window.
The one way to go is for the interested parties to submit the plan by bandwidth they would like to see implemented, and have someone--somewhere--take those plans and combine them into one package. After that, submit the thing to the FCC. You would think the ARRL, being the de facto representative of the US ham population, would be willing to do that--but they won't. They would rather force their own plan through.
Trouble is, there is less chance of having someone compile and develop a bandplan which would have the backing of a majority of the US hams and that is fair and equitable then of changing the present bandplan we have now. As I said, change is hard--maybe too hard.
73! --Chris, K1CJS
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on January 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI
Too bad we don't get behind regulation by bandwidth.
The problems would all go away.
Some of the most most vocal speaking AGAINST regulation by bandwidth are now enorsing regulation by bandwidth when it suits their particular needs. A few actually supported the Communications Think Tank's idiotic attempt to eliminate all bandwidth regulations.
Personally I think we need regulation by bandwidth. It's a reasonable logical way to handle problems. Until we all get behind regulation by bandwidth we will continue to see narrow modes pushed out or pushed around.
73 Tom
================================================
You haven't even read the petition have you?
It is not about regulation by bandwidth. It is about establishing a bandwidth LIMIT in the narrow segments that is in line with the "implied" limits that are already in place.
As to regulation by bandwidth. Do you have any data or studies that indicate how well wide bandwidth data modes, pactor 3 included, would compete with 1500+ watt amps, compressed audio to the max, rf clipping, and big antenna's. Especially when using 100 watt peanut rigs with peanut antennas on peanut boats. I'll bet you don't.
This is the same problem that the arrl's doomed petition suffered from. They had no data to indicate that the modes could intermix and remain viable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out all the wide, keyboard to keyboard, non ARQ modes would simply disappear altogether. Who know what would happen to pactor.
What you're recommending is an experiment that you hope would turn out ok. What do you do if within 12 months it turns out you are wrong and that wide bandwidth data just totally disappears altogether? What happens when the power wars start and all the bands sound like 75 meters with data and ssb splatter all over?
Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea after all.
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by KC7GNM on January 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
It is apparent that none of these folks opposing RM-11392 have read it. I just got an email from our RACES coordinator after I explained his comments were totally wrong. He then admitted that he had not actually read the petition and that he was going by what a few friends where saying about the RM. I can guess he was listening to Bonnie and Waterman because those two are spreading so many lies about this petition. I am willing to bet over 90% of the folks opposing it haven't read it and are only going by what Steve and Bonnie say is in it and we know not to believe the liar twins.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on January 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If 1200 bps ax.25 is good for email delivery on vhf/uhf ,as the winlink web site indicates, then it should be good for hf also. Just don't understand the logic of needing faster and wider on hf versus vhf/uhf.
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on January 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The other thing that bothers me are the number of commenters to this petition that indicate that their eoc's, hospitals, ngo's, etc. have installed permanent ham equipment as the sole backup for communications failures. It sounds like amateur radio is taking on a commercial flavor by doing so.
I would probably have few problems with it personally if amateur radio were considered a backup for a backup system. But to be the primary backup, especially with permanently installed infrastructure, places us in competition with commercial businesses whose very purpose is providing this kind of service.
I don't believe the amateur spectrum was ever meant to be used soley for this purpose. It was originally intended that we offer our own equipment, i.e. that being used for day to day amateur communications with other amateurs, and our spectrum for use during emergencies. It is big step from this to move to installing permanent infrastructure for primary communications backup for the sole benefit of government agencies, ngo's, and businesses. Especially when emcomm backup requirements becomes an excuse to govern how our spectrum is set up and who gets to use it for what purpose on a day to day basis.
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 Released for Comment:
|
|
|
by G6NJR on January 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1500+ watt amps, compressed audio to the max, rf clipping
The 3 biggest scums on Ham radio today .
If people want broadcast quality audio the go buy a broadcast license and go AM or FM in the broadcast bands but get outta ham land
G6NJR
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by W3WN on January 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Never mind what Bonnie, or Tim, or anyone else says.
Read the petition (and the noted errata). Make up your own mind. And then file your own comments.
Even if you agree with the so-called "cookie cutter" comments, if you want to have any effect, put it in your own words.
This is not a sheer numbers game. If you want to have reasonable influence, pro or con, you have to demonstrate that you are talking for YOU -- not parrotting what anyone else recommends you say.
Bonnie and a few others have issued some one-sided statements trying to frighten those unfamiliar with the issues at hand. And boiled down to brass tacks, the issue is really quite simple: Do those who are using the wider bandwith signals have the right to push aside those using the narrower bandwith signals?
IMHO, the petition is not asking to outright ban all of the wider bandwith signals and modes out of hand. It IS asking that, in essence, the wider bandwith users be told that they have to play nice with everyone else. But that's my conclusion. Draw your own.
Oh, and Tim, just so you know... despite the differences that you and I have often had over on that other discussion site, please be advised that I am placing this article in my club's newsletter, in order to bring club members awareness that the petition exists and that comments are still being accepted.
73
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And boiled down to brass tacks, the issue is really quite simple: Do those who are using the wider bandwith signals have the right to push aside those using the narrower bandwith signals?"
As I read the petition, the issue that pops out at me is one of "Do narrowband modes have the right to near exclusive use of frequencies and more legal protection from interference than the other modes currently enjoy?"
And the answer is no, they don't. Narrowband digital modes have no more or no less protection from interference than say, SSB or CW. If this petition goes through, it would give the green light to "spectral cleansing" of ham radio. We would have de facto regulation by bandwidth--any users who felt like a mode didn't belong in their "neighborhood" would have ample precedent for throwing that mode under the bus or out of the pool completely.
Does AM or ESSB deserve to be tossed out of the voice subbands? The FCC has repeatedly said no. I can't honestly see how they could approve this petition based on precedent alone.
IMHO...this petition amounts to a Nazi guard telling a prisoner he's going "to take a shower" as they step through the gas chamber door...
Spectrum reallocation is a great thing as long as you're not the one giving up the property, isn't it?
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by W3WN on January 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Spectral cleansing" ???
"Nazi guards" ???
I sure hope you didn't use inflammatory commentary like this in your responses to the FCC!
The bitter irony, inflammatory commentary aside, is that you are accusing the narrow bandwith users of wanting exclusive territory, and that they need to share with everyone else.
Are you aware of the various discussions over on another web site regarding these issues? In the event you're not, upon careful (and unbiased) examination, you will note that a certain administrator of a certain wide bandwith data network (of questionable legal use of the amateur service spectrum, but THAT is another story) has been quoted many times as telling his system's users to TURN OFF their busy-frequency detections in their modems, as the narrow band users (primarily PSK-31 and traditional RTTY) are only using the frequencies to prevent HIS people from operating.
There are also documented cases of PSK-31 users having their QSO's wiped out when some of these wide-bandwith users have begun operating -- either without listening, or by claiming that they didn't hear anything.
Obviously, there are serious interference problems between the various camps of digital users.
It would be reasonable to ask or expect everyone representing the various camps to sit down and work out a voluntary band plan to avoid this interference. I've suggested as much several times. To date, no one representing the camp of the widest bandwith users has shown any interest in working out an arrangement. Instead (as Bonnie has demonstrated quite well in her early comments -- and she's not even in the group I'm inferring here!) there have been screams that this is all an attempt to outright prohibit, or at best severely restrict, the wide bandwith users.
When one side offers to work out an arrangement, and the other side refuses to even discuss it... petitions like this are the result.
The question that Bonnie and the others should be asking is not "why are you trying to send us back to the digital stone age?" but "how can we work this amongst ourselves so that everyone has an arrangement they can live with?"
Because frankly, I don't trust the FCC. If they have to settle this for us, they will do so in THEIR best interests, not ours.
So either we work this out NOW, or take a real risk of getting a solution far worse than the problem.
Now let's drop the histrionics and solve the problem.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been wiped out by automated Pactor stations myself while running AMTOR, PACTOR (keyboard to keyboard) and RTTY. Numerous times. I've also been interfered with while operating AM by SSB, and by AM while operating SSB.
If you want true immunity from interference, then completely channelize the spectrum, assign a discrete mode to each channel and make activity detectors mandatory.
Anything else will just be a half hearted compromise.
And as far as inflammatory comments, mine are of little consequence compared with those who call others outright criminals, elitists, or even drug smugglers, as evidenced by some posts in this thread.
I think that given the attitudes on both sides, that it is probably the best that the FCC intervenes. I can only hope that the FCC will make a decision that is equally offensive to everyone.
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ke4mob:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you want true immunity from interference, then completely channelize the spectrum, assign a discrete mode to each channel and make activity detectors mandatory.
Anything else will just be a half hearted compromise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you actually *read* the petition or are you just commenting on it?
First, the CW/RTTY portions of our spectrum *ALREADY OPERATE UNDER BANDWIDTH LIMITS*. This is no attempt to impose something that doesn't already exist.
The problem is that the regulations were written when the only data modes were FSK. OFDM skirts a loophole in the regulations allowing any width of signal.
It is obvious what the FCC's intent was. This is documented in R&O 04-140 where the FCC affirmed their intent to keep the CW/RTTY portions of the band as narrow bandwidth. I can get you their exact quote if you are unable to find it yourself.
Second, the petition removes the baud rate limit that currently exists. The WL2K and ALE people have been hollering for this for a long time but now that they have a petition doing exactly this they are hollering about *THAT*.
You just can't please some people no matter what you do.
This isn't about immunity from interference. It is about rewriting the rules to bring them up to date.
No experimentation will be inhibited at all. It is *not* experimentation to take commercially available, 15 year old technology designed for dedicated, assigned commercial channels off the shelf and use it in the shared spectrum environment of the amateur bands -- unless you count as experimentation trying to see how many other hams you can interfere with. Putting the bandwidth limit back on will hopefully spur development of newer, narrower nodes with higher speeds rather than just going ever wider to get faster speeds -- a doomed solution in a limited, shared spectrum environment.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And as far as inflammatory comments, mine are of little consequence compared with those who call others outright criminals, elitists, or even drug smugglers, as evidenced by some posts in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which has exactly zero to do with the actual issues.
Who appointed you the High Lord Censor, anyway? If you don't like what a post is saying -- DON'T READ IT.
Anyone on the internet should know how to filter the wheat from the chaff. If they don't they are going to have an ulcer somewhere in their future.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think that given the attitudes on both sides, that it is probably the best that the FCC intervenes. I can only hope that the FCC will make a decision that is equally offensive to everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The attitudes are irrelevant. You can't determine someones motives *or* attitude unless you are a mind-reader. All that you need to worry about is the facts.
The facts are that the petition is a good one backed up with technical facts and logical conclusions. The ARRL should take a lesson.
Hopefully the FCC will follow Mr. Miller's petition right down the line. It will benefit all of amateur radio in the long run.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: RM-11392 (The DIGITAL STONE AGE Petition)
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, BTW, channelization of shared spectrum doesn't help alleviate interference. It makes it worse by severely limiting the dynamic spectrum allocation that provides us our high spectrum efficiency today.
You want to make things *really* bad on HF, make it look like CB!
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Charles H. Groom III, K3EOQ (SK):
VA7MLW Falls Short on Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe:
Communicating During and After a Disaster:
Hamfest Commits to Five Years in Gaston County:
Proposal Draft: New Voice Codecs for Amateur Radio:
|
