Regulation by bandwidth
Locked
 
|
"Things Elecraft" tend to overlap "Things QRP," so this may be an OK
subject for this reflector, at least for a bit, since the proposal at the ARRL could have an impact (maybe large) on low power operations. Then again, Eric's view on this may differ. I believe the current thread on "threat to 30m" is part of a much larger issue in a proposal currently being discussed by the ARRL Staff and BOD. The proposal is the result of an ad hoc working group and would modify the way the sub-allocations within our bands are determined. Currently, the big distinction is between voice and non-voice (emission type). Data modes generally have been treated as non-voice and confined to the so-called CW segments (CW is really legal everywhere). We've all sorted it out, and all of us know that tuning up from the bottom of the band, you get CW (often QRQ and DX), CW (QRP, CHN, QRS, and W1AW), then RTTY, PSK, and more exotic modes. SSTV at 14.230 is a partial anomaly, since only part of a QSO involves voice. The proposal would regulate sub-allocations by bandwidth of the signal rather than emission mode, thus solving what some believe to be a "problem" with nascent digital voice modes ... is it "voice" (and limited to the SSB sub-bands) or "data" (and placed in with PSK31, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, and the like)? The result would be that data modes occupying 3 KHz bandwidth would co-exist with analog voice (I think). Some of these data modes operate unattended which poses its own set of issues. It is a little hard to pin down, but it appears that the ad hoc working group was dominated by data-mode users, and that not all of the discussions were handled all that cordially. The proposal itself is a fairly complex and hard read ... I still have not figured out the ramifications of some of the items. I wrote my ARRL Director (W6RGG) and cautioned a "be careful what you ask the FCC for" approach. There may well be merit in the proposal or some variant of it, and possibly the current allocation algorithm has not kept up with the new technologies and communications modes. On the other hand, I also wonder what percentage of hams actually fool around with these modes, and whether or not this is a small group's "solution" to a problem the majority of us don't have. It reminds me a bit of the hubris surrounding Social Security now, most of which would disappear if we all followed the proven engineering and scientific principle: "First identify and describe the problem, Then look for suitable solutions." The proposal doesn't do a good or credible job of defining and describing the problem, so it's very hard to evaluate the proposed solution(s). I encourage everyone to review the proposal which can be found at: (www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html) and I'd be glad to engage in an off-reflector dialog to gain some enlightenment in what it really means. 73, Fred K6DGW Auburn CA CM98lw K2 #4398 KX1 # 897 (with which I did 34.46 pts/lb in last night's Spartan Sprint) _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Fred Jensen wrote:
> "Things Elecraft" tend to overlap "Things QRP," so this may be an OK > subject for this reflector, at least for a bit, since the proposal at > the ARRL could have an impact (maybe large) on low power operations. > Then again, Eric's view on this may differ. > > I believe the current thread on "threat to 30m" is part of a much larger > issue in a proposal currently being discussed by the ARRL Staff and > BOD. The proposal is the result of an ad hoc working group and would > modify the way the sub-allocations within our bands are determined. > Currently, the big distinction is between voice and non-voice (emission > type). Data modes generally have been treated as non-voice and confined > to the so-called CW segments (CW is really legal everywhere). We've all > sorted it out, and all of us know that tuning up from the bottom of the > band, you get CW (often QRQ and DX), CW (QRP, CHN, QRS, and W1AW), then > RTTY, PSK, and more exotic modes. SSTV at 14.230 is a partial anomaly, > since only part of a QSO involves voice. > > The proposal would regulate sub-allocations by bandwidth of the signal > rather than emission mode, thus solving what some believe to be a > "problem" with nascent digital voice modes ... is it "voice" (and > limited to the SSB sub-bands) or "data" (and placed in with PSK31, RTTY, > AMTOR, PACTOR, and the like)? The result would be that data modes > occupying 3 KHz bandwidth would co-exist with analog voice (I think). > Some of these data modes operate unattended which poses its own set of > issues. > > It is a little hard to pin down, but it appears that the ad hoc working > group was dominated by data-mode users, and that not all of the > discussions were handled all that cordially. The proposal itself is a > fairly complex and hard read ... I still have not figured out the > ramifications of some of the items. > > I wrote my ARRL Director (W6RGG) and cautioned a "be careful what you > ask the FCC for" approach. There may well be merit in the proposal or > some variant of it, and possibly the current allocation algorithm has > not kept up with the new technologies and communications modes. On the > other hand, I also wonder what percentage of hams actually fool around > with these modes, and whether or not this is a small group's "solution" > to a problem the majority of us don't have. > > It reminds me a bit of the hubris surrounding Social Security now, most > of which would disappear if we all followed the proven engineering and > scientific principle: "First identify and describe the problem, Then > look for suitable solutions." The proposal doesn't do a good or > credible job of defining and describing the problem, so it's very hard > to evaluate the proposed solution(s). > > I encourage everyone to review the proposal which can be found at: > > (www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html) > > and I'd be glad to engage in an off-reflector dialog to gain some > enlightenment in what it really means. > > 73, > > Fred K6DGW > Auburn CA CM98lw > K2 #4398 > KX1 # 897 (with which I did 34.46 pts/lb in last night's Spartan Sprint) Hi all. IMHO the ARRL's proposal is nothing more than trying to find a place for a spectrum hog, namely Win link 2000. Read more here. http://www.nvbb.net/~jaffejim/Warbler%20News.htm Reads to my like a sell out to Win Link 2000 by the ARRL. -- R. Kevin Stover ACØH K2/100 #4684 Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Kevin Stover wrote:
>> I encourage everyone to review the proposal which can be found at: >> >> (www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html) >> >> and I'd be glad to engage in an off-reflector dialog to gain some >> enlightenment in what it really means. There is at least one mailing list set up for those discussions. Feel free to join the one at zerobeat.net Send email to [hidden email] body of message should be subscribe bandwidth 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Thom R. Lacosta wrote:
> > There is at least one mailing list set up for those discussions. Feel free > to join the one at zerobeat.net > > Send email to > [hidden email] > > body of message should be > subscribe bandwidth Senility strikes..... it's subscribe bandplan Sorry Thom _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |