ad: GNOHF-1

New Digital Petition at the FCC -- RM-11831

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K0IDT, Mar 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If it walks like a duck......
     
  2. N1ART

    N1ART Ham Member QRZ Page

    While we are at it, lets get DMR,DSTAR and FUSION back into the digital portion of the 2 meter and 440mhz band.
    This way when you scan you don't hear buzzing and whirring.
    Whos with me?
     
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Waste of time to even argue. it is a complete red herring.

    It has already been shown with readily available data the the total usage of USA 97.221(c) Winlink stations is almost an infinitesimal portion of the available bandwidth/time. So complaiining about interference from things related to those stations.....is ludicrous. Something using so far less than 1/100 of 1/100 of the time/space really isn't worth complaining about.


    NO data to contradict that analysis have ever been brought forward, but the poster hasn't been able to bring themselves to admitting the facts.

    When people begin to use data and facts, instead of anecdotes -- then it is time to listen and respond intelligently. Otherwise just call it for for what is.....name calling ("idiot" was used) and whining. I have grandkids.....those are not things that we encourage.

    Cheers! I had a fantastic Field Day! Learned a ton! There is more to do than argue. I proved a new antenna location would provide as much as a 20dB noise reduction at our EOC, and I located THREE big RFI generators in my house and am working to replace every one of them! Huge improvements in HF! Move on to constructive things and leave whining aside.

    Gordon
     
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    One of the brightest minds in radio development attempted to hold rational discourse on this forum and was turned aside and became disgusted. That helps you realize just what is happening.

    We have six people now signed up for our next EXTRA CLASS course, a "bootcamp" styled 17-hour marathon across 2 days with a ton of hands-on to teach people all kinds of things they may never have seen or done. The ARRL Extra Class manual (there are others, of course!) is jam packed with cheap available knowledge for those wishing to better themselves!

    There is much more to life than arguing.

    Cheers
    Gordon
     
  5. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yet another baseless claim.. Against Digital Radio... How sad..
     
  6. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ron,
    Not found anything... YET.. Except the gibberish by the ARRL lawyer requesting delays posted yesterday.. Must be a secret.
     
  7. N4QX

    N4QX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Not a Luddite? OK, prove it.

    In your ongoing engagement with other folks, get out of the way of eliminating the symbol rate restriction, which can--and will--be used against us in the spectrum battles. If this thing with Thales and 2 meters gains traction, the fact that a sizable portion of our community thinks a symbol rate restriction--unmatched anywhere else in Title 47--is a good and necessary thing will--and ought to--be used against us.

    In the rooms I run in (and I still run in them on behalf of the commercial satellite industry), the assertion that a symbol rate limitation has *any* beneficial side effect will get the proponent laughed out of the room. "Luddite" and "irrational" are the two kindest things the proponent would likely be called. Symbol rate restrictions have real world consequences in how amateur radio is perceived as a real contributor to the radio art.

    To the extent your grievances are real (and I will admit they are to some extent), solve them some other way. I am certain you will find provisions in the current regulations and can conceive of future provisions that don't depend on a symbol rate restriction.

    It's clear you're engaged. I would like nothing better than to eat my words if it gets symbol rate restrictions out of the amateur rules. But you've been beating the drum against for what are frankly tangential reasons for six years. I'm skeptical. Show me.
     
  8. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Are you sure Jerry? You have more than you know. About all I can really say is games within games are being played. Have patience, it's taken a very long time to get to this point. Check some of my more recent posts, there's more
    information in them, if you read carefully with an open mind.
     
  9. N1ART

    N1ART Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wrong dude!! I like Fusion and the such, it just should be allocated and Be in the digital portion of the ARRL band plan!
    Wheres it now? All over the place, just organize it is all I said.
     
  10. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you had been paying attention, and had a modicum of reading comprehension (many in this thread fail both tests), you would have noticed that I'm in favor of eliminating the baud rate speed limit. It's right here in this thread, and a few others on the Zed. The name calling is a sign you have no argument, Godwin's Law applies.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page