The ARRL issued a bulleting announcing that: The FCC has put “on circulation” its decision on the ARRL’s Petition for Rule Making (RM-11708), seeking to change the Amateur Service Part 97 rules to delete the symbol rate limit in §97.307(f) and replace it with a maximum bandwidth for data emissions of 2.8 kHz on amateur frequencies below 29.7 MHz. Proceedings on circulation are pending action by the full Commission, although there is a current backlog, and FCC action is not likely in the near future. The bulletin goes on to mention that a proposed decision has been circulated among the Commissioners, but we don't know what that proposed decision is yet....or when actual action might be taken. So, it's an update...but not much of one.
The Pactor/Winlink rule change inches farther. Absolutely no benefit to 99.9 percent of hams. Your ARRL in action.
How bulleting. I like the reason, but I'm not sure I agree with the proposal. Not that I know what a good answer would be. On second thought, I like it. It's better than nothing and could be changed in the future if need be.
Well at least it is not dead. The Regulation by Bandwidth needs to be applied to some extent to harmonize with other ITU Regions' practices. I still don't understand why the bandwidth is 2800 hz! The 'xtra' 200 hz for a full 3K00Jxx code, like most records in the FRRS/GMF database, is more in line with *measured occupied bandwidth* (at least with my Anritsu). Semantics? I must state though....I would be against anything wider for data in the HF amateur radio service. I know there are some 24K00xxx HF waveforms out there....but that throughput rivals (or could rival) 'commercial services', which 'we' are not. And such a wide signal on some HF bands would be grossly unfair to other users of legacy and narrower 'sound card' modes. As I eluded to in other forums...this, IMO, is more important than striking the 15dB rule.
Somewhat true....I for one cannot afford a SCS modem....my good old Kantronics with Pactor 1 and G-Tor has not failed me yet!
My comments and the original post applies to>>>>"§97.307(f) and replace it with a maximum bandwidth for data emissions of 2.8 kHz on amateur frequencies below 29.7 MHz" HF.....Brother, HF. I am tinkering with HSMM.
You don't speak for me! This is 2016 and in the age of the maker, SDR, adrino, and Raspberry Pi we can come up with something that faster than 300 baud and stay within the 2,8Khz bandwidth. Do not blame me you cannot see beyond you own ignorance.
Here's a good example of the "digital elite" and how they handle criticizm. P.S. I'd be careful calling names after that atrocious grammer above.
This is a good thing, IMO. There's no reason to limit by symbol rate. We allow SSB on HF, so why not a digital mode that occupies the same bandwidth, regardless of how fast it happens to send data?
WTH? Take it easy Richard! "Chippie" will be along very-very soon to straighten us all out about this latest and greatest of non-issues.
IMHO the 'symbol rate' rule is broken and needs to be replaced. However the intent of the rule is important and should at most be only slightly modified. As the current rule is written, it does _nothing_ to protect narrow bandwidth modes. This is because, as currently interpreted, it is perfectly fine to use a multi-carrier digital mode, with each sub-carrier modulated at less than the symbol rate limit. Consider 9 sub-carriers spaced 300 Hz apart and modulated at 300 baud each. The signal occupies a bandwidth of about 3kHz, is legal in the 'data bands', and does not violate the symbol rate limit. It isn't the best modulation scheme that uses that 3kHz...but by jumping through the subcarrier hoop it is legal. IMHO it makes much more sense to have a strict bandwidth limit for all signals, rather than a symbol rate limit. This would permit modulation schemes that have better duty cycle characteristics or other benefits. At the same time, the change to a strict bandwidth limit should maintain the intent of protecting narrow band signals. It appears to me that RM-11708 does not protect narrow band signals. 73 Jon AF7TS
