WINLINK terrorist protection

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Aug 2, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-3
  1. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, it's already "otherwise allowed" on every other band, so that won't work. I think it's a bad idea, that part anyway, unless and until they can show that a problem exists with wider bandwidth signals. I don't think they thought this through very well at all, a strict reading of that part of the ARRL proposal would outlaw DV on all HF frequencies, and outlaw digital SSTV as well.

    What happens if tomorrow someone develops a really good digital mode, but it takes 1 or 2 KHz for it to work well? Do we cram them in 5KHz on 40M? Since rules take so long to get modified, it is a "bad idea" to hamstring future development, especially if there is no real reason for doing so.
     
  2. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Using this mindset, we don't need any spectrum save a few MHz at UHF, and we can do everything we ever wanted.
     
  3. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    You did. Just no time-division multiplex digital emissions, per 47CFR 97.303(h) and 47CFR2.201. 2K80J2D allows 2.8kHz bandwidth.
     
    KX4O likes this.
  4. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    For example, if we could extend PACTOR 4 from 2.4 kHz to 2.8 kHz bandwidth and then additionally
    use QAM64 instead of just QAM32, we would have a speed increase of about factor 1.4, i.e. 7700 bit/s
    net throughput instead of 5500 bit/s.
    Of course, you need an SNR of at least +19 dB for this throughput, ie a signal that is more than 3 S-steps
    above the noise. In good conditions this should not be a problem, so not only a throughput for the brochure.

    I think we are discussing a completely wrong topic here. It makes me rather sad that the use of shortwave
    declines further and further. Shortwave is actually such a wonderful medium that you can not let it die.
    We are struggling here, even though we're actually a very exotic worldwide family: the remaining shortwave users.

    I am sure there will be enough space for all of us in the future - if the authorities do not buffle us.

    73 de Peter
     
  5. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    No. if implemented, it will not be allowed "everywhere" by this proposal,................ it will be regulated.

    "Part 97 currently has specific rules concerning exactly what modes, bandwidth, ect. are allowed on 60."

    You missed the point. SPECIFICALLY listed modes/bandwidth/ect. are SPECIFICALLY allowed on 60 by Part 97.
    That SPECIFIC authorization would not be overruled by this (proposed) general regulation.

    BTW, I agree with you about its negative impact on other operations, DV, Digital (but not Analog) SSTV, ect.

    There needs to be a clear written distinction between digitized DATA and digital voice/Image/ect.
    RTTY, Olivia , ect. as they are presently used need to be "protected" also.

    Bottom Line, Winlink (which does not play well with the rest of the Amateur world) needs to be well regulated and monitored, the current "legacy" digital modes need to be protected from Winlink .
     
  6. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, here is what the minutes say:


    "(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;"

    Taking that at face value, it restricts ALL digital modes greater that 500Hz, and requires them to operate within the ACDS bands. There is no exemption for 60M, or any other band. On its face, this takes privileges away from all amateurs! The FCC is very loathe to remove privileges, so it might not have much of a chance, if people oppose it.

    This doesn't restrict itself to data modes. "All digital modes" would include image and phone as well as RTTY and data.

    Currently, no rule prevents any amateur station authorized for the band in question to transmit a digital signal wider that 500Hz, anywhere. This proposal would eliminate wider digital transmissions from the HF bands, and restrict that operation to a very few KHz in all of the HF bands combined!

    This is an extremely bad idea, regardless of good intentions. The other aspects of the proposal could be acceptable to most people, but this part is just very bad. It will hinder future development and implementation of new digital modes, especially digital voice and image. I, for one, do not want to see privileges taken away from any amateur operator, unless significant privileges are added to compensate for the loss. I don't see this happening here.
     
    DL6MAA likes this.
  7. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you read FCC permissible modes for the various bands, you'll notice that as you go up in frequency, a lot of what you are moaning about goes away.
    To address your stoked fears of ACD segments being crowded, you can always comment in the rulemaking proceeding when it surfaces. I would guess it will be some form of omnibus combination of the several petitions. And, there will be a lot of suggestions for adding more spectrum to current allocations. The sky hasn't fallen yet.
     
  8. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, and it probably won't. Are you OK with hams losing privileges on HF? Are you OK with any digital mode being restricted to 500Hz or less, except in tiny slivers of some bands?

    Would you be OK with AM being outlawed on HF, or power reductions to 300 watts, except on certain frequencies?
     
  9. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Losing privileges? No, not OK with that, except for ACDS of all sorts being confined. I'm pretty sure that your worries can be dispensed with through one or two simple ITU mode designators instead of a blanket 2.8kHz statement.
    I guess I am OK with 500Hz or less in general use digital segments, because at HF, spectrum is extremely sparse, except perhaps 10M. The ACD segments could be argued to be larger, I suppose, but not without some limitations on compression techniques.
    Again, phone, except maybe digital phone, isn't meant to be part of these proceedings. By the Commission's 16-239 posture, open-season on bandwidth sort of captured everything.

    Power reduced to 300W? I know that 60M has a reduced power requirement, but not proposed elsewhere. I am fairly certain, though, that those who use wide bandwidth, high duty-cycle modes like OFDM cannot operate for extended periods without incurring damage from excess heating of finals. Perhaps by shrinking packet size, resulting in more frequent exchanges, would help that out. But spectral power density is about as high as it can get when all subcarriers are present.

    OFDM is great for low S/N environments, like some other digital modes. Stories of PacTOR connections/exchanges when the S meter didn't move and such. Very cool.
     
  10. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am just going by what the ARRL notes say. Basically, cut digital bandwidth from 2.8KHz (max) to 500Hz (max). I am not OK with that, unless there can be shown a problem that it solves. A major problem.
     
    DL6MAA, N0TZU and KK5JY like this.

Share This Page