ARRL report - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0PV, Jul 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The original K0IDT Petition was only 7 pages and in it’s essential elements was very basic.

    It generated probably a couple thousand pages of comments, replies to comments, replies to replies to replies, and so on. Everything from highly technical dissertations to emotions, name calling, and hurt feelings and everything in between. Lots of drama.

    It just seems to me that what may be missing is a concise, objective, statement of why the original Petition should be rejected.

    All this other stuff is interesting intellectual exercise, but it is hard to tell what does it mean as a practical matter to the average ham operating cw or ft or psk, who wants to identify the pactor station that just clobbered their frequency and obliterated their QSO?

    One filing that does stand out is the ARRL ex parte comment on the symbol rate petition, which was co-filed on this preceding. It made some thoughtful points, without spamming the ECFS.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
    K0IDT likes this.
  2. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    They were just reiterating the "Delete Symbol Rate Limits and Substitute a 2.8 kHz Bandwidth Limit" plan. And the FCC replied to that back in 2016, basically stating they agree that a hard baud limit is not good, but the bandwidth limit proposed by ARRL isn't any better, so FCC denied the request.

    So since 2016 this is the best alternative/same proposal the League has came up with? Basically keep rail roading the same plan? They should have always had a plan B, and promptly after the 2016 reply/denial, filed it. Here we are 6 or so years later from the initial start of this still getting no where. Does anyone blame me for feeling Newington has no vision?

    I agree a lot of other peoples comments are derailing the issues and are basically circus like, but I can't say I feel the league has a sale able plan.

    Then there is this whole above 30 MHz thing that I have issues with. The rules are actually more restrictive presently for those bands as there is presently a baud AND bandwidth limit. Those bands have the band space and less congestion than HF, and could in my opinion benefit from some use by something other than 200 repeaters ID'ing since those frequencies Are in the eyes of commercial interests. The League's plan doesn't address above 30 MHz.

    On a good day with an everyone on board with a plan, the FCC seem to takes about 3 years to act on a request as evident by the TDMA/Mototrbo request from 2011, that got approved in 2014.

    ARRL: Get your damn ducks in a row!
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
    KX4O and KX4Z like this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    There are at least two things in your post that I just don’t understand.

    First, do you have any explanation for why CW stations would be way up in the 97.221B slivers where there is almost always some pactor or ALE or BBS signal going on? I just don’t see any practical non-anecdotal proof that the scenario you alledge is reality to any significant degree and no one has provided any proof of that, besides anecdote

    Secondly, why do you seem to feel that the FCC is constrained to honor only the original petition’s requests and not all of the other demands made by so many?

    Honest questions, looking forward to hearing what you say
    N9LYA likes this.
  4. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sorry. I meant to say thoughtful points regarding the issues specifically related to the K0IDT Petition.

    Their points regarding symbol rate are nonsense.
  5. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Why doesn’t that surprise me ...
    K0IDT likes this.
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, you can’t fault me for trying.

    I think you posted a strawman, because I do not believe the scenario you claimed really happens very often For example: A director candidate reported that he was told at a public meeting, that a dozen or so CW signals were obliterated by a pact or signal.

    Let’s think that through. The person making the claim apparently believes that a dozen signals are operating right next to each other, presuming a CW bandwidth of let’s say 200 Hz. Never in my life have I ever heard a dozen CW signals in the 97.221B sliver, much less a dozen signals inside of 2.4 kHz anywhere other than where a DX station was listening

    And I doubt anybody is stupid enough to choose the 97.2 to 1B sliver as their receiving point.

    So until someone can explain this better, I think this is completely made up

    I asked you to explain it and you did not. So I have to presume that you have no actual point here.
    N9LYA likes this.
  7. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here are 8 pages authored by Bruce Perens, K6BP, that cover more than one issue. If we ever get anywhere with this one baud/bandwidth issue in my life time, maybe future generations can move on to the idea of stressing education in 97.1. I happen to think that should have been done years ago as well.
  8. K2NCC

    K2NCC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Old screenshot, and a wide slice, but still apropos I think. Sometimes the bands are full of CW signals...


    Another I had handy.... 600+ signals.
    KX4O, K0IDT, WZ7U and 2 others like this.
  9. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thank you, but I believe you just made my point! I blew up what you presented and I simply cannot find 12 signals in 2.4 kHz. The most narrow filters typically sold are only 300 Hz. The more common filters are 500 Hz So unless people are really really good, the most signals that I generally hear in one single side band pass band are about four.

    Even during field day!

    So the claim passed on by the director candidate seems completely made up. And your data demonstrates that It is easy to check the position of 97.221 C wINLINK stations, and if you can find any that are positioned in the commonly used PSK, FT8 J. S. eight frequencies, that can easily be dealt with, but data has already demonstrated that the usage of any 97.2 to 1C frequency is very close to zero. That study took maybe nine or 10 pages, to present honestly and fairly with all the data, and not a single person has disputed that data yet.
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page


    This is tough to read, but I don’t think you can even find 12 signals in 2.4 kHz even at the most dense point there .....

    And who in their right mind would go to 7.098 to do their cw? Or why would they go right to the middle of the FT8 segment? Don’t most people sort of gentlemanly keep away from places where others are known to congregate? The FT eight people are in a known 3 kHz. The 97.221B restriction is a known 5 kHz. While the FT8 people could move with great difficulty, the 97.221B people simply cannot move by regulation.... If you know the FT8 people are going to use 3 kHz, just pick a different place for your signal! While no one “owns” any of these frequencies, it’s just not reasonable to intentionally go bust down the door on well-known frequencies..... my opinion only.

Share This Page