ad: w5yi

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: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page


    Wow, that is absolutely amazing. No idea there were so many different versions..... of so many different versions!

    We picked up a new guy in our local emergency club, we just have a ton of fun. He sheepishly admitted that when he was younger he did a bunch of no so legal things on the CB bands ... turns out, he knew enough way back then to wire up 4 sweep tubes into a CB linear amplifier

    Heck, you can barely find an amateur today who even knows what a sweep tube IS!

    He joined up with us on the day we were building end fed baluns, 1 to 49 — and he seems like a perfect fit as long as he sticks to the rules. Smart as a whip! Able to make things work when others can’t. Then I up and discovered the 78-year-old guy who just got himself his first packtor modem, and now he wants to become a sysop!! I’m trying to slow him down a bit, so he can get a little bit more understanding under his belt! It’s pretty amazing when I have to slow down 78-year-olds! He is irritated with the local legacy club, because they just won’t get with the 21st-century— says he has over 5000 FT8 contacts. I really only do FT8 during field day, but it certainly is easy ( once you get all the connections made ) I really like the sound of RTTY. Very pleasing to the Ears. While on vacation up in the Smokies we made it to a thrift store and picked up a few items to round out the EOC radio room. Like a working clock, for less than four dollars! And got a bicycle for the grandkid, four dollars....

    Writing another book today, this one for the Florida Baptist disaster relief, teach their ham radio volunteers some specific techniques. It’s about 3/4 done already, will need a bunch of proofing I’m always amazed that the texts I have written continue to sell, I almost give them away, but it does me some good to see that folks are learning. It ebbs and flows, but generally about one book a day
     
    W4RAV and N9LYA like this.
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    WG3G: Well, it turns out this is a bit more complicated than one might imagine.

    The general consensus is that he should have a postfix of 9Y or 9G "we think". This is rather confusing. The ARRL gives some guidance here:
    http://www.arrl.org/international-operating which generally says there are multiple legal avenues and 'do what your host country says to do'
    so we don't know exactly what the host country told this gentleman

    Further, I looked into their regulations -- that's not easy to find as what I found was "draft" and they are somewhat vague in points and I got lost but you can read it here:
    https://tatt.org.tt/Portals/0/docum... Framework 1st consultation BG 10-7-2013.pdf

    And then I went hunting for frequency regulasions, and just like Karl-Arne said.....they have a FAR simpler list of frequency requirements:
    https://tatt.org.tt/DesktopModules/...ore_Download&EntryId=456&PortalId=0&TabId=222

    So the net result is he "might" add a post fix, but i certainly don't know for sure....and in the final analysis, it is always nice and polite just to drop someone a note and say, "Gee, how did you arrive at that choice? I didn't quite understand it" before accusations.

    I hope that helps....somewhat. I think one might need an international telecommunications lawyer and some $$$$$ to figure out a whole lot more...easiest just to contact the ham involved directly if you are concerned.

    73

    Gordon
     
    N9LYA likes this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page


    Just learned some more -- the gentleman has been there 20 years, and renews his approval every 6 months. So....I think he operates under something OTHER than the FCC.
     
    N9LYA likes this.
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    AND.....a friendly message was generated by Lor to the Puerto Rican station that got some frequency things incorrectly. Lor also took the time to review all of that gentleman's frequencies and spotted a small goof I had missed. Easy enough for a polite message to a fellow ham.....

    Of course, there is NO REQUIREMENT for Lor to do this. The operator of the amateur radio station is the person who is responsible, basically. So it is really nice of Lor to do this for all of us. He deserves thanks!!

    Thanks, lor!
    You're a scholar and a gentleman.

    Gordon
     
    N9LYA likes this.
  5. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    1. There is no "regulatory reason" for the requested data rate changes.
    2. Changes benefit a small group of amateurs
    3. Ad hominum attacks in replies show how far they will go to get their way
    4. Tech access to HF is not a change for amateur radio but a change to get new ARRL members
    5. The Tech access to HF makes access to HF easier for perspective Winlink users so they dont have to take the General class test.
     
    NL7W, WZ7U, K0IDT and 1 other person like this.
  6. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    2.8 kHz on HF, wider maximum bandwidths on VHF/UHF were what they were asking for in RM-11708, and the HF bandwidth, with adjustments in other rulemaking proposals, would be in line with IARU Region 2 band plans.
     
    KX4Z likes this.
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Interesting. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and sometimes they are allowed to voice it!! I'm not the ARRL and I'm not the WINLINK development team, so I guess I'm allowed to have my own opinions.

    1. It wasn't a data rate change was it? I thought it was a SYMBOL rate change. Minor nitpicking, only. The data rate can be far far higher than the symbol rate. Took me a while to catch onto that, myself! ODFM is pretty cool. I have a fragile grasp of the advantages in crest factor of going to higher serial data rates, and it would probably be good for amateur radio in the USA -- the rest of the world is already there.

    2. I don't know all the in's and out's of a lot of systems, but I'm suspicious that the voice guys might be the big beneficiaries. My life will go on, virtually UNCHANGED no matter what the symbol rate changes are.....but that might not be true for the folks who still need a bunch of kilohertz just to get voice through!

    3. Hm.... presenting actual supposed "ad hominem" material is more useful than just claiming it occurred.......

    4. I'm not in favor o giving technicians access to HF....and in my opinion, the ARRL needs well-educated, visionary and wise leadership in order to carry out its missions --- and those will naturally attract a wider membership than what we see now. I happen to be the only person in my county who has taught Extra Class courses -- and have taught TWO of them now, with some of my latest instructors being people i mentored through the first time. The Extra Class is only the beginning. So many hams cannot even design a common emitter temperature-stable audio amplifier.....much less an RF amplifier, or understand a Smith Chart. The level of discourse on so many of these topics is underwhelming.....

    5. I happen to teach Technician, General, Extra Class, and WINLINK and voice formal communications, as well as EC-001 and net control procedures....("voice" is a lot harder than people think it is, when lives may depend on it....ask the folks in our group!) and making HF access "easier" is the LAST thing I would prefer to do. What I need for my missions, is QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS who can make any radio work, repair almost anything, come up with an antenna out of almost nothing, and get the job done. And that apparently is a way to grow ham radio groups, because the one in our county has grown by about 200% from where it started a few years back. And we have multiple texts on Amazon, and they sell.


    So anyway, i don't represent the ARRL and i don't represent WINLINK, so those are just MY opinions. But I *do* think that people need to be TECHNICALLY ACCURATE when they make claims. And there seem to be a dearth of that around. That is why i had to do so many original studies to find out what was the truth on so many of these issues....and then people complain that it is too complicated or too long for them to read???? You should see the size of just ONE TEXTBOOK from my first QUARTER of medical school at Emory University. Folks, you ain't seen nuthin' 'til you start to study medicine. Complaining about things that aren't even more than a few score or a few hundred pages would get you laughed out of the places I've been.

    Cheers,
    Gordon
     
    N9LYA likes this.
  8. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Fine, but then the ARRL likely needs to meeting the FCC lawyers in person and buy them dinner and have discussion. I can't see how resubmitting the same old proposal is going to get the job done since they already stated they didn't like it.
     
  9. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    My responses in the quote... Thanks for the polite reply.

     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  10. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    The FCC doesn't need to like it, and I'm not sure that's why they were uncertain about authorizing it. It seemed to me that their reluctance to implement it was based on the possibility of the ARRL coming along in a few years asking to change the bandwidth allowed on HF again, which I know isn't likely at this point.
     

Share This Page