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: l-BCInc
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Guys I am not reading ,any suggestions on how to fix this and move forward here.

    Here is another perhaps middle ground?

    I like open source and feel its good for the hobby. But also see the need for other things to exist.

    Modes incorporating GPL licensed code below 30 MHz: 2.8 KHz max bandwidth *regardless of emission designator

    All others below 30 MHz follow the existing regulations.

    Modes incorporating GPL licensed code above 30 MHz no bandwidth limit *regardless of emission designator

    All other above 30 MHz follow the existing regulations.

    This should propel some coders to come out of the wood work.
    Doesn't hamper existing commercial aspects.

    We don't use the words Open Source as that is too subject to interpretation.
    *We no longer cave out bandwidth difference for image vs data vs voice
    K0IDT likes this.
  2. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Would you care to expand and clarify what exactly I am correct on, and what I am not? Try again please, that was one of your obscured communications.. I'll keep bringing stuff like this up as long as there folks ignorant of Part 97 or blatantly folding, spindling and mutilating the rules.
  3. KA8NCR

    KA8NCR Ham Member QRZ Page

    So we're going shoot for the lowest common denominator when self policing?

    I have no sympathies to the team Winlink. But the cries that everything has to be completely open and receivable by the greatest number of people is the wrong approach. That has never been the case, especially among niche modes. We're going end up accepting a whole new set of burdensome rules and regulations when a very small minority of the hobby can't play nice.
    NE4EB and KX4Z like this.
  4. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I can't say I blame them. This incessant bandwidth thing has been going on since 1976..
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    ron, I am not an expert on FCC regulations.
    They have a definition of "auotmated control". It says that automated control is basciallyl where the control operator does not have to be at the control point. One mght argue that this means the control operator is still the owner; or perhaps the control oeprator is the fellow at the otherr station who caused the automated station to suddenly begin transmitting? The first guy own it, the second guy CAUSED it.

    When you key up a 2 meter voice repeater, who is the control operator of the repeater?

    You may know this stuff far better than I. But honestly, this becomes obsessive-compulsive disorder at some point.

    From the ARRL:
    "3) Automatic control is used when no control operator is available to "babysit" the repeater. This is the exception mentioned earlier. Automatic control is defined by the FCC as the use of devices and procedures for control of a station when it is transmitting so that compliance with the FCC Rules is achieved without the control operator being present at a control point [97.3(a)(6)]. Under automatic control, the licensee has installed a control device which continuously monitors the technical operation of the repeater. If the controller detects a malfunction, it shuts the repeater down. From a practical standpoint, most repeaters operate under some form of automatic control most of the time. However, they also have a control link as described in the preceding section on remote control of a repeater which allows the repeater to be disabled by remote control if necessary. This remote control link also allows the control operator(s) to enable or disable various repeater functions such as an autopatch or links."

    And this;
    Does the control operator of an automatically controlled repeater have to listen 24 hours each day?-

    No, but a controller cannot detect and correct improper use of the repeater. The licensee is always responsible for the proper operation of the station, Part 97 states The control operator of a repeater that retransmits inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part is not accountable for the violative communications [97.205(g)]. In the event of improper use of the machine, the licensee is responsible for correcting the problem as soon as practicable and for making sure that the problem will not happen again. Although no control operator is required to be present at a contol point while the repeater is operating under automatic control, it is still the station licensee's responsibility to see that the repeater operates properly at all times [97.103(a)]. The repeater's licensee should prevent unauthorized tampering with the equipment by implementing various security procedures and devices, such as having an unpublished remote control link frequency and unpublished primary remote control codes for the control operator(s) to use Finally, the licensee should make sure word gets out quickly if something is wrong, and that authorized individuals have quick access to the repeater shutdown function. From this discussion of the three basic types of primary station control, you can correctly conclude that a repeater is not restricted to only one form of control. During those periods when a control operator is awake and "on duty," the repeater is operating under either "local" or "remote control." When the maintenance crew is working at the repeater site, it is also operating under "local control." When all the control operators are asleep or at work and there is nobody around to babysit the machine, it can be operated under "automatic control."

    If you read is somewhat ambiguous and suggests that there may not be any control "operator" during automatic control of a 2 meter repeater.

    you may know actual case law or rulings on this, and if so, i'm happy to read them.

  6. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here is how I see it. 99% percent of the modes that hook to the common HF radio, can be done and should be able to be done with a sound card.

    As we move forward away from digital modes done via analog signalling into the back of a normal HF rig (think: Hack RF/USRP based) then yes this may be a different can of worms.

    I'd like to see the latter explode so we can see the future of radio take off. And for those who still want to do RTTY using a 400 lb RTTY machine instead of a PC to do it., fine but please know I think you are misguided
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Jeff, not a bad idea. One of the things i learned from all this was a new sensitivity to the need to deal with the bandwidth limitations of the spectrum that we currently have.

    What has surprised me is that virtually everything that Ron wants (ability to read transmissions) turns out to actually be possible under the current winlink modes, and the current regulations. [if you use distributed receivers, and pactor modems, this is basically a software project.] In fact, it could have been done a few years ago! I cannot 100% guarantee it will work on the first iteration, but now that i have a much better idea of the issues, it is very likely to eventually succeed. PARTS of the solution are now much easier than before, but the entire development is a worthy engineering project, and the work that I did to pull off a proof-of-concept took a LOT of effort. I was quite lucky it succeeded on the first try, the first day. It wasn't that easy on later days. if the winlink people change their compression from the very efficient one they use now to some intermediate length system (which would require a complete rework of that portion of their system -- and of every other group that has provided a winlink client (there are several now!!!) -- then one would have an even higher chance of getting portions of the the cost of using up even more time/bandwidth. A good tradeoff? I don't know.

    At the same time, in the minds of unbiased observers, the NEED for such a big monitoring system has been considerably diminishned in the case of WINLNK by the viewer -- which has the salutory effect of cleaning up the bad actors quite nicely!!

    Ron's irritation with 500 Hz modes just doesn't have a statistical food to stand on, FOR USA WINLINK. I cannot say if there are others (but I doubt it, wihtin the uSA).

    There is not need to damage JS8 by implementing Ron's demands. Those folks aren't causing any problem to anyone, and forcing them inside the ACDS very narrow slivers will do damage to a great mode that is easy to monitor and is completely open and ham developped.

    There will be others I suspect. There are better tools to use to solve these issues than a sledgehammer.
    I personally am not in favor of a ton of wide-band stuff. And i personally think 3600-3700 is being wasted.
    I don't think most people realize that apparently winlink usage is DOWN in recent years, not why does it need fixing now?

  8. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    As a repeater trustee, I am certainly the responsible party. With suitable protections in place for the occasional unlicensed visitor, I have time to react, but must do so.

    As an operator of an automated BBS system with both HF and VHF ports, I don't assign responsibility for my transmissions to a visitor and will react quickly to issues of content. It's not perfect, but it works. I limit the size of messages to avoid use of my system for anything much more than very basic messaging.

    In both cases I am responsible for what transmits from my system, but am given time to rectify inappropriate content.
  9. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think you have those parts correct, but the question being posed was somewhat different: not who is responsible, but who is the CONTROL OpERATOR. From the definitions and the explanations, there may not be one. if you have written material that is authoritative on it, i'm all ears.
  10. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    As a nervous BBS operator, I wrote an article about just this topic...

    ...with a link to the only known (to me anyway) FCC action albeit many years ago.
    KX4Z likes this.

Share This Page