FCC Releases "symbol rate" NPRM

Discussion in 'Amplitude Modulation' started by K5UJ, Jul 29, 2016.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    FCC Proposes Rule Changes in Response to ARRL's 'Symbol Rate' Petition, Seeks Comment:



    The FCC has proposed to revise the Amateur Service Part 97 rules in response to the ARRL's so-called "Symbol Rate" Petition for Rule Making (RM-11708 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017477458/document/7520958815), filed in late 2013, and it has invited comments on its recommended changes. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-96A1.pdf) in WT Docket 16-239, released on July 28, had been making the rounds at the FCC since May.
     
  2. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    What's the point in continuing the narrow-band (aka "CW/data") and wide-band (aka "phone/image") sub-bands, if digital signals @ the same as the necessary bandwidth of SSB, are to be allowed in the narrow-band segment? A 2.8 kHz wide digital data signal will cause more interference to truly narrow-band signals (CW, PSK, narrow-shift RTTY, etc), than would a 2.8 kHz-wide SSB signal.

    But it appears that the FCC even passed on the 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit, relying on "good amateur practice" instead of baud-rate to limit the bandwidths of digital/data signals in the so-called CW bands. Looks like they may be edging towards the elimination of sub-bands altogether, as in Canada and most of the rest of the world.

    Something may turn out good for the AM community and others, is that the FCC seems to be veering away from specific bandwidth limits. But this is merely the second round of the process; now the NPRM will be subject to comments by the public, and the ultimate outcome could be very different from what the FCC is initially proposing. It will be more important than ever for the amateur community to submit comments to the NPRM, more than it was to the initial petitions by ARRL and other parties. However, the negative comments to the petition's proposed specific bandwidth limits may have influenced the FCC in its decision not to proceed in this direction.

    To ARRL: Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

    To the rest of us: We need to download this Docket and study it carefully.

    WT Docket No. 16-239
     
    K6CLS likes this.
  3. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Don, thanks for the summary of the situation. I just can't keep track of all the nonsense petitions going down this year. I know there are one or two shoes waiting to drop; maybe this was one of them, besides the new FAA crap about farm towers. Was the symbol rate thing the one where ARRL wanted to grab 50 kc on 75 m. phone for CW?

    Separately, in the news is the official closing of HARA Arena, and the move of the Hamvention to an as of now, undisclosed new QTH in 2017. Details to come at some point from DARA. http://www.arrl.org/news/good-bye-hara-arena-hamvention-to-relocate-in-2017
     
  4. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    Even if they find a better place with enough space to accommodate everything that HARA did, and without a substantial price increase, I predict attendance will drop precipitously the first year, and may take years to recover, if ever. I have seen that happen at other hamfests, like the one at Cincinnati, which never recovered even though it was relocated to a more pleasant venue, and has now dwindled to a small local get-together. People tend to be creatures of habit, and a lot of people next year will want to wait it out to see how the first year goes before expending the time and money to travel across the country, especially the regular flea-market vendors.

    Maybe the people who run the hotel we stayed at this past year knew something we didn't, and that's why they said they wouldn't accept Hamvention reservations until after the first of the year. Who knows, that new place might be 25 miles or more away from HARA.
     
  5. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yeup.

    Dayton had critical mass; it was a pilgrimage for many of us.

    When a hamfest moves, reschedules, or combines, the changes all seem to lead to the same pattern: a shakeout and in many cases, a retreat. We have seen that fate made worse by internet-based sales.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. W2VW

    W2VW XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    They need a Mr. Mike.
     
  7. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, they've been at Hara since around 1963 and nothing lasts forever and the rumors plus the deferred maintenance meant this day was coming so I guess they should be allowed one chance to move. If they were moving every 3 years it would be different. I'm in wait and see mode for now. The wx has been the most damaging, not Hara. I had a bunch of hams tell me they weren't going this year or this was their last because the felt like the wx had become too damn risky. You make these reservations and so on and drive 100s of miles or thousands then 48 hours of rain, damp air, and wind huddling under a canopy outside. The aging ham population isn't inclined to tolerate it.

    But the decrepit pavement, makeshift covers, freight vehicles and homeless looking hams together with the bad wx all make it look like a dystopian scene out of a Road Warrior Mad Max movie.
     
  8. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

  9. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    FYI, the new ECFS either doesn't like Chrome, or it doesn't like Chrome plus the extensions I use.

    I fell back to a Microsoft browser to upload mine.
     
  10. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have never had any problems uploading to the ECFS using Chrome or Firefox.

    I stay clear of Internet Explorer for quite a number of reasons!

    Glen, K9STH
     

Share This Page