FCC Releases "symbol rate" NPRM

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

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't like the hang time as you move among comments. Interminable delay before the next person's filing can be seen. Then again, only 161 to review.
  2. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    It appeared, appeared I say, that most comments were against it. I had a brilliant idea--I put my paltry comment on a thumb drive and went to the public library and used one of their up-to-date magic boxes, and high speed tax payer funded internet connections, and registered my comment. I leveraged my tax dollars and found that the FCC ECFS is perfectly fine, or at least is good enough, so my problem was entirely due to my old, out of date magic box at home, which is a measly 8 years old. I'm running radio gear that's 60- 70 years old and works fine but if a magic box gets to be more than a few years old it is useless. The magic box industry has perfected planned obsolescence. In our throw away society people go along with this. I refuse to blow 500 to 900 bucks on a new magic box every 8 years or so. That's absurd.
  3. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    One of the problems with the FCC's attempt to make the system all shiny and new is that they used bells and whistles that are frequently blocked by those of us who use Firefox/Chrome plugins to disable web annoyances.

    Internet Exploder is handy to keep around sometimes. "Incognito mode" might also work if plugins aren't enabled on that side of the browser.
  4. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I didn't keep an actual tally (I subscribed to the ECFS RSS feed for the two proceedings, so they come up in my "daily reading"), but I would say that on simple numbers and on a simple thumbs up/down basis, it's been more negative than positive.

    Complicating matters is that many of the comments have been almost cookie-cutter language copied/pasted from others. They still count, but perhaps are discounted by the FCC.

    Initially there were a large number of short comments in wholehearted support, presumably driven by Winlink supporters. The later comments have generally just focused on the fear of wideband data taking over the bottom of the bands / requesting that a narrow bandwidth limit be imposed on much of the CW/data subbands.

    If the FCC operated on a "majority wins" basis, they'll move ahead with ending the symbol rate, but impose a 400-500Hz limit on at least half the CW/data subbands.

    The ARRL's comment, assuming they're making one, should be accessible in the system by this evening. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say.
  5. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    "If the FCC operated on a "majority wins" basis,"

    They don't. The tactic of presenting a tally is something the people at the League have used, through the Club's paid attorney, to try undercut the weight of a few strong & valid Comments opposed to whatever it is they've proposed.
  6. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Scroll back up to message #92 in this thread.

    But not much concern over the dangers of the precedent specific occupied-bandwidth limits would establish.

    The vast majority of hams are unaware of the concept of occupied vs necessary bandwidth, nor has this been codified in the Part 97 rules.

    A large number of verbatim comments propose a 500-Hz limit on the bottom 50 kHz and a 2.8 kHz limit on the next higher 50 kHz segment on every band, including 160. That would prohibit AM and maybe even SSB on the entire lower half of 160, and would be out of kilter with the Region I band plan on 40m. I doubt that will fly.

    One of several possibilities, which I included in my comments, would be to pass the NPRM with no bandwidth limit, just as FCC proposed, but then replace the Extra class-only sub-band restriction at the lowest 25 kHz segment of each HF band with a CW-only restriction, open to all licence classes. Once the code requirement was dropped from the exams, the Extra class CW segments are no longer limited to highly proficient CW operators, therefore these sub-bands serve no useful purpose. Changing them to CW-only/all classes would protect weak-signal, DX and other vulnerable CW operation from interference from RTTY and digital modes, much in the same manner as those 100 kHz CW-only segments at the low ends of 6m and 2m.

    Hundreds of comments are being filed erroneously under RM-11708. I don't get it that the vast majority of Hammy Hambones think we are still commenting on the ARRL's petition. The deadline for comments on that proceeding ended a couple of years ago. I'm not sure how the FCC will deal with this.

    I have the same problem with the hang time. Very frustrating. With the old system you clicked on a comment and the text appeared immediately. One thing that will save some time is to open the comment you want to view in a new tab. That will avoid the interminable delay in re-loading the entire list every time you want to view another comment. Another thing that will make it easier to use is to click on the little "condensed listing" icon at the top of the page. It's the second icon to the right following the numbers "25 50 100", just to the left of "A A A" (font size). Then click on "100" to display 100 comment links on each page.
    WA3VJB likes this.
  7. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

  9. W3DBB

    W3DBB Ham Member QRZ Page

    The reasonable man would have concluded a long time ago it is best to be circumspect in petitions to the FCC, as the NPRM may contain significant differences from the original Petition.

    In his defense of the original petition Imlay provides a 20 page recitation of League boilerplate: ARRL is a good neighbor, bandwidth limits are good, the 60 meter Part 97 regs should apply to the other HF bands, and the purchase & use of pre-manufactured amateur equipment constitutes experimentation.

    Looks like another attempt at Manufacturer's Enhancement and the resulting stream of advertising revenue.
  10. W2VW

    W2VW XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    New radios will come with a little card stating bandwidth compliance. Mic gain will not be adjustable.

    The owner will be able to send the radio back to the factory every two years for a proof of performance and compliance card update.

    Older equipment will still be allowed over 29 MHZ.

    While we are at it, new radios will not transmit unless connected to a central server. The server will tally transmit parameters.

Share This Page