FCC Releases "symbol rate" NPRM

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

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: FBNews-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    If the FCC wants to do away with amateur radio, there probably are quicker and easier ways than imposing bandwidth limits.

    In the very few places on Earth that still apply micromanagement of amateur radio, some forms of "regulation by bandwidth" are in force.
    One example is Germany, where the HF (below 28 MHz) bandwidth is limited to 2700 Hz, essentially outlawing double-sideband AM. As Germans usually do what they are told, they operate AM elsewhere if at all.
    Other countries may have limits of 6 or 7 kHz, but the majority have none.

    Frankly, I have some difficulty seeing the connection between AM and experimentation aimed at advancing the engineering state-of-the-art, and I believe that the "Powers that Be" also will require some explanation before they accept advancement of AM as a justification for keeping the amateur radio bands.

    It has become more and more of a challenge to come up with credible arguments for amateur radio today.

    Many if not most European administrations see us as a royal PITA which whine and complain about almost everything but contribute nothing except unnecessary workload. No one knows the limits of their patience, and as the regulations are formulated in many countries, the privileges may vanish with "the stroke of a pen".

    73/
    Karl-Arne
    SM0AOM
     
  2. KD2ACO

    KD2ACO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    I guess it would be even more of a PITA to deal with a couple hundred thousand freebanders! :p
    Thanks Karl-Arne for your always interesting posts.
     
  3. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks, I do a lot of research and it is sometimes nice to express my views about current events.

    You raise a valid point.

    Actually the consequences of a possible outlawing of amateur radio in Europe have been the subject of quite serious discussions during the last few years.

    The general view is that the greatest impact would be for those regularly operating on VHF/UHF, where the spectrum is valuable and in some countries enforcement and prosecutions of "freebanders" would regularily be made. The legal cases would be unlawful transmissions and infringing the commercial rights of the new owners of the spectrum. It is highly likely that there would be only "minor" criminal charges compared to civil lawsuits regarding damages. As Europeans still are considerably less "sue-happy" than the US, the sums involved would probably be considerably less.
    It would be very difficult to estimate the number of possible offenders, as the numbers of active amateurs are highly uncertain. An often used estimate is 10-15 % of the "callbook numbers". Perhaps a further 10-20 % of this number would care for "freebanding" somewhat depending on age and where they live.

    The HF bands would be a very different matter. Commercial HF and broadcasting are rapidly becoming extinct, and the antenna permit together with the man-made noise situation has made the use of HF in urban locations very difficult. Using research made recently for an EMF exposure study http://www.esr.se/phocadownload/emc...files_of_amateur_radio_stations_in_Sweden.pdf , it is estimated that around 500 to at the most 1500 out of the about 12000 that are in the Callbook are operating on HF in a significant amount. It is expected that the situation is similar in other North European countries.

    The enforcement resources on HF are however very limited in the vast majority of countries. Freebanding on HF would for all practical purposes be entirely safe, unless the Cold War practices of making possession of transmitters without licence a criminal offence are reinstated.

    Maybe at the most 100-200 HF freebanders could be around in a country with a size of Sweden. This could be compared to a amount of illegal CB:ers around in the early 70's which was esimated to about 15000.

    73/
    Karl-Arne
    SM0AOM
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
    KD2ACO likes this.
  4. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I don't doubt that some people within the FCC would just as soon see us go away so they don't have to deal with administering our "service" and mediating our petty playground disputes. Pestering the Commission to enact and enforce pernickety micromanagement like specific bandwidth limits is one sure way to advance that cause.
     
  5. N2EY

    N2EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree 100%. And there's more!

    If amateur radio were to disappear....

    - FCC would have fewer interference complaints, both from hams complaining about noise from various devices and power lines, and people complaining about their electronic devices picking up amateur signals
    - FCC could claim a big paperwork reduction by eliminating all the Part 97 rules and such stuff
    - Much of "our" spectrum could be auctioned off or repurposed.
    - Noisemaker technologies such as BPL could go forward with much less opposition.
    - FCC would not be dragged into amateur radio antenna disputes.

    But if we don't have bandwidth limits on data modes, what's to stop someone from firing up a high-speed data mode that chews up 50 kc. or more of a band, 24/7?

    In fact, why not allow data modes everywhere on the HF bands?
     
  6. K5UJ

    K5UJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Same as wall to wall QRMtesters operating every weekend. Fire up the 4-1000A. 833As, HF300s or what have you and punch a hole. Use dual rx antennas and a phasing network to null the QRM. It's all just noise whether it's the plasma TV or some unidentified ham noise.

    I've suspected for several years that if FCC could find a way to put ham radio under Part 15 they'd do it. International treaty is I think preventing that, but the current FCC probably doesn't care much about HF at all. Look how fast CW testing went away as soon as it quit being required by ITU.
     
  7. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    [QUOTE="SM0AOM]If the FCC wants to do away with amateur radio, there probably are quicker and easier ways than imposing bandwidth limits...

    ...Many if not most European administrations see us as a royal PITA which whine and complain about almost everything but contribute nothing except unnecessary workload. No one knows the limits of their patience, and as the regulations are formulated in many countries, the privileges may vanish with "the stroke of a pen".


    [/QUOTE]

    In our country the FCC can't willy-nilly do away with any Comm. service without the consent of the Congress which established it.

    As far as AM being a reason to keep part 97, AM is one of the modes authorized since it's inception, but is not the main reason for opposition to RM-11708. The main reason is the proposed establishment of bandwidth restrictions for the main HF bands. The wideband digital establishment will not be happy with just a 2.8khz bandwidth. Further requests would use the 2.8khz bandwidth rule as a precedent to further increase the bandwidth of digital modes.

    Furthermore, the 2.8khz bandwidth rule could also be used to advance the notion that all ARS emissions should be limited to 2.8khz. This would be unacceptable to the AM and SSB communities.

    In this country we have the right to complain because the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the reverse.


    Phil
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    AC0OB - A Place where Thermionic Emitters Rule!
    Besides, when you're a Ham, you experiment with and improve boat anchors - that's what you do!. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
    N6YW likes this.
  8. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Dupe
     
  9. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    We already have a 'de facto' digital bandwidth limit within the Part 97.3 rules:

    "(2) Data. Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted."


    If anything needs to changed it should be this part:

    § 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes. (a) Where authorized by §§97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of the part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital codes: (1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU–T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as “Baudot”). (2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU–R Recommendations M.476–5 and M.625–3 (commonly known as “AMTOR”). (3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in IT–-T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as “ASCII”). (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications."

    In my view, this implies open source digital codes and PACTOR IV is NOT one of those.


    Phil
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    AC0OB - A Place where Thermionic Emitters Rule!
    Besides, when you're a Ham, you experiment with and improve boat anchors - that's what you do!. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  10. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    That paragraph only limits facsimile transmissions to 500 Hz.
     

Share This Page