New RM-11769 Proposed "Symbol Communication Subbands" in place of CW/Data

First, the only currently mandated cw sub-bands in part 97 are 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz.
I suggest that N0CEN's choice of the term 'symbol communications' is a poor one. Technically, in electronic communications terms, a symbol is an element in the coded representation of a higher order entity such as the letter A ... it is NOT the letter A. Using N0CEN's definition in a regulatory document defining technical standards is confusing and inconsistent with good practice.
Jules Madey, K2KGJ

 

Just some random thoughts on this topic:

1) I believe that there is significant value in _human copyable_ digital modes. This is a valuable enough skill that I believe that bandspace should be set aside for such operation.

2) I don't believe that CW is the only possible human copyable digital mode. If bandspace is set aside for such digital modes, I believe it should be open to _any_ digital mode which could be sent and copied by a human with a simple analog circuit.

Remember that there are several varieties of morse code, and that morse codes was originally mechanically sent (essentially movable type) and copied (lines on paper), but it turned out that humans could run it directly. (See http://www.sparkmuseum.com/TELEGRAPH.HTM for the first telegraph sender.)

3) I bet that with a simple demodulator a human could copy and possibly send PSK31.

4) I am generally against rm-11769

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

Why should it make any difference as to whether or not a "digital" mode is "human" decoded or not? The bandwidth doesn't care. And what about CW isn't "digital"? What does any of this matter? Where is the line drawn? Does using a voice keyer change SSB voice to digital? Does the use of a CW Memory keyer change CW to Digital simply because of it's use? Somebody speaking a language I don't understand change that mode because it's not "Human" decodable to me?

I must be missing the finer point somewhere along the way. I don't get any of it.

Thanks,

Ed

 

Perhaps it should not make a difference in this era of ubiquitous computing. It costs essentially nothing to put a rather powerful computer into every bit of hardware out there.

On the other hand, a digital mode where the 'processing power' is between the ears does seem to me something special that should be preserved.

CW is absolutely a digital mode. It passes the basic test of being a discrete level discrete time mode where in principal the original signal can be perfectly re-created as long as the noise level is low enough.

Call it nostalgia, call it extreme disaster prep, _I personally_ have a soft spot for human decodable digital. I like the idea of a digital mode that works without any computer involvement.

You make some very good points there. Is it a human decodable mode if _I_ can't decode it? Is it a human sendable mode if a machine sends it?

If there were frequencies reserved as I described for 'human sendable' modes, then there would be no way to enforce human sending; you might be able to discern _perfect_ machine sending from _human_ sending, but you would have no way of identifying a machine faking human sending. A 'CW' reserved frequency space would not maintain a pool of people skilled in CW if everyone is simply using machines to send and copy CW.

I guess I'm not ready to submit a proposal yet

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

I'm not sure its "hate" mail, after reading it.........might be good advise for him.

 

Figuratively speaking... I consider any negative and derogatory statements contained in a written communication to be 'hate mail'. You can call it 'dislike mail' if you want. Or maybe even 'I think you are a jerk' mail. I'll continue to use that figure of speech of 'hate mail' for this class of communication.

But yeah, I never said it's not deserved!

When I saw that he submitted it to the FCC as an addendum to his filing I KNEW it was true!
Like ... " Waaahhhhh, waaahhhhh, look at this FCC! Somebody called me a JERK! waaaahhhhhhh, waaaahhhhhh..."

 

Amusingly, RM-11769 is now the third most-commented proceeding at the FCC, as measured by the number of comments filed in the past 30 days.