ad: hrd-2

Why (and How) You Should Urge the FCC to Reject the ARRL’s Symbol Rate Petition

Discussion in 'Working Different Modes' started by AA6YQ, Dec 7, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: l-gcopper
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: l-BCInc
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    If you're wondering why an avid digital mode operator would oppose increasing the bandwidth that can be employed by digital modes, the answer is "I don't". What I oppose is increasing the bandwidth that can be employed by digital modes without simultaneously preventing automatic stations without busy frequency detectors from interfering with even more QSOs than they do today.

    Ideally, the ARRL petition would be modified to require automatic stations using a mode wider than 2200 hertz to incorporate a busy frequency detector. This would not only prevent an increase in interference from automatic stations, it would provide an incentive to the operators of automatic stations to incorporate busy frequency detectors in order to gain access to wider -- and faster -- digital modes. As these operators upgraded their automatic stations, the level of interference they generate would decrease.

    Approving the ARRL petition "as is" would make this more difficult to accomplish in the future, as it would replace the incentive with a "take away". That's why the ARRL petition should be rejected.
     
  2. K3DCW

    K3DCW QRZ Lifetime Member #212 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    That was a negative, I think, in the League's proposal; but a bit of research shows other modes that could be used, such as:

    BPSK500, BPSK1000, 2xPSK500, 4xPSK500, 2xPSK800
    QPSK500,
    PSK500R, PSK1000R, 2xPSK500R, 3xPSK500R, 4xPSK500R, 2xPSK800R,

    The 2xPSK1000 and 2xPSK1000R modes would work, but with a bandwidth of 3600Hz, they won't be allowed under the new rules.

    Some of these modes can produce a throughput that is competitive with, but not equal to, that of Pactor III & IV, and some use a bandwidth up to 2775Hz. Best thing of all, they are all open source and available FREE OF CHARGE in Fldigi right now, if only they were legal because of the symbol rate restrictions.

    That is a quick summary, and I'm sure there are other modes out there that could benefit from the removal of the restriction as well. The best solution, in my opinion, would be a simple removal of symbol rate restrictions with no limitation on bandwidth, but...

    73

    Dave
    K3DCW
     
  3. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Dave, take a look at this comment on the ARRL petition.

    73,

    Dave, AA6YQ
     
  4. K3DCW

    K3DCW QRZ Lifetime Member #212 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Yep, I've read it (as I have most of them, including the numerous "cut and paste" comments from the WinLink folks). I don't disagree with a lot of it, except for the part about speeds in excess of 300baud being unusable over all but very exceptional paths. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the proliferation of STANAG and MIL-STD modems that use high-speed modems over long range.

    The only real limitations on bandwidth right now are NOT modulation techniques or symbol rates; it is the transmit bandwidth of about 99.9% of the amateur radio transmitters (2.4-2.7kHz or so). Let that serve as a functional limit without replacing it with a legislative one. I believe that the Amateur Radio Service should be entirely self-policing. The fewer rules, the better. Get rid of symbol rate limits, don't put any bandwidth limits in place, remove modulation limitations (like Spread Spectrum), and let the amateur radio community work it out.

    If you want to see technical innovation, get the rules out of the way.

    73

    Dave
    K3DCW
     
  5. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Section III of those comments discusses serial tone modems:

    For some rules, I agree. But we should not eliminate the rule requiring that we not transmit on a frequency without first confirming that it is not in use.

    73,

    Dave, AA6YQ
     
  6. K3DCW

    K3DCW QRZ Lifetime Member #212 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page


    We get it, Dave. That's your windmill in this Quixotic quest.

    73

    Dave
    K3DCW
     
  7. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    As an amateur radio operator, I can't think of anything less Quixotic than the practice of making sure your frequency is clear before you transmit. Every introduction to amateur radio reinforces the importance of this operating practice - no matter what mode you're using.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page