WINLINK terrorist protection

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Aug 2, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Absolutely. What would entice anyone to develop a mode that could only be used on a few KHz of HF spectrum, and that shared with all of the automated stations as well? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
  2. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    One would have to reboot the labyrinth of FCC rules concerning per band emissions into one's head (and that's always a chore), but I do recall the 5 MHz allocation has its own unique rules. The current 300 baud limit doesn't apply if I recall correctly so, for example, Pactor 4 is fine in the US on 60m. Perhaps this oddity still applies if the ARRL's suggestions take hold.
  3. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think this thread needs to be locked.

    There is no reason to talk about terrorist here on QRZ.
  4. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, the way the resolution is worded, it would restrict any HF digital operations to 500Hz or less, except in the ACDS band segments. Since 60M and 160M have no ACDS segment, digital operations wider than 500Hz would be prohibited under what the ARRL is now proposing.

    For example, on 40M, a digital signal greater than 500Hz, but less than 2.8KHz would only be permitted on 5KHz of that band. On 80M, there would be 15KHz of spectrum permitted. On 20M, there would be 16KHz permitted. And all of that would be shared with the incumbent ACDS stations.

    This looks like a giant step in the wrong direction.
  5. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Perhaps. I think the Winlink, DTN and BBS crowd will find ways to share these segments adequately given that:
    • Winlink user base has likely shrunk thanks to the elimination of any sort of practical privacy expectations;
    • DTN (NTS) has zero expectation of privacy and benefits from thrifty message size;
    • BBS Nodes typically use 500 Hz or less on HF anyway.
    Let's see how this plays out. During my monitoring sessions I never got the sense there was crowding issues on 80 or 40m. I'm glad 30m is still an option. Plus anything to rid ourselves of the 300 baud limit is a big plus in my book. That will stimulate a new paradigm of single tone modes.
  6. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't understand the need to limit the bandwidth of a digital station. In the future, maybe the near future, hams may want to communicate faster than is allowed by a 500Hz limit. It looks like it will stifle innovation in the US. I don't think other countries have such rules, but maybe they do. The FCC needs to reduce regulations, rather than increase them. Let hams experiment as they see fit.
    KX4O likes this.
  7. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    You're only just now coming to this conclusion? o_O :oops:
    W6EM and K0IDT like this.
  8. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    It's called "do it on VHF/UHF." In between cacti systems...... Lots of room.
  9. WB6CXC

    WB6CXC Ham Member QRZ Page

    You do realize that HF / VHF / UHF propagation and channel characteristics are quite different, don't you? There are some things you can only do on HF, and the optimum link-layer methods may be completely different than what is appropriate at higher frequencies.
    DL6MAA and K7JEM like this.
  10. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Perhaps not, at least on 60.
    Part 97 currently has specific rules concerning exactly what modes, bandwidth, ect. are allowed on 60. They list the actual band width allowed.

    the line "except as otherwise allowed" should be added to the arrl proposal
    KX4O likes this.

Share This Page