Why are we arguing for MORE regulation? Perhaps a gross simplification of the US amateur regulations might be better. The Canadian Amateur regulations are a good starting point, see the Tables in "St
How many DXers are there in the world? We might take a stab at "HF active hams" by looking at LOTW published figures. Today's snap shot: of LOTW: The average QSL rate is 2x76,455,901/525,115,672 = 0.
The1 and 2 IARU region band plans are very similar; region 3 lays out bands by mode, see the links: http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/ 1 and 2 recommend up to 2700 Hz in what are the USA phone bands.
Thanks for the w8ji link. That was very instructional. But be careful. The signal occupied bandwidth (what we presume to want to regulate) does not always relate to the noise bandwidth (which relates
Hi Chen While I personally agree with you about much lower BW in a clean-slate world, consider the following. If the ARRL had chosen 2200 Hz instead of 2800 Hz, their proposal would have affected abs
EXACTLY! I've brought this up obliquely before, but in more detail here: BW limit means "occupied BW" defined as less than 0.5% of power is below and less than 0.5% power is above the bandwidth. Ther
Hi Joe, I was referring to the future, not the past. We DO want to keep the door open to innovation. That's why I agree that getting the baud language out of the regs is good. But I also think that 2
Hi Chen Have at it! I'm just posting information as I can find it. Info: Note that PACTOR-III was built for the commercial market. I think only PACTOR-III SL1 and SL2, the two lowest order speeds fit
John, The appropriate course of action now would be to file comments about the ARRL proposal (and just the proposal). One approach may be, a step by step effort to defeat any BW greater than 2,200 Hz
I've now studied the ARRL proposal and take the position that symbol rate language is indeed unnecessarily restrictive for modern advances in the state of the amateur radio arts. So most of the ARRL
Chen I finally found non-ARRL info about PACTOR-III. The manufacturer claims an occupied BW of 2.2 kHz not 2.4 kHz as I used in my argument before. So where I used '2.4 kHz' before I now put '2.2kHz'
Hi Joe, It squares this way. PACTOR uses multiple tones, but not tone shifting, so shift is zero. PACTOR baud rate is around 100 Hz, so it is well below the 300 Hz max, so legal. The key is that PACT
Joe Let's be careful about associating PACTOR with "inefficient modes". My VERY PRELIMIARY assessment is that PACTOR-III in its lowest data rate of about 76 user bps may outperform "Steam-RTTY" by as
Bill The FCC/NTIA want you to: (1) monitor the channel for possible upper SSB transmissions if you are to be told to stop. (2) The RTTY tones must be 1500 Hz +/- 85 Hz above the SSB rig dial frequenc
"Steam-RTTY" is Chen's affectation for 45.45 baud 170 Hz shift Baudot RTTY. We use it with respect and affection! It is an aulde modulation that has stood the test of time. 73 Kai Steam-RTTY REPLY: H
Chen The FCC have also stated that Note 23 on page 11 of ARRL filing: "As the commission noted in Mark Miller, supra, changing the rules to prohibit a communications technology that is currently in u
... and in UPPER SSB... Remember that the 60 m band channels are UPPER SSB, so in AFSK, use upper SSB. If you use MMTTY than you also select "rev". Note that the MMTTY "Mark" nomenclature is incorrec
That information is badly outdated. The FCC and NTIA have since interpreted it far more leniently. For Amateur-RTTY, see the Technical Correspondence, QST, Sept 2013 for an example of how to use Amat
Hi Bill Actually those are examples ("such as") of permitted modes, and NTIA have said they are not limiting. Note that 2K80J2D: the 2K80 means 2.8 kHz, and the J2D means SSB suppressed carrier with
MSK is FSK with shift (as understood by hams) equal to half the baud rate. So 45.45 baud with 22.725 shift would be approximately MSK. if you've used 45.45 baud with 23 Hz shift you were close enough