Ron, Hold on a sec... Your Director got it badly wrong and is doing a serious disservice by guessing. The CURRENT regs already have that "unspecified code" language in 97.307. The ARRL proposal does
Chen, Remember this crucial point: The only thing restricting BW today is the general unavailability of radios with SSB bandwidths greater than the average of 2.45 kHz BW. PACTOR3 was designed to use
Chen, That's a good approach. Now the tricky part. Can you/we now craft an argument that increasing that limit from the defacto 2200 Hz is harmful to current users? That argument must survive things
Peter, You are right - I looked up the ARRL product review, the SSB is BW=2855 Hz measured at the 6 dB down points. To use 2800 Hz data effectively you would need to add about 100 Hz on each side to
Bill I do understand that you are joking of course, but spark-type emissions (class-B damped wave), while not legal in ham bands, are legal under Part 15, the subpart dealing with Ultra-wideband radi
Bill This one is in the "let's get serious" category. I've handled several thousand of pieces of message traffic by voice in ONE of our hurricane emergencies in Florida. I mean voice messages *copied
Joe, Let's let the EMMCOMM people speak for themselves regarding the need, or not, for PACTOR-3 or -4 on HF. My experience supports the need for those digital modes. My wife, a ham who's volunteered
Hi Chen What a tortured argument he made!! BIG error here: *"**So, before the FCC removes the symbol rate and allow higher bandwidths ..."* Higher bandwidths ARE already permitted, or more precisely
Hi Al, Baud rate does NOT limit BW, except for 2-tone FSK RTTY. Actually, two tone FSK RTTY is the ONLY digital modulation that currently has a defacto BW limit under FCC rules. Those limits are 300
Hi Chen, Right you are - P4 is 2400 Hz BW, not 2200 Hz. So the 2200 of P3 has already crept up to 2400 Hz. The data from your URL further also makes my point: "Special importance was given during the
Dave There is no world in which baud rate limits bandwidth. Bandwidth may depend on baud rate a a bunch of other things, but limiting baud rate does not by itself limit bandwidth. 73 Kai, KE4PT On 12
Chen, Thanks for the comments and for that additional data point: 4 kHz noise BW -- now I understand the SCS SNR claims! Cheers and Happy New Year Kai THAT is why we need a limit! Ham radios, especia
I echo Ben's "thank you" to all commenting hams. There are well over 800 comments, that's more than 0.1% of all US hams. That right there sends the clear message to the Commission that Amateur Radio
Peter, I see what you mean! Detailed info is pretty sparse. I did find the following "gentlemen's agreement" plan from W4CIA: http://www.ciarc.org/downloads/*Digital*_*Mode*_Band_Plan.pdf? It's a sta
The data are from W7CIA, not W4. Sorry! 73 Kai, KE4PT On 1/8/2014 2:40 PM, Kai wrote: Peter, I see what you mean! Detailed info is pretty sparse. I did find the following "gentlemen's agreement" plan
Hi Ron Thanks Kai That link is busted, this one works http://www.ciarc.org/downloads/Digital_Mode_Band_Plan.pdf It references HFLink for most of it's plans, some of their stuff is dated and I have pe
Dave I can suggest a completely independent way of measuring the frequency of a RTTY signal received by your K3. You will need "Digipan" PSK software, and a soundcard connected to you radio. Set the
The Canadian bandwidth restrictions below 28 MHz are 6 kHz (with no mode sub-bands mentioned in the regs), except for 1 kHz at 30 m and now 2.8 kHz in the 60 m band channels. How refreshingly simple.
Phil, When our club station was down (with neither the kilowatt not RTTY unavailable), I hooked up my FT-817 (with Signalink-USB) to our excellent club antennas, and worked few DXpeditions on several
Pardon, but what does "QYF" stand for? ... I think QYF is much more civilized. Isn't it worth a try? I'm open to better suggestions. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTT