Dave,
When multiple carriers are used to spread data over a range,
they become a narrow band spread spectrum system (e.g ROS)
which is illegal. You are well aware of the issues with ROS.
In any case 2.8 KHz bandwidth is completely inappropriate for
the traditional "non-phone" bands and only serves to benefit
the interests of WinLink/Sail Mail and other quasi commercial
users of the amateur spectrum. ARRL should be fighting these
proposals and interests vigorously for should they succeed
there will be absolutely no need for the Boards "Succession
Committee" as amateur radio as we have known it for nearly
100 years will be destroyed by those commercial interests in
a few short years.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 7/25/2013 8:59 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Joe, multi-carrier FSK is not spread spectrum and is entirely legal now.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists@subich.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:41 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Cc: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Subject: Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives
It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers, each with
multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably wider than 2.8
kHz.
Dave is full of it ... such a modulation would constitute a narrow band
spread spectrum signal (e.g. ROS) which would be illegal under the
rules. This is nothing more than an another attempt to (1) find a way
to make PACTOR III legal in the US and (2) find a place for digital
voice operation where it does not face competition from analog voice.
If ARRL succeeds in ramming this garbage past the FCC, it will spell the
end for CW and most traditional person to person digital modes.
It will be a bigger fiasco than *Incentive Licensing* and will likely
result in losses to amateur allocations similar to those in response to
the UPS "grab" for spectrum at 200 MHz for their ill-fated "narrow band
voice modulation" boondoggle. Note UPS never built their system but
amateur radio in the US permanently lost access to 2 MHz between
220 and 222 MHz.
Allow 2.8 KHz digital data and commercial interests will be all over
wanting the suddenly valuable lower 100 KHz of EVERY amateur HF band.
The ARRL Board of Directors can't seem to learn from history ... and as
they say, those who refuse to learn from history and condemned to repeat
it.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 7/24/2013 3:58 PM, Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM wrote:
All,
FYI---- Here is the response I received today, 7/24/2013 from K1ZZ,
the CEO of the ARRL Re my strong objection to the ARRL 2.8KHz
bandwidth proposal for digital modes in all the HF bands.........
Here is the ARRL (but, we are working for your best interests)
position...........
73,
Ben - WB2RHM, WB2RHM/4, WB2RHM/2
ARRL Life Member
ARRL 50 yr Member
Active RTTY Contester
**********************************************************************
****************
Ben, I will forward your comments to your Director, Dennis Bodson,
W4PWF.
However, you should welcome a limit being placed on the bandwidth of
HF digital data signals. At the present time there is no bandwidth
limit whatsoever on digital data signals as long as the 300 baud limit
is observed. It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers,
each with multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably wider
than
2.8 kHz. The 2.8 kHz value accommodates digital emissions now in
common use while putting a cap on the bandwidth that a station could
occupy in the future.
73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
**********************************************************************
****************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|