That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can
realize
modes nobody thought of till today.
We don't *need* those wider bandwidth modes for either
radioteletype
(user to user) communications or amateur "data" (bulk transfer)
uses.
The *only value* of wider bandwidth signals is to carry more data -
either digital voice or *commercial* data quantities. In the
former
case, digital voice belongs in the "voice, image" allocations and
in
the latter case, commercial data transfers *do not belong* in the
amateur bands at all.
Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in
the
US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
active on VHF/UHF only.
This is not an issue of "national density" - it is number of hams
in
total or number of users per KHz. There are more amateurs in the
US
than there are in Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South
America *combined*. If even the same percentage of licensees were
to
use wide band data modes in the US as in the rest of the world, the
horrendous level of interference from wideband data signals would
more than double over night.
This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
Winlink/Pactor rather than supporting the future of ham radio.
No, this is all about the future of amateur radio. Do you want an
amateur service that is about the amateurs and provides an
opportunity
for amateur to amateur communication or do you want an amateur
service
in which the amateur bands are used as conduits for low cost
commercial
data transfer - essentially another mobile service - dominated by
one
or two corporations?
This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more
global
future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the
ARRL
process. These self-serving individuals railroaded a
recommendation
through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors without
giving
the general membership an opportunity to comment or provide
opposing
viewpoints.
That's ham radio!
No, that's a corporate coup d'tat.
Support our league, guys.
Support the Amateur Service - not corporate confiscation.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/25/2013 4:18 PM, Stan wrote:
have all been developed under the current bandwidth
"limitations."
That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can
realize
modes nobody thought of till today.
Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world"
as use
of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in
the
rest of the world
Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in
the
US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
active on VHF/UHF only.
Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and
should
This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
Winlink/Pactor rather
than supporting the future of ham radio.
This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more
global
future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
That's ham radio!
Support our league, guys.
Stan
_________________________________________________________
On Nov 25, 2013, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
this is ham radio.
The door is not closed to developing new modes. The most
popular of
new modes, PSK31, JT65, JT9, and WSPR have all been developed
under
the current bandwidth "limitations."
And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham
world
> where this is allowed since many years.
Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" as
use
of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in
the
rest of the world and the general lack of significant usage
for these
bandwidth hogging commercial traffic systems anywhere except
the
automatic control sub-bands.
Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and
should
be made illegal in the same way as bandwidth wasting spark was
made
illegal in the 1920s.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/25/2013 4:11 AM, Stan wrote:
Just for the records,
If you won't follow the arguments of those 'experts' - you are
also welcome to
file a comment that you are perfectly fine with the proposal
from our league.
There're always naysayers but SSB was not the end of ham radio -
the Internet
was not the end of ham radio - 2.8kHz bandwidth will not be the
end of RTTY.
It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
this is ham
radio.
And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham
world where this
is allowed since many years.
Stan
On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> PACTOR III is *NOT* currently permitted under the rules.
Its use has
> been *overlooked* by enforcement organizations as it
*absolutely* can
> not be justified under the *dual standard* in 97.307(f)(3)
which has
> both 300 baud and 1000 Hz shift limits.
That is not true Joe... please don't make that mistake in
your FCC filing.
At all SL levels, Pactor III's symbol rate is fixed at 100
baud (yes, not even close to 300 baud). (Don't confuse Symbol Rate
(baud rate) with data rate (bit rate)).
Pactor III is not 2 tone FSK, so the FSK shift rule does not
even apply (makes no technical sense since there is no frequency
shift happening).
Pactor 3 SL1 (the slowest rate) consists of two synchronous
PSK signals (not FSK), that are separated by 840 Hz. 840 Hz is the
maximum tone separation for Pactor 3 (if you want to apply the
term "shift" to the signal). As more tones are added (SL2, SL3,
etc), the tone separations become narrow, and at the narrowest,
there are 18 tones, separated by 120 Hz from one another.
Pactor 3 SL1, 2 and 3 uses binary PSK, and Pactor 3 SL4, 5,
6 uses Quadrature PSK.
It is much clearer if you go take a look with a panadapter
or a waterfall, or if you can, in I/Q phase space.
Pactor 3 SL1 looks like two broad indistinct tones that are
840 Hz from one another, with a distinctive gap in between them.
It is quite unmistakable once you see it on the waterfall.
73
Chen, W7AY