Anyone can make any claim they want in filing before the Commission and
it would certainly be appropriate to raise the conflict of interest
issue. However, it is probably just as effective to assert that the
petition serves only a narrow special interest and attack it veracity.
Show that the stated goal - to protect amateur radio against unnamed
future wideband modes - can be achieved just as effectively by simply
imposing a 2.4 KHz limit while retaining the current 300 symbols per
second limit.
ARRL's stated reason for the petition is *not* the "legalization" of
PACTOR 4 - it is only used as an example of a protocol that meets the
2.8 KHz test but is currently prohibited due to its 1800 baud symbol
rate. The stated "goal" is to protect amateur radio from an unnamed
multi-tone, 300 baud mode that consumes even more bandwidth than the
current PACTOR III. For example, 36 tones (twice the number of tones
in PACTOR III, service level 6) spaced 120 Hz would be between 5.5 and
6.0 KHz wide. The thing that prevents a roll-out of a mode like that
is not just that current transceivers will not pass 6 KHz in transmit,
the real issue is that the crest factor (peak to average power) would
be in the 10 to 12 dB range - transmitters would be *very* inefficient
(and the mode would be highly sensitive to narrow band interference
at its highest symbol rate <G>).
Everyone who has taken the time to read the literature in the field
(including N9NB's textbook) knows the problems with multi-tone modes.
However, K1ZZ in his zeal to promote the special interests of two board
members continues to hold out this "boogeyman" - the data transmission
equivalent of perpetual motion.
I encourage anyone who has not already filed comments against RM-11708
to do so. If you have already filed comments and have not raised the
issues of conflict of interest and/or "veracity", file additional
comments. It appears that the Commission is accepting comments well
after the normal deadline just as they did with RM-11306.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 4/26/2014 10:38 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
What can we do with this? Can something be submitted to the FCC siting
a severe conflict of interest. That the ARRL's so called committee
findings were slanted etc? Probably not as this is all political.
Mike W0MU
On 4/26/2014 7:44 AM, Terry wrote:
The July, 2004 ARRL Board minutes ties the ARRL and Winlink
together. The
ARRL is on record encouraging the deployment of Winlink. Also the ARRL
had oversight with opportunities for correction of Winlink
deficiencies and
interference issues were obviously not addressed. Details below.
Terry AB5K
21. On motion of Mr. Walstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, the following
resolution was
ADOPTED:
WHEREAS the ad-hoc committee, also known as ARESCOM, was created by
direction from the ARRL Board of Directors to develop a comprehensive
program to enhance the current ARES emergency communications
capability to
include rapid and accurate handling of long range (interstate,
national, and
international) emergency communications; and
WHEREAS this same ad-hoc committee has exceeded the Board's
expectations by
demonstrating a working network which implements the basic
capabilities of
the comprehensive program requested by the Board,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ARRL Board commends the members of the
ad-hoc committee for their efforts and expertise in inaugurating the
current
network; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRL Board encourages further development
and expansion of the inaugural network to broaden the coverage and
continue
its expansion; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ad-hoc committee be requested to
extend its
charter until the January 2005 ARRL Annual Meeting of the Board of
Directors
for the purpose of completing a plan of implementation that insures the
following:
1. ARES is assured the prominent role in the management of this national
network;
2. The ARES officials at all levels and appropriate ARRL HQ staff will be
given the opportunity to formally critique the operation of the
network to
assure that the requirements of ARES and its served agencies are being
met
by the operation of the network;
3. The Winlink 2000 technical experts will positively address the results
and findings of this critique;
4. A plan be developed to assure timely upgrading of the network as new
technologies emerge and future ARES requirements evolve; and
5. Complete the negotiations and agreements necessary to assure ARRL
access
to the Winlink 2000 software.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages the deployment of e-mail
via Amateur Radio (as exemplified by Winlink 2000) as an additional
emergency capability provided to agencies served by ARES.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|