[SEDXC] Bandwidth

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> You have to be kidding me! The ARRL actually did something like this
> and the FCC is on board for something this stupid?

Read WT 16-239 where FCC proposes to eliminate the symbol rate as
originally proposed by ARRL in RM-11708 and indicates that it will
not apply a bandwidth limitation.  Add to that a separate proposal
by ARRL (at the instigation of the current Southeastern Director)
to allow Technician licensees to use digital modes on HF.

You have all of the ingredients for the scenario I have outlined.

Comments on WT 16-239 are open until the first of October ... any
amateur who values CW and traditional narrow bandwidth digital
modes should make themselves aware of the situation and file
comments in opposition to this dangerous development.  My own
comments will be filed at the end of this month:

1) eliminate the designations "RTTY/DATA" and "VOICE/IMAGE" in
    §97.305 (c)

2) Replace §97.307 (f) (3) with §97.307 (f) (4) and modify §97.305 (f)
    (4) to specify a maximum bandwidth of 400 Hz.

3) Modify §97.307 (f) (2) to specify a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 KHz
    Except that 6K0A3A (traditional double sideband AM) shall also be
    permitted.

4) Modify §97.307 (f) (3) to specify a maximum bandwidth of 20 KHz
    and replace §97.307 (f) (2) with §97.307 (f) (3) at 50 - 224 MHz

5) Add a requirement that all ACDS stations implement and use effective
    "channel busy" detectors capable of preventing transmission if any
    signal greater than -135 dBm is present within a 3.5 KHz channel
    (maximum bandwidth plus a 25% "guard band").

6) Add a requirement that any emission not intended for reception by
    ear (e.g., CW, AM, SSB, FM) include a visual means (audio spectrum
    or "waterfall") for determining that the frequency is in use *and*
    that display must be used.

7) require an Amateur Extra class license to be the control operator
    of an ACDS.

8) require that the data randomization code and compression tables of
    all data protocols be public.


73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 9/14/2016 6:55 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>> Why bother at all?  ARRL have made the Amateur Radio Parity Act moot
>> by their support for unlimited bandwidth data signals in the "CW and
>> RTTY" bands as well as their proposals that would allow Technician
>> class licensees to run data modes including automated data stations
>> (WINLINK).
>>
>> The rules as proposed by the FCC in response to ARRL's RM-11708
>> (WT 16-239) will eliminate any limit on symbol rates with no limit
>> on occupied bandwidth.  The traditional "CW/RTTY" sub-bands could
>> be overrun with 2.8 KHz (STANAG/MS-110 and PACTOR 4), or wider
>> (D-STAR, System Fusion) data/file transfers in a matter of months.
>
>
> You have to be kidding me! The ARRL actually did something like this and
> the FCC is on board for something this stupid?
>