[SEDXC] Bandwidth

[Tom W8JI]

Any of us who work HF should get involved in this.  This could be a complete 
disaster for HF operation.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>; <sedxc at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Bandwidth


>
>> 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?
>>