[600MRG] Removing symbol rate restrictions on 630m/2200m

[Scott Armstrong]

Thanks for you insight Brian,

Not interested in starting a debate either. I haven't seen any discussion
about the NPRM and its use/impact on the 630 and 2200 meter bands and
wanted to see what others thought .  The rule has only been in effect on
the HF bands for 4 days now. Time will tell if Pandora's box was opened or
not.

73,
Scott AA5AM




On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 8:19 PM Brian Justin, WA1ZMS <wa1zms at att.net> wrote:

> Scott-
>
> At the risk of saying too much in an open forum, I will say that I was
> asked by the League for my personal technical inputs to help guide a formal
> reply to the FCC’s NPRM.  It was humbling to be “invited”.
>
> As for 2200m…..my *personal* opinion is:
> We need to be very forward thinking as another similar NPRM is unlikely
> for decades.  While 99.9% of today’s emissions are “ultra narrowband” vs
> ACSSB or something else such as 4-level QAM, etc… the actual likelihood of
> someone being able to fill the entire band with enough power spectral
> density given the EIRP limits and the extreme Q of electrically small
> antennas should pose no tenable risk to WSJT-like emissions.   That said,
> when the band first became available in Germany, two hams did have a very
> one-time very narrow BW SSB QSO just to say “we did it!”.  Antenna matching
> I’m certain was a challenge. (I have had SSB QSOs on 630m with NO3M, but
> not on 2200m.) Honestly, I like to try just once.  But what I “want” does
> not an effective NPRM reply make.
>
> So a half-way point to look at it might be a frequency hopped direct
> sequence spread spectrum emission covering only 750Hz of BW. Publish that
> each sequence will start with a synch or dotting pattern at say 100mS after
> each GPS second.
>
> Perhaps someone will write the “anti-WSJT“ where 1kHz of BW or more is
> used. Who knows what the future may hold.  Notwithstanding, the real way to
> protect incumbent users is via the traditional gentleman’s agreement of
> which mode operates where on a band.
>
> Some may not agree with the strategy, or it sounds weak in theory.
>
> I’ve probably said too much already, and my intent is not to start a
> debate or argument, pro or con any emission mode.  I hope it just sets the
> stage for something “new” in the future. That’s all. My 2 cents.
>
> 73,
> -Brian, WA1ZMS
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 18:39, Scott Armstrong <aa5am.scott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi all,
>
> What are the group's thoughts on the proposal to allow 2.8kHz BW digi
> signals on the 630m and 2200m bands?  ARRL is supporting the removal of the
> restrictions.
>
> http://arrl.org/news/arrl-responds-to-fcc-proposals
>
> Seems to be a bit of a conflict on 2200m considering the band is only 2.1
> kHz wide. I realize the difficulties of building antennas and radiating any
> sort of power on the bands plus the low activity. However, any broadband
> signal on 2200m could potentially monopolize the entire  band.
>
> 630m has a little more wiggle room but not much.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Scott AA5AM
> ______________________________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/600mrg/attachments/20240112/86ceb081/attachment.html>