[KCDXC] Link for FCC Filing RM-11708 REJECT Sample

[Jeff Blaine]

Other countries and regions have the exact problem I am raising caution about.



As an example, here are some meeting notes from the IARU region 1 guys talking about how much of a mess 30m has become due to the number of unattended stations:



http://uska.ch/fileadmin/download/iaru/interim_meetings/vienna2013/VIE13-C4-04_NRRL.pdf



What the ARRL proposes combined with the discounting of the 97.221 restriction by the Winlink guys effectively risks this same mess - expanded to all the bands with 80/40/20 being the primary places the pain is going to be felt.



Another interesting note.  The most recent IARU region 2 (Sep 2013) cautions members specifically about these systems.  For those who don't have it, they may download a copy of the band plan from the ARRL here:



http://www.iaru-r2.org/documents/explorer/files/Plan%20de%20bandas%20%7C%20Band-plan/R2%20Band%20Plan%202013.pdf



Notice that the IARU limits these stations to specific sub-bands.



And in the definitions, they have further cautions:



-------------------------------------------------------


ACDS: Automatic Controlled Data Stations, including Store and Forward
stations (not Digital Voice Repeaters and Internet Voice Gateways). In the case
of digital beacons, it's recommended to insert CW on the usual schedule for
non-machine recognition and use narrow BW as possible. ACDS are allowed
only when directly specified on the segment (except those on board satellites
and spacecraft - able to transmit on specified satellites segments - and onboard
near space stations - see "NSS"). Unattended operations are restricted in HF
(see "Unmanned/unattended transmitting stations").

Unmanned/unattended transmitting stations: IARU member societies are
requested to limit this activity on HF bands. It is recommended that any
unmanned/unattended transmitting stations on HF shall be activated only under

operator control except for beacons agreed



------------------------------------------------------------------



The IARU meeting was attended by 4 of the most senior ARRL guys including K1ZZ and K3KN.  http://www.arrl.org/news/iaru-region-2-publishes-new-band-plan



I am not able to explain why the ARRL's position is that this is not an issue and it's unlikly to become one.  These examples from the IARU specifically contradict this.



73/jeff/ac0c



-----Original Message-----
From: kcdxc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:kcdxc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of bfrahm at st-tel.net
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 11:52 PM
To: Jim Duncan
Cc: KCDXC
Subject: Re: [KCDXC] Link for FCC Filing RM-11708 REJECT Sample



On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:56:10 -0600, "Jim Duncan" <jdbandman at earthlink.net<mailto:jdbandman at earthlink.net>>

wrote:

> Wouldn't the EASIEST solution be to restrict WHERE digital modes using

the

> 2.8 kHz bandwidth are allowable? Something like, in short protecting

> the bottom 100 kHz of each band:



Hi Jim,  YES, however it's much more flexible long-term if those restrictions come from the users and not FCC. The hi-bandwidth data segments of your suggestion are whopping large for what would be needed nowadays if RM-11708 is granted @ 2.8KHz or similar. However as the years go by, and particularly when experimentation is taking place at the sound card software (or SDR) level more than components and solder, the judgment of the community might be to give hi-bandwidth data more territory. Or, conceivably, less, if yet-more efficient modes are uncovered.



K0BJ

--

Its not how many watts you have,

its the SIZE of your watts that matter! -- Johnny Marshall, W0JM-SK _____________________________________________________________

KCDXC mailing list

Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kcdxc

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm

Post: mailto:KCDXC at mailman.qth.net



This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net

Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html