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

[Jeff Blaine]

Hi Bruce,

The flip side of "who benefits" - is "who is harmed."  This proposal opens the doors to fat bandwidth modes - and in exchange it depends on self-policing.  That's been effective in the past - but that's because everyone could read the comms content with minimal or no gear.  It all changes if the email-by-HF thing takes off because that's centered around advanced PACTOR modes.  

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the email-by-HF thing takes off and we have a lot of those stations on the coast around the country running.  Considering that the most popular protocol with the Sailmail crowd seems to be the SCS Dragon P4 modem.  That unit features a great - but proprietary - encoding method.  

This situation would have been completely hopeless if the original proposal verbiage (unspecified codes) was not amended and pulled.  But don’t we have the similar situation with this device in that it's not a specified com method - meaning either you have to buy a similar unit (best case) or you can't read the link at all (worst case)?

I am not sure why we would want to bet the future of the non-phone band-space on effective self-policing - if we can't monitor the com link?  

Then again, maybe I have this all wrong?

73/jeff/ac0c


-----Original Message-----
From: bfrahm at st-tel.net [mailto:bfrahm at st-tel.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:24 PM
To: Jeff Blaine; kcdxc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [KCDXC] Link for FCC Filing RM-11708 REJECT Sample

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:14:20 +0000, Jeff Blaine <Jeff.Blaine at epak.com>
wrote:
...... 
> 1. The ARRL proposal's major change that drops the baud rate limit and 
> increases the bandwidth from 500 hz o 2.8 Khz.

Actually digital bandwidth limit under this NPRM drops from unmlimited (except for frequency band edge limits) to 2.8 KHz. 
> 
> 2.The new limit would apply anywhere CW/RTTY/digital is allowed now. 
Note
> I said CW segment.  The only guys who won't be affected are the phone 
> segments.

Yes, there will be reliance on gentlemen's agreements to keep wide digital out of the traditional cw segments. With most of the rest of the world being allocated the entire band by their version of FCC, with NO mode restrictions, and with flex-use of 160M, as well as RTTY vs cw and wide digital on contest weekends proving very workable among USA and world amateurs, I think this will be easy to achieve.

Who benefits?  In my opinion, experimenters, and users of hi-baud data modes such as the Winlink users and emcomm people you pointed out.

For me the interesting and worthwhile question is, "Is 2.8 KHz the best bandwidth limit choice"?  There are good arguments both for increasing and decreasing that limit.

73  Bruce K0BJ