[SFDXA] Urge the FCC-Reject ARRL's Symbol Rate Petition

Mon Dec 9 13:11:16 EST 2013

Hi Mark,
I'm not familiar with DSAR HF. What is it?

The sum and substance of the ARRL petition is to remove the "300 baud" 
limitation on digital/data modulations, and instead replace it with a 2800 Hz 
bandwidth cap on digital modulations (just like is now allowed in the 60 m band 
channels). The widest current HF ham modulation of which I am aware is PACTOR-3 
which in its highest data rates requires 2200 Hz.  Removing the baud rate limit 
would allow PACTOR-4 which also uses 2200 Hz bandwidth but uses a higher symbol 
rate (baud rate) than 300 baud..

73
Kai, KE4PT

On 12/9/2013 11:59 AM, Wohlschlegel, Mark wrote:
> Will such a be limit have an impact on DSAR HF?
> Mark
> WC3W
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "Bill"<bmarx at bellsouth.net>  wrote:
>>
>> Unintended consequences.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Kai<k.siwiak at ieee.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with you, Bill, except that the ARRL filing has absolutely nothing to do with that.
>>> The popping up of unattended signals is not addressed in the filing, and will not change one way or the other because of the filing.
>>>
>>> I've read AA6YQ's comments as well. He also misses the big point. All his arguments are valid except that they also have nothing to do with the filing.
>>>
>>> Under current rules, there is no BW restriction on digital modulations, they are "restricted" only due to the BW limitations of current ham radios. Most of today's radios can't handle much more than the currently used 2200 Hz wide signals.
>>>
>>> We NEED a BW limit.
>>>
>>> Search Kok Chen's comment on [RTTY]. He gets it.
>>>
>>> -Kai, KE4PT
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2013 7:40 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Comments were by AA6YQ...
>>>>
>>>> In general, the RTTY/Digital community is against this new set of rules. I personally agree that the unfettered popping up of unattended signals is a problem and rules pandoring to small sections of the community at the cost to large sections is troublesome.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Marx W2CQ
>>>>
>>>> \
>>>>> On 12/8/2013 11:45 PM, Kai wrote:
>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. Under the current FCC rules there is NO bandwidth restriction on digital communications. As radio capabilities (read that software defined radios capable of wide bandwidth) people will define wide band digital systems exceeding the currently used  2200 Hz digital modulations. Those modulations were designed to fit inside the linear portion of the  BW of most of today's radios.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big danger in defeating the ARRL proposal is that as future rig capabilities increase, and linear bandwidths get bigger, like in some  SDR radios, people will begin filling that bandwidth capabillity with modulations much wider than today's 2200 Hz modulations, and UNDER TODAY'S RULES.
>>>>> I think that we need a defined bandwidth limit (which is completely distinct from a baud rate limit).
>>>>>
>>>>> AA5AU's analysis is dangerously flawed.  Many of the issues he raises are valid ham radio concerns but they have little or nothing to do with RM-11708.
>>>>> 73
>>>>> Kai, KE4PT
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/8/2013 9:15 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>  From Don AA5AU:(edited for space)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I threw together a webpage showing how to file comments on the recent ARRL Petition designated RM-11708. It is located at:
>>>>>> http://aa5au.com/fcc/how-to-comment.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is IMPORTANT that each of you, whether you live in the United States or not, file a comment showing your opposition (or support)
>>>>>> of the ARRL Petition. As mentioned on this reflector previously, this petition has world-wide ramifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way we are going to defeat this thing is with an abundance of well-thought out
>>>>>> comments directed against the petition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would like to see what comments have been submitted, you can go to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11708
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to forward these links to any other organizations that may benefit from them. I will post a link to the how-to-comment
>>>>>> page on the home pages of rttycontesting.com and aa5au.com later today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, Don AA5AU
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/8/2013 9:01 AM, Norm Alexander wrote:
>>>>>>> The following is an argument for writing the FCC opposing the ARRL Symbol Rate Petition written by Dave AA6YQ author of DXLab logging program, and active DXer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I thought sounding like a reasonable request by the ARRL, after reading Dave's argument, I have changed my mind -  something to think about.  Note comments are due by Dec. 17th
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Norm W4QN
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: December 07, 2013 14:33
>>>>>>> To: dxlab at yahoogroups. com
>>>>>>> Cc: Dave AA6YQ
>>>>>>> Subject: [dxlab] Why (and How) You Should Urge the FCC to Reject the ARRL's
>>>>>>> Symbol Rate Petition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: the message below is not directly relevant to DXLab, but as I consider
>>>>>>> this issue critical to all amateur radio operators, I am taking the liberty
>>>>>>> of posting it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 73,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave, AA6YQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ARRL has filed a petition with the FCC to replace the current symbol
>>>>>>> rate limits with a bandwidth limit. If accepted, digital modes as wide as
>>>>>>> 2800 hertz would become legal for use by US hams on HF bands. Pactor 3,
>>>>>>> which is legal under the current symbol rate limit, is 2200 hertz wide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the ARRL's petition were accepted, automatic (unattended) digital mode
>>>>>>> stations currently using Pactor 3 could be upgraded to wider modes. Many
>>>>>>> automatic stations lack the ability to forego transmitting on a busy
>>>>>>> frequency, and thus interfere with ongoing QSOs. If automatic stations are
>>>>>>> permitted to use modes with bandwidths up to 2800 hertz, the incidence of
>>>>>>> this interference will increase significantly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While US-based automatic stations using digital modes wider than 500 hertz
>>>>>>> are restricted to specified sub-bands (e.g. 10,140 - 10,150, 14,095 -
>>>>>>> 14,099, 14,101-14,112, 21,090 - 21,100, 24,925 - 24930), these frequencies
>>>>>>> are shared with QSOs between live operators. Furthermore, the WinLink
>>>>>>> network now claims that its automatic stations are actually under the
>>>>>>> control of the remote stations that invoke them, and are therefore no longer
>>>>>>> restricted to these sub-bands. This network now advertises US-based
>>>>>>> automatic stations running Pactor 3 outside the automatic sub-bands -
>>>>>>> automatic stations that could be upgraded to 2800 hertz modes if the ARRL
>>>>>>> Petition is accepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allowing automatic stations to use wider digital modes without first taking
>>>>>>> steps to reduce the interference they cause to ongoing QSOs is a recipe for
>>>>>>> increased conflict and ill will - the opposite of what's needed. In the
>>>>>>> interest of continued innovation, we should allow the use of wider digital
>>>>>>> modes on HF bands - but in a manner that reduces interference and conflict,
>>>>>>> rather than making it worse as the ARRL's petition would do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I therefore urge you to oppose the ARRL's petition by filing comments with
>>>>>>> the FCC before December 17. Don AA5AU has provided instructions for doing
>>>>>>> so:
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> South Florida DX Assoc.
>>>>>>> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
>>>>>>> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
>>>>>>> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or Subscribe:
>>>>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
>>>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>> South Florida DX Assoc.
>>>>>> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
>>>>>> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
>>>>>> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or Subscribe:
>>>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
>>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> South Florida DX Assoc.
>>>>> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
>>>>> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
>>>>> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or Subscribe:
>>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> South Florida DX Assoc.
>>> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
>>> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
>>> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or Subscribe:
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> South Florida DX Assoc.
>> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
>> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
>> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or Subscribe:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html