8 Jun
2019
8 Jun
'19
12:53 p.m.
Mark,
I hope you are also taking the time to drop the ARRL a line.
There is still about another 30 days before they supposedly do
something, which of course doesn't mean the FCC will.
The 90 day pause was so the league could active discussions with all
interested parties.
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-agrees-to-90-day-pause-in-consideration-of-wt-…
And WT-239 was titled "Amateur Radio Service Rules To Permit Greater
Flexibility in Data Communications" from 2016
Steve, KB9MWR
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mark Phillips <g7ltt(a)g7ltt.com> wrote:
Got a pair of these modems working! They are just running across the bench
right now. I have an RPi3 and a MMDVM hotspot connected to the client (via
a switch) with the master connected to a spare port on the back of my
pfSense firewall. I'm using mode "22" which is 270KHz wide for about
220kbps of data bandwidth. This seems more than able to handle the serving
of a web age and running the MMDVM. I also did a test in 500kbps mode using
a wifi hotspot attached to the client. I was able to sustain a "wifi
calling" cellphone conversation for over an hour with no issues.
For those not following the project, new firmware was released this weekend
that allows tuning of the RF from 420-450MHz which is a great improvement
over the EU only bandplan.
Take a look here http://g7ltt.dyndns.org:2210
Mark
G7LTT/NI2O
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM Steve L via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
In case anyone feels the need:
It's pretty easy to file a petition through the ECFS. When you go to
the main ECFS page
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
in "Type of filing" select "petition for rule making", and fill out
the rest of the form and upload your petition.
A couple useful pages from the FCC:
<
https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/RP_FCCPetitiontoDeny.pdf
<https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/rulemaking-process>
Here is a quick summary from the last one, three are more details on the
page.
*Organized comments*.
*Clear explanation and support for views*.
*Alternatives. *
*Examples of concerns.*
*Statutory limitations.*
It's also helpful to review recent amateur petitions and the FCC
response. The rejections are a wealth of information on what not to
do.
It might be advisable to suggest RM-11392 and DA 08-1092 rejection,
RM-11699 and DA 13-1918 rejection, as starting points since its
somewhat related.
Don't use ham jargon, be sure sure to explain acronyms at least once
in the filing, if repeated makes it easier to follow.
Don't bash other amateur modes or practices. Don't use technical terms
unless fully explained so a lawyer can understand, most on the
Commission are non-tech types.
Don't ask to ban anything, if you want that done make the case to the
FCC that whatever it is is poor practice without requesting a
ban......let them do it.
Do make your petition concise and to the point without a lot of
rambling and legalese.
Do provide a reason as to why it's a benefit to the amateur service as
a whole, also in the public interest if it applies.
Do have someone, with the background to understand it, proofread and
comment.
Do be ready for rebuttal of comments if there are any opposing....wait
for the "reply to comment" period, this isn't an internet forum
squabble.
Keep comments/reply to civil and professional.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ron Economos via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
> This keeps coming up. Has anyone ever
submitted a petition for rule
> making to the FCC? Or are folks afraid that stirring the pot will get
> DATV banned on 70 cm?
> Ron W6RZ
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net