3 Jun
2019
3 Jun
'19
4:08 p.m.
Yes, the 100KHz rule is still alive and well here in the US. I agree it's
old but its there so we should at least try to abide by it.
Even 56K would be a significant improvement on the 1k2 and 9k6 we have
currently.
Keep up the good work!!
Mark
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM f4hdk <f4hdk(a)free.fr> wrote:
Hello,
Yes, I will try to provide smaller bandwidths in the following months
(or weeks?) for NPR. Probably ~180kHz, which could carry ~90kbps with
2GFSK and ~160kbps with 4GFSK (net datarate).
But I don't think that I will propose modulation parameters which could
match the (very small) FCC restrictions (100kHz and 56kbaud if I
remember well). This rule seems outdated to me... even if it still applies.
Do not hesitate to take a look regularly at my hackaday web-page in
order to keep informed about "New Packet Radio".
https://hackaday.io/project/164092-npr-new-packet-radio
73,
Guillaume F4HDK
Le 03/06/2019 à 04:00, David Ranch a écrit :
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Great to hear and thanks for the update Mark. Has there been any
mention of supporting smaller bandwidths in the future?
--David
KI6ZHD
On 06/02/2019 05:27 PM, Mark Phillips 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