I just spotted this. Here is every US hams chance to make direct comments to the FCC.
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-technological-advisory-council-investigating-te...
Steve, KB9MWR
Excellent find Steve.
The one thing I know that we need to request is elimination of symbol-rate restrictions, to be replaced with bandwidth restrictions.
Anything else?
Michael N6MEF
-----Original Message----- From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Steve L Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 6:06 PM To: 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: [44net] Outdated regulations [Was: OFDM Modem]
I just spotted this. Here is every US hams chance to make direct comments to the FCC.
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-technological-advisory-council-investigating- technical-regulations
Steve, KB9MWR _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
I see no reason for bandwidth restrictions either. As long as the emission in confined to the allocated ham band, why legally restrict how wide it is? Masochishm? - Brian
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 06:15:20PM -0700, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
Excellent find Steve.
The one thing I know that we need to request is elimination of symbol-rate restrictions, to be replaced with bandwidth restrictions.
Anything else?
Michael N6MEF
Now imagine someone sending a signal 2 mhz wide on 447 mhz not really cool for the rest of the Ham community. That is why we need band with limitation
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 sept. 2017 à 21:33, Brian Kantor Brian@UCSD.Edu a écrit :
I see no reason for bandwidth restrictions either. As long as the emission in confined to the allocated ham band, why legally restrict how wide it is? Masochishm?
- Brian
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 06:15:20PM -0700, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote: Excellent find Steve.
The one thing I know that we need to request is elimination of symbol-rate restrictions, to be replaced with bandwidth restrictions.
Anything else?
Michael N6MEF
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, pete M wrote:
Now imagine someone sending a signal 2 mhz wide on 447 mhz not really cool for the rest of the Ham community. That is why we need band with limitation
Just because a signal is wide doesn't mean it's causing interference for everyone occupying the same frequency range. You could for example have multiple spread spectrum users occupying the same range and using a very wide signal and not be stomping on each other. The bottom line is that interference is mitigated, and spectrum is efficiently utilized.
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
Mayby i miss something if im wrong please correct me and get my apologies
but why to invent the wheel ?
there is excellent solution that the hamwan doing with the UBNT gear cheep , reliable
we start to build such network this days same way in all our repeaters
why not using it ?
Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
________________________________ From: 44Net 44net-bounces+ronenp=hotmail.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu on behalf of "" tony@lavanauts.org Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 11:22 PM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Outdated regulations [Was: OFDM Modem]
I see no reason for bandwidth restrictions either. As long as the emission in confined to the allocated ham band, why legally restrict how wide it is? Masochishm?
- Brian
Band sharing. Otherwise, one person could take up the whole band. I need to refresh my memory, but I'm pretty sure that bandwidth restrictions exist for other emission types, like SSB, etc.
Oooh. Perhaps we need to make sure the list of permitted emission designators is also updated.
Michael N6MEF
On 4/09/2017 11:45 AM, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
Band sharing. Otherwise, one person could take up the whole band. I need to refresh my memory, but I'm pretty sure that bandwidth restrictions exist for other emission types, like SSB, etc.
You mean you're not able to work out sharing, without the FCC getting involved over there?
Oooh. Perhaps we need to make sure the list of permitted emission designators is also updated.
NO! NO! NO! As long as there is a list of permitted emission designators, your regulations remain brittle and prone to rapid obsolescence (and holding the rest of the world back). Allow any emission that fits within the band. Hams need to be more responsible and share the bands on their own, without the authorities wielding a stick.
On 04/09/17 12:19, Tony Langdon wrote:
.........Allow any emission that fits within the band. Hams need to be more responsible and share the bands on their own, without the authorities wielding a stick.
I agree. And with a "pro-deregulation" government, now might just be the time for US hams to start campaigning for this.
The only band plan rule enforced by the FCC ought to be against deliberate interference to other hams. Otherwise, you could have a voluntary plan, perhaps administered by the ARRL. That way you could foster experimentation and research (such as the one that started this thread).
Steve
Why let an organization that has been a ball and chain, with only 20% of the USA ham population as members, be the controller of all things ham? In this day and age of the internet and direct communications to the FCC, why can't we just let them set the overall rules and then just let it continue? Aren't we supposed to be "self policing"?
On 9/3/2017 10:58 PM, Steve Fraser wrote:
On 04/09/17 12:19, Tony Langdon wrote: ......... The only band plan rule enforced by the FCC ought to be against deliberate interference to other hams. Otherwise, you could have a voluntary plan, perhaps administered by the ARRL. That way you could foster experimentation and research (such as the one that started this thread).
Steve
-
"" -
Brian Kantor -
Charles J. Hargrove -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
pete M -
R P -
Steve Fraser -
Steve L -
Tony Langdon