Re: [olivia] Will You Let FCC Kill Olivia?
- Read on page 11 on the PDF file for this RM line 4 on.
You will see that it will STOP any wide mode.
Blaming Pactor 3 for this is just like blaming the "microphone"
for what happen to Don Imus...
At 07:10 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
>I did not understand the hype about the petition until I went to the personal website of the people opposing the petition. (Does the term "good buddy" mean anything to you???) People have been bending the rules to much and just transmitting with relatively wide band signals with out regard for band occupancy. (I though jamming was a federal offense in the USA???)
>Band widths (number of carriors) may have to be changed but unless you are the worlds fastest typist or transmitting war and peace - a typical amateur will not be affected in any way.
>The canned comments below are technically pure processed hay. Any one with any type of technical competence in communications will realize they are simply sound bites with no technical basis. The canned comments below are sound bytes with a definite political addenda.
>It is time the amateurs say enough is enough and return to technical excellence and professional operating techniques.
>Definitely read the petitions yourself and submit a comments. From reading the proposed petition - only Pactor 3 would have major problems with the new rules. Amazingly Pactor 3 is the only patented transmission protocol the amateur radio operators are not able to use and the source code for the computer programs is not in the public domain. A few other protocol will have some problems but amazingly the protocols that have problems are not in the public domain.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John Becker, WØJAB" <w0jab@...> wrote:
>Then it was the wrong word that I used. There are apparently stations
> WRONG AGAIN !
> There are no "unattended stations" in USA under FCC rules.
> All stations *MUST* have a control operators by one means
> or another.
> If you would like to keep the narrow away from the wide modes.
> Just where would you put the narrow modes? since they are
> the modes that seem to be needing the protection.
> At 09:09 AM 1/2/2008, you wrote:
> >You ARE correct and I was WRONG. I did not see the difference
> >between image and data. Incidentally, I posted my comment against the
> >petition last week for other reasons. I am in favor of keeping wide
> >modes out of the same freqs as narrow modes AND especially interested
> >in restricting unattended stations but this proposal was not all that
> >good even for that.
that are not attended OR the control operators don't do their jobs.
I have heard at least several modes used by hams at mumerous times in
THIS country that consistently cause interference and would like them
to be regulated more. Just one example is PROPNET and they are not
alone. I wonder how many of those people and the Pactor crowd leave
their stations unattended? And while I certainly don't want to see
any modes eradicated I don't think it is wise to have too many wide
modes taking up the whole data spectrum. I personally thought the
ARRL idea of sectioning off areas of the bands by bandwidth had merit.
The exact implementation they had in mind may or may not have been
acceptable to many but I still think that something of that nature
needs to be done.
Between the nets, contests, and automated (or whatever you want to
call them) stations, and die hards who think they own frequencies -
usuable ham radio spectrum space is shrinking. Is it really necessary
to have 3-10 contests a week? Does W1AW really need to semi own a
frequency for all the broadcasting it does?
I think we need a little more structure to protect everyone and the
recent proposal was not proper or adequate.