Re: [olivia] Will You Let FCC Kill Olivia?
- There are many many Digital Data Modes wider than 1.5kHz:
Olivia 16-2000, Olivia 32-2000, Olivia 64-2000, Olivia 128-2000,
Olivia 256-2000, MT63, OFDM, ALE, 188-110, 141FAE-ARQ, 141-Unproto,
RFSM2400, RFSM8000, ARD9000(data), G4GUO-DV(data), HamDRM, etc, etc,
etc. The list goes on...
And many other modes that are still being developed, or are simply a
twinkle in the eye of the various hams who are inventing them.
Why should we let FCC stifle our creativity and take away our digi
modes, just because some guy with a typewriter wants to set ham radio
back to the stone age of ham radio digital data?
73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> Um.. I was asking because every single mode I could think of (RTTY,
> PSK31 and variants, MFSK16, Throb submodes, DominoEX submodes, many
> submodes of Olivia and MT-63, Hellschreiber, JT65 & the other WSJT
> modes, ...) uses less -- often much less -- than 1.5kHz.
> Can you please provide an example?
> -chris N2YYZ
- --- 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.