Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Olivia?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "expeditionradio"
> > gary robinson wrote:
> > I believe the proposal would still NOT prohibit use of the
> > wider modes in the phone portions of the bands where all the
> > modes would be approx. the same width.
> Well, Gary, sorry to point this out so bluntly,
> but you are wrong :)
> The petition would have killed all the data modes I listed,
> plus many more digi data modes that have not even been
> developed yet.
> In USA we have "mode-based FCC rules". Yes, they are
> antiquated, but the rules do not allow Data in the Phone bands.
> You could send a comment to the FCC that you want to keep the
> freedom to use all these different data modes. But,
> it hardly matters now, because the deadline for comments is
> almost over, and "the people have spoken". They overwhelmingly
> told the FCC to reject the petition, by a factor of more than
> 10 to 1.
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> > > There are many many Digital Data Modes wider than 1.5kHz
> > > That would be killed by the petition:
> > > Olivia 16-2000, Olivia 32-2000, Olivia 64-2000, Olivia 128-2000,
> > > Olivia 256-2000, MT63, OFDM, ALE, 188-110, 141FAE-ARQ, 141-
> > > RFSM2400, RFSM8000, ARD9000(data), G4GUO-DV(data), HamDRM, etc,etc,
> > > etc. The list goes on and on... plus future development modes.There is no need to feel "sorry" about telling me that you think I am
wrong. I am NOT the least bit sorry to say that I believe you are
incorrect. Part 97 of the F.C.C. rules does NOT make it illegal to
operate all digital modes in the "phone" bands. The "phone" bands
are NOT exclusively set aside for phone operation. The only
exclusive phone band I am aware of (without checking the rules again)
is the 60 meter channelized freqs we have. Don't mistake ARRL
bandplans with FCC regulations.
This recent plan would not kill off any digital mode as I read it.
But as you said - it may be a moot point since everyone is against it
anyway. I was and still am just cautioning against hysteria. I
operate 99% digital and 90% on Olivia so I wouldn't want to lose any
modes either. So far I have NOT seen anything to indicate a threat
to do so in this proposal.
- --- In email@example.com, "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.