Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Olivia?
> Gary Robinson wrote:Hi Gary,
> 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.
Wrong again :)
The present antiquated FCC rules for USA operators are
"content based". They do not allow certain type of
content such as DATA or TEXT to be sent in the HF "phone"
Unless you are using Olivia to send Voice files or
Image files, are not be permitted to use it in the HF
If by some small chance, the objectives of the RM-11392
Petition were to be adopted by FCC, USA hams would totally
lose our present license privileges to transmit various
versions of the following Digital Data Modes:
Olivia 16-2000, 32-2000, 64-2000, 128-2000, 256-2000
etc, etc, etc. The list goes on...
USA hams would lose 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 american hams back to the
digital stone age?
Today is the last day for comments.
73 Bonnie KQ6XA
- --- 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.