Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: BoD votes LoTW initiatives

Expand Messages
  • Joe Subich, W4TV
    ... the Board directed ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, to prepare a Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking to modify §97.307(f) to delete all
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 23, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > Symbol Rate Rule Modernization
      >
      > On the motion of ARRL West Gulf Division Director Dr David
      > Woolweaver, K5RAV, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule
      > Modernization Committee,
      the Board directed ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, to prepare a
      Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking to modify §97.307(f) to
      delete all references to symbol rate. The Petition would ask the FCC “to
      apply to all amateur data emissions below 29.7 MHz the existing
      bandwidth limit, per §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz.”
      >
      > The committee determined that the current symbol rate restrictions
      > in
      §97.307(f) “no longer reflect the state of the art of digital
      telecommunications technology,” and that the proposed rule change would
      “encourage both flexibility and efficiency in the employment of digital
      emissions by amateur stations.” The Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule
      Modernization Committee was dissolved with the thanks of the Board.

      Save us from a Board of Directors that would not know Digital Operation
      if it bit them on the ass. All we need is a bunch of 2.8 KHz wide
      chunks of "white noise" across the entire "non-voice" spectrum. If
      they want to remove the symbol rate, the bandwidth better be compatible
      with that of CW (100 Hz or less) in the majority of the shared non-voice
      spectrum.

      As usual, the ARRL BOD has proven how little they know about amateur
      operation!

      73,

      ... Joe, W4TV


      On 7/23/2013 4:06 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
      > http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-board-names-award-winners-okays-lotw-initiatives
      >
      > 73, de Hans, K0HB
      > --
      > "Just a boy and his radio"
      > --
      > Proud Member of:
      > A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
      > Minnesota Wireless contesters - http://www.W0AA.org
      > Arizona Outlaws contesters - http://www.arizonaoutlaws.net
      > Twin City DX Assn - http://www.tcdxa.org
      > Lake Vermilion DX Assn - http://www.lvdxa.org
      > SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
      > --
      > Superstition trails --> http://oldslowhans.com/
      > Sea stories here ---> http://k0hb.wordpress.com/
      > Request QSL at ---> http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
      > All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
      > LoTW participant
      >


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Jack W6NF
      ... The purpose of the proposed rules change wishes to allow use of higher symbol (baud) rates than is presently permitted in RTTY/data sub-bands. Those rates,
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 24, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7/23/2013 9:50 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
         


        > Symbol Rate Rule Modernization
        >
        > On the motion of ARRL West Gulf Division Director Dr David
        > Woolweaver, K5RAV, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule
        > Modernization Committee,
        the Board directed ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, to prepare a
        Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking to modify §97.307(f) to
        delete all references to symbol rate. The Petition would ask the FCC “to
        apply to all amateur data emissions below 29.7 MHz the existing
        bandwidth limit, per §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz.”
        >
        > The committee determined that the current symbol rate restrictions
        > in
        §97.307(f) “no longer reflect the state of the art of digital
        telecommunications technology,” and that the proposed rule change would
        “encourage both flexibility and efficiency in the employment of digital
        emissions by amateur stations.” The Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule
        Modernization Committee was dissolved with the thanks of the Board.

        Save us from a Board of Directors that would not know Digital Operation
        if it bit them on the ass. All we need is a bunch of 2.8 KHz wide
        chunks of "white noise" across the entire "non-voice" spectrum. If
        they want to remove the symbol rate, the bandwidth better be compatible
        with that of CW (100 Hz or less) in the majority of the shared non-voice
        spectrum.

        As usual, the ARRL BOD has proven how little they know about amateur
        operation!

        73,

        ... Joe, W4TV

        On 7/23/2013 4:06 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
        > http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-board-names-award-winners-okays-lotw-initiatives
        >
        > 73, de Hans, K0HB
        > --
        > "Just a boy and his radio"
        > --
        > Proud Member of:
        > A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
        > Minnesota Wireless contesters - http://www.W0AA.org
        > Arizona Outlaws contesters - http://www.arizonaoutlaws.net
        > Twin City DX Assn - http://www.tcdxa.org
        > Lake Vermilion DX Assn - http://www.lvdxa.org
        > SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
        > --
        > Superstition trails --> http://oldslowhans.com/
        > Sea stories here ---> http://k0hb.wordpress.com/
        > Request QSL at ---> http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
        > All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
        > LoTW participant
        >

        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        The purpose of the proposed rules change wishes to allow use of higher symbol (baud) rates than is presently permitted in RTTY/data sub-bands. Those rates, on HF, are 300 baud except for 28.0-28.3MHz where it is 1200 baud. Whether the proposed changes would result in '2.8 KHz wide chunks of "white noise"' I cannot say but the announcement is certainly not clear in that regard.

        The suggestion that symbol rates be "compatible with that of CW (100 Hz or less)" would, naturally, limit the symbol rate to what is permitted under existing regulations.

        I have already sent an e-mail to my Pacific Division Director and Vice-Director asking for clarification about the ramifications of this proposal. I understand that an editorial by K1ZZ on the subject is set to appear in the September issue of QST.

        I do know that any such proposal will be subjected to a comment period. I would suggest that interested parties start preparing their well-thought-out comments now so a full discussion of this proposal can be had when the proposal is presented formally.

        73,

        -- 
        Jack Parker, W6NF/VE4
        
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.