August 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7725] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by W5JBP＠aol.com 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

In reading your e-mail: "I believe my wording is accurate, and that the potential conclusions have a basis in fact. And: We are deeply concerned about the potential constraints that may be contained in the League's eventual proposal . . . should such a plan. . . Quote: Mr. Rinaldo has stated that there is nothing now under consideration. . . Mr. Rinaldo is correct in that: A: There is no ad-hoc committee. B. Nothing is under consideration that would affect DSB AM operations. Your use of suppositional words indicates a premature conclusion on your part. I have gone on record that our interest is in digital. We have a saying down here in the South: "Don't kick a sleeping dog." The use of AM did not come up in the board discussions and the motion dealt with some new digital technology. But now, with all the "hoopla" from the AM community, no doubt it has been noticed. In reviewing the rules (part 97.307a) it says one should not use more band width than necessary. Assuming that one is using a DSB (A3E) how much spectrum is occupied from the point that the signal is down 40 dB from the emissions center frequency? The rules do go on to say: "A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement." But it still begs the question, how wide can (or should) a A3E be? What is the opinion of the AM community? 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP President, ARRL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7724] Keeping Post-Disaster Rescuers Connected
by Frank Fallon 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

> Wednesday's (August 28, 2002) Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on this topic on page B1. While not really about Amateur Radio it does give some insight into post disaster communications problems and some of the commercial solutions available from JPS Communications. Those of us selling, offering for free actually, our services to local government might well be interested in the article as it does cover some of the needs emergency communicators have in these cases. Frank......N2FF.....

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7723] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Yes indeed, good catch. This proceeding is not in any sense aimed at the 222-225 MHz band, but rather is to determine whether the current darling of the WTB, band managers (i.e. spectrum owners and lessors) should be used in the 220-222 MHz land mobile band. FCC has changed its mind about that band and licensing plans for it so many times that almost nothing can be relied on there, but these comments clearly do call for rebuttal. We will determine the reply comment date and fire back in defense of the 222-225 MHz allocation. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7722] Re: Lance, 'NSYNC and ham radio
by Tuck Miller NZ6T ARRL SWD Vice Director 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Even though N5YNC is already taken, Tom would be correct, as at a fast glance, the 5 could look like an S, thus spelling NSYNC. My 12 year old still likes NSYNC. 73, Tuck Steve Mendelsohn wrote: > Tom Frenaye wrote: > > > Maybe we can get him N5YNC for a callsign... > > > > No Tom. My 10 year old, Scott, advises me that NS5YNC would be more > appropriate. He said "you spelled NSYNC wrong". > > Oh, and yes, Scott IS studying for his tech license. > > -73- Steve, W2ML -- ************************************************ Remember, Helping Others....Always Worthwhile!! Southwestern Division Vice Director American Radio Relay League (ARRL) The national association for AMATEUR RADIO Are you a member yet? If not, visit http://www.arrl.org/join.html 2002 SWD Convention, Aug 16-18 For Registration forms, click on http://sd2002.hamcon.net/mainpage.html?registration.html Tuck's Personal Web Page: http://www.qsl.net/nz6t Follow Tuck around the Division via APRS: http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?NZ6T-9 To send a brief (110 Character max) e-mail, send to nz6t(a)amsat.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7720] Re: Lance, 'NSYNC and ham radio
by Steve Mendelsohn 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Tom Frenaye wrote: > Maybe we can get him N5YNC for a callsign... > No Tom. My 10 year old, Scott, advises me that NS5YNC would be more appropriate. He said "you spelled NSYNC wrong". Oh, and yes, Scott IS studying for his tech license. -73- Steve, W2ML

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7721] Re: subband bandwidths
by Dennis Bodson 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Dave: Youre points are valid. However, we need to take action on wideband data, which can only go in the cw area. OPerhaps the best way out at this time is to petition the FCC for allowing wideband data (>500Hz) to be in the phone bands. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7708] Re: subband bandwidths Dennis, I understand the principal purpose of the action. However, if we are indeed going to advocate regulating by bandwidth instead of by mode there are going to be many other consequences. For example, if double-sideband AM is to be permitted then bandwidths of at least 8 kHz and possibly more are going to have to be permitted. If we attempted to make it 6 kHz we would get howls of outrage from AM operators who would correctly argue that that was a new restriction on their ability to improve the quality of their audio, which is why many of them are interested in AM in the first place. But if 8 kHz is permitted for AM in what are now the phone subbands, then it will be permitted in those subbands for all other modes including digital voice and data. Obviously that is going to have an impact on the "majority" SSB operators. I'm not arguing against moving in this direction. I just want to be sure everyone understands that it's not as simple as it may sound. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7702] Re: subband bandwidths Dave: The principal purpose of this action is to take care of wide bandwidth data modes in CW areas. I believe that Paul and Chris can accomplish this. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7663] Re: subband bandwidths One reason for sensitivity on this issue is that in Docket 20777 back in 1976 the answer was very nearly "yes." The maximum bandwidth proposed by the FCC for amateur stations operating below 28.5 MHz (at the time, the lower edge of the phone band) was 3.5 kHz. The maximum bandwidth below 1215 MHz was to be 35 kHz, which would have outlawed fast-scan TV on 420 MHz. (There was no 902 MHz band in those days.) Both the AM and the ATV communities got up in arms. The ARRL position on Docket 20777 was adopted at the July 1976 Board Meeting. We supported double-sideband AM if confined to a nominal bandwidth of 6 kHz, subject to review in 5 years. We opposed eliminating fast-scan TV from the 420-MHz band but supported confining it to two 4-MHz channels, again subject to review after 5 years. Each of these positions was reasonable but neither was regarded by the affected interest groups as being the ringing endorsement of their mode that they felt they deserved from the ARRL. In the face of strong opposition, the FCC did not follow through on the idea of regulating generally by bandwidth but used Docket 20777 as the vehicle for authorizing ASCII. Saying that we will petition at some indeterminate future time to regulate by bandwidth rather than by mode seems to me to be a statement of principle. Minute 64 is silent on the question of what bandwidths would be permitted where. Without more details I don't see how Chris could craft a rulemaking petition. Saying that we want to regulate by bandwidth but don't want anything to change for the existing modes won't compute; for example, at the present time RTTY and data emissions are not authorized in the HF "phone bands" but CW is. Writing a regulation based on bandwidth to preserve that condition would be challenging even for Chris. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:44 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7661] Re: subband bandwidths At 10:11 AM 8/14/2002 -0400, Gary/KI4LA wrote: >> 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at >> the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part >> 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. > >I am being kindly lobbied over Minute 64. Will this have the effect of >killing AM on the bands or not? No. Not the intention or plan, that'd be suicide.... Guess someone in the AM community needs a villain >We currently have subbands regulated by mode within the FCC rules. For example, on 20m you can not use voice (SSB + AM), or image (SSTV + FAX) below 14.150. The change would be for the FCC to rephrase the rules so that they didn't specify mode (voice/image) but simply state that wide bandwidth signals should be above 14.150 and narrow band signals below. It's actually a simplification of the regulations and moves us towards the time when all (most) signals will digital. > >The origin of this, on my part, was the Technology Task Force and some discussions about digital voice (and Clover 2000 and Pactor 3) and FCC regulations. Paul Rinaldo circulated a white paper with some discussion on it (green cover sheet I think) at the January Board meeting. -- Tom. ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7719] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by sysop＠bfdin.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Jim, Here is the document in PDF format from the FCC website. - Bill N3LLR AR>Dick, your address for the file does not work. AR>Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7718] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Tnx Dick. Good catch. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7717] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat? At 04:09 PM 8/27/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Dick, your address for the file does not work. > >Jim Haynie His URL wrapped to the second line. It works if you include the whole thing: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume… -- Tom

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7717] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by Tom Frenaye 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

At 04:09 PM 8/27/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Dick, your address for the file does not work. > >Jim Haynie His URL wrapped to the second line. It works if you include the whole thing: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume… -- Tom

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7716] Re: Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by W5JBP＠aol.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Dick, your address for the file does not work. Jim Haynie

1 0