See David Siddall’s report in your 3-ring binder, Document #9-I, page 3:

 

“In 2013, the ARRL petitioned the FCC to request two changes to its rules:

(1)    Eliminate the 300 baud limit for digital transmissions that currently applies to digital operations on HF below 28 MHz., and

(2)    Limit the bandwidth of digital signals to 2.8 kHz below 30 MHz.”

 

I bring this up because it appears that we are already on record as suggesting differently regulatory schemes for HF v. higher frequencies.

 

-Fred K1VR

 

From: David Norris [mailto:k5uz@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 10:57 AM
To: Kermit Carlson
Cc: hopengarten@post.harvard.edu; arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org; David Siddall
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:28395] Re: FW: WinLink

 

All, 

 

I agree with Kermit. The VHF bands and above are wider and thus present fewer bandwidth conflicts. I suggest we limit our focus to HF.

 

73 ES TU 

David A. Norris, K5UZ

Director, Delta Division

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 19, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:

Hello Fred

 

     We should not make or anticipate any changes  above 50 MHz. Any changes to the bands above 50 MHz would be unnecissary.

 

      73, Kermit W9XA


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Friday, July 19, 2019, 09:19, fred@antennazoning.com <Fred@antennazoning.com> wrote:

This is Version 3, it adds a UHF/microwave thought. In addition, it suggests adoption of the compromise band plan that both sides agreed to in passing but, for failure of a complete deal, was never adopted.

 

 

 

As of [FH:] Friday morning, I favor:

 

·    Drop the 300 baud limit,

·    Adopt 500 Hz for digital as the max bandwidth outside of the ACDS band,

·    Adopt 2.4 KHz within the ACDS band,

·    Limit ACDS stations to the ACDS band,

 

·         [FH:]  Above 900 MHz, no bandwidth limitations for digital communications.

·    Require Listen Before Transmit,

·    Retain the Rolf, AB1PH, rule:

 

By its language in the Rolph Order, RM-11699[1], the FCC concluded that Rolph provided no demonstration that either existing Amateur Radio or available dedicated public safety communications channels were incapable of dealing with emergency communications requirements.  But then the Commission stated that “amateur stations must be capable of understanding the communications of other amateur stations.”  Rolph Order at para. 6.  It concluded that “allow[ing] encryption to obscure the meaning of messages transmitted during emergency services operations and related training exercise would not improve or enhance the operation of amateur service station or otherwise be in the public interest.”  Id.

 

 

Fred Hopengarten, Esq.                         hopengarten@post.harvard.edu

Six Willarch Road                                           antennazoning.com

Lincoln, MA 01773                                         781.259.0088

 



 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv