Mike,

This is/was the ill-fated regulation by bandwidth proposal, aka RM-11306.

The specter of digital stations in the phone bands crashing QSOs caused massive uproar and the ARRL pulled the proposal. You can look back in the ODV archives to see some of the discussion.

In my opinion based on that past experience a proposal like this simply will not fly.

The reality is that wideband ACDS users are a minority of users on the bands and the way that some of these modes operate is incompatible with others. In particular I can see a Pactor node (which scans several frequencies) start up on top of a SSB net and just hammer away with ARQ until the net decides to QSY. This is the fear and it’s not totally far fetched. I ran a Winlink PMBO in the 1990s and this is how it works. 

In reality these modes are designed for fixed frequencies away from everyone else. 

And do we really want to waste board time going down this road again, for what is realistically a small percentage of users with the risk of a large controversy like there was with RM-11306? Or do we have bigger fish to fry? 

Ria, N2RJ




On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:50 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:

Dick;


In my view, the real question is: What's the difference between digital voice and any other digital signal? In the end, they're all something converted into ones and zeros, stuffed into packets, transmitted over the air, and packets reassembled and decoded at the other end.  If you are going to allow digital voice in the SSB portions of the bands, you might as well allow all digital signals across the bands too, and I think that is what we were trying to address. 


I don't see this as stifling technology.  The bandplans can be changed as technology evolves. Right now we are protecting SSB, which is not proprietary, and easily tuned in by a new ham using a cheap radio. If a new technology emerges we can deal with that when the time comes. I'd like to see temporary experimental licenses issued on a case-by-case basis for new disruptive digital phone technologies first, before we open the phone bands to them.  


I've been asked by a ham just last Thursday to see if we can open up more ACDS channels for increasing Winlink traffic going forward. That's another issue entirely...


It'll be interesting to see what other comments weigh in on this. 


73;

Mike

W7VO


 

On July 30, 2019 at 10:24 AM "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:

Digital voice has never been big on HF to the best of my knowledge, but is increasingly being deployed on VHF and also being deployed by commercial interests on frequencies outside the ham bands.

It looks like the motion passed at the last Board meeting on Interference and Enforcement, wll outlaw use of digital voice on frequencies below 28 MHz, except inside the tiny ACDS bands.

(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC's Rules, whether or not automatically controlled.

I'm uncertain how this comports with parts of the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio, such as:

Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art [97.1(b)]
Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication ans technical phases of the art [97.1(c)]

How should the League respond to possible inquiries or complaints about stifling technical advancement?

73,

Dick Norton, N6AA 
_______________________________________________
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