[arrl-odv:28482] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped?
All: The terms “digital” and “data” are not synonymous in this context; they are being used interchangeably and should not. For years these terms have been used loosely and it is understandable that when looking at a specific usage there can be confusion. The modes that are typically sound card driven and originate as a binary sequence such as RTTY, Packet, JT65, PACTOR, etc. have been collectively referred to as “digital modes” for years. Perhaps they should have been referred to as “digital data modes” but that’s water under the bridge. Ria’s suggestion in ODV:28472 is spot on: we should use the term “digital data modes” instead of “digital modes”. This would go a long way to reducing confusion and more clearly stating what we intend. 73, Jeff, K0RM From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:38 PM To: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com>; rjairam@gmail.com Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:28479] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Hello Dick, Ria et al, Could there be a statement of consensus by the Board affirming that digital voice should continue to be considered a voice mode and treated separrate from digital data modes as it has been for over two decades ? I remember that Mr. Siddall mentioned during our meeting that to a large measure that the FCC is inclined not to make large changes; keeping DATA and Voice separate should not require anything more than a clear explanation of the Board’s intent not to change that distinction. Thank You 73, Kermit W9XA Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 13:28, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com> > wrote: The language of the Board motion says, "all digital mode stations." The language does not specify anything about digital data or digital voice, although some may think it does. 73, Dick On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM rjairam@gmail.com <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> > wrote: As far as I know, digital voice has never been categorized as a data mode. This is why they exist inside of the phone sub-bands, and not the data sub-bands. The same goes for digital SSTV including EasyPal which sends a link to a web file. It resides in the image sub-bands. For some odd reason it appears as though the FCC cares about content and not so much the emission type. If what you were saying we’re true, then all current digital voice operations would be illegal because they take place the phone sub-bands. But we know better, so the long and short is that it won’t be affected. 73, Ria N2RJ On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:24 PM Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Agree,
From a non voting, lowly Vice Director
Mark, KB7HDX On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:02 AM Jeff Ryan <k0rm@comcast.net> wrote:
All:
The terms “digital” and “data” are not synonymous in this context; they are being used interchangeably and should not. For years these terms have been used loosely and it is understandable that when looking at a specific usage there can be confusion. The modes that are typically sound card driven and originate as a binary sequence such as RTTY, Packet, JT65, PACTOR, etc. have been collectively referred to as “digital modes” for years. Perhaps they should have been referred to as “digital data modes” but that’s water under the bridge.
Ria’s suggestion in ODV:28472 is spot on: we should use the term “digital data modes” instead of “digital modes”. This would go a long way to reducing confusion and more clearly stating what we intend.
73,
Jeff, K0RM
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:38 PM *To:* Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com>; rjairam@gmail.com *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:28479] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped?
Hello Dick, Ria et al,
Could there be a statement of consensus by the Board affirming that digital voice should continue to be considered a voice mode and treated separrate from digital data modes as it has been for over two decades ? I remember that Mr. Siddall mentioned during our meeting that to a large measure that the FCC is inclined not to make large changes; keeping DATA and Voice separate should not require anything more than a clear explanation of the Board’s intent not to change that distinction.
Thank You
73, Kermit W9XA
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS>
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 13:28, Richard J. Norton < richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
The language of the Board motion says, "*all* digital mode stations."
The language does not specify anything about digital data or digital voice, although some may think it does.
73,
Dick
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I know, digital voice has never been categorized as a data mode. This is why they exist inside of the phone sub-bands, and not the data sub-bands. The same goes for digital SSTV including EasyPal which sends a link to a web file. It resides in the image sub-bands.
For some odd reason it appears as though the FCC cares about content and not so much the emission type.
If what you were saying we’re true, then all current digital voice operations would be illegal because they take place the phone sub-bands.
But we know better, so the long and short is that it won’t be affected.
73,
Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:24 PM 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Agree,
From a voting Director!
Mike, W7VO
On July 31, 2019 at 6:32 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree,
From a non voting, lowly Vice Director
Mark, KB7HDX
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:02 AM Jeff Ryan < k0rm@comcast.net mailto:k0rm@comcast.net > wrote:
> >
All:
The terms “digital” and “data” are not synonymous in this context; they are being used interchangeably and should not. For years these terms have been used loosely and it is understandable that when looking at a specific usage there can be confusion. The modes that are typically sound card driven and originate as a binary sequence such as RTTY, Packet, JT65, PACTOR, etc. have been collectively referred to as “digital modes” for years. Perhaps they should have been referred to as “digital data modes” but that’s water under the bridge.
Ria’s suggestion in ODV:28472 is spot on: we should use the term “digital data modes” instead of “digital modes”. This would go a long way to reducing confusion and more clearly stating what we intend.
73,
Jeff, K0RM
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org ] On Behalf Of Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:38 PM To: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com >; rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org > Subject: [arrl-odv:28479] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped?
Hello Dick, Ria et al,
Could there be a statement of consensus by the Board affirming that digital voice should continue to be considered a voice mode and treated separrate from digital data modes as it has been for over two decades ? I remember that Mr. Siddall mentioned during our meeting that to a large measure that the FCC is inclined not to make large changes; keeping DATA and Voice separate should not require anything more than a clear explanation of the Board’s intent not to change that distinction.
Thank You
73, Kermit W9XA
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 13:28, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
The language of the Board motion says, "all digital mode stations."
The language does not specify anything about digital data or digital voice, although some may think it does.
73,
Dick
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
As far as I know, digital voice has never been categorized as a data mode. This is why they exist inside of the phone sub-bands, and not the data sub-bands. The same goes for digital SSTV including EasyPal which sends a link to a web file. It resides in the image sub-bands.
For some odd reason it appears as though the FCC cares about content and not so much the emission type.
If what you were saying we’re true, then all current digital voice operations would be illegal because they take place the phone sub-bands.
But we know better, so the long and short is that it won’t be affected.
73,
Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:24 PM Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> > > >
> > >
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> > _______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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
participants (3)
-
Jeff Ryan -
Mark J Tharp -
Michael Ritz