[arrl-odv:28462] HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped?
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
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
This from May/June QEX back in 2000 FYI http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/0056x003.pdf Mark, HDX On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM 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
Interesting article, Mark. Thanks for sharing it! Looks like the technology's been around for a while, but has never really caught on. 73; Mike W7VO
On July 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
This from May/June QEX back in 2000 FYI
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/0056x003.pdf
Mark, HDX
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto: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 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
>
Yeah, and there is a reason for that. I purchased a digital voice Modem sold commercially by Alinco for a few hundred bucks (on sale) and deployed it on 40 meters for a Sunday morning net we held back some 15 years ago or so among my Dayton hamfest buddies. It is difficult on HF to run unless conditions are perfect and there is little or no interference or fading. We ended up reverting to analog SSB after trying it for a while-I can now say been there-done that. I still have the modem in new condition but have not fired it up in ages. Plugs into the analog audio input of any SSB rig. They work OK. It is 100% duty cycle of course and is just not preferred to decent quality SSB under clear or difficult conditions. You would not really be impressed. It was worth trying but as you know, no one is running out to get digital voice on HF even though it can be made widely available for little money these days. Maybe someday, but why? In 25 years there may be new and unheard-of methods which are narrow band and immune to noise, interference and harsh conditions. Hams will be the first to deploy them again, but not for awhile. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv On Behalf Of Michael Ritz Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:19 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:28467] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Interesting article, Mark. Thanks for sharing it! Looks like the technology's been around for a while, but has never really caught on. 73; Mike W7VO On July 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com <mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com> > wrote: This from May/June QEX back in 2000 FYI http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/0056x003.pdf Mark, HDX On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net <mailto: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 <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
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
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
Further to this, all modes are referred to by ITU emission designators. The freely available, open source Codec 2 digital voice mode has an emission designator of J2E. J meaning AM single sideband, 2 meaning digital information using a sub carrier and E meaning the payload is telephony. Compare that to a data mode like Pactor which is J2D - J meaning AM single sideband, 2 meaning digital information using a sub carried, and D meaning the payload is data, telemetry or telecommans. What matters for the sub-bands in this case is the last letter. Ria N2RJ On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:03 PM 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
Thanks, Ria. Good information. 73; Mike W7VO
On July 30, 2019 at 11:12 AM "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Further to this, all modes are referred to by ITU emission designators.
The freely available, open source Codec 2 digital voice mode has an emission designator of J2E. J meaning AM single sideband, 2 meaning digital information using a sub carrier and E meaning the payload is telephony.
Compare that to a data mode like Pactor which is J2D - J meaning AM single sideband, 2 meaning digital information using a sub carried, and D meaning the payload is data, telemetry or telecommans.
What matters for the sub-bands in this case is the last letter.
Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:03 PM 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 https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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
Then in that case we should change the word “digital” to “data.” This is defined in 97.3(c)(2) It’s a simple fix. Ria N2RJ On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:28 PM 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
Hello Ria, This is very good suggestion which would correct the ambiguity. 73, Kermit W9XA On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 1:46:07 PM CDT, rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Then in that case we should change the word “digital” to “data.” This is defined in 97.3(c)(2) It’s a simple fix. Ria N2RJ On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:28 PM 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
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 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
Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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
I've sent some of the emails to counsel Siddall to fill him in and have asked Howard to coordinate with Dave to see what we need to do. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2019 8:43 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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
Rick, I have not seen the draft minutes, which I think (?) is what these comments address, so my comments are general in nature. Current FCC regulation is by defined “modes,” at Section 97.305. The modes related to HF are defined as CW, data, RTTY, phone, and image. “Digital” is not a mode for purposes of this section. CW is allowed on all frequencies. RTTY/data have subbands, as do phone/image. Digital voice and SSTV both are limited to the phone/image bands, even though in common parlance they otherwise might be viewed as “digital modes. ” The current FCC regulatory modes are somewhat agnostic on whether a signal is digital or analog. I don’t think anything done at the Board meeting was to suggest a regulatory change with regard to digital voice, or more generally, to the current HF modes as defined by the Commission. Hope that this helps. 73, Dave From: "k5ur@aol.com" <k5ur@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 12:02 PM To: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>, "w9xa@yahoo.com" <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org" <arrl-odv@arrl.org>, "david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? I've sent some of the emails to counsel Siddall to fill him in and have asked Howard to coordinate with Dave to see what we need to do. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2019 8:43 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com<mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com>> wrote:
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
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
(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. Dave, the reference was in the motion we passed on the symbol rate matter (minute 31). The rub is in the highlighted yellow part where we say "All digital mode stations" when we really mean all digital "data" mode stations. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: david davidsiddall-law. com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> To: k5ur@aol.com <k5ur@aol.com>; rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>; w9xa@yahoo.com <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv@arrl.org <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 11:17 am Subject: [arrl-odv:28486] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? #yiv3562193758 #yiv3562193758 -- _filtered #yiv3562193758 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3562193758 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #yiv3562193758 #yiv3562193758 p.yiv3562193758MsoNormal, #yiv3562193758 li.yiv3562193758MsoNormal, #yiv3562193758 div.yiv3562193758MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3562193758 a:link, #yiv3562193758 span.yiv3562193758MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv3562193758 a:visited, #yiv3562193758 span.yiv3562193758MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv3562193758 p.yiv3562193758msonormal0, #yiv3562193758 li.yiv3562193758msonormal0, #yiv3562193758 div.yiv3562193758msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3562193758 span.yiv3562193758EmailStyle18 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;} #yiv3562193758 .yiv3562193758MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3562193758 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv3562193758 div.yiv3562193758WordSection1 {} #yiv3562193758 Rick, I have not seen the draft minutes, which I think (?) is what these comments address, so my comments are general in nature. Current FCC regulation is by defined “modes,” at Section 97.305. The modes related to HF are defined as CW, data, RTTY, phone, and image. “Digital” is not a mode for purposes of this section. CW is allowed on all frequencies. RTTY/data have subbands, as do phone/image. Digital voice and SSTV both are limited to the phone/image bands, even though in common parlance they otherwise might be viewed as “digital modes. ” The current FCC regulatory modes are somewhat agnostic on whether a signal is digital or analog. I don’t think anything done at the Board meeting was to suggest a regulatory change with regard to digital voice, or more generally, to the current HF modes as defined by the Commission. Hope that this helps. 73, Dave From: "k5ur@aol.com" <k5ur@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 12:02 PM To: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>, "w9xa@yahoo.com" <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org" <arrl-odv@arrl.org>, "david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? I've sent some of the emails to counsel Siddall to fill him in and have asked Howard to coordinate with Dave to see what we need to do. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2019 8:43 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Dear Officers, Directors and Vice Directors, I've discussed this with Atty Siddall. Since the resolutions directs him to take action, his understanding of the motion is critical. As has been discussed here, there is no “digital” mode used in the FCC rules for HF subband definitions. There are only five modes: CW, RTTY, data, phone, and image. Atty Siddall stated "In any event, although the concern raised is legitimate from a broader perspective, my thought is that the meaning is clear from context; and since “digital mode” is a nullity in this context – there is no such mode in the FCC’s rules with regard to HF subbands – no harm is done and it can be left as is. It certainly CANNOT be interpreted to require digital voice to move into the ACDS bands, because digital voice is a “phone mode” and therefore its permitted subbands are unaffected by the term." He further states "The FCC staff will read our pleading, not the Resolution (which is not sent them)." Therefore I recommend that we not change the motion. Having said that, if the Board thinks that the record needs to be made clearer, we have two options to change the motion. To do it correctly would require a Board vote. If the vote is done by email, all Board members would have to vote, and to vote affirmatively. Or we could call a special meeting of the Board, ie a phone call. You would only need a majority to approve the motion but you would need to comply with the provisions for calling such a meeting. Rick, I think this is your call. 73, Howard, WB2ITX On 7/31/2019 1:20 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: (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. Dave, the reference was in the motion we passed on the symbol rate matter (minute 31). The rub is in the highlighted yellow part where we say "All digital mode stations" when we really mean all digital "data" mode stations. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: david davidsiddall-law. com <david@davidsiddall-law.com><mailto:david@davidsiddall-law.com> To: k5ur@aol.com<mailto:k5ur@aol.com> <k5ur@aol.com><mailto:k5ur@aol.com>; rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com><mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>; w9xa@yahoo.com<mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com> <w9xa@yahoo.com><mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv@arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> <arrl-odv@arrl.org><mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 11:17 am Subject: [arrl-odv:28486] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Rick, I have not seen the draft minutes, which I think (?) is what these comments address, so my comments are general in nature. Current FCC regulation is by defined “modes,” at Section 97.305. The modes related to HF are defined as CW, data, RTTY, phone, and image. “Digital” is not a mode for purposes of this section. CW is allowed on all frequencies. RTTY/data have subbands, as do phone/image. Digital voice and SSTV both are limited to the phone/image bands, even though in common parlance they otherwise might be viewed as “digital modes. ” The current FCC regulatory modes are somewhat agnostic on whether a signal is digital or analog. I don’t think anything done at the Board meeting was to suggest a regulatory change with regard to digital voice, or more generally, to the current HF modes as defined by the Commission. Hope that this helps. 73, Dave From: "k5ur@aol.com"<mailto:k5ur@aol.com> <k5ur@aol.com><mailto:k5ur@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 12:02 PM To: "rjairam@gmail.com"<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com><mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>, "w9xa@yahoo.com"<mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com> <w9xa@yahoo.com><mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org"<mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> <arrl-odv@arrl.org><mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org>, "david@davidsiddall-law.com"<mailto:david@davidsiddall-law.com> <david@davidsiddall-law.com><mailto:david@davidsiddall-law.com> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? I've sent some of the emails to counsel Siddall to fill him in and have asked Howard to coordinate with Dave to see what we need to do. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com><mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com><mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org><mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2019 8:43 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com<mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com>> wrote:
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
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<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org>
Hi all: Dave explained how the meaning is clear and there is no needto take action. I’d suggest we take counsel’sadvice and leave it as is. 73 Rick – K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org> To: k5ur@aol.com <k5ur@aol.com>; Jairam, Ria, N2RJ, (Dir, HD) <rjairam@gmail.com>; Carlson, Kermit, W9XA (Dir, CL) <W9XA@yahoo.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Cc: david@davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 9:18 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28491] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? Dear Officers, Directors and Vice Directors,I've discussed this with Atty Siddall. Since the resolutions directs him to take action, his understanding of the motion is critical.As has been discussed here, there is no “digital” mode used in the FCC rules for HF subband definitions. There are only five modes: CW, RTTY, data, phone, and image. Atty Siddall stated "In any event, although the concern raised is legitimate from a broader perspective, my thought is that the meaning is clear from context; and since “digital mode” is a nullity in this context – there is no such mode in the FCC’s rules with regard to HF subbands – no harm is done and it can be left as is. It certainly CANNOT be interpreted to require digital voice to move into the ACDS bands, because digital voice is a “phone mode” and therefore its permitted subbands are unaffected by the term." He further states "The FCC staff will read our pleading, not the Resolution (which is not sent them)." Therefore I recommend that we not change the motion.Having said that, if the Board thinks that the record needs to be made clearer, we have two options to change the motion. To do it correctly would require a Board vote. If the vote is done by email, all Board members would have to vote, and to vote affirmatively. Or we could call a special meeting of the Board, ie a phone call. You would only need a majority to approve the motion but you would need to comply with the provisions for calling such a meeting.Rick, I think this is your call. 73, Howard, WB2ITX On 7/31/2019 1:20 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: (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. Dave, the reference was in the motion we passed on the symbol rate matter (minute 31). The rub is in the highlighted yellow part where we say "All digital mode stations" when we really mean all digital "data" mode stations. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: david davidsiddall-law. com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> To: k5ur@aol.com<k5ur@aol.com>; rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>; w9xa@yahoo.com <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv@arrl.org<arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 11:17 am Subject: [arrl-odv:28486] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? #yiv1236917388 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv1236917388 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1236917388 p.yiv1236917388MsoNormal, #yiv1236917388 li.yiv1236917388MsoNormal, #yiv1236917388 div.yiv1236917388MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1236917388 a:link, #yiv1236917388 span.yiv1236917388MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1236917388 a:visited, #yiv1236917388 span.yiv1236917388MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1236917388 p.yiv1236917388msonormal0, #yiv1236917388 li.yiv1236917388msonormal0, #yiv1236917388 div.yiv1236917388msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1236917388 span.yiv1236917388EmailStyle18 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv1236917388 .yiv1236917388MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1236917388 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1236917388 div.yiv1236917388WordSection1 {}#yiv1236917388 Rick, I have not seen the draft minutes, which I think (?) is what these comments address, so my comments are general in nature. Current FCC regulation is by defined “modes,” at Section 97.305. The modes related to HF are defined as CW, data, RTTY, phone, and image. “Digital” is not a mode for purposes of this section. CW is allowed on all frequencies. RTTY/data have subbands, as do phone/image. Digital voice and SSTV both are limited to the phone/image bands, even though in common parlance they otherwise might be viewed as “digital modes. ” The current FCC regulatory modes are somewhat agnostic on whether a signal is digital or analog. I don’t think anything done at the Board meeting was to suggest a regulatory change with regard to digital voice, or more generally, to the current HF modes as defined by the Commission. Hope that this helps. 73, Dave From:"k5ur@aol.com"<k5ur@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 12:02 PM To: "rjairam@gmail.com"<rjairam@gmail.com>,"w9xa@yahoo.com"<w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org"<arrl-odv@arrl.org>,"david@davidsiddall-law.com"<david@davidsiddall-law.com> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped? I've sent some of the emails to counsel Siddall to fill him in and have asked Howard to coordinate with Dave to see what we need to do. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com<rjairam@gmail.com> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2019 8:43 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28480] Re: HF Digital Voice Effectively Stopped?Kermit, I think this is a good clarification, although it may be unnecessary. But since a lot of concerns were raised about modes like DMR and DSTAR which wouldn't have been affected, this would at least clarify things. However I think David is the best person to ask about this since he has experience with how the FCC would react. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:38, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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________________________... arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Kermit, All, I think a statement like this might well ease some potential concerns from members. The FCC has considered digital voice another phone mode and separate from digital data modes. Reaffirming this in a consensus statement from the Board might be something worth pursuing. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
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
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
Correct. The FCC looks at digital voice as a voice mode. Hence it is only allowed in the phone sub bands. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:03 PM, "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
Hello Ria, Dick, et al - Ria is correct that telephony by digital means is not data transmission. What the League's recommendation addressed was only data transmission, not telephony.The ACDS placement on the bands, bandwidth limitations for DATA and the overall symbol rate petition was addressing considerations for DATA transmissions. For the reasons Ria has later explained, the telephony by digital should not be mis-understood to be considered to be DATA even though it is digital, it is considered radio-telephony or voice. In fact when using FreeDV SSB operators land on top of FreeDV QSO's inadvertently since the FreeDV signal sounds like background white noise. I have been usingFreeDV for a number of years and have found the largest problem with the mode is finding someone with whom to have a QSO. It does work very well and the audio quality is excellent - all contained in the bandwidth (2.8 kHz) of a normal SSB transmission. 73, Kermit W9XA On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 1:03:46 PM CDT, 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
participants (10)
-
Bob Famiglio, K3RF -
david davidsiddall-law.com -
David Norris -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Kermit Carlson -
Mark J Tharp -
Michael Ritz -
Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) -
Richard J. Norton -
rjairam＠gmail.com