FCC Proposes Amateur Radio Rule Changes to Promote Digital Use

[RaleighGuy]

FCC Proposes Amateur Radio Rule Changes to Promote Digital Use
Friday, July 29, 2016

The FCC proposed amending Part 97 of its rules regarding technical standards applicable to data communications that may be transmitted in the amateur radio service. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL).

Full story available at: FCC Proposes Amateur Radio Rule Changes to Promote Digital Use

 

[N8OHU]

No comments? Here's one then; supporting this is a very good idea for several reasons. One, it will increase the useful bandwidth for digital communication on all amateur bands over what is permitted under the current rules. Two, it will enable US hams on HF to experiment with existing high rate modes for VHF/UHF that they currently cannot use, such as FSK441. Three, it will finally allow US EmComm to be fully equal to our neighbors to the north and south. Four, it will allow experimenters to develop newer and better modes that can transfer data with minimal interference to other operators by detecting whether or not it is possible to transmit safely and how much bandwidth can be used; this could include notches around signals that would otherwise preclude transmitting under current practices.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[K5MPH]

And hopefully it just might save our vhf/uhf from the corporate wolfs........

 

[Candy0420]

I support the digital use instead of analog. The technology of digital communication become more developed and the bandwidth is used under the current rules.Then amateur radio will be widespread later. I hope my two-way radio can receive more channels.

 

[K7MEM]

No comments?

There are plenty of comments, just not on the site that was linked. If you want to see all of the comments, go directly to the FCC web site. That's where all the comments count.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=RM-11708&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

A PDF of the proposal is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-96A1.pdf.

 

[Yagi]

Rule Change is horrible

Sorry - duplicate

 

[Yagi]

Proposed Rule Change is horrible

This proposal has nothing to do with saving current VHF or UHF amateur radio allocation.

And for Cany0420 - I don't know what bands you operate on but it will not let your "radio receive more channels".

This proposal is geared towards allowing unlimited width digital signals on HF.

The proponents of this are masking this as expanding technology but are really pursuing a selfish agenda in WinLink/Pactor. They want to open the door for even more of this kind of operation. Instead of using existing commercial options the rich guys playing with yachts want to be able to send e-mails over amateur radio frequencies.

The result will be horrible QRM and interference for hams running CW and RTTY. Winlink fires up on a frequency and does not listen to see if it's in use - it just starts transmitting. Worst you won't even be able to monitor it and find out who is causing the QRM.

 

[N8OHU]

This proposal has nothing to do with saving current VHF or UHF amateur radio allocation.

And for Cany0420 - I don't know what bands you operate on but it will not let your "radio receive more channels".

This proposal is geared towards allowing unlimited width digital signals on HF.

The proponents of this are masking this as expanding technology but are really pursuing a selfish agenda in WinLink/Pactor. They want to open the door for even more of this kind of operation. Instead of using existing commercial options the rich guys playing with yachts want to be able to send e-mails over amateur radio frequencies.

The result will be horrible QRM and interference for hams running CW and RTTY. Winlink fires up on a frequency and does not listen to see if it's in use - it just starts transmitting. Worst you won't even be able to monitor it and find out who is causing the QRM.

Did you even read the rulemaking proposal or are you going by the propaganda from the RTTY/CW contesting lists? Nowhere does it change the rules for automatically controlled stations.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Yagi]

Did you even read the rulemaking proposal or are you going by the propaganda from the RTTY/CW contesting lists?

Hmm that is interesting so if someone has a different point of view they are just spreading propaganda?

By the way I'm not personally active or interested in RTTY or CW and don't have time to follow any lists.

My perspective is that a mode where the operator can't be identified or the message read does align with the spirit and intent of ham radio.

I see that this proposal is often cloaked as a desire for "innovation". If that is truly the interest then there are bands above 10 meters that are available.

I am not opposed to digital modes that are not band width hogs. I've played around with a SignaLink but found PSK boring.

For the sake of allowing differing points of view in the discussion it's interesting look at other opinions. For example a couple from a thread on another site.

There are already problems with PACTOR stations wiping out ongoing digital mode QSO's. I've been operating the digital modes since 2003 and in the intervening 13 years I've had 1000's of digital mode QSO's wiped out by PACTOR stations both automated and semi automated.

Why? Because the PACTOR stations violate the most basic of operating tenets, listen before transmitting.
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/rm-11708-inches-forward-at-fcc.522035/page-3

it is about a small group of users influencing amateur radio solely for their own benefit. There is not one iota of technical advancement in this proposal. It expands the symbol rate to allow automatic data stations (read Winlink) to use faster modem
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/rm-11708-inches-forward-at-fcc.522035/page-4

 

[mancow]

When does it go into effect?

 

[8K10F1E]

Great, now when I search the band I can be confident that all I will hear is annoying digital data. The purpose behind this has to be sales related... the FCC never makes a decision unless it's related to money.

 

[N8OHU]

Hmm that is interesting so if someone has a different point of view they are just spreading propaganda?

By the way I'm not personally active or interested in RTTY or CW and don't have time to follow any lists.

My perspective is that a mode where the operator can't be identified or the message read does align with the spirit and intent of ham radio.

I see that this proposal is often cloaked as a desire for "innovation". If that is truly the interest then there are bands above 10 meters that are available.

I am not opposed to digital modes that are not band width hogs. I've played around with a SignaLink but found PSK boring.

For the sake of allowing differing points of view in the discussion it's interesting look at other opinions. For example a couple from a thread on another site.

There are already problems with PACTOR stations wiping out ongoing digital mode QSO's. I've been operating the digital modes since 2003 and in the intervening 13 years I've had 1000's of digital mode QSO's wiped out by PACTOR stations both automated and semi automated.

Why? Because the PACTOR stations violate the most basic of operating tenets, listen before transmitting.
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/rm-11708-inches-forward-at-fcc.522035/page-3

it is about a small group of users influencing amateur radio solely for their own benefit. There is not one iota of technical advancement in this proposal. It expands the symbol rate to allow automatic data stations (read Winlink) to use faster modem
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/rm-11708-inches-forward-at-fcc.522035/page-4

Let's see; I'm a Co-developer of a new digital data mode called ARDOP (Amateur Radio Digital Open Protocol) which was the subject of a paper submitted to last year's ARRL/TAPR Digital Communication Conference. One of the features is a busy channel detector that can allocate a maximum bandwidth based on the presence of other signals that would otherwise be interfered with. I also know from personal experience that busy channel detectors can't always detect both stations in a QSO and for that reason can contribute to an interference problem; this comes from observations using PSK31 and RTTY during and after Field Day this year, as well as other times I've listened on the bands. This is why I use the term "propaganda" when referring to people's opinions being passed off as truth. I also know that if there really was significant interest in overrunning the lower part of the bands with wide bandwidth data (or even 500 Hz Winlink) it would be nearly impossible to operate at all.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[N8OHU]

When does it go into effect?

Depends on what the FCC decides after the comment period ends.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[N8OHU]

Great, now when I search the band I can be confident that all I will hear is annoying digital data. The purpose behind this has to be sales related... the FCC never makes a decision unless it's related to money.

As I said in my comment to Yagi, if there really was interest in doing that, it would be happening already.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[mancow]

Depends on what the FCC decides after the comment period ends.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Considering they don't listen to comments this should be a done deal soon.

Good, maybe we can start using fusion down there.

 

[N8OHU]

Considering they don't listen to comments this should be a done deal soon.

Good, maybe we can start using fusion down there.

It's bad enough folks run D-STAR on HF, why the hell do do you want to run something that's definitely going to interfere even more? And don't give the BS about experimentation, because that doesn't fly.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[mancow]

It's only interference if you don't have the proper equipment. As of now there are plenty of DMR and Fusion repeaters around me. If I encounter one on an FM radio I lock it out and tune on by. Problem solved. People taking up huge chunks of bandwidth on HF is my concern.

 

[N8OHU]

Because it's interesting and new and digital will eventually take over anyway, like it or not.

I'm not against digital voice on HF; I'm opposed to use of excessively wide digital voice modes on HF. Especially when folks want to use them "just because its interesting and new".

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[mancow]

I'm not against digital voice on HF; I'm opposed to use of excessively wide digital voice modes on HF. Especially when folks want to use them "just because its interesting and new".

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

I edited my original post but yea, I agree with you about the bandwidth. This could get out of control pretty quickly if not handled correctly. Hopefully they start focusing on some super narrow modes to keep people from wandering around with who knows what.

 

[poppafred]

What's really rich is an RTTY op complaining about interference.

Ever listen to the JT65 / JT9 segments during an RTTY contest?