FCC Proposes Amateur Radio Rule Changes to Promote Digital Use

[N8OHU]

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

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

The thing that gets me most is that the RTTY and other modes can operate anywhere in the RTTY/Data segment, but the automatically controlled stations can't, so the smartest thing to have done was avoid the ACDS sub-bands. But do they?

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNF2G]

I think the FCC should just go back to the original rule - if it fits within the required bandwidth, then it is legal.

 

[Rred]

I'd like to see a provision from the FCC that any and all digital protocols and schemes had to be placed in the public domain. So, no more proprietary ideas, like D-STAR or PACTOR. Level the playing field and ensure that if people DO go digital, they won't need to buy the rig of the month every time they want to try something new.

If not public domain, then at least ensure licensing to competitors will be mandated at dirt cheap rates.

Imagine if someone had patented USB, or LSB, and you had to buy a new rig in order to use one or the other.

 

[N8OHU]

I'd like to see a provision from the FCC that any and all digital protocols and schemes had to be placed in the public domain. So, no more proprietary ideas, like D-STAR or PACTOR. Level the playing field and ensure that if people DO go digital, they won't need to buy the rig of the month every time they want to try something new.

If not public domain, then at least ensure licensing to competitors will be mandated at dirt cheap rates.

Imagine if someone had patented USB, or LSB, and you had to buy a new rig in order to use one or the other.

The only part of D-STAR, System Fusion or DMR that is proprietary (patented) is the vocoder; everything else already is documented, or Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX couldn't have written open source software that supports them. Pactor 1 is similarly available. ARDOP will be released as open source once we have finished the initial development cycle and ported it from VB.NET to C.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Rred]

Okay, one guy wrote software. See any other radio makers using it? That's the issue.
And while PACTOR1 may be available, PACTOR4 is the newer faster standard, isn't it?

Instead of making people dig around and hunt for kludges, let's have a level playing field.

I've seen enthusiasts spending way too many years (literally) trying to kludge up digital solutions and standards, re-inventing the proprietary wheel. That's simply against the public interest.

Go to a flat royalty model, like music performance. You write the software, you own it, fine. And now here's what you will get paid, every time, by anyone who wants to use it.

 

[N8OHU]

Okay, one guy wrote software. See any other radio makers using it? That's the issue.
And while PACTOR1 may be available, PACTOR4 is the newer faster standard, isn't it?

Instead of making people dig around and hunt for kludges, let's have a level playing field.

I've seen enthusiasts spending way too many years (literally) trying to kludge up digital solutions and standards, re-inventing the proprietary wheel. That's simply against the public interest.

Go to a flat royalty model, like music performance. You write the software, you own it, fine. And now here's what you will get paid, every time, by anyone who wants to use it.

Kenwood just released their first D-STAR radio late last month; others have been selling hardware to interface with existing radios to use on D-STAR for several years. And the reason only one manufacturer sells Pactor modems is because there were incompatibility issues and SCS refused to license subsequent versions of it for that reason.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[AK9R]

I think the FCC should just go back to the original rule - if it fits within the required bandwidth, then it is legal.

What is the required bandwidth? Where in Part 97 is bandwidth on the HF bands specified?

 

[N8OHU]

What is the required bandwidth? Where in Part 97 is bandwidth on the HF bands specified?

For digital, there are only restrictions on where wide bandwidth automatically controlled stations may be established, which isn't going to change if the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is implemented as written. There is no hardcoded bandwidth restriction at this time.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Rred]

"Kenwood just released their first D-STAR radio late last month; "
Gee, not too bad. Only eleven years since their 2005 announcement of a DSTAR radio in Japan. And scarce mention of one being for sale here now.
As for SCS and their reluctance to license...that's exactly what I mean. We could have had Pactor3 deployed ten years ago also, if the FCC had said "If you want hams and marine operators to use this? You're going to have to play with the other kids, and play nicely."

I don't say there aren't options. I could homebrew my own gasoline or diesel, also. I'd just rather pull up to a gas station and know they all sell something easily used direct from the pump. There were non-standard high speed computer modems and routers on the market, too. Great if you needed the speed at any cost. But standards? Eventually won out, and make life easier for all of us.

 

[N8OHU]

"Kenwood just released their first D-STAR radio late last month; "
Gee, not too bad. Only eleven years since their 2005 announcement of a DSTAR radio in Japan. And scarce mention of one being for sale here now.
As for SCS and their reluctance to license...that's exactly what I mean. We could have had Pactor3 deployed ten years ago also, if the FCC had said "If you want hams and marine operators to use this? You're going to have to play with the other kids, and play nicely."

I don't say there aren't options. I could homebrew my own gasoline or diesel, also. I'd just rather pull up to a gas station and know they all sell something easily used direct from the pump. There were non-standard high speed computer modems and routers on the market, too. Great if you needed the speed at any cost. But standards? Eventually won out, and make life easier for all of us.

Kenwood has been hinting at it since sometime last year, and there was a working radio at Hamvention this year. The ones sold briefly in Japan around 2005-2006 were actually Icom models with Kenwood badges.

If the FCC had required multiple vendor licensing for Pactor 2 and 3, I suspect we would still be stuck with Pactor 1 while the rest of the world moved on; I think that's why the FCC chose not to require that.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNF2G]

What is the required bandwidth? Where in Part 97 is bandwidth on the HF bands specified?

Perhaps I should have said "original Rules." Signals used to be required to fit within a 2.5 or 3 kHz channel on HF, which was the phone standard.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The trouble with vocoder licensing is that ham radio is not the only, or the most profitable market. DVSI et al developed their equipment and software for the commercial radio market, where everything costs megabucks compared to homebrew ham gear. The FCC is unlikely to impose a requirement that companies like DVSI reduce their fees, even for just a tiny market segment like amateur radio. The potential for abuse by commercial competitors is too great.

 

[N8OHU]

The trouble with vocoder licensing is that ham radio is not the only, or the most profitable market. DVSI et al developed their equipment and software for the commercial radio market, where everything costs megabucks compared to homebrew ham gear. The FCC is unlikely to impose a requirement that companies like DVSI reduce their fees, even for just a tiny market segment like amateur radio. The potential for abuse by commercial competitors is too great.

They don't just license the code, they also sell chips with it already programmed in, which is how Internet Labs and others have been able to build D-STAR compatible hardware.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[N8OHU]

Perhaps I should have said "original Rules." Signals used to be required to fit within a 2.5 or 3 kHz channel on HF, which was the phone standard.

Which is still the case, it's just not written in them anymore.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNF2G]

So why do we need new rulemaking?

Nevermind. I know why. Because modern-day hams have to be told that something is explicitly permitted before they will do it.

The difference between the USA and the USSR was once stated this way: In the USA, everything not prohibited is permitted. In the USSR, everything not permitted is prohibited.

Seems we've moved to the other side since then.

 

[N8OHU]

So why do we need new rulemaking?

Nevermind. I know why. Because modern-day hams have to be told that something is explicitly permitted before they will do it.

The difference between the USA and the USSR was once stated this way: In the USA, everything not prohibited is permitted. In the USSR, everything not permitted is prohibited.

Seems we've moved to the other side since then.

Actually, the ARRL suggested the limit to protect narrow bandwidth stations from modes way wider than most hams could reasonably use. Why the FCC feels differently about it, I'm not entirely sure.

Edit: Also, the ARRL also made suggestions to expand the bandwidth allowed on most ham bands above 30 MHz that don't already have effectively no limits.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[AK9R]

I am probably looking at this too simplistically. If so, I'm sure someone will tell me why my idea won't work.

Why not have a three-tiered band plan based on signal bandwidth? In other words, reserve some part of each band for really narrow modes, like CW, reserve another part of the band for wider modes, like up to 2 kHz, and then allow unlimited bandwidth signals (or maybe limit this to 8 kHz) in the rest of the band. Granted, some bands, like 30m, where phone is not allowed, may require additional restrictions.

My thinking is that limiting emissions based on emission designator (CW vs. phone) or limiting emissions based on data rate stifles innovation. If someone comes up with a high-speed data mode that uses the same bandwidth as CW, why should that mode be forced higher in the band or prohibited all together just because the data rate exceeds arbitrary limits? Likewise, digital voice modes, like D-Star, are questionably legal on the HF bands, but, if the only limiting factor was signal bandwidth, D-Star could be used in my proposed 3rd tier without restriction.

 

[N8OHU]

I am probably looking at this too simplistically. If so, I'm sure someone will tell me why my idea won't work.

Why not have a three-tiered band plan based on signal bandwidth? In other words, reserve some part of each band for really narrow modes, like CW, reserve another part of the band for wider modes, like up to 2 kHz, and then allow unlimited bandwidth signals (or maybe limit this to 8 kHz) in the rest of the band. Granted, some bands, like 30m, where phone is not allowed, may require additional restrictions.

My thinking is that limiting emissions based on emission designator (CW vs. phone) or limiting emissions based on data rate stifles innovation. If someone comes up with a high-speed data mode that uses the same bandwidth as CW, why should that mode be forced higher in the band or prohibited all together just because the data rate exceeds arbitrary limits? Likewise, digital voice modes, like D-Star, are questionably legal on the HF bands, but, if the only limiting factor was signal bandwidth, D-Star could be used in my proposed 3rd tier without restriction.

I don't see a problem with this, though in all honesty this is more or less what we have now, except that what little D-STAR that has been done on HF has been done in the phone part of the band. Much of the fuss seems to center around the automatically controlled stations and a perception that the NPRM will somehow enable the ones that are currently restricted to 500 Hz to suddenly be allowed to use more bandwidth.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[AK9R]

The NPRM that is the subject of this thread applies to the MF and HF amateur bands. Not VHF/UHF, not repeaters, not satellites, not digital voice modes, and not scanner listeners.

Off-topic posts deleted.

 

[N8OHU]

The NPRM that is the subject of this thread applies to the MF and HF amateur bands. Not VHF/UHF, not repeaters, not satellites, not digital voice modes, and not scanner listeners.

Off-topic posts deleted.

It applies to all bands up to at least 33 cm (900 MHz), so they technically weren't off-topic, just getting a little out of hand.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk