FCC Proposes Amateur Radio Rule Changes to Promote Digital Use

[NC1]

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.

I can certainly agree with that, and would like to add something else.
While using a wide range of modes and expanding the implementation of technology, what are you really accomplishing? Using anything other than voice or CW, makes it more difficult for anybody new to get interested in the hobby.

Not only is a spark of interest extinguished because nothing can be readily understood, it splinters existing licensees into groups. I do not feel I really need to explain this any further than that, logic and common sense can dictate the scenario from there.

This, coincidentally, is already killing the scanning hobby as can be seen throughout this board. Keep it simple and people will be attracted. Make it more confusing for the new people and everyone will be standing around 15 years from now wondering why there are fewer and fewer people getting into Ham radio - not to mention all the licenses that will be left to expire.

I may be a bit of a purist, but that is just my take on it. I started with an analog crystal scanner that cost $45, but if it had cost upwards $400 I may not ever have bothered.

 

[N8OHU]

I can certainly agree with that, and would like to add something else.
While using a wide range of modes and expanding the implementation of technology, what are you really accomplishing? Using anything other than voice or CW, makes it more difficult for anybody new to get interested in the hobby.

Not only is a spark of interest extinguished because nothing can be readily understood, it splinters existing licensees into groups. I do not feel I really need to explain this any further than that, logic and common sense can dictate the scenario from there.

This, coincidentally, is already killing the scanning hobby as can be seen throughout this board. Keep it simple and people will be attracted. Make it more confusing for the new people and everyone will be standing around 15 years from now wondering why there are fewer and fewer people getting into Ham radio - not to mention all the licenses that will be left to expire.

I may be a bit of a purist, but that is just my take on it. I started with an analog crystal scanner that cost $45, but if it had cost upwards $400 I may not ever have bothered.

Sound like you've been listening to WB6ACU's "Analog Man"; "I'm an analog man in a digital world"...

Ask K1JT why he wrote JT-65A and the other modes that are part of WSJT-X. Ask the guy that wrote Olivia why he did it. Ask any number of digital mode authors why they did it and you'll likely be told similar things; to see if we could do it. That people tried those modes and liked them enough to encourage others to do so is reason enough to encourage experimentation. That some people think the rule change is all about one small group of folks that aren't nearly as much of a problem as people want to believe is foolish, especially when we are pretty much the only country that clings to an archaic data rate limit like Linus clung to his blanket.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[NC1]

Sound like you've been listening to WB6ACU's "Analog Man"; "I'm an analog man in a digital world"...

Ask K1JT why he wrote JT-65A and the other modes that are part of WSJT-X. Ask the guy that wrote Olivia why he did it. Ask any number of digital mode authors why they did it and you'll likely be told similar things; to see if we could do it. That people tried those modes and liked them enough to encourage others to do so is reason enough to encourage experimentation. That some people think the rule change is all about one small group of folks that aren't nearly as much of a problem as people want to believe is foolish, especially when we are pretty much the only country that clings to an archaic data rate limit like Linus clung to his blanket.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

I am all for experimenting and trying new equipment and modes, basically just to see if I can. I fully understand that aspect. But, when it becomes the preferred method, I think that is where the unintended consequences begin to crop up. Imagine you are a newbie interested in SW radio and you fire up the radio only to hear 30 different digital modes and a handful of 24/7 religious stations. I fail to see the desire in spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars for both hardware and software just to satisfy a passing interest. It is just not logical. Thankfully most everything is still analog that anybody with a $20 radio can listen to.

I do see your point, and I really don't cling to anything (just ask my ex-wife), but I am looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who might be interested in the hobby and would like to make it as attractive as possible. Just my $.02

 

[N8OHU]

I am all for experimenting and trying new equipment and modes, basically just to see if I can. I fully understand that aspect. But, when it becomes the preferred method, I think that is where the unintended consequences begin to crop up. Imagine you are a newbie interested in SW radio and you fire up the radio only to hear 30 different digital modes and a handful of 24/7 religious stations. I fail to see the desire in spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars for both hardware and software just to satisfy a passing interest. It is just not logical. Thankfully most everything is still analog that anybody with a $20 radio can listen to.

I do see your point, and I really don't cling to anything (just ask my ex-wife), but I am looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who might be interested in the hobby and would like to make it as attractive as possible. Just my $.02

You, as a shortwave listener, don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on decoding software and hardware. You already have a computer with built in sound and probably can afford a nine dollar external sound card to connect between your radio and PC. The decoding software is out there for free (I have fldigi installed here and it decodes 90% of the digital signals on HF). As an added benefit, if you do get your ham license, the software I just mentioned will transmit those modes as well. I'm even helping develop a new mode that will use the same sound card interface to transmit and receive.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[AK9R]

Matthew, you may be right. I need to sort through the wording of the proposed rules as printed in the FCC 16-96A1 release. It's been my impression to-date that there would be no impact on the VHF/UHF bands.

 

[NC1]

You, as a shortwave listener, don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on decoding software and hardware. You already have a computer with built in sound and probably can afford a nine dollar external sound card to connect between your radio and PC. The decoding software is out there for free (I have fldigi installed here and it decodes 90% of the digital signals on HF). As an added benefit, if you do get your ham license, the software I just mentioned will transmit those modes as well. I'm even helping develop a new mode that will use the same sound card interface to transmit and receive.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Actually, I am not really an avid shortwave listener. I'm guessing by my post that you somehow believed I was biased in some way, but I am actually a neutral 3rd party that is looking at this objectively.

Yes, I do have a computer, I have a couple of them. And I did buy a dongle specifically for SW listening. Well, without using profanity, it did not go well. I tried multiple software packages, and reconfigured my computer to the point that it was constantly giving me errors. It also corrupted other radio software I had installed.

Now, I am no dummy when it comes to computers, I got my MCSE in Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 Server - Enterprise Edition, and Networking Essentials. So it is not me, or the computers. The fact is that all this new stuff coming out, while working just fine on certain machines or configurations, is just not quite hitting the professional level that it should be.

The failure lies somewhere in the design or implementation to the point that it is really nothing more than a $9 toy. To use an analogy, they are on the FRS level of communication and not ripe enough to play with the big boys across the board.
As for coming up with yet another mode, I don't think we need it when we have so many that people already can't use. I would put my efforts into making something that has promise, even more useful to end users and make it work more efficiently.

Communication is communication. Why keep reinventing the wheel?

 

[DaveNF2G]

I suggest that, if the software/hardware combination can be made to work just fine by a number of people, then your problems are not in the software/hardware combination.

 

[N8OHU]

Actually, I am not really an avid shortwave listener. I'm guessing by my post that you somehow believed I was biased in some way, but I am actually a neutral 3rd party that is looking at this objectively.

Yes, I do have a computer, I have a couple of them. And I did buy a dongle specifically for SW listening. Well, without using profanity, it did not go well. I tried multiple software packages, and reconfigured my computer to the point that it was constantly giving me errors. It also corrupted other radio software I had installed.

Now, I am no dummy when it comes to computers, I got my MCSE in Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 Server - Enterprise Edition, and Networking Essentials. So it is not me, or the computers. The fact is that all this new stuff coming out, while working just fine on certain machines or configurations, is just not quite hitting the professional level that it should be.

The failure lies somewhere in the design or implementation to the point that it is really nothing more than a $9 toy. To use an analogy, they are on the FRS level of communication and not ripe enough to play with the big boys across the board.
As for coming up with yet another mode, I don't think we need it when we have so many that people already can't use. I would put my efforts into making something that has promise, even more useful to end users and make it work more efficiently.

Communication is communication. Why keep reinventing the wheel?

People don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get started in ham radio. Yes, some equipment is expensive and required to use some modes, but the vast majority of Amateur Radio digital can be done with the hardware and software I listed in my previous post.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[N8OHU]

Matthew, you may be right. I need to sort through the wording of the proposed rules as printed in the FCC 16-96A1 release. It's been my impression to-date that there would be no impact on the VHF/UHF bands.

I think the FCC has been mostly focusing on taming the beast called the HF bandwidth debate with its documentation, but I know the ARRL proposal wanted changes elsewhere that kept getting buried in the miscellaneous ranting.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk