| |
VK7AX > APRS 31.12.07 00:22l 189 Lines 6971 Bytes #999 (0) @ VKNET
BID : VK7AX-2812AP
Read: GUEST
Subj: [APRS] Digest Number 1444
Path: IZ3LSV<IW2OAZ<CX2SA<ZL2BAU<VK7NW
Sent: 071229/0106Z @:VK7NW.#ULV.TAS.AUS.OC #:33873 [NWTARIG] FBB7.00g $:VK7AX-2
From: VK7AX@VK7NW.#ULV.TAS.AUS.OC
To : APRS@VKNET
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3?
From: rrath@charter.net
1b. Re: Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3?
From: Scott Miller
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3?
Posted by: "rrath@charter.net" rrath@charter.net selah_102
Date: Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:53 pm ((PST))
I hope this is ok to post.
Rod
------- Forwarded message follows -------
This was Posted on the WL2K Emcomm User Group.
A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
all advanced digital data modes such as PACTOR3, ALE, Olivia,
MT63, ALE, OFDM, fast PSK, MFSK and others.
We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
Only you can save PACTOR3, by your comments to FCC.
It only takes a few minutes on the web.
Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Fill in the appropriate parts of the form,
then write your comments in the lower part
"Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)"
Here are suggested examples of comments, below.
Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio.
73 Bonnie KQ6XA
===============
Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments.
1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition!
2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service.
3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy digital data technology
advancement in the Amateur Radio Service.
4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data
emission is too narrow for established international standard
transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio
Service.
5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology
advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur
Radio
Service. Please do not let this happen.
6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data
sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that
runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will
severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these
small band segments efficiently through rapid data methods.
7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and
millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur
Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than
1.5kHz
bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be
taken
away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition
were to be adopted.
8. Several of the primary established HF emergency communications
networks currently in service and utilized by thousands of Amateur
Radio Operators in USA would be totally eliminated or hobbled if the
objectives of the RM-11392 peteition were to be adopted.
9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international
communications
standards. Many of the present digital data communications standards
require bandwidths in excess of 1.5kHz. The normal amateur radio
service bandwidth limit by governments of other countries is 6kHz.
10. Thousands of licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be
disenfranchised if the objectives of RM-11392 were to be adopted.
11. The RM-11392 peteition is comparitively similar to an Analog
Cellular Phone service entity trying to eliminate newer Digital
Cellular Phone service. The fact is, Amateur Radio is now using faster
time-multiplexing digital methods to enable more stations to
efficiently use the same frequency channels simultaneously or in rapid
succession. These time division techniques require at least 3kHz of
bandwidth.
12. RM-11392 peteition has not presented a compelling need to
change
the rules for Automatically Controlled Data Stations on the HF bands.
END
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_doc
ument=6519820340
Please read RM-11392 . and make comments to the FCC. Here are
the steps.
Read the petition:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_doc
ument=6519008574
RM-11392 part 1 and
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_doc
ument=6519008575
RM-11392 part 2.
Enter your comments:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
------- End of forwarded message -------
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3?
Posted by: "Scott Miller" scott@opentrac.org n1vg
Date: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:56 pm ((PST))
Read the original document before you make up your mind:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574
Keep in mind that this proposal came from a ham (Mark Miller, N5RFX) -
I've met him, he's an avid user of digital modes, and I don't think he's
out to destroy data on HF.
The petition calls for a return to rules that were in force prior to
2006, and clarification of permissible data modes in the RTTY/CW/data
sub-bands. It's not about keeping advanced modes off the air - it would
seem to be more about keeping automated PACTOR3 mailboxes and similar
overly wide modes out of the portions of the band reserved for narrow
bandwidth modes. Frankly, that sounds like a great idea to me - reserve
those portions for efficient modes like PSK31 and CW like they were
intended.
I don't want to start a debate here (I'm sure the debate is already
raging elsewhere) but please go read the proposed rulemaking yourself
before blindly sending anything to the FCC. Mark does a good job of
explaining the reasoning behind it and its anticipated impact and it's
worth a read whether you agree with it or not.
And as for letting the FCC 'kill PACTOR3' - all bandwidth questions
aside, that's just fine by me. I don't think closed, proprietary
transmission modes have any place in amateur radio. That goes for the
AMBE codec in D*Star as well. Now THAT is a proposed rulemaking I'd
like to see - require that any transmission mode used on amateur bands
have a full and complete specification published and be free of
licensing restrictions, at least for amateur use.
That's another issue entirely, though.
Scott
N1VG
rrath@charter.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > I hope this is ok to post.
> > Rod
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
