| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:20l 217 Lines 7577 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_72C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<IN3TRX<OE7XBB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SAW<DB0OCA<DB0FC<
DB0VER<DB0PDF<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<
PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1001Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55988 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31387 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 09:39:30 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018358 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:32:35 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:26:11 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_72C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:34:44 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>> The scheme being presented actually fits in an ordinary 2700 Hz SSB
>> channel width (36 tones, each modulated 50 baud BPSK and spaced
>> 62.5 Hz). So it should be perfectly legal for use in the voice band
segments
>> of HF under current Part 97 regulations.
>
>From March/April 2000 QEX: "In our 200th issue, learn about a mode that may
>catch on: digital voice over HF. Charles Brain, G4GUO, and Andy Talbot,
G4JNT,
>explain how to do it and what to expect. Beware, though: US rules do not
>currently permit their 1800-baud, multi-carrier modulation format below
30MHz.
>Request for Special Temporary Authorities (STAs) should be coordinated
through
>the ARRL to avoid duplication of effort. Contact ARRL Counsel Chris Imlay,
>W3KD (w3kd@arrl.org) if you are interested in obtaining an STA for this
mode."
That appears to be a misinterpretation of the regulations. 97.3(c)(5) defines
the modulation methods permtted for phone transmission. Digital is one of
them. The only limitations placed on these emissions for the HF phone bands
are in 97.307(f)(1)&(2). The proposed method meets those requirements.
Now there are further limits placed on RTTY and data emissions (300 baud,
1 kHz max occupied bandwidth), but that doesn't apply to phone emissions.
Nowhere in 97.307 are those limits applied to phone band segments. They
are only applied to the RTTY and data band segments.
This was previously pointed out to me by Jon Bloom of the ARRL when I
mistakenly posted that the regulations didn't allow us to experiment with
digital voice on HF.
I'd also note that the QEX statement you quote is incorrect in calling this
1800 baud. Each carrier operates at 50 baud. There are multiple carriers
(36), but that's irrelevant to the baud specification. Baud is defined on a
per carrier basis. This is the same as Clover II which uses multiple low
baud carriers to achieve a high aggregate data rate.
This is irrelevant to the current issue anyway, because we aren't talking
about a data emission, we're talking about a phone emission. It may,
however, be a source of confusion at the ARRL.
I"ve cc'ed this post to w3kd as well.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:19:16 GMT
From: Laura Halliday <va3ldh@sympatico.ca>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
W6RCecilA wrote:
> From March/April 2000 QEX: "In our 200th issue, learn about a mode that may
> catch on: digital voice over HF. Charles Brain, G4GUO, and Andy Talbot,
G4JNT,
> explain how to do it and what to expect. Beware, though: US rules do not
> currently permit their 1800-baud, multi-carrier modulation format below
30MHz.
> Request for Special Temporary Authorities (STAs) should be coordinated
through
> the ARRL to avoid duplication of effort. Contact ARRL Counsel Chris Imlay,
> W3KD (w3kd@arrl.org) if you are interested in obtaining an STA for this
mode."
I've seen such provisions cited more than once as an excuse for
not adopting new modes - indeed, not even trying them. Why not
lobby the ARRL and/or FCC to open things up a bit to a hobby
that is supposed to be one of experimentation?
When I listen to the garbage that is on HF and apparently
tolerated by the Powers That Be I find it hard to believe that
the Committee on State Security are really going to bash your
door down and haul you and your radio away for making some
unusual noises...
--
Laura Halliday VA3LDH "Laisse le vent tout emporter..."
Grid: FN03gs - Foly/Viennet
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:30:42 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
>
> W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
> >But the question is not how much spectrum it occupies.
> >
> Aw c'mon, Cecil, sure it does.
That is out of context, Brian. Throughput divided by bandwidth is
the measure of a mode's effectiveness.
> >The question
> >is how much throughput and voice recovery quality is accomplished
> >in that spectrum.
> >
> That brings "philosophical" issues into the game.
Throughput divided by bandwidth is not "philosophical".
It is simple physics.
> ... what I do care
> about is being able to squeeze the incoming intelligence out of the
> other guy's voice transmission ...
There's zero intelligence in the average ham transmission. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:01:46 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Gary Coffman wrote:
> This is irrelevant to the current issue anyway, because we aren't talking
> about a data emission, we're talking about a phone emission. It may,
> however, be a source of confusion at the ARRL.
Perhaps they are concerned about the requirement that complete technical
details be made available to the public and the FCC. Does the FCC have
to be able to monitor an HF mode before they will allow it to be used?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:53:25 -0600
From: Brian <burke1@icss.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:51:17 -0600, "Steve Sampson"
> <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
>
> >"Brian Kelly" wrote
> >
> >> I'm a degreed engineer with close to a half century in my technology.
> >> Which is not electronics or communications or matters digital. I'm a
> >> ham radio operator, not an experimenter so I don't do QEX. Is that OK
> >> or what?
> >
> >You can be a pecker-puffer for all we care. If you don't give a crap
> >about QEX, then why does the group need to know that?
> >
> >> Been there, done it. I'm passing the hat to get the pore guy an html
> >> generator to replace his iteration of Notepad for the Web. Care to
> >> contribute?
> >
> >At first I thought you were merely an asshole...
> >
> >> I didn't "assume" anything, I'm allergic to bloated bandwidth, all I
> >> actually did was pose a question.
> >
> >Bloated bandwidth"?? How does a "degreed engineer" define that?
> >Is 2 kHz too wide for a "ham radio degreed operator?"
> >
> >Find another woman and give us a break...
> >
> I went out on the net to find out what your callsign was just for
> openers and QRZ.com came back "There are 0 records matching STEVE
> SAMPSON". Whatta huge surprise. 10-4 Good Buddy?
Hordes of QEX reading CBers invading Amateur Radio? Oh, how awful!
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:49:59 -0600
From: Brian <burke1@icss.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:17:30 -0600, "Steve Sampson"
> <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
> >
> >I bet you don't even know what the contents of 99.99% of the rest of
> >Ham radio has to offer.
> >
> Well let's explore that a bit. I'm up and running on all nine HF bands
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_72D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
