FCC Seeks Comments on Impediments to Amateur Radio Communications

[W3WN]

DA 12-523, Released April 2, 2012

COMMISSION SEEKS COMMENT ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BY AMATEUR
RADIO AND IMPEDIMENTS TO AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

GN Docket No. 12-91

Comment Date: May 17, 2012

By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau seek comment on the uses and capabilities of Amateur Radio Service communications in emergencies and disaster relief. As set forth below, comment is sought on issues relating to the importance of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications and on impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications. Stakeholder entities and organizations, include the Amateur Radio, emergency response, and disaster communications communities, are particularly encouraged to submit comments.


http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0402/DA-12-523A1.pdf (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0402/DA-12-523A1.pdf)

[KC2UGV]

Hm... Have to digest this one. There are some "catches" I see, like "offering" to link hospitals to amateur bands...

[KC2UGV]

I have no idea how to submit comments, but I do believe that one rule change that could increase amateur radio's usage in emergency situations is to remove the data speed limit for our bands.

Right now, there is an artificial limit placed us, by baud rate. It should be ruled merely by bandwidth.

An example, why should data rates on HF be limited to 300 baud? Why not just limit the signal to the bandwidth that of an SSB (Or AM) signal? Why is there ANY limit on 6M and below?

Another impediment is the lack of PRB-1 applying to amateur stations. PRB-1 should be expanded to include all antenna for use in a licensed (By rule, or by issuance) operator.

[w0aew]

The biggest impediment to effective use of ham radio in emergencies is ham radio operators.

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQA-i1VgC2fyAyNp&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FaDtMYs2X-O0%2Fhqdefault.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GXHMppAZBuA/TJEvUPIfSgI/AAAAAAAAAD8/ss--JzasZYI/s1600/images.jpg

[W3WN]

I have no idea how to submit comments, < snip >No problem. It's all in the document, on Page 4:

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing theECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. They also ask that the reply comments should be organized by the headings used in the document.

That said, I think by "impediments" they're thinking of regulatory ones... such as zoning restrictions, CC&R's, and other such legal posturing.

[KJ3N]

The biggest impediment to effective use of ham radio in emergencies is ham radio operators.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GXHMppAZBuA/TJEvUPIfSgI/AAAAAAAAAD8/ss--JzasZYI/s1600/images.jpg

^^^^This^^^^

[ki4itv]

That's funny, smells like someone mentioned regulation by bandwidth in here.
Probably just a lingering stench though.
whew! Strong too.
;)

[KC2UGV]

That's funny, smells like someone mentioned regulation by bandwidth in here.
Probably just a lingering stench though.
whew! Strong too.
;)

Sort of. I figure if an AM signal is allowed, then why not a 24.4K baud digital signal, if they occupy the same bandwidth?

[ad4mg]

Sort of. I figure if an AM signal is allowed, then why not a 24.4K baud digital signal, if they occupy the same bandwidth?

Will the 24.4K baud digital signal originate from a device capable of signal detection so as to avoid QRM to existing QSO's?
Will the operator of said device actually use that signal detection?
Will a control operator be present, or will the fictitious "semi-automatic" scheme be utilized?
Will these digital signals be allowed in the same sement of spectrum as say, SSB? Incompatible modes will create problems.

It smells like another attempt at a spectrum grab by the ARRL and its dirty winlink associates. I reckon Waterman and his goons have been crying to the ARRL and the FCC for a little longer than 10 years now. It seems a logical time for the FCC to finally do something. Of course, the FCC knows little or nothing about amateur radio, so expect a total clusterboink when they do.

Other than that, I really have no opinion on this.

[VE7DCW]

The biggest impediment to effective use of ham radio in emergencies is ham radio operators.

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQA-i1VgC2fyAyNp&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FaDtMYs2X-O0%2Fhqdefault.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GXHMppAZBuA/TJEvUPIfSgI/AAAAAAAAAD8/ss--JzasZYI/s1600/images.jpg


It proves Whackers have an enormously narrow comfort zone that will give new meaning to "entertainment" for us of the masses that will enjoy the potentiel cryfest on QRZ ........ **cue Chuckles and WINLINK sympathy** ....this will be fun! :dance:

[KC2UGV]

Will the 24.4K baud digital signal originate from a device capable of signal detection so as to avoid QRM to existing QSO's?

I would assume, that since it would be good engineering practices, you would also have an audio monitor going, so you can monitor the frequency while you are using it (To allow for answering distress signals).

However, seeing as many PSK ops (Or, many other digital modes) don't do that, I would hazard the same would apply.



Will the operator of said device actually use that signal detection?

I can't see why not.



Will a control operator be present, or will the fictitious "semi-automatic" scheme be utilized?

There's already a rule covering automatic stations, and where they are allowed.



Will these digital signals be allowed in the same sement of spectrum as say, SSB? Incompatible modes will create problems.


By and large, any and all emission types are allowed in all parts of our bands (Shy of 60M). Good amateur practices apply.



It smells like another attempt at a spectrum grab by the ARRL and its dirty winlink associates. I reckon Waterman and his goons have been crying to the ARRL and the FCC for a little longer than 10 years now. It seems a logical time for the FCC to finally do something. Of course, the FCC knows little or nothing about amateur radio, so expect a total clusterboink when they do.

Other than that, I really have no opinion on this.

Personally, I wasn't talking about Winlink, but rather digital voice modes, and other point-to-point data modes. And, I'm not really concerned all that much with HF bands lower than 10M (10 M being an almost local band); but rather opening up usage in bands that are severely underutilized, due to artificial constraints.

[N2RJ]

I have no idea how to submit comments, but I do believe that one rule change that could increase amateur radio's usage in emergency situations is to remove the data speed limit for our bands.

Right now, there is an artificial limit placed us, by baud rate. It should be ruled merely by bandwidth.

An example, why should data rates on HF be limited to 300 baud? Why not just limit the signal to the bandwidth that of an SSB (Or AM) signal? Why is there ANY limit on 6M and below?

Another impediment is the lack of PRB-1 applying to amateur stations. PRB-1 should be expanded to include all antenna for use in a licensed (By rule, or by issuance) operator.

I don't want that. That would encourage WinLink robots to pop up all over the bands.

For high speed communications there's VHF and above, and quite honestly there's the internet.

[N2RJ]

I would assume, that since it would be good engineering practices, you would also have an audio monitor going, so you can monitor the frequency while you are using it (To allow for answering distress signals).

The current licensess (I refuse to call them hams) who do this turn OFF the busy detection and the rules are interpreted so that their station is "under control" by the calling e-mail client. They are corralled into small parts of the bands, however. This is an acceptable compromise.

The other big problem with regulation by bandwidth is that they tend to restrict legacy modes such as AM. Legacy modes are quite honestly the heart of ham radio and if they go away you might as well just pull the plug.

[KC2UGV]

I don't want that. That would encourage WinLink robots to pop up all over the bands.

For high speed communications there's VHF and above, and quite honestly there's the internet.

It would also promote things like "digital voice" modes on HF, which are artificially limited to 300 baud... Codec2 has been under 1200 for some time now, but lots of work needed to get it to fit into 300 baud. Even on VHF and above, there is a 1200 baud limit until you hit 440Mhz. Then, it's 9600. The limit is removed at 2.4 GHz.

It would also enable point-to-point high speed messaging, akin to FidoMail.

The notion of "well, there's the internet"; why even have ham radio then? You can just call someone on the phone...


The current licensess (I refuse to call them hams) who do this turn OFF the busy detection and the rules are interpreted so that their station is "under control" by the calling e-mail client. They are corralled into small parts of the bands, however. This is an acceptable compromise.

The other big problem with regulation by bandwidth is that they tend to restrict legacy modes such as AM. Legacy modes are quite honestly the heart of ham radio and if they go away you might as well just pull the plug.

I'm not saying regulate by bandwidth, but put all signals on equal footing. Why are digitial modes hamstrung, but voice modes not?

As for the operating habits of hams, well, we have our current rules in place, and they ignore them. How would this change anything? I'm not talking about allowing automated stations on HF...

[n2ize]

I don't want that. That would encourage WinLink robots to pop up all over the bands.

For high speed communications there's VHF and above, and quite honestly there's the internet.

I agree. Keep the whacker crap off the air.

[WØTKX]

Personally, I'd enjoy wider digital modes as well. Imagine that.

But no unattended automatic messaging stuff. :hand:

[NQ6U]

Them gol-durn contesters are an impediment to the MMSN, the FCC should ban 'em.

[KC9ECI]

I'd like to see participation in one contest a year required, with the bottom 1% of the finishers beaten about the head and neck with whiffle ball bats and then shot.

[N2RJ]

It would also promote things like "digital voice" modes on HF, which are artificially limited to 300 baud...

They are not limited. There's digital voice in the phone segment of the bands. It's legal. You can even send pictures in the phone/SSTV portion of the band. What you can't do is send a file other than realtime digital voice (Phone) or a stored picture (SSTV) such as a binary software program or similar. Try around 14.236. I haven't dabbled with it in a while but there was a digital voice mode that used only 1.6kHz of bandwidth.

Ah, found it. It's called FDMDV: http://n1su.com/fdmdv/


Codec2 has been under 1200 for some time now, but lots of work needed to get it to fit into 300 baud. Even on VHF and above, there is a 1200 baud limit until you hit 440Mhz. Then, it's 9600. The limit is removed at 2.4 GHz.

There's no such limitation for phone communications. Otherwise P25 and D-STAR would be illegal (they are not).

The limitation is also for individual carriers. One can conceivably occupy an entire band with multiple carriers using OFDM (this is how Pactor can use its high bandwidth modes). But because we prohibit data in the phone bands (unless it is telephony that is streamed over a digital mode eg. DRM or FDMDV) they can't occupy all of 20 meters for example.

To get an idea of how bad it is, try 30 meters above 10.140, especially if you are in a Southern state near to the gulf of mexico.



It would also enable point-to-point high speed messaging, akin to FidoMail.

The notion of "well, there's the internet"; why even have ham radio then? You can just call someone on the phone...

I'm not saying regulate by bandwidth, but put all signals on equal footing. Why are digitial modes hamstrung, but voice modes not?


Let me clarify - there's no need for high speed, wideband data on HF. There is a need to corrall automatically controlled e-mail robots because some people view ham radio only as a means to an end - they want it turned over to them as an accessory to their sailing hobby. Give them a chance and they'll forcibly take over the bands. Can't beat an email robot that is designed to continuously hammer until it gets through.

All signals cannot be on an equal footing because it will mean that the strongest one will win. And this means Pactor with its continuous hammering will win when they instruct their users to turn off busy detection.

[KC2UGV]

They are not limited. There's digital voice in the phone segment of the bands. It's legal. You can even send pictures in the phone/SSTV portion of the band. What you can't do is send a file other than realtime digital voice (Phone) or a stored picture (SSTV) such as a binary software program or similar. Try around 14.236. I haven't dabbled with it in a while but there was a digital voice mode that used only 1.6kHz of bandwidth.

Ah, found it. It's called FDMDV: http://n1su.com/fdmdv/


Interesting... It would seem that is in violation of the data speed requirements laid out in Part 97...



There's no such limitation for phone communications. Otherwise P25 and D-STAR would be illegal (they are not).


Again, interesting. The regs don't say what can be transmitted via a data signal, only that the data symbol rate must be less than 300 baudot (On HF, 1200 on 10 through 2M, and 9600 on 440MHz-1.2GHz, and no limit above that).



The limitation is also for individual carriers. One can conceivably occupy an entire band with multiple carriers using OFDM (this is how Pactor can use its high bandwidth modes). But because we prohibit data in the phone bands (unless it is telephony that is streamed over a digital mode eg. DRM or FDMDV) they can't occupy all of 20 meters for example.


Weird. Again, the regs clearly lay out the maximum symbol speed for DATA, irrespective of what that data stream is carrying.



To get an idea of how bad it is, try 30 meters above 10.140, especially if you are in a Southern state near to the gulf of mexico.


While not near the Gulf of Mexio, 30 M above 10.140 seems pretty dead to me most times.



Let me clarify - there's no need for high speed, wideband data on HF. There is a need to corrall automatically controlled e-mail robots because some people view ham radio only as a means to an end - they want it turned over to them as an accessory to their sailing hobby. Give them a chance and they'll forcibly take over the bands. Can't beat an email robot that is designed to continuously hammer until it gets through.

All signals cannot be on an equal footing because it will mean that the strongest one will win. And this means Pactor with its continuous hammering will win when they instruct their users to turn off busy detection.

There is also no need for low speed, high bandwidth voice modes on HF either. Narrow SSB will get the communication through. The point of AR is experimentation, and I hardly see the reason to hamper experimentation by an artificial symbol speed limit imposed.

Again, I see no reason why a data mode can't be the maximum speed capable within the same bandwidth as an AM signal. It's sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Olivia can be just as wide as an SSB signal, yet we are limited to 300 baudot symbol rate.

[N2RJ]

I think you are missing the key point here - digital voice is not considered data. The FCC considers the content, not the actual modulation scheme... which I found a little weird, but that's the way it is.

For digital voice on SSB such as FDMDV or G4GUO using the AOR modems the symbol is J2E - J meaning single sideband suppressed carrier, 2 meaning digital (excluding TDM), and E meaning telephony. The third part is important, because the FCC does not consider digital voice to be data.

Here's some more reading on the subject:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/0056x003.pdf

The other stipulations are that it must be a published spec (doesn't have to be open source, sadly) and that it must not exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission. Generally that has been interpreted to not exceed 3kHz. FDMDV is about half that.

[KC2UGV]

Generally that has been interpreted to not exceed 3kHz. FDMDV is about half that.

Which is why I am writing a comment to this request, asking the justification for restricting data modes across the board by symbol speed, instead of treating all data (Whether is be digital voice or otherwise) the same.

There is no justification for limiting symbol rate.

[N2RJ]

Which is why I am writing a comment to this request, asking the justification for restricting data modes across the board by symbol speed, instead of treating all data (Whether is be digital voice or otherwise) the same.

There is no justification for limiting symbol rate.

HF is a shared resource and we have to make sure everyone gets a fair shot at using our limited bands.

[KC2UGV]

HF is a shared resource and we have to make sure everyone gets a fair shot at using our limited bands.

So, by this measure, AM, and ESSB should be prohibited, correct? Narrow SSB is all that is needed.

And, I agree, it's a shared resource. However, I hardly see why the limit to symbol rate; rather than a limit on bandwidth is used...

Because, as it is now, you can't send a file, over your digital voice QSO. What purpose does that serve?

[WØTKX]

We have more room than ever in the bands, ignore the whiners. Wider transmissions done appropriately should be allowed. I'm a fan of AM, ESSB, and wider modes in any fashion, as long as the station follows good practice. I'm also a fan of narrow modes... because amateur radio is all about experimentation, and this should be evangelized at the FCC level.

I'd enjoy the hell out of transmitting video with voice, for instance. While on the surface that might be wider, with an interesting methodology, it doesn't have to be.

[KC2UGV]

We have more room than ever in the bands, ignore the whiners. Wider transmissions done appropriately should be allowed. I'm a fan of AM, ESSB, and wider modes in any fashion, as long as the station follows good practice. I'm also a fan of narrow modes... because amateur radio is all about experimentation, and this should be evangelized at the FCC level.

I'd enjoy the hell out of transmitting video with voice, for instance. While on the surface that might be wider, with an interesting methodology, it doesn't have to be.

It gets even cooler when you can see how narrow a signal can be, while doing the voice and video at the same time :)

I too, am a fan of AM and ESSB; narrow digital and wide digital; and everything in between :)

[N2RJ]

So, by this measure, AM, and ESSB should be prohibited, correct? Narrow SSB is all that is needed.

And, I agree, it's a shared resource. However, I hardly see why the limit to symbol rate; rather than a limit on bandwidth is used...

Because, as it is now, you can't send a file, over your digital voice QSO. What purpose does that serve?

The problem as I've said before is that a few modes have shown potential to expand and take over significant swaths of the bands. If we choose to limit wideband digital operation to manual control only, I can see that being acceptable. But once we start allowing automatic and "semi automatic" stations all hell will break loose. There are comments in sailing forums to the effect that us hobbyists are wasting the vast HF spectrum, and that it should be turned over for maritime use. The attitude by the MMSN that they want 8kHz around 14.300 clear for their exclusive use is pretty damning.

The vast majority of hams today active on HF enjoy the bands the way it is pretty much. I would say the majority of activity is centered around CW and SSB. When you start allowing e-mail robots that will open the flood gates for robots to take over the bands. What you'll have is a few special interests taking over a disproportionate share of the bands.

Wideband digital is just fine on VHF and above. In fact it is encouraged.

There's also no limit to baud rate in totality - you can use multiple carriers and get higher data rates.

It looks like you got your license after the infamous RM-11306 debate, where ARRL tried to shove a handout for the Pactor robots down our throats, but do a little reading on why RM-11306 was such a bad idea.

[KC2UGV]

The problem as I've said before is that a few modes have shown potential to expand and take over significant swaths of the bands. If we choose to limit wideband digital operation to manual control only, I can see that being acceptable. But once we start allowing automatic and "semi automatic" stations all hell will break loose. There are comments in sailing forums to the effect that us hobbyists are wasting the vast HF spectrum, and that it should be turned over for maritime use. The attitude by the MMSN that they want 8kHz around 14.300 clear for their exclusive use is pretty damning.


Automatic control is already prohibited on HF.



The vast majority of hams today active on HF enjoy the bands the way it is pretty much. I would say the majority of activity is centered around CW and SSB. When you start allowing e-mail robots that will open the flood gates for robots to take over the bands. What you'll have is a few special interests taking over a disproportionate share of the bands.


The vast majority of hams were happy with a code requirement. The vast majority of hams were happy before SSB came onto the scene. The vast majority of hams were happy with only CW, and before that, spark gap.

Times change.



Wideband digital is just fine on VHF and above. In fact it is encouraged.


Actually, it is not. Up to 220MHz, you are limited to 1200 baudot. From there to 2.1GHz, you are limited to 9600 baudot. Above 2.1GHz, there is no limit.



There's also no limit to baud rate in totality - you can use multiple carriers and get higher data rates.

Actually, no. Spread spectrum is prohibited, and you are limited to 300 baudot.

[NQ6U]

Hey, I wonder if I should send the FCC a comment about how the XYL impedes me from operating my station or getting involved in ham radio-oriented community activities?

[N2RJ]

Automatic control is already prohibited on HF.

Lolwut?


97.221(b)
A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120–28.189 MHz, 24.925–24.930 MHz, 21.090–21.100 MHz, 18.105–18.110 MHz, 14.0950–14.0995 MHz, 14.1005–14.112 MHz, 10.140–10.150 MHz, 7.100–7.105 MHz, or 3.585–3.600 MHz segments.


Seems like a lot of HF in there... (hence why I also mentioned 30m over 10.140MHz)

The auto subbands used to be different but it was changed when the HF bands were realigned back in 2k7 I think it was.


The vast majority of hams were happy with a code requirement. The vast majority of hams were happy before SSB came onto the scene. The vast majority of hams were happy with only CW, and before that, spark gap.

Times change.


Times change for good reason.

Giving email robots and free reign is not a good reason.


Actually, it is not. Up to 220MHz, you are limited to 1200 baudot. From there to 2.1GHz, you are limited to 9600 baudot. Above 2.1GHz, there is no limit.

Wrong again...

97.305(c) and 97.307(f).

The limits are actually 19.6 kilobauds above 50 megs. In fact it's 56 kilobauds in some segments.




Actually, no. Spread spectrum is prohibited, and you are limited to 300 baudot.

The one thing you may be right about. Spread spectrum is indeed prohibited, but somehow the FCC doesn't want to do anything about the pactor 3 robots who are clearly using FHSS with multiple carriers. They've said it's not illegal.

[N2RJ]

Hey, I wonder if I should send the FCC a comment about how the XYL impedes me from operating my station or getting involved in ham radio-oriented community activities?

I never understood that concept. As long as I get stuff done around the house and do my share of the housework I can operate as much as I want.

[N2RJ]

Which is why I am writing a comment to this request, asking the justification for restricting data modes across the board by symbol speed, instead of treating all data (Whether is be digital voice or otherwise) the same.

There is no justification for limiting symbol rate.

I think you'll be doing the amateur community a disservice on that one. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[KC2UGV]

Lolwut?


97.221(b)
A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120–28.189 MHz, 24.925–24.930 MHz, 21.090–21.100 MHz, 18.105–18.110 MHz, 14.0950–14.0995 MHz, 14.1005–14.112 MHz, 10.140–10.150 MHz, 7.100–7.105 MHz, or 3.585–3.600 MHz segments.


Seems like a lot of HF in there... (hence why I also mentioned 30m over 10.140MHz)

The auto subbands used to be different but it was changed when the HF bands were realigned back in 2k7 I think it was.


And, I am not suggesting a change to the automated control sub-bands.



Times change for good reason.

Giving email robots and free reign is not a good reason.


Who is talking about giving email robots free reign?



Wrong again...

97.305(c) and 97.307(f).

The limits are actually 19.6 kilobauds above 50 megs. In fact it's 56 kilobauds in some segments.


My point. Thank you for pulling specific regulations.

Why the artificial limit on symbol rate? Why not the same bandwidth as an AM signal, and call it a day?



The one thing you may be right about. Spread spectrum is indeed prohibited, but somehow the FCC doesn't want to do anything about the pactor 3 robots who are clearly using FHSS with multiple carriers. They've said it's not illegal.

So, the problem isn't the rules. It's the FCC's enforcement.


I think you'll be doing the amateur community a disservice on that one. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Really? By saying all signals are on equal footing?

[NQ6U]

In areas under FCC jurisdiction, spread spectrum is prohibited on the amateur bands below 220MHz. Above that, it is permitted.

[N2RJ]

Actually, no. Spread spectrum is prohibited, and you are limited to 300 baudot.

97.305(c) says SS is allowed on 70cm and above.

[KC2UGV]

97.305(c) says SS is allowed on 70cm and above.

I'm talking mainly about HF here. Of course SS is allowed 70cm and above. That's why we can mod COTS wifi routers, and use them on amateur bands above 2.4GHz.

[ki4itv]

Will the 24.4K baud digital signal originate from a device capable of signal detection so as to avoid QRM to existing QSO's?
Will the operator of said device actually use that signal detection?
Will a control operator be present, or will the fictitious "semi-automatic" scheme be utilized?
Will these digital signals be allowed in the same sement of spectrum as say, SSB? Incompatible modes will create problems.

It smells like another attempt at a spectrum grab by the ARRL and its dirty winlink associates. I reckon Waterman and his goons have been crying to the ARRL and the FCC for a little longer than 10 years now. It seems a logical time for the FCC to finally do something. Of course, the FCC knows little or nothing about amateur radio, so expect a total clusterboink when they do.

Other than that, I really have no opinion on this.

Sounds like it's time to go and check on some Sailing and Cruiser Websites again and see what the buzz is...
They want this. They want it bad. Saves considerable sums of money, and cruising is all about getting the recurring cost down to a minimum.
A penny saved, is a penny in the old liquor locker.

Amateur Radio is a means to an end for almost all of them. Most have absolutely zero interest in the hobby other than utility.
A utility that will have lots of personal commerce, pecuniary interest inquiries, and traffic that under any other circumstances would and should be carried over commercial services.
The whole Winlink Network revolves around this utility. Tracking and helping the sailing community is its main function. What? Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.
Emmcom is a willing dupe for these guys, and the ARRL eats it up.

Many of these people live, and work from their boats. A fact that a lot of landlubbing hams don't really think about. It's a lifestyle where business and pleasure blend into one continuous struggle for economy. Almost all of this traffic will, at best, reside in a very gray area of part 97.

Waterman...the irony of his surname. You can't make that shit up.

[N2RJ]

Many of these people live, and work from their boats. A fact that a lot of landlubbing hams don't really think about. It's a lifestyle where business and pleasure blend into one continuous struggle for economy. Almost all of this traffic will, at best, reside in a very gray area of part 97.


And since you can't decrypt P3 without an expensive SCS modem... and even if you had one, I heard it's difficult to do so.

[ad4mg]

And since you can't decrypt P3 without an expensive SCS modem... and even if you had one, I heard it's difficult to do so.

It is difficult even with the SCS modem due to no error correction being available just listening, plus the timing and sync issues. The Winlink network has invented the perfect encryption scheme for their email, and its all legal in the eyes of the FCC.

Nobody outside of that network can possibly have any idea what type of 'traffic' is passed in the emails traveling over amateur HF frequencies, and they are, without a doubt, a tight lipped bunch. I have yet to meet a single 'winlinker' that will even discuss the busy channel signal detection, much less email content. I think Waterman has them sign a pledge to join where he holds rights to their first born.

[WØTKX]

I really don't understand why the boat enthusiasts can't use the maritime frequencies, or just get some spots a little outside of the ham bands for this stuff. For instance, modern type accepted and many older ham rigs will do MARS frequencies quite easily, and that would end the controversy.

[ki4itv]

I really don't understand why the boat enthusiasts can't use the maritime frequencies, or just get some spots a little outside of the ham bands for this stuff. For instance, modern type accepted and many older ham rigs will do MARS frequencies quite easily, and that would end the controversy.
Why? They already have ours. The rules just need another tweak or two and the maritime community has a free and unlimited utility that requires relatively little initial investment.

[N2RJ]

I really don't understand why the boat enthusiasts can't use the maritime frequencies, or just get some spots a little outside of the ham bands for this stuff. For instance, modern type accepted and many older ham rigs will do MARS frequencies quite easily, and that would end the controversy.

You have to pay $250/year to use sailmail and there is a quota of 90 minutes per week.

MARS already uses WinLink. It is perfect for them. Problem is that MARS is serious military/emergency communications. Won't work for personal communications or other stuff.

[WØTKX]

OK, let's try the premise again.

Small segments of spectrum just outside (typically above frequency) of the amateur bands for personal maritime use such as WinLink and Nets. Put them in their own little box.

Oh, and back OT. The biggest impediment to Amateur Radio Communications is Amateur Radio Operators themselves. :neener:

[N2RJ]

OK, let's try the premise again.

Small segments of spectrum just outside (typically above frequency) of the amateur bands for personal maritime use such as WinLink and Nets. Put them in their own little box.

Segments just outside the bands aren't free space. You'd have to either share with existing users or kick them out. I think some of those users are MARS. Incidentally MARS uses WinLink. It's actually perfect for them.