Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
WPM to BPS calculation
Some additional info about US subbands-by-mode, in reply to Klystron's
mention of exclusive Morse-code-only band segments. In the following discussion, "modes" means "modes authorized for use by amateurs on the specific amateur bands in question". The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code everywhere, voice and image modes on specific subbands, and data modes wherever voice is not permitted. Morse Code has no exclusive subbands at all, and is rarely used in the 'phone subbands. (I've been an active ham 40+ years and never used Morse Code in an HF voice subband). These regulations are descendants of those going back many decades, to times when amateur operation on HF consisted of Morse Code, voice and nothing else. (For example, HF RTTY operation by US hams was first authorized in the late 1940s, but only 45.45 baud 5 level Baudot code was allowed.) A few years ago, ARRL proposed "Regulation By Bandwidth", which would have separated the various modes by the bandwidth of the signal rather than whether it was voice, data, image, etc. For example, under the proposal, any mode less than 500 Hz wide would be allowed in the 500 Hz and wider subbands, regardless of whether it carried voice, data, image, Morse Code or other information. There were also proposed changes to where automatic and semi-automatic data-mode stations could operate. The proposal got an RM number and a comment period. The comments from those interested were overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was revised but to no avail; ARRL finally withdrew the proposal. IMHO, the most common reasons for opposition that I saw reading the comments were these (in no particular order): 1) 'Phone operators did not want any data modes in the 'phone subbands. 2) "Robot" (unattended) digital stations should be confined to small subbands. 3) Concern that amateurs would have to be able to measure the actual occupied bandwidth of their transmitted signals or be subject to violation notices and complaints. Older equipment and hams who could not afford spectrum analyzers would be forced off the air seemed to be a common fear. 4) AM voice would be limited to 9 kHz bandwidth and was essentially "grandfathered", but other modes could not exceed 3.5 kHz on most bands 5) The existing rules did not need changing. The FCC did act on an earlier "refarming" proposal by ARRL, and widened the 'phone/image subbands on some of the HF bands at the end of 2006. However, FCC went far beyond the ARRL recommendations in the amount of change. This effectively reduced the spectrum space available for data modes on those bands, since they could not be used where 'phone is allowed. The most radical change was on the 80/75 meter bands. About the same time as the "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal, a group of less than a dozen amateurs calling itself the "Communications Think Tank" (CTT) proposed the even more radical change of eliminating subbands-by-mode completely, and simply specifying a maximum signal bandwidth for each band. This proposal also got an RM number and a comment period, but the comments were even more solidly against it than against "Regulation by Bandwidth". The opposition was so overwhelming that CTT also withdrew its proposal. The point of all this is that ARRL and others have made proposals to fundamentally change Part 97 in ways that would favor the use of data modes, and the US amateur community has repeatedly and strongly opposed those proposals. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
hydrometer calculation | Homebrew | |||
LC calculation | Homebrew | |||
How to get -89.5 dBM in this IP3 calculation | Homebrew | |||
ring capacity calculation? | Antenna | |||
IP3 calculation and estimation | Antenna |