KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

///////////////////////////////////////////
Missouri radio amateur petitions FCC to designate "symbol communication"
subbands

Posted: 13 May 2016 11:27 AM PDT
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/kb6nu...m_medium=email


As you can imagine, this news has caused a bit of a stir on the CW mailing
lists that Im on. As I read it, this fellow is petitioning the FCC to allow
digital communications with a bandwidth up to 2.8 kHz in what is currently
the CW/digital portions of the HF bands. As one commenterÂ*pointed out, To
permit data transmissions with a 20 dB bandwidth of 2800 Hz throughout the
non-voice segments of the 3.5-30 MHz. This would constitute a significant
source of interference for narrow-band modes. This includes modes such as
PSK-31. Please consider filing a comment opposing this petition.

DanÂ*

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB016

ARLB016

ZCZC AG16

QST de W1AW

ARRL Bulletin 16 ARLB016

From ARRL Headquarters

Newington CT May 12, 2016

To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB016

ARLB016 Missouri Radio Amateur Petitions FCC to Designate
SymbolÂ*Communication Subbands

James E. Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone, Missouri, has petitioned theÂ*FCC to
designate Morse (radiotelegraphy) Amateur Radio band segmentsÂ*as symbol
communication subbands. The FCC has invited comments onÂ*his Petition for
Rule Making (RM-11769), filed on May 2. ArguingÂ*that retaining the current
regime of legacy CW subbands has provenÂ*to be grossly inefficient, Whedbee
said hed like to see the FCCÂ*delete all privilege restrictions that limit
any part of the AmateurÂ*Radio spectrum to Morse code to the exclusion of
other modes.

RM-11769 can be found on the web
atÂ*http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 .

Nostalgia for retention of Morse code telegraphy-only subbands isÂ*also an
insufficient reason to avoid moving forward to [the]Â*elimination of such
subbands, because nothing about this PetitionÂ*suggests the elimination of
the mode itself, only that it not be theÂ*sole authorized mode in the
subject subbands, Whedbee told the FCC.

Whedbee characterized CW-only subbands as an excessive
regulatoryÂ*constraint, as well as a poor use of the spectrum concerned.
HeÂ*proposed that the FCCs Part 97 rules reflect the ultimate form
ofÂ*communication reproduced at the receiving end. As he explained it,Â*his
regulatory scheme would break down modes into three categories Â*symbol
communication mode for CW, digital, and other emissionÂ*modes that
reproduce a discrete symbol on the receiving end voiceÂ*mode, and image
mode.

[C]ontinuing regulation by specific emission designator is provingÂ*to be
onerous with changes to the state of the art, Whedbee said.Â*Accordingly, to
continue developing the state of the art inÂ*radiocommunications, Amateur
Radio needs to clearly get away fromÂ*regulating in that fashion and return
to consideration of what the

receiving end of the communication reproduces.

He proposed that where the Part 97 rules refer to exclusiveÂ*radiotelegraphy
allocations or subbands privileges be changed toÂ*reflect symbol
communication modes. Where the rules prohibit voiceÂ*and image modes, he
would revise the rules to reflect symbolÂ*communication modes. In situations
where current rules prohibitÂ*symbol communication modes other than Morse,
that voice and imageÂ*modes would be permitted, with an exception for
manually keyedÂ*radiotelegraphy.

For example, he would drop the distinction between 75 meters and 80Â*meters,
authorizing symbol communication modes between 3.5 MHz andÂ*3.65 MHz, and
voice and image modes between 3.65 MHz and 4 MHz, withÂ*manual
radiotelegraphy authorized throughout the band.

Whedbee told the FCC that, if his Petition is accepted for filingÂ*and put
on public notice, he would submit an appendix spelling outÂ*proposed service
rules as part of his Petition.

Commenters have 30 days to respond to Whedbees Petition.

NNNN

/EX

The post Missouri radio amateur petitions FCC to designate symbol
communication subbands appeared first on KB6NUs Ham Radio Blog.