Re: Packet rates HF/VHF/UHF under part-97
That CW / Process Gain test for Part-15 products seems like a joke now but it was symptomatic of the excessive regulation that the FCC used to indulge in.toggle quoted message Show quoted text
Fortunately the FCC under Ajit Pai is now determined to modernize the rules for all Services. They've got a lot of work ahead of them and regrettably Amateur Radio isn't at the front of the line but I'm sure they'll eventually get round to sorting out Part 97.
To this day many hams are unable to comprehend the difference between the FCC terms “Spread Spectrum” and “SS”.
Even people at ARRL HQ can have difficulty interpreting Part 97. At the end of the last century the League was convinced wideband multiple carrier HF data modes weren’t permitted. It took them some time to realise Part 97 did in fact permit data signals which could in theory occupy an entire band.
Hopefully FCC will soon action the ARRL Symbol Rate petition before they carry out the major task of reforming Part 97.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Thursday, 2 November 2017, 20:47, Graham <g0nbd@...> wrote:
I spotted your post a while ago Trevor, but looking around since, its difficult to concur , not that it's a laudable concept , where it not for the time and effort that has been expended, in what Mr T referees to as 'fake news' concerning the architecture and design of data modes , to comply with the part-97 , the wiki page history for olivia is a prime example , to the point of demeaning the ability of the designer.
In the link you provided, there is even a physical 'cw' test to judge compliance, taking the FCC responds to petitions and the arrl directors, now, apparently being under 'new management' ,with 'the' main issue's , erased and re-modelled , rather in the style of 'the history of post revolution Russia' , its difficult to imagine a situation , where an elegant solution is to be reached ?
Who is to raise petition's about subject's that are none existent in the psyche of the users ?