[Ground-station] FCC NPRM on Satellites

[Douglas Quagliana]

Bruce writes:
> It's clear that the experiment should be disclosed and the data copyable
by hams.

I think "copyable" is too vague here.  We should know what the signal is
(modulation type, bandwidth, etc)
and be able to receive, demodulate, and decode what the signal means.

For example, for a data signal amateurs should be able to demodulate the
signal
and determine what the bits were that were transmitted.  This implies that
the modulation method (BPSK,
AFSK over FM, CW, whatever) is documented as well as the data format (not
just "1200 baud" but
"1200 baud AFSK NRZI AX.25" or "1200 baud BPSK NRZI using this published
data frame format").
That's probably not had to get from the University because they will WANT
the data and want us to help,
and we can assist with a worldwide network of ground stations but only if
we know what the signal is
going to look like.

More difficult will be the disclosure of what those data bits MEAN.  For
example, you receive a data frame
that says "0,0,0,1,1,1,0,20,27,255".  What does that mean coming from this
experiment?  I think it will be
more difficult to get the decoding information from the principal
investigators (PI) who created the experiment.
If everybody can see all the data, somebody who didn't do any of the
upfront work for the experiment or
the satellite can just go get all the data that amateurs received and
he/she could be "first to publish" the
results before the PI can publish. The possibility of being "scooped" by
someone else will be a deterrent
to publishing what the data bits actually mean. On the other hand, keeping
it a secret for forever but
using amateur frequencies to report the results of the experiment seems
wrong too.  I'm not sure what
the compromise is.  If I recall, for Hubble data the PI has one year(?) of
exclusive access to the Hubble data
to publish his results and after that year NASA makes the Hubble data
public.

> Sleep now :-)
I've heard about this sleep thing.  It's some kind of substitute for coffee
isn't it?

Douglas KA2UPW/5




On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:19 AM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station <
ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:

> I'll be writing a comment on the FCC NPRM on satellites.
> https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_
> Business/2018/db0417/FCC-18-44A1.pdf
> Major points (so far) are:
>
> Fees being asked for Part 25 licenses are willing to push universities
> into the Amateur Service. This could endanger us (we don't want the same
> fees, $100,000 per year, which are supposedly for satellite debris
> management as part of licensing, and we don't want amateur-run satellite
> efforts to be pushed out of our spectrum by the university ones) and this
> means we will be building partnerships with universities as they may need
> us to license and operate their satellites.
>
> We need a better definition of what should / should not be in the Amateur
> Satellite Service. It's clear that the experiment should be disclosed and
> the data copyable by hams. I would also push for a quid-pro-quo in that
> universities include a benefit to hams in general such as a repeater that
> can be activated during or after their mission.
>
> ITU/FCC/IARU are currently interpreting the ITU definition of the Amateur
> service being without pecuniary interest meaning that salaried staff can
> not be satellite licensees or operators. At the same time, there will be
> increased pressure on us to do emergency maneuvers and to be able to cut
> off transmitters on short notice. IMO, a 501(c)3 like ORI should be able to
> carry out its charitable activities using employees, just as W1AW has a
> paid operator. Ultimately we will need to bring this up with ITU.
>
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
> Open Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ground-Station mailing list
> Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute
> http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20180503/1ca7813a/attachment.html>