ARRL and AM. minute #64, July 19-20, 2002 [Archive]

K6UEY

08-16-2002, 01:21 AM

In reading the previous postings I noticed #a particular trend,there is a noticable amount of anti-CW postings claiming the mode is out dated and no longer needed and that testing for proficiency should be eliminated.It is also obvious by it's omission that there is nothing said about the elimination of AM. Ancient Modulation #as it is refered to in most circles uses over twice the spectrum bandwidth of a SSB signal,and is 9 dB less effecient than a SSB signal. For those who don't operate the HF bands an antenna with 9 dB gain or loss for that matter would be a considerable amount especially for those who operate the 40, 80, 160, Meter bands. Some AM signals monitored exceed 12 KHz of banwidth,and on the crowded HF frequencies you could comfortably fit 4 SSB stations in that same bandwidth.
Could it be that to put an AM station on the air it only requires the purchase of the equipment and Plug-N-Play instant gratification. However to master the task of being able to copy CW at the rate of 5 WPM it can take some people as much as hours of personal effort expended and concentration on learning.Is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing or or could one surmise that the anti-CW argument has no merit at all ? Do you think once the movement has eliminated CW that they will continue their crusade and have AM abolished from the bands as an outdated mode.Possibly it will continue and all analog voice modes of modulation will be eliminated.Could it be that Digital Spread Sprectrum is the wave of the future,no band over crowding,22 dB #S/N improvement. I must check the Yaseu and Kenwood ad's and see if the new SS appliances are on the market yet.
Yes TOTO we are not in Kansas any more......
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 73, # ORV

EDITOR'S NOTE:

"In reading the previuos postings I noticed #a particular trend, there is a noticable amount of anti-CW postings claiming the mode is out dated and no longer needed and that testing for proficiency should be eliminated."

In reading the previous posts on this thread, I fail to find ANY reference to CW. Orv, if this was a News Group, it would be suggested you are trolling. #:-)

Post Script:

I may not have made my self absoluetly clear as I refered to the previous postings meaning all and inclusive threads and not selectivtively specifing one in particular. This thread has as a topic the use of AM so I felt the comments were best directed to post here.
As far as Trolling I spent my time in Ham Radio and not the Cyber World so I can only guess it was meant as a non-complementry term. My comments were directed at stirring up brain matter and not meant to bring the flamers out from under their rocks....I Apolagize if my intent was mistaken.....73, #ORV

K2WH

08-16-2002, 01:42 AM

No one uses AM voice in the sub bands. Read the proposal again! It's about digital signals.

K2WH

ke5wj

08-16-2002, 01:58 AM

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

K3XR

08-16-2002, 02:17 AM

w5jbp,Aug. 15 2002,15:28]64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at: the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise: Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.

Our interest is in digital. Presently the popular standard is RTTY at 300 baud. There is some new technology such as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 that are a bit wider. We think that this requires some expermentation and use, thus the motion.

73

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL

if your interest is digital...why not have frenaye make that clear in his motion...and maybe you would not need to deal with these guys getting upset about am...
by the way,i did not read every word in part 97, but i can't seem to find the word ...s u b b a n d....could you help me out here....

dan,k3xr

ke5wj

08-16-2002, 02:42 AM

If you read minute 62 and 63 instead of taking things out of context, it seems pretty clear to me. I guess some people just have a need to be upset.

73,

WB2RJR

08-16-2002, 02:53 AM

Let's see, I can operate cw from 14.0 to 14.350, but I can only operate phone from 14.150 to 14.350 soooo the subband is where? Did I miss something? I thought I always operated phone in a subband. Did someone change the meaning of something?

Marty K7RKR

N7CPC

08-16-2002, 06:42 AM

GYQ......I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, I am composing a proposal for AMSAT requesting an AMSG transponder. I'll get it nipped off to them as soon as I work out the polarity issue.

73 de Craig.........N7CPC http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

W1RFI

08-16-2002, 12:04 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 15 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No one uses AM voice in the sub bands. #Read the proposal again! #It's about digital signals.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
> No one uses AM voice in the sub bands. #Read the
> proposal again! #It's about digital signals.

>> 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr.
>> Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical
>> opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise
>> Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth
>> instead of by mode.

Questions about where to put some of the wider, but purely data digital modes, were probably the impetus behind this motion, but the scope of the motion is not limited to digital or digital voice. #Way back when slow-scan was first getting started in ham radio, the FCC made the decision to put it in what were then the "phone" bands, because of the wider bandwidth.

Right now, data digital signals need to be run in the CW/digital bands, irrespective of bandwidth and voice signals, even digital voice signals, must be run in the phone/image bands. #The digital signals are limited to specific, slow, symbol rates, irrespective of bandwidth. The net effect is, IMHO, that the ability of hams to experiment is hindered by regulations that were written back in the days when radio was a lot more simple than it is today.

With people like former FCC staffer Dale Hatfield giving speeches that amateur radio needs to modernize, I think we all need to pay attention to the need for our rules to be written to faciliate, not hinder, that modernization.

I believe the concern by full-carrier, double-sideband AM ops will be addresses when the ARRL petitions the FCC. While not as popular as SSB, AM is a legitimate amatuer pursuit and it should be treated as fairly as any other mode. Its necessary bandwidth is approximately 6 kHz. It wouldn't hurt for AMers to make sure their Director knows their concerns, but this is not an attempt by ARRL to eliminate AM operation. Now, if the limits on bandwidth are spelled out, some of the AM ops that intentionally design audio response up to 20 kHz or so, giving about a 40 kHz occupied bandwidth, may take exception to the rules, but the rules acutally cover that right now with the requirement to use good amateur practice.

IMHO, the sky is not falling. This change will be one that will help ensure the best compatibility between the new and exciting modes that are coming into vogue in the amateur radio service and the existing modes that form the backbone of what ham radio is to most individuals.

Just MHO, of course.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

mackinac

08-16-2002, 05:26 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Aug. 16 2002,05<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Questions about where to put some of the wider, but purely data digital modes, were probably the impetus behind this motion, but the scope of the motion is not limited to digital or digital voice. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ed, thanks for such a reasonable posting on the topic. #After reading a few complaints about the motion being "taken out of context", I read the minutes on the ARRL site. #It is basically as you state: the motivation may have been digital modes, but the proposal is not so limited.

The posting by W5JBP gave the impression that he was confused on the term "subband". #On most HF and VHF bands both "data" and "phone" (to use Part 97 terms) are each restricted to a subband within each band. #It is a bit disconcerting to read this from the ARRL president.

One thing that annoys me about these discussions are the mode bigots. #One of the good things about amateur radio is the variety of modes one can try, so I rather dislike the posters the disparage AM, even though I am not using it right now. #I do hope the ARRL takes #this opportunity to expand the options open to hams and not let it be used to eliminate some modes that happen to be unpopular with a few.

W5ATX

08-16-2002, 10:25 PM

I too was wondering why it sounded like the president of ARRL was confused about the subband subject. To ask how many of us use voice in "the subband" shows a lack of clarity. ALL voice is in the VOICE subband.

Mr Haynie's comment that "we" are interested in digital is also cause for concern. WHO exactly is he referring to? If he means himself, and is speaking in the third person as many hams are wont to do, that's fine. He is entitled to his interests just any other ham. If his reference is to the ARRL or the directors (who essentially constitute the ARRL for decision making purposes), ham radio could have a problem.

The ARRL should be interested in ham radio. ALL of it. If the position of the ARRL is to be interested in the welfare of only one technology to the exclusion of others, there's a serious problem. This would just be another demonstration that ARRL does NOT represent amateur radio, but rather only the special interests or certain factions.

ARRL does not represent me. They have not in many years. Thus my decision not to be a member. If I were, I would certainly be casting my vote in the next directorship election with this subject in mind. Should I even be commenting on this, being a non-member? Perhaps not. But I have decided the good of the amateur community at large may depend on posts like mine.

This statement by Mr Haynie sounds dangerous folks. Members of ARRL need to consider how this will affect them, the president's lack of clarity being a serious issue.

Good luck,

Chris

K3XR

08-17-2002, 12:19 AM

chris, w5atx and some others make a good point about "subbands", while i can't find the term in part 97, safe to say it refers to the breakdown in 97.305, including phone subbands.........it's interesting to note that cw has no subband...as it may be transmitted any place on the band (97.305(a))...

the reference to comments on motion 64 being taken out of context...so far, every quote i have seen is word for word as it appears on the arrl web site...

one thing i may be reading wrong, see what you think, is that motion #63 talks about ....."A NEW AD HOC-HOC COMMITTEE THAT WILL STUDY THE NEW HF DATA MODES IN THE AMATEUR SERVICE".....and that is followed by #64....."AT THE NEXT PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY, THE ARRL SHALL PETITION THE FCC TO REVISE PART 97 TO REGULATE SUBBANDS BY SIGNAL BANDWITH INSTEAD OF BY MODE".....seems to me you would want to wait for the committee to report on the data modes before you petition the fcc on signal bandwith as you are likely to have a better idea of what to ask for .....
dan,k3xr

W1RFI

08-17-2002, 12:41 AM

> ARRL does not represent me. They have not in many years. Thus my decision not to be a member. If I were, I would certainly be casting my vote in the next directorship election with this subject in mind. Should I even be commenting on this, being a non-member? Perhaps not. But I have decided the good of the amateur community at large may depend on posts like mine. >

Sorry about that; I hit the ctrl key and accidentally sent the last post before I was done.

As a member, you WOULD get the opportunity to vote for ARRL Director and Section Manager -- an opportunity I take every chance I get. And as a non-member, you do have every right to your opinion. I can think of a few organizations I cannot support and still feel I have a right to speak out against. But please do look at the overall accomplishments of ARRL and ask yourself whether you, and Amateur Radio, are better served by your being a member or not. Yup, ARRL honks me off a bit from time to time, too, but when I look at things like I just mentioned in my last (aborted) post, I make the decision every few years to re-up, to support those things and to give myself more opportunity to influence the things I do not feel are being done the way I feel they should be.

Tom Frenaye told me that I am one of a handful of people that regularly make their views known to him. That gives me an influence on ARRL policy way ahead of those who do not communicate, or do not join.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

W1RFI

08-17-2002, 12:53 AM

>> ARRL does not represent me. They have not in many years. Thus my decision not to be a member. If I were, I would certainly be casting my vote in the next directorship election with this subject in mind. Should I even be commenting on this, being a non-member? Perhaps not. But I have decided the good of the amateur community at large may depend on posts like mine. >

> Sorry about that; I hit the ctrl key and accidentally sent the last post before I was done.

Even worse, I managed to delete the whole thing. Let me try again. :-)

ARRL does not represent my views 100% of the time either. But in drawing from my own work, can you say that ARRL didn't represent you when it reached an MOU with the FCC to work jointly on power-line interference cases? Right now, the Lab staff are handling about 75 active cases, with more coming in every day. Some of them have over 50 staff hours invested already. Did the League represent you when the Lab staff did an interference study on 70 cm to help with the Savi Technologies RFID threat on that band? Does ARRL represent you when they participate in the IEEE C63 "RFI" committee to try to deal with interference problems at the consumer manufacturer level? How about when they worked with HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance to persuade them that they needed to include 30 dB more protection in the radiated emissions level in their standard than FCC rules require to help prevent widespread harmful interfernece on HF? Do the 500+ QST articles made available for download from the ARRL Technical Information Service web pages meet your expectations to help beginners get started in ham radio? How about the information pages on a wide variety of subject? What about the Big Project, an educational initiative to bring ham radio into the classrooms of America to invest in ham radio's future generation? What about the technical and operational on-line courses?

These are just a few examples off the top of my head about how ARRL has represented me over the past year or so. Yup, there are a few areas where I have disagreed with the action they have taken. And Tom Frenaye hears from me regularly. In some cases, we agree to disagree, and in other cases, when I hear his explanation about why the Board chose to do something, I have changed my mind and think he is a good guy after all. :-)

At any rate, I just wanted to give you my personal reasons for writing that check every few years. HQ staff and the Board of Directors have to pony up their dues dollars just like everyone else. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

w0tdh

08-18-2002, 01:11 AM

[B]Honest Oversite or a Techie Hoodoo >

If the Author's of Minute 64 would declare a more specific intent as to what they meant now , here or es at the next Board Meeting, that might fly. If however, there is no positive response from that quarter then I think we really need to let our opinions be heard. The Board Members need to hear from you. Please Do send them an e mail as to your thoughts on this issue.Anyone needing e mail addresses of folks to send your thoughts to, please give me a buzz. There in EVERY issue of QST http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

Tom - K0PJG
Life Member ARRL

W1RFI

08-18-2002, 10:27 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ Aug. 16 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Author's of Minute 64 would declare a more specific intent as to what they meant now , here or es at the next Board Meeting, that might fly. #If however, there is no positive response from that quarter then #I think we really need to let our opinions be heard. #The Board Members need to hear from you. #Please Do send them an e mail as to your thoughts on this issue.Anyone needing e mail addresses of folks to send your thoughts to, please give me a buzz. #There in EVERY issue of QST http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

Tom - K0PJG
Life Member ARRL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
By my read, the motion represents a "sense of the Board." The details of that petition are to be worked out and will be approved by the Board before they are sent to the FCC, in the normal fashion. (The Board members regularly communicate by email and the Board committees have teleconferences, etc.)

With that in mind, I agree wholeheartedly that people should indeed make their views about this subject known to their Directors! You can easily do so by using the addresses or telephone numbers posted in QST or at:

http://www.arrl.org/divisions

It is my personal view that the rules should be written to maximize the flexibility of amateurs in doing the types of operating and experimenting that they would like to do. In some countries, the rules are simple: These are your power limits and band edges -- stay within them. While I don't that this would work well in a very large amateur population like we have in the US, I believe that a division of sub-band by bandwidth instead of mode would be a step in the right direction. 6 kHz would be a reasonable number for bandwidth in the "wide" band portion of the band and 2 kHz would be a reasonable number in the narrow part. This would accomodate all reasonable current useage of the band and leave room for some real experimentation by the service.

Just my personal opinion, of course. And if if yours is different, that is all the more reason to let your Director know how you feel to cancel my input! :-) This W1RFI personal opinion does not represent a clarification of the intent of the minute, though I don't think it is too far off the mark.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

W8FAX

08-18-2002, 03:28 PM

I think Mr. Hanynie needs to keep himself better informed as to what the organization he is supposed to be leading is really up to. Nowhere in the proposal does it say anything about digital, or any other mode specifically. As usual, the ARRL is trying to fix something that is not broken. (re: incentive licensing, support of lower license requirements, etc) It has been proven over the last few years that WHAT is proposed to the FCC, and what ENDS UP are often two completely different things. Look at the fiasco over the power levels being arbitrarily changed to PEP, which even the FCC cannot accurately check, let alone hams with limited resources. AM'ers get their bristles up immediately because of the history of the bandwidth question. (BTW, there are MANY SSB sigs on the air now that are VERY wide, as a result of ops trying for "hi fi" sound.) Most AM'ers have spent countless hours either building their own equipment, or refurbishing older stuff to use on the air. This was the original "essence" of ham radio. NOT plug and play. AM is just as viable a mode today as any other. (Try and use SSB when the dopler effect comes into play) I do agree that there is much unused space now in the ham bands and that some re-asignment may be called for, but the ARRL needs to REALLY research what they are proposing to do before they yet again do something "for ham radio" as they have in the past.

k4kyv

08-18-2002, 03:44 PM

What set this off was Minute 64 of the July 2002 ARRL Board Meeting which reads in its entirety:

"64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode."

According to League officials, the intent of the proposal is to allow for digital modes that are too wide for the CW band but not allowed in the phone band. They say they have no desire to restrict the bandwidth of AM or any other mode.

A potential problem with the bandwidth approach was stated very well by Dave Sumner: "But it's certainly true that in going from a regulatory regime based on mode of emission to one based on bandwidth there are bound to be consequences, intended and otherwise, that will have to be considered very carefully."

The AM community is concerned because we remember Docket 20777 back in 1976, and the language in Minute 64 sounds too familiar.

Another problem with bandwidth limitation is that the present rules are intentionally vague about maximum bandwidth, stating simply that we must use "good engineering and amateur practice." According to the FCC, this allows amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation, self education in the radio art, and communication, all of which are part of the Basis and Purpose of amateur radio as defined by Section 97.1 in the rules. The imposition of rigid, specific bandwidth limitations would end that flexibility and limit the amateur's ability to use and experiment with the various modes. It would accelerate the already existing trend that has largely taken amateur radio away from building, designng and modifying equipment and technical experimentation, towards "plug-in appliance" operating, which means simply buying factory-built rigs, plugging everything in, talking.

Regardless of mode, there is no specific bandwidth limit that can be defined by "good engineering practice". It is better to let common sense be our guide. For example, a recently developed speciality of interest in the amateur community has been "hi-fi" SSB. Some of these stations have built or modified SSB rigs capable of transmitting audio 100-5000 hZ or more. Some say the a 5 kHz wide SSB signal is too wide. Well, that depends on the situation. Why wouldn't it be good amateur practice to run audio 20-20,000 Hz, generatiing a 20 kHz wide SSB signal, when there is little or no adjacent activity in the band, such as on 10m when it is otherwise dead? But it might be considered poor amateur practice to transmit even a 5 kHz wide SSB signal when the band is heavily congested. That's the kind of flexibility the FCC is talking about.

If the sole purpose of amateur radio is to transmit only signals with minimum bandwidth, then let's outlaw AM, SSB, SSTV, PSK-31 and all other modes that take up more bandwidth than plain ol' Morse CW, and make all bands CW-only. The answer of course is that we don't all want to limit ourselves to CW. You may run SSB because you prefer to carry on a voice conversation than to manipulate a key, even though SSB takes up 10 times the bandwidth. By the some token, I may prefer AM operation over SSB, even though AM takes up twice the bandwidth. What justifies where the specific line should be arbitrarily drawn between personal preference and signal bandwidth?

Another problem with specific bandwidth limits is that it makes no distinction between sidebands generated by spurious distortion products and sidebands generated by the frequency components of the modulation. Splatter caused by overdriving the amplifier is totally different from sidebands generated by the high frequency components of the voice modulation. Most of the obnoxious splatter heard from AM and SSB signals is caused by distortion and flat-topping, not by the fidelity of the audio used to modulate.

No-one has proposed to eliminate CW from the ham bands, but there are many proponents of eliminating the Morse Code test. Actually, the code test has already been effectively eliminated in the US and elsewhere with the 5 wpm speed. Personally, I am in the camp of the Russians and the Germans, who are seeking to keep the international code requirement for HF licence, and they prefer the minimum speed in their countries to remain at 12 wpm. This requires some commitment of effort beyond a written test with the exact questions and answers available for memorisation. A Russian spokesperson went so far as to say that CW is what separates ham radio from the CB'ers.

I think the solution to the problem of digital modes is not to redefine the subbands by bandwidth instead of mode, but to eliminate subbands altogether. The US is one of very few countries in the world that still subdivides its bands. Subbands have not existed in most European countries for many years, and Canada recently got rid of its subbands. Since incentive licensing, the US has been saddled with the most complex system of subbands that has ever existed in any country in the world, with our bands divided by both mode and licence class. Other countries separate wideband modes from narrowband modes by voluntary band plans similar to the current ARRL band plan for 160. Amateurs who violate the agreed-on bandplan and repeatedly cause harmful interference to others who follow the plan, could still be cited by the FCC for not following "good amateur practice" as defined under Section 97.101 (a) as well as provisions in 97.101 (b) and (d). The 160m. band has been without subbands ever since it was fully restored to amateur use in the early 1980's, and this has worked well despite the complaints of a small but vocal minority.

Regarding band congestion and the use of wider-bandwidth modes such as AM and NBFM, eliminating subbands would relieve much of the phone-band congestion that exists today. Typically, during periods of heavy band activity, such as 75m. during Friday and Saturday evenings in the winter, or 20m. throughout the day on weekends, a pattern can be observed. The same pattern was observed on 80 through 15 m. during Field Day, when all modes were in heavy use: CW can be heard in the lower 50 to 75 kHz of the band, and particularly during contests, the bottom 50 kHz may become very congested. The phone bands may become so congested that it is difficult to find a spot to operate, especially during SSB contests. But the frequences that lie between the lower 75 kHz of the "CW band" and the low-frequency edge of the phone band, lie nearly idle. At any time, there may be a half-dozen or so digital modes such as RTTY and PSK-31, along with a substantial number of non-US amateur signals (mostly SSB). There may another half-dozen or so CW signals in the Novice segments. Otherwise, this portion of each HF band has become a de facto "American-free" segment. This is very inefficient use of spectrum space in this country.

In conclusion, there is no need to impose specific bandwidth regulations and restrict or eliminate certain modes, in order to relieve band congestion and permit the use of new digital modes. Instead, we could simply eliminate subbands altogether and rely on voluntary band plans for any needed separation of modes. Interests in various modes in amateur radio come and go with time. It is much easier to modify voluntary band plans than to go through the cumbersome rulemaking process to adapt to changing technology and interests of the amateur community. The present subband system is based on an era before WWII when the vast majority of hams operated CW, equipment was crude and phone operators were in the minority. This is not to imply that CW should be phased out or that the code test should be eliminated, but that the present subband system prevents the most efficeint utilisation of our existing frequencies.

Don Chester, K4KYV

K6UEY

08-18-2002, 05:48 PM

DON-K4KYV Well done.
Your post was not in the vien of my original thinking but you bring out several things that seem to make a lot of sense.
The one question that does still bother me though as you pointed out there is already a problem with adjacent channel interferance with the so called HI FI SSB signals in a very crowded band at times. Do you really believe that with out band width restrictions individuals will respect the spectrum above and below their signal,it doesn't seem to happening now although as you say the bandwidth regulations are pretty vague at present. Courtesy as well as the written regulations should be followed which is not always the case as frequently as it used to be.
Good post Don, well done TNX....... # #73, # ORV

ka1ogm

08-18-2002, 11:24 PM

I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything... #It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the "necessary bandwidth" for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO). #

Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea. #The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes beyond stupidity. #The whole idea that the use of allocated spectrum needs to be "efficient" only indicates how out of touch the people in Newington really are. #Ham radio is not a business with manufacturing activities that need to be made more "efficient". #It's the kind of "central planning" that went out the window with the demise of the Berlin Wall. #When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to arrive in the 21st century???

We took the right step with the "privatization" of testing, and the "de-regulation" of a simpler license structure. #But now you guys want to go back to "central planning" and make the bands even MORE regulated? #How whimsical and trite!

I'm sorry Ed, but you haven't come shining through to me as any shining pinnacle of intellectual prowess on this at all. #Six kilohertz, indeed... #

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

W5ATX

08-19-2002, 01:33 AM

Actually, 6 KHz is a good bandwidth for AM. Communications quality audio is generally considered to contain audio frequencies from 300-3000 Hz. As such, with the highest modulating frequency being 3000Hz, that would make a properly modulated DSB signal 6KHz wide.

As for the rest of this issue, I'll wait to see what FCC has to say about it. I maintain that they CAN think without ARRL leading the way.

n0xu

08-19-2002, 06:07 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ Aug. 17 2002,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the sole purpose of amateur radio is to transmit only signals with minimum bandwidth, then let's outlaw AM, SSB, SSTV, PSK-31 and all other modes that take up more bandwidth than plain ol' Morse CW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PSK-31 actually uses less bandwidth than CW. See the technical description here: http://www.w5bbr.com/psk31.html. Click the link halfway down the page to see the measured spectra.

It's amazing to me that we can pack literally dozens of QSO's into the bandwidth occupied by SSB.

73 de Drew N0XU (First PSK31 ops in Antarctica)

W1RFI

08-19-2002, 09:59 AM

> I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything... It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the "necessary bandwidth" for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO).

I made it clear that my personal off-the-cuff idea of what might constitute a reasonable limit for bandwidth was 6 kHz. Your characterization of this as a "decision" and those who want to discuss this as being "bandwidth" police is confrontation at best, disengenous at worst.

Why are you doing this?

73,
Ed Hare,

ka1ogm

08-19-2002, 12:26 PM

Disengenuous? #If you mean disingenuous, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black. #I'm being as straightforward as I can be here, Ed. #If anything, I'm being discourteous and rude.

Look, I'm sure you mean well, and I'm sure that you're a nice enough person, but you're just not impressing me with your leanings about bandwidth. #If you weren't someone who's admittedly an influence in Newington, I wouldn't be picking a fight with you here. #This issue has been on the table before, and it's a very sore point with those who spend any amount of time working towards surpassing "communications quality" audio in the AM mode.

But aside from the smaller AM issue that's dear to my heart, there's the evident mindset in Newington that bands need to be divided up according to defined bandwidth. #It's such a disingenous way of, ostensibly, paving the way for new modes that I can't just sit back and say nothing, because this issue was attempted quite some time ago under another, albeit, more up front guise. #The way to provide for new modes is to deregulate, decrease the "central planning" nature of the sub-band regulations, and opening things up. #As long as ARRL continues to address things like this from the viewpoint of "Mom and Pop trying to bring the kids into line", this kind of reaction from people like me will continue in the same tradition of outrage and anger.

It's nice to have shills in the audience when you want to sell a bill of goods to the audience, but your shilling here for the rationalizations behind this whole "sub-bands defined by bandwidth" idea is patently offensive to me, especially when you claim that it's only your opinion. #When you have the ear of board members on something as far reaching and backwards as this, AND you come into a discussion about it here in the public view, don't expect that we're all too stupid to swallow it.

The fact that you've evidently got a closed mind on this issue, and that you've already drawn your line in the sand on it, only leads me to this posture of simply attacking you and doing everything I can to make it obvious that you haven't been forthright and straightforward at all, but have, in fact, been quite disingenuous about it.

You can count on a lot more head to head confrontation, not only from me, but from many others with you on this issue, for as long as you continue to defend it. #Some will be more polite, and assume that you're amenable to the possibility that your mind might be changed. #I, however, don't believe it's possible at this point.

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

W1RFI

08-19-2002, 12:34 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka1ogm @ Aug. 17 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything... #It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the "necessary bandwidth" for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO). #

Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea. #The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes beyond stupidity. #The whole idea that the use of allocated spectrum needs to be "efficient" only indicates how out of touch the people in Newington really are. #Ham radio is not a business with manufacturing activities that need to be made more "efficient". #It's the kind of "central planning" that went out the window with the demise of the Berlin Wall. #When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to arrive in the 21st century???

We took the right step with the "privatization" of testing, and the "de-regulation" of a simpler license structure. #But now you guys want to go back to "central planning" and make the bands even MORE regulated? #How whimsical and trite!

I'm sorry Ed, but you haven't come shining through to me as any shining pinnacle of intellectual prowess on this at all. #Six kilohertz, indeed... #

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
> Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea.
> The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes
> beyond stupidity. The whole idea that the use of
> allocated spectrum needs to be "efficient" only
> indicates how out of touch the people in Newington
> really are. Ham radio is not a business with
> manufacturing activities that need to be made
> more "efficient". It's the kind of "central planning"
> that went out the window with the demise of the
> Berlin Wall.

Equating my post on QRZ.com to the end of the division of the city of Berlin is stretching things beyond credibility.

The idea of spectrum efficiency is not just my idea. It is a principle that the FCC uses on a constant basis to allocate spectrum. If Amateur Radio doesn't pay heed, it may not bode well for us, in the short and long run. Read the speech that was made by Dale Hatfield, then the OET Bureau Chief.

http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/misc/dnh061700.html

Amateur Radio is faced with a difficult challenge, with the need to balance technical issues like spectrum efficiency against the need to provide reliable emergency communications. Our mode diversity is an important part of that balance, so my casual reference to "spectral efficiency" is not intended to undermine whatever your favorite mode might be.

> When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to
> arrive in the 21st century???

I am curious why you characterize me as being in an ivory tower. I get out to about a dozen conventions a year; I spend time on a number of mailing lists and newsgroups; I am in general touch with the FCC, amateur and non-amateur industry and I probably personally communicate with about a thousand hams a year. That doesn't sound very "ivory tower" to me. Did you use that term to give your words an importance they might not otherwise have had, or was it just a good opportunity to take a shot at a newcomer to this forum?

If you disagree with me, I welcome the exchange about why, but being personally insultive is really not welcome in any venue, nor it it very productive.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

K6UEY

08-19-2002, 01:14 PM

I am curious as one posting suggested that bandwidth limitations be taken off,how would the usuage be allowcated. In the past on the phone portions it was by Gentlemans agreement adjacent stations would use 3 kc #spacing,a SSB using the recognised communications BW of 300 to 3kc would have a signal 2.7 kc wide leaving a slight buffer of 300 cps to the adjacent station,the last few years stations have moved closer together using only 2 kc spacing #and some times even closer,obviously this creates QRM even with the audio BP narrowed to 2.4 kc in some rigs. With BW restrictions removed we will have much less room and account for fewer stations on the air at the same time,do we draw lots to see who gets to use the spectrum first or do we as often done now just set in on top of an exsisting QSO.If things are bad now removing BW restrictions would mean total anarchey on the bands. I would think tighting the restrictions to allow more use of the spectra with maybe sub bands for those modes who use more than normal amounts of BW. ....73, # ORV

ka1ogm

08-19-2002, 02:20 PM

I'm not unaware of the complexities involved with FCC agendas and the ARRL's difficult and time consuming work in defending our service, allocations, and continued existence. #I applaud most of this, and I'm very glad to have this organization there to do the work.

Getting under your skin on this particular issue, however, is definitely my intention.

Where "central planning" and the demise of the Berlin wall come into the picture is symbolic in the world sweeping changes that our government has made over the past two decades in changing how and what the government controls. #By allowing the market to run free and "sort itself out", a fundamental ideological change has taken place in that governments no longer operate on the assumption that it must control everything with "central planning" in order for things to go well. #It has affected everything. #It is the most significant and fundamental thing that has happened with our government and the world in a century. #

Smaller governing bodies have not caught up with this, however. #When you get down into individual states, towns and cities, the old "central planning" mindset is still alive and well, running things into the ground. #I see this also with non-governmental bodies as well, and the ARRL is no exception.

Consequently, I'm not equating your post with the city of Berlin, but with the outdated mindset of "central planning" that regulates things into complete and utter unworkability. #It was not a literal reference, but a symbolic one. #

The idea of spectrum "efficiency" may be one that plays well in political circles amongst vested interests, but when the ARRL goes along in agreement with it, like a leaf in the winds of fate, our allocations are certainly doomed. #Spectrum "efficiency" is completely antithetical to any and all of the actual activity that takes place on the ham bands, day in and day out. #The rhetoric of "spectrum efficiency" is the basic argument AGAINST the amateur service, and anyone who doesn't take a firm stand on this ploy has got their head in the sand.

Amateur Radio is faced with a nearly impossible challenge, with a simple need to increase numbers into a range that might equal or surpass the number of people in jail in this country, for instance, or maybe the number of people who can trace their ancestry back to Tierra Del Fuego, etc. #We are such a tiny and comparatively insignificant number at this time, that it's always understated by the ARRL how much we have against us. #And yet, the ARRL has never taken a true leadership role in reaching the millions of people in this country who would be interested in two way radio. #They led the way in orphaning the 11m band, and they've led the way alienating larger and larger numbers of licensed hams. #The "ivory tower" is more than appropriate, given the downside in evidence all around us.

The "ivory tower" in Newington is comprised of those who are fully immersed in the political problems and complexity of fighting for our service. #I respect that work, as I said above, but where those in the "ivory tower" are immersed in their activity, the rest of the ham population that's actually on the air every day and every week will have a very different viewpoint. #It is the viewpoint of the active hams on the air regularly, not those who sacrifice their air time for political service time, who understand this very prevalant sense of our league being out of touch.

If you can't understand the appearance of someone like me, who is thoroughly enflamed by your words here in this thread, when you posted everything with absolutely no slightest intention of enflaming anyone, then pay attention:

Your representation of your viewpoint here REALLY PISSES ME OFF! #And I am, by no means, the only person that's repeatedly outraged and angered by this kind of attitude and implied sense of "fait accompli" with any of the brilliant "solutions" that the ARRL might come up with next. #The process is to shove things of this ilk through a period of committee activity, recommendations to the board, resolutions by the board, (all of which are buried deep within the small print of board meeting minutes that nobody wants to have to wade through) and then, by the time it finally becomes visible to those who would vehemently disagree or oppose it in any way, the damn thing is on the FCC docket as an official proposal. #In this instance, however, it was noticed at the initial stage of its journey through the "process" with Tom Frenaye's motion at the board meeting in July. #

As if nobody in Newington has any idea what a volatile issue this is! #As if nobody in Newington could possibly imagine how upset and angry anyone might get over this thing! #And then you come onto this forum SHILLING for this idea! #Give me a break! #You deserve to be insulted a lot more than I'm doing here on this issue, that's for sure!

But like I've said before, I'm sure that you mean well, and that your intentions are good. #What I'm trying to do here is blast through that seemingly impervious sense of being "well informed" about what's going on with people outside of the political fold, the one's that you never talk to on the air, and the ones who aren't sucking up to you with an agenda. #Ham radio is not about the politics in Newington for the vast majority of those who are actively operating on the air, day in and day out. #Ever notice that membership is not the majority of licensed hams? #

I'm sure that if I get a chance to talk to you at Boxboro next week, you'll see that I'm not prone to insults, or being offensive with people I disagree with. #In print like this, in a public forum, however, I pull no punches.

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

W1RFI

08-19-2002, 04:43 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka1ogm @ Aug. 18 2002,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not unaware of the complexities involved with FCC agendas and the ARRL's difficult and time consuming work in defending our service, allocations, and continued existence. #I applaud most of this, and I'm very glad to have this organization there to do the work.

Getting under your skin on this particular issue, however, is definitely my intention.

Where "central planning" and the demise of the Berlin wall come into the picture is symbolic in the world sweeping changes that our government has made over the past two decades in changing how and what the government controls. #By allowing the market to run free and "sort itself out", a fundamental ideological change has taken place in that governments no longer operate on the assumption that it must control everything with "central planning" in order for things to go well. #It has affected everything. #It is the most significant and fundamental thing that has happened with our government and the world in a century. #

Smaller governing bodies have not caught up with this, however. #When you get down into individual states, towns and cities, the old "central planning" mindset is still alive and well, running things into the ground. #I see this also with non-governmental bodies as well, and the ARRL is no exception.

Consequently, I'm not equating your post with the city of Berlin, but with the outdated mindset of "central planning" that regulates things into complete and utter unworkability. #It was not a literal reference, but a symbolic one. #

The idea of spectrum "efficiency" may be one that plays well in political circles amongst vested interests, but when the ARRL goes along in agreement with it, like a leaf in the winds of fate, our allocations are certainly doomed. #Spectrum "efficiency" is completely antithetical to any and all of the actual activity that takes place on the ham bands, day in and day out. #The rhetoric of "spectrum efficiency" is the basic argument AGAINST the amateur service, and anyone who doesn't take a firm stand on this ploy has got their head in the sand.

Amateur Radio is faced with a nearly impossible challenge, with a simple need to increase numbers into a range that might equal or surpass the number of people in jail in this country, for instance, or maybe the number of people who can trace their ancestry back to Tierra Del Fuego, etc. #We are such a tiny and comparatively insignificant number at this time, that it's always understated by the ARRL how much we have against us. #And yet, the ARRL has never taken a true leadership role in reaching the millions of people in this country who would be interested in two way radio. #They led the way in orphaning the 11m band, and they've led the way alienating larger and larger numbers of licensed hams. #The "ivory tower" is more than appropriate, given the downside in evidence all around us.

The "ivory tower" in Newington is comprised of those who are fully immersed in the political problems and complexity of fighting for our service. #I respect that work, as I said above, but where those in the "ivory tower" are immersed in their activity, the rest of the ham population that's actually on the air every day and every week will have a very different viewpoint. #It is the viewpoint of the active hams on the air regularly, not those who sacrifice their air time for political service time, who understand this very prevalant sense of our league being out of touch.

If you can't understand the appearance of someone like me, who is thoroughly enflamed by your words here in this thread, when you posted everything with absolutely no slightest intention of enflaming anyone, then pay attention:

Your representation of your viewpoint here REALLY PISSES ME OFF! #And I am, by no means, the only person that's repeatedly outraged and angered by this kind of attitude and implied sense of "fait accompli" with any of the brilliant "solutions" that the ARRL might come up with next. #The process is to shove things of this ilk through a period of committee activity, recommendations to the board, resolutions by the board, (all of which are buried deep within the small print of board meeting minutes that nobody wants to have to wade through) and then, by the time it finally becomes visible to those who would vehemently disagree or oppose it in any way, the damn thing is on the FCC docket as an official proposal. #In this instance, however, it was noticed at the initial stage of its journey through the "process" with Tom Frenaye's motion at the board meeting in July. #

As if nobody in Newington has any idea what a volatile issue this is! #As if nobody in Newington could possibly imagine how upset and angry anyone might get over this thing! #And then you come onto this forum SHILLING for this idea! #Give me a break! #You deserve to be insulted a lot more than I'm doing here on this issue, that's for sure!

But like I've said before, I'm sure that you mean well, and that your intentions are good. #What I'm trying to do here is blast through that seemingly impervious sense of being "well informed" about what's going on with people outside of the political fold, the one's that you never talk to on the air, and the ones who aren't sucking up to you with an agenda. #Ham radio is not about the politics in Newington for the vast majority of those who are actively operating on the air, day in and day out. #Ever notice that membership is not the majority of licensed hams? #

I'm sure that if I get a chance to talk to you at Boxboro next week, you'll see that I'm not prone to insults, or being offensive with people I disagree with. #In print like this, in a public forum, however, I pull no punches.

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
> Getting under your skin on this particular issue,
> however, is definitely my intention.

Suit yourself, but my participation here is personal -- or shall I say was personal. If it is the social custom here to try to get under the skin of people who show up here, count me out. There are plenty of places I can go where people do not tell me that they think I mean well, then tell me that they are setting out to get under my skin. I do not need that sort of petty nonsense.

Best of luck to you all.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

w0tdh

08-19-2002, 04:53 PM

I was requested to Post a response from W6PSS on this subject;

Dear Tom,
It's good to hear from you noting your concern for the longevity of the AM mode.
Thanks to the astute and longtime AM'er K4KYV (Don), I became aware of the meeting but not of the details. I took that information to broadcast his concern about the possible impact that limiting bandwidth could have on the AM mode.
Thanks to the magic of the Internet, that concern got to President Jim Haynie of ARRL for this clarification. Mr. Haynie's response follows:
From: W5JPB
To: W9ac@arrl.net ; K1ZZ@arrl.org
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed HF Spectrum Bandwidth Restrictions
"The ARRL is going to petition the FCC to regulate subbands by bandwidth."
1. First off, we do not have a petition.
2. You can't work phone in the SUBBANDS now.
3. What we are interested in, is two new modes of digital. Clover 2000 and Pactor 3.
4. Under the present rules, 300 baud RTTY is the signal width standard. Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 are a bit wider. It is felt that by being able to accommodate these two new technologies, amateur radio would be in compliance with its charge under part 97 to "promote and enhance the art..."
5. Presently our technical team is looking at what frame work is needed to accommodate the new modes.
I hope this helps and if you would pass it on so as to quell the fears of the AM'ers.
73
Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL"
Tom - As you see, ARRL is now on record "pass it on as to quell the fears of the AM'ers. I remember a former ARRL Pres., visiting the Leo Meyerson Chapter of QCWA at Palm Springs in the 90s, who was privately hostile to AM and said he would do everything in his power to terminate its use!
This welcome clarification by Jim Haynie should do much to quell fears of loyal ARRL members and AM operators at large as well as those enjoying hi-fi SSB.
Full credit goes to Don K4KYV, former Editor AM Press Exchange, for keeping a focus on proceedings
of the fine organization Hiram P. Maxim started. "TOM's" autobiography available Electric Radio magazine. This inspirational book recommended reading for all Radio Amateur's.
Tom, won't you kindly place this in QRZ COM window for wide dissemination - thanks.
David, deacon of AM

K2PG

08-19-2002, 05:10 PM

The recent ARRL proposal reeks of Docket 20777, the 1976 proposal which sought to "deregulate" amateur radio by defining subbands by bandwidth, rather than by emission mode. The narrowband subbands proposed under Docket 20777 remained the same as the CW/RTTY subbands then in existence, so nobody really gained any priveliges. This proceeding would have "deregulated" certain modes, such as DSBSC and AM, out of the 160-15 meter bands. It was vehemently opposed and the FCC never adopted it. In dealing with the FCC, one must watch for unintended consequences. The League's proposal may give us some relief from current overregulation of our radio service. But it may spawn some new, originally unintended restrictions.

Even if such "heritage" modes as AM and wide-shift RTTY are protected under the League's proposal, this proposal still calls for the micromanagement of amateur radio that has been the hallmark of FCC regulation in this country for decades, in that it continues to call for the division of our bands into subbands.

A far better solution would be to petition the FCC to simply delete most of Sections 97.305, 97.307, and 97.309 from the Rules, substituting the liberal provisions of Part 5. Part 5 governs the Experimental Radio Service, in which I also hold a license. Eliminating 97.305 eliminates the outdated emission subbands. This would eliminate the de facto "American-free" zones on our DX bands and on 40 meters, where hams in the rest of the world can and do operate voice while Americans do not dare to. As a result, Americans do not use those frequencies and they go to waste in this country (although the 40 meter frequencies in question are used by CW and data stations during the day. The CW activity slides down the band at night, as the frequencies fill up with foreign SSB stations.) The United States is one of the few countries, if not the ONLY remaining country, still prescribing such subbands. Canada abolished subbands several years ago. Eliminating the other two sections eliminates the need to seek Special Temporary Authorization if one wants to try a new emission mode. It would also eliminate the asinine restrictions on data communications. While teenage kids may send text, voice, and images digitally over the Internet, we hams are limited to sending 300 baud text on HF radio, with the FCC even dictating the type of code that we may use! This is a disgrace, an embarrassment, and it totally contradicts Section 97.1, which calls for amateur radio providing a pool of trained radio operators who can advance the communications art. 300 baud ASCII and slow-speed Baudot do nothing of the sort! The British are experimenting with OFDM for digitally transmitting voice in a 3-6 kHz channel. Quality approaches that of FM broadcast radio! OFDM was invented in New Jersey by Bell Laboratories. Yet, the current straitjacket of FCC regulations precludes us from using that mode here. While the ARRL proposal may provide some relief, the elimination of the offending sections of Part 97 would be much better. Suppose someone develops a new emission mode that does not conform to whichever limits are ultimately imposed under any rule changes that result from the League's proposal? Then we are "back to square one", hobbled once again by outdated rules. True deregulation renders Part 97 future proof.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with our "heritage" modes, either. I work and enjoy both CW and AM. The beauty of CW is its simplicity and the way in which it transcends language barriers. Even though AM is old fashioned, there is an AM subculture on our bands that is highly technically oriented. Some of these AM'ers are actually using cutting edge technology! An example is WA1QIX, who has designed and built several transmitters using Class E solid state PA sections. These transmitters achieve over 90% efficiency! The broadcast industry is just beginning to market such equipment. Unlike the "plug and play" crowd that purchases "plastic radios" to see how many QSL cards they can collect, these AM'ers work on their own equipment. They build their own equipment. And they help one another. This is far more in keeping with the spirit of traditional amateur radio.

We need to get rid of subbands, period. I am thoroughly sick and tired of being a second-class citizen relative to my Canadian and European colleagues.

ka1ogm

08-19-2002, 08:53 PM

I get the distinct impression that Bob Hare expected no slightest opposition here. #I get the impression that he thought anything and everything he might feel like saying in this thread would be agreed with and accepted with no problem. #The weight of Bob's technical reputation is something that I will never take issue with, but the things I have taken issue with in this thread have yet to be addressed by him. #

Yes, I'm sure that there are lots of places that Bob Hare can escape to, where everyone will be polite and never take any strong or emotional opposition to anything he may choose to utter. #But this is the world outside the "Ivory Tower", and I'm only one person...

There have been other opposing viewpoints posted in this thread by people that have chosen to expound upon politely and calmly, and with a sense of much more gentlemanly exposition than myself. #But if Bob leaves in a snit at this point, I, along with many others, would only have to assume that anything that has been said in opposition is just simply too overwhelmingly on the mark for Bob to feel he could ever rebut successfully.

What about it, Bob? #Are you really going to go back to the safety of the Ivory Tower because you think EVERYBODY here is full of "petty nonsense"? # I mean, really, you get one guy on your case and now you're going to run away with your tail between your legs? #How utterly and completely out of touch that would be.

I understand that you've had your disagreements with things ARRL has done in the past. #I understand that you're not some wayward intellectual cretin with stupid ideas. #And I understand what a pain in the neck it is to suddenly find yourself being railed against because of something you posted on an internet bulletin board or forum. #

Where's your backbone? #Where's the defense of your position? #I expected a worthy opponent in a public forum, and what did I get? #Fluff? #

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

ke5wj

08-19-2002, 11:24 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka1ogm @ Aug. 19 2002,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I get the distinct impression that Bob Hare expected no slightest opposition here. #I get the impression that he thought anything and everything he might feel like saying in this thread would be agreed with and accepted with no problem. #The weight of Bob's technical reputation is something that I will never take issue with, but the things I have taken issue with in this thread have yet to be addressed by him. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Funny, I haven't seen any posts from Bob Hare.

Did you have someone else in mind, Frank?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

W8FAX

08-19-2002, 11:27 PM

I would like to ask a couple of questions. WHY does the ARRL have to constantly "dabble" in regulating or arbitrarily change Ham Radio ?? They have obviously do NOT listen to what members they have. They send out these polls and then do the opposite of what the results say they should do. They "seem" to try to be sneaky about some of the things they do, or try to pull off. For what?? Shouldn't they be concentrating on trying to get some of the existing hams to join up, rather than trying to make it a "walk in" for new hams?? Since the ARRL does NOT have the majority of licensed hams as members, is it possible they are worried about the survival of themselves, and place their own existance ABOVE the survival of ham radio? The use of stupid words like "re-farming" do not bring support from hams, most of whom are of above average intelligence. I am an ARRL member, but they way things have been going the last few years, I do not think I can conyinue to support a group who wants to put our hobby under the "micromanagement" of the government. For what??? I think the instant and vigorous protest from the ARRL when questioned about this latest attempted move, only proves the arrogance they have, and that they did NOT expect to get caught with the ol' fingers in the jar....ONCE AGAIN. #Al/W8FAX

va3es

08-20-2002, 03:00 AM

As a Canadian, I have “No dog in this fight”. #But as a long-time AM’er and one who is also concerned with the future of Amateur radio, I thought I’d chime in with #my 3.2 cents (Canadian).

The Amateur Radio Service is a noble and beneficial service with much history and accomplishment. #Whenever changes are made to it’s structure or it’s technical requirements and qualifications, care must be taken to ensure that the intentions and purpose of the service are not adversely affected. Such changes, when poorly implemented, or thoughtlessly imposed can often lead to the original aims and objectives of the Service to disappear.

Today, there is much emphasis in our society for “progressive” change. Old ideas and ways are swept aside in an effort to make room for more modern state-of-the-art technologies and methods. This clamour for the “new” is unabated and sometimes deafening. #Though swept aside, and rendered silent, the old technologies and methods still maintain useful application, both as practical techniques and as important links to the heritage of the service. #

“AM is outdated, and not spectrum efficient.” , shouts the masses! #This contention is based on the evidence on the numbers of users who have abandoned this mode for SSB, as well as the advances in more "efficient" voice technologies, in the last forty years. #But, as Jeff, KA1OGM has very astutely stated,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">“…Spectrum "efficiency" is completely antithetical to any and all of the actual activity that takes place on the ham bands, day in and day out. #The rhetoric of "spectrum efficiency" is the basic argument AGAINST the amateur service, and anyone who doesn't take a firm stand on this ploy has got their head in the sand.”[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Too many bureaucrats, both professional and amateur, #seem to miss one crucial aspect about Amateur Radio – the criteria of “spectrum efficiency” and it’s associated issues are actual stumbling blocks to the true purpose of Amateur Radio. # As Amateurs, we aren’t concerned with cost effectiveness, #channel-loading, or users-per-kHz, but rather we should be concerned with the pursuit of the art and science of radio, without prejudice or reservation.

Since these criteria, (spectrum efficiency, cost-effectiveness, etc.) do not apply for the Amateur Radio Service; they can be dispensed with as an argument. #What is applicable in Amateur Service, is technique and the basic understanding of radio technology.

The very perceptive K2PG states:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Even though AM is old fashioned, there is an AM subculture on our bands that is highly technically oriented. Some of these AM'ers are actually using cutting edge technology! An example is WA1QIX, who has designed and built several transmitters using Class E solid state PA sections. These transmitters achieve over 90% efficiency! The broadcast industry is just beginning to market such equipment. Unlike the "plug and play" crowd that purchases "plastic radios" to see how many QSL cards they can collect, these AM'ers work on their own equipment. They build their own equipment. And they help one another. This is far more in keeping with the spirit of traditional amateur radio.”[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This technocratic fetish that drives this bureaucratic zeal to regulate every technical aspect of Amateur Radio, will kill it in the end. #AM'ers are among the last bastion of true radio amateurs; let's give them the breathing room they need to continue their efforts.

Ed, VA3ES

N7CPC

08-20-2002, 07:12 AM

Isn't Bob's name Ed? Or has Ed forgot Bob's name ain't Ed? And who the devil is Bob anyhoo?

If your going to flame an intersting poster, at least get his name right. Or do you write for the Post©?

73 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

ka1ogm

08-20-2002, 11:22 AM

Oops! #There goes another brain cell! #It's ED Hare, not BOB Hare... #hmmm, is it Hare? #Oh well, either way he's no fun, he fell right over.

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

ae4mr

08-22-2002, 07:25 PM

Most of the posts here seem to not understand exactly what is being proposed by the ARRL.

It is not about the old beloved modes such as CW and AM. #They are not mentioned or threaten. #They will be able to continue to live on hopefully forever.

What it IS about is new modes in the CW/digital portions of the band. #Such modes as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3. #It is refered to here as the subbands. #The subband for 20 meters, as an example, is between 14.0 MHz and 14.150 MHz. #It is has nothing to do with the phone sections of the bands.

Now if you have some objection to using new modes such Clover 2000 or Pactor 3 WITHOUT eliminating ANY old modes then flame away. #I for one am listening, if we can get back to the topic.

Dave Armbrust - AE4MR
ARRL Section Manager
West Central Floida

K3XR

08-22-2002, 07:56 PM

dave, ae4mr...let's take this one at a time ...
"most of the posts here seem to not understand exactly what is being proposed by the arrl."

i think dave they are able to understand exactly what they read in qst and on the arrl web site, you seem to have been able to obtain all this detailed information you relate....why can't arrl members do the same.

"the subband for 20 meters, as an example,is between 14.0 mhz and 14.150 mhz."
dave, did you forget about the "subband" between 14.150 and 14.350

this is a clear case of not spelling out what the objective is to the membership ....you can see it in the business world where the folks at the top know what is going on or what the objective is....but fail to properly relate it to the folks at the bottom .....if you want every one in the organization to buy into your plan.....make sure you give them sufficient, and complete, #information.
dan k3xr

W8FAX

08-22-2002, 08:07 PM

Mr. Direktor, ae4mr, if that is true then WHY didnt the ARRL say so in proposal 64http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif (#64....."AT THE NEXT PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY, THE ARRL SHALL PETITION THE FCC TO REVISE PART 97 TO REGULATE SUBBANDS BY SIGNAL BANDWITH INSTEAD OF BY MODE) I see no referance to digital here. ALL modes except CW operate in sub bands on HF. An earlier post said no one operates phone in sub bands. WHERE ELSE do they operate then??Check it out. If it is so clear, how come you guys have to keep telling us "what we said is not what we meant.....trust us" Sure......... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

ae4mr

08-22-2002, 10:32 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Direktor, ae4mr, if that is true then WHY didnt the ARRL say so in proposal [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What proposal? #Clearly there is no proposal at this point.

It simply states:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are reading minutes from the ARRL board meeting. #While I am not a director and was not present at the board meeting I am confident that everyone there understood what the "subbands" are in this context.

When the petition is filed I am confident that it will spell this out in detail including specific frequencies by band. #Also before the FCC decided to do this it will invite ALL amateurs to comment on the proposal. #But until then do not read too much into these short 25 words that were extracted from the board meeting. #These 25 words will be replaced by hundreds of words in order to make it clearly understood.

Also just because the ARRL asks the FCC to change something is no guarentee that it will happen. #It must also have the support of all amateurs as well.

Dave Armbrust - AE4MR
ARRL Section Manager
West Central Floida

mackinac

08-23-2002, 02:54 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ae4mr @ Aug. 22 2002,12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the posts here seem to not understand exactly what is being proposed by the ARRL.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

On the contary, I think most do understand what is being proposed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not about the old beloved modes such as CW and AM. #They are not mentioned or threaten. #They will be able to continue to live on hopefully forever.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

CW and AM are not mentioned. #But they do occupy bandwidth. #There is definitely a potential threat. Whether or not they live on forever depends on what changes to the regulations get enacted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What it IS about is new modes in the CW/digital portions of the band. #Such modes as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3. #It is refered to here as the subbands. #The subband for 20 meters, as an example, is between 14.0 MHz and 14.150 MHz. #It is has nothing to do with the phone sections of the bands.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The "data" subband is 14.0 to 14.150. #The "phone" subband is 14.15 to 14.35MHz. #Read the minutes posted on the ARRL web site. #There is no adjective in front of subband. #As written the statement refers to all subbands: data, phone, General, Extra, whatever. #If they intended it to only refer to data subbands, they should have said so.

We might also ask: why should any proposal for regulation changes be restricted to the data subband. #It might be appropriate to allow for wider bandwidth digital voice and picture modes in the phone subbands, too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now if you have some objection to using new modes such Clover 2000 or Pactor 3 WITHOUT eliminating ANY old modes then flame away. #I for one am listening, if we can get back to the topic.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There hasn't been much objection to new modes.

While it has been good to see ARRL officials participating in this discussion, they are acting like politicians and seem to be trying to obfuscate the issue rather than clarify it.

ae4mr

08-23-2002, 03:51 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There hasn't been much objection to new modes.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Good, perhaps we are back to the topic and reason for a change then.

ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, writes (and he was at the board meeting):
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Our interest is in digital. Presently the popular standard is RTTY at 300 baud. There is some new technology such as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 that are a bit wider. We think that this requires some expermentation and use, thus the motion.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Part 97 talks about modes rather then band width. #I think most hams do not object to new modes and would want to encourage developement of new modes. #Yet most probably also agree that we do not want to open the gates and let anyone do anything on the subbands regardless how wide the signal is. #One signal could effectively wipe out a significant portion of the band.

How do we allow more expermentation as Jim suggests and yet still protect it from abuse? #Band width seems like a good way to do this. #But the ARRL does not have a monopoly on good ideas and if you have a better one please bring it to the table.

Dave Armbrust - AE4MR
ARRL Section Manager
West Central Florida

ka1ogm

08-23-2002, 11:36 AM

Hi Dave, nice to see more discussion on this topic.

The bandwidth issue here has been over Ed Hare's posts, which explicitly mentioned AM and a 6kHz maximum, in his opinion... And while I find the whole idea of defining emissions by bandwidth instead of mode an interesting one on the surface, it is opinions such as Ed's that make it start appearing to be a threat to existing practice on the air.

It is also hi-fi SSB that would suffer from this kind of limiting definition. I'm sure that "Experimental modes" as new language in part 97 would suffice, rather than re-defining or adding limitations to any existing modes by defining bandwidth limits.

The other side of this issue is that the motion by Tom Frenaye has begun the process to petition the FCC to define sub-bands by bandwidth, rather than mode. It isn't a motion to explore the possibility of doing so, which would indicate a desire to find out if any of the membership might be opposed to it, and the possibility that this might actually have an impact on whether the ARRL petitions the FCC on this at all. Instead, we are invited to participate in the "process" of making our opposing case to the FCC, once the petition is made.

Where is the "process" within ARRL? Why does the discussion have to go before the FCC? Don't the opinions and desires of the membership count in these matters? I suspect that they don't, otherwise there would be a bulletin board (like this one) on the ARRL website!

Jeff Barnard
KA1OGM

W8FAX

08-23-2002, 12:09 PM

Personally, I believe this is just a back door approach to getting CW and AM moved to their own little narrow places on the bands. I think it is worth our notice that the ARRL says it's about digital, but doesn't mention that in the minutes. It's been pointed out that it's not a proposal, but they say it's what they are proposing. Over the last few years we have seen the ARRL take polls on what members want and then do the opposite or less than they promised. Instead of straight answers we get political rhetoric trying to confuse and divert attention from what was actually said. If the ARRL represented the majority of hams that would be one thing, but it is too often obvious that they don't even listen to their own members, and seem to have their own "agenda" on many issues. It has also been noted that the FCC often does not listen to the ARRL. They(the ARRL) get the pot stirred, and what comes down from the mountain is completely different and arbitrary from what was proposed or hoped for. We can't enforce the laws we have now. I don't believe we need more rules to dirty up the water. What if you want to have a QSO with different modes??? Are we going back to "cross banding" like the XTAL control days of a bygone novice era????

w0tdh

08-28-2002, 11:52 AM

More thoughts on this issue from e mail sent to me this morning - name with held;

ARRL may file Petition for Rulemaking against enhanced audio

If you are among the enthusiasts for improved audio quality on the shortwave
ham bands, you should know that the League's Board of Directors in July
accepted a resolution to pursue with the Federal Communications Commission the
idea of using bandwidth rather than mode to determine the placement of
operating activities.

Although the resolution was in the context of finding a place for digital
communications technologies, chances are good that a bandwidth-defined
protocol could directly affect your ability to continue using enhanced audio
on the HF bands.

If the proposal fails to include adequate specifications to allow the option
of improved transmitted quality for traditional analog voice signals, it could
render useless much of the labor and equipment you and others may have spent
in the interest of achieving human-sounding communications as a specialty in
the hobby.

Please consider emailing your region's director and vice-director to
discourage them from supporting such a Petition, should it ever come to
fruition. I encourage you to act early to preclude rather than have to later
defend against any formal proposal reaching federal regulators.

The FCC in 1976 developed a similar bandwidth proposal as part of Docket
20777. It failed to win popular support, and was voted down by the Commission
in 1977. The League has indicated no willingness to examine why the proposal
was unsuccessful, but the fact remains 25 years later: Operating coordination,
not technical constraint, is the best way to share our allocations among all
the modes and activities we enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<eom>

Your thoughts need to be sent to ARRL es the FCC about these important matters NOW........

Tom - K0PJG
Life Member A.R.R.L.

08-28-2002, 12:07 PM

Tom said:

"ARRL may file Petition for Rulemaking against enhanced audio."

Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

I am not aware of any such proposal and I think I would know.

73

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

w0tdh

08-28-2002, 01:31 PM

More interesting thoughts from an e mail from the other day; Name with held.......

Another point to consider...

From the looks of Rinaldo's letter, the ARRL may be considering petetioning
the FCC for specific bandwidth limits of 3 kc for SSB and 6 kc for AM.

I see a couple of problems with that idea, besides the fact that it would
limit phone signals to telephone-like "communications quality" audio. Even
the SSB'ers are getting away from that, with the current interest in "HI-FI"
SSB (an oxymoron?)

First, even if you wanted to limit the upper high frequencies to 3 kc, it
would be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a flat response that high, without
transmitting a signal bandwidth of at least 4 kc for SSB and 8 kc for AM,
due to the rolloff characteristics of even the best filters. There is no
such thing as an audio or rf filter with vertical skirts. Even the famous
Collins mechanical filters are rated at -3/-30 dB points. Usually the -30 dB
point is nearly twice the -3 dB point. To limit the significant bandwidth of
a phone signal to 3 or 6 kc would require the audio to start rolling off at
2 kc or less.

Secondly, this would render most presently-used vintage AM rigs and many
older SSB rigs obsolete. Most AM rigs simply use a mic driving an audio
amplifier which in turn drives the modulator. There may be some bypass
capacitors across an audio transformer or two, and/or across the plate
resistors of some of the low level audio stages, but this generates, at best
(or worse, depending on what you think of the idea), a gradual rolloff of
highs. Extremely sharp audio filters are possible (I have one), but not
generally available, and to install them would require what would
undoubtedly be difficult and expensive modifications to existing rigs. If
this becomes mandatory, I suspect that many AM'ers will simply give up and
say hell with it. So maybe the bandwidth proposal would not immediately
kill AM as Docket 20777 would have, but in the long run it would have the
same effect.

Hopefully, knowledge of what is presently going down is not limited to
members the AM Reflector and those who monitor the AM Window BB. There are
still many members of the AM community who don't have computers or internet
access. Also, I think many in the SSB community would be allied with us on
this issue, if they were aware of what may be about to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<eom>

Tom - K0PJG
Life Member A.R.R.L.

ae4mr

08-28-2002, 03:32 PM

Tom, K0PJG, writes:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...this would render most presently-used vintage AM rigs and many older SSB rigs obsolete... Also, I think many in the SSB community would be allied with us on this issue, if they were aware of what may be about to happen.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now once again let's read the excert from the board minutes:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Come on Tom, give us a break. #Now I have heard about "Conspiracy Theory" but this is really getting riduculous. #This is not about phone, phone is not even mentioned. #In fact it is specifically excluded. #It is only about the subbands (which should clearly be understood to be the CW/digital portion of the bands). #The league is not looking to pull a fast one the eliminates AM and SSB, old radios, etc., while everyone is sleeping! #Now if you want to take your old radio and play with AM in the CW portion of the band then YES this may affect you! #So may the FCC!

Now if you want to talk about the excert, as written, then great, let's go. #Now if you want to talk "Conspiracy Theory" I would rather join Bob Hare and watch the movie!

Dave Armbrust, AE4MR
ARRL West Central Florida Section Manager

wa3vjb

08-28-2002, 07:35 PM

ARRL Pres Clarifies Bandwidth Idea; Rules Out ANY Effect on Phone Activity

In a telephone call Wednesday, Aug. 28th 2002, lasting more than 20 minutes, ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP has told me that the Board eventually hopes to consider a Petition for Rulemaking that would limit its scope to dividing up only the non-Phone segments of our HF allocations.

If successful, this would create what I interpret to be an "overlay" system whereby the existing CW-only segment of any given band would be further divided by bandwidth. Narrower modes of all flavors would be situated in one part of the CW area, with less narrow modes in another part of the CW area.

Curiously, others with knowledge of the Board's Minutes have also said the ("Minute 64") proposal had nothing to do with phone allocations. #But no one ever backed it up by describing specific boundries to allow us to conclude there could not be additional impact on other modes and activities.

I told Mr. Haynie that the controversy is a direct result of the unanswered question of whether any bandwidth-based proposal would be comprehensive or specialized. #

I am among those who presumed, for the sake of defending against potential consequences to AM, that operating protocols defined by bandwidth would indeed apply to the entire segment of a given amateur allocation. No one with whom I communicated told me that this was an incorrect presumption, so I certainly pressed ahead.

My working theory until today was that a bandwidth-based proposal would be a substitute for, and a successor to, what presently is a mode-based system of coordinating operating activities. Mr. Haynie today specifically said this is not the case.

He affirmed my fresh understanding as I restated it to him in this phone call that the League is instead looking at a "hybrid" (my word) approach establishing selected bandwidth-defined divisions, while leaving untouched the traditional mode-based definition of areas now authorized for "phone."

The ARRL president told me he was curious to know my view as to what constituted "acceptable AM bandwidth." #I said there is no specification and we wish to keep it that way. #He countered whether I thought someone running 20Kc on 20 meters was acceptable, and I responded that the regulatory mandate of "good amateur practice" suggests we are responsible for tailoring our occupied bandwidth to conditions.

In the give and take, Mr. Haynie said there was no plan, at present, to change the open-ended (undefined) bandwidth specification for AM.

I further stated, in my response, that the key is retaining the ability to be flexible in tailoring our operating, and that we (collectively) would continue to be on guard against rigid constraints that do more overall harm than any occasional good. #

This, by the way, is consistent with my advocacy against mandatory, full-time frequency reservations and my support for an open band protocol of voluntary coordination to minimize friction among the various modes and activities.

I directly asked him about what participation he envisions in the crafting of this proposal, and he said that no ad hoc planning committee is planned. #I noted that we felt left out of the 160m voluntary band plan committee, populated by contesters and weak-CW specialists, which led to a Petition for Rulemaking by two such operators.

I'm sorry to report he offered neither an apology nor an explanation.

We then moved the discussion elsewhere, and he advised us that "you don't kick a sleeping dog," explaining that the Board had no intention of considering issues beyond digital compatibility in the CW-only segments, "but," he said, referring to those of us who have been raising an alarm, "now that they're talking about AM, maybe we'd better take a look at it."

I saw this as posturing for my benefit, but I restrained myself, because it was clear he had made an overture in calling me. I did say something to the effect that if AM were to face an unintended consequence, I am delighted that the issue has come up as something to be addressed and resolved.

Regarding letters we write to League officials, he said that a region's Director is solely responsible for answering complaints or inquiries from that ham's area (League member or not), and that it is established protocol for other Directors and Vice-Directors to defer to the region matching the ham's location for any requested response.

I said there would still seem to be advantages to seeking a consensus of Director opinions on what would become a national, not local, ARRL action. To that, he said that the League president is the one who handles such inquiries, to speak on behalf of the Board as a whole; hence his phone call.

I asked Mr. Haynie a little about himself -- whether he dated back to the days when AM was what you meant when you said "Phone." Turns out he has been licensed only as long as myself (30 years), but he said he firmly believes there could be another version of the "AM versus sideband" wars in the future, This time it could involve old-fashioned analog communications versus newer digital technologies whose users would also wish a place to operate.

After a bit more small talk, I concluded by asking whether I could quote him and the information we had discussed, and he said fine. He also said that he reads the AM Window BBS and others but contributes only to QRZ.com because the moderator has agreed to keep a handle on the discussion.

He had no significant response to the earlier posting by his Technincal staffer Ed Hare on QRZ.com, nor the flames that greeted him. But he did address my question of whether Mr. Hare's view of AM bandwidth was anything floating around as a working mentality. #Mr. Haynie said that for years he believed the rule of thumb in good operating practice called for a "6kc" bandwidth.

He also acknowledged, as he did earlier in the conversation, that we have the option, under favorable band conditions, to use enhanced bandwidth. I didn't get that he would endorse such enhanced audio, but he did agree that years ago, the big "phone" stations emulated the sound of the major broadcast stations of the era. And he was not critical of those of us who choose to maintain that legacy today.

--Paul/VJB
--WA3VJB@amfone.net

(and drop the anti-spamming double dash to respond)

k6ntl

08-28-2002, 07:55 PM

No time to read all of these.

But, IMHO, AM just sounds great. I will stop and listen to the most mundane QSOs just to hear the quality of the audio.
I also know a good number of the ops using AM are likely using equipment they put time and love into.
I'd fire my SS rigs up on AM, but I don't think they would sound as nice.
Any tips for an AM beginner where to try it out for the first time? 75m nets?

Have a great day...
73, Kevin
K6NTL / AAR9TA

ps: As far as subbands go, there is a lot of squabbling over the digital stuff. I could see a little suggestivity there.

08-28-2002, 08:17 PM

OK, before all the CW ops get on my case, nothing was said about "dividing up the sub-band" all would remain as it is. Just some new technology introduced.

Let me relate a visit I had with the FCC last year.

Dale Hatfield who, at that time, was the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology called me into his office and more or less took me to the wood shed. He said that hams need to take another look at part 97.1© and get some new "stuff" going. His interest at the time was SDR's (software defined radios) but he did mention some other items.

Since that meeting the League has established several ad-hoc working groups of experts from all over the world. They are working with digital voice, digital multi-media, and software defined radios. Several programs were done at Dayton. I hope that some of you were there.

Here it is in a "nut shell." Amateur radio was not created just for something to do in ones spare time. Get a rule book and look at all the points of 97.1. We must contribute to the art of communications or die. We can each do this in our own way, but fighting change and the introduction of new technologies is not the way to do it.

On another thread, the League was bashed because we had not responded to the use of European FRS radios in the U. S. Well, we are responding. We will also respond to the petition to remove what is left of the 220 band and give it to industry. Look it up! It is filed as a comment to WT Docket No. 02-224. The pressures for our spectrum has never been greater than it is today!

This "nit picking" about turf has to stop and we need to all start working together if we want to have any bands at all in 20 years.

While I am on my "soap box" I will be sending out a survey soon to a random number of amateurs that choose not to support the ARRL. The purpose of the survey is to find out what we can do better and or what more we can do that will entice membership. So, before you say you did not get one, here is your chance. I would think that QRZ would rather you send your comments to me directly (W5JBP@ARRL.ORG) instead of posting them all here, but what ever.

73

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL

W8FAX

08-28-2002, 09:31 PM

Another survey........
Did he mention that all the other services that use CW,AM,and SSB will have to "get some new stuff going" also. If the ARRL and the FCC is bent on boiling everything down to PSK and the likes, I guess I won't be around to see it. One thing though, with no-one to blame but themselves, the ARRL does NOT represent anywhere near the majority of hams, and united we DO have a voice. It's been proven...........
BTW....CW is NOT in a sub band. Everthing else IS. Don't know why that's so hard to figure out........

w0tdh

08-28-2002, 11:16 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa3vjb @ Aug. 28 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding letters we write to League officials, he said that a region's Director is solely responsible for answering complaints or inquiries from that ham's area (League member or not), and that it is established protocol for other Directors and Vice-Directors to defer to the region matching the ham's location for any requested response.

I said there would still seem to be advantages to seeking a consensus of Director opinions on what would become a national, not local, ARRL action. To that, he said that the League president is the one who handles such inquiries, to speak on behalf of the Board as a whole; hence his phone call.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm........and here I thought the DUES PAYING Members of the A.R.R.L.were/are in-charge and the President and all other Directors/Officers were in OFFICE at the pleasure of the Rank and File. Gosh, where have I gone wrong ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[We then moved the discussion elsewhere, and he advised us that "you don't kick a sleeping dog," explaining that the Board had no intention of considering issues beyond digital compatibility in the CW-only segments, "but," he said, referring to those of us who have been raising an alarm, "now that they're talking about AM, maybe we'd better take a look at it."]

Sounds like intimidation to me folks.

By way, I have that same phrasing from the President
in an e mail to me. I did not like it then, nor now, seeing it again from another source.

The fate of Minute 64 needs to be put to a vote of the Members of the A.R.R.L. and not left to one or even a few individual(s) to dictate the out come of such an important matter as this issue. These are the foundation blocks of Amateur Radio. They ( ARRL ) are suggesting that these foundation blocks can/could be changed in the near term.

Lets see; Imagine a group of machines talking away to each other and no one is home......boy, does that sound exciting ! New fangled of course, proper bandwidths to be sure ! They just don't need the Ham behind the mike any more.....:( Is that what we are wanting more of ?
Less room then for CW for sure. No getting around it. Have you been on CW of late ? Dodging the MACHINES is a chore at times. 1.5 KW blasting away to another machine. Man thats Hamming http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
The ARRL is wanting MORE of this type of Ops.......I for one am not impressed.
By George don't we have enough of that kind of operation now http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

There was a time when if you wanted to experiment with modes requiring wide band widths you did it on the higher bands above six mtrs.

By the way, who benifits from this new stuff anyway. I mean who makes the profit from it ? If the rules do not change then I guess no one does.......

Like it or not, writing, e mailing or phoning your Director/Officer of the A.R.R.L. DOES do some good.

Tom - K0PJG
Life Member A.R.R.L.

W8FAX

08-28-2002, 11:22 PM

Tom:....

Here is a copy of the email I sent to our Great Lakes Manager:

I am emailing you in response to a potential proposal by the ARRL. Once again the "powers" have jumped into something that has not been researched properly and has caused much confusion, even among those who disseminate information about ARRL activities. The move towards trying to segregate the bands by modes/bandwitdh and or to try and limit bandwidths is a ludicrous idea. The response has been from ARRL managers, that the proposal is only going to be about digital. IF that were true, then why didn't the minutes SAY that. Myself and many others do NOT understand why the ARRL has to constantly trying to "FIX" something. A limitation of bandwidth could very possibly render thousands of dollars of equipment to become unusable. It could also drive many current operators who enjoy building and experimenting, away from ham radio, and drive a further wedge between the ARRL and ham operators. The ARRL is constantly bemoaning the fact that the amateur population is decreasing, and no new operators are replacing those that drop out. If this is true, then WHY do you need to change the current spectrum laws. If you tune across the band now at any time, save contest events, a good part of most of the bands are not even in use. It would make more sense to try and utilize THESE areas. I think there are far more important issues at hand than fixing something that works. If the ARRL handles this in the usual way, we may get something back from the FCC that we REALLY weren't shooting for, and will take forever to reverse. Thanks for Looking........Al Tanner/W8FAX

AND the answer I rcved back..............

Alan,

Good morning! And thanks for writing.

I am hearing a lot about the AM issue lately. First, let me assure
you that there was no intent to end nor to relegate AM in Director Frenaye's
motion. I have discussed this with Dave Sumner who assures me that AM is not
the target here and is safe.

But I will be vigilant on this issue and "keep my ear to the ground."

73, Gary KI4LA

w0dz

08-29-2002, 03:10 AM

I am an ARRL Life member (and a member since 1966) and proud of it. I'm tired of reading all the anti-ARRL tirades here. I needed ARRL's help to fight a court case regarding deed restrictions when I was 18, and they helped my dad's lawyer greatly. ARRL publishes the widest ranging literature for old and new hams anywhere. ARRL runs some of the best contests around.

See if *you* can get consensus on anything when there are 680,000 people involved. It can't be done. Some people will always disagree. But that doesn't mean you have to bash them in general.

Someone here said ARRL doesn't represent most hams. Let's look at that. There are about 680,000 hams in the U.S. today. It has historically been the case that about 50% are inactive, and I think that holds today too. That leaves 340,000 active hams. Many of those are Techs who got their licenses to operate 2M FM. Most of hamdom's fights don't concern them. They don't plan to ever have HF antennas. They don't participate in clubs or public service or experimentation. They are basically freeloaders. I think that's about half of the active Techs, or about 80,000. They don't typically need ARRL for anything. If ham radio died, they'd sell their rigs and they wouldn't care. So, we're down to about 260,000 active hams who care about ham radio. Right now, there are 166,000 ARRL members. That's 63%.

So I think it is unfair to say ARRL does not represent ham radio. They represent a majority of active hams. Many of those members disagree with them on occasion. But most people feel we're better off with them than without them.

Have you read a QST lately? It's pretty darn good. I know because they've published 3 of my articles! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And the Handbook is really well done, especially in the area of DSP. It's better than my textbooks.

ARRL wants the hobby to survive and so do you. So give 'em a break.

WB2RJR

08-29-2002, 05:02 AM

w0dz you said

"Someone here said ARRL doesn't represent most hams. Let's look at that. There are about 680,000 hams in the U.S. today. It has historically been the case that about 50% are inactive, and I think that holds today too. That leaves 340,000 active hams. Many of those are Techs who got their licenses to operate 2M FM. Most of hamdom's fights don't concern them. They don't plan to ever have HF antennas. They don't participate in clubs or public service or experimentation. They are basically freeloaders. I think that's about half of the active Techs, or about 80,000. They don't typically need ARRL for anything. If ham radio died, they'd sell their rigs and they wouldn't care. So, we're down to about 260,000 active hams who care about ham radio. Right now, there are 166,000 ARRL members. That's 63%.

So I think it is unfair to say ARRL does not represent ham radio. They represent a majority of active hams. Many of those members disagree with them on occasion. But most people feel we're better off with them than without them."

Just a question....if you made this statement in defense of your thesis....do you think you would get your degree?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Give me a break, you have a BSEE, an idiot Social scientist would blow you out of the water on this one.

Or are you so blinded by emotion you don't see it?

For your professional reputation I would suggest you state that you got carried away and that the "facts" you presented really don't yield the conclusions you stated, in any kind of scientific methodology.

Or perhaps I don't know what BSEE's are like and this is standard for them.

73 Marty K7RKR a Petroleum Geologist, definitely NOT an engineer