ARRL Bandwidth Proposal Stirs Lively Debate

[ky5u]

ARRL Bandwidth Proposal Stirs Lively Debate

Whether you agree or disagree with the "Allocation by bandwidth" plan proposed by the ARRL, the proposal has stirred up much in the way of comments. #Judging by the comments on QRZ thus far, the ARRL mailbox bandwidth@arrl.org must be getting quite a work out.

In their proposal, (Which can be seen on the ARRL Website at http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html ) the League calls for comments on a proposed petition to change the way modes are used on the Amateur frequencies. The plan calls for varying bandwidth allocations to dictate which modes may be used within. #Generally, the breakdown is:

Quote[/b] ]► 200 Hz is intended to be the narrowest bandwidth to permit Morse telegraphy at all speeds that human operators can decode. The necessary bandwidth depends on speed and whether the circuit is fading or non-fading. An analysis by ARRL in the 1980s showed that 150 Hz is adequate and is based on rise and fall times of 5 ms. A bandwidth of 200 Hz will permit data modes such as PSK31 as well.


► 500 Hz is meant to provide for RTTY and data modes, and possibly new image modes, but the bandwidth is not adequate for conventional telephony. This is not, however, to exclude experimentation with highly compressed or synthesized telephony designed to fit in a 500-Hz bandwidth at sacrifice of natural sounding voice.


► 2.8 kHz is required by NTIA for Amateur use only on the 60-meter channels.


► 3 kHz would accommodate SSB and digital telephony, image, high-speed data and multi-media (that is, a combination of these modes). However, 3 kHz is not wide enough for DSB-AM or independent sideband (ISB), so a separate sub-paragraph are proposed, as below.


► 6 kHz bandwidth is reasonable bandwidth for Independent Sideband (ISB), as this would be two, 3-kHz upper and lower sidebands.


► 9 kHz: The emission designator 6K00A3E is commonly seen but not many DSB-AM transmitters have --26 dB bandwidths of 6 kHz or less. Some of the DSB-AM transmitters use high-level modulation with L-C roll-off and their --26 dB bandwidths exceed 6 kHz. There are also some converted broadcast transmitters that exceed 6-kHz bandwidth. ARRL is suggesting a 9 kHz --26 dB bandwidth as a reasonable compromise that most transmitters will meet.


► 16 kHz also is a reasonable compromise bandwidth to permit analog FM voice, data, digital voice and multimedia in the 29.0-29.7 MHz segment.


► 100 kHz is presently permitted (for RTTY and data) in bands above 420 MHz. It is reasonable to extend this maximum bandwidth starting at 50 MHz (avoiding 50-50.3 MHz and 144-144.3 MHz), so as to allow both digital multimedia and high-speed meteor scatter (burst) communications.

Notible is the mixing of SSB and digital telephony, image, high-speed data and multi-media in the 3kHz segments. #Also the special reference to AM and allowing it to exist in the 3kHz segment at a higher bandwidth. See the ARRL site for full details.

The ARRL proposal is based on a report by the "Ad Hoc Digital Committee" with one notable exception. #Harold "Skip" Teller, KH6TY who (according to the Committee in their report), "strongly disagrees with much of what the committee has done and recommends" indeed did not agree. #In a QRZ exclusive, ARRL AD Hoc Committee Member Skip Teller posts his reasoned objections to the plan and urges Amateurs to reject it. #His explanation can be seen at: http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....t=70179 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=70179) in the "Opinions" section.

Answering ARRL President Jim Haynie's challenge on QRZ, "Remember, engineering, science and facts are the best arguments", many Amateurs including Skip Teller do just that. #You can read Jim's chain at: http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....55;st=0 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=69755;st=0)

QRZ members comment both pro and con:

Quote[/b] ]W3MIV: I think I am coming down in favor of this idea. It makes sense if you look at the long table in the article -- would probably be a hell of a lot easier to see if it were laid out in color bars like the current bandplan posters -- Jim Haynie take note! -- but a natural progression from narrow to wider to widest would seem to work out very well, in my view.

Quote[/b] ]WA3VJB: You and the other Board Members should be especially receptive to the comments and concerns of the ham community, as aware as you are of your group's financial trouble and the long term trend of sliding/tentative support for the ARRL among licensed amateurs.

Quote[/b] ]W5MEJ: This seems to go along with plans we have heard from the digital proponents and the HFPack folks about allowing the so-called "multimedia" type of operation - a mix of voice, data and image as required on the same frequency. #This is not a bad idea, and it has its place for evergency communication. #At this point in the development, though, do we need to put rules in place that allow this type of operation on over half of the available spectrum?

Quote[/b] ]KB1GYQ: Overall I don't see the point of limiting U.S. amateurs to certain modes (bandwidths) is certain parts of worldwide band, unless the rest of the world does the same thing! #It's just silly...

The most suprising comment may have come from Mark Miller, N5RFX, who had proposed an allocation by bandwidth plan of his own on QRZ earlier this year. #In fact, when asked for the "science" of the ARRL proposal, President Jim Haynie referred QRZ posters to Mark's recent "Op-Ed" piece in QST. On QRZ, Mark said:

Quote[/b] ]N5RFX: Moving to the Candian model will require discipline and better operating practices. #I don't know if the U.S. amateur community is up to the challange. #Having said that, moving to bandwidth enumeration instead of the current mode enumeration may be dead on arrival.

By no means scientific, sentiment on QRZ.COM seems to be running 10-1 against the proposal. #In addition to the proposal itself, some ARRL members are insisting on a vote before the matter is sent to the FCC. #Others are calling for the league to share statistics from their email comments.

What should you do?

Please read the ARRL proposal and Skip Teller's comments (links to both above), then make up your own mind. #You may comment to the ARRL by sending email to bandwidth@arrl.org. #Surely a proposal this far reaching will touch every Amateur and rates your attention.

[WF7I]

AG4YO,

Very well written and interesting article on this evolving issue.

If what Skip says is true, and we'll end up with wide-bandwidth emissions all over the place, then I'd think almost nobody would be for this plan. I've read the ARRL proposal and I didn't get the impression that this was the upshot of it, but I have to admit it was confusing.

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (WF7I @ Sep. 07 2004,18:53)]I've read the ARRL proposal and I didn't get the impression that this was the upshot of it, but I have to admit it was confusing.
And that is precisley the real problem.

The synopsis that was sent to the membership via email looked rather good at first read. However, the more you read it, then go to full version on the ARRL site, the more questions you have. In my estimation, it is not as benign as it seems at first glance.

However, I suspect that many ARRL members who get the email will think, as I did that, "it looks ok to me" and never see the threads on QRZ or eHam or even look at the full version on the ARRL website, and send in positive comments without knowing the issues.

When the ARRL petitions the FCC for a change in the regulations. it most likely will legimately be able to say that the majority of members who submitted comments supported it.

73
george
K3UD

[WF7I]

On 75m for instance, it states that from 3.725-4.00 MHz
the modes allowed will be 3.0 kHz, with exemptions for DSB AM and "independant sideband" emissions, which require more than 3.0 kHz. And it states that 3.0 kHz emissions "would accommodate SSB and digital telephony, image, high-speed data and multi-media (that is, a combination of these modes)."

So, the upshot, from what I'm getting out of this, is that if it makes a noise like "brrrraaaaAAAAAPPP!", and only occupies 3kHz or less, it can be transmitted all up and down the 75m phone band! So, all of the normal skeds, rag chews, etc will still be allowed, but will now have to "share" the band with all the data users.

Why/how is this better than simply saying, "here is a data portion, here is an analog portion; within the data portion, here are the bandwidth sub-bands. Within the analog portion, here's CW and SSB/AM"? I guess I'm having difficulty grasping why we need to try and mix modes together that don't really mix. Seems like it could be worded or configured better than this.

[N9CJT]

If this proposal relates only to an ARRL band plan, there's no need for my comments, since there will be no need to follow the plan beyond common courtesy. If, however, it becomes a formal FCC NPRM for band allocation, expect the commentary to be colorful, to say the least.

[n1zzz]

People are really afraid of Pactor III. #I don't think that will be the problem. #The modem is too expensive, and the mode is useful only to pass data (BBS or email). #There will only be #a small portion of the ham community who will use it.

No, I think the real problem will be digital voice. #I don't think that digital and analog voice will mix well at all. #If you want to know what it looks like, check out the AOR digital voice modem specs. #It is 36 PSK tones over a bandwidth of 2.2 KHz. #Its modulation scheme is similar to Pactor III. #I know the AOR modem is expensive now, but since the mode is FEC, open source, and doesn't require the tight timing of Pactor III, it will soon be out on a soundcard, and then all the SSBers will need to look out. #Even if there isn't direct QRM, the buzz of the digital signals will not be pleasant, and it has a high power density so can't be shouted over.

This problem will happen whether the rules are changed or not. #The digital voice people are not in the digital segments, they are up there in Phone. # This will be a problem that will need to be addressed, whether we regulate by bandwidth or not.

"Know your enemy."

73
Jeremy N1ZZZ

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (n1zzz @ Sep. 07 2004,21:56)]
My primary concern with all this is the rule change that is part of this proposal.. The one to eliminate Automatically Controlled Operation on HF...
As a Packet Sysop and an APRSer It will cause both HF Packet Auto-Forwarding and APRS HF Gateways to be illegal. Even while they continue to state that this will not diminish any other mode of operations.. Yea right..

This is simply unacceptable..

While speaking to the Winlink Group and the ARRL... Both have refused to answer our questions, they just give the same ol' BS answers over and over and when our questions get tough they take off and never answer anything... They know they are wrong, they know this is never going to work...

More to follow...


73 Jerry N9LYA http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K3UD]

IF there is a need for digital modes to have a protected incubator in order to foster experimentation with new techniques and modes, then lets go ahead and assign some protected spectrum....IE: 3.500-3.600 CW, 3.601- 3.650 narrowband digital, 3.651-3.725 wideband digital, 3.726-4.000 SSB and AM. At least in the 80/75 meter band something like this would give digital modes 175 kHz, or 35% of the band. The largest problem with this is interference which may cause problems for other countries in the hemisphere, and on DX bands, the world.

The ARRL band plan will not only establish the incubater but will also allow incompatible modes have free reign over the entire spectrum. It almost seems like a plan to eventually drive out SSB and AM (and maybe CW?) via unacceptable interference.

Unfortunately, what is being proposed will eventually carry with it the rule of official regulation if it is acted on favorably by the FCC.

73
George
K3UD

[n4zou]

Pactor III and even the so-called semi-automatic operation WILL become a problem. Pactor I and Aplink have been an on going problem for the last ten years and will continue to do so unless we go back to a required STA for unattended operation. This will permit Packet nodes and gateways to continue to operate. With Packet many stations share a single frequency. Pactor stations scan many frequencies and there are so many different originations using several BBS/Mail protocols that you can't keep up with "There Frequency" as all the Sysops think of the frequencies they scan. Then considering that only two Pactor stations may use a single frequency the digital sub bands get taken up rather quickly during prime time operation. That’s the reason you hardly ever make/find an Amtor or Pactor linked ARQ Key2Key QSO going on or doing one. I still manage Amtor links but nothing like before all this LID-O-MATIC stuff started going on. Anyone trying out a digital mode has had a LID-O-MATIC crank up on them. The new digital phone modes would allow voice mail. It would not be very difficult at all to set up a computer as a mail to phone server. Semi-automatic operation would be ok with the new rules so now you would contend not only with Pactor III for internet mail but also personal voice mail as well. Just think, you having a nice chat with a friend and up comes this voice mail server, unattended of course, and stomps all over you and you friend or maybe a round table going on with many operators. For Cell Phones and commercial operations this is fine but it has no place in amateur radio in our very limited space on HF.

[kh6ty]

On August 25, ARRL published a copyrighted article online, claiming that wideband digital modes would NOT be permitted in the SSB phone portions of the bands:

"As drafted, the ARRL's bandwidth petition would preserve double-sideband AM unchanged, but it would stop short of opening the 'phone bands to digital and other modes of the same bandwidth." http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/25/1/?nc=1 ...

Clicking on the synopsis link of the news release, you are then presented with the proposed petition, dated August 10, 2004, which, if you can wade through the complexity of the tables and footnotes, allows digital modes of the same bandwidth as phone anywhere in the SSB phone bands, not by direct permission, but by OMISSION of any prohibition.

Since the proposed petiton was written on August 10, 15 days before the August 25 copyrighted publication, ARRL had to know full well that the phone bands were open to Pactor-III, and other wide digital modes, when they published the August 25 article telling you specifically that the petition did NOT allow that.

Moral: Do not believe what ARRL says the proposed petition does, READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PETITION IN DETAIL, and then send in your comments.

If you have already sent in comments based on what ARRL said the proposed petition does, please study the proposed petition in detail, and if you then have a different opinion, send in comments again.

"Always read the fine print!"

73, Skip
KH6TY

[N8FXH]

This proposal will not work because it is predicated on people following the plan. Common Courtesy is unfortunately a relic of the past in todays society. So saddly this plan will fall becuase hams wil not follow it.:(

[N8QGC]

My comments to the ARRL:

To whom it may concern:



As a member of the ARRL I am NOT in favor of this proposal at all. #If I read you proposal correctly the 75/80 meter phone band would be impacted adversely and I’m not in favor of this at all. #Example: #Right now it is sort of a gentleman’s agreement that 3790 to 3800 is for DX Phone. #Now your telling me that you want to allow data signals that are within the 3Khz bandwidth the ability to transmit there. #No way! #I did not even bother to look at the rest of the proposal but based on that I would not support this if I were forced to.



I hope that you’ll withdraw this and stay with the current allocations which I believe are fine. #If it is not broke why break it?



Regards,



John N8QGC



Hopefully they will abandon this proposal, I guess we'll see.

[WF7I]

KH6TY,

Skip, I noticed the same thing you mentioned. The ARRL states that they would NOT allow blanket digital across the phone bands, but the Aug. 10th plan clearly DOES allow this! So, where is this modified plan that supposedly prohibits digital across the entire phone band? Since none was provided, I'm assuming the Aug. 10th plan is the one and only "plan".

The only thing I can make out of this is that the ARRL assumes there will be more "gentlemen's agreements" with this new sharing arrangement, and the ham community will come up with its own informal mode segments of spectrum. But as another person just posted, some of the digital modes may be automated such that they'll be hopping all over the place and causing QRM. In other words, relying on hams to be "gentlemen", vs. having a sound band plan, seems like a poor way to go, to me.

[K8AG]

Is all of this in preparation for making the CW bands smaller? It is going to happen. This may just be a way to distract us from that.

73

JP, K8AG

[ke6irp]

The arrl sold us out some months ago with the no code give away---- I wish I could forget it but if it's passd--- it is the 500 pound gorilla in the front room and another in the 1000 cuts the ars has suffered---mostly on the watch of the arrl-----

[wa5znu]

Quote[/b] ]IF there is a need for digital modes to have a protected incubator in order to foster experimentation with new techniques and modes, then lets go ahead and assign some protected spectrum
The problem is that some modes are just illegal -- for example, sending a thumbnail image of yourself in a PSK31 or MFSK QSO on 14.070 is illegal. It's illegal because it's sending "image" and that's allowed only in the phone bands.

Quote[/b] ]The largest problem with this is interference which may cause problems for other countries in the hemisphere, and on DX bands, the world.
Did you know that Canada, which shares our largest border, already has exactly the kind of bandwidth-based regulation that you are worried about? Their government regulates the bandwidth, and their RAC (like the ARRL) publishes the band plan.

We should do the same -- get the FCC to regulate by bandwidth, and get the ARRL to publish the band plan, in harmony with the IARU band plans, just as Canada does.

If you want to say that CW or SSB or some other mode needs protection, that needs to happen in the band plan, not the bandwidth regulation.

When you give comments to the ARRL, try to separate the two issues.

[KQ6XA]

Unfortunately, as it stands now, the ARRL proposal-in-the-making does not provide the many advantages that would be possible with a good bandwidth-based frequency plan. If there isn't a significant change in the way it is arranged, it could be shaping up to be both a lost opportunity and a way of upsetting almost everyone.

In February 2004, with the help of other hams, I submitted an advantageous Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan to the ARRL executive staff, the ARRL Pacific Division, and the ARRL Bandwidth-based Planning Committee... It has been 6 months, and I have yet to receive any meaningful reply comments from any of the committee members on it.

One of the great advantages of a bandwidth-based frequency plan over our present mode-based plan is that it would give USA hams the freedom we deserve, and remove the "mode prison" we are presently operating in, while the rest of the world's hams are already enjoying complete freedom. Land of the free?

Website for a better Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan:
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/

QRZ forum for a better Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan:
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=54416

Bonnie KQ6XA



..

[WF7I]

Quote[/b] ]If you want to say that CW or SSB or some other mode needs protection, that needs to happen in the band plan, not the bandwidth regulation. #


Could you please elaborate on the difference? #

The way I read it, the ARRL bandwidth regulation, bandplan, or whatever it's being called, allows for 3kHz data overlapped with entire segments of SSB phone. #If there is going to be a secondary law, or enforced "gentlemen's agreement", which over-rides this plan, I think the ARRL should make this evident, or at least show us a preliminary version of what they have in mind. #Because right now, I'm not getting it (and from the looks of things, many others aren't either).

[K3UD]

ZNU,

You are correct about the band plan. Sorry if my model was confusing. However, it would seem than any band plan would need the force of regulation in order to make it work.

XA

You seem to be promoting the idea that existing "legacy" modes can coexist with digital modes in the same bandwidth segments. Am I reading this right?

73
George
K3UD

[n0nwo]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I read and re-read and re-read the proposal on the ARRL site. I think the plan makes a great deal of sence. It automaticly allows for new modes to come along, and for new uses for old modes without them having to be re-defined every few years.

As I read the proposal, I wrote down my objections and made band charts. Then went back (as I said) and read and re-read again. My objections all melted all except for one.

the 3khz standard should be broke up into 3khz phone and 3 khz data to avoide confusion and conflicts.

Although I am a cw op, I do sometimes listen to phone and even plug in the mic a couple times a year Hi Hi I understand the fear of the SSB op, but if you re-read this proposal, you will see that large portions of the current SSB spectrum have preserved and reserved.

Soooooo... once again, I find myself in the minority on this forum (Big suprise huh?) In Short, I support this change!

Minton

[WF7I]

nwo,

I agree with you. I don't mind the plan as a whole, but there needs to be SOME type of clarification on the blanket statement of 3kHz data on top of vast segments of the phone band! Are we as hams to arm-wrestle who gets shoved to what end of the band, as some have suggested, and have a "fluid" transition zone from dig to analog?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KQ6XA]

Here is a chart for a better plan:
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/bandwidth-based-freq-plan.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/bandwidth-based-freq-plan.jpg]CLICK HERE
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/bandwidth-based-freq-plan.jpg

[kj5t]

I don't think any changes need to be made to the current Bandplan, or atleast not for MY use. It seems the majority think that its fine, so why change it?

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ Sep. 08 2004,17:26)]I don't think any changes need to be made to the current Bandplan, or atleast not for MY use. #It seems the majority think that its fine, so why change it?
What has been eliminated in the ARRL proposed petition, that is present in the current FCC Part 97.221 regulations, are restrictions on where automatic control (of any kind) is allowed, since this a severe cause of QRM. The IARU Region 1 draft bandplan contains even stricter constraints on automatic control than the current FCC regulations provide.

Segregation by bandwidth, together with a voluntary bandplan to group modes that can understand each other, but WITH restrictions that SEPARATE automatic control operations from all others, should work just fine, but without those restrictions on automatic control, the result is chaos and large-scale random disruption of normal communications, as those who have already experienced QRM from Pactor mailboxes can attest to.

SSB phone operators have never experienced such QRM before as mailboxes under automatic control have never been allowed in the phone bands. Only CW and digital operators understand the problem.

73, Skip KH6TY

[ke2iv]

Seems to me that a lot of aggression on the air would be solved by adopting the ARRL's approach.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am just tired of the "fight"...whether it is for ham radio band space or jus changing lanes on the road to work.

What the hell is going on in our society that we can't cut some slack for each other anymore?

Oh well....I'm not voting for him!

[n9lya]

w8akf at juno.com>
To: n9lya at n9lya.com
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:15:58 -0700
Subject: WINLINK2000/PACTORII/III NOT needed


PACTOR II/III not fast, and is nothing but QRM generator

The current ARRL Digital proposal which was generated ONLY to LEGALIZE WINLINK PACTOR III #and to KILL other technologies, does nothing it says:

Claim number 1 #WINLINK/PACTORII/III is faster

Truth is: Current narrow band Packet with 2 kinds of compression is exactly same thruput speeds as
WINLINK/PACTORIII, but only require 1/14 the spectrum that PACTOR III occupies.

More truth is: with today's 64 bit ADSP computer sound cards, digital technology allows 50 times the
thruput speeds of PACTORIII, with 1/42 the bandwidth of PACTORIII

Neither todays packet, nor this sound card technology needs changes to FCC rules:

For those who are new to digital technology - the following describes the sound card digital technology

The Technology is called HDSRL, which is some French words meaning high speed radio data link.

It is currently in wide use in Asia in the non - frequency hopping technique, and in Europe in the GSM
format

The RF chipset is manufactured by Intersil (Japan)(NDR series), the Low level amplifier, PA modular
unit is manufactured by Ozium (Korea), The data conversion chipset is the TI Bluetooth II series.

Although I can't hear European stations, because I dont know what FHH headers they use. I CAN hear
and decode many Asian users on 11.09 to 11.13 MHz (Vertically polarized) every day.

Using the above mentioned equipment, and SMOO, and BLUT Bit error rate test programs as applications operating under Monte Carlo, the thruput for non- frequency hopping mode is always above 70Kbps, and the BER is always better than 3.1 X -10EE10.

If you have a receiver capable of detecting MMBPSK, a good 11MHz antenna, and a 64 bit audio sound
card using a DSP processor at least as good as the TI 350MHz DSP720 series, using even a Mixw type
program on a Pentium IV equivalent PC, you should be able to decode the Asians.

As far as demonstrating 19.2Kbps thruputs on todays HF bands you need only a 9600Baud ready radio like IC-706,746,781,7800, or Yaesu FT-847, FT-100E, (there's more), a Kantronics Data Engine, Timewave DSP-2200, PACCOM NB-96, or even a MFJ1278MCT, and the MSYS BBS software, and your there.

Give me a STA to run unattended on say 14.3xx MHz #or unattended, and emission type 97.307 (f) (2) on 10.12x MHz and you'll have 20 regional BBS', doing 19.2Kbps and possibly 38.4Kbps everyday 24/7.
on Skipnet.

This runs on a $50 used TS-520, used $20 packet TNC, and a no cost DOS computer. It's not hard to talk hams into spending $70 for a HF Forwarding packet system, but compare that to the $900 TNC, $2000 Radio,and $600 computer ($3500) total required For WINLINK/PACTOR system, I'll bet the takers
ARE FEW.
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen Jims question of why we can't just use semi-automatic forwarding but, I hear that he thinks we can substitute semi-automatic forwarding for automatic HF directed net forwarding:


I assume the semi automatic forwarding he purposes for us to use is what all the other failed protocols the
league has backed, promoted, and otherwise mislead it's constituents -have used in the past

a centrally controlled station such as CW Mailbox, RTTY Autostart, AMTOR MBO, GTOR BOX,
DIE BOX, APLINK STATION, PACTOR PTO, WINLINK2000 MBO, and the latest winner
WINLINK PACTORIII (it's other name is Amateur Radio's final death knell, as it depends on Internet
for e-mail forwarding).

These all allow any, and all stations, at any and all times access to these "CHAOS" stations. This is
completely uncontrolled, is all full of QRM, collisions, hidden nodes, retry city, lost links, missed disconnects,
causing even more retries, tried out signals ademfinitem !!

Remember PACTORIII has no carrier detect to prevent it from transmitting over other modes
like DCD carrier detect HF packet possesses.

Thats just under normal conditions, in any emergency, everyone is trying all at one time, and these systems are more than just useless, they tie up the frequencies so that nothing gets thru.


That's why all of these ARRL anointed loosers FAILED, and FAILED BADLY.


I still have a copy of the letter the ARRL sent to Hank Oredson W0RLI, when in 1983 he donated all
amateur rights for the amateur version of X.25 protocol (yep thats the protocol for not only amateur
packet, but also the protocol still used today by this and ALL Internet messages), this letter thanked him
for his donation, but they considered it of no use to Amateur Radio since they had determined that
AMTOR/RTTY was clearly a superior mode.

Very stupid then - Even ridiculous now.

The automatic forwarding station provisions of 97.219, and 97.221 which the ARRL fought vigorously
against, along with it's predecessor the automatic forwarding STA circa 1985 thru 1989, is a very
controlled network framework. Which is what all 65 of the current HF regional Skipnet stations like
mine, all currently run, it's equivalent to Microsofts Framework.net

Only stations which are recognized as BBS members of the formal forwarding network are allowed to
connect to any other BBS, so this is a "directed" and very efficient, and frequency conservement technology
In addition, the member BBS stations forward ONLY at the time, and frequency that the NET manager
authorizes, so the "CHAOS" listed in semiautomatic forwarding above never occurs.

Further, these stations forward to each other using two kinds of data compression (note: since ax.25 is the
protocol of todays Internet - Amateur Packet benefits directly from those advances in technology intended
for Internet, DSL, phone line, dedicated, and WI-FI technologies.) which cuts airtime (frequency usage)
down by 2/3 over other protocols promoted by the ARRL.

Because of this, HF skipnet BBS's transmit at 200 Hz bandwidths with thruputs of 1.35 Kbps.
This is the reason why last month - our BBS' were able to average forwarding some 3700 HAM to HAM messages solely on HF, and mine did 4200 + messages just on HF.

Note: All VHF, and UHF ports of these same HF skipnets are completely open, because the are the
cell entry, and destination points for the HF Skipnet system (ALL HAM RADIO) just as is used by
current Cellular Telephone technology in an orderly efficient delivery system.

To compare this to PACTOR III which is the thinly veiled reason for ALL of the current ARRL proposals
it's thruput as measured here at TCI labs is 1.40 Kbps, and occupies 2760 Hz.

Thats 14 times the occupied bandwidth for a net gain of 50 bauds - !!!!! WOW !!

Using todays AX.25 packet schemes, we have successfully gotten thruputs of 19,200 bps in those same 2760 Hz bandwidth.


Claim 2 PACTORIII will decrease QRM

Truth is:

I've never seen a dirtier technology being proposed for use in the United States than PACTOR III, The technology uses complex square, step, and triangle waveforms, rather than analog, or phase modulation scheme, and as such, as recorded on the
test labs H-P 8936 Spectrum analyzer, a otherwise clean IC-746PRO running at only 50 watts, transmits spurs, harmonics, IMD, spurious (grass) of the highest orders imaginable.

This is of course why no one but SCS is the sole source of PACTORIII equipment.

For this reason, I feel this technology will never be employed by anything with my callsign on it. It just too dirty for me to put my name on it.

Be aware that the current ARRL digital rules changes are thrusted ONLY at making the Public service approved HF packet system illegal, and making WINLINK PACTOR II/III legal.

It is the put upon the league by the same people (with one vocal objector on the committee) #who have mislead (for their own benefit) the league since the early 1980's

Digital Ham radio communications future does NOT lie in requesting changes to widen occupied frequency stations, it lies in narrow band DSP technologies(AKA computer sound cards) where we have demonstrated thruputs of over 70,000 bps in occupied bandwidths of 64 Hz NOT garbaging up the bands with such dirty technologies as PACTOR II/III, and Internet dependent technologies as WINLINK.

Our experiments with the current FCC approved Frequency Hopping (called spread spectrum) schemes also show us that 1,000,000 bps thuputs are possible today, if only our league would back this kind of technology.


ARRL act in the spirit of your charter, serve to advance Amateur Radio, rather than help destroy it by the proposed digital rules changes, promoting Internet, rather than Amateur
Radio.

Claim 3 PACTORIII will advance technology

Truth is:

Most of the current Amateur BBS software, has had E-mail gateways embedded in them
starting in 1992, again WINLINK/PACTORIII has nothing new to offer.

Certainly unworthy of any FCC rules changes for old hat, frequency hogging, QRM generating technology.

I'm informed that hundreds of complaints already hit the FCC from QRM caused by the
PACTOR ROBOTS, think what it will be like when they are made legal !!! #
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[n9lya]

- The meat of the report that the ARRL demands you not see:


Although I've been told that whatever my position is with ARRL, will be compromised if I publish the AD HOC members dissenting report, here is the meat of the report that ARRL demands you not see:

This same perpetrator has hoodwinked the ARRL since 1983.

73 Mike

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The majority recommendation of the ARRL hfdigital committee represents the interests of a small special interest group, Winlink, representing 0.007% of the FCC licensed radio amateurs in the United States, and NOT the interests of ALL radio amateurs, as requested by ARRL president, Jim Haynie.

The ARRL hfdigital committee majority recommendation [hfdigital:284] was composed and written jointly by the Winlink author, W5SMM, and the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX, and then rubber-stamped, without comment except for typo corrections, by the Winlink supporters on the committee, WA1LOU and K0PFX.

All alternative recommendations were totally ignored by the chairman and Winlink supporters. At no time during the committee discussions did WA1LOU or K0PFX submit any independent comments or suggestions except for corrections. The chairman of the committee, who is also the Winlink software author, consistently shut off discussion prematurely and forced a vote, which was naturally won by the Winlink majority, eventually resulting in the resignation of the widely respected Peter Martinez, G3PLX, in protest for having his views silenced.

The committee majority recommendation therefore represents the views of a special interest group, and NOT the interests of all radio amateurs.

This dissenting recommendation is submitted as a recommendation that at least attempts to consider the needs of ALL radio amateurs, including Winlink.

Introduction

Winlink consists of a network of fully automated digital transceivers, providing free email gateways to the Internet using the ham bands in competition with commercial LEO satellite services which do the same thing, but charge for messaging on a per-minute basis.

This network of fully automated transmitters is causing historically high levels of interference to all other radio amateur activities on HF because the automated side of an email gateway is incapable of "listening first", or frequency sharing, as radio amateurs usually do, and are required to do, by FCC regulation, and the other side, which is supposed to be manned by a "listen first" live operator, finds it unnecessary to be concerned about anyone else already on the frequency, because the protocol chosen by Winlink is capable of overpowering anyone else on the frequency, and keep hammering away using ARQ until the Winlink station dominates the frequency. The result is high levels of QRM to all others.

In addition, the manual stations escape detection by never transmitting any callsign identification in case they try to connect with an automatic station and fail. They just create QRM and leave the air unidentified.

The majority recommendation proposes to expand this network of robot transmitters to completely cover the ham bands without restriction, including the phone band segments, with the exception of the CW and beacon regions. This chart of the current coverage of the 20 meter band by Winlink robots indicates why interference by these robots is so high and currently disrupts so many other traditional radio amateur communications.

It is easy to visualize what it would be like if the majority recommendation were accepted by the Board. There would be no space left on the HF bands for ragchewing, DX chasing, award-chasing, contesting, or experimentation, free from constant interference from Winlink robot stations, such as suffered currently by digital operators, and more recently, on 30 meters by CW operators, who find it more and more difficult to operate without a Pactor station suddenly coming on the frequency in the middle of their QSO.

The ARRL Board should be promoting bandplans that encourage the development of more spectrum-efficient modes, such as PSK31 and MFSK16, which accomplish the essential task of communications in less bandwidth, as opposed to promoting wider data modes which add to the interference and congestion on HF bands instead of reducing it.

[N5PVL]

KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]
What has been eliminated in the ARRL proposed petition, that is present in the current FCC Part 97.221 regulations, are restrictions on where automatic control (of any kind) is allowed, since this a severe cause of QRM.


I have been QRM'ed numerous times by semi-automatic PACTOR II/III stations on 20 and 30 meters - but have never been QRM'ed by HF Packet autoforwarders, who operate in the same places ( as part of a global network of these stations ) all the time, and take up a fraction of PACTOR's bandwidth.

You pretty well have to go out of your way, operating beyond our gentlemen's agreements on digital operation if you want to be "QRM'ed" by HF Packet stations participating in the global digital network.

If you park yourself on a published, established freq used for the ARRL morse-code practice, you can be "QRM'ed" by W1AW too.

I'm sorry to see that you have developed an unreasonable attitude about this matter, Skip, and see your statements on this matter as being ill-informed, destructive to the hobby.

Autoforwarding BBS's are by no means "a severe cause of QRM" and I do not appreciate you going around making bogus claims to the effect that they are.

If you want to join the rest of us in complaining about the rude PACTOR III ops on 20 and 30 that's fine - but do not attempt to lump autoforwarding Packet BBS stations that participate in the global digital network along with that crowd.

When you do - you embarass yourself to no particular purpose, and denigrate a fine group of dedicated hams.

Charles, #N5PVL

[N5PVL]

W8AKF's info that N9LYA has provided here tells me something about the autoforwarding BBS stations that seems to go against the conventional wisdom.

After reading about the amazing accomplishments Mike relates about high-speed data communications on HF, using a fraction of the bandwidth required by PACTOR III, the thing that struck me the most was where I was hearing about this from.

It wasn't TAPR... ( Use the Internet instead! )

It wasn't the ARRL HSMM group... ( WIFI ! )

Instead, I hear about this advanced ham radio stuff from some Packet BBS guy.

It goes against the conventional wisdom, but then again, "conventional wisdom" has not produced those kind of results for us, has it?

Conventional wisdom has produced the current conditions that we seek a fix for, in fact.

I find it ironic that this group that has consistently driven our advances related in higher-speed digital communications on HF is the one group that TAPR constantly denigrates, and the ARRL patently ignores.

Those backward "legacy system" autoforwarding BBS operators. - The most knowlegable and experienced group of HF digital operators in the amateur radio service.

You know - the ones who participate in the global digital network - the network that has given us a new watermark in international cooperation and accomplishment by amateur radio operators.

We wouldn't want to include THEM in any of our planning, would we?

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

Charles, #N5PVL

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 09 2004,04:58)]KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]
What has been eliminated in the ARRL proposed petition, that is present in the current FCC Part 97.221 regulations, are restrictions on where automatic control (of any kind) is allowed, since this a severe cause of QRM.


I have been QRM'ed numerous times by semi-automatic PACTOR II/III stations on 20 and 30 meters - but have never been QRM'ed by HF Packet autoforwarders, who operate in the same places ( as part of a global network of these stations ) all the time, and take up a fraction of PACTOR's bandwidth.

You pretty well have to go out of your way, operating beyond our gentlemen's agreements on digital operation if you want to be "QRM'ed" by HF Packet stations participating in the global digital network.

If you park yourself on a published, established freq used for the ARRL morse-code practice, you can be "QRM'ed" by W1AW too.

I'm sorry to see that you have developed an unreasonable attitude about this matter, Skip, and see your statements on this matter as being ill-informed, destructive to the hobby.

Autoforwarding BBS's are by no means "a severe cause of QRM" and I do not appreciate you going around making bogus claims to the effect that they are.

If you want to join the rest of us in complaining about the rude PACTOR III ops on 20 and 30 that's fine - but do not attempt to lump autoforwarding Packet BBS stations that participate in the global digital network along with that crowd.

When you do - you embarass yourself to no particular purpose, and denigrate a fine group of dedicated hams.

Charles, #N5PVL
Charles, #it is understandable, but I think I am being quoted too much out of context. I have always recommend repeal only of 97.221, Subpart C, which Winlink uses as a way to spread all over the bands. This is what causes the enormous QRM problem, not operations within the FCC-designated subbands for automatically controlled digital stations, which is where HF packet operates.

Mike's retyping of my Dissenting Recommendation (the "meat", as he put it), does not include statements which are an essential part of the recommendation. Because I was threatened with a lawsuit unless I withdrew my recommendation, I cannot publish the whole thing until my lawyer approves a slightly modified document. Please be patient and hold your concerns until the entire document is made public.

The "severe cause of QRM" quoted above, refers to the elimination of the restrictions imposed by the subbands, not to automatic control itself, but, taken out of context, I can understand why it hit you this way.

It is the Winlink system architect, as chairman of the hfdigital committee, that wants to eliminate all the subbands, and all autoforwarding, not me...

If you want to preserve HF Packet autoforwarding, AND fix the Pactor QRM problem, then please back the repeal of 97.221, Subpart C, only. Two years ago, I submitted a request to my Regional Director asking the ARRL to petition the FCC to repeal 97.221, Subpart C. Nothing happened, so, a year ago, I did it again. The minutes of the Board meetings make no mention that my request was even offered for consideration by the Board. By "strange coincidence", my Regional Director happens to be the co-author of the loophole that permits Winlink to use Pactor-II without enough public definition to let us add Pactor-II receive to DigiPan so we are able to identify Pactor-II interfering stations.

Go figure...

73, Skip KH6TY

[WF7I]

Quote[/b] (ke2iv @ Sep. 09 2004,00:19)]I don't know about the rest of you, but I am just tired of the "fight"...whether it is for ham radio band space or jus changing lanes on the road to work.
I know what you mean. I used to post on a QRP reflector some years ago until the "flames" kept leaping up on everything I'd post. It gets tiresome after awhile. Too many disgruntled people looking to "vent" all the time.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] ]
Quote (ke2iv @ Sep. 09 2004,00:19)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am just tired of the "fight"...whether it is for ham radio band space or jus changing lanes on the road to work.

I know what you mean. #I used to post on a QRP reflector some years ago until the "flames" kept leaping up on everything I'd post. #It gets tiresome after awhile. #Too many disgruntled people looking to "vent" all the time. #


Worst of all, of course, are those who complain about complaining, not even bothering to stay on topic.

Charles, #N5PVL

[k8nqc]

Looking at bandwidth only should not overlook the importance of not mixing modes normally copied by the human ear from modes copied by machine or electronic device. To not address this problem is to continue conflict in the future. Wise planning can eliminate this problem.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]Seems to me that a lot of aggression on the air would be solved by adopting the ARRL's approach.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am just tired of the "fight"...whether it is for ham radio band space or jus changing lanes on the road to work.

What the hell is going on in our society that we can't cut some slack for each other anymore?

Oh well....I'm not voting for him!

I'm cutting you some slack here when I say, rolling over is about the best defense of the ARRL proposal I have heard thus far. My suggestion would be, whether you support the proposal or not, have an opinion about it supported in something other than exaustion.

IMHO

[WF7I]

Quote[/b] ]Worst of all, of course, are those who complain about complaining, not even bothering to stay on topic.

Charles, N5PVL


Don't include me in that put-down. I've submitted many comments on this topic and have also written to the ARRL.

[ab0wr]

>If you want to preserve HF Packet autoforwarding, AND fix the
>Pactor QRM problem, then please back the repeal of 97.221, Subpart
>C, only.

Here is Part 97.221, subpart c:

© A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:

(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

I assume that repeal of this subpart will force the automatically controlled stations to stay within the band segments specified in subpart B.

I would only point out that sub-paragraph (2) should be sufficient for limiting most interference effects. Pactor II and Pactor III both take up more than 500 Hz in bandwidth, do they not?

If it is necessary to repeal subpart C then I would suggest that the band segments listed in subpart B need to be widened somewhat to allow for growth space.

I would also like to state for the record that the NTSD system, which uses the Winlink Classic software, has voluntarily stayed within the frequency bands listed in subpart B. I don't feel that the Pactor I, II, and III operations by those automated stations contribute significanly to any QRM. The Winlink Classic stations are also set up to listen for interference before transmitting by checking the status of the tnc.

tim ab0wr

[N3NL]

My initial view is that these proposals are well thought out. Especially valuable are the following two features:

1. Double Sideband AM operation is preserved as is. This is valuable for all of amateur radio because new hams would be allowed to build simple AM transmitters to get on the air and start learning electronics. These simple AM transmitters would be the no-code era's equivalent of the simple Novice Class Morse code transmitters. Building and operating simple transmitters is a great way to get started in the technical side of ham radio. (I started with a one-tube CW rig.)

2. Amateurs would not be required to measure the bandwidth of their transmissions. Almost all hams (and ham clubs) do not have the financial resources to purchase spectrum analyzers for bandwidth measurements. Also, bandwidth measurement procedures would be overwhelming for new hams.

73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 09 2004,12:06)]>If you want to preserve HF Packet autoforwarding, AND fix the
>Pactor QRM problem, then please back the repeal of 97.221, Subpart
>C, only.

Here is Part 97.221, subpart c:

© A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:

# # #(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and

# # #(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

I assume that repeal of this subpart will force the automatically controlled stations to stay within the band segments specified in subpart B.

I would only point out that sub-paragraph (2) should be sufficient for limiting most interference effects. Pactor II and Pactor III both take up more than 500 Hz in bandwidth, do they not?

If it is necessary to repeal subpart C then I would suggest that the band segments listed in subpart B need to be widened somewhat to allow for growth space.

I would also like to state for the record that the NTSD system, which uses the Winlink Classic software, has voluntarily stayed within the frequency bands listed in subpart B. I don't feel that the Pactor I, II, and III operations by those automated stations contribute significanly to any QRM. The Winlink Classic stations are also set up to listen for interference before transmitting by checking the status of the tnc.

tim ab0wr
Tim,

You are correct in thinking that repeal of 97.221© would contain all operations, in which any side is under automatic control, and, yes, I also think that the subbands might have to be widened to whatever degree the FCC can be convinced is necessary and reasonable, and that does not have to be cast in stone forever, but any widening should be justified with hard numbers and not just arbitrarily set.

NTSD's staying within the subbands is greatly appreciated, and is not a significant source of QRM to non-automatic stations, except to some minor MT63 activity, which could take place elsewhere by common agreement.

Pactor-III is over 500 Hz wide, so it currently must stay in the subbands if either side is under automatic control. If used for keyboard to keyboard communications, where there is a control operator at the control point in both locations, I believe there is no constraint where Pactor-III can be used in the RTTY/data segments.

Pactor-I and Pactor-II, on the other hand, are not over 500 Hz wide, and currently are the main source of complaints of QRM by Pactor mailboxes. Staying inside the subbands, or widened subbands, would instantly solve the QRM problem, and make successfull separation by bandwidth possible, but if they are not required to stay in the subbands, or a single, contiguous space where others can avoid them and they cannot interfere with others, separation by bandwidth will be a failure of disasterous proportions.

SCS claims the busy channel detector in the modems works, but the users routinely disable it. I suspect it might work for detecting Pactor signals, as Hans-Peter Helfert told me, but will not detect narrow signals like slow-speed CW or PSK31, and probably not even distributed signals like mfsk16 or SSB phone. This is all the more reason that modes that cannot understand each other must be separated. If either side of a mailbox link is automated, then the automated side is essentially deaf and cannot detect activity on the frequency local to itself, but possibly out of range to the station it is linked to.

73, Skip KH6TY

[W8MW]

Nickolaus: #Regarding no need for emisson bandwidth measurements, did you see that in the petition text? #I saw it in the ARRL "sell" sheet but didn't find it in the petition language.

Perhaps it reads like this:

ARRL is asking FCC to establish and enforce band plans based on emission bandwidth.

ARRL is asking FCC to excuse amateurs from personal responsibility for compliance with the above.


Is that about it?

73, Mike

[ab0wr]

>>>>>SCS claims the busy channel detector in the modems works, but the users routinely disable it. I suspect it might work for detecting Pactor signals, as Hans-Peter Helfert told me, but will not detect narrow signals like slow-speed CW or PSK31, and probably not even distributed signals like mfsk16 or SSB phone. This is all the more reason that modes that cannot understand each other must be separated. If either side of a mailbox link is automated, then the automated side is essentially deaf and cannot detect activity on the frequency local to itself, but possibly out of range to the station it is linked to.<<<<<<

I know the DCD detector in my pk-232mbx will trip on cw and psk31 signals if they are strong enough. I do have to run the threshold control up pretty high to keep static from tripping it so it probably does miss marginal signals.

I agree with you that is a very good reason to segregate by modes that cannot recognize each other. I could certainly live with a segregated bandplan for automated stations. That is really the point of having automated stations - you can communicate data in small chunks throughout the full day resulting in higher utilization during non-busy hours, you can have shorter communication sessions so you have less interference impacts, and you can route traffic closer to the destination point so you minimize the number of communication links (i.e. on-air transmission time) required. Almost a CMSA system, eh? Why would anyone want to spread such a system out to where it could impact other users is beyond me.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Tim,

I'll do some testing with my own PK232 MBX. I don't know if the the PTC-II acts the same or not, but based on the consistent level of QRM to PSK63, the PTC-II either does not detect a PSK63 signal, or the busy-channel detector is switched off.

Meanwhile, perhaps you can explain to me how Winlink 2000 would function in an emergency.

Assume a senario in which a boat just offshore at sea is caught in a tropican storm that has just knocked out a PMBO's ISP, and his electrical power, but, as shown on many Winlink PMBO descriptions, the PMBO has generator backup, so he is still on the air.

My boat is taking on water, and I need help, so I connect with the PMBO that is using emergency power, and send my position report and and request for help as an email to that PMBO I was able to connect with.

The email arrives at his computer, but, because the ISP is down due to the power failure, or downed cable/DSL line, how can the email be forewarded on to the destination when there is no connection to the Internet?

Autoforwarding on the air has just been outlawed by the proposed ARRL petition, and, since I have a linked connection, nobody else hears my plea for help.

I have no idea the PMBO has lost his connection to the Internet, so I assume my call for help is being acted on, so I do not try any other PMBO.

After several hours, help does not arrive, my boat fills with water, and sinks, and even my position report goes unnoticed, so nobody is looking for me, stuck in my dinghy, with my radio at the bottom of the ocean along with my boat.

Is this what could happen?

Now, if I did not use a linked system, but transmitted an SOS or Mayday call on the air, it can be picked up by any number of hams happening to come across the frequency, even if they were in the impacted area in their mobiles, which is what we did in the mid-fifties here in Charleston during hurricanes Connie and Diane, when I manned the hurricane shelters using AM phone, or CW, or from my mobile rig, through an ordinary disaster traffic net when everything else was down.

73, Skip KH6TY

[ab0wr]

Skip,

You have exactly the same concerns about Winlink 2000 that I have. With the existing NTSD system, if one link is down a different one can always take the message and push it on to its destination. The NTSD sysop always has the ability to pull a message off the board and load it onto the analog NTS system if needed. It is my opinion that it is actually MORE reliable than the WL2K system because of the human intervention that is always involved in the final message delivery. It may not be as fast in non-emergency times and it may not be as reliable in non-emergency times but that is because of the built-in design of the NTS. WL2K has all the foibles of the internet plus some of its own.

I certainly won't depend on WL2K when the chips are down. I would much rather talk to a person that I know can use any of several possible means to obtain help for me and/or my family. The feedback is immediate and you will know what has to be done - you won't have to wait for four days to see if you get an error message that the SMTP mail system couldn't deliver your message.

tim ab0wr

[n9lya]

Let see if I understand, and can summarize The ARRL Digital proposed Rule
Changes;

1) We are trading one technology for another technology that has the same
thruput speed but requires
fourteen times the bandwidth - How is that advancing the state of the art?

2)We are trading one technology that meets the current FCC rules, for one
that requires massive FCC
rules changes for no benefit in thruput - How is that advancing ANYTHING?


3)We are trading one technology Where a server station can be put on the
air for $150 for one that $5500
worth of equipment is necessary - How many stations do you think are
going to be public serviced at
that price.

4) We are trading one technology that eliminates QRM to ANY MODE with
it's analog carrier detector,
for one that stomps all over everything. Gee that will make a bunch of
hams give up and take up knitting.

5) This so-called AD HOC committee forced the resignation of one of two
of it's members who have invented ANYTHING in Digital Communications, and
suppressed the dissenting report of the other member
who's invented ANYTHING in Digital communications, I also note that both
of these fellows have
donated their works to all hams, free of charge.

6) We are trading one technology of which all communications are handled
100% via Amateur Radio, and 100% on Amateur Radio frequencies for a
technology that moves NOTHING except via the Internet. How does this
promote Amateur Radio ??


Going forward we ARE NOT #!!!!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

73 Jerry N9LYA

[N3NL]

Hello Mike, W8MW

The ARRL's argument is that the bandwidths
are wide enough that no ham would be
required to measure his or her bandwidth
to meet the standards. #However, this does
not necessarily meet the situation where
a ham station is splattering or a ham is
using a new high-throughput digital mode.
Any requirement to measure bandwidth
would kill ham radio for many people
including me. #I just do not have the funds
for that type of equipment. #So I would just
wander off and do something else instead
of ham radio.
It may be a good idea to specifically state
that hams do not have to measure their
bandwidth if they are using a routine
transmission mode.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 09 2004,20:02)]Skip,

You have exactly the same concerns about Winlink 2000 that I have. With the existing NTSD system, if one link is down a different one can always take the message and push it on to its destination. The NTSD sysop always has the ability to pull a message off the board and load it onto the analog NTS system if needed. It is my opinion that it is actually MORE reliable than the WL2K system because of the human intervention that is always involved in the final message delivery. It may not be as fast in non-emergency times and it may not be as reliable in non-emergency times but that is because of the built-in design of the NTS. WL2K has all the foibles of the internet plus some of its own.

I certainly won't depend on WL2K when the chips are down. I would much rather talk to a person that I know can use any of several possible means to obtain help for me and/or my family. The feedback is immediate and you will know what has to be done - you won't have to wait for four days to see if you get an error message that the SMTP mail system couldn't deliver your message.

tim ab0wr
Tim, I guess this URL, http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2004/july/ARESCOM-apendixB.pdf #, addresses my concern. Winlink proposes to use PMBO's as "hubbing" points in case the Internet and phone lines fail, but there is no explanation as to how this would work.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable knowing my message had reached the destination. We'll have to see what happens in an actual emergency. There is certainly no "tactile feedback" in an email system as there is when a "roger" is received to an emergency call.

FYI, Australia forbids Winlink for two reasons - it connects to the public switched network, and Winlink is not a safety-of-life system it is a "store-and-forward" system, so all Australian licensed vessels are required to carry transceivers for direct emergency communications.

Also, in reading the ARESCOM ARRL releases online, Winlink is described as a third traffic network, not the only one. It is also mentioned that NTSD and NTS be combined into a single operation.

Search www.arrl.org for arescom, and you can read the releases and committee reports for accurate information.

As an additional traffic handling network, I personally have no objection or concern about Winlink being included, but only if they stay within the subbands for automatically controlled digital stations, and if they are required to use Pactor-II instead of Pactor-III, because Pactor-III takes up 500% more spectrum for an increase in speed of only 30% for typical email traffic (as measured over 5,000 to 13,000 messages), as I posted on this reflector under another topic.



I think that about exhausts what I know about digital traffic handling networks!

73, Skip KH6TY

[n4zou]

The SCS TNC does not use a DCD system like the PK-232MBX when in Pactor mode. I have forgot to turn the Threhold all the way down when using ARQ Amtor and Pactor modes on my old AEA box and you get lots of errors on the link when you do that. The SCS TNC simply moves up and down the frequency a little looking for other Pactor stations. If it finds no other Pactor station using the frequency then it continues even if other modes are present.

[N5PVL]

KH6TY Says:
Quote[/b] ]
Charles, #it is understandable, but I think I am being quoted too much out of context. I have always recommend repeal only of 97.221, Subpart C, which Winlink uses as a way to spread all over the bands. This is what causes the enormous QRM problem, not operations within the FCC-designated subbands for automatically controlled digital stations, which is where HF packet operates.


Thank you for setting me straight on this matter Skip. I had the wrong impression altogether. I'm sorry to have been so far off base, there.

One note: HF Packet operates within the special area for autoforwarding, which is already QRM'ed to some extent by PACTOR stations. If a lot of the PACTOR stuff suddenly has to "move in" with the existing HF Packet nets there, I foresee difficulties.

I'm not reassured by the idea expanding the automatic sub-band, as the PACTOR stations are said to be poor neighbors for any other digital mode, including Packet.

Once again, the HF digital networkers are getting dumped on... First, they try to legislate the US digital net out of existence and the USA out of the global network, and now it's a flood of digital lid-op stations that will QRM us to death...

What next? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Charles, #N5PVL

[kh6ty]

Charles, please help me out a little, since I am not familiar with HF Packet networks, other than copying a couple a few times.

If autoforwarding is outlawed, what does that do to the HF Packet network. Can it still function by manually forwarding?

Are there any HF Packet networks today that do not use autoforwarding?

As far as getting tromped on by Pactor stations, Riley is very interested in knowing about that, and has already acted when PSK63 was trampled by both a Winlink PMBO and a NTS station, and sent out letters. What I did was capture the entire story using DigiPan as a spectrum scope and send screenshots to Riley. It was an open and shut case!

Very shortly, as soon as DigiPan 2.0 is released, I will be posting a web-based reporting form on www.digipan.net, which is simple to fill out and automatically emails a complaint to Riley. Riley has not objected to this, even though he knows that it is going to increase his workload. The FCC does not know the magnitude of a problem until they are showed to what extent one exists.

73, Skip KH6TY

[N5PVL]

KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]

Charles, please help me out a little, since I am not familiar with HF Packet networks, other than copying a couple a few times.

If autoforwarding is outlawed, what does that do to the HF Packet network. Can it still function by manually forwarding?

Are there any HF Packet networks today that do not use autoforwarding?



If autoforwarding is outlawed here in the US, then the digital network will have a "black hole" that will cover the United States. Everybody else will have to route around us.

Hams in the US will still be able to utilize the global network in some limited fashion, but there will no longer be any network stations located here so a lot of our hams will simply be left out in the cold. The ones that will still have access will note a radical slowdown.

As it is now, BBS stations look at recently recieved messages and route them to the next station indicated every forwarding cycle, which typically happens in intervals set from 15 minutes to an hour.

The BBS SYSOP sets the forwarding cycle according to the kind of traffic load he carries, how good his links out are, band congestion, propagation and a number of other factors.

- So if the message ends up going through three autoforwarding BBS stations, it could take from ten minutes to three hours to get to the destination. ( Best and worst-cases )

Without autoforwarding, it could take from twenty minutes to three days to do the same thing. ( Best and worst-cases )

A message that had to go through four BBS's would take thirty minutes to four days, as opposed to fifteen minutes to four hours.

Most BBS SYSOPs are like everybody else, and do not crouch in front of their BBS computers 24 hours a day. They have day jobs, wives, kids, etc. and so on.

This assumes that all of the autoforwarding stations in the US will continue to operate in a crippled manner, urinated upon by the ARRL for no good reason. - This is an assumption that I would not bet on. Many SYSOPs will just shut down and sell their equipment, I'm afraid.

I am not aware of any non-autoforwarding networks, perhaps because manual forwarding is not suited for moving data in a timely, consistent, reliable fashion. The bigger the network, the more delay and lack of reliability such a setup would introduce.

According to another poster here on QRZ:

Quote[/b] ]

That is really the point of having automated stations - you can communicate data in small chunks throughout the full day resulting in higher utilization during non-busy hours, you can have shorter communication sessions so you have less interference impacts, and you can route traffic closer to the destination point so you minimize the number of communication links (i.e. on-air transmission time) required.



If the ARRL manages to push this through the FCC, the rule will affect US stations only. The rest of the world will just have to route around us.

Personally, I do not like to think of the United States as being the only country in the free world that cannot participate in the global amateur radio digital network.

Jim Haynie keeps saying that he hasn't heard a good reason to keep autoforwarding... Well, for my part, I have not heard of a good reason to eliminate it.

The only alleged "reasoning" I saw in relation to this matter was a declaration that since we could pass messages on the Internet, doing so by radio was no longer necessary.

That's not good reasoning, and did not produce anything close to a good reason for their proposed action.

By applying the comittee's alleged "reasoning" as applied to autoforwarding, I guess we should just pack off the RF equipment to some third-world country so that we can all better enjoy the Internet, here in the US.

After all, since we have the Internet, ( insert your favorite ham activity here ) is no longer necessary, and the most important thing of course is to get hams off of the radio and onto the Internet, so our bands won't be congested.

If this arguement applies to autoforwarding BBS's participating in the global digital network, what keeps it from applying to other amateur radio activities?

Charles, N5PVL

[N5PVL]

One more affect from elimination of autoforwarding:

Without autoforwarding, the special sub-band for such will naturally disappear.

US Stations still wanting to participate in the global network will do so - but they won't be conveniently located in a particular place any more, and could end up being almost as big a pain in the hiney as the PACTOR stations currrently are.

Well, maybe that is stretching it... HF Packet senses carrier, so will not transmit over most other modes, including CW so the the potential for obnoxiousness is not nearly as bad as it is with PACTOR - Still it's bad enough.

Again, I have not heard a good reason TO eliminate autoforwarding or the sub-bands allocated for that purpose.

Charles, #N5PVL

[N5PVL]

KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]

As far as getting tromped on by Pactor stations, Riley is very interested in knowing about that, and has already acted when PSK63 was trampled by both a Winlink PMBO and a NTS station, and sent out letters. What I did was capture the entire story using DigiPan as a spectrum scope and send screenshots to Riley. It was an open and shut case!

Very shortly, as soon as DigiPan 2.0 is released, I will be posting a web-based reporting form on www.digipan.net, which is simple to fill out and automatically emails a complaint to Riley. Riley has not objected to this, even though he knows that it is going to increase his workload. The FCC does not know the magnitude of a problem until they are showed to what extent one exists.



A step-by-step tutorial on your successful report would be great. I for one would be willing and able to put in some hours monitoring for this kind of lid-op activity. Come to think of it, I know of a group of hams who would probably be interested in helping out, as well.

The web-based form sounds like a good idea, but I'd have a "how to" article in there for independent types, as well.

Charles, #N5PVL

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 11 2004,17:27)]KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]

As far as getting tromped on by Pactor stations, Riley is very interested in knowing about that, and has already acted when PSK63 was trampled by both a Winlink PMBO and a NTS station, and sent out letters. What I did was capture the entire story using DigiPan as a spectrum scope and send screenshots to Riley. It was an open and shut case!

Very shortly, as soon as DigiPan 2.0 is released, I will be posting a web-based reporting form on www.digipan.net, which is simple to fill out and automatically emails a complaint to Riley. Riley has not objected to this, even though he knows that it is going to increase his workload. The FCC does not know the magnitude of a problem until they are showed to what extent one exists.



A step-by-step tutorial on your successful report would be great. I for one would be willing and able to put in some hours monitoring for this kind of lid-op activity. Come to think of it, I know of a group of hams who would probably be interested in helping out, as well.

The web-based form sounds like a good idea, but I'd have a "how to" article in there for independent types, as well.

Charles, #N5PVL
Charles,

The form is self-explanatory and the very essence of simplicity. It works just like interferring Pactor stations work - just fill in the blanks, do not check for activity on the frequency, and press the "Send" button! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

No tutorial needed, or I have not done my job well enough!

[ke1bb]

More data to memorize, books need to be changed, updated, and sold = $$$$$$$$ for ARRL. It's all about the ARRL publishing business.

Fred