Have you sent in your comments to ARRL?

[kh6ty]

Have you sent in your comments to ARRL?

Here is a summary of what the proposed petition does:

1. All of the SSB phone bands, and all of 160 meters, can be covered with unattended Pactor robot stations that do not share frequencies, cannot and do not listen first for a clear frequency, do not respond to a request to QSY, and do little nothing but use the ham bands as email radio links to the Internet for the benefit of less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams.

2. Autoforwarding will be illegal, signaling the immediate death of HF Packet networks.

3. PSK31 operations will be forced down into the CW activity regions to escape interference from unattended Pactor robots, effectively shrinking the CW bands.

4. More space will be allocated for the relatively few people who use wide digital modes than for the huge majority of people using SSB phone.

If you agree to have these things happen, and become part of the Part 97 FCC regulations that tell you where and how you are allowed to operate, then you do not need to do anything.

However, if you DO NOT agree to these major changes and restrictions on how you use ham radio, then send an email to your own ARRL Regional Director and also to bandwidth@arrl.org, insisting that the proposed ARRL petition to segment by bandwidth be withdrawn and a new one offered that respresents all amateur radio interests, instead of those of a special interest group.

You have a right to insist that ARRL present you with a proposed petition that you can understand, so you know what you are being asked to support. If you do not understand everything that the proposed petition does, insist that the proposed petition be withdrawn and replaced with something you CAN understand.

This is YOUR hobby - act now keep it from being taken away from you!

73, Skip KH6TY
ARRL Ad Hoc Hfdigital Committee Member

[w8bq]

Thank you for the alert. I am amazed that the ARRL could be so against the interference caused by BPL and yet support the interference that unattended Pactor robot stations would cause the great many who enjoy HF phone.

73, Doc W8BQ

[kx8n]

I just don't understand how this is THAT big of a deal. #I mean, how many times have you been using phone, and some fool comes on and starts tuning up on top of you. #And they keep tuning, and keep tuning... #The world doesn't come to an end. #It takes less than 5 seconds to QSY a few KHz and get a clear shot without interference.

I was sitting there, happily listening to a DX QSO on 20 M the other night, when all of a sudden an SSTV signal started droning, completely whiping out the QSO that had been in progress for many minutes. #No band plan prevented that. #They just sent the picture, and to hell with anyone using the frequency.

This kind of stuff is already happening, and has been for a long time. #How is anything that the ARRL proposes going to change that, for the better or for the worse?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm for the proposal at all. If anything, I should be against it, since I use almost exclusively phone. I'm just saying that there are problems now that exist, and you would think that current rules would help, but they don't seem to.

I guess my main point is that I don't think an ARRL proposal is going to change the way things are now. I don't think any NEW problems are going to happen as a result.

[ke4zhn]

Do I agree with the ARRL proposal for digital bandwidth? No, I do not. Does the ARRL care if others agree or disagree? (including their own membership) No, they do not! They will do whatever they feel is in their best intere$t$. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[w8bq]

KX8N,

Not meaning any disrespect, but for someone who seems so upset at the lids on the airwaves who already cause you such distress, I'm surprised you wouldn't care if a change in band plan encouraged even further annoyances.
As for me, I try to operate with respect to others. I'd like to invite the same from others, not open the door to more rudeness, either from poor operators or automated robots.
I've already written my letters, Skip. I hope others will do the same.

Doc, W8BQ

[n4zou]

First thing is if you do not use digital modes then you have no idea of the problems the unattended Pactor stations now cause where you do not operate. Don't comment if you don't know. The part of the band to be turned over to wide bandwidth digital modes is where most of the rest of the world has expanded phone operations. You would lose any chance of having an expanded phone band and access to the DX stations operating there. 3 KHz wide digital modes will not be limited to Pactor III only. The new digital phone modes would be easy to adapt to unattended digital phone mailboxes and voice over IP Internet connections. You thought a tuner upper was bad! Just wait till an unattended digital phone robot stomps over you and the other SSB phone mode operators your talking with. At least with a carrier a digital notch filter will take that LID out. With digital phone it wont even notice your puny SSB signal.

[N4DST]

:angry:This is what I sent to Camelot

[w5alt]

I've already sent some comments to the ARRL and got a reply. Essentially I have 4 objections which are not related to bandwidth, plus the observation that the ARRL proposal appears to go against the principles agreed to by the IARU and the bandplan already implemented in the UK and Germany.

My 4 objections are:

1) permitting encryption on amateur communications inside the US
2) outright forbidding fully automated systems
3) permitting signals to occupy an entire band (!!)
4) permitting continuous test transmissions

Of those Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, advises that #4 needs to be clarified and is intended to allow beacon transmissions as is already permitted. (If it's already permitted, why does it need to be changed??) The rest are what he describes as a "legitimate viewpoint." Whatever that means ...

This proposal seems to have the potential to dramatically change the nature of ham radio and does not appear to be what was discussed by the IARU, as best as I can tell. The Region 1 approach is to present a bandplan that protects existing modes and band segments. The ARRL approach appears to say "to h*ll with everyone, we want wideband digital to dominate." Since some countries in Region 1 have already adopted the Region 1 IARU bandwidth-based bandplan, to go against that doesn't seem to me to help with international goodwill.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks that won't have an adverse effect on normal phone transmissions either doesn't understand radio or is very naive.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

[ke2iv]

This is the kind of thread which is used by commercial interests to convince official frequency allocators at WARCs that hams are a bunch of raving lunatics!

In this heightened fearful age, if you're a national rep at a WARC and concerned about "casual" user access to RF, given this ranting, would you want these clowns on the air?

Remember, HR is a privilege - not a right!

'Nuff said.

73,
KE2IV

[ab0wr]

Here's a copy of the face sheet letter that I sent to the ARRL. I did not include the whole document that is referenced, it is too long.

September 16, 2004

Mr. Wade Walstrom W0EJ,
Mr. Bruce Frahm K0BJ,

I have had a chance to read the band-plan proposal put forth by the ARRL as well as the "Security and Data Integrity on a Modern Amateur Radio Network" document. A detailed analysis is attached.

In summary, technical analysis on the results of mixing analog and digital modes of similar bandwidths was not done. Existing analog equipment will have a significant problem coexisting with digital signals of high average power density because of the shape factors of the filters available in the radios.

The committee shows a bias against the use of existing analog modes. They directly state that one of their purposes is to advocate change from past modes of operation. The financial impacts this policy would generate needs to be analyzed and presented to the amateur community for consideration before the ARRL officially approves the policy.

No technical analysis of the interference effects caused by eliminating auto-forwarding stations was done and yet it was recommended to eliminate them. A cursory application of telecommunications traffic theory, employing the concepts of busy hour and channel capacity, shows an INCREASE the amount of interference. Concentration of traffic in the early evening hours, increased session durations, and increased repeated connection attempts would increase interference, not lessen it.

The document on security and data integrity shows a lack of discipline in differentiating between channel security and content security. They are different subjects and require different methods. Providing encryption of content does not prevent a communication channel from being co-opted and used for malicious purposes, even if only to mount a denial-of-service attack. A more disciplined study is needed.

Whether channel security or content security is needed in the amateur bands is a significant issue requiring extended debate. The Amateur Radio Service is largely self-policing today. Once encryption is in common use, this will no longer be possible. This will result in external policing being implemented. This could range from unannounced visits to amateur stations by FCC enforcement personnel to background checks to insure encrypted communications are not being misused. It is an axiom that there will be unintended consequences from implementing encrypted communications in the amateur bands. A better job done of anticipating what these unintended consequences might be.

In conclusion, I feel both of these proposals need to be withdrawn
from consideration as possible ARRL policy statements. A more
disciplined, empirical approach to evaluating possible options needs
to be implemented before settling on any specific recommendations.


Tim Gorman AB0WR

CC:Mr. Jim Haynie, W5JBP
Mr. Ron Cowan, KB0DTI

[W9WHE]

What makes you think the ARRL gives a sh!# about what the average ham thinks? They didn't care what the average ham thought about their foolish proposal to "dumb down" ham radio and give away HF priveleges. Why do you think they care about what you think about lesser issues like this?

W9WHE
Supporting the ARRL boycott

[ab0wr]

You want to kill amateur radio? Push for the ability to send encrypted data content in the amateur bands. Then wait for the first child porn distribution network to be discovered operating in the ham bands. Either the enforcement restrictions will be so onerous that no one will want to be a ham any longer or they will just shut down the amateur radio service all together.

You can bet it will happen. Suppose the ARRL has a clue about the unintended consequences that will occur?

tim ab0wr

[kd4mxe]

good job arrl #keep up the good work , you get better ever day , not a member yet but soon will be,Bill

I see one major problem that was mentioned. #If we allow the encryption of data on the HF bands we have actually allowed a violation of FCC part 97. #Allowing encryption is a direct violation of not allowing "secret" codes to obscure the meaning of a message. #Also, consider this, there are terrorists already in this country (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.). #Some of them are US citizens and can get or already have an amateur radio license. #

Then what is to stop them from using amateur radio to send messages and carryout plans for terrorist acts. #If that ever happens and it is proven that amateur radio was involved we will lose everything.

The use of unrestricted digital modes on HF frequencies as proposed by the bandwidth plan must be a carefully considered change. #IARU and ARRL must go slow and examine every issue and objection very carefully.

Remember, during WW II amateur radio was shutdown to prevent espionage. #Whether you want to admit it or not, the War On Terrorism is real and just as far reaching as WW II was. #If terrorist acts are perpetrated on the HF bands by encryption, then we all lose.

Gary
KC9GGV

[N5GLR]

FYI ... Here's a copy of my comments to the ARRL on this proposal.

"Gentlemen,

I'm am writing in strong opposition to the current proposal for the following reasons:

1, #This proposal appears to be a wholesale "land grab" by the proponents of digital communications at the expense of the majority of operators. #I am unwilling to give up even 1hz of current operating space to make room for any other mode. #

2. #The impact of this proposal on the amateur community is very poorly explained leaving far too many questions unanswered.

3. # #I admit that I am "dumb" in the area of most digital modes however, I can understand signal bandwidth requirements and this proposal appears to promote modes with bandwidths far in excess of those currently in use. #We should be focused on using less bandwidth, not more. #We should abandon any mode that\requires more bandwidth and promote modes that use less. #I approve of the attempt in this proposal to preserve traditional modes such as AM, CW, etc. but, it appears to crowd them into much smaller segments of the bands.

4. # #This proposal does nothing to resolve the issue of a commonly encountered problem when operating any digital mode... station identification. #If you're not operating the mode being transmitted, it's impossible to identify the transmitting station. #Where is the proposal to have digital stations transmit their call sign in a form that all operators can easily interpret? #How can we "police" the bands if we don't know who the offending station is? #

Sincerely,
Garry Rife
N5GLR
ARRL Member"

[ac7kv]

To: bandwidth@arrl.org
Subj: Absolutely Not! This does not serve our interests.

I have not had the time to take a close look at what
is being proposed but I have read the comments of
some of those who have. Based on what I have read,
I urge you in the strongest terms to stop any further
affirmative action on the current proposal until
a whole lot of discussion has taken place and a lot
more of us feel well about what is then put forth.

I refer most specifically to the response sent to
you by Tim Gorman AB0WR. I will conclude by quoting
his final paragraph:

"In conclusion, I feel both of these proposals need to
be withdrawn from consideration as possible ARRL policy
statements. A more disciplined, empirical approach to
evaluating possible options needs to be implemented
before settling on any specific recommendations."

Chuck Bowler AC7KV

[kb6nu]

Thanks for posting this. #

I admit that I didn't really understand the rationale for this proposal, and as I just noted in emails to bandwidth@arrl.org and my division director, I just don't see that these digital modes offer a benefit that's proportional to the amount of interference that they'll cause. And I'm certainly not in favor of allowing encrypted communications of any type on the amateur radio bands.

Dan KB6NU

[w3mz]

Give the Pactorians 10k on each band and let them interfere with each other for a change. I don't think these wholesale changes need to be made. But as a PSK and CW fan I sure would like to see these signals moved or outlawed. I also don't think the rest of the world will want to move with us which could cause other problems. 73 all.
Mike w3mz

[w0tdh]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........"Unattended Operations"
That sure has a warm fuzzy feeling about it !

Never, at no time.....has Ham Radio been about "Unattended Operations".
#
Just because the "Computer GEEKS" want to control Ham Radio, is no reason for our Pres. to decide in their favor.

I suggest our Pres. of the ARRL re-aquaint himself with the art of CW with a J-38 !!!

Or more simply put;

We need a NEW President of the ARRL !

73,

Tom - KØPJG

[w4cwd]

Just shows how smart the ARRL is...They do more harm than good at times...John WC9U

[n1zhe]

Why does a hobby need to encrypt? Exactly!

That's why it's illegal to encrypt now...

David, N1ZHE

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (K0PJG @ Sep. 19 2004,16:45)]Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........"Unattended Operations"
That sure has a warm fuzzy feeling about it !

Never, at no time.....has Ham Radio been about "Unattended Operations".
#
Just because the "Computer GEEKS" want to control Ham Radio, is no reason for our Pres. to decide in their favor.

I suggest our Pres. of the ARRL re-aquaint himself with the art of CW with a J-38 !!!

Or more simply put;

We need a NEW President of the ARRL !

73,

Tom - KØPJG
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... #
Your facts are uncorrdinated....

We HF PACKET SYSOPS, have been operating unattended packet radio HF BBSs in the USA for about 10 years.. It is what allows us to get messages from point a to z in less than an hour..
Please re-educate yourself on the topic... I would be glad to assist.
We must retain the Automatically Controlled Forwarding part if the R and R that we have had for over 10 years...
And please do not call us names.. We do not want to control HAM RADIO only our stations...
The pres. does not have to decide on anything.. It is not up top him. in fact Jam Haynie cannot even vote on this proposal.. Besides Automatically controlled operation was implemented by others TAPR, FCC, Packet Radio Pioneers, #back in 1994 NOT the ARRL. In fact the ARRL had nothing to do with its implementation...
I would be very happy to send you all the facts on Unattended operations and how if every one has to use Semi-Automatic controll.. The Bands will be a QRM Jungle..
Please review your facts...
I too am 100% Apposed to this rediculous proposal.. It should be immediately tabled.. And thrown out.. we do not need 100's of PIII Station proliferating the hF bands...
The ARRL should be doing their homework... And not relying on their answers from WINLINK..
Best 73 Jerry N9LYA #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[W8VIJ]

Do I agree with the ARRL? Does it matter? I quit my membership 6-months ago because they are not for the advancement of CW. Why have we lost CW frequencies?
Because they don't care about it. Period! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[W8VIJ]

Do I agree with the ARRL? Does it matter? I quit my membership 6-months ago because they are not for the advancement of CW. Why have we lost CW frequencies?
Because they don't care about it. Period! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[W1CAR]

Screw the ARRL. They are a living, breathing pile of pecuniary interest; from hell, and they all deserve to have their butts removed.

A nonpartisan hobby is wonderful. Add politics to it, and it goes down the preverbial crapper.

[W0GI]

After reading the ARRL proposal, I find that it sounds as stupid as the BPL proposal they are fighting.

The bottom line change they propose seems to be, spread Digital across the bands with NO restriction, but continue to restrict CW and Phone.

I am not against new modes, but who in their right mind thinks that it is a good idea to make an entire band available to send digital pictures, at the expense of modes that have been in use for decades.

The ARRL feels that Digital should have it all, and that CW and phone should have limits. They are for high technology, yet we have licensing tests that require no more then memorizing questions and answers.

To most, digital communications amounts to downloading the latest software, installing it and going on the air.

While that's not a bad thing, using digital communications on HF is not something that is very practical beyond the current modes, unless you use huge amounts of bandwidth. I don't think you will be watching movies on 20 meters any time soon.

I though HF was about antennas and propagation, not Laptops and Java compilers?

This is a radio hobby, not a computer hobby. Computers can have a place, but aren't the core.

Exactly which of the digital modes will be used during an emergency? Will we need to have 30 different programs to use HF? Oh, don't forget to have emergency power for you computers.

I really don't believe there is much to be gained by any of the proposals, other then to pollute the world's HF bands with digital QRM, just as BPL would.

The countries of the world meet to try and set limits and coordinate use of the HF bans, yet the ARRL thinks that they should decide what happens on frequencies that are 'World Wide'.

The thing about this that really bothers me, is that the ARRL is ramming this through using the same methods that the BPL lobby uses. They want it, and that is that.

All in all, this will just start more in-fighting.

What we don't need is more hostility on the bands.

We need rules that define modes of operation, not rules with all sorts of grey areas that create more confusion and bad feelings between operators.

The ARRL says that they speak for Ham radio. It doesn't seem that they even speak for their members.

The main ppublic benefit that ham radio offers, that will retain the HF ham bands for our use, is the value of emergency communications.

Those communications are best served by simple dependable equipment that uses the least amount of power. Where exactly does the idea of digitizing HF fit into that picture? We should limit our emergency capability to those hams that have laptop computers? Who will select the official emergency software?

Digital has it's place, and I do computer work for a living, but digital needs to exist with tried and true modes, and not step on everyone's toes.

Please send your comments to the ARRL. We will see if they listen.

73, Bob

[KC9FDA]

I think you all are crazy I`m new to Ham Radio and i can tell you that what the arrl is doing is great would you rather see new people in it or not if not then ham radio is already dieing and gone i know a couple of people that are stuck up couse they have a higher class of Ticket but you know what in the long run the the strong will over come the weak and a new generation of hames that are nice loal helping and not so greety and will be proud and thankfull no matter what so like i said you eather what ham radio to die or you don`t so you need to make your mind up fast couse they are not saying oww look who cares about code they are simply moving it i mean if someone moves something you are all like owww my call 911 call the police and the military and all your friends they have moved something we better take action stupid if you ask me i`m 22 and i growed up along time ago http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif and shaking his head from side to side saying when will people grow up

[ab0wr]

<<<<<<<< kc9fda: I think you all are crazy I`m new to Ham Radio and i can tell you that what the arrl is doing is great would you rather see new people in it or not if not then ham radio is already dieing and gone i know a couple of people that are stuck up couse they have a higher class of Ticket .............. we better take action stupid if you ask me i`m 22 and i growed up along time ago and shaking his head from side to side saying when will people grow up >>>>>>>>>>

Do you know what the definition of "tirade" is?

Your post is a good example of a tirade.

You provided not one single, reasoned argument for or against any policy or position. You just indulged in posting poorly written invective that cannot be identified as being either for or against anything in particular.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (KC9FDA @ Sep. 22 2004,02:59)]I think you all are crazy I`m new to Ham Radio and i can tell you that what the arrl is doing is great would you rather see new people in it or not if not then ham radio is already dieing and gone i know a couple of people that are stuck up couse they have a higher class of Ticket but you know what in the long run the the strong will over come the weak and a new generation of hames that are nice loal helping and not so greety and will be proud and thankfull no matter what so like i said you eather what ham radio to die or you don`t so you need to make your mind up fast couse they are not saying oww look who cares about code #they are simply moving it i mean if someone moves something you are all like owww my call 911 call the police and the military and all your friends they have moved something we better take action stupid if you ask me i`m 22 and i growed up along time ago http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif and shaking his head from side to side saying when will people grow up
Brandon,

I think there is little disagreement whether or not the ARRL tries to work for the betterment of ham radio. That is why they asked for comments on the proposed petition instead of just petitioning the FCC without member input.

Your viewpoint is as valuable as that of us who "grew up" in ham radio for 40 or 50 years, so perhaps you can be more specific and tell us exactly why it is a good idea to:

1. Eliminate the current FCC rules that keep unattended Pactor email robots from spreading all over the phone bands, when they are incapable of understanding that a phone signal is on the frequency already, and incapable of understanding a request to QSY as phone operators can do.

2. Protect unattended Pactor email robots from interference by SSB phone, while not providing any protection to SSB phone from interference by unattended Pactor email robots.

3. Allow the entire 160 meter band to be covered by unattended Pactor email robots by eliminating current FCC rules that do not allow unattended transmissions of any kind on 160 meters at all.

4. Force PSK31 operators (PSK31 is the new, very popular, digital ragchew mode) down into the CW areas of the bands in order to escape constant disruption by unattended Pactor email robots, effectively shrinking the CW bands.

5. Eliminate the autoforwarding that HF Packet systems depend upon to pass traffic at times of low activity in order to leave times of high activity avaliable for others to enjoy, thereby legislating most HF Packet systems out of existence, leaving only the giant network of unattended Pactor email mailboxes left which requires an investment of almost $1000 in additional equipment to use.

All of us are concerned about our ham radio hobby, and are open to new ideas, especially from those newcomers to the hobby, so perhaps you can tell us in detail why you think the above points, 1-5, are good ideas, in your opinion, and you might change the opinions of some others who feel upset at the mere suggestion by ARRL that these changes be legislated upon all the members, and everyone else, for the benefit of a special interest group, which numbers less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams.

To give us a better understanding of your viewpoints, perhaps you can also tell us what modes and bands you work. If you like digital modes, and not have tried PSK31 or PSK63, I invite you to download DigiPan from my website at http://www.digipan.net, and try working some PSK63 from 14072.5 to 14075.0 to experience firsthand the unattended Pactor email mailbox interference that is such a problem, and which is proposed to be allowed to cover all the SSB phone bands if desired by the operators of the robot mailboxes.

I'll be glad to meet you for a schedule if you wish. Just suggest a time and frequency by email to me at my QRZ.COM email address. I work all analog modes, and all digital modes.

73, Skip KH6TY
Co-author of DigiPan, the most popular *digital* PSK31/63 program in the world.

[W0GI]

(KC9FDA @ Sep. 22 2004,02:59)
>>>>>>>>I think you all are crazy I`m new to Ham Radio and i can tell you that what the arrl is doing is great>>>>>>>>

Brandon,

I am curious as to what operations you would like to see on HF that are not allowed now? Your post seems to say that you feel that a bunch of crazy hams are limiting newcomers. That is just not true.

Encryption is just not going to happen, period. And anyone stupid enough to use it, will have FBI agents at their station faster then you can say Leavenworth.

So again, tell us what limits on operations that you object to?

This debate is about a proposal that doesn't deal with interferance issues that will occur, when certain modes have freedom to operate across the bands unchecked.

There are many digital modes, and I use them.

I feel that it IS time to make some changes as to the bandplans, but I don't think the ARRL proposal is the right way to change them.

Do you feel that I am keeping new hams away when I operate on CW or phone? That just doesn't make sense.

You may believe that CW is an outdated mode, but I can tell you that in marginal conditions, I can make contacts, that you won't be able to make using digital modes. Do I care if you use CW? NO. But don't put people down that do use it.

Please Brandon, do some research before you start making remarks about crazy old hams that aren't nice or helpful. Then make an effort to add some actual facts to the debate, and not general inflamatory remarks that may cause some to not be nice.

Beyond that, whether you use computers or not, you still have to setup a clean station with a good antenna to send RF to the receiving station. That is the same now as it was 50 years ago, and that won't change in the future.

You will find there is a lot more involved in setting up a clean HF station, then there is downloading some software off of a website.

And that to me is what HF is about, not what mode I am using. It's about contacts to stations around the world using that chunk(s) of metal above your roof. No phone lines, no internet, just the sky above.

If you think Ham radio is just about playing with computers, then I think you will be disappointed.

I think your post really drives the point home as to why we need to continue to have regulations that slice up the bands by modes of operation.

I really don't want to see the day where I have constant interferance from robots, and where the operators of the robot stations tell me I should just get off phone and die, and let the "NEW" generation have the bands.

Sorry, but I don't plan on being SK anytime soon, so we need to cooperate on the bands that belong to all of us.

You may have a problem with hams that have been around for 30+ years, but feel lucky that you didn't have to fly to a FCC field office and take tests that didn't have the multiple choice answers in a Gordon West book.

Feel lucky that you don't even need a soldering iron anymore.

Things are great, so stop whinning.....

73, Bob

[AE4TM]

The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. This analysis is described in the following book which is currently being used by the military, FCC, and international band planning groups. The book was sponsored by the Dept of Homeland Security.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0071409874-1

Ed

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Sep. 23 2004,09:19)]The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. This analysis is described in the following book which is currently being used by the military, FCC, and international band planning groups. The book was sponsored by the Dept of Homeland Security.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0071409874-1

Ed
Ed,

What does the book say about unattended versus attended operations? That is the core of the problem with the ARRL proposed petition in my opinion, and not the concept of separation by bandwidth, because modes that cannot understand each other cannot negotiate for the use of a frequency, and therefore, should be grouped together and not mixed with modes they do not understand, or cannot understand, on shared frequency bands, such as the amateur radio frequencies.

73, Skip KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Sep. 23 2004,09:19)]The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. This analysis is described in the following book which is currently being used by the military, FCC, and international band planning groups. The book was sponsored by the Dept of Homeland Security.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0071409874-1

Ed
Ed,

I forgot to add that a good reason to group modes of similar bandwidth (but not of dissimilar understanding!) is so a wide mode does not suddenly cover up several narrow modes. Particularly bad are modes that increase bandwidth, so that a station that thinks it is in the clear next to the station that is going to change bandwidth suddenly might find itself covered up when the other station suddenly goes wider.

This is the very reason why we operate PSK63 above where PSK31 operates, since it is twice as wide as PSK31, and we NEVER switch from PSK31 to PSK63 on the same frequency.

73, Skip KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Sep. 23 2004,09:19)]The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. This analysis is described in the following book which is currently being used by the military, FCC, and international band planning groups. The book was sponsored by the Dept of Homeland Security.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0071409874-1

Ed
Ed,

Sorry for using so much bandwidth, but, since you have the book and we do not, we would be most interested in your telling us how the book reduces interference between SSB phone signals and wide digital signals, like Pactor-III, that would no longer be kept apart by the regulations as they are now.

Would also like to know the reasons the book would say why SSB phone signals of the same width as wide digital signals should not be allowed to share the same space with wide digital signals, and how interference is reduced by allowing wide digital signals to share the same space as SSB phone signals, if the wide digital signals will not understand a request to QSY from the SSB phone signals.

I am trying to keep an open mind about all of this, but I am confused as to how the proposed petition is "on track" with the book in these areas.

Thanks in advance for your explanation!

73, Skip KH6TY

[ab0wr]

<<<<<<<<The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. This analysis is described in the following book which is currently being used by the military, FCC, and international band planning groups. The book was sponsored by the Dept of Homeland Security.>>>>>>>

If you have a copy of this work, please tell us how it covers management of a spectrum sub-band that is non-channelized and is allocated to multi-mode use with random access by a large universe of users with specific busy hours, traffic loads, and regenerated attempts based on mode type.

Here is what the description of the book says it covers:

<<<In this wide-ranging work, the author covers virtually all spectrum-dependent communications-electronic systems, including:

* Satellite communications
* Radar surveillance
* Point-to-point microwave
* Satellite communications
* Air-to-air and land- or sea-based ballistic missile systems
* VHF and UHF air-traffic-control systems
* Telemetry
* Weapon systems
* Ultra wideband (UWB), with discussion of technical factors affecting the properties and availability of key radio bands >>>

Technically, this book apparently does NOT cover communications-electronic systems as used in the ARS.

Let's take a look at the book synopsis:

<<< Synopsis:
RF spectrum is the most valuable commodity in the wireless market - the wireless equivalent of real estate. Without the necessary spectrum - and the skills to manage it - companies cannot hope to compete in the brave new world of wireless services. Government agencies and private companies developing, using, or selling communications systems and services must be certain their systems are compatible with national and international frequency assignments.

This is a practical planning guide for any operation offering or planning to offer wireless, clearly explaining the technical, regulatory, and legal aspects of spectrum use. It not only provides rigorous engineering analysis of the properties and availability of key radio bands, but also interprets complex FCC and ITU regulations >>>>

It is not obvious to me that any of this would be useful in modeling spectrum use in the amateur bands.

Perhaps you can lay out what the book has to say that would be of use in our being able to see exactly how this applies to what the ARRL has proposed?

If you can show me where in the book it has information that shows the ARRL has proposed something that stand up to technical analysis and peer review, I will gladly order this book. It can be purchased for $60 on the internet.

Neither the synopsis or table of contents, however, gives me any confidence that it has any technical analyses that are useful in the amateur bands.

Please keep in mind that the book will have to show spectral analyses of existing wideband digital modes used in the amateur bands plus either measured or calculated impacts of the signals on typical amateur radio equipment currently in use in order to demonstrate that interference will be minimized by the ARRL bandplan.

Here is your chance. Give me a reason to buy the book. I'll be more than happy to get a copy and see what it says if you can show it will be worth my time.

(btw, does anyone know if this is available in the public library anywhere?)

tim ab0wr

[AE4TM]

Hello Skip,

I encourage you to look at the book. It is well worth the expense.

To briefly answer your questions, the fundamental error in this thread is the false assumption that pactor contacts are made by robots. Although I use pactor for advanced propagation research in collaboration with John's Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (see http://ecjones.org ), the same principle of making contacts with Winlink pactor is the same. Humans initiate the contacts by first listening to a channel to see if it is clear before throwing out a connect request. Anyone violating this principle is in direct violation of the FCC rules. In regards to pactor-3 (2.1 kHz) using more bandwidth than pactor-2 (450 Hz), that is true but the switch from level 2 to level 3 occurs only once and only during in the first few seconds of the contact. The link doesn't continue to switch back and forth as you imply. The link would also die if a 500Hz or narrower IF filter were in place when the operating level goes to level 3; therefore, if one intends a level-3 contact, the operator will already have a SSB IF filter in place and like all contact attempts they should already be listening to that channel before throwing out a connect request. There will only be interference if that user fails to listen first. Like SSB, the FCC does listen to pactor as well as other digital modes so all hams should be careful to follow the rules or risk getting a letter from the FCC.

From reading this thread, many comments are being made by people who have never used pactor and they seem to believe that pactor can interfere with SSB but not vise versa. The truth is that SSB can interfere with pactor and no pactor user wants to share frequencies with such a popular operating mode. Getting 1/2 of a set of propagation data or 1/2 of an email in the case of Winlink is extremely frustrating and requiring us to QSY and retry the connect elsewhere. The band plan being proposed by the league is taking these factors into consideration to best suit all users on ham radio while promoting newer operating modes.

I hope this answers your questions. If you want to learn more about how pactor compares to other digital modes, you are welcome to visit my digital mode comparisons at http://www.ecjones.org/pactor.html
When one considers the effective data rate vs bandwidth used, pactor-3 makes the most efficient use of available bandwidth limiting the time needed to transfer potentially life saving information. It is also 100% error free and in times of medical emergencies such as drug dosing this could mean the difference between life and death.

Ed AE4TM

[AE4TM]

Hello Tim,

Sorry for not responding to your questions when I hit the Post Key. You apparently hit the key before I hit my refresh key and I was unaware of your posting. Your question is well answered in the book. The military has more modes than amateur radio operators so Amit Maitra has already addressed your questions with his analysis of these issues but because the book is so detailed I don't have the time summarize here.

I will also be on call all weekend working the weekend shift so I will post this final comment and allow the thread to develop as it sees fit. It does seem appropriate to list this story at this time.

Two years ago, I was on a vacation to Death Valley Nat Park from a very busy fall season at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. My only communications was ham radio and a cell phone that doesn't work in the park because the cell towers are 6 hours of driving in any direction. I had instructions for my family to leave any emergency messages in a pactor mailbox so I could check them from my mobile at the end of each day of hiking.

After one particular day of hiking, I checked the mailbox and found that one of my patients had travelled out of Tennessee to a neighboring state and was found unconscious by a motel worker. He was rushed to a local ER physician who later tried to reach me when they got negative labs and realized my patient was dying. Unfortunately, I could not reach the ER number directly because I had a 6 hour drive to reach cell phone range. Because I had left careful instructions to my family to leave an email reply address on my pactor mailbox via a direct terminal connect (not HF), I had a means of replying to this emergency message.

I quickly booted Airmail because I knew I had to access Winlink ASAP to save my patient's life. I wrote a quick message to the ER physician with the information he needed including the patient's medications and drug doses. After I hit the airmail post, I listened for a vacant Winlink digital channel and tried connecting to a Winlink station. I connected and within 10 seconds the full email transferred and it was relayed to the Emergency Room within seconds. To make the story short, my patient survived as a result of this message!

I will add one final comment that I would never have reached any ER physician in the US via SSB. I have worked in many hospitals across the US and none have had short wave radios. The reason is simple - short wave radio signals interfere with medical electronics! This is the reason BPL is so dangerous to hospitals.

If not for the email capability of Winlink, my patient would now be dead!

You can use this information as you wish but I will continue supporting Pactor because it provides 100% error free transmissions. In today's era of lawsuits against physicians, you will be hard put to find any physician willing to put his medical license in jeopardy by trying to send medications and dosing across a mode other than pactor. Pactor is 100% error free!

Ed AE4TM

[kh6ty]

Hi Ed,

I did not recognize your callsign. I think our paths have paths crossed before on this issue. BTW, I am a registered Winlink user and quite familiar with Pactor.

I'd like to address your email step by step.

"To briefly answer your questions, the fundamental error in this thread is the false assumption that pactor contacts are made by robots."

This is not any error. It has been made very clear in the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee report that pactor contacts are NOT made by robots. However, the level of interference suggests that Pactor contacts are NOT made by listening first. That they are is a myth that Winlink likes to promote, but it IS the reason we have a higher observed level of interference than otherwise unless a contest is going on.

"Humans initiate the contacts by first listening to a channel to see if it is clear before throwing out a connect request. Anyone violating this principle is in direct violation of the FCC rules."

With all due respect, again, it is naive to believe they do listen first. As a sailor myself here in Charleston, I can guarantee you that it is much easier just to load email into Airmail and press a button to send it and not listen first. The noise of my engine often overrides anything I can hear from the VHF marine radio, much less from my transceiver.

"When one considers the effective data rate vs bandwidth used, pactor-3 makes the most efficient use of available bandwidth limiting the time needed to transfer potentially life saving information. "

Regarding the difference in throughput of Pactor-II and Pactor-III for the typical email, please observe the following three weeks of data provided by the Winlink Network administrator. This is actual practice, not theory:

Data provided by the Winlink Administrator for the first three weeks of 2003, in which 13,182 emails were transferred by Pactor 1 and Pactor 2, which are 500 Hz wide, compared to 5,745 emails transferred by Pactor 3, which is 2400 hz wide, or "voice-bandwidth", shows only a 30% savings in time using a voice-bandwidth data mode, which uses 500% more space, than using a 500 Hz-wide data mode, such as Pactor 2:

Pactor 1 or Pactor 2

3631.9 # # # #2.9
7076.9 # # # #2.7
10123.9 # # # 1.9
14076.9 # # # 1.7
18103.9 # # # 1.7

Total # # # # # 10.9

Avg: # 2.18 minutes/message for Pactor 1/2 over 13,182 messages

Pactor-III

7103.7 # # # #1.8
10141.2 # # # 2.5
14106.7 # # # 1.3
18108.7 # # # 1.2

Total # # # # # 6.8


Avg: # 1.7 minutes/message for Pactor 3 over 5,745 messages


Therefore, voice-bandwidth data modes are an inefficient use of the spectrum for average-length email transfers, such as those handled daily by Winlink.

From your original post: I'd like you to look at 20 meters as an example:

The current regulations allow Pactor-III to be used when one or both parties are automatic from 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, and from 14.1005-14.112, which totals 16 KHz.

The ARRL proposal allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14100 to 14150, which is 50 KHz, and which is protected from SSB phone interference.

THEN, it also allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14150 to 14350, which is 200KHz, mixing with SSB phone.

SSB phone is currently allowed from 14150 to 14350 WITHOUT mixing with Pactor-III or similar wideband modes.

If two modes are allowed in the previous space of one mode, how can your book support the claim, "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum."

By ADDING wideband modes, such as Pactor-III to the SSB phone bands, there is no way that interference to SSB phone will not increase! There are simply more stations trying to use the same space!

You are obviously solidly in the Pactor or Winlink camp, which is your choice. On here, we are trying to understand how the ARRL proposed petition affects everyone, without taking sides. Your reference to the book is valuable to know, but I do not think your statement that "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum" is correct, and it has to be described as misleading unless you can show how putting an additional set of users into a space already filled by SSB phone will not result in more QRM instead of less.

While you are at it, perhaps you can offer an explanation how ARRL can, in one breath, call the proposed petition "segmentation by bandwidth" instead of by mode, and then, in another, prohibit large segments of the band to be used by SSB phone when it is of the same bandwidth as the allowed digital transmissions! If this is not also segregation by mode instead of only by bandwidth, I cannot understand why! In fact, the phone bands have not changed at all - they are now proposed to be shared with signals like Pactor-III.

If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please contact me off this forum, but I think we last parted company with each holding his current beliefs.

73, Skip KH6TY

[AE4TM]

RR Skip, but because we are dealing with live versus death regarding medical emergencies and the importance of providing 100% error free information to emergency rooms, I don't believe that behind the forums are appropriate for this subject.

I will be working all weekend so you have time to decide how to respond.

Dr. Ed AE4TMhttp://ecjones.org/ (http://ecjones.org)

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Sep. 23 2004,19:38)]RR Skip, but because we are dealing with live versus death regarding medical emergencies and the importance of providing 100% error free information to emergency rooms, I don't believe that behind the forums are appropriate for this subject.

I will be working all weekend so you have time to decide how to respond.

Dr. Ed AE4TMhttp://ecjones.org/ (http://ecjones.org)
Ed,

I will make two final comments to you on this and no more:

1. The question is NOT whether Pactor is good or not. The question is whether Pactor-III, at five times the width of Pactor-II, is worth taking away that much space from everyone else to avoid spending 36 more seconds to send a typical 2-minute email.

2. The other point is whether or not the proposed ARRL petition "closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum", as you claimed in your original post to this topic.

The ARRL proposal will ADD to the congestion on the phone bands by including wideband digital modes, such as Pactor-III, where they do not exist today, without increasing the space for SSB phone, so I think it is impossible to say interference between Pactor-III or Pactor-II and SSB phone will not increase, as the interference between the two modes is zero today.

These are the ONLY questions. Everyone already knows that Pactor is a good mode and is error-free, so rest easy, but I just want everyone to know that the ARRL proposed petition should be rejected because it will INCREASE interference, not decrease it, which is opposite to what you claim.

I do not intend to comment further on this subject.

73, Skip KH6TY

[ab0wr]

"Your question is well answered in the book. The military has more modes than amateur radio operators so Amit Maitra has already addressed your questions with his analysis of these issues but because the book is so detailed I don't have the time summarize here."

I spent 30 years in the telecommunications business, many of them doing trunk engineering among central offices. I understand traffic engineering quite well.

I will order this book next week but I suspect that I will find:
1. The military equipment and frequency channels are engineered and assigned, respectively, so that
a. the filters in the receiving equipment are not overloaded by adjacent channel signals
b. the transmitting equipment is designed with audio and transmit chains with bandwidths, skew factors, and response filters to minimize adjacent channel interference from spurious products.
2. Channel use and mode use are not a random variable
a. channels will have primary and secondary users
b. equipment is designed to interoperate so that busy conditions can be determined by the equipment
3. Load curves are smooth, poisson distributions during busy periods.
4. Retry attempts follow standard distributions (i.e. not computer generated.

If any of these restrictions are assumed in the analysis in the book then the analysis is flawed when applied to the amateur bands. The bands are not channelized, the amateur equipment is not designed to allow adjacent operation of digital and analog modes, there is no priority usage assignments, most automated equipment (and there are legally operating automated stations for both packet and pactor being used with packet forwarding networks and for the Digital NTSD) used with pactor will not automatically recognize busy conditions other than another pactor signal on the same frequency, load curves are not smooth, and retry attempts don't follow typical usage patterns for telecommunication networks. Uncompleted calls are many times not abandoned but tried again and again.

"You can use this information as you wish but I will continue supporting Pactor because it provides 100% error free transmissions. In today's era of lawsuits against physicians, you will be hard put to find any physician willing to put his medical license in jeopardy by trying to send medications and dosing across a mode other than pactor. Pactor is 100% error free!"

Actually it is NOT 100% error free. I am currently the main Region 10 liason for the Digital NTS network. Our traffic is all sent via pactor links. A significant amount of traffic flows through here. I would have to go back through my message files to see if they have been purged from the hard disk, but I DO see garbled messages sometimes. Not often but enough for me to have noticed. Without actually finding the messages I would have to guess at the failure rate. A wild guess would be around 0.5%. That is not large but it is statistically significant.

"The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum. "

Again, I noticed that the subtitle of the book you reference was (Telecomm Engineering). Telecomm engineering rules only apply to systems that meet the engineering assumptions for offered load, abandoned attempts, cross-channel interference, etc. This works well for telephone systems and sewer systems. It doesn't work well in the amateur bands.

I can assure you that nothing, absolutely nothing, in the ARRL proposal fits any telecomm engineering requirements. There were no analyses done of offered load, busy hours, channel capacities, cross-channel interference, equipment capabilities, etc. Therefore the ARRL proposal cannot, in any way, meet telecom engineering guidelines in any book.

Minimizing interference cannot be accomplished by putting wideband digital signals with extensive spurious products and high density spectral energy next to analog signals depending on equipment with filters that are barely wide enough at the 6db point and are way too wide at the 30db and 60db points to reject the digital signals. This is a recipe for disaster in the ham bands.

As soon as I get the book, I'll be back to post a summary of the assumptions made in the book and a discussion of why they are or are not applicable to the ham bands. I'm pretty sure what I will find.

tim ab0wr

[W0GI]

Dr. Ed AE4TM,

While I am glad that you were able to use Pactor to save a life, I have a few problems with your thinking.

Certainly a life or death situation would allow you to use the Amateur Radio Service, and not violate the rules against using Amateur Radio for business, I don't think anyone would have any problem with that use.

However, you seem to be using this story as a tactic to sway opinion. It comes across as " Agree with the arrl, or you will be responsable for lost lives".

First of all, if you are that concerned about your patients, buy a satellite phone with data. Sorry, but the ARS's purpose is not to replace available commercial communications. Beyond that, you seem to be a smart enough person to know that the satellite phone will be much more dependable then the HF bands.

While is great that you used the service for this emergency, I think you are over the top in suggesting that the ARS should be changed for your business use, when commercial equipment is available.

Yes satellite phones are expensive, but the ARS purpose is not to save people money.

Beyond that, it seems that you were able to use Pactor to send this emergency email, so how does this story even relate to the debate.

Consider this. Let's say that pactor is spread all over the band. What makes you think that you are not going to run into problems from SSB traffic as the band conditions change?

In closing, I don't think it is proper to try to put a guilt trip on the folks that have posted, and use the life or death argument.

If on that day of your emergency, the HF bands had not been propagating, and you didn't have that satellite phone, tell me what the result would have been?

Let's leave the spin to the politicians, and debate the issues here.

73, Bob

[k4cjx]

Posted: Sep. 23 2004,19:01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ed,

I did not recognize your callsign. I think our paths have paths crossed before on this issue. BTW, I am a registered Winlink user and quite familiar with Pactor.

I'd like to address your email step by step.

"To briefly answer your questions, the fundamental error in this thread is the false assumption that pactor contacts are made by robots."

This is not any error. It has been made very clear in the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee report that pactor contacts are NOT made by robots. However, the level of interference suggests that Pactor contacts are NOT made by listening first. That they are is a myth that Winlink likes to promote, but it IS the reason we have a higher observed level of interference than otherwise unless a contest is going on.


----------------------
From k4cjx: How anyone can claim that "Winlink users" are the ONLY people who don't listen first, before they transmit" ? We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our prejudices" and in this case, I can assure you that those who depend on Winlink for their safety and well-being" are careful about where they transmit. It is their only means of obtaining weather information and communications with their family and friends. Winlink users are also constantly knocked off a transmission by those who mistakenly transmit on their transmissions just like any other mode. It is enherent without channalization. People listen and do the best they can be it an ARQ protocol or any other.
------------------------


"Humans initiate the contacts by first listening to a channel to see if it is clear before throwing out a connect request. Anyone violating this principle is in direct violation of the FCC rules."

With all due respect, again, it is naive to believe they do listen first. As a sailor myself here in Charleston, I can guarantee you that it is much easier just to load email into Airmail and press a button to send it and not listen first. The noise of my engine often overrides anything I can hear from the VHF marine radio, much less from my transceiver.


-----------------------
From k4cjx: With all due respect, someone needs to use better isolation techniques. Would this not be true also for any mode used on the same vessel, including SSB, CW, PSK-31, etc.? Again, those offshore vessels who depend on Winlink connectivity for their safety and well-being, certainly do listen before they transmit. Do they listen better than the average amateur? I would imagine they are like the rest of us (outside of the contest arena)! Do they have other options when a frequency is busy? Of course they do. This is why Winlink stations scan multiple frequencies, and why these stations are totally transparent. If one is busy or a frequency is busy, then they move to a place that contains no on-going transmission. The purpose of scanning multiple frequencies is to give the initiating station options; thereby, reducing interference, not increasing it.
---------------------------


"When one considers the effective data rate vs bandwidth used, pactor-3 makes the most efficient use of available bandwidth limiting the time needed to transfer potentially life saving information. "

Regarding the difference in throughput of Pactor-II and Pactor-III for the typical email, please observe the following three weeks of data provided by the Winlink Network administrator. This is actual practice, not theory:

--------------------
From k4cjx: I, k4cjx, am the Winlink network administrator, and I wish to comment on what is below:
-----------------------

Data provided by the Winlink Administrator for the first three weeks of 2003, in which 13,182 emails were transferred by Pactor 1 and Pactor 2, which are 500 Hz wide, compared to 5,745 emails transferred by Pactor 3, which is 2400 hz wide,

--------------------
From k4cjx: Pactor 3 is 2100 hz bandwidth, not 2.4 as it was when it was first deployed.
--------------------

or "voice-bandwidth", shows only a 30% savings in time using a voice-bandwidth data mode, which uses 500% more space, than using a 500 Hz-wide data mode, such as Pactor 2:

Pactor 1 or Pactor 2

3631.9 2.9
7076.9 2.7
10123.9 1.9
14076.9 1.7
18103.9 1.7

Total 10.9

Avg: 2.18 minutes/message for Pactor 1/2 over 13,182 messages

Pactor-III

7103.7 1.8
10141.2 2.5
14106.7 1.3
18108.7 1.2

Total 6.8


Avg: 1.7 minutes/message for Pactor 3 over 5,745 messages


------------------------
From k4cjx: This is taken out of context and is not up to date, but that is okay, here is some info:

Pactor 1 has a maximum of 200 bps.

Pactor 2 has a maximum of 800 bps.

Pactor 3 has a maximum of 3600 bps.

As a practical matter and in the real world which depends on varying speed levels and turn around overhead, an 80,000 byte file will take approximately 80 minutes to transmit using Pactor 1. The same 80,000 byte file will take approximately 20 minutes to transmit the same file, while a Pactor 3 will take approximately 7 minutes to transfer the same file.

In 2003, the overhead for Pactor 3 was greater than for Pactor 2. With the recent firmware addition, this is no longer true. Version 3.4 maintains MUCH faster turn-around. In theory, nothing happens, but in the "real World," those who have access to both protocols use Pactor 3 because it pushes much more traffic in much less time. If it didn't, it would die on the vine. But this is only speaking about a current protocol. Many more are in process, including SCAMP (See TAPR Digital District Conference Paper on subject.) With some inititive on the part of those dealing with enhancing our digital protocols, new and more efficient protocols will come in the future as they have in the past.
--------------------


Therefore, voice-bandwidth data modes are an inefficient use of the spectrum for average-length email transfers, such as those handled daily by Winlink.


------------------------
From k4cjx: Again, anyone who has used both, will know better than to make this statement. There is a big difference between "reading the menu and eating the meal." Please give those who use this mode on a daily basis some credit for knowing what their options may be. They always make the choice of the most efficient protocol. Let me ask, what other options would you chose? There are others, of course, but there is currently no space to use them. Example: on 40 meters, there are only two frequencies cleared for wideband digital operation. Who wants to develop a protocol that has no room for expansion?
--------------------------


From your original post: I'd like you to look at 20 meters as an example:

The current regulations allow Pactor-III to be used when one or both parties are automatic from 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, and from 14.1005-14.112, which totals 16 KHz.

The ARRL proposal allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14100 to 14150, which is 50 KHz, and which is protected from SSB phone interference.

THEN, it also allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14150 to 14350, which is 200KHz, mixing with SSB phone.

SSB phone is currently allowed from 14150 to 14350 WITHOUT mixing with Pactor-III or similar wideband modes.

If two modes are allowed in the previous space of one mode, how can your book support the claim, "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum."

By ADDING wideband modes, such as Pactor-III to the SSB phone bands, there is no way that interference to SSB phone will not increase! There are simply more stations trying to use the same space!


------------------------
From k4cjx: Some of those who read the proposed petition were completely against any regulatory movement. They say that the ARRL has gone too far, and, that it should be up to all those using the Amateur spectrum to use it as they see fit. One such organization touting this is the AARA on 14074, daily. They think, as do many others, that ALL regulatory restraints should be lifted. I personally do not agree, but I also think that sufficient space should be provided for Digital Voice, Image, and other new wider-band digital protocols. Without them, we are headed where we are currently going, down the tube! Winlink using Pactor is not the issue. It seems that those who oppose any change suggest that Winlink will "take over" the SSB bands. I think not. I would avoid SSB since there are specifically designated areas for digital only protocols. However, I would think that Digigal Voice and Digital Image would also share this space. I cannot answer for those modes or services, but I can speak for Winlink 2000.
--------------------------


You are obviously solidly in the Pactor or Winlink camp, which is your choice.


--------------------------
From k4cjx: Take a good look at Dr.(physics) Ed Jones site, http://ecjones.org/pactor.html, for an objective analysis of the protocols, and how they compare. And, please remember, there are many more digital modes to come as we advance in this hobby. By the way, from what I can tell, Ed's experience and background far exceed any "camp."
---------------------------


On here, we are trying to understand how the ARRL proposed petition affects everyone, without taking sides.
Your reference to the book is valuable to know, but I do not think your statement that "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum" is correct, and it has to be described as misleading unless you can show how putting an additional set of users into a space already filled by SSB phone will not result in more QRM instead of less.


----------------------
From k4cjx: I remember the same comment about how are we going to put SSB stations in the same space we put AM. If AM had been more efficient, it would have dominated the space provided for both. Again, it is not the objective of those running any particular protocol or "mode" to set themselves up to interfere with any other protocol. Let's please show some objectivity, and continue to develop more efficient and effective communications modes. We cannot afford to stop that process if we are to survive as a hobby.
---------------------------


While you are at it, perhaps you can offer an explanation how ARRL can, in one breath, call the proposed petition "segmentation by bandwidth" instead of by mode, and then, in another, prohibit large segments of the band to be used by SSB phone when it is of the same bandwidth as the allowed digital transmissions!


-----------------------------
From k4cjx: Please read the petition closely. Currently, there are approximately 5 usable kHz available on 40 meters for wide-band digital operations and experimentation. Or, if you prefer, look at the 20 meter example above, or better yet, go to http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html and read the petition.
----------------------


If this is not also segregation by mode instead of only by bandwidth, I cannot understand why! In fact, the phone bands have not changed at all - they are now proposed to be shared with signals like Pactor-III.


----------------------
From k4cjx: In the long-run Pactor 3 will be replaced by Pactor 4, or SCAMP (Soundcard protocol almost as fast as Pactor 3) or some other protocol. Who knows...I can tell you that as the Winlink network administrator, I am not interested in the SSB portion of the band if I have an option not to be there.

However, analog SSB will most likely share with Digital Voice, Image and other yet to be developed Modes that hold the key to our Amateur future. I am not sure, no one is, but I certainly welcome the space to develop for the future.


Steve, k4cjx
Winlink network administrator
Winlink development team
Member ARRL ARESCOM Committee, and former member of the now retired, ARRL Digital Committee
-----------------------------


If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please contact me off this forum, but I think we last parted company with each holding his current beliefs.

73, Skip KH6TY

[k4cjx]

Posted: Sep. 23 2004,19:01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ed,

I did not recognize your callsign. I think our paths have paths crossed before on this issue. BTW, I am a registered Winlink user and quite familiar with Pactor.

I'd like to address your email step by step.

"To briefly answer your questions, the fundamental error in this thread is the false assumption that pactor contacts are made by robots."

This is not any error. It has been made very clear in the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee report that pactor contacts are NOT made by robots. However, the level of interference suggests that Pactor contacts are NOT made by listening first. That they are is a myth that Winlink likes to promote, but it IS the reason we have a higher observed level of interference than otherwise unless a contest is going on.


----------------------
From k4cjx: How anyone can claim that "Winlink users" are the ONLY people who don't listen first, before they transmit" ? We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our prejudices" and in this case, I can assure you that those who depend on Winlink for their safety and well-being" are careful about where they transmit. It is their only means of obtaining weather information and communications with their family and friends. Winlink users are also constantly knocked off a transmission by those who mistakenly transmit on their transmissions just like any other mode. It is enherent without channalization. People listen and do the best they can be it an ARQ protocol or any other.
------------------------


"Humans initiate the contacts by first listening to a channel to see if it is clear before throwing out a connect request. Anyone violating this principle is in direct violation of the FCC rules."

With all due respect, again, it is naive to believe they do listen first. As a sailor myself here in Charleston, I can guarantee you that it is much easier just to load email into Airmail and press a button to send it and not listen first. The noise of my engine often overrides anything I can hear from the VHF marine radio, much less from my transceiver.


-----------------------
From k4cjx: With all due respect, someone needs to use better isolation techniques. Would this not be true also for any mode used on the same vessel, including SSB, CW, PSK-31, etc.? Again, those offshore vessels who depend on Winlink connectivity for their safety and well-being, certainly do listen before they transmit. Do they listen better than the average amateur? I would imagine they are like the rest of us (outside of the contest arena)! Do they have other options when a frequency is busy? Of course they do. This is why Winlink stations scan multiple frequencies, and why these stations are totally transparent. If one is busy or a frequency is busy, then they move to a place that contains no on-going transmission. The purpose of scanning multiple frequencies is to give the initiating station options; thereby, reducing interference, not increasing it.
---------------------------


"When one considers the effective data rate vs bandwidth used, pactor-3 makes the most efficient use of available bandwidth limiting the time needed to transfer potentially life saving information. "

Regarding the difference in throughput of Pactor-II and Pactor-III for the typical email, please observe the following three weeks of data provided by the Winlink Network administrator. This is actual practice, not theory:

--------------------
From k4cjx: I, k4cjx, am the Winlink network administrator, and I wish to comment on what is below:
-----------------------

Data provided by the Winlink Administrator for the first three weeks of 2003, in which 13,182 emails were transferred by Pactor 1 and Pactor 2, which are 500 Hz wide, compared to 5,745 emails transferred by Pactor 3, which is 2400 hz wide,

--------------------
From k4cjx: Pactor 3 is 2100 hz bandwidth, not 2.4 as it was when it was first deployed.
--------------------

or "voice-bandwidth", shows only a 30% savings in time using a voice-bandwidth data mode, which uses 500% more space, than using a 500 Hz-wide data mode, such as Pactor 2:

Pactor 1 or Pactor 2

3631.9 2.9
7076.9 2.7
10123.9 1.9
14076.9 1.7
18103.9 1.7

Total 10.9

Avg: 2.18 minutes/message for Pactor 1/2 over 13,182 messages

Pactor-III

7103.7 1.8
10141.2 2.5
14106.7 1.3
18108.7 1.2

Total 6.8


Avg: 1.7 minutes/message for Pactor 3 over 5,745 messages


------------------------
From k4cjx: This is taken out of context and is not up to date, but that is okay, here is some info:

Pactor 1 has a maximum of 200 bps.

Pactor 2 has a maximum of 800 bps.

Pactor 3 has a maximum of 3600 bps.

As a practical matter and in the real world which depends on varying speed levels and turn around overhead, an 80,000 byte file will take approximately 80 minutes to transmit using Pactor 1. The same 80,000 byte file will take approximately 20 minutes to transmit the same file, while a Pactor 3 will take approximately 7 minutes to transfer the same file.

In 2003, the overhead for Pactor 3 was greater than for Pactor 2. With the recent firmware addition, this is no longer true. Version 3.4 maintains MUCH faster turn-around. In theory, nothing happens, but in the "real World," those who have access to both protocols use Pactor 3 because it pushes much more traffic in much less time. If it didn't, it would die on the vine. But this is only speaking about a current protocol. Many more are in process, including SCAMP (See TAPR Digital District Conference Paper on subject.) With some inititive on the part of those dealing with enhancing our digital protocols, new and more efficient protocols will come in the future as they have in the past.
--------------------


Therefore, voice-bandwidth data modes are an inefficient use of the spectrum for average-length email transfers, such as those handled daily by Winlink.


------------------------
From k4cjx: Again, anyone who has used both, will know better than to make this statement. There is a big difference between "reading the menu and eating the meal." Please give those who use this mode on a daily basis some credit for knowing what their options may be. They always make the choice of the most efficient protocol. Let me ask, what other options would you chose? There are others, of course, but there is currently no space to use them. Example: on 40 meters, there are only two frequencies cleared for wideband digital operation. Who wants to develop a protocol that has no room for expansion?
--------------------------


From your original post: I'd like you to look at 20 meters as an example:

The current regulations allow Pactor-III to be used when one or both parties are automatic from 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, and from 14.1005-14.112, which totals 16 KHz.

The ARRL proposal allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14100 to 14150, which is 50 KHz, and which is protected from SSB phone interference.

THEN, it also allows Pactor-III to be used if one side is automatic, from 14150 to 14350, which is 200KHz, mixing with SSB phone.

SSB phone is currently allowed from 14150 to 14350 WITHOUT mixing with Pactor-III or similar wideband modes.

If two modes are allowed in the previous space of one mode, how can your book support the claim, "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum."

By ADDING wideband modes, such as Pactor-III to the SSB phone bands, there is no way that interference to SSB phone will not increase! There are simply more stations trying to use the same space!


------------------------
From k4cjx: Some of those who read the proposed petition were completely against any regulatory movement. They say that the ARRL has gone too far, and, that it should be up to all those using the Amateur spectrum to use it as they see fit. One such organization touting this is the AARA on 14074, daily. They think, as do many others, that ALL regulatory restraints should be lifted. I personally do not agree, but I also think that sufficient space should be provided for Digital Voice, Image, and other new wider-band digital protocols. Without them, we are headed where we are currently going, down the tube! Winlink using Pactor is not the issue. It seems that those who oppose any change suggest that Winlink will "take over" the SSB bands. I think not. I would avoid SSB since there are specifically designated areas for digital only protocols. However, I would think that Digigal Voice and Digital Image would also share this space. I cannot answer for those modes or services, but I can speak for Winlink 2000.
--------------------------


You are obviously solidly in the Pactor or Winlink camp, which is your choice.


--------------------------
From k4cjx: Take a good look at Dr.(physics) Ed Jones site, http://ecjones.org/pactor.html, for an objective analysis of the protocols, and how they compare. And, please remember, there are many more digital modes to come as we advance in this hobby. By the way, from what I can tell, Ed's experience and background far exceed any "camp."
---------------------------


On here, we are trying to understand how the ARRL proposed petition affects everyone, without taking sides.
Your reference to the book is valuable to know, but I do not think your statement that "The ARRL band plan proposal closely tracks an extensive analysis designed to minimize interference between the different modes yet maximize the efficient use of our radio spectrum" is correct, and it has to be described as misleading unless you can show how putting an additional set of users into a space already filled by SSB phone will not result in more QRM instead of less.


----------------------
From k4cjx: I remember the same comment about how are we going to put SSB stations in the same space we put AM. If AM had been more efficient, it would have dominated the space provided for both. Again, it is not the objective of those running any particular protocol or "mode" to set themselves up to interfere with any other protocol. Let's please show some objectivity, and continue to develop more efficient and effective communications modes. We cannot afford to stop that process if we are to survive as a hobby.
---------------------------


While you are at it, perhaps you can offer an explanation how ARRL can, in one breath, call the proposed petition "segmentation by bandwidth" instead of by mode, and then, in another, prohibit large segments of the band to be used by SSB phone when it is of the same bandwidth as the allowed digital transmissions!


-----------------------------
From k4cjx: Please read the petition closely. Currently, there are approximately 5 usable kHz available on 40 meters for wide-band digital operations and experimentation. Or, if you prefer, look at the 20 meter example above, or better yet, go to http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html and read the petition.
----------------------


If this is not also segregation by mode instead of only by bandwidth, I cannot understand why! In fact, the phone bands have not changed at all - they are now proposed to be shared with signals like Pactor-III.


----------------------
From k4cjx: In the long-run Pactor 3 will be replaced by Pactor 4, or SCAMP (Soundcard protocol almost as fast as Pactor 3) or some other protocol. Who knows...I can tell you that as the Winlink network administrator, I am not interested in the SSB portion of the band if I have an option not to be there.

However, analog SSB will most likely share with Digital Voice, Image and other yet to be developed Modes that hold the key to our Amateur future. I am not sure, no one is, but I certainly welcome the space to develop for the future.


Steve, k4cjx
Winlink network administrator
Winlink development team
Member ARRL ARESCOM Committee, and former member of the now retired, ARRL Digital Committee
-----------------------------


If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please contact me off this forum, but I think we last parted company with each holding his current beliefs.

73, Skip KH6TY

[k4cjx]

http://www.winlink.org/Future.htm

Steve, k4cjx

[AE4TM]

Thanks for your opinion Bob,

Take the weekend and discuss your recent response with your family. Also ask whether or not you would change your response in a life or death situation. Also ask if you would change your mind if they thought you had a mental illness or not?

Dr Ed

[kc0jez]

Quote[/b] (kc9ggv @ Sep. 18 2004,08:31)]#Also, consider this, there are terrorists already in this country (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.). #Some of them are US citizens and can get or already have an amateur radio license. #

Then what is to stop them from using amateur radio to send messages and carryout plans for terrorist acts. #If that ever happens and it is proven that amateur radio was involved we will lose everything.
I doubt any terrorist group will bother with ham radio frequencies, what with all the possibilities for their signals to be loused up with various interference (what with the Pactor Robots, people tuning up without listening first, etc...) We have already provided terrorists with cheap, reliable, readily accessible, worldwide, privacy protected communications that work for voice and ditigal communications. We call them cell phones.

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Sep. 23 2004,22:30)]Thanks for your opinion Bob,

Take the weekend and discuss your recent response with your family. Also ask whether or not you would change your response in a life or death situation. Also ask if you would change your mind if they thought you had a mental illness or not?

Dr Ed
Dr Ed,

That's your response? Someone states an opinion, and you suggest that they have mental illness?

I guess if you had a real response, you wouldn't attack someone's character, and respond to the issues raised.

But again, you are using the same tactics.

73, Bob

[W0GI]

Dr Ed,

Here are some websites of interest.

(Sat Phone Plans / Rentals)

http://www.satphonestore.com
http://www.cellhire.com
http://www.globalstar
http://www.globalstarusa.com
http://www.satellitephonerental.com
http://www.4satellitephones.com
http://www.spiritwireless.com
http://www.globalcomsatphone.com

You can rent for as little as $40 a week, and you can carry it with you on your hike, and not have to wait until the end of the day to check your email.

Glad to help.

73, Bob

[AE4TM]

Wow Bob, your response only indicates how misinformed some hams are to the true importance of ham radio. The ARRL and FCC go to Congress each quarter to fight for our frequency priviledges and one of the most important reasons for our existence is emergency communications! Have you told the hurricane net that they should go to satellite phones and avoid SSB? I suspect not. Your response only seems to imply that we should not rely on amateur radio for life saving communications. Fortunately, the majority of ham radio operators know otherwise.

In case you were not a satellite cell phone operator two years ago, the service was not available at an affordable rate to resident physicians at the time.

This will be my final post to this thread because it appears your opinions are already fixed despite the FCC rules stating emergency communications as one of our purposes.

Dr. Ed

[W0GI]

Ed,

I believe emergency operations are the most important part of Ham radio. My concern is that the folks working SSB during the hurricanes might have problems with interference from Pactor robots.

I never said that you shouldn't use pactor, but pactor should not run other modes off the air, as those modes are also used for life and death situations.

My point is that all modes need reasonable protection from interference, and that we need to look at the big picture, and not have a narrow focus.

Take care, Bob

[n9lya]

Skip - Your wasting your time trying inject engineering logic with K4CJX. He and the guys who are
trying to defend the massive, deprecative to other modes, PROPOSED FCC rules changes necessary
to protect their slow,outdated, wideband, QRM causing WINLINK/PACTORIII thingee are
jokes, or worse.

Anyone who has played with PESTORIII, and WINLINK knows that this so called carrier detect
(anti-QRM) device called RADIO FREE he speaks of, will only detect a linked/arq pactor signal, and even that has to be defaulted OFF, so as to not make their frequency scans, puke !!!

There is nothing in this archaistic PESTOR robot scheme, that prevents it from QRM-ing CW,PSK31,
QPSK31,FSK, RTTY, MT64, sideband, AM, packet,FM,SSTV, or any other analog signal.

Riley Hollingworth already has better than 25 RECENT habitual QRM complaints about the PESTOR
robots.

There is a whole bunch of other lies floating around like traffic is being transmitted over PESTORIII.

It aint so here in Indiana.

I know you, Peter Martinez, Hank Oredson, Brian Lantz, Mike Pechura, Jeff Jacobson, and Roy
Engehausen have all "DONATED" your digital works to the general ham population.

Too bad that the guys whose wallets are being lined on this one, cant do the same.

There's an old saying here in Indiana about knowing the difference between your feckel area, and first
base -------------

Lets hope the ARRL finds first base --- SOON !

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

73 Jerry N9LYA

[W0GI]

I find it interesting, that there are already interference problems, yet the ARRL wants to expand this problem across the bands.

I would think that the current situation would show the dangers.

I really don't understand why the Winlink folks and the ARRL folks can't come up with a reasonable proposal that doesn't involve a card blanc to wideband digital across the phone bands.

I believe that they are making a very big mistake with the "I want it all" approach.

If this does go to the FCC, there will be a firestorm of comments against this, and absolutly nothing will change.

A lot of folks will be upset with the ARRL and Winlink, and they will not gain anything other then alienating a whole bunch of people, that at this point would be open to a reasonable plan and proposal.

I am already becoming wary of the doom and gloom tactics that have been used. Ham radio is not going to die if this is not implemented. No one has proved that any lives will be lost if this is not implemented. My view is that lives could be lost due to interference problems if it is implemented.

Ham radio will suffer with this implementation. More hard feelings. More fighting on the bands. More division in our hobby. More trouble involving the FCC.

What happens when Riley is flooded with complaints? What happens next hurricane season, when robots are transmitting over the top of emergency SSB?

Why is this proposal being pushed by a group that depends on a commercial German company that has a monopoly on the technology?

How can you have an emergeny network, when the majority of operators don't even have the hardware needed to use the network?

Why would you propose something that could cause interference to the vast majority of hams on HF that have and use SSB, and say that this proposal is good for emergency communications?

Do the math. Why should we buy into the argument that the 1% of the hams that have this technology, are going to improve emergency communications, while that technology causes interference to the majority of emergency communications using phone?

Why should we assume that Hams in Woodward, OK after an F5 tornado passes through, will have fancy SCS pactor boxes?

Come on. The reality is obvious.

I have nothing against Winlink, and the work done is a valuable addition to emergency communications. But it has to be controlled and not allowed to cause problems with the other modes that are used.

Come up with a reasonable plan and I might support it.

As it stands now, I will fight it every step of the way, and I beleive that the vast majority of hams will join that fight. I think change is needed, but this proposal is not the right change.

In the end, nothing will change due to the selfish interests of the few, and needed progress will suffer.

That is unfortionate.

73, Bob

[wq7j]

Ed,
First, hearing your tale helps remind me of the reason why I became a ham in the first place.
Second, the proposal by ARRL is flawed & needs to be withdrawn as it doesn't adequately address the needs of all HF users.

73 de Mark, WQ7J

[ab0wr]

<<<< This will be my final post to this thread because it appears your opinions are already fixed despite the FCC rules stating emergency communications as one of our purposes. >>>>

I notice you have said nothing about the issues I brought up about the book you referenced in your first post.

Do *you* actually have a copy of the book? Do *you* understand traffic engineering theory as applied to services such as channelized telecom services or piped sewer systems? Can *you* show how the theories apply and don't apply to the ARS?

If you can't answer these questions, I'll be working to get a copy and do so for you.

In fact, much of the ARS would be better analyzed using data network theory. In order to accomplish this you would need to know network utilization for the entire day, month, and year - probably down to the minute, certainly down to the 10 minute segment. To analyze digital modes you would need to know bandwidth utilization by protocol/mode for the same period. For the digital modes you would need to know frame error rates, especially frame error rates for different sized packets.

Pactor, in any mode, is entirely focused on speed - i.e. more and more bandwidth. First, if truly efficient frequency use were being engineered, speed would not be the only factor being considered. One of the pages k4cjx referenced, written by the FCC Chief, Office on Engineering and Technology, speaks of "bits per second per hertz of bandwidth" being the goal we should be aiming toward in the ARS. This is a laudable goal. Notice however, the statement says that we must temper the move to higher bits per second with the need to manage bandwidth.

The problem is that he also speaks of the ARS using digital techniques being able to "provides the opportunity or "headroom" for increases in data rates to more closely match those available on wireline networks and, in the future, on commercial wireless networks as well." This is truly a remarkable statement coming from someone who should have more technical knowledge concerning speed and bandwidth requirements. Wireline networks provide much, much higher speeds than the ARS can EVER provide, at least at HF frequencies.

I'll end by quoting the Part 97 regs:

Sec. 97.307 Emission standards.

(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than
necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted,
in accordance with good amateur practice.

If we take this to heart, we should be moving large movements of data to
low-utilization hours so that bandwidth impacts are minimized. High utiilization hours should only be used to transmit small text messages and only using small packets at any one time. Transmissions during high utilization periods should fall BACK to the lowest bandwidth possibility, not increase to the maximum bandwidth possibility. This should point those people engineering new protocols to be used on the ham bands to build in time considerations rather than just assuming faster is better. Going faster during high utilization periods should require positive operator intervention, not automatic ramping up. At a guess, I would allow wide bandwidth digital from 0400Z to 1100Z and 1500Z to 2100Z on HF. Anyother times would require the software to fall back to the SLOWEST level. (These periods are only offered up to stimulate discussion - I am totally open to any suggestion, as long as some effort of maximizing use for everyone is made).

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

"Therefore, voice-bandwidth data modes are an inefficient use of the spectrum for average-length email transfers, such as those handled daily by Winlink."


------------------------
From k4cjx: Again, anyone who has used both, will know better than to make this statement. There is a big difference between "reading the menu and eating the meal." Please give those who use this mode on a daily basis some credit for knowing what their options may be. They always make the choice of the most efficient protocol. Let me ask, what other options would you chose? There are others, of course, but there is currently no space to use them. Example: on 40 meters, there are only two frequencies cleared for wideband digital operation. Who wants to develop a protocol that has no room for expansion?

From ab0wr: I've used both. And those using the mode on a daily basis are tied to how the firmware works. The firmware does NOT follow the FCC rules and regs for:

Sec. 97.307 Emission standards.

(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than
necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted,
in accordance with good amateur practice.

Pactor automatically ramps ups the speed, thus increasing bandwidth used, reqardless of the information rate *required* with no regard to spectrum utilization. It therefore occupies MORE bandwidth than required. Future software using pactor should be written so that automatic stations will ramp DOWN speed during periods of high utilization and should require positive user intervention for speed increase while using manual operation during periods of high utilization.

Remember, efficiency is not just meaured in speed.

---------------------------
from k4cjx

"I also think that sufficient space should be provided for Digital Voice, Image, and other new wider-band digital protocols. Without them, we are headed where we are currently going, down the tube! Winlink using Pactor is not the issue. It seems that those who oppose any change suggest that Winlink will "take over" the SSB bands. I think not. I would avoid SSB since there are specifically designated areas for digital only protocols. However, I would think that Digigal Voice and Digital Image would also share this space. I cannot answer for those modes or services, but I can speak for Winlink 2000."

First, ham radio is NOT going down the tubes. That's a canard put out by those wishing to make an emotional appeal rather than a factual appeal. I handle a lot of the traffic going into the Tenth region. A lot of it are congratulatory messages going to new hams. There are a lot of new hams coming on board.

Second, the problem is not WINLINK taking over the SSB bands. It is digital data taking over the SSB bands. If you want to drive ham radio down the tubes, then put wideband digital in with SSB equipment unable to handle the interference. You will loose a large number of SSB operators. That will be the end of ham radio.

Third, while YOU may avoid the SSB bands, once wide bandwidth digital is legal in the SSB subbands, you can bet there will be stations that will move there. And it *will* cause huge interference problems.

From k4cjx: I remember the same comment about how are we going to put SSB stations in the same space we put AM. If AM had been more efficient, it would have dominated the space provided for both. Again, it is not the objective of those running any particular protocol or "mode" to set themselves up to interfere with any other protocol. Let's please show some objectivity, and continue to develop more efficient and effective communications modes. We cannot afford to stop that process if we are to survive as a hobby.

First, SSB *WAS* more efficient than AM - both in terms of bandwidth, usability under marginal conditions, and in COST. SSB transmitters could be made much cheaper with the same communication capability.

It has yet to be shown that *ANY* digital mode in use today is more efficient than SSB - at least for the use for which SSB is used today and in terms of bandwidth, usability, and in cost.

Second, while the *objective* of any proposal may not to be to set themselves up to interfere with any other protocol that doesn't mean that the proposal won't cause that to happen. True objectivity requires analyzing the effects of a proposal, not the "purpose" of those making the proposal.

If the new digital modes are truly more efficient and effective communication modes then they should be able to flourish in LESS bandwidth than the modes they are supposedly to supplant. Where does that bandwidth exist today? Probably in the upper portion of the cw subbands on most HF bands and in the VHF/UHF bands. If these communication modes are more efficient and effective than SSB then they should be more efficient and effective than say FM or PSK. Let's prove that efficiency and effectiveness where the most usable bandwidth exists and where the least amount of interference will occur to existing modes. Once that efficiency and effectiveness has been proved, then perhaps supplanting SSB can be broached again as an effective strategy.

tim ab0wr