Suppressed Report Becomes Public [Archive]

ky5u

09-29-2004, 03:55 PM

The Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Finally Revealed

The Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation has just been secured from the ARRL Newington by K3HRN. There is little doubt from the alleged threats of litigation and general acts of obfuscation that some in the ARRL did not want the general membership to see this plan. #The plan can now be viewed at http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html

History

Last month the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) of Newington, Ct. released the draft of a basic frequency allocation plan based on bandwidth( http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html ). The plan was as a result of reccommendations by a digital Ad-Hoc Committee formed two years earlier by League officials. The plan stirred lively debate when it became evident that the Ad Hoc Committee was not totally behind the report, and that the supporters of Winlink 2000 had allegedly taken over the meetings. #

The Ad-Hoc Committee report alluded to another report forthcoming by dissenting member Skip Teller, but as time progressed it came to the attention of many Amateurs that Newington was reportedly putting significant pressure on Teller not to release the plan. In conversations with Mr. Teller, he refused to reveal report contents until legal threats had been addressed by his lawyer. Thanks to efforts by Thomas LaCosta, k3HRN, we now have a window into the process.

What the Dissenting Plan Reveals

The first paragraphs of the Dissenting Plan seem to confirm all suspicions about the irregularities thus far only rumored from the Ad-Hoc Committee.

Quote[/b] ]The ARRL hfdigital committee majority recommendation [hfdigital:284] was composed and written jointly by the Winlink author, W5SMM, and the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX, and then rubber-stamped, without comment except for typo corrections, by the Winlink supporters on the committee, WA1LOU and K0PFX. All alternative recommendations were totally ignored #by the chairman and Winlink supporters. At no time during the committee discussions did WA1LOU or K0PFX submit any independent comments or suggestions except for corrections. The chairman of the committee, who is also the Winlink software author, consistently shut off discussion prematurely and forced a vote, which was naturally won by the Winlink majority, eventually resulting in the resignation of the widely respected Peter Martinez, G3PLX, in protest for having his views silenced.

Alleged efforts to suppress the Dissenting Plan could be understandable in light of the "dirty laundry" it airs. #It offers a rare glimpse into the politics and workings of the League that have only been rumored in the past. The League could be putting itself in a position where credibility is weakened just when it is needed the most, to fight the BPL menace. Likewise, it casts a shadow over their Petition for Rulemaking which called for a new "Novice" class operator and removal of telegraphy testing. Members had no say in that plan as well.

What The ARRL Plan Does

In a recent article on QRZ.COM, Harold "Skip" Teller (KH6TY) highlighted his impression of what the plan does:

Quote[/b] ]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.

Other ARRL members have been concerned that the plan was not voted on by the membership and therefore does not represent the feelings of ARRL members. #Then as more information became available, the schism within the Ad-Hoc Committee and the overbearing presence of the Winlink 2000 people is becomming evident.

Although the ARRL requested comments on the plan ( bandwidth@arrl.org ), there have been no statistics offered by the League as to how many responses have been received, and how many either support or do not support the plan. #Several members have written letters to ARRL President Jim Haynie asking the plan be pulled and issues concerning the irregularities with the Ad-Hoc Committee be addressed. #Thus far from Newington, "mum" has been the word.

In the Dissenting Plan, Skip Teller offers his reccomendation for immediate League action:

Quote[/b] ]Recommendations:

Submission of such a bandplan is clearly outside the charter of the hfdigital committee, and should be left up to a new committee, officially chartered to address Minute 64, which must consist of members representing the entire range of operating interests - CW, data, and phone - and not dictated by a committee already unbalanced in favor of a special interest group.

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

The eyes of Amateurs everywhere are on the ARRL to see if they admit their problems and offer plans to remedy any shortcommings, or if League officials continue in the denial mode. Members should make their feelings known to League Directors. http://www.arrl.org/divisions/

Whatever side you find yourself on in this issue, make your feelings known.

N5UV

10-05-2004, 05:03 AM

Okay, I read the outline that Skip detailed. #I complained to the ARRL, and they replied that the new bandplan proposal would fix a lot of these problems that are supposedly going to occur if the new bandplan is approved. #What gives?

Since I don't know who to believe any more, can someone direct me to a spot where I can 1) read the actual proposed bandplan and 2) see where these possible "holes" are occurring? #I'm sure it's buried in legal-language mumbo-jumbo, but I'd sure like to know more info. before I decide to unleash the attack dogs on somebody.

**PS - I do agree that all this backroom decisionmaking seems counter-intuitive to the democratic process. #If I can vote in national elections or cast a ballot as a company shareholder, why in the world don't we as ARRL members get to vote on stuff like this?**

Tnx...DL

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 07:25 AM

I'd like to point out that the threat of legal action was made by a member of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, and NOT by the ARRL as a whole, but since it will never be known how many were actually behind the threat, I had to take it seriously and refuse to personally publish the Dissenting Recommendation, because it is an internal ARRL document. I am glad to see that the ARRL has now seen fit to release the document upon request.

As you can see from the ARRL announcement of August 10, the Dissenting Recommendation was not published along with the committee majority report, but merely noted, and I do not know if it even was available to the Board members when the proposed petition was twice reviewed by Board members as reported. One would hope that it must not have been!

It would only be fair to all the members for ARRL to publish the Dissenting Recommendation online, for everyone to see, as was done with the majority recomendation, so final comments can be based the merits of both recommendations, and not just one.

However, to insure that it is completely unbiased in the details, any proposed petition that affects everyone so greatly should be produced by a NEW, balanced, committee of experts, representing ALL interests and not just those of a special interest, with the goal of providing a space for everyone to operate his chosen way without undue interference to everyone else.

In this regard, ANY form of unattended, automatic, operation must be legally separated from every other type of operation by confining it to a separate, contiguous, space, because the unattended operations have steadfastly refused to voluntarily do so. That way, everyone else will know where the unattended operations are so they can be avoided, and the unattended operations will not interfere with everyone else. This form of essential forced separation is a totally separate issue, and must not be confused with the benefits that might be gained from a bandplan that segments the bands by emitted bandwidth.

This can be most simply accomplished, without any major revision of the current FCC regulations, just by repealing only Part 97.221, Subpart C, which would also find easy acceptance by all other IARU regions.

73, Howard "Skip" Teller, KH6TY

aa1mn

10-05-2004, 12:29 PM

Am I the only one who feels greatly disenfranchised by all this nonsensical hoopla?

Are my feelings justified?

This reminds me of an experience I had when I was going for my first license when I had made a comment to one of the other applicants to the effect that the rules, regulations and bands of amateur radio were always subject to change ... one of the VEs who overheard this remark brazenly and steadfastly refuted this statement, possibly thinking that since I was "new" to amateur radio I wouldn't know otherwise, not realizing I had been interested for quite a number of years prior and had known quite differently.

When I pointed this out to this "gentleman" he quite huffily said that was not the case and proceeded to make himself scarce.

This should've been a sign right then and there what I was in for getting involved in this to begin with.

Now I'm a few years older and, thankfully, a bit wiser as well.

Chuck, AA1MN

wa3vjb

10-05-2004, 01:14 PM

ARRL officials, and by that we include paid staff and volunteer administrators, are not accustomed to being told what to do by individual members, nor challenged against what some of their ringleaders wish to pursue as a "vision."

They're living in the past, when their proceedings could be held in secret AND the ink would be dry on the results by the time details were published in their magazine, QST.

These days, such activity is discovered and analysed far more quickly, thanks to rapid means of communications and an amateur population with broader interests than the publishing and lobbying activity that are the League's primary concern.

Although it was initially encouraging to see sunlight on a "draft" proposal, it was the result of closed-door (some would say backroom) activity, and presented as a fait accompli for us to react to.

The ARRL's leadership could have avoided the contoversy now seen over its threatened bandwidth petition had they kept in mind the alarmed response generated by the poorly-written "Minute" #from their board meeting a couple of years ago.

ARRL President Haynie, #ARRL CEO Dave Sumner, and various Board Members were grilled by members and non-members alike, and were prompted to explain themselves as to the composition and agenda of the "ad hoc committee" this board meeting had commissioned.

Haynie, in an emailed response to my query, specifically stated a "what if" scenario that the panel could indeed go beyond its mission of trying to find a place for novel digital modes and instead yield a proposal for an overhaul of today's voluntary band planning and coordination of activities.

You see the result.

Don't count on getting a response from this group. I bet the draft is soon quietly withdrawn, accompanied by a vague explanation of there being "technical issues" rather than acknowledgement of the broad opposition seen.

There certainly will be no admission that the idea was poorly conceived, lacked concensus, and did not rest on a solid premise.

Your first clue was from Haynie, as you saw on this website, who vanished from discussions underway when he was unable to answer legitimate and respectfully-expressed questions.

My own director had this to say, and I've seen no other Director comments that shed more light.

-------------- Original message from "Bernard E. Fuller" : --------------

> Paul -
> I appreciate your comments on the bandwidth petition. They obviously
> represent the feelings of the AM special interest segment of Amateur
Radio.
> I will not, however, enter into a discussion of MY support or non-support
of
> the petition.
> Please excuse my delay in answering your email. I have been unavailable
> for several days.
>
> 73, Bernie Fuller-N3EFN
> Director, Atlantic Division
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WA3VJB
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:40 AM
> To: n3efn@arrl.org
> Subject: proposed bandwidth petition
>
>
> Bernie:
>
> Please give me your thoughts that have prompted you to support or dispute
> the ARRL's plans to propose a petition to coordinate our HF activities by
> bandwidth rather than mode.
>
> I am among those in the AM community who are concerned that the tentative
> wording relegates AM as a footnote, rigidly constrains bandwidth
regardless
> of band conditions, and that the basis for the overall proposal is not on
> solid ground.
>
> I have sent to the bandwidth@arrl.org email alias a list of points that
> probably will make its way to you separately, if you are among the people
> signed up as recipients.
>
> I would like to include your response to this email today, including
> point-by-point replies to my concerns expressed to the email alias, in a
> discussion getting underway on the AM website www.amfone.net.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul/VJB

ky5u

10-05-2004, 02:14 PM

Hi Skip,

My notes on your quote said ARRL. No problem. You were there and I was not so I edited the quote to reflect your correction. Please understand that I take pride in reporting these issues completely factually. Please read my article again and if there are any other corrections, I will be happy to discuss with you.

Same for the ARRL.

This is a controversial issue to be sure. I have an opinion on the subject, but I will not share it here. I will say that the "silent majority" in the ARRL plays a large part in the reported ARRL disfunction. Being silent implies agreement. Not renewing your membership hurts the rest of the Amateur population, not the ARRL.

I believe that the ARRL officers are good people in bad habits. I feel they want to do the right thing, and in the past, making ad hoc decisions was the status quo. This is not an attack on people, but a comment on "good ol boy" policies that need to be changed.

10-05-2004, 02:45 PM

Skip,

I was going to reply privately, but I felt that a public discourse is a valuable thing and PERHAPS others have the same questions as I do about your post.

I'm NOT against dissent.. far from it. Dissent is a good thing and promotes debate.

here are my few questions..

1) How many members were on the board that produced the plan and what was the vote?

<where I'm going with this is as follows.. If you had (for example) 9 members and 7 said 'YES!' and 3 said 'NO', then you have a majority vote and it passes.

NOW.. the 3 'no' votes are dissenting from the majority and CAN produce a 'dissenting view opinion paper' as you have done.

There are 4 hams, specifically ID'd by callsign who obviously voted 'Yes' and 2 hams (you as the author of the item and G3PLX) identified as a 'NO'.

2) How can YOUR opinion, written and authored by you be considered 'ARRL property'? It's yours and therefore they can't sue you for it - assuming its' not libelous. Therefore you are free to write whatever you want when you want.

I can, and do, understand HOW the ARRL document is their property. However, since the ARRL plan we all saw in the public domain WAS published in the public domain, you could have quoted from it freely (as long as you gave the owners of the work the proper credit for it since it IS their property)

How can they possibly REALISTICALLY take any sort of legal action - beyond 'threats' of possible legal action?

While I read your post with interest AND I do concur that automated systems pose a GREAT and GRAVE threat to the rest of us 'non-automated humans' http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .. I draw the conclusion that your upset has more to do with a couple things.

1) You feel that the universe of amateur radio ops who use the HF band WERE not adequately represented, and their interests not adequately provided for in the final 'draft' proposal.

2) You feel that the automated systems, as you believe they will be installed, will QUICKLY expand their range of activities and choke off any other use due to the expected automated 'come in and take over' nature of their operations.

3) You feel that insufficient input/weight was given to dissenting points of view, both by those on the committee as well as non-digital users of amateur HF bands.

73
Chuck K3FT

W0GI

10-05-2004, 03:13 PM

Beyond the problems I see with Pactor robots across the bands, there is the problem of identity on interfering robots.

How can we self-police the bands, when you need to spend $800 + for an SCS box?

As far as I know, there is no way to decode all modes of Pactor, without buying an SCS box.

So we have interference problems, yet 99% of hams can't identify the station causing interference.

This is an issue that should be addressed at present, before we even consider spreading the problem across more bandwidth.

Winlink and SCS should step up to the plate and address these issues, and become good neighbors first, before this goes any farther.

73, #Bob

N9IV

10-05-2004, 03:16 PM

It does appear to me that there were some things done that reflect questionable ethics on the part of the ARRL.

When these matters are being considered, it hardly seems ethical to put strong proponents of WinLink who have something to gain personally on the committee. In all fairness, it also does not seem ethical to have put Peter Martinez, a strong proponent of PSK-31, on the committee. The committee should be comprised of people with no personal stake in any of the technologies.

73, Russ Eberhart N9IV

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote[/b] (K3FT @ Oct. 05 2004,07:45)]Skip,

I was going to reply privately, but I felt that a public discourse is a valuable thing and PERHAPS others have the same questions as I do about your post.

I'm NOT against dissent.. far from it. Dissent is a good thing and promotes debate.

here are my few questions..

1) How many members were on the board that produced the plan and what was the vote?

<where I'm going with this is as follows.. If you had (for example) 9 members and 7 said 'YES!' and 3 said 'NO', then you have a majority vote and it passes.

NOW.. the 3 'no' votes are dissenting from the majority and CAN produce a 'dissenting view opinion paper' as you have done.

There are 4 hams, specifically ID'd by callsign who obviously voted 'Yes' and 2 hams (you as the author of the item and G3PLX) identified as a 'NO'.

2) How can YOUR opinion, written and authored by you be considered 'ARRL property'? It's yours and therefore they can't sue you for it - assuming its' not libelous. Therefore you are free to write whatever you want when you want.

I can, and do, understand HOW the ARRL document is their property. However, since the ARRL plan we all saw in the public domain WAS published in the public domain, you could have quoted from it freely (as long as you gave the owners of the work the proper credit for it since it IS their property)

How can they possibly REALISTICALLY take any sort of legal action - beyond 'threats' of possible legal action? #

While I read your post with interest AND I do concur that automated systems pose a GREAT and GRAVE threat to the rest of us 'non-automated humans' #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #.. #I draw the conclusion that your upset has more to do with a couple things.

1) You feel that the universe of amateur radio ops who use the HF band WERE not adequately represented, and their interests not adequately provided for in the final 'draft' proposal.

2) You feel that the automated systems, as you believe they will be installed, will QUICKLY expand their range of activities and choke off any other use due to the expected automated 'come in and take over' nature of their operations.

3) You feel that insufficient input/weight was given to dissenting points of view, both by those on the committee as well as non-digital users of amateur HF bands.

73
Chuck K3FT
Chuck,

1) There were six members on the committee (it was actually not a "board", but an advisory capacity to the ARRL Board), and before the final vote, Peter Martinez quit, leaving five members, two of which were Winlink Development Team members, and one of which was appointed chairman.

After complaints about how the committee was being run, the chairman recused himself, but reserved the right to break any tie vote with his own and the other Winlink member then submitted a bandplan for him.

The vote for that bandplan was three in favor and one against (my vote). Unable to sign on to the majority bandplan, which I considered outside the committee charter anyway, I had no choice but to submit the Dissenting Recommendation. I think anyone else would have done the same thing!

2) I was one of the members, all selected by Jim Haynie for the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, and the meetings were by a closed email reflector. The recommendations were to be given to Dave Sumner. As such I considered the recommendations to be private unless otherwise instructed.

I do not think any report I submit to the ARRL as an appointed committee member can be considered libelous, since it is expected to be my honest report and recommendation from the committee. However, if I publish to the outside world anything that can be considered libelous or defamatory, then I might be accused of purposely trying to defame someone. So, for this reason, I have never published my Dissenting Recommendation myself outside of the ARRL officials and the Board of Directors.

Hey, this is a HOBBY, and I was asked by the president of the ARRL to provide input as part of an ARRL committee. There is no reason why I should have to wind up endangering my own financial future with the risk of a lawsuit! So, I felt I was not able to independently publish my Dissenting Recommendation without risking a lawsuit. The ARRL officials were free to disseminate the document to the Board members, as they should have done, and which they finally did, I suppose, but perhaps too late for the proposed petition review, and free to publish it for the members to compare to the committee report, which, as far as I know, has not yet been done.

I agree with your final points, but let me say that I am just a radio amateur like the rest of you, and ham radio has been my life and my love for fifty years. I could not in good conscience sign on to any proposal that I felt could do so much harm to everyone else, so I had no choice but to either quit the committee, or stick it out and submit what I felt was a good recommendation. I have no other agenda, and never have had.

I do think that my point of view, since I was appointed to the committee, is just as valid as the majority point of view, and should receive equal publication and consideration.

I believe both viewpoints should be judged only on their merits, regardless of how they may have come about.

73, Skip KH6TY

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 05 2004,08:13)]Beyond the problems I see with Pactor robots across the bands, there is the problem of identity on interfering robots.

How can we self-police the bands, when you need to spend $800 + for an SCS box?

As far as I know, there is no way to decode all modes of Pactor, without buying an SCS box.

So we have interference problems, yet 99% of hams can't identify the station causing interference.

This is an issue that should be addressed at present, before we even consider spreading the problem across more bandwidth.

Winlink and SCS should step up to the plate and address these issues, and become good neighbors first, before this goes any farther.

73, #Bob

Bob, as one of the DigiPan team members, I have long wished to include Pactor-II receive (and now Pactor-III receive) so we can identify the interfering Pactor signals as we can already do with Pactor-I.

However, two years ago, our DigiPan coding genius, UT2UZ, asked SCS for additional information to enable us to do that, and so did I, and Hans-Peter Helfert's (SCS) reply was simply, "...not to be disclosed." And, he added, "Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow".

So, it is my opinion that the requirement to document Pactor-II publicly has not been sufficiently met, but Winlink and SCS surely know that it would take a legal challenge to determine that.

What I think is missing is an ARRL board of true expert technical review to determine if any protocol is sufficiently documented, and that result should be open to peer review and challenge.

In addition, the F6FBB BBS protocol, presumably used only for compression, is often used for a lot of transfers and that protocol is impossible to read as a third party (according to the author), which means that it is impossible to determine if the message content is commercial or any other unallowed content. How can we police the bands ourselves if we are blocked, either technically, or financially (as you point out), from determining if transmissions are within that allowed by the regulations?

All of your points are very well made!

73, Skip KH6TY

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote[/b] (N9IV @ Oct. 05 2004,08:16)]It does appear to me that there were some things done that reflect questionable ethics on the part of the ARRL.

When these matters are being considered, it hardly seems ethical to put strong proponents of WinLink who have something to gain personally on the committee. #In all fairness, it also does not seem ethical to have put Peter Martinez, a strong proponent of PSK-31, on the committee. #The committee should be comprised of people with no personal stake in any of the technologies.

73, Russ Eberhart N9IV
Russ,

My opinion is that expert representation of ALL interest areas is essential. I.e., balanced representation of all interests such as IARU, CW, QRP, SSB phone, contesting, RTTY, PSK31, Winlink, SSTV, emergency communications, HF packet, experimenters, etc.

If you have a committee composed of those with no specific interest, it will probably be incapable of providing the expert recommendations needed.

The task of coming up with a total rewrite of FCC regulations, that is as fair as possible to everyone, is a daunting one, to be sure, but if it is going to be done, it needs to be done in such a way that is worthy of the far-reaching impact on all interests of our diverse hobby.

73, Skip KH6TY

kr1st

10-05-2004, 05:05 PM

Hi there,

FWIW, my wife and I have spoken in person to two ARRL representatives this past weekend about this issue. They told us that the bandwidth proposal has been withdrawn by President Haynie and that the withdrawal will not be publicly announced. No reasons were given why it would not be announced.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote[/b] (N5UV @ Oct. 04 2004,22:03)]Okay, I read the outline that Skip detailed. #I complained to the ARRL, and they replied that the new bandplan proposal would fix a lot of these problems that are supposedly going to occur if the new bandplan is approved. #What gives?

Since I don't know who to believe any more, can someone direct me to a spot where I can 1) read the actual proposed bandplan and 2) see where these possible "holes" are occurring? #I'm sure it's buried in legal-language mumbo-jumbo, but I'd sure like to know more info. before I decide to unleash the attack dogs on somebody.

**PS - I do agree that all this backroom decisionmaking seems counter-intuitive to the democratic process. #If I can vote in national elections or cast a ballot as a company shareholder, why in the world don't we as ARRL members get to vote on stuff like this?**

Tnx...DL
DL,

Check out the links on this page: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/25/1/?nc=1

The "holes" are hard to find, but basically, they were created like this:

1. Declare "autoforwarding" illegal.

2. If autoforwarding is illegal, then eliminate the FCC-allocated subbands where autoforwarding is now legal, since they are no longer needed for autoforwarding.

3. However, those same subbands also serve to contain unattended digital operations from speading into the phone bands, and unattended operations over 500 Hz in width from being used elsewhere. So, by rewriting the section (97.221), as the proposed petition does, unattended operations under 500 Hz in width can now spread all over the phone bands if so desired, and those over 500 Hz in width can now spread all over the phone bands if desired, since they are of the same width as ssb phone.

Clever, isn't it!

Now, how apparent was that, even with a second reading?

You do not need to figure out whom to believe, because with enough serious study the truth is contained somewhere within the current Part 97 rules and the proposed petition. You just have to discover where it is hiding!

I welcome any corrections to my own analysis.

73, Skip KH6TY

KD5ILI

10-05-2004, 05:52 PM

Quote[/b] ]Okay, I read the outline that Skip detailed. I complained to the ARRL, and they replied that the new bandplan proposal would fix a lot of these problems that are supposedly going to occur if the new bandplan is approved. What gives?

That sounds like a John Kerry plan.....

Chris Sokol/KD5ILI
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
http://skywarn.kd5ili.com/forum/

10-05-2004, 06:10 PM

Skip:

Thanks for pointing out that any legal action mentioned is NOT from the ARRL. I am informed of all and any litigation that the League may be involved, and not once has your name been brought up at any time or for any reason. I want to make this clear.

I thank you for your work on the committee and also for your view as published. It is informative and also helpful.
As far as all the other "blue sky" stuff about people making millions, "forced" to buy expensive equipment, no comment. Y'all are having too much fun.

My challenge still stands....come up with something better that will work with sound cards. As Skip knows there is work being done on new systems that look pretty good so keep up the good work. EOM

W0GI

10-05-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Oct. 05 2004,09:24)]Bob, as one of the DigiPan team members, I have long wished to include Pactor-II receive (and now Pactor-III receive) so we can identify the interfering Pactor signals as we can already do with Pactor-I.

However, two years ago, our DigiPan coding genius, UT2UZ, asked SCS for additional information to enable us to do that, and so did I, and Hans-Peter Helfert's (SCS) reply was simply, "...not to be disclosed." And, he added, "Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow".

So, it is my opinion that the requirement to document Pactor-II publicly has not been sufficiently met, but Winlink and SCS surely know that it would take a legal challenge to determine that.

What I think is missing is an ARRL board of true expert technical review to determine if any protocol is sufficiently documented, and that result should be open to peer review and challenge.

In addition, the F6FBB BBS protocol, presumably used only for compression, is often used for a lot of transfers and that protocol is impossible to read as a third party (according to the author), which means that it is impossible to determine if the message content is commercial or any other unallowed content. How can we police the bands ourselves if we are blocked, either technically, or financially (as you point out), from determining if transmissions are within that allowed by the regulations?

All of your points are very well made!

73, Skip KH6TY
Wow, that is the answer from SCS?

>>>>>>>>>
"Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow".?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?
>>>>>>>>>

I think that the FCC, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security might have a different take on that.

Ham radio is not a private service. #Ham radio is a public service. #If you have something to hide, you should not use ham radio.

Did Hans-Peter Helfert happen to miss out on what happened 9/11/2001. #His answer is irresponsible at best.

Due to the proprietary nature of the modes, they are really skirting the encryption rules. #At the very least, SCS should supply software to allow monitoring of their modes. #2 way users would still buy his boxes.

I wonder if Helfert would change his mind, if the FCC happened to outlaw Pactor II / III in the US?

A few letters to congress, might start that ball rolling. A ball could run over the entire hobby.

The SCS position, or any position that creates a dark unmonitored area of communications on the ham bands is big trouble. #It is not in the best interest of safety or ham radio.

This is the perfect weapon to give the BPL lobby, to shut us down and get us out of the way.

Headline:

"Terror cell uses ham radio to coordinate attacks"

Guess what happens after you see that on CNN http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I wish some folks would think things through, and stop thinking about their bank statements.

Hello, there are a bunch of creeps out there that want to kill us. #Let's not make it any easier for them, please.

The ham bands need open communications, easily monitored by anyone. #That's just common sense.

73, Bob

ke4pjw

10-05-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Oct. 04 2004,10:24)]Bob, as one of the DigiPan team members, I have long wished to include Pactor-II receive (and now Pactor-III receive) so we can identify the interfering Pactor signals as we can already do with Pactor-I.

However, two years ago, our DigiPan coding genius, UT2UZ, asked SCS for additional information to enable us to do that, and so did I, and Hans-Peter Helfert's (SCS) reply was simply, "...not to be disclosed." And, he added, "Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow".

So, it is my opinion that the requirement to document Pactor-II publicly has not been sufficiently met, but Winlink and SCS surely know that it would take a legal challenge to determine that.
Very interesting. So I can sell "black boxes" for use of an undocumented digital mode over the ham bands. Mmmm, does not seem to be in the spirit of ham radio to me. I am an Internet weenie and I expect protocols to be published for the purposes of interoperability. I suppose you don't have to be interoperable so long as you are not attempting to obscure the meaning of the message.

Someone needs to "fix" that nebulas part of the regulations.

ky5u

10-05-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote[/b] ]KR1ST:..my wife and I have spoken in person to two ARRL representatives this past weekend about this issue. They told us that the bandwidth proposal has been withdrawn by President Haynie and that the withdrawal will not be publicly announced.

Jim (JBP),

Glad you joined us and perhaps you can confirm the status of the proposal. Has it been withdrawn as ST reports above?

Thanks and your input is always welcomed. Keep us straight!

n9lya

10-05-2004, 07:44 PM

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 05 2004,11:10)]Skip:

Thanks for pointing out that any legal action mentioned is NOT from the ARRL. I am informed of all and any litigation that the League may be involved, and not once has your name been brought up at any time or for any reason. I want to make this clear.

I thank you for your work on the committee and also for your view as published. It is informative and also helpful.
As far as all the other "blue sky" stuff about people making millions, "forced" to buy expensive equipment, no comment. Y'all are having too much fun.

My challenge still stands....come up with something better that will work with sound cards. As Skip knows there is work being done on new systems that look pretty good so keep up the good work. EOM

Hello Jim,

Thank you very much for the assurances. I have done my best to be completely honest and unbiased in my evaluations and observations, and I hope you still find that to be true after all the dust settles.

I still believe the ARRL desires to represent the average radio amateur, even though mistakes might be made along the way. Those who feel differently might wonder why the proposed petition was floated out for comment in the first place. To me that definitely indicated a desire on the part of ARRL to listen to the members first before casting something in stone.

You asked us to come up with hard data to support our reasonings, and I have tried to do that, as included in the Dissenting Recommendation. This effort is not over, however, as I am having a network traffic analysis worked up to determine just how much space is needed by a store-and-forward system. I have already completed my own preliminary study which shows that the current FCC-allocated subbands for automatically controlled digital stations are more than adequate to handle even double the current traffic. I am having this additional workup done in order to justify my claim that those subbands are already sufficiently large enough, and that if the email Pactor robots would only relocate to those frequencies and manage them efficiently, the QRM problem would be solved in an instant! I'll forward the results to you when they are available.

BTW, I have also generated a CD-ROM that contains a new German program, called hfterm, that will receive AND send Pactor-I on the soundcard! Steve Ford has already personally received a copy, but had some trouble getting it going. I have sent him some suggestions and am just waiting for his further tests after his family room remodel is finished and he again has access to his home computer. You might want to talk to Steve about that program and let's see if it can be made to work.

The communications CD runs on any Windows computer, or even any computer without Windows, because it runs Linux (which is free!), totally in RAM, only saving data to the Windows hard disk. It can also be totally installed on a hard disk dedicated to Linux, or on a double-boot system (requires more technical prowess). There are literally hundreds of reliable IBM 400 MHz retired computers on eBAYavailable for $50-$60 each that I have certified to run the CD. I have purchased six of them myself and every one works reliably and plenty fast enough for ham radio use.

I think hfterm is well worth pursuing as an alternative to Pactor-II because it is a free, open source, program. One should be able to carry around the CD in a coat pocket and just run it on any computer equipped with a soundcard interface and pass traffic using Pactor-I.

While Pactor-I is not as fast as Pactor-II for the same bandwidth, since we are talking about a store-and-forward email system, it might not make much difference if it takes a little longer to pass traffic, as there will probably often be a much longer delay getting around to reading the email on the receiving end anyway. For emergency traffic that requires more immediate response (and immediate acknowledgement!) a store-and-forward system is probably not adequate compared to other options that are more immediate.

For example, I understand that Australia requires offshore vessels to carry radio equipment for safety-of-life communications and not depend upon a store-and-forward system, such as Winlink, which is one reason why Winlink was not approved by the Australian authorities, or at least it used to be that way. Another reason given is that it gives access to anyone to the public-switched network, which is not allowed.

This might be a problem with Winlink also. Using only my computer, I recently tried to send a dummy "commercial content" email through the Winlink system to a cooperating remote Winlink user, and got a rejection message saying the system was for ham use only, and I was not a registered Winlink user. However, a web site on which to register was also given, so I went there, registered in 5 seconds, and successfully sent my dummy commercial message over the air to my cooperating remote user!

Hmmmmm...looks like anybody can do this, even if he is not a ham operator (I used my wife's email account for this test!), but I think there has to be a cooperating ham operator on the receiving end to log in to the Winlink system over the air. Still, the implications of this are worrisome. Note that the "commercial" message was transmitted over the airways using ham radio frequencies, to my cooperating Winlink remote station, once it left the PMBO station, and would have been in violation of the regulations if it really had been a commercial message.

Anyway, take a good look at hfterm and see what can be done with it as an alternative to Pactor-II. Meanwhile, as you know, there is another effort underway, so it may be best to just wait a little longer for these developments to mature more.

Thanks for being so understanding, and rest assured I will continue to try to be the same.

73, Skip KH6TY

10-05-2004, 08:41 PM

No Charlie, nothing to withdraw, as nothing has been filed. I continously scratch my head when observing the amateur community. We put a story out a bandwidth proposal for comment and it is damn if we do and damn if we don't. We have over 500 comments now and it is virtually all over the map. It really comes down to the individual's interest. That is fine, as we did ask for input.

I felt that Skip's comment earlier was very accurate and to the point. One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery.

This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.

We have gotten many good comments and ideas. Will everyone be pleased? No, of course not, but as a special interest group we must come to grips with the fact that change is always going to happen.

Jim

na4it

10-05-2004, 09:07 PM

Interesting post and comments, all around.

Thanks Skip for developing Sound Card technology for HF radio.

Thanks Jim for answering in a public forum.

My thoughts:
I have several older ham friends who basicly feel "left out" by the advancements in amateur radio, and the ARRL in general. They seriously DO NOT renew the memberships simply because they feel there is nothing of value for them. For years, they were the experimenters / homebrewers who have given us some of the equipment and ideas we have now. And I for one, treasure their knowledge.

Some folks who are not as technically minded as software developers and digital equipment manufacturers feel "left out" as there is nothing at their level presented, except very simple ideas. (Yea I know, someone is going to scream UPGRADE! Some just don't have time because of job, familiy commitments, etc. but they still want to enjoy the hobby.)

I feel in all seriousness, we all need to back up, and take an indepth look at amateur radio. We need to include everyone, and we need to make sure we are not going to totally change amateur radio to the point it dies or winds up being a high tech CB band, with operators operating illegally, just because they don't understand a bandplan or digital comms.

I for one, enjoy good old fashioned rag chewing and technical discussion time. And the mode being SSB voice. I don't do CW because of arthritis in my hands. And I can promise you, when digital encroaches on that enjoyment, I will assume I am no longer welcome on the bands. And, folks, that is sad, but a lot of operators feel that way already.

And yes, I do operate digital...PSK31, SSTV, RTTY, and I hope to buy a TNC soon...but I will promise you, it will not be a $800 to $1000 unit that is a Cadillac. If I had that kind of funds, I would own the Icom 8000 or the Yaesu 9000. It would be interesting to see a survey of just how much an operator could afford if required.

Just something to think about.

My dad had a saying: "We're making progress...STRAIGHT BACKWARDS!" Are we? Or are we seriously moving forward with the greater amateur population in mind?

I have watched the happenings over the last two years in amateur radio with great interest. And I will be perfectly honest...I have strongly considered resigning all positions I have that require ARRL membership. But I haven't...yet. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

kh6ty

10-05-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 05 2004,13:41)]I felt that Skip's comment earlier was very accurate and to the point. One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery.

This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.
Jim,

I think confusion has arisen because the proposal basically rearranges CW, digital, wide-digital, and phone just as a bandplan would. In addition, phone operations of the same width as wide digital are prohibited in large segments of the bands, so again, this is bandplan stuff, and bound to confuse people. It is actually still separation by mode, not only by bandwidth.

I think you are quite correct in that we eventually will have to migrate to a bandwidth-segmented plan, but since that involves more than just digital interests, such a plan does need to involve experts from all facets of the hobby if it is to be negotiated fairly, and it will have to be negotiated!

What went wrong with the committee, made up entirely of digital interests, is that majority went outside the charter and essentially created a bandplan for the rest of us, which is completely unacceptable.

Also, the removal of basically all restrictions on where unattended digital operations can can operate (for example, to be mixed with SSB phone, even when the two modes cannot understand each other in order to negotiate for the use of a frequency) is obviously an ill-conceived plan if there are no other protections. An expert representative for SSB phone on the committee would have prevented this from happening, or at would have least tried to.

Yes, a digital committee should be made up of digital people, but then it's work must be limited to digital issues only, and not include any bandplan issues without proper representation.

We'll get there - we have to eventually - but I'm sure, not with the current proposal or any variation of it, but with a fresh start. I hope we can make a fresh start and put this one behind us.

73, Skip KH6TY

ky5u

10-05-2004, 09:32 PM

Thanks Jim for the prompt answer. #I guess it begs the "clarifying" question: Does the League Plan to file a petition from the plan as outlined?

And, yes, change does happen and I know everyone will not be 100% happy. #I have gone personally from being fiercely opposed to a bandwidth based plan to being more open minded to the idea. #Personally I am optimistic that a concensus could be reached. #You just hamstring yourself when different ideas are not encouraged, and in the case of the committee, muted.

Why not ask ARRL members what they want, keep score, and report the results? #So you end up with 100 different suggestions. #Some of them will be supported by a larger group than others and if the margin is better than 60/40 then they go into the "hot" pile. #Those that are better than 50/50 go in a "warm pile", and those with little support go into a "cold" pile. #Have a committee (as Skip suggests) review the piles and put together a 5 year plan and a 10 year plan. (Could be 3 year and 7 year since things change so fast). Publish the plan and the support numbers backing the ideas. #Ask for final comments from the members and move on. #

When an organization moves closer to its membership, the temptation is to look at the "good ol days" when something could be done without asking. #If you see the input from folks on the plan as an (for lack of a better word) "excuse" to maintain the clarity of the past (translated as one or two folks making decisions for everyone), then you're missing a big point. #Times do change and these times require more member input into decisions. #Your goal as a leader is to reach into the 500 comments or 50,000 comments and draw a concensus. Is it easy? #Nope. #But that's why you get paid the big bucks #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

10-05-2004, 11:26 PM

"However, two years ago, our DigiPan coding genius, UT2UZ, asked SCS for additional information to enable us to do that, and so did I, and Hans-Peter Helfert's (SCS) reply was simply, "...not to be disclosed." And, he added, "Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow"."

Although I had previously believed the Winlink system to be a great way for Hams to communicate with family, etc. while they might be anywhere in the world via e-mail, I find the comment by Hans-Peter Helfert to be irresponsible and ignorant of the purpose of the very public frequencies granted to us. #I think Hans-Peter needs a wake up call as to who those frequencies belong, because they sure don't belong to SCS... #While I consider e-mail at best, semi private when I am sending from home, etc., the bottom line is whatever I say or type over the air is available for anyone to read. #I sense an arrogance from SCS that really needs a reality check...

W0GI

10-06-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 05 2004,13:41)]This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.
Jim,

Thanks for your input. #Certainly there needs to be change to keep up with technology.

However, after hearing the comparison yet again, that the change from SSB to digital voice is the same as the change from AM to SSB, I need to comment.

I have worked with sampling / digitizing audio since the 70's, when North American Rockwell started digitizing audio with NASA. #So, I'm not against digital audio technology. #It is in place almost everywhere at this point.

The technology has come a long way in that time. #I now have all of my recordings on an MP3 player with 60GB hard drive, that fits in my shirt pocket. #Many wonderful improvements.

Technology moves forward, but the available bandwidth on HF is a limiting factor, as is the noise on HF.

That digital voice will replace SSB, while using only 3k of bandwidth, is just not something that I would bet on at this time. #I certainly won't pay $550 dollars to AOR to play with it.

The technology has to fit the transfer medium, and HF is not a very good medium for digital voice. #50 MHz and above is another story if costs are reasonable, but we may find that SSB will be hard to replace on HF for a very long time. #

Converting from AM to SSB required extra circuits in your transmiter and receiver, and not the addition of external equipment that costs more then your transmitter and receiver. #The argument is Apples and Oranges.

I'm sorry, but I think this is a radio hobby, and not a computer hobby that has radios involved.

Computers are a part of the radio hobby. #Digital is a method of creating new modes, but may not be better then analog modes on HF for a long time.

We don't need to change just for the sake of change.

73, #Bob

N9CJT

10-06-2004, 02:50 AM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,07:14)]"Not renewing your membership hurts the rest of the Amateur population, not the ARRL."
Please explain this amazing statement.

N0FP

10-06-2004, 04:29 AM

Quote[/b] (N9CJT @ Oct. 04 2004,20:50)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,07:14)]"Not renewing your membership hurts the rest of the Amateur population, not the ARRL."
Please explain this amazing statement.
The implication is obvious. #Abandoning the ARRL over some single issue, or even a huge group of issues, makes a $39 statement that cannot be measured by the ARRL. #Going from 173,462 members to 173,461 (or whatever the numbers are) would go completely unnoticed. #As a group, a rush to flee the ARRL would cause significant damage to those of us (members) who care enough to participate in the dialogue and work to make the ARRL's purpose efficient and effective for all involved.

Chosing to abandon the only game in town, for any reason, is beyond all logic. #If all dissenting views disappear from the dialogue by becoming non-members in an attempt to "make a statement," how in the world can these same dissenters expect any favorable outcome to their goals?

n5rfx

10-06-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 04 2004,14:41)]I continously scratch my head when observing the amateur community.
I think that the head scratching is a result of not understanding the amateur population. I too was baffled at the opposition to bandwidth segregation until I started looking at the prosecutorial history of many of the sections of part 97. Once you look at the history of how we ended up where we are today with respect to part 97, one can understand the opinions and "conspiracy theories" that exist.

Most of the controversies in the amateur community that I hear about today are the result of poor public relations. For the ARRL the task is to understand your membership and understand the "rest of the amateur population". Making decisions based on the consensus of the population will lead to more marginal “technical” solutions, but the trade off is that the solutions will be more democratic. The latter seems to be the course that the FCC wants to travel today. To their credit, they want to find consensus in the amateur radio community. I think it is the job of the ARRL to find that consensus.

One comment on bandwidth vs. mode segregation in the 80 through 10 meter bands. The current part 97 rules are very generous when it comes to experimenting with a particular mode on a particular frequency. A problem surfaces when you try to mix modes on a particular frequency during a QSO. Where mode mixing has been very successful for many years is during SSTV QSO's. Why not allow mode mixing for other modes and frequencies? Communicaitons today is moving toward a mixture of modes (multi-media) to provide complete messages. How do we move toward this type of communication in the 80 through 10 meter bands?

73,

Mark N5RFX

n9lya

10-06-2004, 10:50 AM

The legal ramifications of the ARRL WINLINK enabling, proposed FCC rules
changes are even worse
than the technical sore thumb they create.

For those of you who dont know, starting 12 years ago,the FCC has
commercially licensed PACTORIII
using Marinenet soft/firmware (WINLINK is ah "lifted" from Marinenet)
whose revenue is derived from
connecting RF users to the Internet (exactly what WINLINK does).

Not only will Keelradio,Marinenet,Sailmail,Bushmail,Cruisemail,
Monarkmail, and Radiomarine Network
the current FCC commercial licensee's "fight" any NPRM to save their
revenue, They will sue ARRL, and
any PMBO operator, who threatens their revenue.

73 Jerry N9LYA

ky5u

10-06-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote[/b] ]Quote (N9CJT @ Oct. 04 2004,20:50)
Quote[/b] ]Quote (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,07:14)
"Not renewing your membership hurts the rest of the Amateur population, not the ARRL."

Please explain this amazing statement.

Sorry, CJT I missed your question but here goes:

The League see's a "silent majority" as support for their decisions made without formal member input. #In many responses, we've heard them minimize comments here and more recently in the "500 responses" to this bandwidth issue. #So when a member quits the ARRL, they make little or no immediate "statement" to officials because the immediate effect of quitting is getting rid of opposition to bad League plans. #It has a positive effect on bad decisions and hurts the rest of us in the process.

The effect of a "quit" is seen sometime later when the numbers add up. #The quitter says, "Well that's good because it hurts their pocketbook". Not necessarily. Look at the history of what the ARRL has done to get new members by proposing reducing standards and giving away HF access in their recent proposals. Again, we all lose because of the members that just quit.

You want to make a statement? #Stay and make a statement. #Stay and vote. #Stay and make your feelings known over and over. Stay and take a stand. Stay and support good decisions made when they occur. If you quit, by the time the real effect of your loss becomes felt, Amateur Radio will long since be changed if not gone.

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Oct. 06 2004,00:37)]One comment on bandwidth vs. mode segregation in the 80 through 10 meter bands. #The current part 97 rules are very generous when it comes to experimenting with a particular mode on a particular frequency. #A problem surfaces when you try to mix modes on a particular frequency during a QSO. #Where mode mixing has been very successful for many years is during SSTV QSO's. #Why not allow mode mixing for other modes and frequencies? #Communicaitons today is moving toward a mixture of modes (multi-media) to provide complete messages. #How do we move toward this type of communication in the 80 through 10 meter bands?

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,

How do you mix an unattended Pactor email robot with a SSB phone QSO, for example? SSTV shares frequencies with SSB phone, only because there are only one or two frequencies used for SSTV and the same are used for phone description of the picture if desired.

The problem in mixing unattended operations with others is that the unattended stations CANNOT negotiate for a frequency, because they cannot respond to a QRL or a QSY, since they do not understand SSB phone.

For mixing MFSK16 and narrowband fax pictures on the same frequency, negotiation for the frequency is possible because it is done through keyboard negotiation before the picture transmission starts.

The QRM problem becomes intolerable when unattended operations are mixed with attended operations, because there can be no negotiation or sharing of the frequency, since unattended and attended operations are not speaking the same language. The only solution is separating unattended operations from attended operations. Do not confuse the segmentation by bandwidth issue with unattended versus attended operations. Winlink likes to say "listen first" is the key, but one side of the unattended Pactor link CANNOT listen first, and the other side has no need to care, because they are using ARQ to dominate the frequency, so they do NOT listen first, or the QRM levels by Pactor mailboxes would not be so much higher than fully attended operations during non-contest times. Winlink claims otherwise, which is complete BS, so don't be taken in. They have their own agenda, and it is domination of a frequency, not sharing of a frequency. The QRM level of mailboxes to others bears this out. The ONLY solution is separation.

If narrowband fax pictures mixed with MFSK16 operations were scattered all over the bands to the degree that the Pactor mailboxes are, there would be a big QRM problem also, but it would always be less only because there is not one half of the communication that cannot respond to a QSY request.

Separation by bandwidth is workable, ONLY if negotiation for a frequency is negotiable, meaning both stations wanting to use a frequency speak the same language, or if by gentleman's agreement, stations are grouped together that do speak the same language, which is still separation by mode, isn't it! It just means that there is no LEGAL reason you cannot mix pictures and mfsk16 of the same bandwidth.

73, Skip KH6TY

KT0DD

10-06-2004, 11:52 AM

IMHO, Digital Voice is a LONG way from being ready. If you think digital voice is the wave of the near future, I ask you to use modern digital cell phone audio for comparison. It is ATROCIOUS! I'd much rather go back to the older analog systems, as the ad said, you could hear a pin drop. With the new digital, you couldn't even hear a BRICK drop. 73.

wa3vjb

10-06-2004, 12:11 PM

AG4YO said: You want to make a statement? #Stay and make a statement. #Stay and vote. #Stay and make your feelings known over and over. Stay and take a stand. Stay and support good decisions made when they occur.

Charles, you know for a guy who's been in the hobby for less than two years, you sure now how to draw a bead on a target and hit it square-on.

I discontinued my membership in the ARRL in 1976 when League officials failed to come out strongly against a bandwidth rulemaking proposed by the FCC (which failed because of widespread opposition filed in response). #In more recent years, with AM popularity reaching the point it became a well-regarded specialty in the hobby, the ARRL slowly came around, led by the enthusiasm of participants.

A few years ago I chose to again contribute membership dues, but in doing so, I placed the League on probation to help ensure that its leadership represents all interests in amateur radio.

Vocal, highly visible pressure on Newington has worked. W1AW has a permanent, working AM station, there's an AM specific subpage on the ARRL website, and the group recently published a compilation of articles on vintage radio featuring AM.

One side note that speaks to continued leadership problems at the ARRL -- I no longer get a knee-jerk reaction about not being a member from the League's highest-ranking unelected official, CEO Dave Sumner.

Now, he does not communicate with me at all.

kr1st

10-06-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,23:59)][quote]Quote (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,07:14)

You want to make a statement?
That's exactly the right question......*if* you want to make a statement.

One can also quit being a member of the ARRL, or any organization for that matter, simply because you feel it's not the right place for you without feeling the urge or desire to change them. If you like how the ARRL operates and share it's vision(s) and would like to support them in that, then by all means, join 'em or stay with them. If you feel you don't have all that much in common with them, then don't join them. No one has to join or stay with an organization he or she doesn't support and no statements are required.

As to the topic at hand, I find it despicable that folks have threatened legal action against a fellow committee member.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

KQ6XA

10-06-2004, 01:01 PM

An alternative to the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee's Bandwidth Plan exists.
A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)
It was drawn up and submitted to ARRL and the "bandwidth committee" in January 2004. However, ARRL and the committee has continued to ignore it.

It includes recommendations from over 50 ham operators who have no axe to grind. It favors no mode. It provides equitable spectrum for advancement of the state of the art, as well as existing traditional activity.

http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/

Bonnie KQ6XA

KQ6XA

10-06-2004, 01:08 PM

The following chart is NOT the ARRL's plan. Click here:
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/bandwidth-based-freq-plan.jpg
It is an independent plan that was submitted to ARRL in January 2004. It is much simpler and easier to understand than the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee plan. It puts USA on par with the rest of the world.

n5rfx

10-06-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote[/b] ]Mark and Skip, you guys are talking Apples and Oranges. Correct me Mark if I am wrong but you're talking about multimedia software and working out gentlemen's agreements for them in bands today as we have for SSTV. Skip is speaking about unattended Pactor which would indeed be a landmine in voice bands.

Chuck you are correct that unattended operation and bandwidth segregation are two different subjects, but they are both in the initial ARRL proposal. I agree with Skip that unattended operation has been a failure in the 160 through 10 meter bands and there are 2 ways to solve the problem:

1. Eliminate unattended operation in the 160 through 10 meter bands or
2. Provide channels for unattended operation.

Most bandwidth proposals are too complicated. I like the Canadian model which sets a maximum bandwidth for each band. Then it is up to the users of the service to decide where to operate certain modes, or combination of modes.

73,

Mark N5RFX

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 06 2004,06:01)]An alternative to the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee's Bandwidth Plan exists.
A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)
It was drawn up and submitted to ARRL and the "bandwidth committee" in January 2004. However, ARRL and the committee has continued to ignore it.

It includes recommendations from over 50 ham operators who have no axe to grind. It favors no mode. It provides equitable spectrum for advancement of the state of the art, as well as existing traditional activity.

http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/

Bonnie #KQ6XA
Bonnie,

The following is the opening paragraph of the ARRL Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html)

The "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide"

Band Plans

The following frequencies are generally recognized for certain modes or activities (all frequencies are in MHz).

Nothing in the rules recognizes a net's, group's or any individual's special privilege to any specific frequency. Section 97.101(b) of the Rules states that "Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station." No one "owns" a frequency.

It's good practice--and plain old common sense--for any operator, regardless of mode, to check to see if the frequency is in use prior to engaging operation. If you are there first, other operators should make an effort to protect you from interference to the extent possible, given that 100% interference-free operation is an unrealistic expectation in today's congested bands."

******************

If I am working SSB phone, and a Pactor-III signal (of the same bandwidth as SSB phone) "accidentally" starts up on my frequency, perhaps during a 10- second pause in the conversation when I have no RF output, how do I tell the Pactor-III station that the frequency is already in use and to please QSY, if I have no Pactor-III capability because it is a proprietary protocol, supported by a monopoly by a foreign company, controlled by a foreign government, and I did not spend an extra $800 for their modem because I can just send email from home instead of over the air?

Am I totally dependent upon the Pactor-III operator to prevent interference? If so, why have we used QRL and QSY Q-signals for the past 70 years?

Hint: The FCC considers our frequencies to be SHARED frequencies - that is stated all over the regulations. How do you SHARE with someone who does not understand what you are saying?

Note that the ARRL "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide" segments the bands by MODE and activity, and segmentation by bandwidth is just coincidental in some cases.

Are you suggesting that there is no longer a need for any "Considerate Operator's Guide"?

I am not trying to be critical, just curious...

73, Skip KH6TY

ky5u

10-06-2004, 01:44 PM

1. Quote[/b] ]vjb: Charles, you know for a guy who's been in the hobby for less than two years, you sure now how to draw a bead on a target and hit it square-on.

Thanks for the kind words, but actually this whole issue is not unique to Amateur Radio. #Not to get off subject here, but maybe a topic for another time.

2.Quote[/b] ] Mark:Once you look at the history of how we ended up where we are today with respect to part 97, one can understand the opinions and "conspiracy theories" that exist.

Well Mark, in this case the theory was right. #Despite evidence that the Ad Hoc Committee was less than impartial, Jim seems to want to play "coy" with his responses. I had hoped he was here to tell us that they recognize things could have gone better with the committee and that they were not going to file a petition until they get a more bipartisan group together to review the plan. #Instead, we get doubletalk when I asked Jim if they were pulling their proposal such as (paraphrase) "..there's nothing to pull because we have not filed anything." More ARRL obfuscation.

Jim, I am asking respectfully as an ARRL member, is the League going to file on the proposal in the immediate future without a full review by another committee? A simple direct question. #May I please have a direct answer?

3. Finally a band plan worse than the ARRL's from Bonnie. It does not favor any mode because there are no modes and offers no protection for modes like AM that don't fit the bandplan mold. It mixes modes because there is no mode specification. #It changes the landscape for the benefit of less than 5% of Amateurs like the ARRL plan. #It does not address unmanned/automatic stations. #AND, there should be big red arrows pointing to the 10MHZ bandwidth allocations on HF and 25KHZ on 10 Meters. Boy Mark, us "conspiracy theory" guys would have a field day with this plan. #

I believe most Amateurs favor a plan that keeps what we have and develops digital modes in controlled settings until clear trends mandate large changes.

kd4mxe

10-06-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 05 2004,13:41)]No Charlie, nothing to withdraw, as nothing has been filed. I continously scratch my head when observing the amateur community. We put a story out a bandwidth proposal for comment and it is damn if we do and damn if we don't. We have over 500 comments now and it is virtually all over the map. #It really comes down to the individual's interest. That is fine, as we did ask for input.

I felt that Skip's comment earlier was very accurate and to the point. One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery.

This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.

We have gotten many good comments and ideas. Will everyone be pleased? No, of course not, but as a special interest group we must come to grips with the fact that change is always going to happen.

Jim
jim w5jbp good #post But you know #these people they do not want to move forward if it is not there #way , there is no way to please these people #and you know that you have seen this before , and you will till you die #or they die its the same thing over and over again , these # # #people will bitch #till they die , when you try to please these people you are wasteing #your time #73s Bill

n4zou

10-06-2004, 02:32 PM

I am not a member of the ARRL and never will be. Having started with that I will explain my reason for it. First of all human nature being what it is you will always have problems with a small active group that takes charge and "runs" people off that disagree with there way of doing things. Good or bad it makes no difference. In this case it was very bad and would have done to the HF bands what BPL could never have accomplished with the QRM generated by that. Also the ARRL has the "Never go back" mentality that all originations large or small when it does something bad but will not admit that it was a bad decision. Take incentive licensing for example, that was something dreamed up by the ARRL many years age and we still suffer from it to this day. Then there was the part 97 rule change allowing unattended stations 10 years ago and these stations just keep on getting worse at what they do best, produce QRM to ongoing commutations without fear of fine or notice and in almost all cases no way to figure out the call of the stations involved. If it were not for the Internet we would have woke up one day to 3 KHz wide robot stations running rampant all across all the bands and nothing to do about it but simply quit. The ARRL like all groups of humans will have plenty of "sheep" to support the 1 percent in charge and will support them no matter what they do. This goes for the small 2-meter repeater club all the way up to giant groups like the political parties that run our country. Right now a new day is upon us where we no longer need the ARRL or any group to control this Hobby. Qrz.com is one prime example of this. Why have a small group that is in charge of protecting the sheep when we can go to buffalo style that can simply over run and totally obliterate a threat. Look at the response to this ARRL bandwidth to shove Winlink and Pactor III down out throats. All amateurs banded together, ARRL members or not, using this and other sites simply banded together with a herd mentality and stomped the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee into the ground. So hard in fact that nothing is left, no blood or bodies as noted that the ARRL is not willing to even acknowledge that it happened to them. Same thing with BPL could have been done and in large part it was done and could be helped if the "sheep" would simply start writing real letters (not email they don’t read) to their senator and congressman about BPL. Turn the herd loose on them and BPL will disappear. Do you want the robots to disappear? Simply drive the herd toward the FCC with real letters demanding an end to unattended operation without a STA which would allow Packet digital repeaters and auto forwarding which is not a problem with Packet mode and allows future CONTROLLED use of these types of operations unlike today where robots can be put up by anyone on basically any frequency they chose at any time.

ky5u

10-06-2004, 03:09 PM

mxe,

Bill, tell us what you like about the ARRL plan. #Why do you support it? #Maybe we're wrong and missing something.

10-06-2004, 04:01 PM

N5JBP wrote "...One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery."

DE K3FT.. Jim, I think the analogy is a bit flawed. in your example. you note that having 'NON'-digital (isn't CW the FIRST REAL digital (i.e. 'on-off') mode? <LARGE GRIN> folks on the digital committee is not relevant.

The comparison to having truck drivers involved with cardiac surgery does not fit. It's a matter of LIKE situations being linked with LIKE situations WITHIN A COMMON SYSTEM.

For the medical world - the 'system' they must deal with is the patient - the human body. A trucker does NOT deal with that system, so the analogy is not quite accurate. The truck driver's system is TOTALLY independent of the cardiac surgeon's system. What affects a truck driver's system is FULLY independent from a cardiac surgeon's sytem.

LIke SYSTEMS must be used to have a good comparision.

In other words.. A cardiac surgeon MUST understand HOW his medical speciality FITS INTO, INTERACTS WITH, IMPACTS AND AFFECTS other medical specialities dealing with their universe - The HUMAN BODY.

If he doesn't he is LIABLE to KILL/INJURE the patient by failing to take into account AND consult with them before he does ANY **MAJOR** changes to the system - the body. If he doesn't... WATCH OUT!

FOR HAM RADIO - our SYSTEM is the spectrum to which hams are authorized to operate.

THEREFORE.. in order to PROPERLY determine the most EFFECTIVE way to inject a new process/procedure into the SYSTEM.. the digital people MUST.. repeat MUST..

interact and consult with the NON-DIGITAL users of the SYSTEM (spectrum) in order to properly assess, understand, coexist, and NOT negatively impact the system as it already exists AND be able to manage the impact to the users of the system.

THIS IS WHAT SKIP, myself, and others are talking about, Jim.

Just as doctors who specialize MUST know, and consult with other specialites.. DIGITAL folks MUST know and consult with NON-DIGITAL specialites who use the ham bands.

NOT to do this.. provides a great chance of injuring or KILLING the body as one or more specialities get OVERRUN by the new methods.
-------------

"This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission."

DE K3FT.. Jim, what is being proposed and what was presented publicly IS a defacto 'band plan'. ANYTIME you attempt to define spectrum usage by EMISSION bandwidth you will.. be default.. DEFINE what types of emissions will be permitted.

Therefore, users will adjust their operations based on the authorizations given.

in other words.. if 2400 Hz DIGITAL emissions are authorized.. then ANY Mode OVER that emission bandwidth is PROHIBITED there. That sets a band plan for AM.

Any time INCOMPATIBLE emission types are trying to use the same spectrum space AND one of those emission types uses a METHOD of transmission that is AUTOMATIC and NOT ABLE to determine if the frequency is already IN USE.. you have a DEFAULT band plan.. since the user who CAN monitor the frequency will be FORCED to move.

Eventually.. the manually operated (i.e. those with a human in control) WILL avoid those operating areas because they will not be able to communicate. YOU HAVE.. a DEFACTO Band plan IN PLACE and OPERATING.

Doesn't matter if it is SELF-ENFORCED or mandated by FCC Rule. It IS a bandplan, none the less.

"... Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done.....We need to at least keep up..... ...Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB."

DE K3FT... The 'war' between the AM and SSB gang was NOT about one mode simply coming in and TAKING the frequencies away based on the automated nature of their operations. AM operators, when confronted with SSB operators (and vice versa) DID move.. and DID tend to at least ATTEMPT to get along because the human factor was present and allowed for real time modification.

SUCH will NOT be the case with automated PACTOR stations. They come on.. they come on regardless of whether or not someone else is there. NOT a good analogy, Jim.

"...But as a special interest group we must come to grips with the fact that change is always going to happen."

DE K3FT.. No disagreement with the fact that change happens. BUT, Jim.. what you are saying in that sentence is this. "(other modes/emissions/users) special interest groups MUST come to grips with the fact that (automated digital systems) are going to happen (and get used to it and be ready to accept it and accomodate it.)"

That's the implied understanding we have.

ALL modes/emissions are SPECIAL INTEREST groups.. just like ALL medical specialities are SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.. BUT!!.. all these 'special interest groups' MUST have a say in how the SYSTEM (spectrum) is managed and used so as to BENEFIT the GROUPS while trying to foster and enhance new methods of doing things.

I think if you attempt to manage the new automated digital systems with involving ALL the specialities... you'l find a GREAT DEAL of positive, successful, methods SHALL come from it.

Will it be messy? Probably! Will it take some time? MOST ASSUREDLY! Will all be pleased! NO WAY.. BUT

concensus can be achieved.. concensus CAN be acquired. 'BUY IN' by ALL stakeholders can be achieved!

But YOU have to start from ground zero! GET ALL THE PLAYERS involved..

If you don't.. trust me on this.. the anger, frustration, and fighting that SHALL occur.. will make the AM/SSB, CW/PACKET, 15 kHz/20 kHz, Spark/CW, incentive licensing/old way.. look like a sandbox fight.

Some may think I overstate it.. but I've been around since mid-1960's. I LIVED through the heartburn and hurt of Incentive licensing and what it did to ham radio.

I lived through repeater wars, 15 vs. 20 kHz.. packet vs non packet.. Code vs. No code.. etc..

I know whereof I speak.

Proceed at your own peril ifyou choose NOT to involve all STAKEHOLDERS besides the digital guys!

73
Chuck K3FT

Jim

kg4mrh

10-06-2004, 06:03 PM

:rock: I THINK THAT ANY SUBJECT TO BE VOTED ON,AS IMPORTANT AS THIS,SHOULD BE IN ARRL FORUM FOR ANY MEMBERS TO LOOK OVER.THIS IS WHAT KEEPS HARD FEELINGS +DISSENTION @ BAY! ALTHOUGH I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES THE COMMENTS MADE ARE SORT OF "IN ONE EAR+OUT THE OTHER.SO,THE QUESTION IS:DOES IT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHAT US REGULAR AMATEUR OPPERATORS THINK OR IS THIS JUST A DIVERSION TO MAKE US THINK IT MATTERS???THINK ABOUT IT!ARE WE REALLY EVER PART OF THE GAME OR IS THE GAME ONLY PLAYED BY THE "BIG BOYS"???SURE WE ELECT OFFICIALS,BUT DO THEY ACTUALLY CARE THAT ALL OF US OUT HERE IN THE REAL WORLD DON'T HAVE LOTS OF MONEY TO SPEND ON EQUIPMENT.I REALLY DON'T LIKE POLITICS BUT IT SEEMS TO BE WHAT AMATEUR RADIO IS BECOMING.:( IS IT MONEY OR IS IT POLITICS?WHY CAN'T IT JUSTBE AMATEUR RADIO?ROBOTS?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gifhttp://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

kd4mxe

10-06-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 06 2004,08:09)]mxe,

Bill, tell us what you like about the ARRL plan. #Why do you support it? #Maybe we're wrong and missing something.
charles ag4yo thanks for the Reply realy this will not effect me one way or the other, i am not on hf yet but the way some of these people treat the no code tech,s i will go with the arrl ( not a member yet But soon will be) thin i can vote , and i will use my vote to combat #these kind of people ,I wish you the Best for what ever you do in ham Radio #Bill

ky5u

10-06-2004, 07:16 PM

Thanks Bill. Hope to run into you on HF one day or even a good repeater! Joining the ARRL is a good idea. Some of us may not always agree with them, but we need them.

KQ6XA

10-06-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Oct. 06 2004,06:43)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 06 2004,06:01)]An alternative to the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee's Bandwidth Plan exists.
A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)
It was drawn up and submitted to ARRL and the "bandwidth committee" in January 2004. However, ARRL and the committee has continued to ignore it.

It includes recommendations from over 50 ham operators who have no axe to grind. It favors no mode. It provides equitable spectrum for advancement of the state of the art, as well as existing traditional activity.

http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/

Bonnie KQ6XA

Bonnie,
....
Are you suggesting that there is no longer a need for any "Considerate Operator's Guide"?

I am not trying to be critical, just curious...

73, Skip KH6TY
.
.
.

Hi Skip,

Be assured, of course, I support IARU regional bandplans and guidelines for non-interference such as the "Considerat Operator's Guide".

But as you know, that is different from a bandwidth-based frequency plan that would become part of FCC rules.

I think it is fine that you are making an effort to point out the Pactor/Winlink problems of the Ad Hoc Committee's plan. I agree that it seems the committee's plan was put together in a "digital vacuum" where no one spoke anything other than "digital".

There is a bigger picture here. And most people involved with this seem to be missing it.

In USA, so-called "Land Of The Free", we are lagging way behind the rest of the world in ham radio spectrum freedom on the air. Most other countries have way more spectrum freedom for hams than USA.

We are losing the battle on some of our bands to encrouching commercial wireless interests who want to occupy our "unused spectrum". While at the same time, many hams are crammed into one part of a band while the rest of the band is dormant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that... just tune across 75 meters or 40 meters and listen for yourself.

What I'm pointing out here is that an alternative to the ARRL Ad Hoc Digital Committee's bandwidth plan does exist. And it is a much more balanced equitable approach to spectrum efficiency that isn't just a way to push a digital system or mode.

A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

w2agn

10-06-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 06 2004,15:40)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Oct. 06 2004,06:43)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 06 2004,06:01)]An alternative to the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc Committee's Bandwidth Plan exists.
A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)
It was drawn up and submitted to ARRL and the "bandwidth committee" in January 2004. However, ARRL and the committee has continued to ignore it.

It includes recommendations from over 50 ham operators who have no axe to grind. It favors no mode. It provides equitable spectrum for advancement of the state of the art, as well as existing traditional activity.

http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/

Bonnie #KQ6XA

Bonnie,
....
Are you suggesting that there is no longer a need for any "Considerate Operator's Guide"?

I am not trying to be critical, just curious...

73, Skip KH6TY
.
.
.

Hi Skip,

Be assured, of course, I support IARU regional bandplans and guidelines for non-interference such as the "Considerat Operator's Guide".

But as you know, that is different from a bandwidth-based frequency plan that would become part of FCC rules.

I think it is fine that you are making an effort to point out the Pactor/Winlink problems of the Ad Hoc Committee's plan. I agree that it seems the committee's plan was put together in a "digital vacuum" where no one spoke anything other than "digital".

There is a bigger picture here. And most people involved with this seem to be missing it.

In USA, so-called "Land Of The Free", we are lagging way behind the rest of the world in ham radio spectrum freedom on the air. Most other countries have way more spectrum freedom for hams than USA.

We are losing the battle on some of our bands to encrouching commercial wireless interests who want to occupy our "unused spectrum". While at the same time, many hams are crammed into one part of a band while the rest of the band is dormant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that... just tune across 75 meters or 40 meters and listen for yourself.

What I'm pointing out here is that an alternative to the ARRL Ad Hoc Digital Committee's bandwidth plan does exist. And it is a much more balanced equitable approach to spectrum efficiency that isn't just a way to push a digital system or mode.

A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)

73---Bonnie KQ6XA
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif I note this proposal does effectively do away with AM on 40M.

n9lya

10-06-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 05 2004,13:41)]No Charlie, nothing to withdraw, as nothing has been filed. I continously scratch my head when observing the amateur community. We put a story out a bandwidth proposal for comment and it is damn if we do and damn if we don't. We have over 500 comments now and it is virtually all over the map. #It really comes down to the individual's interest. That is fine, as we did ask for input.

I felt that Skip's comment earlier was very accurate and to the point. One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery.

This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.

We have gotten many good comments and ideas. Will everyone be pleased? No, of course not, but as a special interest group we must come to grips with the fact that change is always going to happen.

Jim
Jim,
On the part where it states that ... A digital committee should be made up of digital people... Excluding, Skip and maybe one other... Were they (The Ad Hoc Committiee) proficient at DIGITAL via RF or Just Digital via Internet... They seem to not know how to do Digital via RF...

Just an observation of the proposal..

I still say Shelve it, save face.. And lets get back to building ham radio up instead of dividing us all like this...

73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 08:01 PM

Bonnie,

I have studied your bandplan several times before. I agree with your theory, but what I specifically want to know is:

1. Are digital signals of the same width as SSB phone allowed to mix?

2. If so, how can they negotiate for the use of a shared frequency?

3. Specifically, if I am in QSO on SSB and a digital signal comes on the frequency I am already using, how do I ask it to QSY?

4. If I am a SSB phone net control station, and our net meets at 3930 every night, and a digital signal comes on the net frequency so we cannot copy checkins, how do I ask the digital station to QSY until the net is over?

This is common practice on all net frequencies, and is usually effective at sharing frequencies.

I'd just like to know specifically how your bandplan handles this for each of the four points listed.

The current FCC "bandplan, if you will" separates phone from digital modes, of course, and the IARU bandplans include voluntary separation by mode, even though there is some legal separation by bandwidth.

CW is allowed everywhere under the current FCC regulations, but up to now, phone operators were expected to understand CW and CW operators can, of course, understand phone, because both are audible modes, and understood with the human brain.

73, Skip KH6TY

w6em

10-06-2004, 08:06 PM

Skip, and all:

First off, I'm not a digital afficionado. #And, I don't currently have anything on HF. #However, as written, the bandplan proposal is not a fair and balanced approach to spectrum conservation. #In fact, as pointed out, it will allow wide bandwidth unattended digital modes to utilize phone bands which is not acceptable, for the reasons already stated, such as inability to easily identify the station to all, such as via a CW id.

Unattended stations, like repeaters, should be coordinated and channelized, to avoid stepping on each other, and other modes which can and must listen before transmitting. #Repeater channel coordination is a good example of what should be done with any and all unattended stations irrespective of their bandwidth, so that interference will be minimized and spectrum efficiency maximized. #Since the duration of digital text transmissions will be short, it only makes sense for many stations to share one channel..

On the subject of Pactor III, the issue of demanding the source code is, in my opinion, going way too far. #Especially since you have demonstrated a desire to create competing technology, and the source code is essentially someone's property. #Not the protocol, mind you, but the source code.

All that you deserve from the inventor of Pactor III is its protocol, namely, start and stop bits, word size and perhaps checksum arrangements. #That way, if you desire, you can create your own program to receive and decode and send information using the Pactor III protocol that will be transparent to users of the SCS box.

So, if you intend to sue everyone to obtain what you want (Pactor III source code?), under the guise of claiming you are afraid of a lawsuit, you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I do think, however, that the ARRL should pull the proposal, as written, since it is a convoluted Trojan horse band plan by a very biased group which has their pecuniary interests at heart, and not what is best for all in our community. #Channelization and coordination of HF digital operations appears to be sorely needed and is not addressed by the plan as written and needs to be to preserve order on our crowded HF bands.

73,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

.

n5rfx

10-06-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote[/b] ]The current FCC "bandplan, if you will" separates phone from digital modes...

Skip,

This is not entirely true. Today phone modes can be digital or analog and are allowed to co-exist in the 160 through 10 meter bands, with the exeption of 30 meters of course. Digital image modes are allowed to co-exist with analog image modes and digital/analog phone modes. The only restriction today is that digital/analog image modes cannot co-exist with digital data/rtty modes.

I think what you are suggesting is that we separate digital modes from analog modes?

Quote[/b] ]Unattended stations, like repeaters, should be coordinated and channelized, to avoid stepping on each other, and other modes which can and must listen before transmitting.

Lee,

Excellent idea, the only sticking point would be an international coordination body, but hey that is what the IARU is for, right?

73,

Mark N5RFX

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Oct. 06 2004,13:33)]I think what you are suggesting is that we separate digital modes from analog modes?
Mark,

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Perhaps you can suggest a solution to this problem that I posed to Bonnie:

I am phone net control station that meets nightly on 3930 KHz at 8 PM. Just as the net starts, a keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor-III station starts up on the net frequency, for some unknown reason.

How do I ask it to QSY?

Even worse, suppose the Pactor-III station is an email robot, triggered by a remote station well before the net started, but passing 30 minutes of traffic, nonstop, with callsigns inserted by Airmail in Pactor-III every 10 minutes?

What happens to the net?

In a real life situation, an analog phone station coming on an analog phone net frequency is politely asked to QSY or wait until the net is terminated. That station can understand my request, and usually helps out. What happens if it is a digital station instead of another analog phone station?

Yes, digital phone will be another problem to be solved, with the same cross-mode communication problem. How would you propose to solve the frequency-sharing need between analog and digital phone?

IMHO, I think that legal separation of some kind, or voluntary grouping of modes that are able to understand each other, will eventually be the only solution, but I could be wrong. For those who abuse voluntary separation, legal separation will probably be necessary.

73, Skip KH6TY

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 06 2004,13:06)]On the subject of Pactor III, the issue of demanding the source code is, in my opinion, going way too far. #Especially since you have demonstrated a desire to create competing technology, and the source code is essentially someone's property. #Not the protocol, mind you, but the source code.
Lee,

I assume you are referring to the SCS refusal to release just enough documentation about Pactor-II and Pactor-III (the request has not yet been made) so Pactor-II receive-only can be added to DigiPan so we can identify interfering Pactor stations.

To create competing technology, one would have to be interested in the transmission technology also, and that is not our intent, although I don't know how closely related the receive and send technologies are.

Obviously there is a fine line between source code and public documentation, but the amateur bands are supposed to be self-policing, and without enough information to monitor traffic, there is no way to determine if there is illegal commercial content, and, especially, no way to identify an interfering station if the callsign is sent only in Pactor-II. If we are unable to identify an interfering station, how can we possibly let it know of the interference, which may be completly accidental, but regular?

73, Skip KH6TY

ky5u

10-06-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote[/b] ]Skip: IMHO, I think that legal separation of some kind, or voluntary grouping of modes that are able to understand each other, will eventually be the only solution, but I could be wrong. For those who abuse voluntary separation, legal separation will probably be necessary.

Skip/Mark, I think this kind of separation will be crucial as a first step. Once the digital modes gain popularity and address the various concerns, there would be nothing wrong with a more comprehensive plan as long as no current mode was slighted or forgotten. In the mean time with separation, people would be able to use multimedia modes and begin to experiment without all the squabbling.

n5rfx

10-06-2004, 10:13 PM

Quote[/b] ]Mark,

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Skip,

I am in the same boat as you.

Quote[/b] ]I am phone net control station that meets nightly on 3930 KHz at 8 PM. Just as the net starts, a keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor-III station starts up on the net frequency, for some unknown reason.

How do I ask it to QSY?

Skip,

I don't know that there is a requirement for the net control to ask the P-III station to QSY. Each party in the P-III QSO has a speaker on their respective rigs. It is the reponsibility of the P-III station to make sure that the frequency is clear.

Quote[/b] ]How would you propose to solve the frequency-sharing need between analog and digital phone?

Skip,

I would handle it the same way it is handled today on 14.236 and 18.1625 where I have observed J1E (or maybe it is J2E) emissions. The QSO starts out using J3E and moves to J1E. The parties can listen for either emission using their ears. The same thing happens on 14.233. The QSO switches back between J3E and J1C. All operators are responsible to insure that they are not interfering with others. If that means that you need to use your ears, or eyes (waterfall, spectrum display, etc) to make sure that the freq. is clear, then so be it. The requirement is here today since mixing of some analog and digital modes are authorized.

73,

Mark N5RFX

n5rfx

10-06-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2004,15:46)]Quote[/b] ]Skip: IMHO, I think that legal separation of some kind, or voluntary grouping of modes that are able to understand each other, will eventually be the only solution, but I could be wrong. For those who abuse voluntary separation, legal separation will probably be necessary.

Skip/Mark, I think this kind of separation will be crucial as a first step. Once the digital modes gain popularity and address the various concerns, there would be nothing wrong with a more comprehensive plan as long as no current mode was slighted or forgotten. In the mean time with separation, people would be able to use multimedia modes and begin to experiment without all the squabbling.
Charlie,

I guess this is where I disagree with you and Skip. I am not convinced that there is a need to separate analog and digital emissions. They are not always separated today and it does not seem to cause a problem. Image (both analog and digital) and Phone (both analog and digital) are authorized on the same frequencies in the 80 through 10-meter bands.

Image and RTTY/Data emissions are not authorized on the same frequency in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Phone and RTTY/Data are also not authorized on the same frequency in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Digital or analog have no bearing on these restrictions today.

73,

Mark N5RFX

KQ6XA

10-06-2004, 10:42 PM

.

Thanks for the reply, Skip.

Note: For those who want to read the other document Skip and I are discussing, please click here: Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)

Quote[/b] ] Skip KH6TY

"Bonnie,

...what I specifically want to know is:

1. Are digital signals of the same width as SSB phone allowed to mix?"

Yes, Skip. Since a Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/) is mode neutral or silent on the question of "mode", digital mode signals and SSB mode signals would be allowed to mix.

That aspect would not change. We presently mix SSB and digital signals regularly on the HF bands... this is not new, but it will be increasing more and more. In fact, we presently mix CW with digital signals and SSB.

Mixing modes on the same band segments is a fact of life. Let's accept it and go on to consider the merits of what a good Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan should be.

Quote[/b] ]
"2. If so, how can they negotiate for the use of a shared frequency?"

That is becoming increasingly complex these days. My present recommendation is that all operators listen first on SSB to the passband they intend to transmit. Most operators are using SSB transceivers for digital anyway, so this is a no-brainer. SSB is the likely common denominator for 3kHz bandwidth passbands for some years into the future. For the 500Hz narrow or 10kHz/25kHz very wide modes, similar attention should be paid to listening to the entire passband and making short preliminary transmissions to test the waters before starting a QSO on it. This is just good operating practice (...that a lot of hams have forgotten unfortunately).

Quote[/b] ]
"3. Specifically, if I am in QSO on SSB and a digital signal comes on the frequency I am already using, how do I ask it to QSY?"

Simply keep transmitting on SSB, and say "The frequency is already in use".

Quote[/b] ]
"4. If I am a SSB phone net control station, and our net meets at 3930 every night, and a digital signal comes on the net frequency so we cannot copy checkins, how do I ask the digital station to QSY until the net is over?"

If the Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/) was implemented, you and the other competing station would have much more spectrum to spread out in on 75 meters, and it is much less likely that there would be a problem like that... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But it may not be possible to keep your net frequency reserved every night if the other station is transmitting there first when you show up for the net. This has always been a problem with nets since as far back as I remember. I'm a net control operator on 20 meters... so I understand your frustration. It happens with SSB to SSB competing operators today, why would it be any different with other emission types? It's a fact of life. Accept it and move on, but don't blame it on modes or bandwidth.

The fact is, a Bandwidth-Based Frequency plan has nothing at all to do with the issue of frequency sharing. Frequency sharing and negotiation of use of the frequency is a matter of courtesy between operators. There is no way to legislate it equitably, and we should not try to.

It seems that courtesy and good operating practice would dictate that all the operators who want to use the same frequency should try to get along, and that might mean the recognition that we should utilize common operating procedures to help settle such situations, including standard emission types to initiate a contact for this purpose.

Quote[/b] ]"The current FCC "bandplan, if you will" separates phone from digital modes, of course, and the IARU bandplans include voluntary separation by mode, even though there is some legal separation by bandwidth.
73, Skip KH6TY"

Let's face it, Skip, very many incompatible voice emission types are already in use now sharing the same band segments under our present mode-based rules... including digital voice, and many more will be used in the future. We need to plan for it, and try to forge new ways to make things run smoother. But segregation of these different emission types into separate band segments is not the way to solve the sort of problems you mention. The only way is to come up with a better, more equitable plan for it and forge new standards for it.

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

.Click here for a better alternative: Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan (http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/)

.

kh6ty

10-06-2004, 11:28 PM

Bonnie,

I guess you realize that ALL Winlink connects are initiated, not by the robots, but by remote stations that are supposed to "listen first", yet interference to other modes by Pactor mailboxes is at an alltime high.

Could it possibly be that ALL those remote stations have "forgotten good operating practices"?

The real life situation, which your bandplan does not address, is that interference between Pactor mailboxes and CW and PSK31 operators is unacceptably high. You cannot understand this if you operate mostly SSB phone, because only a smidgen of digital voice is in use yet.

To find out, just go to www.winlink.org, pick one of the PMBO station frequencies where you find CW or PSK31 activity, and try to hold a schedule on that frequency and see how long you can QSO before a Pactor starts up on your frequency. Try it between 5 PM and 8 PM, when it seems Winlink frequencies are the busiest.

The FCC repeatedly states that amateur frequencies are only granted because they are "shared frequency bands", see #FCC Report and Order Docket # 94-59 (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/ReportandOrder.pdf) # #and any bandplan that ignores that requirement will probably never be accepted by the FCC because it will significantly increase the complaint level and enforcement burden, which they definitely do not want to happen.

I won't take up any more bandwidth on this issue, but I'd be interested in hearing how you fair trying to work on a Winlink published frequency, where we are assured by Winlink that their users do listen first!

73, Skip KH6TY