ARRL's "Newest" Bandwidth Proposal [Archive]

na4it

10-26-2004, 12:33 PM

After an initial look at ARRL's newest proposal, it does seem "doable". I still need a little time to digest it, however...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The general idea of it is at http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2004-arlb031.html.

Something that peaked my interest, and I believe bears some discussion, is one paragraph in the bulletin...

"* Simplification of proposed changes to 97.309 to clarify that FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed."

Let's look at these aspects (and not slamming the ARRL or anyone else):

"any published digital code".

Most digital modes can be operated by a variety of means and/or hardware. PSK, RTTY and the like can be done via soundcard or TNC. PACTOR can be done by using one of several TNCs.

But what about the newer modes such as PACTOR II & III. The only way you can do this is to purchase a SCS TNC from, you guessed it, the folks who authored PACTOR II & III.

These folks have stated flatly they DO NOT plan to release their software code to the public. Therefore, does PACTOR II or III qualify as "any published digital code"?

Let's take a look at another FCC rule that "might" be able to be applied here:

97.113(a)(4) "Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this Section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;"

I understand that anyone willing to spend the amount of money needed to use the newer digital modes, which could be over $1000, can monitor and communicate with stations using those modes. But, in the spirit of amateur radio, are these newer modes acceptable in that they are readiliy available? Or, are they for an elite of special interest group only?

Just something to think about. I appreciate all those folks who have developed modes and especially software for those modes and made it readily available for all who want to use. I believe that IS the spirit of amateur radio.

73! NA4IT

n4zou

10-26-2004, 11:13 PM

Pactor II and Pactor III modes are propriety modes only available on SCS TNC's so an amateur radio operator without a $1000 SCS box can't even monitor the content of messages from or too the internet. SCS will not even allow enough of their propriety code to enable decoding for self-monitoring and policing by an O-O or even an amateur radio operator to make sure porn or a commercial business is not using amateur frequencies to operate illegal or for-profit operations. The software normally used will not allow monitoring as well. Pactor II and Pactor III should be illegal on the amateur bands until the full source code is released to the public like Pactor I is now.

N5PVL

10-27-2004, 02:23 AM

n4zou says:
Quote[/b] ]
Pactor II and Pactor III should be illegal on the amateur bands until the full source code is released to the public like Pactor I is now.

From what I understand, it actually is illegal - but no special effort is being made to enforce the regs in this instance. If more hams complain to the FCC, maybe something will be done about it.

There seems to be a large pool of hams who are unhappy with PACTOR II/III, due to interference issues. Many of the PACTOR II/III operators have not been good neighbors on the air, and they have managed to sour the mode's reputation.

So we are looking at a digital mode that is not in accordance with the PART97 regs, that is best known among amateurs as a source of interference.

I learned something about wide digital modes while experimenting with Q15x25 mode, which is the same width as PACTOR III, the equivalent of 15 PSK31 QSO's in bandwidth.

One thing I learned was that it is hard to justify taking up that much bandwidth for casual chatting or what-have-you.

Another thing I learned was that it was very difficult to operate that wide of a signal responsibly. Empty places that wide are hard to find on the most popular ( and therefore useful ) bands. Empty slots 15 PSK QSO's wide on a busy band are rare, fleeting things.

The bandwidth segmentation proposal was, partly at least, set up to address that very problem, opening up more spectrum for use with wide digital modes. This move was not well considered.

The problem with any wide mode is that it allows one amateur to take up spectrum that could support many more hams using narrow mode applications. Use of wide digital modes effectively shrinks our band allocations by directly reducing the number of amateurs who can utilize that bit of spectrum at a given time. The more wide-mode stations on the air at once, the worse the problem becomes - rapidly.

For this reason, common sense dictates that we limit bandwidth, and work to gain what throughput we can through other angles of attack. ( Higher data rates, data compression, advanced error correction, multicast protocol )

As long as the wide-modes get all of our attention when looking at developing our digital ability on HF, we will be seeing one attempt after another to finagle more spectrum for wide digital modes - with less and less being left over for everything else.

It doesn't have to be that way... To get past it, we will have to limit the amount of spectrum a single ham or application can take up.

What would be a reasonable limitation? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #<-- Innocent look.

Charles, #N5PVL

ke4pjw

10-27-2004, 06:09 AM

I think a couple of clarifications need to be made. I would not expect anyone to have to release source code of their digital implementation. However, they should be forced to publish the protocol specification for their digital implementation with enough accuracy and detail for anyone else to fully re-implement it. This should be done for the sake of interoperability and monitoring.

As it stands now, you do not have to publish the protocol specs. It's only your intent that would make the transmision illegal.

I for one, would like to see this changed.

K0RGR

10-27-2004, 01:04 PM

If we require the publication of a protocol before it can be used for experimentation on the ham bands, that could stifle the development of new digital modes.

The old, or existing way to deal with the problem is to obtain an STA from the FCC to experiment with a new mode. This is pretty cumbersome when you may be trying a lot of different things.

I agree, however, that proprietary modes like PACTOR II, III and CLOVER, while providing superior capabilities, are not in the amateur tradition, and probably should not be part of any widely adopted standard.

ae1x

10-27-2004, 04:40 PM

Now that the League has addressed my major problem with this proposal, I will indicate my agreement with it. The only issue I still have is the need for additional space on the bands for phone operation, since it is by far the most popular.

Ken

KE4MOB

10-27-2004, 04:43 PM

"These folks have stated flatly they DO NOT plan to release their software code to the public. Therefore, does PACTOR II or III qualify as "any published digital code"?"

You're comparing apples to oranges. #Your use of "software code" implies the nuts and bolts of the TNC operating system. #If you argue that should become open sourced, then I suggest you also hit up the "big three" for their open source microprocessor code and all the DSP chip companies to open source their offerings. #While you're at it, why don't you hit up Intel and AMD, too?

The RF technical specs of P-III are widely available on the internet. #And that is considered "published" by any stretch of the imagination...besides, it works for every other mode.

"However, they should be forced to publish the protocol specification for their digital implementation with enough accuracy and detail for anyone else to fully re-implement it."

Why should we force any company (especially one RUN BY HAMS) be forced by edict to effectively "shoot themselves in the foot"? #If a company spends time and money in design, engineering and production of a truly unique product capable of things that no one else can do, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from it???

Or are hams really that cheap?

AB9FH

10-27-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote[/b] ]The RF technical specs of P-III are widely available on the internet. #And that is considered "published" by any stretch of the imagination...besides, it works for every other mode.

If the protocol used by PIII modems is known because it has been published, why are there no third-party devices that have made use of the information?

n9lya

10-27-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 27 2004,09:43)]"These folks have stated flatly they DO NOT plan to release their software code to the public. Therefore, does PACTOR II or III qualify as "any published digital code"?"

You're comparing apples to oranges. #Your use of "software code" implies the nuts and bolts of the TNC operating system. #If you argue that should become open sourced, then I suggest you also hit up the "big three" for their open source microprocessor code and all the DSP chip companies to open source their offerings. #While you're at it, why don't you hit up Intel and AMD, too?

The RF technical specs of P-III are widely available on the internet. #And that is considered "published" by any stretch of the imagination...besides, it works for every other mode.

"However, they should be forced to publish the protocol specification for their digital implementation with enough accuracy and detail for anyone else to fully re-implement it."

Why should we force any company (especially one RUN BY HAMS) be forced by edict to effectively "shoot themselves in the foot"? #If a company spends time and money in design, engineering and production of a truly unique product capable of things that no one else can do, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from it???

Or are hams really that cheap?

Are Hams Cheap... thats is a silly question and does not apply here... Its simply meaningless, and with out thought. Same kind of Answers I would get from the Winlink Group.

Not all HAMs are interested in Pactor II or III. So why should they have to pay $1000 to make sure their RF Neighbor is legal and why would they need to spend $1000 just to ID a PII or PIII Station causing QRM..

If they do not make their system "Monitor able" by publishing the protocol.. Who is responsible for the legality of their transmissions... How will we be able to report QRM or unintended/intended interference...

Yes they should be forced to make it Monitor able at minimum.. Regardless of their Monetary funds they would love to have at $1000 a pop..

Not needing to release the transmit part of the protocol.. Just the Receive of data.. If this is not doable.. Then they need to release the entire protocol..

It should remain illegal for a non-easily monitored system to be implemented.. Period..

And yes we still know they bought their way into this position with the ARRL.. that much is obvious.. Actions speak louder then words..
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS and buy SCS modems for #their OOC's and OO's so they can continue to monitor the bands for violations and unintentional/intentional bad practice.. Or are they just going to let them go at it and let them violate every rule out there just because no one is equipped to monitor it but others with SCS modems..

I doubt it really..

I doubt the FCC or the International Telecommunications Union will allow it.... Unless they have amassed enough funds to pay them off as well...

73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section

ad6zj

10-27-2004, 10:58 PM

I must re-read my FCC rules to be sure but the complete protocol must be published and available to make it a legal form of data communications for amatuer use. Without the protocol it falls under the catagory of coded mesages which is prohibited.

AD6ZJ, Loren

10-27-2004, 11:41 PM

Jerry said:
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS

Jerry, tell me the basis of the above statement. #I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Jim Haynie, W5JBP

N5PVL

10-28-2004, 03:06 AM

W5JBP says:
Quote[/b] ]
Jerry said:
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS

Jerry, tell me the basis of the above statement. #I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Jim Haynie, W5JBP #

I'm sure that Jerry is trying his best to find some explanation for the ARRL's behavior in regards to SCS, PACTOR III, and WinLink.

Like Jerry, it #looks a lot to me like somebody's in the sack with somebody, or has been bought, or ( most likely in my book ) was simply hoodwinked.

Whatever the problem is, I'm sure we all hope that the ARRL will get over it soon.

Good luck!

Charles, #N5PVL

ab0wr

10-28-2004, 03:56 AM

<<<Jerry said:
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS

Jerry, tell me the basis of the above statement. I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Jim Haynie, W5JBP>>>>

When the ARRL recommends a system (Winlink 2000) as THE system for use by amateur radio in its emergency operations in the future and, at the same time, puts forth a bandplan which makes the entire analog phone areas of todays bandplan available for the system do you really think that everyone is going to consider this to be a coincidence?

It becomes even more of a problem when the Winlink 2000 system is so heavily dependent upon proprietary equipment whose operating protocol is not sufficiently documented in the public domain to allow interfacing by independent manufacturers or experimenters. When this equipment costs $800 - $1000 per pop it becomes an expense item significant enough that people start asking questions, especially when thousands of installations over the next several years could be involved.

Even the government, as inefficient as it is, requires multiple sourcing for systems it chooses to install (except for military weapon systems), so that competitive bidding can provide the lowest cost and most efficient provisioning.

Yet the organization that represents the amateur community, the ARRL, has recommended a proprietary system, provided by a monopoly, as our primary emergency communications system in the future.

Is it any wonder that people are asking questions about this?

The new recommendations should help allay some of the concerns people have. Not allowing robot operation in the phone bands will be a big help.

Specifying that automatic operation must stay in the narrow bands provided today will be a big help also. But I must say here that today's Winlink operations need to be reviewed closely to insure that this regulation is being followed.

Since much of the usefulness of the Winlink system in emergencies is supposed to be automatic forwarding of emails from EOC's on a real-time basis via what could even be unattended nodes, this will of necessity involve automatic operation. When this operation must be done over HF because no vhf nodes are in place or are usable, it will need to be done over frequencies in the automatic operation sub-bands. It is not obvious to me that this restriction is being specifically outlined in Winlink planning documents or training material on the Web.

In fact, this may have some huge, un-intended consequences in the use of Winlink for providing emergency communications, at least via HF. Restricting operation to the automatic sub-bands will greatly increase the amount of congestion encountered by the attempted emergency communications. Denial of service attacks by misanthropes during an emergency would be much more successful.

I wonder what the Winlink 2000 people will have to say about having their emergeny communications setups restricted to the automatic operation sub-bands only?

tim ab0wr

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 05:46 AM

"If the protocol used by PIII modems is known because it has been published, why are there no third-party devices that have made use of the information?"

Good question. Maybe because there's not enough justification for the time/expense?

"Are Hams Cheap... thats is a silly question and does not apply here"

Then why did you mention the $1000 price tag 3 times in your reply? Suppose the price was $500...or $100. Would that change your position?

"Who is responsible for the legality of their transmissions?"

The control operator of that station, per Part 97.

"the complete protocol must be published and available to make it a legal form of data communications for amatuer use."

Here's what Part 97 says:

"(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications."

Here's a question. Why isn't the same stink being raised about digital voice? I can't decode it. The vast majority of hams can't either, and from reading the articles on it, the only way to know who is operating is to have a box ($300 homebrew--$550 from AOR).

What's the difference?

N5PVL

10-28-2004, 10:13 AM

KE4MOB #says:
Quote[/b] ]
What's the difference?

Good call. The only real difference is that PACTOR II/III stations anonymously QRM amateurs today, while the digital voice stuff has not seen so much air-time as of yet, and so has not had the same impact... Yet.

You are basically right, though: Illegal is illegal, and "new and better" illegal stuff is still - illegal.

Charles, #N5PVL

N5PVL

10-28-2004, 10:25 AM

W5JBP says:
Quote[/b] ]
I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Personally, I'd like to have the facts behind the ARRL's unseemly association with Winlink/SCS - if you have any.

A thing to remember when you puff up and act sarcastic with amateurs is that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Is it really your job to act snippy with amateurs who are concerned about what many see as bizzarre, inappropriate behavior at Newington - on your watch?

I don't think so.

One thing you can count on, Jim, is that as long as you continue to hide under your desk and take snide pot-shots at concerned amateurs, people are going to tend to think the worst.

My personal take on all of this is that you do not know TAPR from shinola about the digital stuff, and so you judge expertise in this area by how good an individual is at slapping you on the back and putting on the good old boy routine.

Unfortunately, that "cult of personality" system is no more effective or useful for the ARRL than it was for the old USSR, and when you couple that with the recent smell of grant money from the DHS, what we have is a perfect recipie for corruption.

As I have said before, I do not believe that you are personally corrupt, but I do believe that you have been ( understandably ) distracted by the BPL fight and that a lot has been going on behind your back.

- But that's just me! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif # <-- Innocent look.

Charles, #N5PVL

10-28-2004, 01:18 PM

Charles, when people make unfounded statements and say that we (I) are on the "take" so to speak tells me that you are grasping at straws. When such statements are made, I would like to know the basis and how or what would cause such comments. If there is any foundation, I want to know what they are.

As to WinLink, speaking for myself only, I could give a whit. One does not have to buy a modem for Pactor III just like one does not have to buy a Icom 7800. However the system is out there and it does work. No one can deny that. There are other systems in the works that may be better. Until then why not?

Jim

n9lya

10-28-2004, 01:33 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 27 2004,16:41)]Jerry said:
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS

Jerry, tell me the basis of the above statement. #I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
Jim,

Just as the ARRL / WINLINK group .. whom neither have presented any Written FACTS what so ever... I only have the following basis for my OPINION..

In this universe 2+2 still = 4...

Thus either the ARRL was Hoodwinked... As many of us would like to believe... Or they were bought, threatened, or whats the word... Extrotion.. to gain support for this WINLINK/SCS proposal...

I would like to say.. I am particularly pleased to see the Autoforwarding ability remain..
I am glad you are keeping PIII out of the SSB voice bands..
Now that only leaves one major hurdle..
Get PIII in its own small segment of each band .. So they only QRM themselves..

Mainly due to anyone sharing a band segment with them.. Unless they spend $1000 for an SCS modem will not be able to montior the PII PIII stations for legality, good or bad operating practice, nor Identifying QRM..

Please make this last adjustment, by giving PII PIII their own SMALL band segment..

The legality part then falls on the FCC to fix.. Otherwise QRM will rule the bands...

Thus also part of the basis for my opinion is EEE Gads why would anyone endorse such a COMMERCIAL system... On Ham Radio..

I hope this helps...

Send me THE facts. So I can better have a more informed opinion...

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

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 01:36 PM

"The only real difference is that PACTOR II/III stations anonymously QRM amateurs today"

Actually, Charles digital voice is worse in the anonymity department. Pactor II/III linkups all start as Pactor I linkups....which *are* monitorable. The systems then upshift if the band conditions are quiet enough (i.e. QRM free) to support the speeds.

Not so with digital voice.

"You are basically right, though: Illegal is illegal, and "new and better" illegal stuff is still - illegal."

Not according to Part 97! Digital voice and Pactor are *both* legal, as are the 40 million other digital modes that have been developed in the last 15 years.

As it stands today, anyone could develop a new mode, publish the technical specs in an obscure journal or backwoods web page and be completely legal under Part 97. For all intents and purposes, it would be a unknown signal except to those who were lucky (or privledged) enough to know where to find the specs. Possible? Yep. We still don't know what that signal was in the lower part of 40M a couple months back.

n5rfx

10-28-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote[/b] ]W5JBP However the system is out there and it does work. No one can deny that.

Jim,

Acutally the system does not comply with part 97.101(d) "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

In the H.F. bands it is impossible for the attended station to determine if the unattended station will cause interference. This is due to to propagation in the H.F. bands In PR Docket 94-59 the FCC acknowledges concerns about the interference that unattended station will cause. The FCC goes on to state that "we are also confident in the ability of the amateur service community to respond, as it has in the past, to the challenge of minimizing interference with novel and technical appoaches to the use of shared frequency bands". That was nearly 10 years ago. At that time the interference problem was minimal. But since the sound card modes have become popular, and RTTY has attracted new enthusiasts, the problem is not so minimal. The Winlink system has not met the challange of minimizing interference to these modes. The simple fact is that the SCS modem cannot detect these modes, and does not know of their existance. Winlink does not comply with the FCC rules and should not be given any endorsement by the ARRL until this is corrected.

The best fix is to move ALL unattended operation, regardless of bandwidth" to specific subbands.

73,

Mark N5RFX

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,06:18)]Charles, when people make unfounded statements and say that we (I) are on the "take" so to speak tells me that you are grasping at straws. When such statements are made, I would like to know the basis and how or what would cause such comments. If there is any foundation, I want to know what they are.

As to WinLink, speaking for myself only, I could give a whit. One does not have to buy a modem for Pactor III just like one does not have to buy a Icom 7800. However the system is out there and it does work. No one can deny that. There are other systems in the works that may be better. Until then why not?

Jim
Jim,

I for one agree that the Winlink system is probably the best choice at the moment, and always have. The problem is that the Winlink frequencies are all scattered over the bands, instead of being in one place where they can be avoided. Why will ARRL not support all unattended operations, even if only one side is unattended, gathered in one place were others can avoid them, and they will not always pop up on another's QSO?

CW, PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16, SSTV, and SSB phone operators all do this voluntarily, but Winlink does not, which is causing all the QRM problems.

If ARRL now thinks SSB phone activites cannot handle being mixed with unattended digital modes, why does ARRL think digital modes like PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16, etc., have to be subject to being mixed with unattended 500 Hz-wide digital modes?

I have provided you with hard data that shows the current 97.221(b) sub-bands are large enough to handle all the current Winlink channels, and the latest new release from ARRL basically extends the 3000 Hz-wide segments to include additional frequencies with the exception of the phone bands, which would provide even more space for unattended digital stations, from 500 Hz-wide up to 3000 Hz-wide in which to operate.

When everyone complains that ARRL seems to always give Winlink almost everything they want, and ignores desperate cries for help to simply require all unattended operations to be in one place, how can you expect people not to think ARRL is somehow favoring Winlink, or worse?

Just why will ARRL not go to bat for 99% of the hams that do not use Winlink and simply require all unattended operations to be in one place, no larger than they need for their 1% of the FCC-registered hams and any additional ARESCOM activities?

People are "grasping at straws", because they are desperate for answers as to why they feel ARRL has betrayed the members by catering to a small, special interest group, and done nothing to group unattended activities in one place like everyone else does voluntarily, but Winlink refuses to do.

The only reason the issue of the cost of a Pactor-III (or Pactor-II) modem comes up is that the FCC holds us responsible for policing our bands, and we are prevented by SCS, and financially by the expense of purchasing a modem produced by a foreign government monopoly, to let us identify unattended Pactor stations that interfere with everyone else. If the unattended stations were all required by regulations to be in a single space, the only people that would complain about the cost of an SCS modem would be those who would need it for access to the Winlink system, since most of us also, like yourself, "could not care a whit" about what Winlink did in that separate space!

What is so hard about asking to keep unattended operations, where at least one side of the communications link is always deaf and blind, and the other side apparently does not care about anyone else on the frequency, to group in one place instead of all over the bands like they are now? If you could do this, then voluntary grouping within bandwidth-defined segments would occur naturally and all the opposition to the concept of segmentation by bandwidth would fade away.

We look to you, our president, for leadership in making sure all the members are treated fairly and as equally in proportion to their membership representation as possible. You have the power to help us, and we are desperate for help. Will you just go to bat for the 99% of us who will never use Winlink and ask that all unattended operations of any kind be confined to a single space of appropriate size?

73, Skip KH6TY

10-28-2004, 02:29 PM

Charles, Skip- Do you really think Balkanizing the bands is a good idea?

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,07:29)]Charles, Skip- Do you really think Balkanizing the bands is a good idea?
Jim,

Help me out, please . I don't know what is meant by "Balkanizing" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

73, Skip.

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 02:36 PM

"Actually the system does not comply with part 97.101(d) "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

Read that very carefully, especially "willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to ". It's a poorly worded reg, IMHO.

One take on it could be that accidental QRM is not illegal under Part 97--it's only illegal if it's willful and/or malicious. That kind of agrees with what the FCC enforcement actions have been lately. Accidental QRM is viewed as a "no harm/no foul" type of situation.

And no, I don't see why we can't move unattended Pactor operations to their own bandspace.

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 02:37 PM

Balkanize--To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units.

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 02:46 PM

"Charles, Skip- Do you really think Balkanizing the bands is a good idea?"

Sad fact is we might as well. #This debate is symptomatic of a ham population that consists of numerous factions driven by egos that thrive on discord:

OF vs. Newbies
Code vs. No-Code
ARRL vs. anti-ARRL
Echolink vs. HF
Pactor vs. PSK31
WideSSB vs. NarrowSSB
AM vs. SSB

The list goes on and on and on. #We can't agree on anything except that we disagree on everything.

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 28 2004,07:37)]Balkanize--To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units.
Thanks for the definition.

Jim, my reply to your question to Charles and myself is, no, it is generally not a good idea, but sometimes rules have to be made for the small percentage that refuses to compromise to support harmony in the society.

In this case, we have two problems - deaf and blind unattended stations, stations equipped with ARQ, and published channels that infer a presumption of "ownership". Add to that the ability to put a supposedly manually controlled station under automatic software control without detection, and you have a situation that requires rulemaking and "Balkanization" (if it is proper to classify it as such).

All this boils down to some very simple facts:

1. There IS a big QRM problem caused by unattended stations starting up on an active frequency used by someone else, and the level of QRM is excessive large compared to the normal level experienced outside of contests.

2. The QRM problem can be solved by simply keeping all unattended operations in a single place. Winlink refuses to do this. Why?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif What is the big problem with operating in one place if you are given the same number of channels to use? Where is Winlink's compromise in the interest of harmony?

I have not seen the details of any revised ARRL proposed petition yet, but, based on the latest ARRL news release, SSB phone is still not allowed between 14100 and 14150, and now, unattended digital is not allowed between 14150 and 14350 on 20 meters, for example.

So, the bands have already been effectively divided into units of phone, wide unattended digital, unattended digital, and CW/narrow attended digital.

Is this not "Balkanization" of some degree already, or is it just a question of semantics?

73, Skip KH6TY

n9lya

10-28-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Oct. 28 2004,06:33)]Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 27 2004,16:41)]Jerry said:
So now is the ARRL going to take some of that money they got from WINLINK/SCS

Jerry, tell me the basis of the above statement. #I want to know the facts, if you have any.....

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
Jim,

Just as the ARRL / WINLINK group .. whom neither have presented any Written FACTS what so ever... I only have the following basis for my OPINION..

In this universe 2+2 still = 4...

Thus either the ARRL was Hoodwinked... As many of us would like to believe... Or they were bought, threatened, or whats the word... Extrotion.. to gain support for this WINLINK/SCS proposal...

I would like to say.. I am particularly pleased to see the Autoforwarding ability remain..
I am glad you are keeping PIII out of the SSB voice bands..
Now that only leaves one major hurdle..
Get PIII in its own small segment of each band .. So they only QRM themselves..

Mainly due to anyone sharing a band segment with them.. Unless they spend $1000 for an SCS modem will not be able to montior the PII PIII stations for legality, good or bad operating practice, nor Identifying QRM..

Please make this last adjustment, by giving PII PIII their own SMALL band segment..

The legality part then falls on the FCC to fix.. Otherwise QRM will rule the bands...

Thus also part of the basis for my opinion is EEE Gads why would anyone endorse such a COMMERCIAL system... On Ham Radio..

I hope this helps...

Send me THE facts. So I can better have a more informed opinion...

73 Jerry N9LYA http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Jim,Ok I answered your question... Now answer mine...

Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource..
Without proof I am sure the FCC will not take any complaints seriously...
Even if I ran PII and PIII why should I get to operate out side the boundries of GOOD OPERATING Practices..This does not take into account rules violations...Not my direct concern... But how do we maintain our ability to police ourselves..

Your turn to answer some questions....

If you can...

Yes the proposal is getting closer to doable.. but not quite yet...

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

10-28-2004, 03:47 PM

Is this not "Balkanization" of some degree already, or is it just a question of semantics?

Yes, it is actually. Go on 14.230 or there abouts and call cq. You will get a burst of SSTV. Or lets get on 14.200 and use AM. See what happens. Or 75 meters where at night groups will jump you out for being on "their frequency." I always get a chuckle when the response is: "we have been meeting here for 25 years." #This is human nature I guess, but to carve out a checkered band plan to accommodate each and every special interest just does not compute either.

I do know that if you were to submit a petition asking for the above the FCC would probably dismiss it out right. They are for less regulation not more. Time will tell.....

10-28-2004, 03:51 PM

Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....

No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim

n9lya

10-28-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,08:51)]Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....

No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim
Jim,

Duh... What kinda reply is that. Sounds like what I get from the WINLINK group.. You know what I am talking about you have seen my emails.. Please ask Steve k4cjx to leave the room when you work up a reply... As it now looks like he is giving the info to reply with... #He does not have the answers to our tough questions... No one there or at WINLINK do.. never had.. Never will.

We have started our Comments to the FCC NPRM for submission... Loosk like we are indeed getting no where here?

If you cannot answer my questions do not even try..

Yes, the ARRL is holding a GUN to all our heads.. ... I really wish you would stop and listen.. \\\

I run HF packet ... In the unattended band segments..
If PII or PIII stations are to operate in the same band.. THERE WILL BE QRM.. So yes it is a problem...

If PII and PIII operatate in any shared band segment there will be QRM... To other operators...

We know this becuase there are as you say PII and PIII Station already on the air..

Please try and listen to what we are saying...

But at this point I expect the same short empty replies...

Can we get constructive here?

73 Jerry N9LYA

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

K1LPI

10-28-2004, 04:27 PM

A better understanding of the word published will help you understand that pactor, and other proprietary codes are included and may be used under the ARRL proposal.

published

Publish \Pub"lish\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Published; p. pr. & vb. n. Publishing.] [F. publier, L. publicare, publicatum. See Public, and -ish.] 1. To make public; to make known to mankind, or to people in general; to divulge as a private transaction; to promulgate or proclaim, as a law or an edict.

Note this: to divulge as a private transaction;

ARRL might want to consider the problem of monitoring when special apparatus is required to receive and decode the transmissions. That is where the FCC will want to have the ability to monitor the transmissions. As long as the equipment can be purchased by the government on an open market I think this problem is solved.

ARRL's proposal might be the "far reaching" answer to prevent future delays in adoption and invention of new technology by the amateur service by removing old roadblocks. Consider how may years we were limited to TTY operation and could not use ASCII codes without an STA. For many years FCC failed in its mandate to encourage new technology in the amateur service and the ARRL proposal will keep FCC from getting into that rut again.

Dave Aronovitz
K1LPI
licensed since 1956

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,08:51)]Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....

No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim
"Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource....."

You're going to have to do something, because sitting around complaining gets nothing accomplished. #After a while, all the complaining and bickering becomes so juvenile as to make one think we are emotionally equivalent to 4 year olds. #I think we very often live up to the term "amateur".

In closing, let me ask a philosophical question (actually several):

Why should I be forced to download software and install it on my computer to enable me to recieve all those digital modes like PSK31?

Why should I have to buy a TNC from SCS to receive Pactor II/III?

Why should I have to have a computer in the first place?

Why should I be forced to have a license to transmit?

Why should I be forced to stay within the band allocations?

Why should I be forced to learn CW at 5 WPM for my General?

Why should I be forced to take *any* tests for my license?

The simple answer is "because that's the way it is." #We may not like it, but that's the way it is.

n9lya

10-28-2004, 04:48 PM

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 28 2004,09:32)]Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,08:51)]Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....

No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim
"Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource....."

You're going to have to do something, because sitting around complaining gets nothing accomplished. #After a while, all the complaining and bickering becomes so juvenile as to make one think we are emotionally equivalent to 4 year olds. #I think we very often live up to the term "amateur".

In closing, let me ask a philosophical question (actually several):

Why should I be forced to download software and install it on my computer to enable me to recieve all those digital modes like PSK31?

Why should I have to buy a TNC from SCS to receive Pactor II/III?

Why should I have to have a computer in the first place?

Why should I be forced to have a license to transmit?

Why should I be forced to stay within the band allocations?

Why should I be forced to learn CW at 5 WPM for my General?

Why should I be forced to take *any* tests for my license?

The simple answer is "because that's the way it is." #We may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Sorry... thats not the way it will be.. the way it will be .. is this.. We will fight this at the level it needed to be fought all along, which is obviously at the FCC during acceptance of comments for notice of #proposed rule making...!

Then and only then will it be... "The way it is."

You are correct stating facts here is no way the way to do it.. As those who need to do something about it now (the ARRL) , which is to terminate this rediculous proposal, #have absolutly no clue.

Its still beyond me why the proposal was called the ARRL Bandwidth Proiposal. Instead of the Winlink Proposal... See even in their title they were less then honest...
What is wrong with demanding Facts instead of hearsay.. So we can form less hostile opinions.. Ones based on fact instead of ones based on the 2+2 = 4 theory...

I will tell you... Becuase they have no backing Documentation... Period, if they did they, would be using it to get buy in ... and not relying on hearsay and guess what to gains peoples buy in.

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

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,08:47)]Is this not "Balkanization" of some degree already, or is it just a question of semantics?

Yes, it is actually. Go on 14.230 or there abouts and call cq. You will get a burst of SSTV. Or lets get on 14.200 and use AM. See what happens. Or 75 meters where at night groups will jump you out for being on "their frequency." I always get a chuckle when the response is: "we have been meeting here for 25 years." #This is human nature I guess, but to carve out a checkered band plan to accommodate each and every special interest just does not compute either.

I do know that if you were to submit a petition asking for the above the FCC would probably dismiss it out right. They are for less regulation not more. Time will tell.....
Jim,

Sorry, but I am getting a little confused. The FCC regulations already restrict unattended operations over 500 Hz wide, even if one side is manually controlled, from operations anywhere but the designated 97.221(b) sub-bands.

Everyone, not just myself, desperately (yes, desperately!) needs ALL unattended operations, including those where one side is claimed to be under manual control, to stay in one, contiguous, space so others know exactly where they are and can avoid them, and they are not scattered all among other operations.

This has NOTHING to do with "carving out" a special place for unattended operations, which represent only 1% #of the band users. It has EVERYTHING to do with protecting the remaining 99% of users of the band from unintended interference by unattended operations, the same way ARRL is planning to protect phone from interference from unattended operations that are themselves unable to stop from interfering with everyone else by the nature of their network design.

There are three SEPARATE issues that need to be regulated, in a revised way, that the FCC already regulates:

1. Emitted bandwidth (200 Hz, 500 Hz, 3000 Hz, etc.)

2. Mode of operation (CW, PSK31, RTTY, Pactor, Spread-specturm, etc.)

3. Operating practices (unattended vs attended)

Please just let us know where you stand by saying YES or NO to whether or not you will make a request to the ARRL Board to revise their proposed petition to allocate a separate space for all types of unattended operations.

Thanks,

Skip KH6TY

n5rfx

10-28-2004, 05:14 PM

Jim,

I think by Balkanize you mean channelize? I think channelization solves a problem. Since today, there are unattended stations that cannot determine if a frequency is clear, and it is unfair to ask to control operator of the attended end to determine if the frequency is clear on the unattended side, then channelization for this purpose will group unattended control stations together.

I see your point about 14.230 and 14.200, but a human control operator is present for those operations. We have channelized repeater operation on 10M and above, so this is a better example. I agree we should not have to put the unattended operation in the regulation. Since H.F. has unique propagation characteristics, and it is impossible for the attended station to determine if the unattended station will cause interference, then we have two choices.

1. Accommodate unattended operation by allocating bandwidth for that purpose.
2. Ask that unattended operation in the 160 through 12 meter bands not be authorized.

I think 1 is better.

My dream come true would be to have a regulation similar to the Canadian Amateur Radio regulations and let a bandplan take care of mode segregation. I have found great resistance to this from the U.S. Amateur community, because they think it won’t work. They may be right.

73,

Mark N5RFX

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Oct. 28 2004,10:14)]My dream come true would be to have a regulation similar to the Canadian Amateur Radio regulations and let a bandplan take care of mode segregation. #I have found great resistance to this from the U.S. Amateur community, because they think it won’t work. #They may be right.

73,

Mark N5RFX
To Mark and Jim Haynie:

Do you think if ARRL came out with a bandplan, like IARU Region 1 draft bandplan, for example, that specifies a separate space for unattended store-and-forward operations on each band, that Winlink would adhere to that bandplan?

73, Skip KH6TY

W8MW

10-28-2004, 05:29 PM

Here’s my very fundamental concern with the petition: #Will operators be penalized by specific emission bandwidth regulations? #Will some transmitters become illegal?

Proposed emission bandwidths of 200, 500, 3000 Hz , etc. all make for an orderly and visually pleasing plan on paper. #But do these specifications accommodate real-world amateur equipment and operating interests? #

Consider 200 Hz which is presumed to allow for CW. #ARRL lab tests on some newer transceivers include spectrum analysis of CW keying sidebands. #Just this morning I noted two tests indicating emission bandwidths in excess of 200 Hz at –26dBc.

If those transceivers were operated on the air under the same conditions they were tested, they would fail to meet the bandwidth spec. #The CW operator would then be faced with options of not operating at all … or operating illegally ... or moving into other band segments where his signal would comply with the emission specification. #Displacing CW operators surely isn’t the intent of the petition but it might be a consequence.

In its quest for technical input, shouldn’t ARRL involve the gurus in the lab? #Let them report on the RF footprint of commonly used transmitters and modes. #Let their findings factor into emission bandwidth definitions.

73 Mike

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 06:03 PM

ab0wr

10-28-2004, 06:04 PM

<<<Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....>>

<<No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim>>

Please, this is *not* a valid analogy. Population densities on 47Ghz are not what they are on HF. This alone makes the comparison invalid.

Neither is this an argument about being able to copy all modes. The issue is that *any* mode should be able to be copied if it you want to do so. That ability should not be dependent on forking over $1000 to a monopoly supplier because the communication protocols for the mode have not been specified in enough detail for an independent experimenter or manufacturer to interface properly. That IS the case with pactor II and III.

And I should note that while all pactor conversation start in Pactor I that does not allow identifying the originator of the conversation if the session is never fully established. I.e. only the called station can be identified, not the calling station.

Balkanization of the bands is what we *already* have today. The bandplan should move toward LESS balkanization while still maintaining the viability of all modes.

What you have run into is the need to satisfy competing interests. That usually means weighting the interests in some manner. I would suggest that the interests involved with the majority use of the amateur spectrum be given significant weight as opposed to the interests of those involved with minority use.

tim ab0wr

KE4MOB

10-28-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Oct. 28 2004,11:04)]<<<Why should I or anyone not interested in PII or PIII either be forced to buy a $1000 modem to protect our operations from QRM or let QRM happen without recource.....>>

<<No one is holding a gun to your head! Duh! There are number of modes that I can't copy. Don't need to. Taking it a step further, I can't get on 47 GHZ either, but I don't make a big deal out of it just because some of the others here in Dallas can. Can we say: "black helo's"?

Jim>>

Please, this is *not* a valid analogy. Population densities on 47Ghz are not what they are on HF. This alone makes the comparison invalid.

Neither is this an argument about being able to copy all modes. The issue is that *any* mode should be able to be copied if it you want to do so. That ability should not be dependent on forking over $1000 to a monopoly supplier because the communication protocols for the mode have not been specified in enough detail for an independent experimenter or manufacturer to interface properly. That IS the case with pactor II and III.

And I should note that while all pactor conversation start in Pactor I that does not allow identifying the originator of the conversation if the session is never fully established. I.e. only the called station can be identified, not the calling station.

Balkanization of the bands is what we *already* have today. The bandplan should move toward LESS balkanization while still maintaining the viability of all modes.

What you have run into is the need to satisfy competing interests. That usually means weighting the interests in some manner. I would suggest that the interests involved with the majority use of the amateur spectrum be given significant weight as opposed to the interests of those involved with minority use.

tim ab0wr
"The issue is that *any* mode should be able to be copied if it you want to do so. That ability should not be dependent on forking over $1000 to a monopoly supplier"

Ok, so what (in your eyes) should it be dependent on?

There's ample evidence that the ability to copy a particular mode requires some dependence on hardware. For example to copy ANY digital mode requires a) a radio and b) a processing unit and c) an output unit.

Should we really make it a requirement that every mode be able to be decoded by a soundcard and Windows software? That would be falling into the "appliance operator" trap wouldn't it??

Historical note: RTTY was not developed by hams, and was originally developed for solely commercial/military interest. It wasn't until the 1950's that it was used by hams, using surplus commercial equipment. So there's ample precedent for hams using commercial equipment and commercial modes.

na4it

10-28-2004, 08:39 PM

Well, I started the thread, so I guess I can post comments.

I'm probably dumb as a rock when it comes to digital communications. But, here's something we ALL need to look at:

What is the purpose in all of this?

(1) To enjoy a hobby.
(2) To help our fellowman through emergency communications.

When we begin to promote (yes Jim I said promote, because when the ARRL proposes something, it is promoting it) a new form of communication, and it is going to detract from what we already can do, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

I for one have seen the demise of good relationships in emergency communications until it makes me sick.

We need to focus on what is important...HUMAN LIVES!

I realize ham radio is steeped in experimentation, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is just one reason I enjoy ham radio as a hobby.

But we need to look at what we are doing to our image in the public. Our newsletter and publications ARE NOT seen by the general public. Newspapers and radio reports are seen and heard by all. And MOST of the press amateur radio is getting is terrible. The BPL fight is top news right now, and amateur radio operators are being made to look like fools.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...LET'S TAKE THE MONEY WE PAY THE ARRL AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR DUES AND PROMOTE AMATEUR RADIO! Then we won't have to fight in Congress and the FCC halls to keep what we have.

I hate to say this, but if the leadership in amateur radio can't do this, then it's time for new leaders. May be harsh, but true.

As far as digital goes, I plan to learn more and operate more modes. But am I going to spend a $1000 to do it? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

ke4pjw

10-28-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 26 2004,10:43)]"However, they should be forced to publish the protocol specification for their digital implementation with enough accuracy and detail for anyone else to fully re-implement it."

Why should we force any company (especially one RUN BY HAMS) be forced by edict to effectively "shoot themselves in the foot"? #If a company spends time and money in design, engineering and production of a truly unique product capable of things that no one else can do, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from it???

Or are hams really that cheap?
No one is saying that manufacturers should not be allowed to profit from their products. TCP/IP is an open protocol that Cisco/Linksys, Netgear and others profit from everyday.

Manufactures should allow intercommunication with their protocol. The whole point of ham radio is intercommunication. By placing artificial knowledge barriers on intercommunication, you make the pool of knowledgeable people smaller.

I think that by not publicly documenting their protocol, a manufacturer does ham radio a disservice. However, under current rules they are allowed to do so.

10-28-2004, 09:20 PM

QUOTE: Please just let us know where you stand by saying YES or NO to whether or not you will make a request to the ARRL Board to revise their proposed petition to allocate a separate space for all types of unattended operations.

Answer: No. The board is quite capable of changing their minds as I have seen them do it for years.

I had typed out a long and what I thought, some good answers to the questions, but I hit some key and it is off in cyber space now. I will try to re-do it tomorrow. A short comment however. I am not fond of any type of fully automatic operations on amateur radio, but that is just me. I think that when it comes time to "save the world" it will be done by real people not by some BBS clanking away all alone in some basement. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

ab0wr

10-28-2004, 09:38 PM

"The issue is that *any* mode should be able to be copied if it you want to do so. That ability should not be dependent on forking over $1000 to a monopoly supplier"

<<Ok, so what (in your eyes) should it be dependent on?>>

What should the ability be dependent upon? It should be dependent upon the ability of the experimenter or manufacturer to implement the established protocol.

<<There's ample evidence that the ability to copy a particular mode requires some dependence on hardware. For example to copy ANY digital mode requires a) a radio and b) a processing unit and c) an output unit.>>

And if the coding scheme and protocols are known then there are numerous ways to implement the processing unit. If they aren't known then there is NO way to implement the processing unit.

<<Should we really make it a requirement that every mode be able to be decoded by a soundcard and Windows software? That would be falling into the "appliance operator" trap wouldn't it??>>

Who said this? This is your strawman. Flail away at it.

<<Historical note: RTTY was not developed by hams, and was originally developed for solely commercial/military interest. It wasn't until the 1950's that it was used by hams, using surplus commercial equipment. So there's ample precedent for hams using commercial equipment and commercial modes. >>

And that surplus equipment was available from numerous sources and the protocols used were very well established and known.

That is most definitely NOT the case with Pactor II and III today where there is a *single* source and the protocol is not known.

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,14:20)]QUOTE: Please just let us know where you stand by saying YES or NO to whether or not you will make a request to the ARRL Board to revise their proposed petition to allocate a separate space for all types of unattended operations.

Answer: No. The board is quite capable of changing their minds as I have seen them do it for years.

I had typed out a long and what I thought, some good answers to the questions, but I hit some key and it is off in cyber space now. I will try to re-do it tomorrow. A short comment however. I am not fond of any type of fully automatic operations on amateur radio, but that is just me. I think that when it comes time to "save the world" it will be done by real people not by some BBS clanking away all alone in some basement. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Jim,

If you achieve some understanding of the problem of not providing separation between unattended and attended operations and still will not explain it to the Board for us, when Winlink has already had the attention of the Board to make Winlink's case, how do you suggest the request be made?

Do the rest of us get "equal time" as is required by the FCC on broadcast radio for different views?

Why would the Board "change their mind" if it is already made up on the basis of Winlink's presentation alone?

73, Skip KH6TY

kh6ty

10-28-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,14:20)]A short comment however. I am not fond of any type of fully automatic operations on amateur radio, but that is just me. I think that when it comes time to "save the world" it will be done by real people not by some BBS clanking away all alone in some basement. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Jim,

Please allow me to make one important observation.

It is a myth, spread since 1995 by Winlink that all their operations are "semiautomatic" and not fully automatic, because supposedly a human operator triggers the robot station, and the robot station is the only one that is fully automatic.

This may be true, or not true, since it is impossible to confirm, but, even if true, the QRM level is intolerable even if the remote station is always under manual control, so the conclusion is that it does not matter if one half or both halves of the link are fully automatic - years of history and mounting, unsolvable, QRM prove it does not work as the ARRL promised it would in 1994.

Things you have written to me before, such as "what about our position on fully automatic operation?" show that Winlink has been successful in promoting the myth that "semiautomatic" operation is "practical", as described in the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Report.

It is NOT "practical" from the standpoint of not causing excessive QRM", or we would not be discussing the problem!

Many commenters on this forum have written that the ARRL has been "hoodwinked", and believing in this Winlink myth is one of the reasons the Board incorrectly believes there is no problem to others with the Winlink system.

Jim, you don't personally care for automatic BBS systems, and we are lucky you have that preference. Now, it is essential to realize that all the Pactor QRM problems are created by only 5100 hams out of 670,000.

Why doesn't the Board support the 99% of hams that do not, and will never, use Winlink, instead of favoring the 1% that do?

73, Skip KH6TY

ky5u

10-29-2004, 01:51 AM

A couple of minor points:

Quote[/b] ]part 97.101(d) "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

Someone made the point that as a machine the automatic process cannot willfully or maliciously interfere therefore 97.101 is not offended. #Let me remind everyone that if you own any machinery and neglegently start operation, even if you are not there and someone gets killed, you can be charged for neglegent homicide. #One could easily argue that someone starting this automatic process knowing it hass the potential to interfere does so willfully. That they are not present when the interference happens is immaterial.

Quote[/b] ]This debate is symptomatic of a ham population that consists of numerous factions driven by egos that thrive on discord:

OF vs. Newbies
Code vs. No-Code
ARRL vs. anti-ARRL
Echolink vs. HF
Pactor vs. PSK31
WideSSB vs. NarrowSSB
AM vs. SSB

My point here is that all these positions are not THAT far apart. #Using "Code vs No-Code" as an example, a large group of pro-code people want to retain the code for higher classes while acknowledging that an entry class no-code license is desirable. Another example is that many folks (like me) may disagree with what the ARRL does but still supports other things done by them. #Many Narrow band SSB users would not mind wideSSB provided it does not interfere on busy bands. #I could go on and on. The point? It's too easy to dismiss polarizing issues. It's much harder to stick in for the long run and try to work out compromises.

At the least, the Ad Hoc folks were poor concensus builders. Why continue that tradition, Jim? Could it be you don't like the source of the suggestions? #Heck, if you work out this issue with automatic stations I'll give you a big sloppy kiss on the forehead. #Does that help? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WA0LYK

10-29-2004, 04:14 AM

Where O Where do I start?

As for Winlink, I had a long reply written out and the d*)& word processor aborted. What it boils down to is that today there are 23 stations on 20 meters with 27 frequencies. They occupy "channels" spread out over about 50 kHz. If they all go to pIII they would physically occupy over 80 kHz. How are you supposed to avoid them? Better yet how are they supposed to avoid other users?

You want to see something interesting? Look at http://radioministries.org/winlink.htm. This organization is expecting to use winlink for "logistics, mission strategy, ordering supplies". I have nothing against this organization and certainly their goals seem laudable. However, this seems awfully close to using ham radio to conduct "business" communications. They even talk about satellite phones being too expensive and winlink being a "free" alternative. I know this is a non-profit and probably tax exempt organization but how much of this can we stand on the amateur bands before it becomes intolerable?

Quote[/b] ]
W8MW
Here’s my very fundamental concern with the petition: Will operators be penalized by specific emission bandwidth regulations? Will some transmitters become illegal?

Proposed emission bandwidths of 200, 500, 3000 Hz , etc. all make for an orderly and visually pleasing plan on paper. But do these specifications accommodate real-world amateur equipment and operating interests?

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I have written about this in several posts on other threads about this.

Quote[/b] ] In its quest for technical input, shouldn’t ARRL involve the gurus in the lab? Let them report on the RF footprint of commonly used transmitters and modes. Let their findings factor into emission bandwidth definitions.

Yes!

Currently we have,

Sec. 97.307 Emission standards.

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

The new plan will specify bandwidths, yet put in a statement that amateurs won't have to measure their bandwidth. This "out" doesn't keep anybody from violating the bandwidth, just that they don't have to know about it. Not good!

I agree with Mike's point that we should have some technical data so we can SEE how transmitters from different era's perform under different modes. Putting a digital bitstream through a microphone amplifier or even IF and RF stages designed for audio sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Can we please, please, please see some data on the ARRL website about how a broad selection of transmitters handle the pactor III and AOR digital voice modems.

Varying operating parameters should be chosen such as when the speech processor is on, when the alc is at the top of the range, and different power ranges. It would be nice if transmitters were used just as they are taken out of a shack, no alignment, no bias adjustments, etc.

I would like to see some Heathkit HW-101's, Drake TR4's, Collins KWM2's, Kenwood 830's, Icom 751's, Yaesu FT-101"s, and other more current rigs. Electronic parts do drift in value based on age and temperature. Maybe not as much now as they used to but bias components, final transistors, and filter components all have an effect on the RF waveform a transmitter puts out.

Some RF spectrum analyzer pictures would make it much easier to support the proposed bandwidths.

I would think the ARRL would want to have this data available should someone question the petition. The ARRL should be able to respond with actual data showing that 3 kHz is correct and that there is no reason it should be 3.3 Khz or 2.7 Khz. Remember, there are folks out there that would love to show that the ARRL doesn't have a good technical background in any of its work. The BPL folks are one.

Right now I really don't KNOW if 3 kHz is too much, too little, or just about right for the transmitters in service today when used with these modems. I don't think I can trust the committee that recommended these limits since it seems they did not have or use any reference data that can be published to make their decisions.

I assume that the pactor III and digital audio modems have an audio bandwidth sent to the transmitter that is somewhat less than 3 khz in order to make sure the RF bandwidth at -40 dbm doesn't exceed 3 kHz but I don't know this. I NEED SOME DATA TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT ON!

I also have many questions about recievers that need to be addressed also. For example, most stock receivers have filters that exceed 3 kHz at -40, -50, -60 db levels. Is this adequate for this plan. Does the bandplan need to allow 3.5 or 4.0 kHz when taking receivers into account? Again, the ARRL needs to furnish this information with their petition so people can make an informed decision.

Perhaps it would be better to limit the audio bandwidth that can be applied to transmitters rather than limit the RF bandwidth. The manufacturers of modems would surely appreciate any research done toward determining the correct specifications needed to meet a broad range of current equipment.

Jim
WA0LYK