New ARRL Bandplan Technical and Regulatory Concern

[WA0LYK]

I have been doing some research on the ARRL's new bandplan recommendation. I am concerned that the 3 kHz bandwidth is not sufficiently wide enough. I am also concerned that this could keep many people from building and operating homebrew and kit equipment.

FIRST CONCERN

My first concern is the need for a bandwidth limitation and how it will change traditional operation and routine maintenance of transmitters. The current pertinent FCC regulation is "Sec. 97.307 Emission standards". It states:

(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.

W8MW discussed this in two posts in another thread. I will copy excerpts of his statements here because he stated my thoughts very succintly and eloquently.

Quote[/b] ]
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?

I appreciate today's guiding principles of good amateur practice and good engineering practice. They give us flexibility that is appropriate for the hobby and experimental nature of amateur radio. Today it is legal to go on the air with homebrew rigs, boat anchors, kits and transmitters of every description. If our transmitter causes adjacent channel interference we are expected to fix the problem. If there is no interference, we are free to use the transmitter regardless of its emission bandwidth. The petition will remove that freedom. That places a great responsibility on ARRL to make certain their proposed emission specs are realistic. And considering Mr. Murphy, the specs ought to have some built-in wiggle room.

73 Mike


I certainly don't want to pay a technician to periodically visit my station and determine if I am meeting the specified bandwidths. Keep in mind you just can't send your rig off to have it checked to see if it can meet requirements, you must determine if it meets the requirements while you are operating at your location. You must check it with your microphone, equalizer, antenna, tuner, rf ground, drive setting, mic gain, etc. to know if you are meeting the requirement.

SECOND CONCERN

My second concern is with the enforcement of the bandwidth requirements and their affect on amateur operation. The changes the ARRL is recommending have very specific bandwidths. There is no description of what constitutes "bandwidth". There is nothing in the proposed regulation changes to provide any leeway or "wiggle room". If you happen to have 3rd order intermod spurs high enough for the FCC to consider them as part of your "bandwidth" you will be in violation, no questions asked.

The ARRL makes a statement in the text of the bandwidth plan that "Amateurs typically won't have to be able to measure the bandwidth of their signals, Sumner says, since the bandwidths proposed are more than sufficient for "clean" signals using traditional HF modes." This statement IS NOT included in the FCC regulations however. Therefore it will carry little weight if the regulation is accepted that you must not exceed 200, 500, or 3 kHz period.

This statement seems to assume that one will always be using a commercial transmitter in proper operating condition and with the correct operating parameters. Those of us who like to work on our own equipment or homebrew transmitters had better have a good spectrum analyzer to check our signals with. Today, I could build a cw transmitter that has some key clicks or perhaps some chirp and have a bandwidth of 250 Hz. I just need to make sure I am not interfering with anyone else to operate legally. With this new proposal I will be in violation of FCC regulations. This new requirement of having an absolutely "clean" signal will obviously have a detrimental effect on experimentation.

I would rather see the current regulations maintained where,if my signal is "not so clean", the only violation incurred would be if I interfere with others. To put amateurs in the position of violating a specific bandwidth requirement just by operating is a major change to our traditional method of operation. Under the bandwith proposal I could be in violation of FCC regulations if I am transmitting a 3.5 kHz wide signal while talking to someone across town on 10 meters and we are the only two people on the whole band.

How many amateurs know what operating parameters must be used to make sure their 3rd order intermod products do not exceed the 3 kHz bandwidth? I certainly don't. I try to adjust my drive and mic gain according the instruction manual but these may or may not be correct especially since my equipment is 10 to 25 years old. I could be violating the bandwidth limits every time I operate. I can't afford a spectrum analyzer to be sure that each and every time I operate I am not exceeding the limits.

I would rather get a notice from an Official Observer that my transmitter is generating a signal that doesn't meet good operating practice than a regulatory violation notice from the FCC to cease all further operation until my station is repaired and meets the bandwidth requirements.

THIRD CONCERN

My third concern is with the technical research that has gone into making these decisions. I am not sure any evaluation of amateur radio equipment has been done to assess the current state of transmitters in use. I don't believe any research has been done to see how current transmitters handle some of the modems that inject their digtial bit stream into the microphone circuits.

Because the ARRL has made no statement as to what they consider "bandwidth" to be, I assume this means they are not including 3rd order intermodulation spurs in their calculations. As near as I can find in any of the FCC regulations, higher order intermodulation spurs must be no higher than -25 db. I don't know if this would apply to the amateur service or not. Perhaps someone can address this. In any case, at some level, i.e. above -25 db, the 3rd and 5th order intermod spurs would have to be considered part of the "bandwidth".

I have done some research into the testing the ARRL labs have done on transmitters. Since I don't have permission to copy their information here I will only put a couple of the findings here. Some background data on the testing.

Intermod testing is done with 700 Hz and 1900 Hz tones.

The ARRL testing procedures state, "4.5.3.6 Manipulate, if necessary, the two-tone
generator audio LEVEL and the transmitter audio gain and drive control to obtain
the lowest possible IMD products. If this is done, the spectrum analyzer REF
LEVEL control (and possibly the step attenuators) may need to be reset for
tone pips of -6 dB."

The main point to take from this is that the testing procedures only try to find the best intermod products a given transmitter can do, not how it performs in actual use. I don't have a problem with this testing procedure since it is good to know what the baseline is. Here are some 3rd order intermodulation test information that should make everyone sit up and take notice:

ICOM 756PRO2 10 Meters -29 db
KENWOOD 870 10 Meters -20 db
PATCOMM 16000A 15, 10 Meters -23 db
TEN TEC OMNI VI PLUS 160 Meters -25 db
15, 10 Meters -26 db
YAESU FT847 10 Meters -26 db

How many folks are exceeding the -25 db in actual operation with these rigs? The Kenwood and Patcomm don't even meet a -25 db requirement at their best on the indicated bands. The others are pretty close and this is under the best conditions. What do they do under actual operation? This is NOT a comprehensive list of the reviews, just a bare minimum to make a point.

The bandwidth of these signals using the 700 and 1900 Hz tones including the 3rd order intermod spurs appears to be 3.8 kHz. Is it any wonder that people up 2 kHz or down 2 kHz can cause some pretty loud qrm?

With this information, wouldn't a 4 kHz bandwidth be better? It would certainly allow for those of us who don't have new rigs and whose components have drifted in value and where bias on the drivers and pa's may not be quite right.



FOURTH CONCERN

My fourth concern is how newer digital modems will perform with current transmitters if their signals are injected at the microphone jack. Will the intermod products be better or more likely worse? The above test figures used a two tone test with the tones at 700 and 1900 Hz. As I understand it the Pactor III and AOR digital voice modems use tones that are a lot lower and higher than these. Just for calculations, lets say they have tones at 300 Hz and 2500 Hz. 3rd order intermod products would occur at 2F1-f2 and 2F2-F1. These would calculate to 1900 Hz and 4700 Hz. This could make the apparent signal bandwidth 5.6 kHz if the intermod spur exceeds -25 db.

I have no idea how these modems change the output of current transmitters. I am pretty sure the tones they use are probably flat across the bandwidth. In other words, a modem tone at 2500 Hz would be the same level as a tone at 300 Hz. Human voices don't work this way. Consequently, if a transmitter has been designed for the human voice, can it handle a modem while keeping its RF signal within the proposed specifications. I certainly don't know. The ARRL should do some testing and publish the results to show that this is the case.

SUMMARY

I am not sure how the recommended bandwidths in the ARRL bandplan were arrived at. It appears that the committee that developed the recommendation did not have RF or transmitter experts included that could address these issues. The ARRL needs to publish some technical data on how these figures were arrived at. I would also like to see some rational explanation why the proposed bandwidth limitations are better than what is currently contained in the FCC regulations for amateur radio.

I am concerned that implementing a very specific bandwidth in regulations could adversely affect a large number of hams by making their current equipment no longer in compliance. The ARRL needs to perform an assessement of the financial impact of insuring current, in service, radios meet this regulation. This assessement needs to include any periodic routine maintenance schedules to insure proper operation of transmitters.

The ARRL also needs to publish some data on how well the higher speed modems work with existing transmitters. If these modems cause current transmitters to operate in such a fashion as to exceed good amateur and engineering practice the amateur radio community should be aware of it.

Thanks for the bandwidth.

Jim
WA0LYK

[WD8OQX]

Yeah, & I thought the regs were redone so that Hams could use inexpensive, readily available test equipment. (i.e watt meters - measuring input to measuring output)

This is just a step backward & will be even more confusing at best. So why not just leave well enough alone.

[K0RGR]

If the -25 dB spec you mention would apply to amateur transmitters, then you seem to have a good point. But, I suspect there is nothing in Part 97 calling out that spec for a reason - and the reason is that the FCC recognizes that hams do build their own gear and don't all possess the equipment to measure 3rd order mod products accurately.

[4S7RO]

Attempts to introduce strict bandwidth limiting regs are rarely based on any technical considerations. Rather, they are being pushed by officials and others who are driven by prejudices against the 14.178 group. In the past few years, there has been a witch-hunt and endless efforts to shut down ESSB users. This bullying attitude STINKS.

If the ARRL/FCC undertakes to clamp down on any signal wider than 3K, they would have to get very busy during contests, monitor those many signals originating in clean rigs but used to drive "non linear" QRO liners and have an army of people measuring signals on all bands! Most new radios can do in excess of 3K right out of the box anyway! Outlaw theose rigs too?!

As someone else wrote, this will also kill homebrewing and play further into the hands of the commercial Interests (or is that part fo the intent?).

US regs don't apply to anyone outside of the US, if the rest of us want to, we can run high power AM anywhere on the phone bands (not that anyone wants to) l!!! #

73,
Ron, 6Y5/4S7RO

[kb7uxe]

Thats it!! I give up....
I'm selling all my ham equipemnt and buying a CB...
At least I won't have to worry about following ANY regs....
Dan.
kb7uxe.

[k1lwi]

so what is new http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
k1lwi wendell 73

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Just another reason I will not join the ARRL. Here is "My Opinion"
Who are they working for? Us or "them" It seems to me that they are doing, or trying to do more for themselves and radio equipment manufacturers.
Making proposals that require such tight guidelines on old and even recently manufactured equipment may result in most or all of the amateur radio stations would either shut down, or .....buy NEW or send away at much cost to us, our equipment so they can be re-calibrated (If Possible) to achieve what the ARRL thinks is good for us! And if it can't be "brought into specs" then we would have to , ahem....but new again.
Personally I never joined the ARRL, and never will. It appears to me that, never mind,........I don't even have to say, many already know what they are from their recent past deeds.
It is my opinion, the ARRL is not a government agency, but it seems they are trying to be one. The dictators of amateur radio.
Iam sick of them and their power stuggle. It's sure is a fine example of "Money talks...........etc...in caps.
73 to everyone ....but that organization in CT.............Gary

[w5udx]

If it goes through they will have to take my TS-870/RE-20/audio gear from my cold dead hands.

When are these people at the ARRL going to wake up. This is a hobby. I don't know if they listen to the radio but 3k + audio is a huge part of hammy radio. If it wasn't for audio back in 1994 I would have left the hobby. Maybe that's what they want, just 2.4k pinhead audio where everyone sounds the same OH boy how fun would that be!

[w9mt]

I'm an ARRL member who watches with either bemusement or sometimes horror regarding the strange positions the League takes on issues concerning our hobby.

Currently we see the League taking a passionately hardline stance on BPL. (Which I happen to agree with 100%.) Then they "invent a solution looking for a problem" with this Bandplan proposal based on emissions bandwidth. I'm confused here...but what's actually "broken" that necessitates this "not too well thought out" proposal? Also, why are you proposing something that makes it harder to for me to experiment, if I'm not interfering with anyone else? Strange...very strange.

ARRL, it feels like you're protecting me with one hand while fitting me with a straitjacket with the other. It's this type of over-regulation in a hobby which makes me shun things like 60M operations.

I also really don't see how the Bandplan benefits me, the casual operator. Make it too hard for me to decompress from the stresses of daily life while trying to enjoy my ham radio hobby and I'll drop it and take up something else. (I don't want to drop it after being in for 34 years, either!!!)

My personal view is that the ARRL has a lot of frustrated electrical engineers on their staff that want to make a "personal" and lasting mark on the hobby. (I'm an EE too, but I try not to inflict my personal image of ham-radio Valhalla on my brother hams.)

Finally, ARRL's wide deviations in behavior like this also seem to me as quite schizophrenic. The last time their group-think went deep into "left field" gave us the incentive licensing debacle of the 1960's. (That one was really great for the growth of the hobby.)

Let's all urge the League to kill this proposal before it makes all of our lives on the air a lot more complex than they need to be.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Tony/W9MT

[W8MW]

Jim, thanks for your solid thinking on this. #Glad you found my post helpful but you articulated the practical concerns many of us have much better than me. #

We see no evidence that ARRL performed due diligence on the major implications of what they're proposing. #And make no mistake, there are major implications that tear right into the fabric of amateur radio. #Consider:

97.3(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

Notice the human being is the motor that makes amateur radio go, not the technology we use. #Other radio services managed to eliminate the human element in favor of cost effective automated technologies. #But here we have amateurs authorized to explore radio technique with a lot of flexibility in how we do it thanks to the intentionally vague “Good Amateur Practice.” #One would think if there was the slightest possibility of ARRL’s petition making any amateur’s transmitter illegal .. or of discouraging a single individual from pursuing his authorized interests …any thoughts about #bandwidth regulations would be terminated immediately.

Channelized radio services that must use FCC certified equipment are required to meet tight emission specifications. #Unlike amateur radio, there are no licensed operators, there is no expectation those services will share frequencies or make cooperative attempts to resolve interference issues. #Those services need a hardware-based regulatory solution. #But FCC gives credit to amateurs for being able to find our own solutions to interference mitigation and optimum utilization of our frequencies. #I am at a loss how ARRL is so quick to tell FCC we can't deliver on those expectations. #Or, to be more blunt, ARRL is asking for regulatory solutions to problems that didn't exist before they were created in Newington. #

Why is it, using the league's language that making "appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands" ... requires a new layer of regulations on transmitting equipment the majority of amateurs are using successfully and legally? #That is one ill conceived "appropriate provision". #They put too many agendas in play and were not forthcoming in the reasons why. #If they don’t have the wisdom to kill that petition, I hope the amateur community will do it for them.

73 Mike

[K7JBQ]

Quote[/b] (w5udx @ Nov. 04 2004,13:23)]If it goes through they will have to take my TS-870/RE-20/audio gear from my cold dead hands.

When are these people at the ARRL going to wake up. This is a hobby. I don't know if they listen to the radio but 3k + audio is a huge part of hammy radio. If it wasn't for audio back in 1994 I would have left the hobby. Maybe that's what they want, just 2.4k pinhead audio where everyone sounds the same OH boy how fun would that be!
That's exactly the kind of thinking that will lead to bandwidth regulation.

Running wider than necessary to communicate is just as bad, if not worse, than running more power than necessary.

This "hi-fi ham" stuff is worse than inconsiderate. It's unconscionable.

And what in the name of The Old Man hisownself is "hammy radio?"

73,
Bill

[K5UJ]

There are several aspects of the ARRL bandplan proposal that do not add up. Pertaining to the 3 KHz bandwidth for SSB part of it, firstly there are many stock rigs out there that exceed 3 KHz or do not meet the -26 db at 3 KHz. I am not only referring to old 3.2 KHz Collins rigs but also rigs currently being manufactured and sold. Here are a few: TS870, Yaesu Mk V and Field, Ten Tec Orion and Jupiter and Pegaus, TS950...While it may be possible to adjust some of them just as it is possible to adjust the power output of a transmitter, what method is there for inexpensively and accurately measuring tx bandwidth for a ham (no, the Pro II scope is _not_ that accurate)? This is a very different animal from purchasing an in-line wattmeter for power output measurement. Secondly, the ARRL proposes AM DSB+carrier rigs be limited to 9 KHz. This is a nonsequitur in that this form of AM will therefore have sidebands of 4.5 KHz maximum, i.e. it makes no sense to allow this but limit SSB to 3 KHz. Finally, if the purpose of this is to somehow punish the so-called ESSB or hi-fi audio hams, then this measure is what I call using a sledge hammer to nail in a thumbtack. This will only serve to hurt many hams who are harmlessly and responsibly enjoying audio processing equipment because a tiny minority have been inconsiderate. While there are certainly not times and places for excessively wide signals, a 3 KHz bandwidth, in light of the transceivers currently on the market, is draconian. For so many rigs capable of 3 KHz out of the box, there should be at the very least some wriggle room of 500 to 1000 hz so a ham doesn't buy a rig, hook up a mic, transmit and get a citation.

Incidentally, the audio processing people are not the only ones with reason to worry about this--any ham who practices the "all knobs clockwise" and max power to the amp method of operating--any guy chasing dx who's amp fan alone is generating 20 db over 9 signal--will run afoul of this also.
Dxers and contesters take note.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]
K0RGR
If the -25 dB spec you mention would apply to amateur transmitters, then you seem to have a good point. But, I suspect there is nothing in Part 97 calling out that spec for a reason - and the reason is that the FCC recognizes that hams do build their own gear and don't all possess the equipment to measure 3rd order mod products accurately.


There isn't anything in Part 97 today dealing with the actual measurement of bandwidth. This was basically the point I was trying to make.

However, if the recommendation to limit bandwidths to 200, 300, and 3000 Hz is accepted something will have to be defined in order for people to know what is included in the measurement.

I guess an amateur radio spec could be defined that lets 3rd order intermod spurs be as high as the actual signal but why even bother to change the current Part 97 language if this is the case?

As pointed out above, some current unmodified transmitters exceed the 3 kHz bandwidth just with their fundamental signal even when operated as designed. The ARRL test reports don't show this so I can't say how wide their fundamental signals actually are. In any case, my whole point is that some TECHNICAL assessments should be made to determine some of these things before putting this recommendation to the FCC.

Let me add, I didn't mean to poke anyone in the eye with this. ESSB or hi-fi operators probably have a right to operate as they wish today but they also have a responsibility to meet the current Part 97 rules and regulations. As I stated in my original post, "If our transmitter causes adjacent channel interference we are expected to fix the problem. If there is no interference, we are free to use the transmitter regardless of its emission bandwidth." If someone is transmitting a SSB signal that is 7 kHz wide and causing interference, then they have the responsibility to mitigate the interference to the point where they are using no more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice. Personally, I have heard many 4 kHz wide signals from hams that are operating their rigs properly which leads me to believe this is a reasonable amateur practice.

[ab8td]

The idea in the ARRL band plan was to limit the NOMINAL bandwidth of emissions. It was not intended to be a certification spec.

ie;
SSB is _about_ 3khz wide and goes here, (if it happens to be 3.3Khz, it still goes here).

AM is _about_ 6 Khz wide and goes here.

PACTOR is about nKhz wide and goes here along with other digital mode that are _about_ nkHz wide........

etc....

AB8TD

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]
ab8td

The idea in the ARRL band plan was to limit the NOMINAL bandwidth of emissions. It was not intended to be a certification spec.

ie;
SSB is _about_ 3khz wide and goes here, (if it happens to be 3.3Khz, it still goes here).

AM is _about_ 6 Khz wide and goes here.

PACTOR is about nKhz wide and goes here along with other digital mode that are _about_ nkHz wide........

etc....

AB8TD



I'm sorry but this is not the case. The TEXT of the ARRL announcement says:
Quote[/b] ]
ARRL was guided by advice from an Ad Hoc Digital Committee formed to advise on issues that arise from the development of new high-frequency digital data modes of operation. In summary, the recommendations of that Committee were to delete the symbol rate limitations in Sections 97.307(f)(3) and (4); to segment the bands below 28.0 MHz by nominal bandwidths of 200, 500 and 2700 Hz as upper limits; and to require that digital data protocols be published, to facilitate monitoring.

The actual changes to the FCC regulations says:

Section 97.305 is amended to read as follows:

(rather than trying to put the table in here, I am showing the table headers.)

Wavelength Frequencies authorized Maximum bandwidth Standards
band

The Maximum Bandwidth entries are 200, 500, and 3000 Hz. There is no "nominal" in the regulation changes being recommended. I wish there were.

However, after reviewing the proposal again I did see something that didn't register before. The proposed regulations discuss the bandwidth of AM and ISB signals be measured at the -26 db level. One could infer from this that the ARRL expects the 200, 500, and 3000 Hz bandwidths would be measured in a similar manner. This doesn't change my original conclusion however.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KD5VHK]

Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ Nov. 04 2004,18:00)]Quote[/b] (w5udx @ Nov. 04 2004,13:23)]If it goes through they will have to take my TS-870/RE-20/audio gear from my cold dead hands.

When are these people at the ARRL going to wake up. This is a hobby. I don't know if they listen to the radio but 3k + audio is a huge part of hammy radio. If it wasn't for audio back in 1994 I would have left the hobby. Maybe that's what they want, just 2.4k pinhead audio where everyone sounds the same OH boy how fun would that be!
That's exactly the kind of thinking that will lead to bandwidth regulation.

Running wider than necessary to communicate is just as bad, if not worse, than running more power than necessary.

This "hi-fi ham" stuff is worse than inconsiderate. It's unconscionable.

And what in the name of The Old Man hisownself is "hammy radio?"
This is a perfect type in self serving, do it this way because I say it, type of attutude that caused all this in the first place.
I was a member of ARRL until I read about this self centered BS. They certainly didn't ask me, a member, a single word about this subject before they presented the petition. They just did it because a bunch of whinny "Pinheads" (Well put, Greg) decided they didn't like it. Yet they say they are speaking for me. Go figure.
If the bandplan allows for 6KHz wide AM and 6KHZ digital, why is SSB supposed to be under 3KHz? Shouldn't it be allowed/limited the same bandwidth as the other modes used on the same band?
There is almost no noticable difference between 2.8k & 3k wide quality audio, yet both are thrown into the same basket if either one is running a quality EQ'd signal. Just because they are different, and care about the quality of their audio and signal. Did you know that when running a nicely EQ'ed signal, it only runs a transmitter/amp at about 35% duty cycle? And a typical high gain, processed signal runs the transmitter/amp at 100% duty cycle? Regardless of the bandwidth. You tell me which would produce a cleaner, "Better for the band" signal?
You want to know what is really inconsiderate and unconscionable? The idiots that follow the audio guys around the band and jam their QSO's, just because they don't agree with the way it sounds. And it's just plain illegal to boot. But, that's #America. Do all that is needed to stop someone from doing what you don't like.
Or, how about the guys that run thier mic gain so high that you can hear the fans to their amps humming in the background, then they turn on the mic processor. these idiots are splattering 15KHz wide on both sides of the fundimental frequency. Yet this is accepted as "normal" operating practices. I have a cel phone with better clarity and understandability.
There is so much more to ham radio than what these narrow minded people care to see.

It all comes down to one group trying to remove another group just because they are different. (What? Bigotry in ham radio, say it isn't so)
What ever happened to Amatuer radio needing all the support it can get? And occupying the frequencies , or we loose them? I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in the southwest there is PLENTY of room for all the different types of Hammy radio. 40m is a virtual waste land during the day, and 75m has it's little rush hour in the early evening, then open the rest of the night. And 20m has got lots of open space during the day. Except for the time when the nets are running. Or, durring a contest weekend. And that's when most of the harrassments start. Hmm, coincidence maybe?

Just my 2 cents from personal observations and experiences.

Kyle
KD5VHK

[N8BMB]

This is another example of why I never joined the ARRL.

I have an EXCELLENT idea!!! How about if ALL members forgo their membership, let the ARRL run out of money and fold. This way, they would no longer be able to come up with some of the ####-a-mamy B.S. that they do.

I agree with one of the prior hams' post where he states they are "protecting us with one hand while tightening the straight jacket with the other".

Right now I think the focus should be on the BPL issue and nothing else until that monster is dead!!!

[N9WB]

I was wondering when somebody was going to say something about the 3 kHz proposal.

The proposed specification for AM establishes a 26-dB roll-off. Are we going to be required to have a brick wall filter at 3 kHz with SSB? My rig has 2.8 kHz filters. I bet it is not 26 dB down at 3 kHz. Except when the band is extremely crowded we really need 3.5 kHz for nice audio. We should not be required to sound like a set of dog food cans and a string all of the time.

I support the use of old AM rigs as a part of our hobby. However this rule doesn’t make much sense. If I want more bandwidth I have to add a carrier to be legal.

I would agree that it is not considered good amateur practice to run 6 kHz during crowded conditions except in areas designated by gentleman’s agreement for this type of operation. This hasn’t really been this much of a continuing problem. It just got blown out of proportion. Why are we suddenly needing to make everything illegal or mandatory?

If we must have a rule why not 5 kHz per sideband ? At least it would not take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it out.

Let’s not turn this into a league bashing post. This is a proposal and they asked for feedback. Let them hear from us in a civil and diplomatic way.

Vy 73, Walt N9WB

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] ]
They certainly didn't ask me, a member, a single word about this subject before they presented the petition. They just did it because a bunch of whinny "Pinheads" (Well put, Greg) decided they didn't like it. Yet they say they are speaking for me.

The ad hoc committee that came out with proposal was not charged with generating this proposal. They were suppose to advise the board concerning how to best promote new digital modes.

You said they didn't ask you. Well, after the initial proposal was put on the table, we were asked to comment on it and many of us have filed our comments. As a result, the proposal was amended, Now, this proposal will not come up again for consideration until January. This leaves plenty of time for additional comments to be filed with the appropriate Division Director in your division. Me thinks you complaint too much.

This proposal is not be submitted to the commission as a petition to amend Part 97 it is only a proposal at this time that the League is planning to submit as a petition. There is a long way to go before this becomes the law of the land. We will have two opportunities to file comments with the FCC should this proposal reach the NPRM stage, by the way it will be years before this happens given the speed FCC has demonstrated with our other proposals.

This entire issue may become moot given the potential for interference from BPL and to BPL and the threat that I see coming concerning any of our operations that cause severe interference to a system. I can see individual amateurs receiving modifications of license eliminating priviledges or quite hours to eliminate interference to BPL. The final act could complete withdrawal of our use of HF entirely.

Descriptive adjectives that belittle other members of this service are not going to resolve this issue. The tone of this thread to date is a good example of how we need to debate this issue. Many of the comments that I have seen so far need to be submitted to the appropriate officials within the League for consideration. I will follow this thread and develop some comments to make to my director at some point. All you other members out there should as well. Then we will get a truely representative proposal or it will be scrapped. Get involved and spread the word. ARRL is a democratic organization not a dictatorship like some people seem to think.

Ken

[ak7ml]

I think the proposal takes the wrong tack. Problem as I see it is imcompatible modes and power levels. Broader signals and higher power levels should be separated from others. As a PSK operator, I would like digital modes set free from interference from broader bandwidth, higher power PACTOR stations. If someone wants to run older equipment or automated equipment, there should be a place for them set aside where it won't bother anybody else.
I can't say the argument about not bothering anyone else holds water, since here on the West Coast I see a fair amount of midwest mixed in with asian stations at certain hours of the day as well midwest mixed in the midwest without visible interference on the same frequency. But both would interfere with me. You don't know how far your signal goes.
I also don't buy I don't know what my signal looks like. A PSK receiving program in spectrum mode on a friend's receiver can tell him plenty and he can tell you. I think that the argument that I am a home brew experimenter is a justifiable postition on frequencies above 440 Mhz. You may learn something you can teach the rest of us. But you are not experimenting on the new frontier on 20 meters, unless you are using a different mode. The technology is well settled and you should be using adequate technology. Overbroad phone or SSB means you aspire not to communicate but to broadcast. If that is the case, you should be applying for a low power FM or TV license.

[w1yw]

What's ahead for us is not even being addressed.

The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use at a given time. Thus everyone wins.

It's coming. Think about it.

73,
Chip N1IR

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 05 2004,07:46)]What's ahead for us is not even being addressed.

The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use #at a given time. Thus everyone wins.

It's coming. Think about it.

73,
Chip N1IR
Channelization smacks too much of CB, Chip. How many amateurs are going to embrace that concept? Unfortunately, I do agree with you to an extent.

I still believe there has to be some space for legacy modes. These are a part of the radio art and should be perserved within this hobby.

Digital modes are fine, except when they are proprietary and require a substantial monetary investment so that one can participate. hen SSB was developing it was opposed because it required a BFO for reception, but caught on because of the increased number of stations that could share the bandwidth. This will not be the case with digital voice. One can not just monitor it with inexpensive equipment nor participate. In addition, I don't think it will be bandwidth efficient.

As I recall back in the early days of digital voice, the minimum data rate that would support digital voice was 2400 bps. Will this fit into a 3Khz audio CHANNEL? I will have to do some research on that score before I can answer that question for myself.

Chip, are you indicating that radio-telegraphy should also be channelized?
I would like to make one general observation at this point. This thread has been mostly constructive so far with the exception of that one comment about PIN HEADS. I don't find this useful.

Ken

[ws4y]

Jim I think your concerns are well founded. #Please
let me add my concerns to your list. #This plan the
ARRL is proposing is being driven by those that wish
to expand faster digital modes into more of our
precious amateur HF spectrum. #Presently pactor lll
mode is providing secure communications to its users
beyond the view of the amateur community in apparent
violation of existing rules regarding the use of codes
and cyphers on amateur frequencies. #Pactor lll allows
for constant abuse of existing rules regarding third
party traffic. #Right now Mary Hobart with the ARRL
frequency defense fund is seeking addional support
from members and non members alike. #I would like
to help Mary but will not because right now I see the
ARRL as part of the threat. #I feel the ARRL has
allowed itself to be used by a special interest minority
of the amateur community. #As an ARRL member I
feel we need a strong ARRL and I think Mary Hobart's
work is important. I will remain an ARRL member but
I will not support the League with any additional
funding until I can feel that the ARRL is part of the
solution and not part of the problem.
Mary if you are listening how about using some of your
funds to bring Pactor lll into compliance with existing
rules or get it off our amateur bands.

[ky5u]

Great comments Jim. #Let me see if I can summarize the concerns from this thread:

1. Little or no technical thought put into the proposal as to how amateurs would comply with bandwidth limitations and whether existing equipment even meets the proposed bandwidth limits.

2. (And from the previous chain) Concerns about Pactor III not being "open", and needless bandwidth consumption for less than stellar performance.

3. Automatic station operation still not addressed. As proposed, automatic stations will interfere with normal traffic.

4. Why this proposal and why NOW? Current users are less than 5% of Amateur traffic yet we turn the world on its ear for this?

5. Lingering concerns about the manipulation of the process by particular individuals to their own needs. Lingering concerns about the motivation to push a plan in the face of obvious common sense issues as to how it relates to satisfying special interests.

6. ARRL making proposals without the authorization of its members. The League should get a member vote before petitioning the FCC about any initiative.

7. Concerns that a bandwidth based bandplan will make it easier to "adjust" the rules/bandwidth in the future to limit or remove legacy modes without having to debate the mode issue itself. Mode loyalty now makes any attempt to limit or remove modes a real fighting issue.

Did I miss any?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]Chip: The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use #at a given time.

Let me play the devil's advocate here. #Suppose we don't change ONE THING about Amateur Radio itself on HF, that we do a few things generally:

1. Simply go on recruiting but we put all our effort into ensuring people get on the air after passing the test and we provide a set of basic activities locally for the no code Tech licensee on their authorized frequencies.

2. We open up bands above 70 cm for wideband (> 25kHz) applications. #The purpose is to:

a.) Encourage high power (> 100 mw) interfaces to the net. (Yes, we change the rules to allow personal internet access).

b.) Encourage experimentation with digital voice and video (multi-media).

Would that not ensure a bright future for Amateur Radio? #With a no code license you could interface to the net from most anywhere, have regular rag chews scheduled to meet other amateurs, run your own digital HAM-TV station with nothing more than a cheap wideband rig and a computer card, access distant stations through Echolink over your computer attached to your mobile rig (where there is no local Echolink repeater). You'd be able to use regular email.

For those interested in long distance direct communications, they could join the many amateurs on HF under the current regulations. We would not throw hundreds of thousands of Amateurs on their ear so special interests could put part 15 devices on Amateur frequencies as you and Carl Stevenson of NCI suggest.

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Whew! this one just stood out.
Quote[/b] ]The future of hams at HF lies with:
1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

Channelization? like the military,Cable TVand CB ? Amateur radio is NOT military nor is it CB nor is it Cable(digital cable makes sense,for cable only).
Digital, PSK31 BPSK, FSK31 and the like? A little of that for experimental purposes is ok it adds to advances in technology, to a point, but I would never replace 'hearing" the people your talking to and replace it with digital bursts.
In my opinion,only the people who have business interests and are going to make money out of digital for the most part want this as the primary mode.
Seems some people are trying as hard as they can to destroy the 'essence' of ham radio, listening to someone without sounding like they are talking down a stovepipe and those horrible narrow pass bands where the highs echo thru your ears like chalk on a blackboard, please gimmie a break.
Channelize like 60 meters and make it so restricited you need a newly desgined rig to transmit on it. AGAIN it's all about Money & Power....."They" see this as a boom to ham radio equipment SALES, MODS and nothing more, they don't in my opinion give a horse's patoot what the hams in the USA have to say.
I for one am never going to go out and buy all new equipment just to satisfy an group fo greedy power & money seeking people,IMHO, that have their own interests at heart.
Stop the League in their tracks now, and as one ham suggested, stop the money flow til they either go belly-up or start thinking about the hams that made them in the first place.
In summation, Digital packet bursts back and forth will never in my mind replace the 'warmth' that a great sounding audio qso gives you.
Don't tell me it's all about not much space left in the spectrum, it's about how much money can be made by slicing the hams into small pieces and then making them pay for it to boot.
If the future is ALL digital packet bursts and screen displays, printouts etc, then my equipment goes in the garbage. Like many of the hams Im sure they and I cannot afford to replace these stations at the whim of the greedy.
Maybe "they" are purposly trying to "thin out" the ranks of the amateurs? Just another thought.
73 N2ACX Gary

[KD5VHK]

Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Nov. 05 2004,05:09)]Quote[/b] ]
They certainly didn't ask me, a member, a single word about this subject before they presented the petition. They just did it because a bunch of whinny "Pinheads" (Well put, Greg) decided they didn't like it. Yet they say they are speaking for me.

You said they didn't ask you. Well, after the initial proposal was put on the table, we were asked to comment on it and many of us have filed our comments. As a result, the proposal was amended, Now, this proposal will not come up again for consideration until January. This leaves plenty of time for additional comments to be filed with the appropriate Division Director in your division. Me thinks you complaint too much.
Well, I must have missed that memo.
When was this mailed out? What was it titled?
What was the web address sent to me so I could research this a bit more?
When was I supposed to comment on it.
When did my Division Director contact me on this issue? Never!
The first I ever heard of this was from reading QST 6 month's ago. And it had already been submitted.
Now I have been reading about these secret, closed door decision making meetings the "League" has been having. (like the digital software format that was written by a "League" board member, and accepted as the standard, in a closed door, non pubic session? With no ability for any other software to be introduced?) Where we find out about it after the fact.
Maybe these types of issues are for you elite types of members.
The only letters I have received from the "League" as you call it, are one's wanting me to send them more money to fight the supposed battle they are waging against BPL. (a lot of good they did there, huh) And also one's (in official ARRL envelopes) asking me to re-elect them. Are there different mailing lists? One for pandering votes or money, and one for issues like this? "Cause I never seem to get those.
If you can show me when the "League" supposedly contacted me personally to ask my opinion, I'll gladly shut up.

On the other side. Your post Ken, was very informative, and helps a great deal. This is very useful information.
Had I/others received info like this earlier, maybe fewer of us would be upset now. Thank you.

Kyle
KD5VHK

[KE4MOB]

"Today, I could build a cw transmitter that has some key clicks or perhaps some chirp and have a bandwidth of 250 Hz. #I just need to make sure I am not interfering with anyone else to operate legally."

Umm....I'm pretty sure that if you operate a CW transmitter that has a bandwidth of 250 Hz and knowingly has keyclicks and chirp, that's definitely not "good amateur practice" or "good engineering". # Whether it's citable or not is a different matter...

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]
KE4MOB

Posted on Nov. 05 2004,10:06

"Today, I could build a cw transmitter that has some key clicks or perhaps some chirp and have a bandwidth of 250 Hz. I just need to make sure I am not interfering with anyone else to operate legally."

Umm....I'm pretty sure that if you operate a CW transmitter that has a bandwidth of 250 Hz and knowingly has keyclicks and chirp, that's definitely not "good amateur practice" or "good engineering". Whether it's citable or not is a different matter...

You obviously have had better luck in building homebrew transmitters than I have. I remember my first 6L6 oscillator/final in the mid-60's. When you keyed it, there was quite a bit of chirp. But learning why and how to solve it was part of the experience that amateur radio is all about. The same has applied to many of the projects I have homebrewed since then. And believe me, transistor circuits are not immune to chirp, key clicks, etc.

Good engineering practices - Good Grief No - but learning about plastic coil forms, paper capacitors, leaky electrolytics, unregulated power supplies, and most of all, why you shouldn't get into HV power taught me valuable lessons about good engineering practices.

This is the point, experimentation and learning is part of amateur radio. By doing so, you won't always have the best, cleanest, loudest, etc. signal around. But guess what, you'll learn more about circuits and RF and good engineering decisions than you will opening a box and hooking up an appliance rig or in many cases, even building a kit. You will learn why some things work and others don't. Even with kits someone else has done this learning for you.

With current regulations, I can put something like this on the air, get signal reports and criticism, go back change things and keep trying till it works right. The only concern would be making sure I don't interfere with others. With the proposed regulations, I would need a shop full of test equipment to insure my signal was clean BEFORE I put it on the air. Kind of removes the fun and pride with letting folks know (and hear) the progress you make in solving problems, don't you think?

Jim
WA0LYK

[N0MLR]

Well, Chip N1IR said what I was thinking as I read the article title piece!
The proposal to strickly limit the emissions to such tight and unforgiving tolerances is a precursor to CHANNELIZED Ham Radio.
I also agree with Chip on his assumption about it facilitating more efficient use of the spectrum so that other uses can be found and BPL is the tip of the iceberg.
This is just a guess on my part but.... I think the FCC has approached the ARRL with the concept in preparation for the influx of new HF users when the FCC drops the Code requirement.
Lets face it Home Brew of our own equipment is becoming harder by the day. The SMD technology has cut the supply of older parts by an order of magnitude. Its not like it was when I was a kid and every TV chassis was a bonanza of usable experimental parts. When I was a kid and young adult I lived with a soldering Iron in my hand, but I have not used one here at home in a very long time.
Times are indeed changing. Its to bad but that's just the way it is.

Greg Dunn / N0MLR

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Nov. 05 2004,06:48)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 05 2004,07:46)]What's ahead for us is not even being addressed.

The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use #at a given time. Thus everyone wins.

It's coming. Think about it.

73,
Chip N1IR
Channelization smacks too much of CB, Chip. How many amateurs are going to embrace that concept? ...

Ken
Most hams already do it. Think of repeaters, for example.

When's the last time your HT was truly continuous?

Channelization will happen more predominantly at HF over the next decade.

73,
Chip N1IR

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 05 2004,05:46)]What's ahead for us is not even being addressed.

The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use #at a given time. Thus everyone wins.

It's coming. Think about it.

73,
Chip N1IR
How do you conduct many of the popular activities we conduct today in this world of digitization Chip? Is their even an experimental protocol that allows syncing of the digital voice signals in the middle of a transmission? I haven't seen any yet. The most advanced digital voice modems require syncing at the start of each transmission. No calling CQ or tuning across the bands to see who you can hear. How would contesting work?

What about selective fading and multi-path? How do they affect a digital signal? Then there is the well known drop-out effect. Digital works well right up until it doesn't. No warning or any other indication of a circuit problem. Just like cell phones which drop without warning when the signal strength falls below the needed levels.

Digital voice would work well on VHF and above but I have not been impressed with the results to date on HF paths. What commercial digital voice HF communications gear is on the market for military and government comms and how well does it perform compared to analog voice systems? Maybe that's what we hear on the 60M channels but I rather suspect it is other than voice data being sent.

The DRM systems for SW broadcast sound great but they take up more bandwidth then the AM signals and require quite high power for a reliable signal. With marginal signal levels at the receiver it sounds like a skipping record as it drops in and out.

Anyway, for digital voice there is a whole lot of development needed and in the end it may not offer any advantages over analog voice modes. Worth experimenting with but but may never become the standard for HF voice QSOs.

73,
Mike

[k9cn]

What's this obsession with "efficient communications" on HF? #If the point is simply to "communicate" while making the least impact on HF spectrum, use a cell phone. They're cheaper, more reliable and far more "efficient" than HF communication ever was or will be. #(And you won't be using any HF spectrum either.)

Face it. #From an engineering and business viewpoint, there is little if any need for HF communication these days. #Satellites provide low-cost, highly reliable communication virtually anywhere on the planet. #(I spent the year of 1980 in Antarctica and even then, we had an ATS-3 satellite link to supplement the "official" HF coms.) #HF has value, if at all, to international broadcasters, low-budget shipping operations and, perhaps, those dealing with stealth military/intelligence spy stuff. #If your life or hard earned money are on the line, are you really going to take your chances with ionization levels, local thunderstorms and the vagaries of sunspot activity when far more reliable means of communication are available?

The point is, amateur radio is no longer about simply cramming the greatest number of QSOs into the least bandwidth. #Again, if that's the goal, there are already much better ways to do it, ways that don't use HF at all. Fortunately, that's not the goal -- not to most of us anyway. #Some like keeping old techniques and traditions alive. #Others enjoy keeping old equipment operational. #Some like the mystery and adventure of exploring propagation characteristics at different times and on different frequencies. #Some enjoy experimenting with circuitry and different modulation techniques. #And yes, some make high quality audio the principal focus in building and operating their stations. #All have a legitimate place in this hobby.

So digital techniques and channelization lie inevitably in the future? #I hope not. #For those licking their chops at the prospect of making equipment and selling it to anyone who might feel a passing whim to "talk on the radio," digital communication and channelization no doubt make sense. #For the rest of us, this should be frightening and insulting.

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (KD5VHK @ Nov. 05 2004,11:25)]Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Nov. 05 2004,05:09)]Quote[/b] ]
They certainly didn't ask me, a member, a single word about this subject before they presented the petition. They just did it because a bunch of whinny "Pinheads" (Well put, Greg) decided they didn't like it. Yet they say they are speaking for me.

You said they didn't ask you. Well, after the initial proposal was put on the table, we were asked to comment on it and many of us have filed our comments. As a result, the proposal was amended, Now, this proposal will not come up again for consideration until January. This leaves plenty of time for additional comments to be filed with the appropriate Division Director in your division. Me thinks you complaint too much.
Well, I must have missed that memo.
When was this mailed out? What was it titled?
What was the web address sent to me so I could research this a bit more?
When was I supposed to comment on it.
When did my Division Director contact me on this issue? Never!
The first I ever heard of this was from reading QST 6 month's ago. And it had already been submitted.
Now I have been reading about these secret, closed door decision making meetings the "League" has been having. (like the digital software format that was written by a "League" board member, and accepted as the standard, in a closed door, non pubic session? With no ability for any other software to be introduced?) Where we find out about it after the fact.
Maybe these types of issues are for you elite types of members.
The only letters I have received from the "League" as you call it, are one's wanting me to send them more money to fight the supposed battle they are waging against BPL. (a lot of good they did there, huh) And also one's (in official ARRL envelopes) asking me to re-elect them. Are there different mailing lists? One for pandering votes or money, and one for issues like this? "Cause I never seem to get those.
If you can show me when the "League" supposedly contacted me personally to ask my opinion, I'll gladly shut up.

On the other side. Your post Ken, was very informative, and helps a great deal. This is very useful information.
Had I/others received info like this earlier, maybe fewer of us would be upset now. Thank you.

Kyle
KD5VHK
Kyle,

Either you did not get the bulletin message or read the discussion in QST. This work was the result of an AD HOC committee responsible for promoting digital modes.

You seem to think that this has resulted in the filing of a petition. In fact, no petition has been filed and the next time this proposal will be discussed is at the next board meeting in January.

The directors generally do not send out mail concerning every topic that is discussed. They are permitted a limited number of mailings per year and seldom use this authority.

QST is the journal of our organization. Do you read it? Do get the e-mail bulletins? Have you been following the threads on line concerning this topic. It appears that you haven't and that you have some sort of feeling that a ballot type question should be distributed regularly. Your division director should be readily available to you through e-mail, telephone, and snail mail. If he/she is not, then you need to change directors. I know that I can contact my director as needed and he always responses to e-mails. In fact, I have communicated directly with Dave Sumner as well. These people are there for us all we have to do make the effort to contact them and/or use the election process to have an impact on the actions made by our representatives. GET INVOLVED! No one should have to ask to do it. You should be active if you want things done or changed.

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Nov. 05 2004,14:08)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 05 2004,05:46)]What's ahead for us is not even being addressed.

The future of hams at HF lies with:

1)digital communications;
2)channelization.

These are the simplest ways to assure efficient communications in the amateur HF bands. It also will allow efficient use by Part 15 devices in portions of the the spectrum not in use #at a given time. Thus everyone wins.

It's coming. Think about it.

73,
Chip N1IR
How do you conduct many of the popular activities we conduct today in this world of digitization Chip? #Is their even an experimental protocol that allows syncing of the digital voice signals in the middle of a transmission? #I haven't seen any yet. #The most advanced digital voice modems require syncing at the start of each transmission. #No calling CQ or tuning across the bands to see who you can hear. #How would contesting work?

What about selective fading and multi-path? #How do they affect a digital signal? #Then there is the well known drop-out effect. #Digital works well right up until it doesn't. #No warning or any other indication of a circuit problem. Just like cell phones which drop without warning when the signal strength falls below the needed levels.

Digital voice would work well on VHF and above but I have not been impressed with the results to date on HF paths. #What commercial digital voice HF communications gear is on the market for military and government comms and how well does it perform compared to analog voice systems? #Maybe that's what we hear on the 60M channels but I rather suspect it is other than voice data being sent.

The DRM systems for SW broadcast sound great but they take up more bandwidth then the AM signals and require quite high power for a reliable signal. #With marginal signal levels at the receiver it sounds like a skipping record as it drops in and out.

Anyway, for digital voice there is a whole lot of development needed and in the end it may not offer any advantages over analog voice modes. #Worth experimenting with but but may never become the standard for HF voice QSOs.

73,
Mike
Hi Mike,

Again, you fail to understand: digital HF and channelization are the direction things will head. It doesn't matter what I think about it, or whether I think the FCC should make special allowances for contesting, for example.


73,
Chip N1IR

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (k9cn @ Nov. 05 2004,15:18)]So digital techniques and channelization lie inevitably in the future? #I hope not. #For those licking their chops at the prospect of making equipment and selling it to anyone who might feel a passing whim to "talk on the radio," digital communication and channelization no doubt make sense. #For the rest of us, this should be frightening and insulting.
In the next few years, the issue of channel capacity will become dominant in spectrum management. It is important to remember that we are NOT the only ones to use the ham bands, and that coexistence with Part 15 devices will be a very big deal.

Look at BPL as a dry run for a future that is unavoidable. That is why the activist approach of some hams will fail with respect to Access BPL.

Digital comms and channelization will allow amateur radio to live up to it's defined purposes while leveraging the huge unused or underused spectrum capabilities for Part 15 devices, for example.

It will, IMO, start at HF (although likely to start at VHF or UHF fist) with segments of ham bands that are digital and channelized ONLY, that share spectrum with OFDM or spread spectrum Part 15 devices. These devices will be agile and aware and be able to search for empty holes.

These will be short range devices and have extremely inefficient antennas to help assure that.

Ham bands are not prisitine tracts of RF to be preserved. They are a resource to be used and managed.

73,
Chip N1IR

[w2maz]

The ARRL is not looking out for the hams in the U.S. they are doing there best to please the people that buy ads in there magazine .
First they gave us the bull @#@@ about if they did not do away with the code then ham radio would die when in fact if they did not get new hams who didnt know what they stand for they might not be around for long do yourself and all hams a favor dont renew your membership and then let them go into the magazine bussiness lord knows they have enough in ads to keep them going they dont need us anyway !! they sure as hell dont listen to us now do they!!!
P.S.since the no code license there isnt to many people on CB guess that because its so easy to become a Ham why stay there.
Hey soon when you buy a rig you will get the Ham license inside the box with your ARRL membership application wouldnt that be great!!!! NOT!!!!!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
TONY W2MAZ

[W8MW]

N1IR, thanks for the provocative thoughts. #I hope your predicitions are not accurate but there's certainly the possibility you could be right. #An unfortunate precedent was established when amateurs were so anxious to access 60 meters that we agreed to comply with channels and regulated emission bandwidths.

True, amateur bands setting there quiet and underutilized are an invitation to consequences we're not going to like. #When discussions about daily on-air activity come up, most of us who have been on the HF bands thru several solar cycles agree there are significantly fewer US operators putting signals on the air, regardless of numbers in the license database. Only my opinion, but if every licensed amateur regardless of license class had HF access, the bands still wouldn't be as busy as they were in the 50's and 60's.#

ARRL still has a great opportunity to re-tool their petition and come at it from a resource management perspective. #Where there's underutilized spectrum, populate it. #Where there's inadequate provision for existing or emerging operating interests, acommodate them. #There is no excuse for band plans that have remained effectively unchanged for 50+ years. Or for the proposed band plan that intends to allocate spectrum because it appeals to narrow interest philosophy or agenda. #Where's the on-air monitoring and data collection to indicate how much spectrum should be reasonably dedicated to given interests? #Where's the mechanism for incremental adjustments to optimize spectrum utilization? #Any comprehensive approach to what's needed can't be cooked up in a vacuum.

73 Mike

[wp3bm]

You do not need more that 3 khz for speech transmission. Digital modes equipment manufacturers know that and build their equipment accordingly. That is why you can do packet, PSK-31, etc... If anybody wants his/her voice sound broadcast quality, then get into LPFM, which offer 15KHZ bandwidth. Somebody may think tha you can use more bandwidth than necessary for speech transmission, and as long as you don't interfere with noone else, you are OK, but the truth is that you might be interfering #with somebody without even knowing it. You might be disrupting emergency traffic between two stations that can barely hear each other, and this not necessarilly be happening here in the U.S. it migh be in the middle of the ocean or in the deep forest, very far away, specially on 10 meters, or other HF band. And if the ham is using a homebrew equipment, he/she could not even be able to get into another frequency. This, IMHO, #is a diservice for the HAM comunity in general. There are always ways to increase your sound quality and readability without exeeding the 3 kHz mark, such as the use of speech compressors and aural exiters. With our limited spectrum, it is hard to alocate frequencies to experiment with higher BW. The solution would be to get more frequencies. Why the ARRL don't ask to get the segment from 54 to 60 MHZ as part of the 6 meters band once HDTV kicks in in 2006? Yeah, I know, other countries will still be using the frequencies for TV broadcast and we might interfere with them or viceversa. Interference, ah! the whole point of this discussion!

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (W8MW @ Nov. 06 2004,11:27)]N1IR, thanks for the provocative thoughts. #I hope your predicitions are not accurate but there's certainly the possibility you could be right. #An unfortunate precedent was established when amateurs were so anxious to access 60 meters that we agreed to comply with channels and regulated emission bandwidths.

True, amateur bands setting there quiet and underutilized are an invitation to consequences we're not going to like. #When discussions about daily on-air activity come up, most of us who have been on the HF bands thru several solar cycles agree there are significantly fewer US operators putting signals on the air, regardless of numbers in the license database. Only my opinion, but if every licensed amateur regardless of license class had HF access, the bands still wouldn't be as busy as they were in the 50's and 60's.#

ARRL still has a great opportunity to re-tool their petition and come at it from a resource management perspective. #Where there's underutilized spectrum, populate it. #Where there's inadequate provision for existing or emerging operating interests, acommodate them. #There is no excuse for band plans that have remained effectively unchanged for 50+ years. Or for the proposed band plan that intends to allocate spectrum because it appeals to narrow interest philosophy or agenda. #Where's the on-air monitoring and data collection to indicate how much spectrum should be reasonably dedicated to given interests? #Where's the mechanism for incremental adjustments to optimize spectrum utilization? #Any comprehensive approach to what's needed can't be cooked up in a vacuum.

73 Mike
Mike and Chip et al,

This entire thread has been great. You guys have really given all of us something to contemplate.

Chip, Thank you for coming out and revealing your true nature on this issue. The direction you are implying, while difficult to swallow, does show some thought and has some merit. Where did you get the information on which this based? I've read the visions and heard the statements coming out of this commission and I must say I've had similar thoughts.

The items that have brought me to this point are:

1.) Multiple interests in locating compatible bandwidth for new applications of wireless.

2.) A statement by the executive branch that a new spectrum management paradigm is needed and that NTIA and FCC must come up with a plan to implement it.

3.) The noise temperature trial balloon.

4.) Statements during the BPL debate that FCC will ultimately decide what is and is not harmful interference should a dispute arise over the definition of the terem.

5.) The statement that certain a limited amount of interference risk is acceptable (a noise floor will be defined).

The problem with some of these issues is that the FCC is telling all of its spectrum users that they will be considered for spectrum sharing unless they are a mission critical service.

Will there be room in our service for legacy modes? I certainly hope so. I still wish to keep my radio-telegraphy skills sharp and continue utilizing QRP power levels.

Mike, the League is open now to all comments from the membership. This is in the proposal stage right now. It will be debated at the next board meeting in January. The stated goal is to have a petition to submit at an appropriate time. Should be a member get in touch with your division director. They need you input. If your not a member, well you will have your say once a petition has been filed and the commission enacts an NPRM. Then we will have have our shot at what is on the table and have a chance to comment and proposal alternations as needed.

Please remember, this was the work of an Ad Hoc Digital Committee not the full League. This proposal needs a lot of work and will get it and a lot of debate like this thread will go a long way towards a credible proposal or an outright rejection of same.

Chip are indicating that all of the legacy equipment that we maintain will be declared illegal within the rrame work you are proposing is the future for amateur radio.

Mike, concerning the channelization of 60mtrs, this was forced on us by NTIA, the primary administrator of this band segment. The FCC had on the table a proposal to permit the normal amateur priviledge of using the entire segment. The proposal was moving through the FCC until NTIA jumped in and placed the channelization restriction on us. This is how their bands are allocated to their users because they are not technically savvy and they felt is was necessary for us to follow their system in their space. Please don't blame this issue on the League. The League proposal to the FCC was for a standard band segment with appropriate priviledges.

Let's agree to continue this debate in using the tone that has developed here. This forum has been great and I hope it will stay this way. I hope it does not develop into an ARRL bashing party. This subject is just too important to all of us to get petty over.

Ken

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Nov. 06 2004,12:32)]Quote[/b] (W8MW @ Nov. 06 2004,11:27)]N1IR, thanks for the provocative thoughts. #I hope your predicitions are not accurate but there's certainly the possibility you could be right. #An unfortunate precedent was established when amateurs were so anxious to access 60 meters that we agreed to comply with channels and regulated emission bandwidths.

True, amateur bands setting there quiet and underutilized are an invitation to consequences we're not going to like. #When discussions about daily on-air activity come up, most of us who have been on the HF bands thru several solar cycles agree there are significantly fewer US operators putting signals on the air, regardless of numbers in the license database. Only my opinion, but if every licensed amateur regardless of license class had HF access, the bands still wouldn't be as busy as they were in the 50's and 60's.#

ARRL still has a great opportunity to re-tool their petition and come at it from a resource management perspective. #Where there's underutilized spectrum, populate it. #Where there's inadequate provision for existing or emerging operating interests, acommodate them. #There is no excuse for band plans that have remained effectively unchanged for 50+ years. Or for the proposed band plan that intends to allocate spectrum because it appeals to narrow interest philosophy or agenda. #Where's the on-air monitoring and data collection to indicate how much spectrum should be reasonably dedicated to given interests? #Where's the mechanism for incremental adjustments to optimize spectrum utilization? #Any comprehensive approach to what's needed can't be cooked up in a vacuum.

73 Mike
Mike and Chip et al,

This entire thread has been great. You guys have really given all of us something to contemplate.

Chip, Thank you for coming out and revealing your true nature on this issue. The direction you are implying, while difficult to swallow, does show some thought and has some merit. Where did you get the information on which this based? I've read the visions and heard the statements coming out of this commission and I must say I've had similar thoughts.

The items that have brought me to this point are:

1.) Multiple interests in locating compatible bandwidth for new applications of wireless.

2.) A statement by the executive branch that a new spectrum management paradigm is needed and that NTIA and FCC must come up with a plan to implement it.

3.) The noise temperature trial balloon.

4.) Statements during the BPL debate that FCC will ultimately decide what is and is not harmful interference should a dispute arise over the definition of the terem.

5.) The statement that certain a limited amount of interference risk is acceptable (a noise floor will be defined).

The problem with some of these issues is that the FCC is telling all of its spectrum users that they will be considered for spectrum sharing unless they are a mission critical service.

Will there be room in our service for legacy modes? I certainly hope so. I still wish to keep my radio-telegraphy skills sharp and continue utilizing QRP power levels.

Mike, the League is open now to all comments from the membership. This is in the proposal stage right now. It will be debated at the next board meeting in January. The stated goal is to have a petition to submit at an appropriate time. Should be a member get in touch with your division director. They need you input. If your not a member, well you will have your say once a petition has been filed and the commission enacts an NPRM. Then we will have have our shot at what is on the table and have a chance to comment and proposal alternations as needed.

Please remember, this was the work of an Ad Hoc Digital Committee not the full League. This proposal needs a lot of work and will get it and a lot of debate like this thread will go a long way towards a credible proposal or an outright rejection of same.

Chip are indicating that all of the legacy equipment that we maintain will be declared illegal within the rrame work you are proposing is the future for amateur radio.

Mike, concerning the channelization of 60mtrs, this was forced on us by NTIA, the primary administrator of this band segment. The FCC had on the table a proposal to permit the normal amateur priviledge of using the entire segment. The proposal was moving through the FCC until NTIA jumped in and placed the channelization restriction on us. This is how their bands are allocated to their users because they are not technically savvy and they felt is was necessary for us to follow their system in their space. Please don't blame this issue on the League. The League proposal to the FCC was for a standard band segment with appropriate priviledges.

Let's agree to continue this debate in using the tone that has developed here. This forum has been great and I hope it will stay this way. I hope it does not develop into an ARRL bashing party. This subject is just too important to all of us to get petty over.

Ken
I don't have any special knowledge, and certainly not 'inside' info. I was concerned that these ideas--valid or not-- not just come out of the blue at a much later time.

The FCC has been very clear where it sees telecom in the US, moving ahead. What I presented was some rather obvious speculations, as a vision of how it will all turn out.

We are rather sloppy in our use of spectrum at the moment. The more we show our OWN growth and vision, the less it will necessary to define it for us. Digital and channelized are naturals, and we should expect non-trivial parts of our bands to go in that direction.

You are most certainly correct that I am NOT trolling:-) We're all friends here.

73,
Chip N1IR

[w4fwl]

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

Folks,

Make no mistake, Chip (N1IR) ALREADY has commercial interests in part 15 devices that are used within amateur radio bands. Visit these Websites:

http://www.fractenna.com

(BTW, Chip is a prominent member of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.)

http://www.fractenna.com/Readtenna%20Datasheet.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Captenna%20Datasheet%20.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Tagtenna.PDF

Chip appears to favor the slice and dice channelization and digitization of amateur radio bands because:

1.) It will make it easier for part 15 devices (including BPL) to be squeezed in between channels
2.) Chip stands to profit on the marketing of part 15 devices, “short range devices,” and “extremely inefficient antennas”

Chip always takes the tact that we somehow “misunderstand” or do not “see the future.” I clearly see Chip for what he is, and I hope you do to.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

[wc0q]

I think your comments are spot on. I think the bandwidth regulations should stay as is. I feel that the first thing that needs to be done is to get amateurs in line with the current regulations. The bands are full of guys who transmit too wide. I think the main causes of this are as follows:

1. Hams (knowingly) using equipment that is not functioning properly.

2. Audiophile Hams who are confusing amateur radio with professional broadcasting.

3. Hams using way too much mic gain. (easy to fix if these hams would stop using the "all knobs to the right" philosophy)

4. Hams using compression / processing execessively or using it when clearly not needed.

5. Any of the above combined with talking too close to the mic.

If the above would be sensibly addressed I don't think the regulations would need to be changed.

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Nov. 07 2004,11:59)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Folks,

Make no mistake, Chip (N1IR) ALREADY has commercial interests in part 15 devices that are used within amateur radio bands. #Visit these Websites:

http://www.fractenna.com

(BTW, Chip is a prominent member of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.)

http://www.fractenna.com/Readtenna%20Datasheet.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Captenna%20Datasheet%20.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Tagtenna.PDF

Chip appears to favor the slice and dice channelization and digitization of amateur radio bands because:

1.) It will make it easier for part 15 devices (including BPL) to be squeezed in between channels
2.) Chip stands to profit on the marketing of part 15 devices, “short range devices,” and “extremely inefficient antennas”

Chip always takes the tact that we somehow “misunderstand” or do not “see the future.” #I clearly see Chip for what he is, and I hope you do to.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
Ivan,

You can say what you wish, but at least he has placed some ideas on the table for debate.

Channelization will not permit BPL to squeeze in between amateur stations as you put it. BPL uses the entire band by design because of of its need for bandwidth for throughput.

Channelization will make it easier for us to know what frequencies are in use and for regulators to monitor our activities. It would be easier for specific use assignments. There is a certain channelization already in place with the Repeater stuff and the individual frequecies that are published for various activiites. It's just not written into the regulations. It is consistent with the tradition self-regulatory behavior of our service. What Chip is saying is that it will be forced on us for management reasons. In fact, we many find that we lose some of our channelized frequencies or have to share them with others on a co-primary or some other sharing mechanism.

Personally, I don't like channelization and it is not consistent with our service, but then the commission is no longer interested n the traditional view of anything any more and is all about sharing where appropriate on moving things to around and regrouping services with common services characteristics to improve efficiency and free up frequencies for nascent systems. They have indicated this in their vision statement on their web-site. Have you seen this statement and other pronoucements that are in the public record from the FCC?

There are a number of public statements that indicate the direction Chip has indicated.

I hope it does not come to this and I think that Chip actually shares this view. He is just trying to be realistic and raise the issue so we can debate it and do what we can to recognize this reality and make plans accordingly. I would not be surprised that this topic was debate in the Ad Hoc committee during its deliberations.

I hope you will join this debate in a constructive vane.

Ken

[w4fwl]

... which begs the question, Ken: For WHOSE convenience and benefit these proposals are made?

You, Chip, the BPL industry, the RFID tag people, and the rest of the commercial interests, take your interests somewhere else! There is enough bandwidth to go around without having to intrude on the Amateur HF and VHF bands. (Geez, go compete on the 700 MHz band that is about to be opened up.)

Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Nov. 07 2004,09:59)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Folks,

Make no mistake, Chip (N1IR) ALREADY has commercial interests in part 15 devices that are used within amateur radio bands. #Visit these Websites:

http://www.fractenna.com

(BTW, Chip is a prominent member of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.)

http://www.fractenna.com/Readtenna%20Datasheet.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Captenna%20Datasheet%20.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Tagtenna.PDF

Chip appears to favor the slice and dice channelization and digitization of amateur radio bands because:

1.) It will make it easier for part 15 devices (including BPL) to be squeezed in between channels
2.) Chip stands to profit on the marketing of part 15 devices, “short range devices,” and “extremely inefficient antennas”

Chip always takes the tact that we somehow “misunderstand” or do not “see the future.” #I clearly see Chip for what he is, and I hope you do to.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
Group: Ham Members
Posts: 138
Joined: --
Posted: Nov. 07 2004,01:23


Quote (k4srb @ Nov. 06 2004,21:44)


Folks,

Make no mistake, Chip (N1IR) ALREADY has commercial interests in part 15 devices that are used within amateur radio bands. Visit these Websites:

http://www.fractenna.com

(BTW, Chip is a prominent member of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.)

http://www.fractenna.com/Readtenna%20Datasheet.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Captenna%20Datasheet%20.PDF

http://www.fractenna.com/Tagtenna.PDF

Chip appears to favor the slice and dice channelization and digitization of amateur radio bands because:

1.) It will make it easier for part 15 devices (including BPL) to be squeezed in between channels
2.) Chip stands to profit on the marketing of part 15 devices, “short range devices,” and “extremely inefficient antennas”

Chip always takes the tact that we somehow “misunderstand” or do not “see the future.” I clearly see Chip for what he is, and I hope you do to.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

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

Ivan,

This is the SECOND time you have posted this. Above is the first time, which you posted yesterday.

Please sit down with a lawyer friend and ask them the difference between opinion and libel.

You said: "Make no mistake, Chip (N1IR) ALREADY has commercial interests in part 15 devices that are used within amateur radio bands."

Your other statements then project from this false statement.

I have already corrected you once before regarding statements that are demonstrably false. I am running out of patience, and tire at being targeted by you.

Feel free to express opinions; don't feel free to falsely imply motivations via definitive and incorrect statements. I require, at this point, your apology.

I remind you that this is a discussion about HF.

If you feel that I am involved with components that are used by some Part 15 device, you are absolutely correct. In fact, there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of hams that can say that. Unfortunately, you are referring to components that are used in the unlicensed 915 MHz ISM band, itself a frequency where hams have secondary allocations of use. It is not "amateur bands". It is a band in which hams have secondary allocation. I am not interested in, nor stand to benefit from, the promulgation of Part 15 devices in the "amateur bands". In particular, this is not HF, which is the context of the dialogue here.

If you believe that it is my agenda to shepherd and encourage the digitization and channelization of "amateur bands", or to do so for my benefit--as you have said as a definitive statement-- then you are dead wrong.

Also, I am a creative guy, but I can hardly lay claim, and you certainly cannot, that I came up with these concepts of digital comms, and channelization, of amateur radio at HF. We already have them, Ivan. We sure don't use them in great numbers. I had nothing to do with either or both.

I am a technologist. Technologists have to have a sense of where the future lay. Who knows? My opinions may be wrong? But it certainly appears that channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficienctly, and managing spectrum efficiently is indeed a vision of the FCC.

AE1X correctly understands, and presumably so do others, that I have presented a point of view for discussion, which, IMO, represents one more likely to be in line with the FCC's future vision. I am not championing that view; I am presenting it. Sometimes it is very valuable to understand how others see ham radio. Speculate, if you wish, if this view makes sense to some others.

There has been a wonderful and constructive discussion here; please focus your comments in that direction, and perhaps we might all learn something relevant to the topic. My comments have been with respect to HF spectrum management.

73,
Chip N1IR

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Nov. 07 2004,14:49)]... which begs the question, Ken: #For WHOSE convenience and benefit these proposals are made?

You, Chip, the BPL industry, the RFID tag people, and the rest of the commercial interests, take your interests somewhere else! #There is enough bandwidth to go around without having to intrude on the Amateur HF and VHF bands. #(Geez, go compete on the 700 MHz band that is about to be opened up.)

Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
Ivan,

It is you who thinks that we are representing commercial interests here . You have presented this false statement as fact, at least in my case. I see no evidence of representation of commercial interests in Ken's case nor mine.

You have every right to pose your opinions, but you have no right to make false statements with obvious intent beyond the scope of this forum--at least that is my educated opinion.

73,
Chip N1IR

[w4fwl]

Chip,

When all of the facts are presented and all of the evidence is in, the jury of your peers will render their sound, unbiased, and objective opinion. They will not allow one side to solely dictate to them what is fact and what is opinion.

I have presented evidence by which others will use to help formulate their opinions on these issues.

73,

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

[ka2caf]

the Only reason the Arrl may want 3khz Bandwith
maybe because they might be sleeping with Either
A) the people that are Creating BPL. and trying to share
spectrum with them..
B) they are sleeping with the People that Created IBOC..
and want to Eliminate SSB and AM.. so we can go 100%
Digital audio..
sorry I just could not help myself...

Now to K1MAN.. That guy keyed up with his one way Broadcast on top of a bunch of scouts during the Boy Scout on the air jamboree..
I say we let the scouts practice fire making with him strapped to a Pole..... Burn him at the Stake..
or use him for archery practice..
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ab0wr]

N1IR "I am a technologist. Technologists have to have a sense of where the future lay. Who knows? My opinions may be wrong? But it certainly appears that channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficienctly, and managing spectrum efficiently is indeed a vision of the FCC."

Channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficiently? Can you give us some technical substantiation for this statement?

It is my opinion, after a 30 year career in the telecommunications industry, that channelization is NOT a way to handle spectrum efficiently. That is one reason why the telecommunication industry, for more than the past decade anyway, has been spending research and development money on ways to get away from the channelized operation they have been using for over 25 years. Channelized operation forces a strict model of usage on the communications and allows for no deviation. It would drive experimentation to practically nothing. As new and different communication modes develop and the mix of the various modes change and evolve, a channelized operation gets in the way of efficient spectrum use, it doesn't enhance it.

Voice digital comms, as implemented today, are session oriented and are, again, inefficient based on current trends in telecommunications. The trend in telecommunications is multiple session communication media, such as VOIP. Multiple sessions cannot use the same spectrum with voice digital comms as is possible with analog voice communications. Therefore the voice digital comms become less efficient, not more efficient.

In fact, the *only* real justification I've seen or read about for the use of voice based digital communication is that they "sound" better with less noise. Well, so does wide-bandwidth SSB and AM.

So, again, I guess I would be interested in exactly what technical backup you have for channelized service and digital comms being more efficient in a communications universe that changes and evolves over time and where experimentation with different bandwidths and techniques is supposed to take place?

tim ab0wr

[k9cn]

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 07 2004,14:56)]I am a technologist. Technologists have to have a sense of where the future lay. Who knows? My opinions may be wrong? But it certainly appears that channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficienctly, and managing spectrum efficiently is indeed a vision of the FCC.

Sometimes it is very valuable to understand how others see ham radio. Speculate, if you wish, if this view makes sense to some others.

There has been a wonderful and constructive discussion here; please focus your comments in that direction, and perhaps we might all learn something relevant to the topic. My comments have been with respect to HF spectrum management.
Fair enough Chip, and I'll try to present an honest view that I think others besides just myself have touched on.

The emphasis on "spectrum management" brings to mind the old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." #So far I've heard that using more than 2.6 kHz. bandwidth isn't "needed" for voice communications. #I've heard that high-quality AM signals could interfere with "emergency" communications. #I've heard that pursuing minimal distortion voice modulation isn't a legitimate interest in ham radio. #And I've heard that "spectrum management" is, or should be, the overriding interest of both hams and the FCC.

Let's reflect a moment. #Does this make sense? #Is it in our interests? #If "need" is the overriding concern, how then do we justify such "needless" occupations as contesting, ragchewing, chasing DX or any of the myriad activities that comprise the bulk of amateur operation? #As far as I know, amateur operations are unique in that needless operations #-- operations that would land you in hot water in other services -- aren't expressly prohibited. #Do we want to change that? Do we really want to promote the idea that only some of the traditional amateur activities are "needed"? #That only some amateur operations are "necessary"? #That only some are "legitimate"? #Do we REALLY want to promote the idea that my pet activities comprise "serious communications" while yours are merely recreational and therefore less deserving?

We amateurs are a minority. #Most of the nearly three hundred million people in this country are only dimly aware we exist. #And among the ones that do, we are most likely to be viewed as somewhat strange. Certainly, if given a choice between amateur operations and low-cost Internet access, few non-amateurs are going to come to our defense. #Do we really want to go before such a jury with our disputes as to whose activities are more legitimate or reflect the "real" purpose of amateur radio?

Once we buy into the idea that certain activities are more legitimate than others -- that certain recreational activities are more "needed" than other recreational activities -- we open the door for the vast majority of non-hams to say, "Come to think of it, NONE of your activities is important enough to justify your frequency allocations." #Is that what we want?

Like most, my interests over a 35 year ham career have changed in some respects and stayed the same in others. #I have little or no interest in some activities that interest many, perhaps the majority of hams. #But like the man who famously said, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it," I have no desire to stand in the way of these activities. # All I ask in return is that you not seek to outlaw those that interest me.

What does all this mean in the real world? #At the risk of being overly simplistic, I suggest that bandwidth limitations, channelization, etc., are solutions in search of a problem. #Already, intentional interference is prohibited. #So is using more power than necessary -- a little fact I suspect many of us have conveniently forgotten. #The problems to the extent they exist can and should be solved with common sense and basic operating courtesy. #We hams have had the luxury of being a largely self-policing service for decades. #Are we still up to the task or do we really need laws telling us precisely what frequencies we must use and how exactly our transmitters must function? #Common sense, basic courtesy and a basic gentlemanly approach to operation served us well for the first seventy years or so of our existence. #Strangely, that seems to be a thing of the past.

The funny thing is, when I tune the HF bands, I hear less activity now than I did three decades ago. #Why we need more micromanagement of HF operation now than we did then escapes me. #

At the risk of reopening an old can of worms, I for one do not want to see amateur radio become simply an extension of CB where operators cannot be trusted to make basic decisions regarding operating parameters. #Nor do I even want to see it become like marine VHF or aeronautical communications -- services that are no doubt serious and legitimate, but wherein the technology itself is of little interest or concern to the user. #

We are lucky to catch the tail end of a unique activity that began with the birth of radio barely a century ago. #How often do such earth-shaking discoveries as electromagnetic propagation come along? #How few are the people that not only get to witness it but get to participate in its development. #Here in the early twenty-first century, we are still able, should we choose, to wind some coils, string some wire in the air, apply a few watts of RF energy and communicate with like-minded others across oceans. #I have no doubt that some day -- probably soon -- doing so will be prohibited. #Do we want to hasten it?

73,
Phil

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (k9cn @ Nov. 07 2004,20:12)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 07 2004,14:56)]I am a technologist. Technologists have to have a sense of where the future lay. Who knows? My opinions may be wrong? But it certainly appears that channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficienctly, and managing spectrum efficiently is indeed a vision of the FCC.

Sometimes it is very valuable to understand how others see ham radio. Speculate, if you wish, if this view makes sense to some others.

There has been a wonderful and constructive discussion here; please focus your comments in that direction, and perhaps we might all learn something relevant to the topic. My comments have been with respect to HF spectrum management.
Fair enough Chip, and I'll try to present an honest view that I think others besides just myself have touched on.

The emphasis on "spectrum management" brings to mind the old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." #So far I've heard that using more than 2.6 kHz. bandwidth isn't "needed" for voice communications. #I've heard that high-quality AM signals could interfere with "emergency" communications. #I've heard that pursuing minimal distortion voice modulation isn't a legitimate interest in ham radio. #And I've heard that "spectrum management" is, or should be, the overriding interest of both hams and the FCC.

Let's reflect a moment. #Does this make sense? #Is it in our interests? #If "need" is the overriding concern, how then do we justify such "needless" occupations as contesting, ragchewing, chasing DX or any of the myriad activities that comprise the bulk of amateur operation? #As far as I know, amateur operations are unique in that needless operations #-- operations that would land you in hot water in other services -- aren't expressly prohibited. #Do we want to change that? Do we really want to promote the idea that only some of the traditional amateur activities are "needed"? #That only some amateur operations are "necessary"? #That only some are "legitimate"? #Do we REALLY want to promote the idea that my pet activities comprise "serious communications" while yours are merely recreational and therefore less deserving?

We amateurs are a minority. #Most of the nearly three hundred million people in this country are only dimly aware we exist. #And among the ones that do, we are most likely to be viewed as somewhat strange. Certainly, if given a choice between amateur operations and low-cost Internet access, few non-amateurs are going to come to our defense. #Do we really want to go before such a jury with our disputes as to whose activities are more legitimate or reflect the "real" purpose of amateur radio?

Once we buy into the idea that certain activities are more legitimate than others -- that certain recreational activities are more "needed" than other recreational activities -- we open the door for the vast majority of non-hams to say, "Come to think of it, NONE of your activities is important enough to justify your frequency allocations." #Is that what we want?

Like most, my interests over a 35 year ham career have changed in some respects and stayed the same in others. #I have little or no interest in some activities that interest many, perhaps the majority of hams. #But like the man who famously said, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it," I have no desire to stand in the way of these activities. # All I ask in return is that you not seek to outlaw those that interest me.

What does all this mean in the real world? #At the risk of being overly simplistic, I suggest that bandwidth limitations, channelization, etc., are solutions in search of a problem. #Already, intentional interference is prohibited. #So is using more power than necessary -- a little fact I suspect many of us have conveniently forgotten. #The problems to the extent they exist can and should be solved with common sense and basic operating courtesy. #We hams have had the luxury of being a largely self-policing service for decades. #Are we still up to the task or do we really need laws telling us precisely what frequencies we must use and how exactly our transmitters must function? #Common sense, basic courtesy and a basic gentlemanly approach to operation served us well for the first seventy years or so of our existence. #Strangely, that seems to be a thing of the past.

The funny thing is, when I tune the HF bands, I hear less activity now than I did three decades ago. #Why we need more micromanagement of HF operation now than we did then escapes me. #

At the risk of reopening an old can of worms, I for one do not want to see amateur radio become simply an extension of CB where operators cannot be trusted to make basic decisions regarding operating parameters. #Nor do I even want to see it become like marine VHF or aeronautical communications -- services that are no doubt serious and legitimate, but wherein the technology itself is of little interest or concern to the user. #

We are lucky to catch the tail end of a unique activity that began with the birth of radio barely a century ago. #How often do such earth-shaking discoveries as electromagnetic propagation come along? #How few are the people that not only get to witness it but get to participate in its development. #Here in the early twenty-first century, we are still able, should we choose, to wind some coils, string some wire in the air, apply a few watts of RF energy and communicate with like-minded others across oceans. #I have no doubt that some day -- probably soon -- doing so will be prohibited. #Do we want to hasten it?

73,
Phil
Phil,

Another good post.

One real problem is that we are being viewed in the light you just mentioned. The FCC is taking a hard look at the everyday activities we engage in and is asking themselves what is the benefit of this activity to the public. The spectrum we are allocated could bring significant dollars to the federal treasury and make space for many nascent technologies that are crying for space to operate in.

The Commission's own vision statement says this clearly. The WH ordered both allocating agencies to take new look at the spectrum for which they are responsible and find room for new technologies. Our space is just one of many that is being eyed for use by compatible sharing partners.

The big rage today seems to be frequency agile systems where operation can take place on any available spectrum. The point being that there is always some spectrum that is not in use and many users really don't care where their signals is propagated as long as the messages arrive.

What I think might be in the future is all of the spectrum would be controlled by subscription. You take out a subscription, pay your money, and space will be found for you on an as available basis and there will be a priority system in place to insure that mission critical systems ways get through.

We as amateurs could be accomodated in this environment. Especially if we are digital in nature, then we would look like another user. It would only the content that would distinquish us from other users.

Amateur radio is more than just communicating. It is about tradition, learning, public service, and history. I would hope there would always be a place for those of us with this interest to sample propagation, maintain our legacy skills, and be permitted to engage in what we define as communications.

What I think is being said is that the FCC will have to start making decisions about spectrum on as needed basis. In another words, spectrum will be available to those who can use it for to generate the highest revenue rather than who has the priviledge of using it.

Our service really does consist of many niche activities. We have been able to get along with each other because of the mutual respect for the term amateur. The problem today is that we are only people that really are interested in these activities. There are numerous commerical interests eyeing all available spectrum with the goal of putting it to revenue generating activities. The FCC and NTIA are only the responsible government agencies that are charged with making it happen.

Ken

P.S., I'm a technologist myself. Please look at my bio located in a couple of places.

I have no particular commerical interests. I'm in the medical devices industry, in specific blood glucose monitors.

[w4fwl]

Folks,

Allow me to weigh in on these issues one more time. As I have had said before, the postings here provide for a lively discourse at best, and for just coarse banter at worst. I feel that everyone who visits these postings is aware of that. Unfortunately, this discourse and banter is no different from what I personally witnessed in colloquia and professional journal articles in my graduate school days more than 20 years ago. It is my experience that there always seems to be a hidden agenda (e.g., political or monetary) behind something that does not make scientific, theoretical, technological, empirical, and/or conventional sense.

What I say here on QRZ.com postings is my opinion, plain and simple. I may introduce information that I feel is pertinent to the topic with the idea that anyone could evaluate that information and draw their own conclusion about how that information impacts the topic at hand. If anyone is angry that I introduce published, factual information into these discussions, that is their problem.

I am not in habit of being "corrected" in public, especially in any uncalled-for, condescending manner … especially by those who suppose that they are more knowledgeable, intellectual, or, in general, better than I am. I am also not in the habit of anyone telling me what I am free to do or not free to do. I will freely and unapologetically state my opinions, and will not brook any implicit or explicit threats of a charge of libel vis-à-vis what I have said above, and in other postings.

I look forward to a continued lively discourse on any amateur radio related topic.

73

Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (k9cn @ Nov. 07 2004,18:12)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Nov. 07 2004,14:56)]I am a technologist. Technologists have to have a sense of where the future lay. Who knows? My opinions may be wrong? But it certainly appears that channelization and digital comms are the easiest way to manage spectrum efficienctly, and managing spectrum efficiently is indeed a vision of the FCC.

Sometimes it is very valuable to understand how others see ham radio. Speculate, if you wish, if this view makes sense to some others.

There has been a wonderful and constructive discussion here; please focus your comments in that direction, and perhaps we might all learn something relevant to the topic. My comments have been with respect to HF spectrum management.
Fair enough Chip, and I'll try to present an honest view that I think others besides just myself have touched on.

The emphasis on "spectrum management" brings to mind the old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." #So far I've heard that using more than 2.6 kHz. bandwidth isn't "needed" for voice communications. #I've heard that high-quality AM signals could interfere with "emergency" communications. #I've heard that pursuing minimal distortion voice modulation isn't a legitimate interest in ham radio. #And I've heard that "spectrum management" is, or should be, the overriding interest of both hams and the FCC.

Let's reflect a moment. #Does this make sense? #Is it in our interests? #If "need" is the overriding concern, how then do we justify such "needless" occupations as contesting, ragchewing, chasing DX or any of the myriad activities that comprise the bulk of amateur operation? #As far as I know, amateur operations are unique in that needless operations #-- operations that would land you in hot water in other services -- aren't expressly prohibited. #Do we want to change that? Do we really want to promote the idea that only some of the traditional amateur activities are "needed"? #That only some amateur operations are "necessary"? #That only some are "legitimate"? #Do we REALLY want to promote the idea that my pet activities comprise "serious communications" while yours are merely recreational and therefore less deserving?

We amateurs are a minority. #Most of the nearly three hundred million people in this country are only dimly aware we exist. #And among the ones that do, we are most likely to be viewed as somewhat strange. Certainly, if given a choice between amateur operations and low-cost Internet access, few non-amateurs are going to come to our defense. #Do we really want to go before such a jury with our disputes as to whose activities are more legitimate or reflect the "real" purpose of amateur radio?

Once we buy into the idea that certain activities are more legitimate than others -- that certain recreational activities are more "needed" than other recreational activities -- we open the door for the vast majority of non-hams to say, "Come to think of it, NONE of your activities is important enough to justify your frequency allocations." #Is that what we want?

Like most, my interests over a 35 year ham career have changed in some respects and stayed the same in others. #I have little or no interest in some activities that interest many, perhaps the majority of hams. #But like the man who famously said, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it," I have no desire to stand in the way of these activities. # All I ask in return is that you not seek to outlaw those that interest me.

What does all this mean in the real world? #At the risk of being overly simplistic, I suggest that bandwidth limitations, channelization, etc., are solutions in search of a problem. #Already, intentional interference is prohibited. #So is using more power than necessary -- a little fact I suspect many of us have conveniently forgotten. #The problems to the extent they exist can and should be solved with common sense and basic operating courtesy. #We hams have had the luxury of being a largely self-policing service for decades. #Are we still up to the task or do we really need laws telling us precisely what frequencies we must use and how exactly our transmitters must function? #Common sense, basic courtesy and a basic gentlemanly approach to operation served us well for the first seventy years or so of our existence. #Strangely, that seems to be a thing of the past.

The funny thi