View Full Version : Bandwidth For Dummies!
Bandwidth For Dummies
(Apologies to the books of the same title!)
With all the recent talk about the ARRL Bandwidth proposal and subsequent technical discussions, perhaps you feel a bit lost. Is this just another opportunity to bash the ARRL? Judge for yourself with a layman's explanation of the various concerns voiced on QRZ.COM.
What is Bandwidth?
Imagine bandwidth as a highway with cars on it. The more lanes the highway has, the more cars that are able to travel over a given area. If we imagine that one lane is 1kHz of bandwidth, we can put the ARRL proposal in perspective.*
Using our highway as an example, in the ARRL proposal CW/RTTY get 500Hz or 1/2 of one lane, SSB gets three lanes, AM gets 6 lanes and data applications get from 3 to 25 lanes depending on the band. And, you can carry this analogy as far as you like with CW as a bicycle, SSB as an automobile, AM as a "land yacht" automobile, and data modes as busses, or "wide load" 18 wheelers.
Mode versus Bandwidth
A pure bandwidth proposal is like the highway department giving you a road, and what you put on that road is your business. As long as it will fit on that particular road, you can do it. So if you have 1/2 a lane, you could fit bicycles and motorcycles but not a car. On one full lane, you can put cars, motorcycles, bicycles, busses, etc. And like the real world, putting a bicycle on a road with alot of car traffic could be dangerous but it is legal.
Obviously, the types of vehicles in our examples above represent the Amateur modes. Presently our HF spectrum is divided into bike paths, running paths, golf cart paths, autombile roads, and pick-up truck roads. The difference between a bandwidth proposal and our current bandplan is that our rules now tell you what vehicle you must use on what road.
Mode Loyalty
Ever tell a biker that motorcycles are really for sissies? How about telling someone driving a Beemer that foreign cars are for idiots? Ever tell a trucker that trucks should be outlawed off the road? In each example, you may get anything from a sharp look to a right hook in response. Well, Amateurs are faithful to their preferred modes too. Suggest you want to restrict CW or SSB and you're bound to get a loose tooth. Today, modes seem to define an individual Amateur's participation in the service and run to the core of why people ARE Amateurs in many cases.
History
Bandwidth plans have surfaced in the past. Each time Amateurs have raised the roof in protest and each time the measure was defeated. So why do people keep trying? Proponents would tell you that if you build superhighways, people will come to use them. People will build homes and businesses near them. They will draw activity. Opponents are quick to remind people of the "Sunshine Bridge" in Louisiana. Governor Huey P. Long of Louisiana had a bridge over the Mississippi River constructed near Donaldsonville La. that went to nowhere. It ended in the middle of a cotton field that the Governor and a few of his pals owned. It actually took decades before anyone built anything in that cotton field, and today it is still just a rural area.
Proponents suggest that a bandwidth plan is needed today to take us into the future. Digital is coming! Opponents say that digital use is not much more than 5% of total mode use. Why redesign a bandplan for 5% of the users?
The Holy Grail
Many people believe that the Holy Grail of passing a bandwidth based plan is to get past mode loyalty. No doubt that mode loyalty alone fueled the past successful oppositions to bandwidth based plans. That is why many real bandwidth plan supporters will try never to get into a mode discussion. They will say, "It's not about modes". But isn't it?
Opponents will tell you that once a bandwidth plan is passed and the discussion is no longer about modes, it would be easy to "tweek" the bandplan to kill current modes. How easy? A bandwidth plan that allowed 500Hz (1/2 a lane) for CW would by nature restrict the use of phone (needs 3 lanes). But make a simple change from 500Hz to 3kHz and now phone is able to use the spectrum. Phone traffic would expand to use the new spectrum and squeeze out CW. Likewise a change to widen the 3kHz bandwidth spectrum where SSB would reside under a new plan could open the door for data applications to flood the airwaves and run away SSB phone users. Attention must also be given to automatic data stations. The potential for them to jump up and bite an ongoing QSO is great unless the bandplan is specific about protecting other users.
Technical Problems
You may have seen discussion on QRZ about whether 3kHz is really enough spectrum for phone use. What's up with that? Well, it all hinges around how you measure the bandwidth. There is a pretty popular way of measuring bandwidth that would have many newer rigs and most old rigs not meeting the standard. But wait....the ARRL proposal says it doesn't want Amateurs to have to measure bandwidth, right? Opponents fear that if you establish a standard and Amateurs interfere with each other, they will do as they do now and complain to the FCC that the other guy's signal is "too wide". Isn't it better to ensure our equipment can meet specifications right at the beginning?
What Should an Amateur Do?
The first thing is to listen to both sides and make up your own mind. Whether you support or oppose bandwidth plans, make your feelings known to the ARRL. And whether you oppose or support the plan, ensure the plan is acompanied by good science. Ensure also that you keep a sharp eye out for those that would foster plans to support their own purposes as we have seen recently with WinLink and the Ad Hoc Committee. Even if you support the plan, ask yourself if now is really the time for such a proposal? Is it really needed?
Using our example of cars and highways, a highway full of 18 wheelers may move alot of cargo, but it can be a dangerous place for automobiles. Likewise bumper to bumper car traffic might be solved by a few busses running the roads. However your feelings go on this or any bandwidth proposal, just don't get run over sitting by the side of the road.
AG4YO
Notes:
* Keeping with our automotive analogy, think of modem modulation schemes as the number of people you can pack into a car. You load cars up with people, you move alot more of them for a smaller number of cars.
K1HAH
11-23-2004, 04:40 PM
A very good explanation.... I like things the way they have been for the past 50 years or so. Of course, modern technology offers new modes and I use them. If things progress we will have many more modes to think of as time goes on. My concern is, has been and always be the little guy who operates with little power, stays to CW and digital and makes an occasional occursion into SSB still at low power. He is your real amateur operator. He was here before the so called progressive group who wants to add specific rules on modes. The bandplan that is totally voluntary that is in use today works very well from my perspective with the exception of Pactor which appears from no where, doesn't listen and steps on my reception or transmission. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif John Callaghan K1HAH ZUT640 -QCWA- ....ETC....
All of this just reinforces the point that the spectrum needs to be divided up by bandwidth and mode. Otherwise we have the trucks running over the cars and bikes and in the absense of trucks we have the cars creating carnage. If the band is not segrated this way, then we will have calls to outlaw the trucks first, and the cars second. We are then left with the bike paths. Shades of Greenpeace http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
73
George
K3UD
The "Bandwidth Plan":
1. Will be good for manufactures of equipment who will see increased sales, since every ham will be required to purchase new DIGITAL gear.
2. Boat Anchor analog gear will only be allowed in museums and be operated one Sunday every other month.
3. BPL will be compatible with the new ham digital modes.
4. Old Timers will be able to tell newbies "I remember in the good old days of Ham Radio when we could hear static crashes and atmospheric noises
4. SWL's will be tuning the internet for Foreign Broadcast stations.
5. Bands as such will disappear, because communication will be spread spectrum and frequency agile, you just dial in if you want to hear close, distant stations, or somewhere in between and the transceiver will determine what frequency to operate that day and time to communicate to the location desired.
6. Countries will be organized into digital clusters and you will be able to set your radio to only communicate with that cluster. Clusters will be further broken down into State and County clusters. Won't DX be fun, like fishing at a Trout Pond.
Like Nancy Reagan said: Just Say No.
Write ARRL now.
Just my opinion.
73,
Terry,K7FE
Hi Charlie,
Great post. The presentation is terrific.
Ken
The only problem I can see with the road analogy is when there is not enough room on a road, vehicles crash and people are hurt or killed. This is clear and important enough to cause the powers over such matters to take action. Will people care as much that we have more trouble ragchewing or contesting? FCC seems to want to go with industry on BPL, whether or not we have problems. I really don't think they have the Ham's best interest at heart.
We can talk about ARES and emergency work, but after someone gets killed etc. because an ARES station couldn't call for help, they would just move ARES types of communication and leave the rest of our stuff in the mud.
My opinion.
John Pawlicki, K8AG
k6ohh
11-23-2004, 06:24 PM
Great Post. #Makes it easier to understand.
The analogy of vehicles is great.
Are you a teacher???
Now I know I do not want the new "bandwidth" proposal.
It will make my ICOM-706 Obsolete.
K6OHH
ve3ii
11-23-2004, 06:42 PM
Your presentation and comparison to a highway is excellent and right on the mark! #
I fail to see what the problem is with a structured band plan. #The alternative would be a disaster!!
Can you imagine the chaos, confusion and QRM if the bands were unstructured and you could operate any mode, anywhere?
Structuring the band will bring order, no cross-mode QRM and a more enjoyable operating experience. #Yes, there will still be QRM from other stations operating the same mode but we have that now. #
Breaking the band into segments for various modes is the only responsible thing to do. #Some modes may lose a little bandwidth while others may gain a little. #That's life. #With the number of modes available these days, there has to be structure and some compromise.
No mode or organization should be allowed to have complete access to an entire band, no matter how important the purpose. #Amateur frequencies are shared by all and no one has priority.
This issue is a no-brainer. #There are much more serious issues facing amateurs today.
K7JBQ
11-23-2004, 06:51 PM
Quote[/b] (ve3ii @ Nov. 23 2004,11:42)]No mode or organization should be allowed to have complete access to an entire band, no matter how important the purpose. #Amateur frequencies are shared by all and no one has priority.
Yes, someone does have priority. That someone is the operator trying to pass emergency traffic.
That's why CW is allowed everywhere, with the single exception of 60m, which is a special case all unto itself.
When you can't get a message through on phone, when your antennas have been flattened and your power is out and all you've got is a battery and a piece of wire tossed over a tree, be glad you can tap out a message in code. It could save lives.
73,
Bill
k8nqc
11-23-2004, 07:14 PM
Proposals for use of the Amateur bands are inadequate as long as they do not separate those modes normally copied by the human ear from those normally copied by machine or circuit. They only create conflict among our shrinking population. # # Bill, K8NQC
Can someone tell me, is the ARRL advocating a bandwidth proposal that would make it illegal to run, say, a Kenwood TS-520s on SSB?
If the answer is yes, I will never be a member of the League again.
TP
Quote[/b] ]No mode or organization should be allowed to have complete access to an entire band, no matter how important the purpose. #Amateur frequencies are shared by all and no one has priority.
You are missing the point here. The bandwidth segragation proposal would permit any mode that meets the bandwidth requirement for the segment where used. The implications is that CW can be used anywhere since it meets the bandwidth requirement for all segments.
The problem is that there is a problem when bandwidth compatible modes are mixed. Machine read and generated modes cause severe interference for human read modes (i.e. SSB versus Digital).
The poster right after you has hit the nail on the head. There must be separate segments for human readable modes and machine only modes.
The simplest thing to implement in regualtions to achieve separation by bandwidth would be by choosing two bandwidths. One that would accomodate only CW and one that would accomodate all other modes and then implement a gentlemen's agreement to provide for appropriate segragation. This would not work well in this country because of the large number of operators and modes that are in vogue. That is why the band plan is more complex.
I would echo the need for all of us who are members of the League to contact the appropriate official in our division to make our feelings known. For those who are not members, you can voice you position, but don't expect much of a response. You should be ready to make your comments when a proposal comes up for review sometime in 2007.
Ken
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,14:21)]Can someone tell me, is the ARRL advocating a bandwidth proposal that would make it illegal to run, say, a Kenwood TS-520s on SSB?
If the answer is yes, #I will never be a member of the League again.
TP
I don't believe this to be the case. I think there is a misconception here.
If you want to have your say with the proposal before it is submitted, you need to join the League and get involved by contacting your division director. I already have made my position known to K1KI in the NE Div. and I know that changes have already been made. I can assure you that more changes will be made should we actually get involved. After all, the ARRL is still a democratic organization. Should the proposal fail to meet the interests of the majority of the membership, we have the option of changing our representatives.
Ken
Hello AE1X:
I just want to know: #A stock TS-520s....will it be legal to use this rig on the air if the ARRL bandwidth proposal is passed?
I've recently restored one and would like to use it on the air.
How about vintage gear such as the various Collins rigs?
I have been a member of ARRL intermittantly over the years and was intending to renew my membership.
I've rececently completed 5 Band WAS and must be a member to receive that award.
But I will tell you: #If the current ARRL bandwidth proposal would make it so that older gear would not comply, then to heck with ARRL.
I mean it.
73,
Tim
LXR,
The answer to your question is we don't know. There are ways bandwidth could be measured that could make it the case. We asked and I believe Jim Haynie agreed to have Ed Hare take a look.
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,14:47)]Hello AE1X:
I just want to know: #A stock TS-520s....will it be legal to use this rig on the air if the ARRL bandwidth proposal is passed?
I've recently restored one and would like to use it on the air.
How about vintage gear such as the various Collins rigs?
I have been a member of ARRL intermittantly over the years and was intending to renew my membership.
I've rececently completed 5 Band WAS and must be a member to receive that award.
But I will tell you: #If the current ARRL bandwidth proposal would make it so that older gear would not comply, then to heck with ARRL.
I mean it.
73,
Tim
Hi Tim,
The proposal as presented does not make it clear whether this would be the case. It is presently under consideration by the board of directors. It was on the agenda at the last meeting and will be again at the next meeting in January.
Whether vintage rigs would be legal or not is a major question the board must answer. I believe Ed Hare W1RFI is looking into this issue at the behest of our president, at least I hope so.
I have the same concern that you have. I have vintage gear and I've used mostly vintage gear for some time because of my budget constraints. Right now my station is strictly QRP CW you can view my profile here and on my hobby web-page: www.geocities.com/ae1x.
I don't think that any proposal that would render older equipment illegal would fly with this community and I will make my feelings on this specific subject known to the K1KI. I have never had any problem sharing my views with Tom and not going to start now.
Ken
P.S. Should you want to exchange e-mail on this subject privately you can use the e-mail link on web-page.
73...
ohh,
Not a teacher here. Just understand that technical subjects effect all Amateurs and to have an opinion we all have to understand. I have a technical background, but understand alot of good folks do not.
Ken,
Thanks for the kind words.
73
Charlie
k7rfi
11-23-2004, 08:28 PM
Just what we need is more regulation.....we are not able to regulate ourselves...we need more goverment intervention.....GIMMEEE a break!!!
K0RGR
11-23-2004, 08:31 PM
Outlawing vintage gear is clearly not the intent of the proposal, nor is outlawing homebrew gear, but there are those who are intent on seeing ulterior motives in everything that the league proposes.
Quote[/b] ]Outlawing vintage gear is clearly not the intent of the proposal, nor is outlawing homebrew gear, but there are those who are intent on seeing ulterior motives in everything that the league proposes.
I agree that it was not the ARRL's intention to outlaw old gear. There is no "ulterior" motive in wanting to ensure that the proposal is written correctly to ensure this is not inadvertantly done.
W9JCM
11-23-2004, 09:45 PM
I would have to totally agree with Terry,K7FE. Good article but if hams can't understand it in a technical fashion why are you a ham? Come on guys its not to hard to understand 3kHz that stuff is on the tech testing. Not bashing the article just some people need to learn some basics and not just memorize the answers for the tests.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
n4zou
11-23-2004, 10:12 PM
Write to the ARRL? What good is that going to do?
I guess you could if you wanted to do that and you
have two choices after you write your letter.
1 Go ahead and drop it in the trashcan and save the postage.
2 Mail it and let the ARRL drop it in their trashcan.
n5rfx
11-23-2004, 10:42 PM
Charlie,
Good post as usual. I would like to clarify a couple of things.
Quote[/b] ]Presently our HF spectrum is divided into bike paths, running paths, golf cart paths, autombile roads, and pick-up truck roads.
Presently there are only two roads. One road has bikes, golf carts, automobiles that only carry people going to work, and pickup trucks that only haul farm products. The other road has bikes, automobiles that only carry people on vacation, and pickup trucks that only haul furniture.
Quote[/b] ]The difference between a bandwidth proposal and our current bandplan is that our rules now tell you what vehicle you must use on what road.
Our current rules also tell us who your passenger and what your cargo can be.
One minor criticism, your post seems to interchange band plan and regulation. I know this is not intentional, but there is a big difference, and this is part of what is causing confusion and misunderstanding. All you have to do is read the posts in this thread to see that there is a lot of misunderstanding about bandwidth vs. mode segregation.
73,
Mark N5RFX
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,14:21)]Can someone tell me, is the ARRL advocating a bandwidth proposal that would make it illegal to run, say, a Kenwood TS-520s on SSB?
If the answer is yes, I will never be a member of the League again.
TP
Tim,
I would suspect not. However, if the ultimate aim of the proposed bandwidth legislation is to, at some point, essentially outlaw legacy SSB and AM in favor of things like Pactor III and other modes that make braaaps and beeeps on the bands, then yes, your 520 and all of my stuff will be obsolete and unusable in the ways we want to use it.
My read is that there is much hidden agenda underneath the proposal. Do I have proof? No I don't but I have read almost everything there is to read concerning the push for SSB and the abandonment of AM by the ARRL in the late 40s through the early 60s.
The incentive licensing proposals in 1958 and again in 1963 had everything to do with it, although it actually came too late as the switch was finally being made as the costs and complexities of SSB got within reasonable reach of most hams.
This proposal seems to be in line with the historical ARRL playbook.
One can only ask...Why?
73
George
K3UD
W5HTW
11-23-2004, 11:36 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 23 2004,16:13)]Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,14:21)]Can someone tell me, is the ARRL advocating a bandwidth proposal that would make it illegal to run, say, a Kenwood TS-520s on SSB?
If the answer is yes, I will never be a member of the League again.
TP
Tim,
I would suspect not. However, if the ultimate aim of the proposed bandwidth legislation is to, at some point, essentially outlaw legacy SSB and AM in favor of things like Pactor III and other modes that make braaaps and beeeps on the bands, then yes, your 520 and all of my stuff will be obsolete and unusable in the ways we want to use it.
My read is that there is much hidden agenda underneath the proposal. Do I have proof? No I don't but I have read almost everything there is to read concerning the push for SSB and the abandonment of AM by the ARRL in the late 40s through the early 60s.
The incentive licensing proposals in 1958 and again in 1963 had everything to do with it, although it actually came too late as the switch was finally being made as the costs and complexities of SSB got within reasonable reach of most hams.
This proposal seems to be in line with the historical ARRL playbook.
One can only ask...Why?
73
George
K3UD
It appears to me the ARRL, since the day someone there came up with the word "Hinternet" has been insisting amateurs dispense with ALL old ways, and go entirely digital. This proposal appears to be a step toward making that official.
I'm not sure I could understand their reasoning, or even if THEY can understand their reasoning. I suspect it is hoped if they can create a "new amateur radio" and dispense with the "old amateur radio" then all hams will have to buy new gear, and the advertisers will flock to QST like geese to a corn field.
I find it hard, too, to understand why what we have currently is NOT working. And apparently it is not, since it is in need, says the ARRL, of being fixed. The ARRL has been involved in a lot of 'fixing' of ham radio and all too often the FCC has simply taken the ARRL's ideas and implemented them.
We can further compartmentalize ham radio, of course. For example, we might have a segment of the band that permits only SSB operations by those with low pitched voices, and a second segment that permts those with high pitched voices. We can have a CW segment for 2 to 5 WPM, another segment for 6 - 10 wpm, another segment for 11 - 15 wpm, and never shall any of them meet.
And we can make sure every ham has an identical radio on his workbench, one he can not repair, and barely knows how it works. And the city dumps can be full of Johnson Vikings, Collins, Central Electronics, and others. Just think - a complete Collins S-line, just for scrounging from the dump. In fact, several dozen if them, if you can find a use for them. Maybe you can build Collins dog houses?
To me, over the decades I have been in ham radio, it appears the ARRL exists solely to make certain the 'current' methods do not remain useful. They plan ahead, often by as much as ten minutes. Like, for example, getting rid of the Novice ticket so they could get a new Novice ticket. Sure, the FCC does that, but at the ARRL's insistence they are representing the US ham world.
There appears to be a push to convert ham radio into a utility by which computer hobbyists can converse. In other words, you can choose ham radio as your ISP. I suppose it is believed by the ARRL that doing so would bring in floods of new "hams" (or are they called "hamputerists?" ) into the hobby, whatever the hobby is, and that, too, jumps the bottom line by huge amounts.
When the ARRL and the FCC are done fixing ham radio, it will be just another modem on the desk.
Ed
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Nov. 23 2004,18:36)]I'm not sure I could understand their reasoning, or even if THEY can understand their reasoning.
Ed,
I can say with some certainty that the ARRL (the guys and gals in Newington, not the membership) did not understand their own reasoning in the case of Incentive Licensing.
The "proof" is in the pages of their historical retrospective publication "Fifty Years Of ARRL" which came out sometime in the early 80s. This was a decade by decade review of the major happenings and advancements during these periods.
It was interesting to read that the decade of the 50s was judged by the editors as the being THE golden decade for ham radio with advancements, new techniques, record setting traffic being passed, and dedication to public service outstripping everything that came before it. It was also the period of the greatest growth.
Then we get into the first 4 years of the 60s. All of a sudden hams were not keeping up, the code was being neglected, homebrewing fell by the wayside, hams were getting unruly on the air, there was a feeling of discord among the ranks. And that is the stated reason why the ARRL all of a sudden backed IL.
Oddly, in the 50s, everything could be objectively measured. In the 60s, it was just a phantom feeling that something was wrong.
While the bandwidth proposal is not another IL proposal, the goal, I think, is the same. Tear down what we now have and rebuild it to the specification of someone's vision. Just like IL, the implication is pretty clear...get with the program or get out.
The ARRL recognized it's mistake in short order, petitioning the FCC to not implement the second phase of IL in 1969, and since that time, EVERYTHING that has been proposed or actually implemented as to change in licensing and privileges had the effect of backing away from IL.
There are a lot of ways to implement the digital modes into the present band structure without a total legislative overhaul by the FCC.
73
George
K3UD
n5vkn
11-24-2004, 12:45 AM
Very good topic..... Just wondering where channel 19 will be so I can stay clear.:D
wa5znu
11-24-2004, 12:53 AM
Note that in Canada, amateur radio emissions are controlled by their federal government by bandwidth. Band Plans are established by the RAC (an organization like the ARRL).
Here is a link to the regulations from the Canadian government:
http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/allband.htm
Here is a link to the band plan, which is voluntary but strongly encouraged:
Text: http://www.rac.ca/service/hfband.htm
Chart: http://www.rac.ca/downloads/hfbandplan.jpg
Note that one effect is that Canadians can use PSK31 to send a small JPEG image thumbnail of themselves, but we in the US can't because we have regulation by mode, and it's illegal to send images on 14.070 -- you have to QSY up to the phone bands to do it legally.
Of course, we here in the US are protected from the chaos that previous posters have envisioned from bandwidth-based regulations because any RF emissions from Canada that don't follow the current FCC Part 97 regulations are stopped by a 3000 mile long grounded fence along our northern border. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I was cruising down Route 40 one day on my solar powered PSK31 scooter when a huge Steamroller with PACTOR 3 emblazoned on the side ran over me and several of my friends. He didn't stop or even slow down, as a matter of fact I think he was totally oblivious to the carnage he caused.
As a matter of fact this has happened several times. Automated Pactor stations have become a major problem. Sort of like a portable woodpecker.
I have heard, but cannot substantiate, that a lot of the driving force behind the bandwidth proposal is from Pactor ops who want yet more bandwidth. I don't see why a major overhaul is needed. If automated stations are to be allowed to continue, then a separate (small) allocation for them, out of the cw/psk etc. allocation, needs to be implemented.
As one who enjoys DX and Contesting, I am concerned about how the rest of the world would react to a wholesale change in our bandplans. There could be some Region 1 countries, for example, that will not be able to use, say, SSB, on our new SSB allocation.
I don't agree that a wholesale restructuring is in our best interest, I think it will cause at least as many problems as it solves. But I do think some less monumental tinkering is in order.
Just my two cents, 73 to all. Mike W3MZ
Quote[/b] (wa5znu @ Nov. 23 2004,19:53)]Of course, we here in the US are protected from the chaos that previous posters have envisioned from bandwidth-based regulations because any RF emissions from Canada that don't follow the current FCC Part 97 regulations are stopped by a 3000 mile long grounded fence along our northern border. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Let's put this in perspective.
Canada has 8% of the ham population that the US has. This also means that there would be rather few hams up there using digital modes (just a function of the numbers) and they have a well followed band plan, which is why chaos does not exist to any great extent. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
My hope is that we end up with a well adhered to band plan also.
73
George
K3UD
AG4YO: I like your analogy. #Similarly, let's say
transmitter emission bandwidth is a speed limit sign where there was no sign before. ARRL wants lawmen to enforce new speed limits but tells us we dont need to have a speedometer.
N8LXR: confidence is high at this QTH that the petition authors didn't check a TS520 or or any other transmitter to see if rigid regulations will make real world equipment illegal and consequently obsolete. #
K3UD: #I agree George. #Multiple agendas in play without full disclosure of the intent. #I sincerely hope there are enough amateurs paying attention to this petition that it is scrutinized thoroughly. #As KH6TY put it "A major rewrite of Part 97, with the attending unknown consequences, is not required."
73 Mike
The analogy with highway travel is interesting, and perhaps a bit closer to the truth than intended. #Let's consider:
Despite popular belief to the contrary, the interstate highway system was never intended to benefit the average Joe planning to drive down to Aunt Bessie's for Christmas. It was conceived during the Cold War as a tool to permit troop and equipment movements around the country in the event of nuclear attack. #Easy motoring was only the way it was sold to the public -- who, of course and not incidentally, footed the bill. #Whether this was good or bad is debatable and somewhat immaterial. The point is, the real motives behind a proposal, and how that proposal is sold to the public, can be, and often are, two totally different things. #What's really behind these bandwidth proposals?
Let's further consider the highway analogy. #You drive on our highways, you follow our rules. #That's the clear message sent by DC to both the states and the citizens of this land. The price of convenience and modernity is loss of freedom. #Cars today are designed by politicians and ambitious gadgeteers with the clout to influence legislation. #You don't want this feature on your car? #You think you can decide what risks you're willing to accept or costs you're willing to bear? #Too bad. Law requires it. Write the check and shut up. #Is that what we want for ham radio too?
And what makes you think you have any business driving on "our" roads in the first place? #We have "trained professionals" in the form of commercial carriers who resent your presence on the road (or in the air) and again, wish you'd just fork over the dough, shut up and get out of the way. #How dare you drive down "our" roads in your barely occupied gas-guzler while all sorts of public transportation (or cute, activist-approved econo-boxes) are available instead. #Again, pay the money, listen to those who know far more about this stuff than you ever will, and don't complain -- it's all for your own good.
OK, maybe I'm putting it on a bit thick. #But think of how many other activities that used to fire the imagination and keep people happy have gone by the wayside due to over-regulation and unquestioned submission to supposed experts. #General aviation will soon be a thing of the past except for a fortunate and monied few. #Hunting and fishing regulations are rapidly becoming incomprehensible and, frankly, not worth the effort of dealing with. #We are rapidly becoming a nation of spectators who leave everything to "professionals" who know better. #I have no doubt some think there is too much freedom in ham radio and that technical bumpkins and rubes have no business "threatening" the well-being or even convenience of their fellow travelers.
The truth is, I already have a state-of-the-art digital rig. #It has "Nokia" stamped on it and only costs me a couple hundred bucks a year to operate. #It's reliable, QRM free, works DX with incredible reliability at all hours and never causes interference to others. #But ham radio it ain't.
OK so how about this?
A Kenwood TS-520s will still be legal to use on SSB, but only on certain subbands where wider modes will be allowed.
I just don't know.
I've asked the question whether it would be the case that vintage gear would be illegal to use. I put the question simply and right to the point.
I get anwers ranging from "We don't know" to "that is not the intention."
If the League is touting this proposal, however, I think it is their responsibility to answer these very basic questions.
In the end, any proposal adopted that would essentially make it illegal to use vintage gear on the HF bands, or restrict its use to narrow subbands and I reiterate: I am done with ARRL and probably Ham Radio itself.
TP
wa5znu
11-24-2004, 06:52 AM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 23 2004,18:10)]Let's put this in perspective.
Canada has 8% of the ham population that the US has. This also means that there would be rather few hams up there using digital modes (just a function of the numbers) and they have a well followed band plan, which is why chaos does not exist to any great extent. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
My hope is that we end up with a well adhered to band plan also.
K3UD
Well, it's hard to generalize of course, and you're right that Canada has fewer hams, but most of them are along the border with the US anyway, so the concentration is still there.
I agree -- and have written to my ARRL Section Manager about it -- that the ARRL proposal that came out originally was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Digital modes -- friendly ones like PSK31 that are narrow, pleasing to the ear, and let you "copy the mail" or round table, and more aggressive, wider, QRMing, unattended, and for all practical purposes encrypted ones like Pactor III -- are going to be part of the future of ham radio. But so will the current modes. We do all need to get along, and changes will be made. I think the FCC probably would be glad to get out of the ham mode regulation business (Heck, in England their government is getting out of the spectrum business completely, for UHF and above).
Bandwidth based regulation has worked in other countries, and I see no reason why it can't work here. But I agree that the ARRL proposal as originally drafted wasn't it. And we really to have to separate the issues of FCC regulation by bandwidth, voluntary-but-strong Band Plan for modes, and the ever-present question about once and future digital modes, both friendly and aggressive.
ZNU,
In general I agree with you.
What I don't understand is why the ARRL wanted to give the digital modes free reign over the entire spectrum. Can SSB AM and Pactor III coexist in the same segments? Can classic CW exist if unattended transmitters pop up all over the band?
If we look at what is happening today concerning spectrum use we find that Digital modes are increasing, SSB and to some extent AM is increasing but classic CW is decreasing.
The ARRL wants the force of regulation that would allow very incompatible modes to compete in the same spectrum, maybe because they want to stage an experimental form of Darwinism to see what modes drive out other modes.
The original proposal was more like Godzilla or King Kong in sheeps clothing rather than a relatively benign wolf which could be killed off if things get out of hand, but I do not think any modified proposal will be much different with the exception of throwing a bone to various "legacy" users here and there.
What I don't understand is that we have spectrum which is rather unused. IE: the old Novice CW segments, a lot of the other CW segments, 12 meters as a whole, the lower end of 10 meters where the freebanders play, some of the 220 band, the 900 MHZ band and up. Why not turn some of this into areas where digital can play?
Yes, the first proposal included "protected" spectrum for digital and even if the bandwidh was allowed, no legacy modes could play in that spectrum. Of course, no SSB or AM is allowed to play in the present CW allocations. However, not only did digital get protected spectrum, it was also allowed to play anyhere else in the bands where the bandwidth of the mode was allowed. Talk about having it both ways.....
I am still of the opinion that the only way this works is to allocate seperate spectrum for digital, SSB and AM, and classic CW. This solves the interference problems and allows development of digital technology. If digital grows in popularity and SSB or CW use drops off, then expand the digital allotment as it happens.
73
George
K3UD
LXR,
Again, we don't know on your 520. Several people maintain that many old rigs would not meet the standard, but it depends how you interpret the requirement. I agree the ARRL must tell us and clarify the requirement. I don't know what their urgency level is but hopefully you'll have an answer soon.
Don't burn your ticket yet. Lets see what they say.
It would be a shame if it came to be where older rigs could not be used on the HF bands. I think of a young ham who is saving to buy his first HF rig and doesn't have a choice but to buy something used and older and cheaper in price. One of my first rigs was an HT37 transmitter and an HQ170 receiver, wonderful radios and yes pretty much obsolete by todays standards. Some people come into this hobby on a shoe string budget and it's either old used gear or nothing at all. If this comes to pass it not only hurts the collectors of older gear but also people who have budget limits weather it be a new ham or someone on a fixed income.
I guess I missed something. I thought it was a "Band Plan" not a "Bandwidth Proposal".
Although I don't see much wrong with what we have at the present time. The few "outlaws" we have in Amateur Radio now make things difficult at times. In any society you have your share of idiots.
First off, I am a diehard CW operator. I think that doing away with any kind of requirement, except studying a test book and memorizing questions, took away from Amateur Radio. Most people who wanted the "code requirement" taken away are those whose mentality is to sit behind a computer screen and not have to think. There excuse is I can't learn the code. They can't because they are to lazy. BTW, I am a computer programmer by trade.
I understand the analogy of the bikes, cars and busses. If this is a bandwidth proposal, we who run the vintage gear, I also run vintage Collins, Drake and Heathkit gear, it would be like taking a 1/2 inch pipe and and trying to push it through a 3/8 inch pipe. We would be out of tolerance big time. So, Kenwood, Yaesu, ICom, et. al. will get rich again selling new equipment. It is happening now with the US Gov't going from wideband VHF/UHF to narrowband.
Look for me in my little corner of 40 meters running CW until I get caught being to wide.
cu
de N8KG
n9lya
11-24-2004, 05:50 PM
Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ Nov. 23 2004,11:51)]Quote[/b] (ve3ii @ Nov. 23 2004,11:42)]No mode or organization should be allowed to have complete access to an entire band, no matter how important the purpose. #Amateur frequencies are shared by all and no one has priority.
Yes, someone does have priority. That someone is the operator trying to pass emergency traffic.
That's why CW is allowed everywhere, with the single exception of 60m, which is a special case all unto itself.
When you can't get a message through on phone, when your antennas have been flattened and your power is out and all you've got is a battery and a piece of wire tossed over a tree, be glad you can tap out a message in code. It could save lives.
73,
Bill
What he means is a Commercial Interest should not be allowed exclusive use of a band or mode. And WINLINK SCS does just that...
73 Jerry N9LYA
Quote[/b] (n8kg @ Nov. 24 2004,12:04)]I guess I missed something. I thought it was a "Band Plan" not a #"Bandwidth Proposal".
Although I don't see much wrong with what we have at the present time. The few "outlaws" we have in Amateur Radio now make things difficult at times. In any society you have your share of idiots.
First off, I am a diehard CW operator. I think that doing away with any kind of requirement, except studying a test book and memorizing questions, took away from Amateur Radio. Most people who wanted the "code requirement" taken away are those whose mentality is to sit behind a computer screen and not have to think. There excuse is I can't learn the code. They can't because they are to lazy. BTW, I am a computer programmer by trade.
I understand the analogy of the bikes, cars and busses. If this is a bandwidth proposal, we who run the vintage gear, I also run vintage Collins, Drake and Heathkit gear, it would be like taking a 1/2 inch pipe and and trying to push it through a 3/8 inch pipe. We would be out of tolerance big time. So, Kenwood, Yaesu, ICom, et. al. will get rich again selling new equipment. It is happening now with the US Gov't going from wideband VHF/UHF to narrowband.
Look for me in my little corner of 40 meters running CW until I get caught being to wide.
cu
de N8KG
The proposal is for band segmentation by bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposal is to eventually become a petition for rulemaking before the commission. Bandplans are not regulatory matters rather they are gentlemen's agreements.
There are far too many interests here to allow the segmentation to be done purely by bandplan. It must be regulatory.
The real problem is that the proposal was the work of the Ad Hoc Digital Mode committee which was to advise the ARRL board concerning ways to better promote adoption of digital modes on HF. They interpreted this charter to mean they should present a plan to the board for reallocation of resources within our bands to promote digital modes. The proposal as presented is reasonable only if you are one those immediately involved in digital communications. The actual proposals does not make adequate room for existing modes and it might regulate vintage gear right of the air into museums. That is what concerns TP.
The actual proposal is only being considered by the board of directors, therefore we the members have a chance to see that it is properly amended or rejected should that be in the best interest of the majority of the membership. Once a petition is filed and the Commission opens it for comments, the rest of the community can have its say.
Ken
kg,
To add to what Ken said, there are three major proposals from the ARRL now, two in petitions and one still just a "proposal". The three issues are, Amateur Restructuring, Band Plan Modification, and the one that is still a proposal is a "bandwidth based bandplan". It's this third issue, the bandwidth based band plan that we're discussing. It's not a petition yet.
My primary mode is CW too(about 90%). I also do AM with a restored set of Hallicrafter Twins, a little SSB on 75 meters with a restored Swan 350, and some local 2 meters FM. So using old gear in any bandplan is important to me too.
And BTW, I am usually on most evenings on 40 meters CW near 7035 and 7025. Look me up for a QSO!
kb2vxa
11-24-2004, 08:23 PM
Hi y'all,
Leave it to the ARRL to muck about again and muddy the water! The last thing we need is yet more legislation because once written (in stone) it's nearly impossible to change. Make one mistake especially in wording and you're stuck with it, for example if you use the word "phone" as a catch-all rather than breaking down the various phone modes you're in serious trouble. If you have 3KHz for phone forget about AM which occupies twice the bandwidth. Then you have older rigs and homebrew going out the window and likely some new rigs too that aren't quite in line with the requirements. Then too WHO measures bandwidth per se? I don't know of anyone monitoring his station with a spectrum analyzer, we trust in lesser instrumentality like a scope and hope for the best.
Frankly a gentlemen's agreement is preferred since it's open to discussion and change whereas once it becomes law we're stuck with it. Frankly the only major law that was repealed was Prohibition and you know all the trouble that caused, I wonder if I still have to walk in front of my automobile carrying a lantern. Hmmm, I'll have to check on that in case some wiseacre cop wants to give me a ticket. (;->)
Best regards, Warren KB2VXA
VK1OD
11-24-2004, 08:23 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 23 2004,07:45)]Bandwidth For Dummies
It is clear that the representation of the problem by analogy (however inappropriate) is attractive to a large number of readers.
It is also worrying that we have dumbed down the the extent that so many readers (licenced hams) find it easier to understand and discuss vehicles and roads than fundamental technical issues of occupied bandwidth, guard band, and their obligations to avoid interference to others. This suggests that channelised operation with specified frequency, bandwidth and modes is needed sooner than most of us would hope.
If a lack of skill and underpinning knowledge are at the heart of our self-interference problems and compatibility / sociability on the bands, it may drive us to channelised operation before proliferation of unattended robots does so.
Owen
"What he means is a Commercial Interest should not be allowed exclusive use of a band or mode. And WINLINK SCS does just that...
73 Jerry N9LYA "
And your point is? I would be interested in your answer.
By the way Charlie, I checked with Ed and I will still be able to use my Drake C line, the 101 and and 520 along with the AF67.
Jim
Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Nov. 23 2004,15:49)]"What he means is a Commercial Interest should not be allowed exclusive use of a band or mode. And WINLINK SCS does just that...
73 Jerry N9LYA "
And your point is? I would be interested in your answer.
Jim, you're such a knucklehead!!! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
What he means is that he doesn't want to buy anything so he can listen!! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Joe, N3JI
Is there an actual copy of this document anywhere? I was on the ARRL site and couldnt find it.
What about communicating with Hams overseas? CW and SSB, are the only modes some hams overseas and a good many in this country can afford.
Having not seen the ARRL's actual proposal, as AG4YO commented, these modes could be easily "tweeked"away.
Everyone is concerned about the effects of BPL on ham radio operations. What about ham radio operations on BPL? What do you think the FCC will do about this inevitable situation? My guess is they won't rule in favor of the ham and impose restritions.
This just doesnt sound right to me. I think that there is more to this but for now I need more details.
Mike Hemeon - K1MH
Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Nov. 23 2004,16:14)]By the way Charlie, I checked with Ed and I will still be able to use my Drake C line, the 101 and and 520 along with the AF67.
Jim
What about my solid state rig at 4 or 6 kHz SSB??? #I'll probably use it that way no matter what. #My method of measuring it says it's okay. #Nobody here will know -- look at the title of the thread!
Who cares about all that old junk anyway?? #As along as you can plug a modem or sound card output into the front of it, it should work just great!
Joe
Quote[/b] (K1MH @ Nov. 23 2004,16:32)]<SNIP>
This just doesnt sound right to me. I think that there is more to this but for now I need more details.
Mike Hemeon - K1MH
Come on, Mike!! #I've SEEN the black helicopters landing at W1AW. #I'll bet if you dig deep enough, you'll be able to prove they were the ones behind JFK's assassination! #Hey!!! #Haynie lives in Dallas!! #I wonder if he can prove his whereabouts 41 years ago??
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
K7JBQ
11-24-2004, 09:53 PM
Quote[/b] (VK1OD @ Nov. 24 2004,13:23)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 23 2004,07:45)]Bandwidth For Dummies
It is clear that the representation of the problem by analogy (however inappropriate) is attractive to a large number of readers.
It is also worrying that we have dumbed down the the extent that so many readers (licenced hams) find it easier to understand and discuss vehicles and roads than fundamental technical issues of occupied bandwidth, guard band, and their obligations to avoid interference to others. This suggests that channelised operation with specified frequency, bandwidth and modes is needed sooner than most of us would hope.
If a lack of skill and underpinning knowledge are at the heart of our self-interference problems and compatibility / sociability on the bands, it may drive us to channelised operation before proliferation of unattended robots does so.
Owen
I must have missed it. When did Orv move to Australia?
73,
Bill
kh6ty
11-24-2004, 09:55 PM
Hello Jim (W5JBP),
Since you are now reading posts on this forum, where the bandwidth proposal is again being discussed, and you are also a member of the Executive Committee, please tell us what the Executive Committe felt at its last meeting about the following:
If it has now been decided that unattended operations are not to be permitted to mix with phone transmissions because of the interference potential, then why did the Executive Committee feel it is OK if keyboard-to-keyboard digital operators should not be afforded the same protection?
Would you also please explain ARRL's position on the following:
If CW operators operate where CW is operated, and PSK31 where PSK31 is operated, and RTTY where RTTY is customarily operated, and SSTV where SSTV is customarily operated, what is the reasoning behind the ARRL endorsement of unattended operations not being required to group with similar unattended operations (like everyone else does voluntarily), if they refuse to group together voluntarily?
It is apparently not too late to file additional comments, and knowing the answers to these questions is felt to be important for some of us to be able to make useful additional comments, since the ARRL position on the bandwidth proposal has now been changed in some respects.
I did previously send the above by email, after posting them first on QRP-L, but I guess you did not see them.
Thanks, Skip KH6TY
ab0wr
11-24-2004, 10:25 PM
w5jbp:
"By the way Charlie, I checked with Ed and I will still be able to use my Drake C line, the 101 and and 520 along with the AF67.
Jim"
Use them for what, exactly?
Would it be possible for Mr. Hare to put together at least short explanation of what his reasoning is?
"to segment the bands below 28.0 MHz by nominal bandwidths of 200, 500 and 2700 Hz as upper limits;"
"As the issue is a maximum regulatory bandwidth, not practice, which varies from (say) 2400 to 2800 Hz, a bandwidth of 3000 Hz is recommended."
"(e) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a station may transmit any emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator subject to the following bandwidth limitations:"
"(1) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to --26 dB bandwidths of 9 kHz."
"(2) Independent sideband transmissions are limited to a total --26 dB bandwidth of 6 kHz."
All of these statements are of significant concern. When you begin speakingof "maximum regulatory bandwidth" instead of "practice" it becomes even more of a problem.
If you are required to measure ISB and DSB transmissions to insure occupied bandwidth levels and the -26db points, exactly what is in the proposed regulations that will keep the same requirement from being put in place for SSB transmissions?
Remember the Ad Hoc report said "the rules should specify that below 28 MHz digital data signals must not exceed 3000 Hz bandwidth (measured at 26 db below mean power output.)" as well as "This is a proposed regulatory upper limit"
The wording in the proposal seems to implement this recommendation from the report in no uncertain terms.
If Mr. Hare feels that the above equipment could continue to be used for SSB in the phone bands, regardless of the IMD performance of the equipment, I would very much like to know what he bases this on that is specifically spelled out in the ARRL proposal?
So I repeat, what did Mr. Hare say the above equipment could be used for?
tim ab0wr
I have been doing some reading regarding the ARRL bandwidth proposal.
It calls for a maximum bandwidth of 200 HZ for CW operations.
For high speed CW operators, this should be a concern.
Contrary to what some may think, there are high speed CW operators who transmit at speeds of above 45 WPM.
I have a sked with a fellow in TN and we do 40 WPM as we are trying to develop "true QRQ." Our aim is to be able to converse at speeds above 50 WPM.
In fact, 45 WPM is considered the very beginning of true high speed code with some QRQ operators reaching speeds in the 60s and even beyond.
The bandwidth of a CW signal depends on the transmitted speed of the code and the rise and fall time of the keying envelope.
Most commercial Amateur gear is adjusted for a rise and fall time of about 5 milliseconds according to the ARRL Extra Class study manual, a setting considered optimum for paths with some fading.
I am not sure about the rise and fall times of the CW envelope with older "boat anchor" rigs.
With a rise and fall time of 5 milliseconds, the bandwidth of a CW signal works out to approximately the following:
WPM X 4.
In that case, should a 200 HZ limit be imposed, using most stock commercial Amateur gear would result in a top speed of 50 WPM and this does not take into account
bandwidth measurement schemes based on how many decibels lower any signal outside that 200 HZ limit must be for a particular signal to remain in compliance.
In high speed CW circles, 50 WPM is a common speed and should the 200 HZ limit be imposed, modification of existing Amateur gear would almost assuredly have to be undertaken if the operator intends to use his equipment at speeds approaching 50 WPM, and thereby adjust his equipment for a keying envelope that is not considered optimum for paths with significant fading.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
ab0wr
11-24-2004, 11:02 PM
w5jbp:
Let me point out a couple things Mr. Hare needs to consider in determining if older equipment will continue to be allowed.
1. There is still equipment operating that uses older Collins equipment. At least some of the 455khz mechanical filters that Collins Radio used (and also sold for use in other transmitters) have 3.1khz bandwidths - e.g. the F455-C-31. This filter was actually specified for use in some ARRL publications (e.g. December, 1967 QST). Any equipment using this filter would NOT meet the regulatory guidelines for -26db point bandwidths of 3khz.
2. Some of the older crystal filters such as the XF-9(A,B,C,etc) had 6db bandwidths as wide as 2.5khz to 2.6khz, with 60db bandwidths of 16khz or more. These filters could easily have -26db bandwidths of 4khz or more.
While the rig it was in is no longer in use, I have an IF strip using one of the XF-9A filters. I wonder if I would illegal to use if the regulations in the proposal are put in place.
Could Mr. Hare directly address whether I could put my homebrew SSB transmitter back together and use it under the regulations as proposed?
tim ab0wr
In reading some of these posts, one of the main thrusts has been that gentlemen's agreements regarding the use of our bands are no longer adequate and that a complete overhaul is needed by farming out the bands by bandwidth.
In effect, such individuals cry out #"Regulate US! #We need it! #We just KNOW that if the government regulates it, it will turn out just PEACHY."
We've heard this song and dance before: #Pass one more law, pass one more regulation and all will be well. #If the government does it, surely is HAS to work."
I have to tell you, such individuals have far more faith in government regulation than I do.
Historically, Hams have had an aversion to finely detailed government regulation of Amateur Radio. #
The general consensus was that the less overall regulation, the better, #and that as a group, we would police ourselves so the FCC wouldn't have to.
This would offer the freedom to experiment with new ways of doing things and so long as we were considerate of each other, things would not get out of hand.
In other words "Govern yourselves or be governed by others."
To those advocating regulation of the bands by bandwidth, the day has come and gone whereby we can govern ourselves. #The long coercive arm of the law is now needed to bring order to the unruly masses.
To hear them, one would think that chaos reigns supreme on the HF bands.
The agitation to regulate our bands by bandwidth is based largely on concerns over modern digital modes.
We are told that a change is needed to accommodate these modern digital modes: #Never mind that overwhelmingly, Amateur communication is carried on using SSB and CW. # A major change is needed to accommodate the minority.
Never mind that by and large, most Amateurs operate responsibly and there is not chaos on the HF bands.
Never mind that that certain digital modes have been used for years on the HF bands and yes, we've accommodated them by gentlemen's' agreements.
Never mind.
We NEED the GOVERNMENT to regulate us.
There is just too much freedom these days, know what I mean?
73,
Tim
N8LXR
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,17:49)]I have been doing some reading regarding the ARRL bandwidth proposal.
It calls for a maximum bandwidth of 200 HZ for CW operations.
For high speed CW operators, this should be a concern.
Contrary to what some may think, there are high speed CW operators who transmit at speeds of above 45 WPM. #
I have a sked with a fellow in TN and we do 40 WPM as we are trying to develop "true QRQ." #Our aim is to be able to converse at speeds above 50 WPM.
In fact, 45 WPM is considered the very beginning of true high speed code with some QRQ operators reaching speeds in the 60s and even beyond.
The bandwidth of a CW signal depends on the transmitted speed of the code and the rise and fall time of the keying envelope.
Most commericial Amateur gear is adjusted for a rise and fall time of about 5 milliseconds according to the ARRL Extra Class study manual, a setting considered optimum for paths with some fading.
I am not sure about the rise and fall times of the CW envelope with older "boat anchor" rigs.
With a rise and fall time of 5 milliseconds, the bandwidth of a CW signal works out to the following:
WPM X 4.
In that case, should a 200 HZ limit be imposed, using most stock commercial Amateur gear would result in a top speed of 50 WPM.
In high speed CW circles, this is a common speed and should the 200 HZ limit be imposed, modification of existing Amateur gear would have to be undertaken if the operator intends to use his equipment at speeds approaching 50 WPM, and thereby adjust his equipment for a keying envelope that is not considered optimum for paths with signifigant fading.
Unless the rise and fall time of the CW envelope were adjusted downward from a rise and fall time of 5 milliseconds, 50 WPM would, however, be the absolute upper limit should the ARRL bandwidth proposal be adopted.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
Do you really think someone is going to measure you at 55wpm and write you up for being 220 Hz wide?? #Come on guys, get a grip! #I understand the need to be "legal" but this is getting carried away.
I don't agree with limiting SSB audio to 2.7 kHz, that's just rediculous. If it does become law, and I run 3.2 kHz, who's going to complain??
k4kyv
11-24-2004, 11:38 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 23 2004,17:43)]Then we get into the first 4 years of the 60s. All of a sudden hams were not keeping up, the code was being neglected, homebrewing fell by the wayside, hams were getting unruly on the air, there was a feeling of discord among the ranks. And that is the stated reason why the ARRL all of a sudden backed IL.
Interestingly, it was right after Incentive Licensing was adopted in 1968, that the remaining homebrew stations rapidly disappeared, AM almost completely vanished, and amateur radio became nearly 100% a "communicators' hobby" with little interest in the technical aspects of radio. If anything, IL accelerated the abandonment of technical experimentation and home building in mainstream amateur radio.
In terms of the stated goal and purpose of Incentive Licensing when it was first proposed, to increase the technical expertise of the amateur community, it turned out to be a dismal failure.
Take a look at any amateur radio publication from the mid-60's (QST, CQ, Ham Radio, 73) and compare the technical content to that of the surviving amateur radio publications today (QST and CQ).
Do you really think someone is going to measure you at 55wpm and write you up for being 220 Hz wide?? Come on guys, get a grip! I understand the need to be "legal" but this is getting carried away.
I don't agree with limiting SSB audio to 2.7 kHz, that's just rediculous. If it does become law, and I run 3.2 kHz, who's going to complain??
N3JI
OM:
I have a grip.
In fact I am holding on quite tightly.
The fact remains that any signal wider than 200 HZ in that part of the band would be illegal as I understand this proposal.
And would someone "turn me in?"
Given the temperament of our society today, over-legislated, over litigated, "call the cops" and all that...yes, I think it is at the least a possibility.
And I wouldn't have a leg to stand on since my signal would, in fact, not comply.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Nov. 23 2004,18:49)]<SNIP>
And would someone "turn me in?"
Given the temperment of our society today, over-legislated, over litigated, "call the cops" and all that...yes, I think it is at the least a possibility.
And I wouldn't have a leg to stand on since my signal would, in fact, not comply.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
Touche... #I'm having trouble maintaining, myself.
I guess I'll be adding to my collection of "Riley" letters... #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
n5rfx
11-25-2004, 01:12 AM
LXR Tim,
I have to agree with you that if the argument for regulating by bandwidth leads you to believe that regulation will increase, the arguments and the proposal are faulty. I believe that regulation by bandwidth should result in a decrease in regulation. The only bands that are segregated by mode are the 80 through 10-meter bands. Our regulations define what is a CW, RTTY/Data and phone/image emission. The regulators have been quite generous, and there really isn't a prohibition on any single mode that is appropriate for HF. The problem is that there are combinations of modes that you can't operate on single frequency. What I mean by a combination of modes is what we hear on 14.230 and 14.233 MHz. SSTV ops use phone to establish communication, and chit chat about the pictures they are sending. SSB is a J3E emission and analog SSTV is a J3C emission. Both are authorized in the phone/image subband. RDFT is the method that SSTVers are using to send digital images. They again use phone to establish communication then switch to RDFT. RDFT when sending images is J2C. J3E and J2C are authorized in the phone/image subband. But now I can show you an example where the rules prevent improving upon the system. RDFT is able to ask for resends of blocks of information. The receiving stations who have bad blocks can send a request to the sending station to repeat and correct the erred blocks. When you send this request you are now sending J2D. Some RDFT programs let you send short messages to other stations. That is J2B. Both J2B and J2D are not authorized in the phone.image subbands. So today, stations sending bad block reports, and short messaging in phone/image subbands are doing so without authorization. This makes little sense. There are other examples that I can give, but in short, regulating by bandwidth removes regulated segregation by mode. Bandplans will even more important if this happens.
I do think that specifying too many bandwidths is a problem. I feel there really only needs to be two bandwidths, 1KHz for the current RTTY/Data subbands, and 6Khz for the current phone/image subbands. A while back I came to the conclusion that AM should be exempt from these regulations, and I am starting to feel that CW may also fit into that category.
The alternative is to make all bands like the 160-meter band with no mode segregation and no bandwidth enumeration. So Tim you and I agree with less regulation, and it is my hope that removing mode segregation is a means to that end.
73,
Mark N5RFX
#Mark, N5RFX:
Perhaps some adjustment of the current rules is in order in the case of the modes you mention.
But a wholesale, sweeping realignment of the bands based on rigid bandwidth limits is not and do not try to tell me that more regulation means less regulation and thereby try to change a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
This is regulation, plain and simple.
I am willing to live and let live on this issue. If guys want to use modern digital modes, that is fine with me, and if the rules have to be modified somewhat to accommodate that in narrow instances, fine again.
But this proposal is radical in nature. It completely redefines our band usage based on bandwidth alone.
Serious questions about just how these bandwidths will be measured have yet to be fully expounded on, not to mention that some knowledgeable folks have raised the possibility that the rigid bandwidth requirements may make it illegal to run older equipment.
Yet another consideration is this: If two different modes
are of the same bandwidth and hence will share the same spectrum, does it necessarily follow that they will be compatible with one another by virtue of bandwidth alone?
Regarding digital modes, the number of Hams who use only modern digital modes is a distinct minority. The vast majority use SSB or CW while perhaps using the modern digital modes as a secondary interest.
Because the modern digital modes are a secondary interest to the vast majority of hams, gentleness' agreements regarding their use have served us well.
But this proposal seeks essentially to cancel all the gentleness' agreements and put in their place a rigid, government enforced system of bandwidth limits, a measure that I believe will create more problems than it can ever hope solve.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
Should this bandwidth proposal be passed, I can imagine someday getting a letter like this:
Dear Mr. Polhamus:
On the evening of September 22nd, 2005, your 7.030 MHZ CW signal was clocked at a rate of 52 WPM with a resultant bandwidth of 208 HZ in violation of the FCC bandwidth limitations in force on that band.
This letter is a notice of apparent liability and you are required to respond within ten days regarding the steps you plan to take to avoid further liability in the future.
Your failure to do so will result in FCC action against you and your license may be suspended or revoked.
Riley Hollingsworth
FCC
You know, Ham Radio was such a great idea that someone just had to screw it up.
TP
Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Nov. 24 2004,14:47)]Quote[/b] (K1MH @ Nov. 23 2004,16:32)]<SNIP>
This just doesnt sound right to me. I think that there is more to this but for now I need more details.
Mike Hemeon - K1MH
Come on, Mike!! #I've SEEN the black helicopters landing at W1AW. #I'll bet if you dig deep enough, you'll be able to prove they were the ones behind JFK's assassination! #Hey!!! #Haynie lives in Dallas!! #I wonder if he can prove his whereabouts 41 years ago??
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Hi Joe,
I was going to explain that last statement but I can see that others have already made the point. Fines for being off a few Khz. I don't always rely on the ARRL to look out for our best interests.
The FCC has discovered there's gold in them fines. Just take a look at the broadcast industry.
BTW Here is the ARRL Band Plan
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html
73,
Mike
kh6ty
11-25-2004, 01:17 PM
The proposed change to the Part 97 regulations to enforce the proposed ARRL "bandplan" was derived from the IARU Region 1 "draft" bandplan, obtained by Dave Sumner , passed to the ad hoc HF Digital Committee, and then rewritten for the ARRL by Winlink , for their prime benefit, in order to break out of the regulatory box that the current Part 97.221 rules keep them confined in, when using bandwidths over 500 Hz for unattended operations, and keeps them out of the phone bands entirely.
Not only is the IARU Region 1 bandplan just a committee draft from the last San Marino IARU conference, and was never even agreed to be a published bandplan (this awaits the next IARU conference), the IARU members do not enforce the bandplan with any regulations. Whatever the final published bandplan will be, it will still be strictly a recommendation, with no penalties for exceeding the suggested bandwidths.
If you read the proposed regulatory changes carefully, you will see they are mostly structured to protect Winlink activities from interference, while doing nothing to protect others from unattended Winlink station interference. A prime example of this on 20 meters is not allowing any phone operations (by regulation) from 14.10-14.15 MHz, which is where Winlink uses Pactor-III now from #14.1005-14.112 MHz and is trying to get use of 14.112 to 14.150 MHz.
So, all the discussion and fear about being fined or penalized for exceeding the ARRL/Winlink suggested bandwidth results from Winlink's attempt to expand by means of new regulations, for their less than 1% of FCC-licensed amateurs, and do it by having the ARRL petition the FCC "on behalf of all radio amateurs".
That "draft" IARU bandplan, which would never be codified, can be read here:IARU Region 1 "draft" bandplan (http://dx.ardi.lv/IARU_r1_hfbp.htm). For comparison, the ARRL/Winlink proposed regulatory changes can be read here: ARRL proposed regulatory bandplan changes (http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html)
So, I believe the majority of the problems can be traced to the attempt by ARRL/Winlink to release Winlink from the regulatory box they are currently in and squeeze everyone else into regulatory boxes to prevent interference to Winlink.
Lest I am wrongly dismissed as being "anti-Winlink" (as a few, mostly Winlink users) have suggested, you should study the IARU Region 1 draft carefully, compare it to the regulation changes in the ARRL proposed petition and make up your own mind. Keep in mind that the ARRL has gone on record as stating that the proposed petition "represents" the report of the ad hoc HF Digital Committee, the committee was composed of a Winlink majority, and that report was authored by the Winlink system architect.
Unattended operations used by less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams should be confined in a box, representative of their proportion to the ham population, since they interfere with everyone else if allowed outside that box. Repealing Part 97.221 Subpart C would do just that by providing a box in which to operate unattended that is four times the size less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams would ordinarily be entitled to.
Other than that, only a slight relaxation modification of the regulations to allow mixing of modes in the same space, such as analog and digital voice, or MFSK16 and narrow fax images, etc, is needed.
Unless the ARRL starts fairly representing the 99% of US hams that will never use Winlink, and revises the proposed petition to reflect that proportion, then that 99% will have no choice but to completely reject the ARRL petition if and when it is published by the FCC at NPRM time.
All those who have pointed out the problems with writing additional bandwidth requirements into the regulations are certainly owed a debt of gratitude by the rest of us for uncovering the flaws in the proposed petition.
If the ARRL/Winlink had not made an attempt to codify a bandplan similar to what the IARU only recommends (but does not regulate), then this discussion would have never even taken place, and there would be no concern about certifying that our transmitters would satifisfy new regulations...
73, Skip KH6TY
Quote[/b] ]VK1OD: It is also worrying that we have dumbed down the the extent that so many readers (licenced hams) find it easier to understand and discuss vehicles and roads than fundamental technical issues of occupied bandwidth, guard band, and their obligations to avoid interference to others.
This is not the fault of the people who show up to take a test and pass it to get a ticket. And legally they are Amateurs as much as you or I. As such they need to understand and be able to either support or oppose the "Bandwidth Based Bandplan". This article seeks to ensure that the issue is understood at the most uncomplicated level.
The idea that only the "smart" Amateurs should have an opinion is as bad as the notion that the ARRL leadership should make all the decisions for the poor unwashed masses (members).
Jim Haynie,
Thanks for asking Ed Hare, but as others have said, the root of the issue is how to measure bandwidth to meet the 3kHz requirement of the new plan. How is he measuring to conclude the 520 would be legal? My bad for not being clear. I was specifically interested in his measurement method. I had hoped he would take a sampling of rigs and show us how they meet the requirement. I also know that answers lead to more questions and I am sure he does not want to be in a QRZ hotseat. Any suggestions on how we can get the technical questions answered?
N8LXR I get your point about that notice of violation letter. #It's a safe bet FCC will not devote resources to randomly monitor amateur compliance with the transmitter regulations requested by ARRL. #Enforcement actions will be requested by fellow amateurs who think the other guy's signal is too broad. #Valid science won't be involved in making that determination, just someone's belief that your signal is adversely affecting his enjoyment. #So he sends his anecdotal evidence to Riley. #Let's open a whole new can of worms with people who can't measure their own bandwidth submitting complaints about someone else's. #FCC doesn't want to spend time out on the playground mitigating squabbles between kiddies. #But if this petition becomes law, I suspect we will see cases of selective enforcement.
BTW bandwidth of CW signals has never required regulation in amateur radio or any other radio service since continuous wave replaced spark. #Faster speeds require greater bandwidth and faster speeds are encouraged as part of the radio art along with the practical benefit of improved communications efficiency. #I realize high speed CW doesn't interest the majority of amateurs, but those not interested in CW ought to at least be aware of the petition's consequences on even the narrowest of traditional modes, along with its clear threat to SSB and AM operations. #
There's no evidence knowledgable CW people had input on that 200 Hz limit. #To copy CW by ear, the ear needs to hear the 5th harmonic of the modulating frequency on a typical fading HF QSO. #With a string of 60 wpm dits, the modulating frequency is 25 Hz in the upper sideband and 25 Hz in the lower sideband (CW being a pulse modulated AM signal). #The 5th harmonic requires a modulation envelope 250 Hz wide. #That is the "necessary" bandwidth but when you factor in the timing idiosynchracies of individual transmitters, the RF footprint may be wider. #In the petition synopsis ARRL says 200 Hz is sufficient for all speeds that human operators can decode. #The authors don't recognize there are CW operators running 60 wpm+ and copying by ear. #Or if they do recognize it, they are willing to put an end to it in the interest of a neat and tidy band plan.
73 Mike
Although I like the highway analogy, it does not go far enough in answering my questions about the ARRL's proposal. (guess that makes me dummer than the normal dummy)
In my view, Amateur Radio is all about "Community" - we are a collection of folks who enjoy a particular hobby, and in the enjoyment of that hobby we attempt to meet with similar-minded hams and create short-lived communities (also called QSOs).
The current bandplan creates communities based on modes - "I like to operate CW, and I know where I have to go to find others who like CW". Or "I like to operate SSB and I know where to find others who like SSB". The less-popular modes (PSK, RTTY, SSTV as examples) have carved out "gentlemen's agreement" spots within the CW and phone portions for their communities to meet - but these are casual arrangements, not regulations. However, the current mode-based regulations do nothing to create community based on interests "I like rag-chewing; contesting; DXing" -- those you have to weed out based on what mode you think they might be on...
So, the ARRL's proposal sounds like it will attempt to create groupings of hams based on bandwidth. Hmmmm... I have never sat down at my rig and said "Gee, I'm feeling a little thin today, I think I will tune around and see if I can find anybody else who is also sending a skinny signal". Furthermore, with today's technology, there is no mode-agile equipment that I know which would allow you to tune through a diverse collection of narrow-bandwidth signals and "listen" to them. SO, the ARRL's proposal seems to be destined to create groups of dis-disimilar modes that are drawn together merely by their bandwidth.
Somehow, I don't get the impression that I am best served by this proposal. I don't know who _IS_ best served, but I would like to talk to that ham so I can understand what benefits he or she is going to get from it.
-larry
NEWS FLASH: #FCC on November 24 dismissed a petition for regulating SSB and AM transmitter bandwidths to 2.8 and 5.6 kHz respectively (RM-10740). #In the ruling, FCC reaffirmed the appropriateness of unspecified emission bandwidths citing among other things the experimental nature of the amateur service.
It might be wise for ARRL to re-think their idea of asking for emission bandwidth restrictions on amateur transmitters.
73 Mike
n5rfx
11-25-2004, 05:58 PM
Quote[/b] ]It might be wise for ARRL to re-think their idea of asking for emission bandwidth restrictions on amateur transmitters.
It is good to see the commission is wading through the outstanding petitions. RM-10740 was filed on May 23, 2003. RM-10740 was not about segregating emissions by bandwidth, but was about regulating bandwidth on 2 specific emissions. Regulation by bandwidth is not concerned about emission types, only bandwidth in a band. The enumeration of a bandwidth should not be so restrictive as to discourage experimentation. The most interesting line to me in the order is “we conclude that Petitioners’ request for an amendment of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service. The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community -- is either warranted or necessary.
To be successful in moving toward bandwidth segregation you have to show how the current mode segregation is inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service and how it hinders operating flexibility within the amateur service community. Earlier in this thread I gave two examples of how mode segregation limits flexibility and discourages experimentation within the amateur service community. There are many other examples.
An alternative to bandwidth segregation would be to eliminate mode segregation. In other words, make the 80 through 10-meter bands like the 160 meter and 6-meter and above bands. That would satisfy the experimentation and flexibility requirement, and not require enumeration of bandwidth, since that appears to be the major objection to the ARRL proposal.
73,
Mark N5RFX
Quote[/b] (W8MW @ Nov. 25 2004,07:42)]N8LXR I get your point about that notice of violation letter. #It's a safe bet FCC will not devote resources to randomly monitor amateur compliance with the transmitter regulations requested by ARRL. #Enforcement actions will be requested by fellow amateurs who think the other guy's signal is too broad. #Valid science won't be involved in making that determination, just someone's belief that your signal is adversely affecting his enjoyment. #So he sends his anecdotal evidence to Riley. #Let's open a whole new can of worms with people who can't measure their own bandwidth submitting complaints about someone else's.
73 Mike
Mike,
Did you ever hit the nail on the head on that one!
Add a little bass to your audio, and some guardian of the airways, will be sending in their complaints as to your wide signal. Of course you are using a modern rig with DSP, and your audio bandwidth is 3Khz, but the complaints will be made, and you will get a greeting from Riley.
Just what we need, more hams joining into little groups to fight with each other.
As far as the statement that Ed Hare said the TS-520 is ok, I can only say that I wouldn't even try to use that as my defense at an FCC hearing, after being cited.
If your 3rd order IMD is -25db outside of 3Khz, and the FCC measures that, you are in violation, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
And yes, the FCC has rejected previous bandwidth restrictions, for the same reasons that many of us have repeated over and over on these threads.
I am amazed that a majority of posts here, and the FCC thinks that this is a bad idea, and yet the leadership of the ARRL, continues to tell us that this is a great idea.
Truly amazing!
Beyond that, this isn't even a real bandwidth proposal. A real bandwidth proposal doesn't continue to segregate modes like SSB to certain areas.
Canada has real bandwidth rules, that don't give all frequencies to some modes, at the expense of other modes.
Bob W6NJ
Quote[/b] (W8MW @ Nov. 25 2004,09:17)]NEWS FLASH: #FCC on November 24 dismissed a petition for regulating SSB and AM transmitter bandwidths to 2.8 and 5.6 kHz respectively (RM-10740). #In the ruling, FCC reaffirmed the appropriateness of unspecified emission bandwidths citing among other things the experimental nature of the amateur service.
It might be wise for ARRL to re-think their idea of asking for emission bandwidth restrictions on amateur transmitters.
73 Mike
I thought the ARRL was here to protect our interests, from the FCC.
Seems that we may now find the FCC protecting our interests, from the ARRL!
On this issue, it seems the FCC understands Amateur Radio better then the current ARRL leadership.
Amazing.
Bob W6NJ
Here is the link to yesterdays FCC notice.
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd041124.html (http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/ddtoday.html)
The docs are toward the end of the page.
DA-04-3661A1.doc #DA-04-3661A1.pdf #DA-04-3661A1.txt
While this was about bandwidth restriction by emission, I think the same arguments against the petition, relate to the ARRL bandwidth proposal.
After reading the official doc, I can only say this to the ARRL on the their current proposal.
GOOD LUCK...
Bob #W6NJ
k3nco
11-25-2004, 07:04 PM
Charlie,
I don't know what method used to be used for two-tone testing (the current ARRL test proceedures only date back to 1990), but I went through the pre-1990 comparison list of rigs and found that every one (!) had a two tone better than -26 dB. This doesn't mean that a full bandwidth voice signal couldn't be a problem, especially if the filter bandwidths are >2.7 kHz at the 6 dB point.
The old vacuum tube rigs especially looked good, but that shouldn't have surprized me, since many of those rigs had wider linear range than an all solid state rig that was forced to run on 12V (didn't the FT1000 run on 28V?). The high level mixer tubes were also well known for good dynamic range.
I should have done more research before just assuming there would be a problem, since a number of more current rigs do have problems. After all, the vacuum tube rigs had always been known for good receive IM product problems - its really just more of the same.
Seems that we may now find the FCC protecting our interests, from the ARRL! .. On this issue, it seems the FCC understands Amateur Radio better then the current ARRL leadership.
Touche, Bob. #Just for the sake of contrast, consider the following two position statements and make up your own mind which is more "amateur friendly""
Position #1: #
"Because there is a strong tradition in the United States of restricting subbands by rule rather than purely through voluntary band plans, complete elimination of regulatory band segments and complete reliance on informal band planning does not appear to be a suitable option in the United States."
Position #2:
"Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. #Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to “reallocate” the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor."
#1 is the ARRL Position as offered in Regulation by Emission Bandwidth Petetion Synopsis.
#2 is FCC Position as offered in their recent denial of a #petition from 2003 requesting specified emission bandwidths for SSB & AM.
73 Mike
n5rfx
11-26-2004, 02:39 AM
It would seem that mode segregation as we have now in the 80 through 10-meter bands should be eliminated to allow the amateur service community the flexibility to “reallocate” the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor.
In docket 04-140 the FCC dismissed the Briggs and Tippett 160 meter petition to segregate by emission and used the same verbiage as MWW quoted in his post.
So is it time to remove mode segregation from the 80 through 10-meter bands and make it align with the 160 and 6 meter and above bands?
73,
Mark N5RFX
Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 25 2004,19:39)]It would seem that mode segregation as we have now in the 80 through 10-meter bands should be eliminated to allow the amateur service community the flexibility to “reallocate” the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor.
In docket 04-140 the FCC dismissed the Briggs and Tippett 160 meter petition to segregate by emission and used the same verbiage as MWW quoted in his post.
So is it time to remove mode segregation from the 80 through 10-meter bands and make it align with the 160 and 6 meter and above bands?
73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,
That is a good point, and it would seem that the FCC sure isn't up for making the rules even more complex.
If the consensus is for bandwidth type rules, then look at Canada, if the consensus is putting modes in certain spots, which is what the proposed plan still does, then leave it as it is.
I think the FCC would prefer the 160 meter / Canada model, that lets the unofficial bandplan work out the details.
I think that the ARRL should can this whole thing, and start from scratch using input from a wide range of hams, and not just Winlink users.
The sooner the better, because in it's present form, it is is going to get canned in the FCC comment phase, and that is a big waste of time.
Years wasted for something that doesn't have a snowballs chance.
Bob W6NJ
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Nov. 25 2004,23:08)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 25 2004,19:39)]It would seem that mode segregation as we have now in the 80 through 10-meter bands should be eliminated to allow the amateur service community the flexibility to “reallocate” the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor.
In docket 04-140 the FCC dismissed the Briggs and Tippett 160 meter petition to segregate by emission and used the same verbiage as MWW quoted in his post.
So is it time to remove mode segregation from the 80 through 10-meter bands and make it align with the 160 and 6 meter and above bands?
73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,
That is a good point, and it would seem that the FCC sure isn't up for making the rules even more complex.
If the consensus is for bandwidth type rules, then look at Canada, if the consensus is putting modes in certain spots, which is what the proposed plan still does, then leave it as it is.
I think the FCC would prefer the 160 meter / Canada model, that lets the unofficial bandplan work out the details.
I think that the ARRL should can this whole thing, and start from scratch using input from a wide range of hams, and not just Winlink users.
The sooner the better, because in it's present form, it is is going to get canned in the FCC comment phase, and that is a big waste of time.
Years wasted for something that doesn't have a snowballs chance.
Bob #W6NJ
Good points,
I agree. I don't see the FCC making any complex changes to our service. They appear to be more in the mood to simplify our regulations to make them as flexible as possible and to be as inclusive as possible.
Personally, the more I look at the Canadian model the more I think this is the way to go. The only problem that I see is keeping the WinLink stuff in its place. They represent the largest source of potential mutual interference outside of the troubles on 75m phone.
The reality of the situation is that this will not happen for at least 2 years. We have plenty of time to shape the final product or kill it outright.
Ken
Mark, yes it very well may be time to look at 160/6 meters with their voluntary band plans. #Maybe we've had the solution all along with the sheer simplicity of deregulation vs more regulations. #I would add, however, that more freedom requires more responsibility on our part to operate courteously. #Since courtesy is impossible with unattended winlink, I'd support an exception to the prevailing freedom enjoyed by human operators and keep those machines on a short leash in their own box.
FCC has gone on record saying they support flexibility in the amateur service. #They want us to actually use our frequencies rather than have big chunks of spectrum go silent because they were set aside for modes/operating interests that either fell out of favor or never took off in the first place.
That's an interesting concept, letting the amateur community apply its own dynamic to mode utilization and associated spectrum use. #I'd find it much more acceptable to have on-air operating preferences guide what happens on the bands, rather than a rigid, agenda-driven band plan that is unresponsive to changing interests. #We already have a vivid example of that with the vast wasteland on 80 meters.
73 Mike
n5rfx
11-26-2004, 03:15 PM
Quote[/b] ]The only problem that I see is keeping the WinLink stuff in its place.
Quote[/b] ]Since courtesy is impossible with unattended winlink, I'd support an exception to the prevailing freedom enjoyed by human operators and keep those machines on a short leash in their own box.
You are correct that will have to be addressed. The unatteded station is a control problem and should be addressed with specific subbands for all unattended stations to operate. Skip KH6TY has suggested using the subbands in 97.221(b). I think that is a good place to start.
73,
Mark N5RFX
ab0wr
11-26-2004, 05:22 PM
Posted: Nov. 26 2004,08:15
Quote
The only problem that I see is keeping the WinLink stuff in its place.
Quote
Since courtesy is impossible with unattended winlink, I'd support an exception to the prevailing freedom enjoyed by human operators and keep those machines on a short leash in their own box.
"You are correct that will have to be addressed. The unatteded station is a control problem and should be addressed with specific subbands for all unattended stations to operate. Skip KH6TY has suggested using the subbands in 97.221(b). I think that is a good place to start."
The size of the sub-band may need to be negotiated but I think this is a good start on any plan.
tim ab0wr
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 26 2004,10:22)]Posted: Nov. 26 2004,08:15
Quote
The only problem that I see is keeping the WinLink stuff in its place.
Quote
Since courtesy is impossible with unattended winlink, I'd support an exception to the prevailing freedom enjoyed by human operators and keep those machines on a short leash in their own box.
"You are correct that will have to be addressed. #The unatteded station is a control problem and should be addressed with specific subbands for all unattended stations to operate. #Skip KH6TY has suggested using the subbands in 97.221(b). #I think that is a good place to start."
The size of the sub-band may need to be negotiated but I think this is a good start on any plan.
tim ab0wr
It is a matter of if we can actualy abide by a bandplan.
As it stands now, we use a suggested bandplan for rtty, packet, psk. Does it work now? If not, then we have to be regulated to the letter.
If it can work, then I believe using the Canadian model is the best bet.
The bandplan can set aside space for Pactor robots, and the other digital modes.
To be realistic, the FCC doesn't have the resources to regulate every detail anyway.
If we can't abide by a bandplan, then we are in trouble no matter what happens.
I think the FCC wants us to work this out, and not expect them to play big brother on every little squable that comes up.
If you worry about the future of ham radio, then work this out, without adding more enforcement burden on the FCC.
Adding rules that are even more complex, that create demands that the FCC deals with a station with bass in the audio, just increases the burden.
This will be a long debate, but well worth it.
Bob W6NJ
Quote[/b] ]Mark: So is it time to remove mode segregation from the 80 through 10-meter bands and make it align with the 160 and 6 meter and above bands?
Am I understanding that some folks are maintaining that the recent FCC ruling is a push for a Canadian type Bandwidth Plan with voluntary band plan for what modes go where? Or is it as Mark says and some feel this is the FCC saying that all mode segregation should end?
I disagree with both. I read the FCC ruling and it was short and to the point. They refused to limit SSB to 2.8kHz and AM to 5.whatever kHz. The refusal to segment 160 meters seemed to say that they were not ready for any real changes in the bands. I agree with those who say here that a Bandwidth based Bandplan at this time is darned near impossible based on this ruling.
I am restating the obvious, but the main petition was from a group that had their undies in a bunch over wideband SSB. By refusing to limit SSB to 2.8kHz, the FCC slammed the door on holding Amateurs to any Bandwidth based system other than the "minimum necessary" for the mode.
My suggestion is for those who have particular modes they feel are not addressed currently, to file a petition asking for those modes to be allowed. Lets move on.
Quote[/b] ]My suggestion is for those who have particular modes they feel are not addressed currently, to file a petition asking for those modes to be allowed. #Lets move on.
Well said, Charles. #ARRL said: #"The main objective of the petition is to make appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands". #That should be the ONLY objective of this particular petition. # #
When you un-bundle the layers of agenda in the #petition and try locate the actual problems that need solving, the list gets short and the appropriate solutions should be without controversy and supported widely. #Even by traditional mode operators like me who want to see digital enthusiasts happily pursue their interests.
73 Mike
As I see it, the main problem with the ARRL bandwidth proposal is:
# # It is based on a the faulty assumption that that
# # same or smaller bandwidth modes are ipso facto
# # compatible.
This does not follow. #If operators using dissimilar modes cannot communicate with one another in instances of inadvertent QRM or in other contexts, a measure allowing for this turns our bands into a veritable "Tower of Babble."
With the exception of CW which is allowed on any Amateur frequency aside from 60 meters, we've avoided this by assigning certain parts of the bands for certain emission types defined very broadly with operation of specific modes done largely by consensus and mutual cooperation.
Hence, narrower modes typically are allowed in the lower portion and wider modes in the higher portion of each band with voluntary bandplans serving to obviate confusion and QRM.
Note also that CW operators are allowed to operate in the phone bands but hardly ever do, a testament to the fact that voluntary band plans have served us well in the case of CW and phone operations.
This can also be done with newer modern modes as they become popular. #In fact we have done that over the years.
When RTTY came on the scene, we adjusted and allowed for that mode, #live and let live.
When SSTV came on the scene, likewise. #Same with Packet, same with PSK-31.
In fact, the flexibility of this way of organizing our bands allows FOR new technology as it becomes known, used, and popular and as I understand it, this is also the FCC's position on the matter.
But the ARRL bandwidth proposal seeks to change all of that and straight-jacket the bands by mode bandwidth alone which I believe is wholly inadequate to address interference and other aspects of on-air coordination.
It may not be to the liking of ARRL, but the two main modes used on Amateur Radio today are SSB and CW.
Hence, those two modes enjoy the larger share of our spectrum, with the newer digital modes enjoying shares of each band based on their overall Amateur usage the terms of which are arrived at through a consensus reflecting the voluntary bandplan.
IF and when newer digital modes become the predominant modes used on the Amateur Ham Bands, then and only then should comprehensive review and readjustment of our bands be undertaken and such should result the work of an ARRL committee composed of Amateurs representing a wide range of operating interests.
Even in that case, I favor a voluntary band plan approach with very broad FCC mandates regarding mode emission as we have now.
With the current ARRL bandwidth proposal, it came to light as the work of a committee composed entirely of Amateurs representing the digital mode community with no representation at all from the SSB and CW sectors of the Ham population and this when the two latter groups form the majority of active Amateurs from the outset.
To boot, the bandplan is not voluntary at all. #It seeks to define certain portions of the bands by the arbitrary standard of bandwidth alone, the violation of which may bring FCC action against those not adhering to it.
In short, this proposal seeks to regulate the Amateur community to a level and extent never before seen.
I am willing to consider that the time has come to reexamine the alignment of our bands in light of new technology.
But I am not willing to see the Ham Bands turned into the "Tower of Babble," based on the wants and whims of a small segment of the Amateur community seeking to advance it's own agenda at the expense of Hams writ-large.
Drop it. #It's a dog.
Tell your section manager, write the League.
If we are going to do this, we have to do it fairly with a common sense approach to avoid the inevitable wrangling and confusion that most assuredly will arise if the current proposal is ever written into law.
73,
Tim
N8LXR
k5rks
11-27-2004, 07:20 PM
Tim & Others:
I agree. I wrote a note to my Pacific Division Director a few weeks ago. My points were the same as yours:
(1) Just because several emission types use the same
bandwidth does not mean they are compatible,
(2) Unattended operation must be kept separate inpedendent of whatever bandwidth it uses
(3) There are no major problems going on now -- at least
in the HF bands -- due to cross mode QRM. Therefore, we
don't need a change.
I agree with you that voluntary agreements -- just like we now have to PSK31 and RTTY and beacons -- could be expanded to handle whatever new digital modes become popular. When PSK31 became popular PKS31 ops on 20m, for example, started hanging out near 14.070Mhz by common consent and everything is cool.
I agree -- Drop it, It is a gila monster. [I have a German Shepherd that I like so I don't want to sully his persona by calling anything bad a "dog"]
73 Roger NQ6C -- San Jose CA
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 26 2004,23:45)]Quote[/b] ]Mark: So is it time to remove mode segregation from the 80 through 10-meter bands and make it align with the 160 and 6 meter and above bands?
Am I understanding that some folks are maintaining that the recent FCC ruling is a push for a Canadian type Bandwidth Plan with voluntary band plan for what modes go where? #Or is it as Mark says and some feel this is the FCC saying that all mode segregation should end?
I disagree with both. #I read the FCC ruling and it was short and to the point. #They refused to limit SSB to 2.8kHz and AM to 5.whatever kHz. #The refusal to segment 160 meters seemed to say that they were not ready for any real changes in the bands. I agree with those who say here that a Bandwidth based Bandplan at this time is darned near impossible based on this ruling.
I am restating the obvious, but the main petition was from a group that had their undies in a bunch over wideband SSB. By refusing to limit SSB to 2.8kHz, the FCC slammed the door on holding Amateurs to any Bandwidth based system other than the "minimum necessary" for the mode.
My suggestion is for those who have particular modes they feel are not addressed currently, to file a petition asking for those modes to be allowed. #Lets move on.
I have to agree, that the FCC would rather not do anything at this time.
With all of the issues involved, that makes sense to me.
I guess the question that I will raise again is, what would happen if tomorrow the FCC just said the bandwidth limit is 6Khz? #You work it out. #First we have to have a bandplan.
Would we all stick to a bandplan, or just use the letter of the law to do whatever we like, as long as it is legal?
Considering K1MAN, I wonder.
I don't think Baxter is doing anything illegal, other then starting up over existing QSO's, or including advertisements on his broadcasts. #I think he goes too far with his
transmissions, and many of you will agree, but is he legal?
Personaly, I think mode segregation is a bad idea in a perfect world, and the Ham community would be better served by using a bandplan that can be changed without years of rulemaking petitions.
In the real world, that doesn't make sense, as we don't have a real forum to come together.
I hate to say this as a member, but the ARRL will have to reach out and really listen to the rank and file hams, before a bandplan based system will work.
For now, there are too many hams that don't feel represented by the ARRL to buy into any of this.
The first step for the ARRL, is to listen and get everyone possible on board.
That hasn't happened. #
It can, but ARRL leadership has to throw out what they think is best, and listen to the masses. #It won't work any other way. #It really doesn't matter if you think you are right, as the masses should decide.
For now, my vote is leave it alone.
To the ARRL, I would open up a forum like this, to ask the masses what would be the best way to open up the bands to new modes and experimentation. #Want new members, give them a voice.
Putting together an AD-HOC of a few people, #and expecting a few hundred thousand of us to go along, just isn't going to work.
Bob #W6NJ
Bob,
Several of us who are posting here did ask, through the Directors and Jim Haynie, W5JPB. I asked for a forum on their website which would be open to all amateurs.
At one point Jim proposed on the QRZ Talk and Opinions forum that we make one particular thread a clearing house for all of the questions many were asking about the original proposal.
I had visions of the ARRL technical staff, Jim, Ed Hare, Dave Sumner and some of the members see