ARRL FILES REGULATION-BY-BANDWIDTH PETITION

[AA7BQ]

The ARRL has formally asked the FCC to adopt the League's plan to segment
the Amateur Radio bands solely by emission bandwidth rather than by mode.
The Petition for Rule Making, filed November 14, recommends what the ARRL
called "a shift in regulatory philosophy" that would encourage and
facilitate the development and refinement of digital techniques and advanced
technologies. At the same time, the League said, accommodating new
technologies would not come at the expense of current operating modes,
including double-sideband AM phone.

"This petition seeks for the Amateur Radio Service the flexibility to
experiment with new digital transmission methods and types to be developed
in the future," the League's petition said, "while permitting present
operating modes to continue to be used for as long as there are radio
amateurs who wish to use them." The ARRL said the changes it suggests will
also update the FCC's rules and eliminate the need for "cumbersome
procedures" to determine whether a new digital mode is legal under Part 97.

The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth plan is far from a done deal. In order
for it to be adopted, the FCC first must put the League's Petition for Rule
Making on public notice and invite formal public comments. A subsequent
Notice of Proposed Rule Making would kick off a further round of formal
comments. Ultimately, the FCC would have to issue a Report and Order putting
the changes into place and setting an effective date.

The League conceded that its regulation-by-bandwidth regime would place
increased responsibility on the amateur community to establish workable,
accepted band plans, but it expressed confidence that such an effort would
be successful.

The petition filed this week has been in the works for some time now. The
ARRL Board of Directors adopted the petition's guiding principle in 2002 and
invited comments from the Amateur Radio community in the summer of 2004. The
proposal reflects expert input from the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee as
well as from ARRL staff. Comments from League members and an ARRL Executive
Committee review led to further fine tuning.

The ARRL wants the FCC to replace the table at §97.305© with a new one
that segment bands by bandwidths ranging from 200 Hz to 100 kHz. Unaffected
by the ARRL's recommendations, if they're adopted, would be 160 and 60
meters. Subbands in other bands below 29 MHz would accommodate maximum
emission bandwidths of 200, 500 or 3.5 kHz, with an exception of 9 kHz for
AM phone.

The League's petition "seeks to facilitate and encourage the development,
refinement and use of new digital technologies without the regulatory
remnants developed at a time when the principal emissions used in the
Amateur Radio Service were Morse telegraphy and single- or double-sideband
amplitude-modulated telephony." Part 97 rules need to permit higher data
rates between 1.8 and 450 MHz to encourage development of digital multimedia
technology, "which has great promise for improving and fostering more
effective emergency and disaster relief communications," the petition
asserted.

"This petition does not favor one mode at the expense of another," the ARRL
concluded in urging FCC adoption. "It merely allows expansion of the
repertoire of options that amateurs may pursue compatibly."

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, discussed the subject of regulating by
bandwidth in three "It Seems to Us . . ." QST editorials: "Regulation by
Bandwidth" in September 2004, "Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues" in April 2005
and "Self Regulation" in October 2005.

The text of the ARRL's Petition for Rule Making is on the ARRL Web site:
CLICK HERE (http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf)

<HR width="80%">
Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

[KA2LIM]

Doing their own thing again... and it is not in your best intrest !

[w4fjf]

Instead of this, why isn't the League pushing for a 200 to 300khz expansion on 60 meters? We could use the room there instead of this ridiculous "channelization" that exists now. I'm afraid that the ARRL has lost contact with the present needs of the WHOLE amateur community, not just the ones who want to experiment with developing digital modes. I realize that the digital modes are important for EMCOM, but getting more spectrum that is useful for emergency communications is more important. 60 meters may be the day/night band that would be extremely useful for emergency communications, especially during the sunspot low we are experiencing now. And for KA2LIM, I completely agree with you.
# # # # # # # # # # # # 73 - Fred.

[KQ6XA]

We should all support this ARRL petition to the FCC. It greatly expands our freedom on the HF bands for all hams in USA.


Change Needed Now
Bandwidth-based spectrum management is needed now, and for the future of the Amateur Radio Service. No one loses any spectrum at all in this change. Everyone gains more flexibility to operate.

More Freedom for HF Operators
This is a good thing for ham radio in America.
It brings us closer to the level of freedom that is enjoyed by hams in other countries.

New Petition Is Updated
The plan has gone through many changes in several years of development. It includes some excellent new points that are very positive for ham radio. I highly recommend, to everyone who is interested, read the petition completely and form your own opinion. Don't rely upon false ideas from those who simply sit on their keister and complain about everything.

Good Bye Mode-Based Content Constraints
Most USA operators have never known anything else than being under the thumb of our present system of mode-based rules and highly restrictive mode-subbands. That system has kept us more tightly constrained than any other hams in the world, hampering innovation, and in some cases working against our communications with other countries. As communication technology has progressed, the antiquated rules are now at the point that they are antithetical to the very essence of the Amateur Radio Service!

Technology Jail Breakout
To those who are content to live in a technology jail; to those who resist any kind of change, even when change means more freedom... I've got a simple message for them:

The hams of USA want freedom on HF like the rest of the world already has!

Thank You ARRL
Thank you to all the ARRL staff, the committees, and everyone who has worked so hard to put this petition together. Hammering out a good compromise between all the different (competing) factions of ham radio isn't easy.

No Boogie Men
Now, we see a few operators want to use this issue as a soapbox to finagle a private frequency reserve for their favorite mode of operating. Others are trying to twist this into their vendetta against pactor or Robot Boogie Men. But this isn't about robots or HF email, and it isn't about playing favorites. It is about providing band space for everyone in ham radio today to operate freely with their choice of method; it is about space for the new hams who will soon be on HF; and it is about providing a foundation for the hams who will be on the air many years from now.

The Real Issue
This issue is about bandwidth-based spectrum instead of mode-based spectrum. Simple as that. It doesn't favor any particular mode or method of operation.

Better FCC Rules, More Freedom
Sure, the petition is a little complicated... FCC rules are complicated. Let's focus on the facts. The fact is that this enables us to move forward technologically, without being held back by antiquated rules governing the content of what we transmit. The rest of the world's hams already have this freedom. We pride ourselves as a free country. This petition isn't perfect, but it is more free than anything we have had in my lifetime as a ham.

Does This Petition Carry Us Far Enough?
I just read it... I personally think the space devoted to 200Hz is a little too much and probably unnecessary. FCC could end up just combining the 200Hz and 500Hz into one 500Hz segment, for simplification. Also, I believe that the 3.5kHz segment on 40 meters needs to extend down to 7075kHz, so that USA can be compatible for communication with the rest of the world on this valuable international band, especially during emergencies. The band segments could then be allocated in a ratio of "80% 3.5kHz" to "20% 500kHz". This would balance out to enable fair and equal distribution of the number of QSOs in each segment. Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF ham bands at reduced average power level. This would allow AM but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their efforts to accommodate the status quo. So I ask, does the petition's plan go far enough toward providing enough freedom for wider bandwidths and new technologies? Time will tell.

Support for the Petition
My suggestions, above, are minor compared to the overall benefit that this change gives us on HF. Overall, I believe this change in FCC rules is our chance to gain more freedom on the HF bands. Bandwidth-based spectrum management is basically one of the best things happening for HF ham radio in USA in the 40 years that I've been a ham.

Therefore, I am voicing my support and hope for the success of the rulemaking procedure that this ARRL petition is initiating.

73 --- Bonnie KQ6XA

PS: Read the Petition. Form your own opinion.

















.

Some excerpts of the important text of the Petition for Rulemaking:
PETITION FOR RULE MAKING
ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, also known as the American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), by counsel and pursuant to Section 1.401 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.401, hereby respectfully requests that the Commission issue at an early date a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, proposing changes requested herein in the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service. The rule changes proposed in this Petition would comprehensively modify the means by which the extremely varied emission modes in the Amateur Radio Service are developed, experimented with, implemented, and regularly utilized in the course of normal Amateur Radio communications. In short, the Petition proposes Amateur band segmentation not by emission types, but by bandwidth maxima. This petition seeks for the Amateur Radio Service the flexibility to experiment with new digital transmission methods and types to be developed in the future, while permitting present operating modes to continue to be used for as long as there are radio amateurs who wish to use them. The changes proposed in the attached Appendix will also update the Commission’s rules, and eliminate much of the currently cumbersome procedures for determining whether a new digital communications technology is or is not permitted under the Part 97 regulations. As good cause for the rule changes proposed in the attached Appendix, ARRL states as follows:
I. Introduction and Background
1. The Amateur Radio Service rules limit emission types that can be deployed in the Amateur Service. The reason for this is largely historical, rather than practical. In this Petition, ARRL suggests a shift in regulatory philosophy, which is the Amateur Radio version of a change from a “command and control” model for Amateur Radio regulation to one based on facilitating research, development, experimentation and refinement of Amateur Radio digital communications techniques and advanced technologies. 1 In order to encourage the implementation of new technologies in the Amateur Radio Service, the rules must be modified to more flexibly accommodate use of such technologies. 2 The philosophy espoused herein is to regulate bands by maximum bandwidth rather than specific or defined emission modes. This is to make it easier for new types of emissions to be introduced compatibly among incumbent emission types, while reducing or eliminating the regulatory burden of interpreting or applying rules to new technologies in the context of a presently cumbersome regulatory matrix. This can be done, and ARRL believes that the attached Appendix does that, without prohibiting or significantly restricting use of current Amateur radio technologies and emission modes. Care has
1 Indeed, in WT Docket No. 98-143, The Commission encouraged the Amateur community to complete discussions and seek consensus regarding implementation of new and more modern communications technologies within the Amateur Service. This Petition is a necessary component of that effort.
2. There is a pronounced trend in the Amateur Service toward digital communications, without necessarily replacing analog modes. It is apparent therefore that both analog and digital modes will be used in the same bands at the same times for the foreseeable future. For regulatory purposes, the most important parameter is the bandwidth of the transmitted signal. Generally, established Amateur practice, current rules and accepted national, regional and local band plans provide narrow-bandwidth signals at the lower frequency range of each band with wider bandwidth emission types in the upper portions. In order to implement digital technologies, there appears to be a need for an intermediate bandwidth in the middle of certain bands. ARRL has developed this plan based on the following key principles:
(a) The rule changes to be implemented must withstand the test of time over the next ten years, if not longer. The impetus for the changes is to permit greater flexibility for Amateur Radio operators to develop, experiment with, and implement technologies that are not yet envisioned, while permitting present operating modes to continue to be used as long as there are licensees who wish to use them.
(b) We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in Amateur operating patterns, especially in the High Frequency (HF) bands. It is impossible to determine now where this shift may lead. The Commission’s Rules should not stand in the way of where technology takes Amateur Radio in its fulfillment of the bases and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service (47 C.F.R. §97.1).
© The Commission’s rules alone cannot, and should not be expected to effectively prevent conflicts in HF spectrum usage between Amateurs pursuing different operating interests on-air. Responsibility for resolving conflicts in shared spectrum must be shouldered by the Amateur community itself. Voluntary band planning must be adequate and must gain broad acceptance by amateurs as the best means of protecting their individual interests. Traditionally, these cooperative methods have worked satisfactorily.
III. Bandwidth Segmentation by Regulation
12. Having a narrow bandwidth segment and a wide bandwidth segment in a given allocation would tend to keep signals of roughly the same bandwidth in their own spectrum. The specific bandwidth limits, once incorporated in the Rules, would allow a more natural development of new digital technologies. It would also satisfactorily protect incumbent analog

10
services to a reasonable extent, just as Amateurs do now, using dynamic frequency selection methods.
13. The principal change to the Commission’s rules proposed herein is to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, the specific protocols or modes of emissions from the rules. The difficulty in doing this is the determination of the proper maximum bandwidth in a given band. ARRL was guided in the preparation of the attached Appendix by advice from an Ad Hoc Digital Committee formed to advise the ARRL on issues that arise from the development of new high-frequency digital data modes of operation, and by extensive input from ARRL members. The proposed Appendix constitutes a balance, in ARRL’s view, between the need to encourage wider bandwidth, faster digital communications and the need to reasonably accommodate all users in crowded bands. The HF allocations offer the least opportunity for frequency re-use, and the higher UHF and microwave bands offer the most flexibility in this respect. The higher frequency bands, therefore, properly offer the widest available bandwidths. These premises, and the proposed Appendix which implements them, promote the most efficient use of spectrum shared among Amateur licensees. The recommendations of ARRL’s Ad Hoc Digital Committee were to delete the symbol rate limitations in Sections 97.307(f)(3) and (4); to segment the bands below 28.0 MHz by nominal bandwidths of 200, 500 and 2700 Hz as upper limits; and to require that digital data protocols be published, so that they can be duplicated and monitored to protect against intruders. The Committee was aware of the bandwidths and frequency segments under consideration by Region 1 of the International Amateur Radio Union. A bandwidth of 200 Hz was chosen to accommodate Morse telegraphy and the narrowest RTTY/data emissions. A bandwidth of 500 Hz would permit the foregoing modes and a wide range of RTTY/data modes and some image modes yet to be designed. IARU Region 1 studies chose a bandwidth of 2700

11
11 With respect to the 60-meter band, which under current rules (47 C.F.R. § 97.303(s)) atypically specifies 2.8 kHz maximum bandwidth on specific channelized segments as a matter of specific, coordinated protection for Federal systems operating in the same band segment, no change to that maximum bandwidth is proposed herein.
12 Nor is the proposal a means of expanding telephony subbands. The specification of bandwidth only will have the regulatory effect of permitting telephony operation in, for example, the 14.100-14.150 MHz segment and the 10.135-10.150 MHz segment, where presently, it is not permitted by rule. However, it is not the ARRL’s intent to encourage telephony operation in those segments. Rather, such matters should be regulated by voluntary band planning.
Hz for SSB telephony and to accommodate digital voice and higher speed data. The Rules already specify a bandwidth of 2800 Hz for SSB voice in the 60-meter band. As the issue is a maximum regulatory bandwidth, not current practice, which varies from approximately 2400 to 2800 Hz, a bandwidth of 3500 Hz is recommended in the proposed Appendix for the wide bandwidth segments in order to encourage maximum flexibility. The proposed rules also specify that “bandwidth” will be defined in terms of necessary bandwidth rather than occupied bandwidth, to reduce undue concern by operators about determinations by measurement of occupied bandwidth.11 Some radio amateurs who have discussed this issue with ARRL representatives have expressed concern that permitting bandwidths up to 3.5 kHz for HF digital communications is an overly generous accommodation for digital communications users at HF. However, it is no expansion of present operating authority whatsoever: there is presently no effective bandwidth limit on HF digital operations. The existing bandwidth limit of 500 Hz applies only to automatically controlled stations where the station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control. See, 47 C.F.R. §97.221©. In fact, in the band segments proposed in the attached Appendix to be limited to 200 or 500 kHz, there is greater protection proposed for narrowband emission modes than exists today. 12

APPENDIX A
PROPOSED RULE CHANGES
Part 97 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is proposed to be amended as follows:
Section 97.3(a)(8) is amended to read as follows:
(8) Bandwidth. For a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions (See the definition of Necessary Bandwidth in Section 2.1 of this Chapter and Section 97.101(a) of this Part).
Section 97.3(a)(42) is amended to read as follows:
(42) Spurious Emission. For the purposes of this Part, emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the allocated frequency band and which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products.
Section 97.109(e) is amended to read as follows:
§97.109 Station control.
(a)…
*****
(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.
Section 97.119 is amended to read as follows:
§ 97.119 Station identification.
*****
(b)…
(1) By a CW or MCW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute;

22
(2) By a phone emission in the English language where a bandwidth of at least 3.5 kHz is authorized. Use of a standard phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged;
(3) By the same emission as used for the communication.
(4) (Deleted)
Section 97.221 is amended to read as follows:
§ 97.221 Automatically controlled stations transmitting RTTY or data emissions.
*****
(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 21.150-21.160 MHz, 14.100-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments.
© A station transmitting a RTTY or data emission may be automatically controlled on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that the station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control.
(1) (Deleted)
(2) (Deleted)
Section 97.305 is amended to read as follows:
§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.
(a) An amateur station may transmit a CW emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator except for the frequencies in the 60 m band.
(b) A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes. Test transmissions are authorized in the segments 51-54 MHz, 144.1-148.0 MHz and on all bands above 222 MHz.
© Pulse emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 902 MHz except in the 23 cm and 3 cm bands.
(d) SS emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 420 MHz.
(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:

23
Wavelength band Frequencies authorized Maximum bandwidth Standards See §97.307(f) paragraph:
160 m Entire band 3.5 kHz (1)
80 m 3.500-3.580 MHz 200 Hz
80m 3.580-3.620 MHz 500 Hz
75 m 3.620-4.000 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
60 m 5.1675 MHz 2.8 kHz See §97.401©
-do- 5.332, 5.348, 5.368, 5.373 and 5.405 MHz 2.8 kHz See §97.301(s)
40 m 7.000-7.035 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 7.035-7.075 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 7.075-7.100 MHz 500 Hz (2)
-do- 7.100-7.300 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
30 m 10.100-10.120 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 10.120-10.135 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 10.135-10.150 MHz 3.5 kHz
20 m 14.000-14.065 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 14.065-14.100 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 14.100-14.350 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
17 m 18.068-18.100 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 18.100-18.110 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 18.110-18.168 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
15 m 21.000-21.080 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 21.080-21.150 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 21.150-21.450 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
12 m 24.890-24.920 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 24.920-24.930 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 24.930-24.990 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
10 m 28.000-28.050 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 28.050-28.120 MHz 500 Hz
-do- 28.120-29.000 MHz 3.5 kHz (1)
-do- 29.000-29.700 MHz 16 kHz
6 m 50.000-50.100 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 50.100-50.300 MHz 3.5 kHz
-do- 50.300-54 MHz 100 kHz
2 m 144.0-144.1 MHz 200 Hz
-do- 144.1-144.3 MHz 3.5 kHz
-do- 144.3-148.0 MHz 100 kHz
1.25 m 219-220 MHz 100 kHz
-do- 222-225 MHz - (3)
70 cm Entire band - (3)
33 cm Entire band - (3)
23 cm Entire band - (3)

24
13 cm Entire band - (3)
9 cm Entire band - (3)
5 cm Entire band - (3)
3 cm Entire band - (3)
1.2 cm Entire band - (3)
6 mm Entire band - (3)
4 mm Entire band - (3)
2.5 mm Entire band - (3)
1 mm Entire band - (3)
- Above 300 GHz -

Section 97.307(f) is amended to read as follows:
§ 97.307 Emission standards.
*****
(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in § 97.305(e) of this Part.
(1) The 3.5 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to bandwidths of up to 9 kHz.
(2) Phone and image emissions with a maximum bandwidth of 3.5 kHz may be transmitted only by stations located in ITU Regions 1 and 3, and by stations located within ITU Region 2 that are west of 130° West longitude or south of 20° North latitude.
(3) No specific bandwidth limitations apply except that the entire emission must be within the allocated band to meet the requirements of §97.307(d).
(4) through (13) (Deleted)
Section 97.309 is amended to read as follows:
§ 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.
(a) Where authorized by §97.305(e) and §97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using published digital codes for the purpose of facilitating communications.
(b) When deemed necessary by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must:
(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code;
(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; and
(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted.

[K3BM]

Am I missing something in their document,
it appears to regulate emissions by bandwidth
as stated,but I couldn't find a segregation keeping
"slimmer" bandwidth signals out of the other areas,
I.E. I am trying to do AM with AE6IP or KC9ECI and
suddenly get slammed by an unwelcome burst from winlink.

Digital modes need their own home not to disrupt other
modes and vice/versa.

Am I missing this on the document somewhere ?
#
I want to know the whole story before I comment to the FCC one way or another.

[ky5u]

http://www.ad4mg.org/files/wl2k.jpg
The SSB signal will "lose". Every time.

Every Amateur needs to burn these two images into his/her brain. The only two things you need to know to voice your opinion are:

1. The two images above.

2. 10% of users are trying to take spectrum from 90% of users.

You will see people try to confuse you with technical jargon designed to take emphasis from the two points above. They will try to take away your freedom to enjoy SSB, AM and CW by allowing interference from digital signals. They will try to take away CW spectrum by making it easier for digital users to run you off. They will say robot digital signals mixed with people using radio are ok. They will try to get your to ignore that the ARRL plan favors Winlink and could legislate CW NTS and Packet nets off the air. Don't be fooled by smoke and mirrors. Just say no!

[W3MIV]

RDM:

The whole intent is to mandate by bandwidth rather than by mode, so digital and analogue modes would share spectrum only in those segments in which they share bandwidth, though it is probable that some would run narrow digital modes in wider lanes, much as some folks now slip CW "between the cracks."

If you are running AM, I doubt you would have to fear being interfered with by most digital modes. The problem of what to do with the store-and-forward operations, however, is a serious problem that does need to be addressed in this petition.

The League has shortened up the current "auto ops" subbands somewhat in this petition, but they also ask that the 500Hz limit now permitted for what they call "semi-auto" ops (where a station under control triggers a distant mailbox to retrieve traffic) be removed, thus opening such operations to any bandwidth system, such as WinLink.

The simple answer to this, in my view, is for everyone to stand up and demand that these operations -- whether entitled "auto ops" or "semi-auto" ops be limited to delineated subbands, as the unattended operations are at present.

By providing clear lanes of some 12kHz or so to these operations, and forbidding them from all else in the HF bands, they can carry on their operations and everyone else can be free of the potential interference.

If you are planning to comment, stress the need for such restrictions on all store-and-forward operations.

[W3MIV]

YO:

Please warn me of your next post so that I can retrieve my "ears" from my shooting box.

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (wa3rdm @ Nov. 19 2005,11:57)]Am I missing something in their document,
it appears to regulate emissions by bandwidth
as stated,but I couldn't find a segregation keeping
"slimmer" bandwidth signals out of the other areas,
I.E. I am trying to do AM with AE6IP or KC9ECI and
suddenly get slammed by an unwelcome burst from winlink.

Digital modes need their own home not to disrupt other
modes and vice/versa.

Am I missing this on the document somewhere ?
#
I want to know the whole story before I comment to the FCC one way or another.
Bob,

This plan is the regulatory portion. There must and will be a bandplan portion. The unfortunate part is that there is not segregation in the regulations.

Ken

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 19 2005,13:31)]RDM:

The whole intent is to mandate by bandwidth rather than by mode, so digital and analogue modes would share spectrum only in those segments in which they share bandwidth, though it is probable that some would run narrow digital modes in wider lanes, much as some folks now slip CW "between the cracks."

If you are running AM, I doubt you would have to fear being interfered with by most digital modes. The problem of what to do with the store-and-forward operations, however, is a serious problem that does need to be addressed in this petition.

The League has shortened up the current "auto ops" subbands somewhat in this petition, but they also ask that the 500Hz limit now permitted for what they call "semi-auto" ops (where a station under control triggers a distant mailbox to retrieve traffic) be removed, thus opening such operations to any bandwidth system, such as WinLink.

The simple answer to this, in my view, is for everyone to stand up and demand that these operations -- whether entitled "auto ops" or "semi-auto" ops be limited to delineated subbands, as the unattended operations are at present.

By providing clear lanes of some 12kHz or so to these operations, and forbidding them from all else in the HF bands, they can carry on their operations and everyone else can be free of the potential interference.

If you are planning to comment, stress the need for such restrictions on all store-and-forward operations.
I'm with you on this. I have been pressing my Division Director for this limitation during the entire process. I will formulate my personal comments based on this issue, but I do support the thrust of this petition. This will free all of us to experiment with different things without having to QSY to an appropriate frequency each time the experiment is changed.

Ken

[W3MIV]

Lots of folks around here do not share your view, Ken.

I think that bandwidth allocation is a sensible move that solves more problems than it creates, and I strongly support the concept, but I simply can't wrap my foggy little pea of a brain around the ideas that led to the free-for-all that will result from robots ranging wherever they will.

Time for the empire to strike back.

But quietly, Charlie, please...

[KA2GWR]

Quote[/b] (w4fjf @ Nov. 19 2005,08:41)]Instead of this, why isn't the League pushing for a 200 to 300khz expansion on 60 meters? We could use the room there instead of this ridiculous "channelization" that exists now. I'm afraid that the ARRL has lost contact with the present needs of the WHOLE amateur community, not just the ones who want to experiment with developing digital modes. I realize that the digital modes are important for EMCOM, but getting more spectrum that is useful for emergency communications is more important. 60 meters may be the day/night band that would be extremely useful for emergency communications, especially during the sunspot low we are experiencing now. And for KA2LIM, I completely agree with you.
# # # # # # # # # # # # 73 - Fred.
HI Fred I think you might find out thatthe 60 meter band is NOT exclusively amateur freq. Hams are at best a secondary user. NTIA is involved with as well as the primary users on the channelization. As far as expanding any HF freq. we can get, Great.

RGB

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ Nov. 19 2005,08:08)]The ARRL has formally asked the FCC to adopt the League's plan to segment
the Amateur Radio bands solely by emission bandwidth rather than by mode.
The Petition for Rule Making, filed November 14, recommends what the ARRL
called "a shift in regulatory philosophy" that would encourage and
facilitate the development and refinement of digital techniques and advanced
technologies. At the same time, the League said, accommodating new
technologies would not come at the expense of current operating modes,
including double-sideband AM phone.

"This petition seeks for the Amateur Radio Service the flexibility to
experiment with new digital transmission methods and types to be developed
in the future," the League's petition said, "while permitting present
operating modes to continue to be used for as long as there are radio
amateurs who wish to use them." The ARRL said the changes it suggests will
also update the FCC's rules and eliminate the need for "cumbersome
procedures" to determine whether a new digital mode is legal under Part 97.

The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth plan is far from a done deal. In order
for it to be adopted, the FCC first must put the League's Petition for Rule
Making on public notice and invite formal public comments. A subsequent
Notice of Proposed Rule Making would kick off a further round of formal
comments. Ultimately, the FCC would have to issue a Report and Order putting
the changes into place and setting an effective date.

The League conceded that its regulation-by-bandwidth regime would place
increased responsibility on the amateur community to establish workable,
accepted band plans, but it expressed confidence that such an effort would
be successful.

The petition filed this week has been in the works for some time now. The
ARRL Board of Directors adopted the petition's guiding principle in 2002 and
invited comments from the Amateur Radio community in the summer of 2004. The
proposal reflects expert input from the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee as
well as from ARRL staff. Comments from League members and an ARRL Executive
Committee review led to further fine tuning.

The ARRL wants the FCC to replace the table at §97.305© with a new one
that segment bands by bandwidths ranging from 200 Hz to 100 kHz. Unaffected
by the ARRL's recommendations, if they're adopted, would be 160 and 60
meters. Subbands in other bands below 29 MHz would accommodate maximum
emission bandwidths of 200, 500 or 3.5 kHz, with an exception of 9 kHz for
AM phone.

The League's petition "seeks to facilitate and encourage the development,
refinement and use of new digital technologies without the regulatory
remnants developed at a time when the principal emissions used in the
Amateur Radio Service were Morse telegraphy and single- or double-sideband
amplitude-modulated telephony." Part 97 rules need to permit higher data
rates between 1.8 and 450 MHz to encourage development of digital multimedia
technology, "which has great promise for improving and fostering more
effective emergency and disaster relief communications," the petition
asserted.

"This petition does not favor one mode at the expense of another," the ARRL
concluded in urging FCC adoption. "It merely allows expansion of the
repertoire of options that amateurs may pursue compatibly."

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, discussed the subject of regulating by
bandwidth in three "It Seems to Us . . ." QST editorials: "Regulation by
Bandwidth" in September 2004, "Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues" in April 2005
and "Self Regulation" in October 2005.

The text of the ARRL's Petition for Rule Making is on the ARRL Web site:
CLICK HERE (http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf)

<HR width="80%">
Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.
What does the FCC think about band planning by bandwidth?

Here is a pretty solid indication (again.)

FCC QUOTE from NPRM RM-10740, 11/2004.

"Discussion. As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.(1) We believe that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator's development of new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications that combine image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency segments where data emissions are authorized is not a technical reason, but rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image and data emission types on any HF frequency segments. (2) We also note that amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we are persuaded that our Rules are not in harmony with current emission and operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio operators in advancing the radio art."

Then there is the quote from the former Chief of Engineering and technology stating:

"headroom for increases in data rates to more closely match those available on wireline networks and, in the future, on commercial wireless networks as well." and he goes on to quote: "as the rest of the telecommunications world makes the transition to digital techniques - and there are very few exceptions to that trend - the amateur service will look antiquated if it is not making progress in that direction as well."

Again, in the above NPRM RM-10740, 11/2004, they also describe how they expect the domestic Amateur radio spectrum to be regulated:

"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."

Current services and modes mean little when it comes to providing an opportunity for further developments in digital techology. In addition, band segmentation may also occur without the use of hard-coded regulatory formal rulings, which take years to change. Yes, it will place more responsibility on the Amateur community, but like CW today, which is allowed anywhere on our HF Spectrum, each mode will find its "spot." What is here today, may well be history when replaced with more enabling technology. This does not mean that there won't be room for new and old modes as well. The size of these segments will vary with the popularity of each mode of operation, as they expand or shrink over time.



Steve, k4cjx

[WP4KTF]

Regarding ARRL petitions....About 10 years ago, I felt that the ARRL had lost touch with MY realities as a ham, and certainly, did not represent my views in any way, shape or form. #I think they only contacted me around election time, asking me to vote for people I didn't even know. #At a recent luncheon with some of the local hams, I even heard an Extra of many years say, "I wish I wasn't an ARRL member anymore, but I paid for a lifetime membership over 20 years ago, and it was so cheap back then that I'll just leave like that". #As a matter of fact, QST seemed to be turning more and more into an advertisement catalog, with maybe one or two really good articles that I cared to read. #Therefore, I just let my membership expire. #Since then, they haven't done anything extreme to win me back other than continue to raise their fee every so often and, frankly folks, I don't think they care to win me back. #So...I guess I'll just continue to be an "independent" for now..."soree mon"!

Saludos desde San Antonio, Texas,
73 WP4KTF

[AE4TM]

Fred (AA7BQ),

Do you support the ARRL or not? Please feel free to explain your response.

Dr Ed AE4TM

[k0ivk]

As if it's not bad enough that the FCC seems to be trying to destroy the Amateur service by causing deeper divisions in our ranks, most likley with an eye on other uses of our frequencies, now ARRL is proposing changes that will cause additional conflict between different mode operators just to benefit a few. I cannot believe that any digital participants (current or future) are being held back by lack of spectrum. I also have trouble with the claim that development of additional digital technology (that will benefit the whole of the service)is being squelched by the Present allocation system.

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Nov. 19 2005,14:47)]Here is a pretty solid indication (again.)

FCC QUOTE from NPRM RM-10740, 11/2004.

"Discussion. As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.(1) We believe that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator's development of new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications that combine image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency segments where data emissions are authorized is not a technical reason, but rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image and data emission types on any HF frequency segments. (2) We also note that amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we are persuaded that our Rules are not in harmony with current emission and operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio operators in advancing the radio art."
I can't find that document. There is a Final Order on RM-10740 dated November 24, 2004, but it does not contain that quote.

RM-10740 was a petition by some hams to limit SSB bandwidth to 2.8 kHz, basically to put a stop to the hi-fi SSB modes.

As far as I can tell there was no NPRM on this petition. It was simply denied outright by the FCC in the order issued in November 2004.

You sure that's the right number, RM-10740?

(Later ... After digging around the ECFS and WTB sites for awhile...)

I think you meant NPRM WT Docket 04-140 (FCC Document 04-79). That quote does appears on Page 10, paragraph 16, in the commentary about the so-called "Miller petition" to allow image modes and restrict bandwidth to 500Hz in the cw/data subbands on HF.

If you're going to quote from a document, in the future can you at least please reference it correctly? Thanks.

[wa3vjb]

The FCC is not likely to consider this scheme from the group in Newington because:

-- It proposes to use the federal regulatory structure to favor a specific mode and activity

-- The Amateur community overwhelmingly rejected a very similar proposal from the FCC 30 years ago

-- The group in Newington failed to show proof that the greater community supports their scheme

-- The scheme is not accompanied by any proposed layout to minimize friction among incompatible modes and activities

[ad4mg]

The ARRL heard us the last time we raised a stink about this bandplan, and it's intent to allow the ficticious "semi-automatic" robots free reign of the entire 3.5 kHz segments. #They ignored us. #Bonnie would have us give up everything for all things digital, so no need to take her seriously. #Steve (k4cjx) has assured me that his network intends to group together in a logical location of the spectrum. #He also recently restated this here on QRZ. #I believe him. #I worry about "renegade" networks popping up, and about malcontents that aren't going to listen to anyone.

We've had the Winlink bashing threads, so let's not go there again.

I say the ARRL is fair game though, having totally ignored what is obviously the wishes of the amateur community to not have digital robots wandering throughout the spectrum, disrupting voice communications.

Instead of seeing who can pee the farthest, it would probably be in our best interests to find the technical errors and flaws (several have already been pointed out in the thread I started in the Talk & Opinions area), and note these issues for the upcoming NPRM comments period. #That is our best shot with the FCC, who, in my opinion, will jump all over this in an effort to relieve themselves of the enforcement issues they never want to deal with.

Plus, where is the bandplan? #The last discussions of this issue pointed out that most find this type of bandplan by bandwidth unacceptable without at least a suggested voluntary bandplan to consider. #I suppose there wasn't anyone in Newington who had the cahonies to suggest one. #Another half-a$$ed effort by the ARRL.

Good work on instantly winning the ultra-juvenile font war Bonnie brought us Charlie. #In my world, she lost all relevance with this playground tactic (actually Bonnie and her "death of cw" fiction novel did it much earlier for me).

I see merit in a bandplan by bandwidth. #Digital modes do need additional room to develop. #It must be done in a manner that is fair to everyone though, and this ill-conceived, half-finished bird cage liner the ARRL has submitted just ain't it.

73,
Luke

[NY7Q]

DIGITAL HAS NO PLACE ON THE HF BANDS. MOVE IT ALL UPWARD TO VHF AND UHF. WHY SHOULD 10 PERCENT OF ALL THE HAMS CONTROL THE BANDS?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif BS BS BS

[wn9ddv]

The USA should have the same regulations as Canada, Cayman Islands, et al. No mode or bandwidth limits as long as we are in the ham radio spectrum. Why are we regulated this way and other countries are not?
Belize income tax rate is 1%. Why is our's 28%?

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (KA2GWR @ Nov. 19 2005,14:16)]Quote[/b] (w4fjf @ Nov. 19 2005,08:41)]Instead of this, why isn't the League pushing for a 200 to 300khz expansion on 60 meters? We could use the room there instead of this ridiculous "channelization" that exists now. I'm afraid that the ARRL has lost contact with the present needs of the WHOLE amateur community, not just the ones who want to experiment with developing digital modes. I realize that the digital modes are important for EMCOM, but getting more spectrum that is useful for emergency communications is more important. 60 meters may be the day/night band that would be extremely useful for emergency communications, especially during the sunspot low we are experiencing now. And for KA2LIM, I completely agree with you.
# # # # # # # # # # # # 73 - Fred.
HI Fred I think you might find out thatthe 60 meter band is NOT exclusively amateur freq. Hams are at best a secondary user. NTIA is involved with as well as the primary users on the channelization. As far as expanding any HF freq. we can get, Great.

RGB
Fellas,

I think you will find the ARRL is working behind the scenes trying to get more space on 60m. Remember, this is a government allocation and is channelized. That is why we are forced to be channelized rather than just have a band to use.

Getting more 60m spectrum will a task that will require a lot dipolmacy. Let the guys at the League work on this one.

Ken

[N8NOE]

I have been a Leauge Member for a VERY LONG time now, And I have seen MORE and MORE That got me thinking.. I tend to agree, that the ARRL is doing the Political thing, and NOT the Amateur thing.. As for Suporting this new mess, yep I can see it's a GREAT thing if your a digital person ( I run PSK/RTTY on HF, APRS on VHF). But WHY hasn't the ARRL asked or havce I seen somewere to say HEY I Don't care for this much!.. The Vote just came through, and a guy locally to me didn't win So I guess Nobody hears me!.. I Sure am glad they got QSL Magazine or I think My Membership would laps Quick.. This might be the Answer, Kinda like the Federal Gov. If you keep voting the same People in and expect Different Results, Whos the Fool?.. STOP supporting!.. If I had a "CLUB" and nobody Pay the dues, I'd fold or start Listening to the people.. Seems the Majority (Not Only HERE, but on other Groups and sites) are Against this, So WHY are they pushing so hard, or WHO is lining there Pockets, or What is attached to this that we don't know about and going on that this seems to take our attention from?... Think if it keep going, I'll let my Membership lapse for a year, HOPE everyone else did...... Just my 2¢ Worht of Noise!.. ARRL Ain't the Only Game!

[N8NOE]

Quote[/b] (wn9ddv @ Nov. 19 2005,09:24)]The USA should have the same regulations as Canada, Cayman Islands, et al. No mode or bandwidth limits as long as we are in the ham radio spectrum. Why are we regulated this way and other countries are not?
Belize income tax rate is 1%. Why is our's 28%?
Why in Michigan, to generate the same revenue a Single Carton Of Cigarettes (Taxes), you need to Sell 56 6-Packs of BEER?... GOVERNMENT!... It's the way they work, You make We Take!...
I just think it's ALL out of Control, and WE THE PEOPLE, have became SHEEP, Not People willing to say HEY! WE THE PEOPLE have lost the Ability or the Cojones to stand up... I'm going back to my Cigar Now and have me a cool one!...

[k7unz]

Hello voluntary bandplan......yeah right!

We already have licensing requirements being lowered due to the outcry from the "why should we have to" bunch, do you actually think they are going to abide by some "voluntary" bandplan? #Well, maybe....if that plan is that they can do whatever they want 'cos the FCC just doesn't give a rats butt, and the ARRL is happy as long as the loot is rolling in for their retirement plans.

And I loved the comment about the ARRL "working behind the scenes" to get more 60 meter bandspace. #Working behind the scenes does seem to be what the ARRL does best. #And that's cool, because they told me it was in my best interest, and that it was what I really wanted all along. #Silly me, I didn't know that until they told me.

The comment that the United States should follow the lead of countries like the Cayman Islands
in opening up the bands to all modes, anywhere.....

Well, perhaps when the ham population of the United States drops to the same levels as those other countries, and the amateur segments are reduced (just like in other countries) that will be possible. #Doesn't take much to oversee a relative small amateur radio population.

About the only thing we can agree to do is to disagree about most everything, and until there is a great change in attitude, regulatory segmentation by mode is pretty much a necessary thing.

I'm rambling, and I'm venting, and I getting out this thread.....

My opinions, you have yours.

73, Jim/k7unz

[N8NOE]

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Nov. 19 2005,09:23)]DIGITAL HAS NO PLACE ON THE HF BANDS. MOVE IT ALL UPWARD TO VHF AND UHF. WHY SHOULD 10 PERCENT OF ALL THE HAMS CONTROL THE BANDS?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif BS BS BS
Sounds Like you need a good Cigar!......
Play Nice With Others, and we ALL get along just fine!..
RELAX!........

I run PSK and RTTY, But I also stay in a very small spot, NOT one of the Contest (Fill the band) Type.. Plenty of room for everyone, not even sure why or who would enforce all this mess anyway, AREN'T WE SELF GOVERNING anymore? Or did they take this also?..
(P.S. Not my Typical Smart-Ass Remark, Arent WE?)

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Nov. 19 2005,14:23)]DIGITAL HAS NO PLACE ON THE HF BANDS. MOVE IT ALL UPWARD TO VHF AND UHF. WHY SHOULD 10 PERCENT OF ALL THE HAMS CONTROL THE BANDS?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif BS BS BS
Of course, your comments also include the first digital mode, CW!



Steve, k4cjx

[K4JF]

I'm a Life Member of ARRL, but am completely opposed to them on this one. What we do NOT need is the proposed chaos.

[k9ekg]

Geez...some of you guys are terrified of ANY change to the ARS, aren't you? No wonder the average amateur age qualifies for the senior citizen menu. Its a wonder how anyone survives with all of this paranoia. GO ARRL!!!!

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (WP4KTF @ Nov. 19 2005,13:06)]Regarding ARRL petitions....About 10 years ago, I felt that the ARRL had lost touch with MY realities as a ham, and certainly, did not represent my views in any way, shape or form. I think they only contacted me around election time, asking me to vote for people I didn't even know. At a recent luncheon with some of the local hams, I even heard an Extra of many years say, "I wish I wasn't an ARRL member anymore, but I paid for a lifetime membership over 20 years ago, and it was so cheap back then that I'll just leave like that". As a matter of fact, QST seemed to be turning more and more into an advertisement catalog, with maybe one or two really good articles that I cared to read. Therefore, I just let my membership expire. Since then, they haven't done anything extreme to win me back other than continue to raise their fee every so often and, frankly folks, I don't think they care to win me back. So...I guess I'll just continue to be an "independent" for now..."soree mon"!

Saludos desde San Antonio, Texas,
73 WP4KTF
Did you read this month's QST? Had plans for a 100W HF linear, a new version of popular QRP rig, and a simple indicator for your screwdriver antenna to tell you when you it hit an end stop. That's about the best technical content I've seen in a long time. In fact, it's been getting a lot better lately. The new equipment reviews were less thrilling this month, but not all new equipment excites me equally. There was also a pretty good article on NVIS, but it didn't answer all of my questions, but it was interesting, anyway. I think the amount of advertising is about what it has been all along - my dad had QST's going back to 1927, so I remember the format fairly well.

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (k9ekg @ Nov. 19 2005,19:23)]Geez...some of you guys are terrified of ANY change to the ARS, aren't you? #No wonder the average amateur age qualifies for the senior citizen menu. #Its a wonder how anyone survives with all of this paranoia. #GO ARRL!!!!
GEEZ... Some people argue their point by insulting those who don't agree with them!

Do you have something to add to your side of the argument, other then how you are smarter then the senior citizens??? #

I never really had much of a problem with "no code", but your attitude may change my mind on that subject, Mr. No Code Tech.

Maybe some of us "Old Farts" that can use HF, know a little about what a pain in the $%$, this proposal will cause. #If you want Email, it's free on the internet. #Why tear up the HF bands so that 5% of the licensed hams can play with bad technology?

We went through this whole discussion last year, and the ARRL didn't listen then, so I will use my time now writing my thoughts to the FCC, as they actualy listen.

Another ARRL member, that doesn't have any voice at all.

73 - W6NJ

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (k9ekg @ Nov. 19 2005,19:23)]Geez...some of you guys are terrified of ANY change to the ARS, aren't you? #No wonder the average amateur age qualifies for the senior citizen menu. #Its a wonder how anyone survives with all of this paranoia. #GO ARRL!!!!
Nope. I've watch change over the years, advocated some and welcomed some. Even sold some to doubters. But opposed some. Like this ill-advised one.

A truth you need to remember:

That which is newer is not better. It is just newer.
That which is older is not better. It is just older.
Change must be judged on its merits, not its chronology.

[n0zu]

Quote[/b] (WP4KTF @ Nov. 19 2005,13:06)]Regarding ARRL petitions....About 10 years ago, I felt that the ARRL had lost touch with MY realities as a ham, and certainly, did not represent my views in any way, shape or form. #I think they only contacted me around election time, asking me to vote for people I didn't even know. #At a recent luncheon with some of the local hams, I even heard an Extra of many years say, "I wish I wasn't an ARRL member anymore, but I paid for a lifetime membership over 20 years ago, and it was so cheap back then that I'll just leave like that". #As a matter of fact, QST seemed to be turning more and more into an advertisement catalog, with maybe one or two really good articles that I cared to read. #Therefore, I just let my membership expire. #Since then, they haven't done anything extreme to win me back other than continue to raise their fee every so often and, frankly folks, I don't think they care to win me back. #So...I guess I'll just continue to be an "independent" for now..."soree mon"!

Saludos desde San Antonio, Texas,
73 WP4KTF
I agree
I was a member of the ARRL and was told they would help
put up a tower if I had problems.
2 years later I was Tring to put up a tower and all I got
from there so called volunteers in Iowa was
We do not have time to help you
but if you have some money we may be able to do something.

ARRL volunteers need money

The Definition of a #volunteer is:::
1. #a person who freely offers to do something. #
2 a person who works for an organization without being paid.
3 a person who freely enrolls for military service rather than being conscripted. >
verb #1 freely offer to do something. #2 say or suggest something without being asked.

I do not see any thing that talks about getting payed.

that is why I am not a ARRL member any more.

The ARRL NEVER DID ANYTHING FOR ME.

and CQ is just about as good as QST for advertising.
and you do not have to be a member to get CQ.

Quote[/b] (N8NOE @ Nov. 19 2005,13:08)]
Think if it keep going, I'll let my Membership lapse for a year, HOPE everyone else did...... Just my 2¢ Worht of Noise!.. ARRL Ain't the Only Game!

<span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>AMEN #AMEN, # DO WE ALL NEED TO SAY MORE</span>

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Nov. 19 2005,08:42)]
We should all support this ARRL petition to the FCC.

BLAA..BLAA
TURN IT DOWN PLEASE.

Big letters don't = intelligent banter.

W6NJ

[W6EZV]

Large font is just one of Bonnie's many impressive rhetorical tools. Remember the time she tried to supress further discussion by typing "end of messages", and then filling the rest of the screen with carriage returns?

Also, I find her advocacy of "freedom" for all U.S. hams to be particularly heartwarming. Perhaps if we all get behind her leadership, ham radio may someday be as free as Bonnie's first love, CB radio.

Thank you, Bonnie...you're an inspiration to us all.

Greg Sousa
W6EZV

[N8NOE]

Quote[/b] (k9ekg @ Nov. 19 2005,14:23)]Geez...some of you guys are terrified of ANY change to the ARS, aren't you? No wonder the average amateur age qualifies for the senior citizen menu. Its a wonder how anyone survives with all of this paranoia. GO ARRL!!!!
Well, When you get a bit older "Junior" you can complain too!...
We could make you a Lead Sheep?.. It's NOT the change as much as HOW it's happening..

[N8NOE]

I Just Noticed (OK, So I'm SLOWWW)... Everyone that just LOVEs the ARRL is either a NO-CODE TECH, a 11 Meter Runner, or not had a License more than about 2 Years?.......................

Kinda like the People that ALWAS complain about the Federal Government, But never VOTE or there First Time.... Once you been around a bit you Start to see how the ARRL is doing things.. I read Comment of THEY NEVER DID anything for me. Well, they have done something for Everyone ( if you liked it or not). Problem NOW is I think MOST, YES MOST Don't like the Plan they have layed out, and I for one have not seen a Questionair sent to me, Or a Place to let them know.. I'd like to think someone in Newington Can Read, and Might see this on the Groups?.. Again, I think Most are getting FED-UP with NOT Being HEARD!.... Someone Find a way to pass this Thread to them, and Fill there Ears....
(American Rundown Radio Legislators).....

[N8NOE]

Quote[/b] (W6EZV @ Nov. 19 2005,18:41)]Large font is just one of Bonnie's many impressive rhetorical tools. Remember the time she tried to supress further discussion by typing "end of messages", and then filling the rest of the screen with carriage returns?

Also, I find her advocacy of "freedom" for all U.S. hams to be particularly heartwarming. Perhaps if we all get behind her leadership, ham radio may someday be as free as Bonnie's first love, CB radio.

Thank you, Bonnie...you're an inspiration to us all.

Greg Sousa
W6EZV
Someone Disagrees with Bonnie, THE Bonnie, You must be some kind of Anti-Social person to do such a thing........
Sir, You must agree or your Digital Days are OVER!.. There are People that are ALWAYS Right, And IF for Some Reason you Don't Think this Statement True, JUST ASK HER....

It's to the point, I can't post on HFPACK, as I guess I'm not a Silent Sheep Type person... F.That S. !!... I Follow NO-ONE Blidly...
Guess I have an Opinion, and a Ever So Slite Attitude... Kinda like the Icom-D-Star Guy, There going to come out!... (Now I picture the Edgar Winter Group's Album Cover, They Only come out at Night) And if you DON'T know the Album, this is Fine, and if you Remember it, You might be "OLD" enough to know how I think... Guess Im a FOG Now!....

[N8NOE]

ATTN: ARRL& Members....
Just as you Must EARN Respect from your Peers, If it is lost it's DAMN NEAR impossible to regain it!

As I often think in where I have been and some things I seen, There are Truly People that Have EARNED All my Respect
And I would follow to the Gates of (H.E. Double tooth-picks, Trying to make this Family Friendly Now, Imagine that!)...
And Some that were Given Authority that I would just Nod my head and keep Going on, and think How did they EVER get
Where they Are... Politics, Radio, Religion, Life in General are about the same. It really seems There is always someone
wanting Something GIVEN to them, instead of Working for it, or Striving to achieve it. Again, Someone that has had a License for 20+
Years and been around the Block, Yep I'll listen to what they might have to say. It DON'T Really Matter the CLASS of License at all,
It's the Experiences... ANYONE FOLLOWING this YET?... OK, I Think a Good Cigar is a Mellowing Thing so I'm going to Fire
a Smoke and wait for all the "SWEET-PEAS" to Start up!...
44 Years old, Cigar Smoking, Grateful Dead Listening, Jimmy Buffett Living Hippie Weirdo Freak!.... (With Attitude Troubles)
I was also told Defiant, But I didn't' listen to them......



"Pull out a Montecristo at a dinner party and the political liberal turns into the nicotine facist."
-- Martyn Harris, British journalist, Daily Telegraph 1/20/89





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

[N8NOE]

Sorry For all the post Together, but I'm just getting caught up here....
DONT FORGET to DONATE HERE!.......

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/2/?nc=1 MONEY


NEWINGTON, CT, Nov 15, 2005--As its name implies, the primary focus of the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund is to help the League remain vigilant in guarding the range of frequencies Amateur Radio enjoys. The Fund, which kicked off its 2006 campaign October 10, also makes it possible for the League to forcefully advocate on behalf of the US amateur community at the FCC and on Capitol Hill and at international conferences.

(((( Bovine Scaffolding, I think is what H. Norman Schwarzkopf

General, U.S. Army, Retired, had to say )))) Here is a MAN to TRUST and Follow, Come to think of it I'm going to vote for him!..
Stomin' Norman for President, Bet your ARS's he'd do what he Promisses!

[NL7W]

All,

As mentioned in the petition's conclusions, the ARRL states that, "the regulation of emission modes in Amateur Radio Service allocations is a limiting factor with respect to Amateur Radio experimentation. It leads to attempts to put new technology into regulatory framework that was designed to deal not with digital emissions, but rather with older, analog technologies."

This statement is reasonable.

They go on to say, "the Commission's rules cannot efficiently prevent conflicts in HF spectrum usage or among amateur pursuing different interests. Of course, there must be mechanisms to minimize interference between analog and digital operation, since they cannot compatibly share the same channel or frequency range. However, the Commission's rules to subdivide the HF bands should be minimized."

Here's the rub in plain English... The ARRL believes that similar bandwidth emission types, say the most commonly used 3.5 KHz bandwidth, should not be subdivided at all - only by bandwidth. This means these similar bandwidth digital and analog emissions would have to peacefully co-exist - together! I don't believe this can happen - even given their belief the amateur community can establish workable and acceptable sub-bands on their own.

This plan needs to further subdivide wider bandwidth analog modes from the similar bandwidth digital counterparts. All heck will break loose if this doesn't happen.

What are your thoughts on this?

73.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]nl7w: #Here's the rub in plain English... #The ARRL believes that similar bandwidth emission types, say the most commonly used 3.5 KHz bandwidth, should not be subdivided at all - only be bandwidth. #This means these similar bandwidth digital and analog emissions would have to peacefully co-exist - together! #I don't believe this can happen - even given their belief the amateur community can establish workable and acceptable sub-bands on their own.
That is the biggest flaw in this proposal. #Digital and analog modes are not going to coexist in the same part of the spectrum. #For those with no HF experience, you cannot understand the implications. #You will understand though when you get your HF priviledges, fire up the rig and get stomped by a Pactor III robot during your 1st 20 meter QSO. #Please explain how you will, as a SSB operator, fight this:
http://www.ad4mg.org/files/wl2k.jpg
The digital signal will "win". #Every time.

So ... still think that this is a good proposal?

Edit: Image courtesy of N5PVL.

[N8NOE]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 19 2005,23:36)]Quote[/b] ]nl7w: Here's the rub in plain English... The ARRL believes that similar bandwidth emission types, say the most commonly used 3.5 KHz bandwidth, should not be subdivided at all - only be bandwidth. This means these similar bandwidth digital and analog emissions would have to peacefully co-exist - together! I don't believe this can happen - even given their belief the amateur community can establish workable and acceptable sub-bands on their own.
That is the biggest flaw in this proposal. Digital and analog modes are not going to coexist in the same part of the spectrum. For those with no HF experience, you cannot understand the implications. You will understand though when you get your HF priviledges, fire up the rig and get stomped by a Pactor III robot during your 1st 20 meter QSO. Please explain how you will, as a SSB operator, fight this:
http://www.ad4mg.org/files/wl2k.jpg
The digital signal will "win". Every time.

So ... still think that this is a good bandplan?

Edit: Image courtesy of N5PVL.
EXCEPTIONAL!.... And the Display, Could not be better..KUDOS!
BOTS, Argggggggggg!...

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,06:36)]So ... still think that this is a good bandplan?
Luke:

The petition is not a bandplan. The petition merely seeks to allocate broad slices of spectrum to be further delineated by a subsequent bandplan.

The bandplan has not yet been published, which is understandable since putting out a bandplan before the fundament concept has been approved is putting the cart before the horse.

Let's all keep our eyes on the real problem here, which is the loosing of unattended operations up and down the bands. The PacTOR diagram above will have absolutely no impact on any phone or other op if it is confined to its own segment of a band by the regulations.

Allocation by bandwidth can be a good thing. Permitting the unattended robots to operate wherever they will is the bad thing that we must all comment on and seek to change in this petition.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]Albert: #The petition is not a bandplan. The petition merely seeks to allocate broad slices of spectrum to be further delineated by a subsequent bandplan.
Absolutely correct Albert. #We should be careful not to confuse the two. #And while we're discussing this, a suggested bandplan to go along with this proposal would have been a good idea, seems to me. #Unless, of course, there is something to hide.....

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]W3MIV: #Let's all keep our eyes on the real problem here, which is the loosing of unattended operations up and down the bands. The PacTOR diagram above will have absolutely no impact on any phone or other op if it is confined to its own segment of a band by the regulations.
Albert and I don't see eye to eye on issues with the ARRL. #We've discussed this at length. #It does not, however, make us enemies. #Quite the contrary, we have many good discussions. #On this proposal, we both see the same flaw, and that's the mixing of wide-band digital signals with analog voice communications.

We believe most will agree with this concept. #This agreement should be our vehicle for our efforts to correct this flaw, regardless of your license class, age, 20 wpm operator, no wpm operator, etc.

Unlike the comments offered on the NPRM & O concerning the removal of morse testing, our responses in the comments period for this proposal should be well written, clear and concise, factual, and to the point. #Hundreds of comments to this effect will have tremendous impact with the FCC, but thousands of garamatically incorrect ramblings will have little. #We really must start thinking clearly on this one. #Much is at stake.

Also, there will be ample time to consider a proposal to divide spectrum by bandwidth of emmissions at a later time. #There is no rush ... although not ideal for everyone, existing regulations seem to be doing a pretty decent job. #Let's all get on the same page for once, and let the FCC know how the real amateur radio operators of this country think.

73,
Luke

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,07:25)]Let's all get on the same page for once, and let the FCC know how the real amateur radio operators of this country think.
Amen, brother.

The time to think and draft comments is now. The time you devote to this will not be wasted.

Drop all the foolish anti-ARRL rhetoric. It serves no purpose that the FCC will be interested in reading.

This petition may never make the cut, but if and when it does, we should all step out on the same foot. WinLink is not really the issue here. The issue is unattended ops by robots, whether fully automatic or semi-automatic matters not at all: They all should be given their own space to operate free and clear from the rest of us, whether we want to run CW, PSK, phone, whatever.

We can do this.

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 20 2005,05:58)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,07:25)]Let's all get on the same page for once, and let the FCC know how the real amateur radio operators of this country think.
Amen, brother.

The time to think and draft comments is now. The time you devote to this will not be wasted.

Drop all the foolish anti-ARRL rhetoric. It serves no purpose that the FCC will be interested in reading.

This petition may never make the cut, but if and when it does, we should all step out on the same foot. WinLink is not really the issue here. The issue is unattended ops by robots, whether fully automatic or semi-automatic matters not at all: They all should be given their own space to operate free and clear from the rest of us, whether we want to run CW, PSK, phone, whatever.

We can do this.
The "real" issue is not keeping any particular mode of operation contained. Like CW, "operations under remote control are now contained, and not by any particular regulatory rulings, which take years to revise. The issue is not putting such barriers in a static regulatory environment so that they cannot be readily adjusted due to their popularity and use.

No one can predict the future, and having the flexibility to move things around as they come to fruison is what this is what the band plan will provide.



Steve, k4cjx

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,04:36)]Quote[/b] ]nl7w: #Here's the rub in plain English... #The ARRL believes that similar bandwidth emission types, say the most commonly used 3.5 KHz bandwidth, should not be subdivided at all - only be bandwidth. #This means these similar bandwidth digital and analog emissions would have to peacefully co-exist - together! #I don't believe this can happen - even given their belief the amateur community can establish workable and acceptable sub-bands on their own.
That is the biggest flaw in this proposal. #Digital and analog modes are not going to coexist in the same part of the spectrum. #For those with no HF experience, you cannot understand the implications. #You will understand though when you get your HF priviledges, fire up the rig and get stomped by a Pactor III robot during your 1st 20 meter QSO. #Please explain how you will, as a SSB operator, fight this:
http://www.ad4mg.org/files/wl2k.jpg
The digital signal will "win". #Every time.

So ... still think that this is a good proposal?

Edit: Image courtesy of N5PVL.
All,

I wonder what an AM modulated signal would look like compared to an SSB signal? Can it co-exist in the same band space? I also wonder what one SSB signal would look like when it is on top of another SSB signal?

For those operations truly under "automatic control," the new ARRL band plan has provided a specific space. For those current or future operations under "local or remote control" a space would be provided as it would be for any other mode of operation, but it would contain the flexibility to shrink or expand as its popularity changed.


Steve, k4cjx

[kb2vxa]

The ARRL would have our bands become havens for Internet ISPs as if we don't have enough trouble with BPL already. Looking through a glass onion I see a walrus (koo koo kajoob) so we may as well hand them over to commercial interests and be done with it.

DEATH TO THE ARRL! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 19 2005,19:54)]I think the amount of advertising is about what it has been all along - my dad had QST's going back to 1927, so I remember the format fairly well.
As I referenced in another posting, I was looking through the QST from November 1995 and comparing it to the November, 2005 edition.

The main difference? The 1995 edition has 264 pages and the 2005 edition has only 160 pages. So if you assertion is correct, then we have lost over 100 pages of relevant content!

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]k4cjx: #The "real" issue is not keeping any particular mode of operation contained. Like CW, "operations under remote control are now contained, and not by any particular regulatory rulings, which take years to revise. #The issue is not putting such barriers in a static regulatory environment so that they cannot be readily adjusted due to their popularity and use.
We're going to be a bit at odds here Steve. #The "real" issue is seperating incompatable modes. #I know you don't approve of the word "mode" in reference to the "pure" bandwidth based proposal, but it's an issue. #An issue that the majority of amateurs think is very important, and an issue that you and anyone else who supports this regulation by bandwidth concept must address.

I've realized the value of your network in emergency communications, and may grow to accept it's value otherwise. #Apparently, your network has made an honest effort to "play nice" with others. #There are still issues though. #While monitoring a CW QSO on 7.1035 yesterday that began in the clear, I noticed a weaker pactor (cannot identify I, II, or III ... no equipment for that here) station polling for a connection. #Out of nowhere comes a s9 +20 dB monster pactor signal that obviously heard the polling station, but did not hear the ongoing CW QSO. #Result? #End of CW QSO. #Put this scenario in with SSB voice communications, and digital communications will become very unpopular with those still using analog communications. #I'll almost agree that the CW QSO could have been a little further up the band, but it started in the clear, and obviously the signal detection on both ends of that pactor operation failed miserably. #The only "weak" signal from my perspective was the polling pactor station. #All others were at least S9. #This should not have happened, plain and simple. #Note that I do not automatically attribute this to a Winlink 2000 station. #Perhaps you could advise if any PMBO's would be operating on that frequency. #Like I noted, I was on 7.1035, using a very narrow CW filter in my IC-775DSP, and the pactor just crushed the CW. #Filtering was useless.

This is the type of thing that must be avoided. #If seperation by specific mode in special cases where signal density differences become such a significant factor isn't acceptable, then what is? #You state that we must consider things well into the future. #Good statement, but I think you only apply that to the benefit of digital communications, and not to analog communications. #The only time you bring it up is in defense of digital. #Not once in all of your posts have I ever heard you express any concern whatsoever for analog and/or legacy communications.

This proposal, in it's current form is flawed for this reason, and whatever effort is required to correct this inherent flaw must be put forth. #How about considering both sides of this discussion, as I and many others have?

73,
Luke

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Nov. 20 2005,08:36)]The ARRL would have our bands become havens for Internet ISPs as if we don't have enough trouble with BPL already. Looking through a glass onion I see a walrus (koo koo kajoob) so we may as well hand them over to commercial interests and be done with it.

DEATH TO THE ARRL! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Don't interrupt the grownups, Warren. This issue does not affect NCTs, right?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]k4cjx: #For those operations truly under "automatic control," the new ARRL band plan has provided a specific space. For those current or future operations under "local or remote control" a space would be provided as it would be for any other mode of operation, but it would contain the flexibility to shrink or expand as its popularity changed.
In my opinion, and many share this opinion, unless both stations have a human being present at the controls of the transmitter, this constitutes "automatic" operation for the very reasons I described in my previous post concerning the obliteration of an ongoing CW QSO, started on a clear frequency, and wiped totally out by an unattended pactor station.

The amateur radio community was asleep at the wheel when the ficticious "semi-automatic" method of station control was defined. #It's a farce, plain and simple.

That computer controlling the transmitter yesterday failed to assure that the frequency was not in use before it started transmitting. #And obviously, the human at the polling end (assuming there was a human being at that end) didn't fare any better!

I find that although AM signal density is much higher than SSB that the human operators at the controls of the AM transmitters are very good at signal detection.

The space to be provided to both automatic and semi-automatic operations should be such that enforcement is by regulation, not a voluntary bandplan.

[kb2vxa]

Addendum:

"I wonder what an AM modulated signal would look like compared to an SSB signal?"
That depends on the display but in any case it's twice as wide.

"Can it co-exist in the same band space?"
The answer is painfully obvious to the AMers whose QSOs are clobbered by inconsiderate slopbucketeers.

"I also wonder what one SSB signal would look like when it is on top of another SSB signal?"
The same as a single SSB signal of course, the display can't tell them apart any more than your ears can.

Aw cummon Steve, I learned THAT much radio theory LONG before I was licensed. I'll contain my further remarks just DIEING to get out, you've embarrassed yourself enough already.

After reading some of these posts I noticed how few understand the concept of vestigial sidebands. That's why we have two terms inconsistent with each other, bandwidth and the more applicable one, occupied bandwidth. If you want to get on the same page you have to read and understand the glossary of terms first.

When you're done with that, study up on receiving systems, there's more to communications than a transmitter!

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 20 2005,07:00)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,06:36)]So ... still think that this is a good bandplan?
Luke:

The petition is not a bandplan. The petition merely seeks to allocate broad slices of spectrum to be further delineated by a subsequent bandplan.

The bandplan has not yet been published, which is understandable since putting out a bandplan before the fundament concept has been approved is putting the cart before the horse.

Let's all keep our eyes on the real problem here, which is the loosing of unattended operations up and down the bands. The PacTOR diagram above will have absolutely no impact on any phone or other op if it is confined to its own segment of a band by the regulations.

Allocation by bandwidth can be a good thing. Permitting the unattended robots to operate wherever they will is the bad thing that we must all comment on and seek to change in this petition.
Albert hit the nail on the head.

Without some kind of bandplan enforced by regulations there will be a potential for a lot of interference problems on the bands.

Many want to establish so called gentlemens agreements concerning what band segments will host a particular mode. The best example of gentlemens agreements today is what is in force on the 160 meter band and the sliver of spectrum that the AM ops use on the 75 meter band. There are other generally recognized spots for RTTY, Slow Scan, QRP, calling frequencies on VHF/UHF and the emerging digital modes. Most of this works well and has been in place for for a long time.

On the other hand we will now be entering a brave new world of roving pactor bots which will be able to pop up unannounced on any bandwidth segment on which they are allowed according to bandwidth. The ONLY constraint will be the the operating privileges
that the ham who is running pactor has available to him. Of course, unless you have the proper equipment and software you will not be able to identify who's pactor station it is and whether or not he is out of his operating privileges. If you are in an SSB QSO on 20 and one of them obliterates your QSO, you have not idea who it was.

As I see it, the almost the entire problem with any potential bandwidth proposal is the incompatibility of modes in the same bandwidth segments. I think that AD4MG and N5PVL have aptly illustrated the possibilities of what can happen. As far as AM is concerned. K4CJX talks about the bandwidth in interference potential of AM in the present phone segments. AM does have a serious potential for interfering with SSB BUT the AM people ( and the RTTY people pretty much stay in the long established gentlemens agreements while the Bots can pop up anywhere at any time and can not be readily identified.

We seem to have a choice. Either the bands are wide open for any mode anywhere at any time subject to the operating privileges of the license holder, or we generate a whole new set of gentlemans agreements suggesting what mode can go where on the bands or we have the force of FCC regulation as to how things will be.

IMHO there are very serious problems with a wide open range. The completely new gentlemens agreements would have to come down all at the same time and there is no guarantee that they would be honored. Some would be very suspicious as to who formed the agreements and more importantly, why. Also, they can be completely ignored with no fear of retribution by any governing authority.

The number one complaint common to many of these posts concerns Pactor and turning amateur radio into service into some kind of free ISP for the pleasure of a few well healed boaters and RVers who have commercial options available to them, but at a cost that they do not wish to pay. If this could be taken care of in the petition there would be a lot more acceptance of the bandwith ideas.

73
George
K3UD

[kb2vxa]

Addendum No. 2:

"Don't interrupt the grownups, Warren. This issue does not affect NCTs, right?"

Albert, it's comments like that which show your ignorance of me and what I have between my ears. In light of such a condecending attitude it's likely I came into Amateur Radio with more knowlege and experience than you gained in all your years of operating. If nothing else I learned long before 1995 that personal attacks beg personal attacks, I remind you of the bloody nose you got in the schoolyard because of the disconneced condition of your brain and mouth.

Your mommy told you never judge a book by it's cover, I tell you never judge an Amateur by his license class. The caste system has no place in society let alone in OUR society of Amateur Radio. Go back and read Section 1 Part 97 and pay attention to the phrase "good will".

Come what may I stand by my remark, the ARRL has done so much damage to Amateur Radio and is hell bent on more. "Taxation without representation is TYRANNY!" also applies, you pay your dues only to have them steamroller thier own agenda while giving no heed to vox populi. You lampoon Bush while kissing Hymie's hiney? The word is "hypocrite" and it comes from a FORMER long time ARRL member. (You don't need a license to join.)

The more sensible posts regard where to send your comments, to the FCC where they count for something when the time comes. Considering the majority of what I have read counter the ARRL proposal as it is speaks volumes, our voice need not be louder than that from Newington, it must carry more weight. Listen to Teddy, speak softly and carry a big stick.

I had my rant, now to fashion my war club.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (N8NOE @ Nov. 20 2005,01:49)]I Just Noticed (OK, So I'm #SLOWWW)... Everyone that just LOVEs the ARRL is either a #NO-CODE TECH, a 11 Meter Runner, or not had a License more than about 2 Years?.......................
Wrong again!! #I'm an Extra, had the license a while (as if that made any difference), do not operate 11m (since I retired - had to before then), and have been a ham for over 30 years.

And another comment above is wrong. #For Ham radio, in D.C., ARRL IS the only game in town. #There is simply nobody else. #So we who disagree with ARRL (and I do on this subject) need to stop putting down ARRL, and elect leaders more in tune with what we want.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,04:36)]Digital and analog modes are not going to coexist in the same part of the spectrum. For those with no HF experience, you cannot understand the implications. You will understand though when you get your HF priviledges, fire up the rig and get stomped by a Pactor III robot during your 1st 20 meter QSO. Please explain how you will, as a SSB operator, fight this:
http://www.ad4mg.org/files/wl2k.jpg
The digital signal will "win". Every time.

So ... still think that this is a good proposal?


Every Amateur needs to burn these two images into his/her brain. The only two things you need to know to voice your opinion are:

1. The two images above.

2. 10% of users are trying to take spectrum from 90% of users.

You will see people try to confuse you with technical jargon designed to take emphasis from the two points above. Don't be fooled by smoke and mirrors. Just say no!

Note: If you have not made up your mind and the two reasons above are not enough, then at least hold off making a decision until all the discussion unfolds over the next months.

[N3JI]

My thoughts on this (and they've been pretty much the same all along) is that we need change. #Unfortunately, this ain't it. #I think they need to leave the analog modes completely alone -- there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. #The issue is how to deal with new digital modes.

They -ARE- coming -- make no mistake about that. #Where do we put them and how do we get along with them? #No simple answer, is there? #

I think our bands are OURS and we should be able to use them as we see fit. #It does -NOT- need to be coded into the regulations. #The reason is simple: intentional interference is already illegal, so if there are rogue digital "gross offenders" that pop up, we can use the FCC under that verbage. #For that reason, we don't need hard-coded "this mode goes in this slice, that mode goes in that slice, etc.". #That said, we need verbage in new rules to fully address whatever term you'd like to use for semi-automatic operations. #To me, two things need to be added: #1) All digital stations SHALL identify in accordance with these rules in an analog mode (I include CW in that, but I know it's technically digital, too) and 2) All semi-automatic digital modes SHALL include anti-interfering algorithms so the possibility of it transmitting on an occupied frequency is greatly reduced (I wish I could say impossible, but that's not realistic).

So, if we can open up the bands, but leave verbage in there as above, who would be okay with it then? #One thing to keep in mind is that we all need to observe the "frequency in use" rules (none of this "I've been on this freq. for 20 years, so I'm firing up right here no matter what!!") -- THAT needs to be the deciding factor. #Not sniping at each other over whether or not I'm running 3.5k or 3.6k. #We also all need to understand that band conditions change, so arguments over who was on when is irrelavant. #Who should move? #YOU!!!

Another major problem is how on earth is someone going to tell me my SSB signal is 3.6 kHz wide and I should cease operations? #It simply cannot me measured with enough precision to be decisive. #You all -KNOW- it will happen. #Digital is different, so we -CAN- do it there.

The bottom line is that I cannot support this proposal. #I will file my comments both with the FCC and the ARRL when the time comes and I encourage -EVERYONE- here to do the same. #I have no idea what the FCC will do (neither does the ARRL, BTW), but if the overwhelming response (like what appears here) is against it, I hope they decide to take no action until a proposal supported by the majority can be submitted (if one exists!).

Joe, N3JI

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Nov. 20 2005,08:46)]My thoughts on this (and they've been pretty much the same all along) is that we need change. #Unfortunately, this ain't it. #I think they need to leave the analog modes completely alone -- there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. #The issue is how to deal with new digital modes.

They -ARE- coming -- make no mistake about that. #Where do we put them and how do we get along with them? #No simple answer, is there? #

I think our bands are OURS and we should be able to use them as we see fit. #It does -NOT- need to be coded into the regulations. #The reason is simple: intentional interference is already illegal, so if there are rogue digital "gross offenders" that pop up, we can use the FCC under that verbage. #For that reason, we don't need hard-coded "this mode goes in this slice, that mode goes in that slice, etc.". #That said, we need verbage in new rules to fully address whatever term you'd like to use for semi-automatic operations. #To me, two things need to be added: #1) All digital stations SHALL identify in accordance with these rules in an analog mode (I include CW in that, but I know it's technically digital, too) and 2) All semi-automatic digital modes SHALL include anti-interfering algorithms so the possibility of it transmitting on an occupied frequency is greatly reduced (I wish I could say impossible, but that's not realistic).

So, if we can open up the bands, but leave verbage in there as above, who would be okay with it then? #One thing to keep in mind is that we all need to observe the "frequency in use" rules (none of this "I've been on this freq. for 20 years, so I'm firing up right here no matter what!!") -- THAT needs to be the deciding factor. #Not sniping at each other over whether or not I'm running 3.5k or 3.6k. #We also all need to understand that band conditions change, so arguments over who was on when is irrelavant. #Who should move? #YOU!!!

Another major problem is how on earth is someone going to tell me my SSB signal is 3.6 kHz wide and I should cease operations? #It simply cannot me measured with enough precision to be decisive. #You all -KNOW- it will happen. #Digital is different, so we -CAN- do it there.

The bottom line is that I cannot support this proposal. #I will file my comments both with the FCC and the ARRL when the time comes and I encourage -EVERYONE- here to do the same. #I have no idea what the FCC will do (neither does the ARRL, BTW), but if the overwhelming response (like what appears here) is against it, I hope they decide to take no action until a proposal supported by the majority can be submitted (if one exists!).

Joe, N3JI
And, your alternative is.........



Steve, k4cjx

[n4zou]

I want wireless Internet access and I want it free. Am I going to mess around with Winlink and let someone monitor my e-mail via ham radio Internet gate? No way! As soon as this ARRL proposal gets approved I will place a scanning Pactor Internet gate monitoring all frequencies on all HF bands using FBB compression so as to legally encrypt my e-mail. I will, of course, be using the maximum amount of frequencies so as not to be limited in my ability to get my Internet e-mail. Being independent of any amateur governing "gentlemen's" agreements will allow the maximum amount of spectrum to be available for my use. I will not be limited to only Pactor III mode. In areas of the band where Pactor III would be too wide I will limit my bandwidth by using Pactor I mode. I hereby post the frequency range for my private networks use.
80 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
75 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
40 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
30 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
20 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
17 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
15 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
12 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
10 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
Anyone using "my" frequencies will be subject to Pactor to Internet traffic at any and all times.

Warning! The Above post is satire on my part. The scary thing is the above satirical post will become commonplace with the "it's all about me" digital Internet E-mail sysops.

[N3JI]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Nov. 19 2005,10:53)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Nov. 20 2005,08:46)]My thoughts on this (and they've been pretty much the same all along) is that we need change. #Unfortunately, this ain't it. #I think they need to leave the analog modes completely alone -- there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. #The issue is how to deal with new digital modes.

They -ARE- coming -- make no mistake about that. #Where do we put them and how do we get along with them? #No simple answer, is there? #

I think our bands are OURS and we should be able to use them as we see fit. #It does -NOT- need to be coded into the regulations. #The reason is simple: intentional interference is already illegal, so if there are rogue digital "gross offenders" that pop up, we can use the FCC under that verbage. #For that reason, we don't need hard-coded "this mode goes in this slice, that mode goes in that slice, etc.". #That said, we need verbage in new rules to fully address whatever term you'd like to use for semi-automatic operations. #To me, two things need to be added: #1) All digital stations SHALL identify in accordance with these rules in an analog mode (I include CW in that, but I know it's technically digital, too) and 2) All semi-automatic digital modes SHALL include anti-interfering algorithms so the possibility of it transmitting on an occupied frequency is greatly reduced (I wish I could say impossible, but that's not realistic).

So, if we can open up the bands, but leave verbage in there as above, who would be okay with it then? #One thing to keep in mind is that we all need to observe the "frequency in use" rules (none of this "I've been on this freq. for 20 years, so I'm firing up right here no matter what!!") -- THAT needs to be the deciding factor. #Not sniping at each other over whether or not I'm running 3.5k or 3.6k. #We also all need to understand that band conditions change, so arguments over who was on when is irrelavant. #Who should move? #YOU!!!

Another major problem is how on earth is someone going to tell me my SSB signal is 3.6 kHz wide and I should cease operations? #It simply cannot me measured with enough precision to be decisive. #You all -KNOW- it will happen. #Digital is different, so we -CAN- do it there.

The bottom line is that I cannot support this proposal. #I will file my comments both with the FCC and the ARRL when the time comes and I encourage -EVERYONE- here to do the same. #I have no idea what the FCC will do (neither does the ARRL, BTW), but if the overwhelming response (like what appears here) is against it, I hope they decide to take no action until a proposal supported by the majority can be submitted (if one exists!).

Joe, N3JI
And, your alternative is.........



Steve, k4cjx
My alternative is right there. #Read it

Joe

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]And, your alternative is.........
Justification is not granted to a flawed proposal such as the ARRL's simply because there is no "easy way out", or acceptable alternative to consider.

The two party political system forces us to frequently decide between the "lesser of two evils". #The amateur radio service faces no such restrictions. #It is the entity or parties who best persuade the FCC to select their way of doing things who is the victor.

If one is sold on this ARRL proposal, then one no longer needs to add comment. #If it (the proposal) is fair and just, then it should pass. #Making excuses for a flawed proposal may wind up being unfair to the majority. #Is this the way we wish to proceed?

I, for one, would not want my name or callsign associated with a proposal that could punish the majority for the benefit of the few. #It would not be a positive legacy, and that is a gross understatement.

Unless a proposal is put forth that is fair to the vast majority of amateurs, then the existing rules and regulations should stay as they are. #The burden to create an acceptable proposal rests with those who want these changes. #If you are not up to the task, then find something else to entertain yourselves with.

I have no doubt that the ARRL was totally aware of the opinions of many amateurs regarding this flaw in this proposal, yet they decided to proceed. #There is a reason they did this. #The biggest problem the ARRL has right now is it's apparent inability to communicate with us and explain their reasoning. #Do they think that the amateur community will continue to blindly follow their "lead" forever? #I think not, and I intend to pursue any legal method available to me to see that this proposal is put exactly where it belongs ... in the waste basket. #The organization that proclaims itself as the representative of the amateur radio service can and should be capable of a better effort than this. #It is shameful that this is apparently the best they can do.

I know they are well above such a thing, but why did they not at the very least consult their members on this matter? #It is because the ARRL EC thinks that it knows better about what is good for amateur radio than do the amateur radio operators themselves.

I again offer as proof of this:
Quote[/b] ]Concern was expressed that we are considering the bandwidth proposal from the membership standpoint, rather than considering what is best for Amateur Radio. #The proposal is good to attract comment even though there are a few individuals who stir the pot. The challenge is to educate the audience and remind them that at this point the proposal is a recommendation of the Executive Committee.
ARRL Administration & Finance Meeting - April 21, 2005 (http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2005/july/17a-Administration%20&%20Finance%20Meeting.doc)

In their own words, they told you what they think of your opinions. #Now who do they represent?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Nov. 20 2005,12:06)]I want wireless Internet access and I want it free. Am I going to mess around with Winlink and let someone monitor my e-mail via ham radio Internet gate? No way! As soon as this ARRL proposal gets approved I will place a scanning Pactor Internet gate monitoring all frequencies on all HF bands using FBB compression so as to legally encrypt my e-mail. I will, of course, be using the maximum amount of frequencies so as not to be limited in my ability to get my Internet e-mail. Being independent of any amateur governing "gentlemen's" agreements will allow the maximum amount of spectrum to be available for my use. I will not be limited to only Pactor III mode. In areas of the band where Pactor III would be too wide I will limit my bandwidth by using Pactor I mode. I hereby post the frequency range for my private networks use.
80 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
75 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
40 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
30 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
20 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
17 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
15 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
12 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
10 meter all frequencies except where bandwidth would be too wide.
Anyone using "my" frequencies will be subject to Pactor to Internet traffic at any and all times.

Warning! The Above post is satire on my part. The scary thing is the above satirical post will become commonplace with the "it's all about me" digital Internet E-mail sysops.
Can I have the 160 meter band? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[wa4gch]

Just ban code and give thoes empty bands to SSB .......

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 20 2005,06:48)]Quote[/b] ]k4cjx: #For those operations truly under "automatic control," the new ARRL band plan has provided a specific space. For those current or future operations under "local or remote control" a space would be provided as it would be for any other mode of operation, but it would contain the flexibility to shrink or expand as its popularity changed.
In my opinion, and many share this opinion, unless both stations have a human being present at the controls of the transmitter, this constitutes "automatic" operation for the very reasons I described in my previous post concerning the obliteration of an ongoing CW QSO, started on a clear frequency, and wiped totally out by an unattended pactor station.

The amateur radio community was asleep at the wheel when the ficticious "semi-automatic" method of station control was defined. #It's a farce, plain and simple.

That computer controlling the transmitter yesterday failed to assure that the frequency was not in use before it started transmitting. #And obviously, the human at the polling end (assuming there was a human being at that end) didn't fare any better!

I find that although AM signal density is much higher than SSB that the human operators at the controls of the AM transmitters are very good at signal detection.

The space to be provided to both automatic and semi-automatic operations should be such that enforcement is by regulation, not a voluntary bandplan.
Luke,

This is called the "hidden transmitter" effect. The originating station (Station A), and it doesn't matter if it is automatic or human controlled, can't hear what the other end (Station B) can hear. If Station B doesn't do a good job of detecting other signals then it will answer Station A obliterating anything on the frequency within range of Station B.

Please note one more time that it doesn't matter if Station A is another robot or if it is another human. Interference will occur just as suredly as walnuts fall off the walnut tree in the fall. #It simply *CANNOT* be prevented.

That is why any type of automatic robot be in a segragated bandwidth so everyone will know the areas to avoid.

The argument that these robots need room to expand is also misleading. HF Packet forwarding has lived for many years using just a few frequencies and has passed a huge amount of traffic. From that viewpoint it is a BETTER designed system than Winlink. That is because HF Packet is a multi-user, queued system rather than an on-demand, immediate response type of system with no means to clear blocked calls.

Automated systems, and this includes any future system as well as Winlink, NEEDS the incentive of restricted bandwidth to force a better system design to be applied.

If these systems are designed according to well-known traffic rules (which actually date from the times that the sewers were originally built under Paris), very few actual stations and frequencies would be required. There would be no NEED for them to move into the current phone bands to gain space for operations.

Rather than "semi"-automatic operation of Winlink being an *advantage*, as K4CJX likes to advertise, it is in fact a *disadvantage*. If the system were designed as a fully automatic system using a queuing type operation, 5 Pactor II stations/frequencies each on 75m, 40m, 30m, and 20m would suffice to carry all the traffic load the WL2K system carried in April.

Think about it ....... ONE single 5khz bandwidth space on each band would have been sufficient (that's a 500hz signal plus 500hz total guard band times 5 frequencies).

Where is the *DRIVING* force behind needing more bandwidth for digital operations when these considerations are actually taken into account?

If more space is actually needed for digital or multi-mode experimentation, then refarm the Novice bands out for this purpose rather than just using them to expand the existing phone bands. That would make a LOT more sense to me. And to most other people I suspect.

It would give us an experiment in progress to watch and see if a free-for-all of 3.5khz signals will actually work or if it will just result in chaos.

The claim that ALL digital needs more space are also ignoring operational realities of using narrow-band digital signals. How many people on here could tune the entire 80/75m band looking for a psk31 station calling CQ? If I am turning the dial very fast on my rig, the odds are I would jump right over any pks31 signal without even hearing it. That's why many of these narrow-band operations congregate in very restricted areas. The sound-card in a PC can then be used to tune in different signals. That's also why those people who say that these narrow-band operators should be using narrow filters to keep adjacent Pactor signals from interfering are just plain wrong.

This means that the need for more space for narrow-band digital operation is also very, very suspect.

This post is getting too long. There are so many things that need to be considered that a full white paper could be (and has been provided to the ARRL btw) posted on it. But it is obvious that they are not interested. I can only hope the FCC *will* be if they actually even make this into a RO.

73,

tim ab0wr

[ad4mg]

When it has been found to be of benefit, certain ARRL "big wheels" have visited QRZ. #Is this "Regulation by Bandwidth