Does the ARRL Bandwidth Plan Go Far Enough?

[KY6LA]

In point of fact the voluntary bandplans in use in Austrailia, UK, Canada, and Region 1 work rather well.

I quote from the Australia Band Plan (http://www.wia.org.au/bandplans/Australian%20Amateur%20Band%20Plans%202005-10.pdf)

"Amateur Self-Regulation

Amateurs use a wide variety of different modes. Within one amateur band, activity can include CW, voice, satellite and EME activity, and ATV. The best way of avoiding clashes is to set aside different band segments for each of these activities, so that all amateurs can pursue their interests without interference.

Amateur band plans are voluntary agreements, often known as "Gentlemen’s Agreements". They are sponsored by the WIA, but they are for the benefit of all amateurs. Most amateurs, WIA members or not, abide by the band plans because it makes sense to give everyone a fair go.

Clashes still occur at times, and the usual reason is lack of awareness of the band plans. Most amateurs are willing to change frequency if the problem is explained to them politely. "

It seems to work well in Australia, Canada and much of the Rest of the World.. so why would US Hams who are probably the most law abiding in the world be any different?

[k5rks]

Here is the first cut at -----

Questions to be posed by ARRL to the membership regarding HF regulation:

1. Do you favor making any changes to the FCC rules for amateur radio to accommodate "emerging technologies" such as digital modes? YES NO

2. Do you favor making any changes to the "Voluntary HF Band Plans" to accommodate "emerging technologies" such as digital modes? YES NO

3. Should the FCC rules designate sub-bands for "semiautomatic" operation? ("Semiautomatic" operation means that one end of the communication link does not have a human operator) YES NO

4. Should the FCC rules designate sub-bands for "automatic" operation? ("Automatic" operation means that neither end of the communication link has a human operator) YES NO

5. Should "automatic" operations be segregated from other operations by FCC rule? YES NO

6. Should both "automatic" and "semi-automatic" operations be segregated from other operations by FCC rule? YES NO

7. Should "semi-automatic" and "automatic" operations be treated differently from each other in the FCC rules? YES NO

8. Should "semi-automatic" and "automatic" operations be treated differently from each other in the bandplan? YES NO

9. Should FCC rules eliminate any specification of sub-bands based upon mode or bandwidth or semi-automatic or automatic operation -- with the proviso that voluntary band plans would fill this need? YES NO

10. To the extent that FCC rules designate sub-bands what should the criterion be? MODE BANDWIDTH


73 Roger K5RKS

[KY6LA]

Nice try Roger...

But like all referrendums the choice of questions already predispose the answers...

How about a simpler referrendum...

Do you favor Hams, such as they already do in many other countries and we already do for 2M and 450, determining for themselves the way they use the Ham Bands or do you favor continuing a rigid government bureaucracy to regulate the Ham Bands and stiffle innovation?

Ham? - or Government?


Of course such a referrendum will cost a lot of $ to design, advertise, distribute, and administer.. Who do you suggest pay for it.. and don't say use the Internet.. as no one has yet found a reliable way to do that...

I definitely sympathise with you on this.. as the ARRL does not really have a easy and effective mechanism to communicate with or poll the membership...and, as much as we may want it, we really do not have any other national group ...

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KY6LA @ Dec. 21 2005,04:35)]...the ARRL does not really have a easy and effective mechanism to communicate with or poll the membership...and, as much as we may want it, #we really do not have any other national group ...
While I agree with the basis of your post, I don't agree with your statement that the League does not possess a "mechanism to communicate with or poll the membership." Clearly, Howard, QST serves half that function already, and it would not be too terribly difficult to use it to fulfill the second half of the problem.

Even the style of "little poll" that CQ uses each month to ask its readers to respond to a few questions about a ham topic would be a far better means than simply soliciting email comments only to hide them away from the members who sent them.

I am a strong supporter of the League, as any of the regulars on QRZ well know. Indeed, I have been accused of being their stooge on more than one occasion. In this case, however, I must stand with some of their harshest critics on the way this entire petition matter has been handled from the selection of the membership of the Ad Hoc Committee through the filing of this petition.

Throughout, the League has served us ill in this matter, and the tragic shame of it all is that it could have been otherwise with very little change of effort on their part.

As with most other things in life, doing something the right way is usually no more difficult than doing the worst possible way.

The only answer at this stage is to kill this turkey and go back to clean paper.

[n5rfx]

KY6LA:"It seems to work well in Australia, Canada and much of the Rest of the World.. so why would US Hams who are probably the most law abiding in the world be any different?"

I certainly think in the U.S. that voluntary bandplans do work and will continue to work. That is really not the main issue as I read the numerous posts on this subject. A clear problem is that the ARRL did not propose a bandplan to go along with the proposed regulation. The FCC does not care what the bandplan contains, but if the ARRL was interested in consensus among the amateur community it is imperative for them to "sell" the changes. One very important aspect of the sale is to provide a bandplan to go along with the regulation.

I think the ARRL believes that their is already consensus among the amateur community with respect to the ARRL bandwidth petition. My gut tells me they are mistaken. Again whether this petition is "good" or "bad", the strategy for selling this concept and reaching consensus is flawed in my opinion.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Please consider:

1. There is no mandate to regulate by bandwidth by the FCC or anyone.

2. There are no requests from Amateurs to do so past the few digital users pushing this issue.

How are 1% of users able to get the ARRL to file this petition? On the basis of merit, this issue fails. On the basis of technical soundness, the issue fails. On the basis of fairness, this issue fails. This issue is the poster child for needed reform in the ARRL!

Just say NO!!

[k5rks]

KY6LA:

I agree that in light of what is happening in Australia and other administrations the idea of moving sub-band demarcations away from rules and into bandplans is gaining currency.

It could be that this whole argument about part 97 sub-bands will become moot if the FCC ends up eliminating sub-bands. Right now I am not taking a position on this so-called "free for all" in the rules. #

In any case, we need a bandplan NOW along with the ARRL proposal. Whether by rule or in the bandplan we need to deal with automatic and semiautomatic operations. My questions ARE relevant. If not related to Part 97 then they are relevant in terms of the framework behind building a consensus for the bandplan. #

Put succinctly: the objections people have now against the ARRL proposal to part 97 would not suddenly vanish if the exact same sub-bands showed up in ARRLs draft bandplan.

We can't sweep the issue of semiautomatic and automatic operations under the rug by deferring them to some presently "non-existent" bandplan.

73 # Roger # #K5RKS

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Dec. 21 2005,08:45)]KY6LA:

I agree that in light of what is happening in Australia and other administrations the idea of moving sub-band demarcations away from rules and into bandplans is gaining currency.

It could be that this whole argument about part 97 sub-bands will become moot if the FCC ends up eliminating sub-bands. Right now I am not taking a position on this so-called "free for all" in the rules.

In any case, we need a bandplan NOW along with the ARRL proposal. Whether by rule or in the bandplan we need to deal with automatic and semiautomatic operations. My questions ARE relevant. If not related to Part 97 then they are relevant in terms of the framework behind building a consensus for the bandplan.

Put succinctly: the objections people have now against the ARRL proposal to part 97 would not suddenly vanish if the exact same sub-bands showed up in ARRLs draft bandplan.

We can't sweep the issue of semiautomatic and automatic operations under the rug by deferring them to some presently "non-existent" bandplan.

73 Roger K5RKS
I agree. Lets see the bandplan, THEN we can judge the merit of the rules. As it stands, the ARRL petition IS the bandplan with nothing else to the contrary. The only thing we have is their broken word to show BOTH of them to us before filing. So there is no trust now.

My only comment about what other countries are doing is that we're beginning to see the reality of those bandplans with moves to segregate some modes. So the jury is still out on pure bandwidth bandplanning. Amateurs are almost 20 years behind industry discovering that analog voice and data transmissions should be segregated for best performance (related to interference).

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Dec. 21 2005,10:45)]Put succinctly: the objections people have now against the ARRL proposal to part 97 would not suddenly vanish if the exact same sub-bands showed up in ARRLs draft bandplan.

We can't sweep the issue of semiautomatic and automatic operations under the rug by deferring them to some presently "non-existent" bandplan.
You are correct on both points.

I would amplify Point 2 by adding that we cannot remove the present 500Hz limit imposed by §97.221( c ) and put our faith in ANY band plan to be honored fully by folks who do not identify in a manner that is open and readily decipherable by all.

In the final analysis, never forget that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Or, as it was once phrased in terms of weapons accords, "trust... but verify."

[k5rks]

To AG4YO:

Before this thread goes on the back burner I say thanks for starting this thread and setting up this platform for discussion. #

To Everyone:

I guess I am an eternal optimist. I actually think that things are moving forward. I think out of the noise on both sides the real crux has emerged.

1. The need for a bandplan to accompany the ARRLs proposal

2. The need to deal with semiautomatic and automatic operations in some compromise way that is "fair" to all hams.

To my knowledge no one on either side of the debate disagrees with the above two items.

Probably the best possible compromise on the automatic and semiautomatic issue will be one that we all equally hate.

Now a broad based working group has to be convened to hammer this out. #

Happy Holidays from the Heatland

73 Roger K5RKS #Oklahoma City

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (KY6LA @ Dec. 21 2005,00:52)]Clashes still occur at times, and the usual reason is lack of awareness of the band plans. Most amateurs are willing to change frequency if the problem is explained to them politely. "

It seems to work well in Australia, Canada and much of the Rest of the World.. so why would US Hams who are probably the most law abiding in the world be any different?
for starters we have about 10 times the amount of hams in the US than Canada does. Also while US amateurs might be the most law abiding group in the world, so called gentlemens agreements do not carry the force of law.

73
George
K3UD

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 21 2005,11:31)]Quote[/b] (KY6LA @ Dec. 21 2005,00:52)]Clashes still occur at times, and the usual reason is lack of awareness of the band plans. Most amateurs are willing to change frequency if the problem is explained to them politely. "

It seems to work well in Australia, Canada and much of the Rest of the World.. so why would US Hams who are probably the most law abiding in the world be any different?
for starters we have about 10 times the amount of hams in the US than Canada does. Also while US amateurs might be the most law abiding group in the world, so called gentlemens agreements do not carry the force of law.

73
George
K3UD
George has it exactly right. Not only that but we already see nearly daily occurances of the voluntary bandplans being totally ignored both here and in other regions. Just listen in the DX window on 75M to the number of domestic ragchewers there and see what kind of response you get when you politely remind them that 10KHz is supposed to be for inter-continental QSOs. You can observe the same thing on 160M.

Unless Part 97 includes provisions for enforcement of the bandplan we are likley to see considerable chaos on the bands. As has been pointed out previously with references to the IARU Region 1 Plenary session this past fall, too many amateurs in Region 1 are ingnoring the bandplan and some method needs to be devised to achjeve a greater level of adherence to the bandplan. We need to avoid repeating mistakes made by other countries.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Dec. 21 2005,10:55)]To AG4YO:

Before this thread goes on the back burner I say thanks for starting this thread and setting up this platform for discussion.

To Everyone:

I guess I am an eternal optimist. I actually think that things are moving forward. I think out of the noise on both sides the real crux has emerged.

1. The need for a bandplan to accompany the ARRLs proposal

2. The need to deal with semiautomatic and automatic operations in some compromise way that is "fair" to all hams.

To my knowledge no one on either side of the debate disagrees with the above two items.

Probably the best possible compromise on the automatic and semiautomatic issue will be one that we all equally hate.

Now a broad based working group has to be convened to hammer this out.

Happy Holidays from the Heatland

73 Roger K5RKS Oklahoma City
Thanks for trying to "sum up" the discussion but you missed two points needed in addition to the need for a bandplan and the need to deal with semi-automatic stations. The first is that whatever is decided must be fair to all modes and it must be proportional to need based on use statistics.

To accomplish my two additions above, we're going to have to have input and opinions beyond the group of digital centric amateurs that have participated thus far.

[k5rks]

AG4YO:

I agree with your "proportionality" point.

73 K5RKS

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]The first is that whatever is decided must be fair to all modes and it must be proportional to need based on use statistics.

You know Charlie, both of those concepts are foreign to the ARRL. #They consider neither of those critical items, well, critical.

I'm going to stick with Albert and say throw this turkey out. #The odor he suffers north of me long ago drifted my way, and I see absolutely no value in a petition the ARRL felt the need to sneak in behind the backs of 600,000 US hams.

We should all feel great about this, however, since Jim Haynie says the submitted proposal isn't going to interrupt his Sunday morning 75 meter gathering with his friends. #And that must be all that counts. #Bully for you Jim.

Here's a great question to ponder ... who's going to trust the ARRL to prepare the promised bandplan? #How many times do we trust an organization that clearly lies to its members (what pitiful few that remain), and looks out for only its objectives? #And just what are the objectives of the ARRL?

How about it Mr. Haynie? Its way past time for you to explain the actions of your organization. #Or will you leave the tough sell to your sucessor? #You would think that the three directors who voted against the proposal would speak out. #Have they been silenced by the EC? #Where are they? #Why isn't anyone from the ARRL answering our questions?

Is there anyone in that organization who is willing to discuss this foolish petition?

Does anyone in the ARRL have enough backbone to answer any questions on this proposal? #

It sure doesn't look like it. #Nothing but silence from Newington. #And they dare expect support for this crap they submitted. #What a joke. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n5rfx]

AG4YO:"Amateurs are almost 20 years behind industry discovering that analog voice and data transmissions should be segregated for best performance (related to interference)."

Or perhaps they are 20 years ahead because protocols have been developed that do mix well. Where is the evidence that voice and data mixing is causing problems in the amateur bands? Where is the region 1 documentation that supports segregating digital and analog signals?

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 21 2005,16:07)]AG4YO:"Amateurs are almost 20 years behind industry discovering that analog voice and data transmissions should be segregated for best performance (related to interference)."

Or perhaps they are 20 years ahead because protocols have been developed that do mix well. #Where is the evidence that voice and data mixing is causing problems in the amateur bands? #Where is the region 1 documentation that supports segregating digital and analog signals?

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,

I'm working on the evidence. I still need to get the old tempo 2020 out and make sure it works but I now have two dummy loads to use in setting up a test bed. I have my homebuilt receiver for the receiving test. I have downloaded multipsk to use with my 751a on sending different modes. (I still need to make up a transmitting cable).

Region 1 has three years of empirical data to draw from.

I was listening to 40m tonight to some psk31 and guess what? A TG station ( a TG9 as I remember) came on calling CQ and took out the whole 2kc of psk31 signals. Certainly SSB and psk31 aren't very compatible. I didn't get a chance to record levels and such, I'm still thinking about how to set up. Anyway, I can't think of a better demonstration.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

Tim,

Are you saying that you could not decode the PSK31 signals? I would think with a narrow filter that PSK31 would survive. I have experienced the same thing on 40 meters, not with PSK31 but with other protocols like MFSK16, MT63 and Olivia. PSK31 does not have any FEC, but it is so narrow that really tightening the bandwidth of the receiver makes it perform very well. I have used a 50 Hz filter with PSK31 and have been able to pull signals out of the mud. I will agree that the scenario that you describe is not a desirable one, but it is not a scenario that totally impedes communication.

Where is the 3 years of empirical data documented? We are asking for the ARRL to provide data, shouldn't we at least we be able to see data from Region 1 to understand their reasoning? If there was some physical law or a steadfast principle that was being violated, then perhaps I might understand, but I am not aware of this law or principle. I am open to receiving these facts. I look forward to your tests. We in the U.S. have at least a decade of regulatory experience with mixing digital and analog signals; I am just looking for documentation showing that there is a problem.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 21 2005,16:07)]AG4YO:"Amateurs are almost 20 years behind industry discovering that analog voice and data transmissions should be segregated for best performance (related to interference)."

Or perhaps they are 20 years ahead because protocols have been developed that do mix well. Where is the evidence that voice and data mixing is causing problems in the amateur bands? Where is the region 1 documentation that supports segregating digital and analog signals?

73,

Mark N5RFX
Where is the evidence that if I chop off my left hand at the wrist and it bleeds, that if someone chops off my right hand at the forearm it won't bleed too? Where are the AMA studies on the subject in the last 20 years?

Common sense, Mark. Amateur has no channelization, it is more narrow band in nature, it is not FM which makes it MORE succeptable to interference, the frequencies are HF which have more noise inherently, and the technology is less evolved. What about that would make you think it would not have problems?

You guys have the same Pollyanna-ish view that the digital proponents for digital cellular had 10 years ago, and they had the MONEY to make it happen and couldn't.

Where are the studies that show they won't interfere?? If you remember, this reparte started because I was speculating on what testing might show...

[W3MIV]

My experience with PSK31 signals being corrupted by SSB on 40m parallels Mark's. The use of very narrow filters has almost always resulted in clean copy of the PSK31 through the offending sideband QSO for me, even when the SSB signal is quite strong.

The problem, however, is that not all rigs are capable of using such narrow filtration in SSB. This is one of the reasons why I just bought a new 756Pro III instead of the otherwise excellent Mark V (which is currently bargain-priced).

[k3xf]

"Where is the 3 years of empirical data documented? We are asking for the ARRL to provide data, shouldn't we at least we be able to see data from Region 1 to understand their reasoning? If there was some physical law or a steadfast principle that was being violated, then perhaps I might understand, but I am not aware of this law or principle. I am open to receiving these facts. I look forward to your tests. "

FYI and maybe as a data point for band occupancy: I performed short term testing while assembling the information for the "no limits" proposal. The results of that test suite indicated a phone to CW occupancy ratio of 1.75:1 in favor of phone and less than 10% data. (For the test process see http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf . Consider it a relative reading rather than absolute.) Many thought the test period was too short so I continued the test from June to late November with essentially the same result (CW = 20-30%, Data =< 10%, and Phone ~ 60%. Once again, consider this a relative measurement as well rather than absolute.
'hope this helps . . .


-ap

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 22 2005,07:47)]My experience with PSK31 signals being corrupted by SSB on 40m parallels Mark's. The use of very narrow filters has almost always resulted in clean copy of the PSK31 through the offending sideband QSO for me, even when the SSB signal is quite strong.

The problem, however, is that not all rigs are capable of using such narrow filtration in SSB. This is one of the reasons why I just bought a new 756Pro III instead of the otherwise excellent Mark V (which is currently bargain-priced).
Good points, Albert. The issue is not whether you can QSO with another op in PSK over a SSB QSO, the issue is whether BOTH modes can have clear QSOs.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (k3xf @ Dec. 22 2005,09:22)]"Where is the 3 years of empirical data documented? We are asking for the ARRL to provide data, shouldn't we at least we be able to see data from Region 1 to understand their reasoning? If there was some physical law or a steadfast principle that was being violated, then perhaps I might understand, but I am not aware of this law or principle. I am open to receiving these facts. I look forward to your tests. "

FYI and maybe as a data point for band occupancy: I performed short term testing while assembling the information for the "no limits" proposal. The results of that test suite indicated a phone to CW occupancy ratio of 1.75:1 in favor of phone and less than 10% data. (For the test process see http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf . Consider it a relative reading rather than absolute.) Many thought the test period was too short so I continued the test from June to late November with essentially the same result (CW = 20-30%, Data =< 10%, and Phone ~ 60%. Once again, consider this a relative measurement as well rather than absolute.
'hope this helps . . .


-ap
Although I now agree with your 60/30/10 data, I still have an issue agreeing with your petition and solution. Using your data, a fair solution would be:

CW- 30% use. 30% of spectrum on a regular band is 105khz. CW is more effecient than SSB, so assign a little more than 50% of 105khz to CW or rounded to 60khz.

Data- 10% use. 10% of spectrum would be 35khz. But lets give some growing room for digital and add 55khz we removed from CW to make the digital area 80khz.

Analog Voice- 60% of use. 60% of the spectrum is 210khz. That's exactly what is left after assigning 60/80 khz to CW/Digital.

Now split the band in three parts as outlined above. Remember that digitally modulated voice is "data" so voice would gain more. This still looks alot more equitable than any bandplan on there now based on bandwidth or "free-for-all" use.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 21 2005,08:44)]Where is the evidence that if I chop off my left hand at the wrist and it bleeds, that if someone chops off my right hand at the forearm it won't bleed too? #Where are the AMA studies on the subject in the last 20 years?

Common sense, Mark. #Amateur has no channelization, it is more narrow band in nature, it is not FM which makes it MORE succeptable to interference, the frequencies are HF which have more noise inherently, and the technology is less evolved. What about that would make you think it would not have problems?

You guys have the same Pollyanna-ish view that the digital proponents for digital cellular had 10 years ago, and they had the MONEY to make it happen and couldn't. #

Where are the studies that show they won't interfere?? #If you remember, this reparte started because I was speculating on what testing might show...
Charlie,

I cannot argue with you about what you feel is common sense. We have a status quo, which allows mixing of digital and analog signals on HF. If we want to change this situation, I just want to know why the change is needed. From my perspective I don't see the problem and of course I advocate lifting the restriction on data content in the current phone/image subbands, and lifting restriction on image content, both analog and digital, in the rtty/data subbands. I feel that this change is necessary, because the modulation is the same for both digital image and data emissions. As far as analog image emissions, there have been improvements in analog image emissions that make them quite harmonious with digital emissions. U.S. amateurs are not authorized to use those improved emissions on the same frequency.

My view may be "Pollyanna-ish" but some the digital protocols that we have on HF today, were not around 10 years ago, and through experimentation we have made improvements. I would like to see further improvement by being able to transmit analog and digital signals on the same frequency, which gives us more tools in our communications tool bag. It could be that the suggestions for having a subband for "anything goes" is the right approach, but from what I have seen, mixing of analog and digital signals is not a "show stopper" and should continue.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 21 2005,12:59)]Good points, Albert. #The issue is not whether you can QSO with another op in PSK over a SSB QSO, the issue is whether BOTH modes can have clear QSOs.
Charlie,

Although Tim did not specifically address your question, since he was able to retrieve the callsign of the SSB station, it appears that the PSK signals did not prohibit SSB reception on his end. Again, this is not a desirable scenario, but it does show that in a bad situation both emissions can co-exist.

To Albert’s point about rigs and filtering, there are many scenarios where filtering is desirable. If you do not have this capability, then there will be times when communication is difficult. It is not an exclusive problem with analog and digital signal interference.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (k3xf @ Dec. 21 2005,10:22)]"Where is the 3 years of empirical data documented? #We are asking for the ARRL to provide data, shouldn't we at least we be able to see data from Region 1 to understand their reasoning? #If there was some physical law or a steadfast principle that was being violated, then perhaps I might understand, but I am not aware of this law or principle. #I am open to receiving these facts. #I look forward to your tests. "

FYI and maybe as a data point for band occupancy: I performed short term testing while assembling the information for the "no limits" proposal. The results of that test suite indicated a phone to CW occupancy ratio of 1.75:1 in favor of phone and less than 10% data. (For the test process see http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf . Consider it a relative reading rather than absolute.) Many thought the test period was too short so I continued the test from June to late November with essentially the same result (CW = 20-30%, Data =< 10%, and Phone ~ 60%. Once again, consider this a relative measurement as well rather than absolute.
'hope this helps . . .


-ap
Thanks for the link. I could support your petition, but have some reservations about automatic control on HF. That of course is my hang up with the ARRL petition too.

Thanks again and...

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 22 2005,07:29)]Tim,

Are you saying that you could not decode the PSK31 signals? #I would think with a narrow filter that PSK31 would survive. #I have experienced the same thing on 40 meters, not with PSK31 but with other protocols like MFSK16, MT63 and Olivia. #PSK31 does not have any FEC, but it is so narrow that really tightening the bandwidth of the receiver makes it perform very well. #I have used a 50 Hz filter with PSK31 and have been able to pull signals out of the mud. #I will agree that the scenario that you describe is not a desirable one, but it is not a scenario that totally impedes communication.

Where is the 3 years of empirical data documented? #We are asking for the ARRL to provide data, shouldn't we at least we be able to see data from Region 1 to understand their reasoning? #If there was some physical law or a steadfast principle that was being violated, then perhaps I might understand, but I am not aware of this law or principle. #I am open to receiving these facts. #I look forward to your tests. #We in the U.S. have at least a decade of regulatory experience with mixing digital and analog signals; I am just looking for documentation showing that there is a problem.

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Whent the SSB station came on the waterfall was so messed up I couldn't even tell where to put the cursor to decode a psk31 signal. If I had been on top of one when he came on, it might have worked through him, but I didn't have a station tuned in.

I don't have a 50hz filter. I have an old Heathkit audio filter and a homebuilt one using op amps but when you get the passband down this narrow you get a LOT of ringing. Tuning a station with a filter this narrow is a *pain in the butt* to put it mildly. That's one reason I don't use them anymore. I got them for CW but they are unusable while doing most operating. Since much of the CW work I do now is on nets, they are especially frustrating since many people can't get within 100hz let alone 25hz.

One of the things that is supposed to make psk31 operating so enjoyable is being able to use a wide filter and to see all of the qso's so you can just use the cursor to pick who you want to talk to or to pick an open frequency to call cq.

If you force people to start using 50hz filters in order to operate psk31 because the interference levels are so high, you will definitely impact the number of people using the mode in a negative manner. Trying to find psk31 somewhere in a 500khz bandwidth using a 2.1khz SSB filter is bad enough, trying to find someone to talk to using a 50hz filter will make the mode practically unusable.

The definition of "empirical" is : "Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment." It is the opposite of being derived from theory.

The empirical data is in the Region 1 Plenary documents as I have posted on here before. It is based on the experience gained by observation of the practical results resulting from the mixing of digital and analog.

The physical laws that come into play are those of spectral power density, propagation effects, decoder capabilities, and "aggravation coefficient" (my term <grin>).

I just gave you documentation of a problem area. How do you find digital signals using a waterfall amongst a lot of SSB signals that mess the waterfall up? Do you tune it by ear? How do you tune by ear with a 50hz filter and 10hz tuning step?

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

AG4YO:"Now split the band in three parts as outlined above. Remember that digitally modulated voice is "data" so voice would gain more. This still looks alot more equitable than any bandplan on there now based on bandwidth or "free-for-all" use."

Charlie,

The only problem is that your plan will require a change in current operating practice for digital SSTV and in a limited way to digital voice. I know this may seem like a small sacrifice, but why is this operating activity a problem today? What problem do you solve by implementing your plan?

73,

Mark N5RFX

[k3xf]

"I could support your petition, but have some reservations about automatic control on HF. That of course is my hang up with the ARRL petition too."

We agree here. Automatic control is fine as long as the responsibility for non interference with communications in progress is provided for. FM repeaters do it every day. Enforcement efforts should be focused on non interference regulations as opposed to creating inflexible barriers. There are times now when phone is subband edge to subband edge and CW is barely represented. Further, digital just might become wildly popular and merit more than 10% of the resource. This is the problem with hardwall bandplans. They are based on somebodys WAG of tomorrows (at best) utilization. Or, at worst, someones pet project.

-ap

[k3xf]

"Now split the band in three parts as outlined above. Remember that digitally modulated voice is "data" so voice would gain more. This still looks alot more equitable than any bandplan on there now based on bandwidth or "free-for-all" use. "

'much as I believe a voice transmission should be able to go anywhere a data or cw transmission can if, and only if, it will not interfere with communications in progess. My sense is the outcome of all this will be pretty much as you describe. It still bugs me that CW has free range and phone is restricted when the opposite is indicated by current utilization.

In any case the ARRL plan shows little understanding of band utilization, technical reality, or representation of its membership. Why is probably not relevant.

-ap

[N5PVL]

It's relevant if they want my 30 bucks, next time around.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 22 2005,13:30)]AG4YO:"Now split the band in three parts as outlined above. Remember that digitally modulated voice is "data" so voice would gain more. This still looks alot more equitable than any bandplan on there now based on bandwidth or "free-for-all" use."

Charlie,

The only problem is that your plan will require a change in current operating practice for digital SSTV and in a limited way to digital voice. I know this may seem like a small sacrifice, but why is this operating activity a problem today? What problem do you solve by implementing your plan?

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Thanks for the replies. I see you making the same mistake other digital supporters make. "We do this today.... We mix modes today...." I am all for making no change to the band plan in use today if it's working so well. But there is no applying what happens today to what the ARRL plan allows. What happens today is minimal digital use and what use there is interferes (two examples are WL2K stations and PSK/CW clobbering each other).

The whole purpose of bandwidth bandplanning is to encourage digital use, right? Make room for the future...blah blah. If there were alot of digital use today, the problems we have now would be much worse. Since we're planning for the future, why not plan for as much of an "interference free" future as we can?

You say there will be no interference with no data to back it up. I say there will be and I have 15+ years of experience in a very crowded, interference (c/i) rich RF environment with digital use. I want digital use to be free of interference as I do for legacy modes on Amateur Radio. Seems I care about your future, but you don't care about mine. Doesn't it?

What is so onerous about 80khz of spectrum where you won't have interference from CW or Analog Voice?

[ad4mg]

Time and again, Charlie's suggestions have the common sense "ring" to them. #He proposes compromise. #It appears there is ample room for digital to grow leaps and bounds. #His reasoning would appear to accommodate current and future users for a minimum of 10 years, based on informal observations of my last 10 years in amateur radio. #Everyone keys in on this 10 year thing ... let's do Charlie's proposal for 5 years and see what needs adjusting then. #That will put us well within the 10 year FCC "action" window.

This is the very best suggested layout I've seen to date. #Of course, 10 meters and the WARC bands would still need to be addressed. #My personal opinion is that the WARC bands should lean heavily towards legacy modes. #Digital doesn't have to be everywhere on the dial. #The WARC bands have always offered an excape from contests, let's allow it to continue to offer an alternative where legacy mode, amateur to amateur communications can continue unmolested.

With this plan, almost everyone wins, but SSTV and digital voice still need to be considered, and this deserves more thought.

The automatic / semi-automatic issue can be dealt with in the digital portions of the bands, with voluntary bandplanning. #We would soon see if the robots can play nice! #It would make sense to me to put the robots at the top of the allocations, and the spectrum efficient, narrow digital modes at the bottom. #Kinda the way things have always been, narrow at the bottom, wide at the top. #That's worked for a very long time now.

73,
Luke

[ab0wr]

Just some fuel to the fire.

At 0133UTC, Dec 23, 2005 I did a scan of 40 meters. I did not count any SSB below 7150khz in my counts.

I counted 11 CW qso's starting at 7004.5 through 7052khz. I counted two psk31 qso's at about 7071khz. I counted 1 SSB qso above 7150khz.

I realize this is not as encompassing as the study k3xf did but it does show that some consideration must be given to the human equation of band utilization. There was plenty of room between broadcast stations for SSB qso's but I could only find one. Yet there was plenty of CW.

What conclusion can be drawn from this?

tim ab0wr

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 22 2005,18:43)]Just some fuel to the fire.

At 0133UTC, Dec 23, 2005 I did a scan of 40 meters. I did not count any SSB below 7150khz in my counts.

I counted 11 CW qso's starting at 7004.5 through 7052khz. I counted two psk31 qso's at about 7071khz. I counted 1 SSB qso above 7150khz.

I realize this is not as encompassing as the study k3xf did but it does show that some consideration must be given to the human equation of band utilization. There was plenty of room between broadcast stations for SSB qso's but I could only find one. Yet there was plenty of CW.

What conclusion can be drawn from this?

tim ab0wr
Propagation did not favor SSB for the most part. It has been this way for almost two months. Once the sun sets 40M has been going very long propagation wise. SSB stations from Europe are louder than any domestic SSB stations. Until spring, 40M is just about done as a night time domestic communications band for distances under about 1500 miles. CW works somewhat better due to the concentration of the RF into a much narrower signal so you can communicate over shorter distances where SSB fails. However even CW is not doing so well for domestic QSOs. I tried to participate in a CW net Wed night but could not copy the NCS station from GA in MD. I did hear a few stations in the far western states though. Most of the CW activity I did observe was between US and DX stations. 80M was much better for domestic QSOs both SSB and CW.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 22 2005,13:30)]AG4YO:"Now split the band in three parts as outlined above. Remember that digitally modulated voice is "data" so voice would gain more. This still looks alot more equitable than any bandplan on there now based on bandwidth or "free-for-all" use."

Charlie,

The only problem is that your plan will require a change in current operating practice for digital SSTV and in a limited way to digital voice. #I know this may seem like a small sacrifice, but why is this operating activity a problem today? #What problem do you solve by implementing your plan? #

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,

I tend to go along with Charlie on this issue. You are correct that today analog and digital (voice and SSTV) mix fairly well but that is only, IMO, due to the very low usage of either digital mode. While I can usually find an SSTV transmission or two on the bands I have never encountered a digital voice QSO anywhere on HF. That is one of the reasons, along with the cost, I have not even considered a digital voice modem for HF.

However, one of the major drivers for the ARRL petition seems to be to foster increased use of digital modes of all types. Would increased usage of wide bandwidth digital modes create major problems in a mixed digital/analog environment? Since we have no real experience with mixed usage of digital and analog modes under crowded conditions (the SSB contests clobbering SSTV being the exception) we have to look outside amateur radio for guidance. I think the cellular phone experience where it has been clearly shown that digital and analog need to be kept separate and even the broadcast industry shows the need to provide separate areas for digital and analog modes.

Shifting digital image and digital voice into a digital only area would not be that big of an accomodation if it fosters increased usage and development of digital protocols that work well on HF. I don't see such development occuring to any significant extent under either the existing allocation scheme or under the ARRL proposal.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Dec. 23 2005,06:53)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 22 2005,18:43)]Just some fuel to the fire.

At 0133UTC, Dec 23, 2005 I did a scan of 40 meters. I did not count any SSB below 7150khz in my counts.

I counted 11 CW qso's starting at 7004.5 through 7052khz. I counted two psk31 qso's at about 7071khz. I counted 1 SSB qso above 7150khz.

I realize this is not as encompassing as the study k3xf did but it does show that some consideration must be given to the human equation of band utilization. There was plenty of room between broadcast stations for SSB qso's but I could only find one. Yet there was plenty of CW.

What conclusion can be drawn from this?

tim ab0wr
Propagation did not favor SSB for the most part. #It has been this way for almost two months. #Once the sun sets 40M has been going very long propagation wise. #SSB stations from Europe are louder than any domestic SSB stations. #Until spring, 40M is just about done as a night time domestic communications band for distances under about 1500 miles. #CW works somewhat better due to the concentration of the RF into a much narrower signal so you can communicate over shorter distances where SSB fails. #However even CW is not doing so well for domestic QSOs. #I tried to participate in a CW net Wed night but could not copy the NCS station from GA in MD. #I did hear a few stations in the far western states though. #Most of the CW activity I did observe was between US and DX stations. #80M was much better for domestic QSOs both SSB and CW.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Mike,

All the CW qso's I copied were between domestic hams.

So was the SSB qso.

Yes the band had gone long.

I just thought it would be interesting to everyone that when the band was not in the best shape, CW was the most used mode, based on results at this location anyway.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there?

tim ab0wr

[k3xf]

Hi Tim,
You missed me wrapping up a round table on 7295. I also did a scan about that time and noted the usual level of activity on the band. CW is less impacted by the broadcash stations than SSB because of its location in the band and narrow band nature of the mode. At approximately the same time the CW to phone ratio on 80 was 1:2.
Efficiency, getting through in tough condx, and other ascribed "merits" is not the issue. Actual utilization by the most amateur ops is. A snapshot in time is insufficient to derive much of a conclusion. (hmmmm, where did I read that before . . . )

: )
-ap

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k3xf @ Dec. 24 2005,07:53)]A snapshot in time is insufficient to derive much of a conclusion.
Trying to use such simple samples to prove any point is very much like trying to use internet polls to prove any point. I do not deprecate the effort, but neither do I credit it with any merit.

[W3MIV]

For me the real issue remains the robots, however few in number and tasks the WinLink folks would have me believe. I trust their declarations as far as I could toss a Trumpy or plushed-out, recycled Trailways cruiser.

I don't believe anyone can argue against the probability that digital will grow and CW will shrink over the next few years. However they mix and mingle will be more the result of a good band plan (which now is utterly absent) than whatever regulatory changes issue forth from the palace of the Commissioners. Charlie has one view; I have another. There are countless more yet to be auditioned.

What remains certain is that both digital and CW will need to be safeguarded from the robots and from phone, and phone will, as well, need to be safeguarded from the robots.

If the two petitions that were filed come out for comment (and I believe if one does so, the other must as well), some hard choices will have to be made.

In the meantime, I wish one and all the very happiest of Christmas (or Chanukkah) holidays, and offer the hope that the coming year will bring peace to the world and to amateur radio both.

73

[ky5u]

It's more than robot stations and interference although those are enough to kill it in my book. It's just not fair to all modes. My simple question about what is "wrong with 80-90khz of interference free space for digital" goes unanswered. Why? Because the answer is "they want it all".

Just say no to bandwidth bandplans!


Best wishes for the holidays for whatever creed or religion you choose. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[k3xf]

I have mentioned this in passing several times but it never gets picked up . . . so maybe it's not useful . . . however, why can't all stations be held to the same standards for non interference? I see no reason to exempt a station because the operator chooses not to utilize a mechanism for sensing traffic on a frequency as the FM repeaters do. Automatic or semi automatic or manual. It's against current regulations to interfere with a QSO in process. That a station is a robot is not license for an operator to claim exemption from the regulations. Is it?
If the answer is the op must observe and obey the same regs as any other op then bandwidth and mode based sub bands is moot. Is this too simple? Rem: ops who flaunt current regs will flaunt future regs so the ill mannered op position is also moot.
Finally, if 80M is wall to wall SSB and CW and digital are not why does it make sense to reserve spectrum for them? Or vice verse. If there is no interference there is no infraction. No QSO in process no infraction . . . like that . . ,
In all plans there will be exceptions . . we handle that now and will do so in the future . . . regardless of bandplan or regulation, unless we create a bandplan that restricts rather than enables amateur radio.

All the best for the Holidays:

Art

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k3xf @ Dec. 24 2005,11:44)]I have mentioned this in passing several times but it never gets picked up . . . so maybe it's not useful . . . however, why can't all stations be held to the same standards for non interference? I see no reason to exempt a station because the operator chooses not to utilize a mechanism for sensing traffic on a frequency as the FM repeaters do. Automatic or semi automatic or manual. It's against current regulations to interfere with a QSO in process. That a station is a robot is not license for an operator to claim exemption from the regulations. Is it?
If the answer is the op must observe and obey the same regs as any other op then bandwidth and mode based sub bands is moot. Is this too simple? Rem: ops who flaunt current regs will flaunt future regs so the ill mannered op position is also moot.
Finally, if 80M is wall to wall SSB and CW and digital are not why does it make sense to reserve spectrum for them? Or vice verse. If there is no interference there is no infraction. No QSO in process no infraction . . . like that . . ,
In all plans there will be exceptions . . #we handle that now and will do so in #the future . . . regardless of bandplan or regulation, unless we create a bandplan that restricts rather than enables amateur radio.

All the best for the Holidays:

Art
Fundamentally, I agree with you. The rub comes with human nature, and with the difficulty of monitoring and/or chastising those who offend the rules (written or traditional), intentionally or un-. A brief tour of 75m suffices to augur a woeful scenario writ large, so to speak.

The one thing that strongly recommends bandwidth allocation, in my opinion, is the "refuges" it creates for some of the more vulnerable modes to seek sanctuary, especially in those times of real pressure. And the result of the impending 05-235 R&O is pure conjecture, but worrisome at least. The League's petition is more complex and cumbersome than it needs to be, in my view, but could be workable—but for the auto/semi-auto issue and the removal of the 500Hz limit on remote ops.

The ARRL cut is the opposite, in many important ways, of the Think Tank petition, though that orison offers its own kind of "run-and-hide" sanctuary in times of pressure. With, of course, a good band plan.

If a band plan with "teeth" could be proposed and put in place, along with some means of easily decipherable ID...

But that is not what we have in front of us...

73

[k3xf]

"A brief tour of 75m suffices to augur a woeful scenario writ large, so to speak."

Well described. However, none of the issues I observe on 75 are resolved by current or proposed plans or regulation. If, in fact, the FCC enables regulations against bad manners and crowding (the symptom) it's enforcement budget will need upward adjustment . . . not likely. Conversely, today I observe zero, zip, nada in my old novice stomping grounds and anywhere in 80M CW space. What would happen if that was all mode space? My sense is there would be more room for operating and less of the symptom. . . . bada bing . . less regulation . . . less enforcement budget required . . .

"If a band plan with "teeth" could be proposed and put in place, along with some means of easily decipherable ID..."

Once again, "teeth" translates directly into enforcement cost and that isn't likely. This leaves us with gentlemens agreements and enforcement of (existing) non interference regs.

I acknowledge that this may be just too much of a leap and the self anointed protection required folks prevail. In that case the "official" three tiered band plan would be second best . . I would say it should be enacted anyway by gentlemans agreement. But not as a hardwall . . . as a recommendation in crowded conditions and unnecessary in periods of low activity.
If we are going to officially (via FCC regulation) go to the three part band plan I would only modify one component. Digi, Phone, and CW must all stay in their respective sub-bands.

I believe we are in agreement with the concept. The details will require some work. . . . and we also agree the infrastructure for it is not in the ARRL proposal.


-ap

[n5rfx]

Hi All,

I have just returned from the great white north (Central Ontario) back to the warm climes of North Texas.

AB0WR"I just gave you documentation of a problem area. How do you find digital signals using a waterfall amongst a lot of SSB signals that mess the waterfall up? Do you tune it by ear? How do you tune by ear with a 50hz filter and 10hz tuning step?"

Tim,

I am not sure how you had your receiver setup, but when I have encountered such problems I can usually find the PSK signal in between SSB syllables, then using software move either the sound card or rig frequency so that I can implement filtering. I used 50 Hz as an example, but before I had that capability I used crystal IF filters (250 Hz, 500Hz) and I was able to decode the PSK signal. My rig would also have had the capability of disabling AGC. Disabling AGC is a must for me when decoding difficult digital signals. Filtering is important for me in a rig, because of other QRM scenarios. I do agree that there are scenarios where communication is difficult or even impossible.

WA3KYY "You are correct that today analog and digital (voice and SSTV) mix fairly well but that is only, IMO, due to the very low usage of either digital mode."

AG4YO "What happens today is minimal digital use and what use there is interferes (two examples are WL2K stations and PSK/CW clobbering each other).

I agree that it is minimal digital spectrum use that allows mixing of digital and analog signals where permitted. I look at 14.233 MHz as the example. Here digital and analog mix well, and it is part of the normal operating practice. One reason for the minimal spectrum use is that the protocol used is point to multipoint, so many stations can share the same frequency. The problem that I am trying to address is the fact that there are data transmissions on this frequency that are not authorized. It happens every day, and there are no complaints. It would be good to update the rules to authorize this practice. A similar situation occurred in the RTTY/Data subbands. There was a protocol developed that allowed analog SSTV emissions to mix with digital MFSK16 emissions. No one complained to the FCC and it worked well. I made everyone aware that this was not authorized, and most operators made a decision to cease this type of operation. No one complained to the FCC, no one was cited. This last example was why I filed my petition with the FCC. The point I am making is that there is no evidence that digital mode usage would increase simply by changing the rules to allow operation that is currently not authorized. I look at it as sort of a jury nullification thing. It is done, it is not authorized, but it doesn't cause any problems.

I do have a different outlook on this vis a vis the ARRL. I don't feel that digital mode spectrum usage will increase simply by changing the rules. I am sure I have not made my self clear on this point. I simply want to enhance operating capability. I reject augments that say that digital and analog signals cannot mix. They certainly can, they have, and they do.

AG4YO "What is so onerous about 80khz of spectrum where you won't have interference from CW or Analog Voice...My simple question about what is "wrong with 80-90khz of interference free space for digital" goes unanswered. Why? Because the answer is "they want it all".?"

Charlie,

The fact of the matter is that we do have it all already. I will accept 80-90khz of interference free space for digital, but I also would like some amount of spectrum to mix analog and digital.

K3XF "Enforcement efforts should be focused on non interference regulations as opposed to creating inflexible barriers...why can't all stations be held to the same standards for non interference? I see no reason to exempt a station because the operator chooses not to utilize a mechanism for sensing traffic on a frequency as the FM repeaters do. Automatic or semi automatic or manual. It's against current regulations to interfere with a QSO in process. That a station is a robot is not license for an operator to claim exemption from the regulations. Is it?
If the answer is the op must observe and obey the same regs as any other op then bandwidth and mode based sub bands is moot. Is this too simple?."

Arthur,

You make a good point here, and it is hard to argue with the logic. I have always liked the 160 meter model, and apparently so does the FCC.

To all,

This has been a good discussion because now I can see an argument for limiting HF usage in general. Perhaps the barriers that we have erected for HF usage through licensing has given us the ability to mix modes. I have never tied these two issues together in the past, but can see that they perhaps are related.

73 and Merry Christmas

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

K3XF "I believe we are in agreement with the concept. The details will require some work. . . . and we also agree the infrastructure for it is not in the ARRL proposal."

On this I think most of us are in agreement. We are kinda like this middle east on this one. I will let you decide who are the Arab countries, and who is Israel.

73 and Merry Christmas

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

AB0WR "The physical laws that come into play are those of spectral power density, propagation effects, decoder capabilities, and "aggravation coefficient" (my term ).

Tim,

Just to clarify, when you use the term spectral power density, are the units that this is measured in watts per hertz? I am familiar with this term being total power in the specified bandwidth divided by the specified bandwidth. Sometimes I have seen it written in dBm or dBw per Hertz. Is this what you are referring to?

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]n5rfx:
The problem that I am trying to address is the fact that there are data transmissions on this frequency that are not authorized. It happens every day, and there are no complaints. It would be good to update the rules to authorize this practice. A similar situation occurred in the RTTY/Data subbands. There was a protocol developed that allowed analog SSTV emissions to mix with digital MFSK16 emissions. No one complained to the FCC and it worked well. I made everyone aware that this was not authorized, and most operators made a decision to cease this type of operation. No one complained to the FCC, no one was cited. This last example was why I filed my petition with the FCC. The point I am making is that there is no evidence that digital mode usage would increase simply by changing the rules to allow operation that is currently not authorized. I look at it as sort of a jury nullification thing. It is done, it is not authorized, but it doesn't cause any problems.

How do we know that no complaints were made to the FCC?

In fact, I know complaints have been made to the FCC by psk31 operators being interfered with by automated pactor stations. There is no evidence that anything was done in those instances either - to people looking in from the outside there is no evidence that any complaints were ever made.

It is this "situation" that makes it problematic for me that any plan that is based on "interference enforcement" by the FCC will ever be workable.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]n5rfx:
I am not sure how you had your receiver setup, but when I have encountered such problems I can usually find the PSK signal in between SSB syllables, then using software move either the sound card or rig frequency so that I can implement filtering. #I used 50 Hz as an example, but before I had that capability I used crystal IF filters (250 Hz, 500Hz) and I was able to decode the PSK signal. #My rig would also have had the capability of disabling AGC. #Disabling AGC is a must for me when decoding difficult digital signals. #Filtering is important for me in a rig, because of other QRM scenarios. #I do agree that there are scenarios where communication is difficult or even impossible.

I could find signals that were on the display above about 900-1000hz. Signals that were lower were just gone, covered up by the SSB signal. No amount of filtering was going to bring back a qso in that area - let alone find a new one. My agc was off and I was using my sideband filter. I don't have a choice in the icom 751a with a basic setup to the computer.

I can't even imagine how this could be done on 75m in the evening. It would be difficult to even find psk31 signals among the interference from SSB, let alone have a qso. The narrower the filter you use, the harder it would be to find psk signals because of the tuning rate that would be required. I just can't imagine the "aggravation factor" that would be involved.

Tuning in psk31 in a reserved spot with no other high power signals interfering allows turning off the agc. I'm not sure that is feasible when digital signals will be mixed in with high powered SSB signals. In that situation, if the AGC is turned off, you are liable to get lots of IF distortion from overdriven amplifiers as welll as AF distortion from overdriven amplifiers. This distortion will have an effect on the decoding of the psk signals.

Certainly the agc will be on if you are involved in the SSB conversation. That means the SSB signal will be impacted by the effect of the competing digital signal on the AGC. If the digital signal is strong enough in between voice syllables to drive down IF gain, it will have an impact on the SSB signal in some manner. This impact needs to be measured and considered in any measurement test bed.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,09:01)]It is this "situation" that makes it problematic for me that any plan that is based on "interference enforcement" by the FCC will ever be workable.
While I agree that it is "problematic," I also believe there is an advantage to be gained by having the "presumed authority" of a band plan backed up by the mandate of the Rules.

I agree that putting too much detail in the Rules is an error in many ways (and that is why we are now having this discussion), and I believe this is an issue with the League's petition to an extent.

Nevertheless, the scofflaw is a growing phenomenon in our society as a whole, and it cannot but continue to grow in amateur radio as well. Again, 75m is proof of this—and please don't try to tell me that all of the lids wreaking havoc there are simply ex-CBers or reinvented NCTs. An unfortunate number of them are disaffected hams of long standing.

That is why I find more to worry about with the robots (and I use this term as shorthand to cover all unattended ops). It is already far too easy to circumvent the Rules, and taking a Doctor-Spock approach by removing the few current restrictions can only make this worse. Far worse.

To my mind, we should seek a structure that makes any violations very clear and obvious—not just in terms of PacTOR or other wide-band digital stuff, but at all levels. That is the single strongest virtue of bandwidth allocation, in my view.

With an appropriate Region 2 band plan, sanctioned in the Rules, and restrictions on all auto/semi-auto ops, we could end up with a better system than we now have.

But we ain't there yet.

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 24 2005,15:52)]K3XF "Enforcement efforts should be focused on non interference regulations as opposed to creating inflexible barriers...why can't all stations be held to the same standards for non interference? I see no reason to exempt a station because the operator chooses not to utilize a mechanism for sensing traffic on a frequency as the FM repeaters do. Automatic or semi automatic or manual. It's against current regulations to interfere with a QSO in process. That a station is a robot is not license for an operator to claim exemption from the regulations. Is it?
If the answer is the op must observe and obey the same regs as any other op then bandwidth and mode based sub bands is moot. Is this too simple?."

Arthur,

You make a good point here, and it is hard to argue with the logic. I have always liked the 160 meter model, and apparently so does the FCC.

To all,

This has been a good discussion because now I can see an argument for limiting HF usage in general. Perhaps the barriers that we have erected for HF usage through licensing has given us the ability to mix modes. I have never tied these two issues together in the past, but can see that they perhaps are related.

73 and Merry Christmas

Mark N5RFX
"why can't all stations be held to the same standards for non interference?"

In theory this sounds logical and wonderful. Unfortunately I agree with Albert about human nature.

Digital modes interfering with SSB or CW would be hard to identify if one plopped down into your SSB or CW QSO. Even if you could identify the mode, would would not be able to identify the station causing the interference unless you switched over to digital receive capability in the middle of your QSO in order to identify the offending station. If the same thing happend via a CW station interfering with your SSB QSO you would be able to not only identify that it was CW but you should be able to copy it and get a callsign. You can also switch over to CW ant the offending station know that he or she is interfering with an ongoing QSO. 95% of the time, the problem is solved. Of course this only works if you know the code. When we get the codeless HF license the code will eventually be as difficult to decode by ear as the digital modes are today.

Auto bots and other digital modes that can fire up in shared bandwidth sections will only serve to compound the potential for interference. Unless there is some protocol that requires frequency checking before it pops up, it is going to be a real problem. Even if there is good technology available to the bot to spot activity it will all depend on propogation as there will be many times when the bot would hear nothing because it can not detect one or the other parties involved in a QSO because the bot is not in the skip zone. Also the bot is not going to come up on frequency and actually ask if the frequency is in use.

If you do not know what is interfering with you or who the is operating the control station of the interfering signal, there is really nothing you will be able to do about it.

As far as 160 meters is concerned, the gentlemens agreement on that band gets tossed out the window during contest periods. Ironically I think that the gentlemans agreement on that band has a slight chance
to survive because of its long tradition. On the other hand most of the other HF bands have no such traditions and are purposely segmented. IMHO it will be a free for all unless there is actual enforcement of a bandplan. The ARRL has warned us twice that we will see a potential for increased interference. I think that is as mild a statement that they thought they could get away with.

Merry Christmas

George
K3UD

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,09:16)]I can't even imagine how this could be done on 75m in the evening. It would be difficult to even find psk31 signals among the interference from SSB, let alone have a qso. The narrower the filter you use, the harder it would be to find psk signals because of the tuning rate that would be required. I just can't imagine the "aggravation factor" that would be involved.
I think part of the problem here is that you are a relative "novice" with PSK31, and part of the problem may be the 751A.

Using the waterfall and a wide filter, it is not all that hard to find the activity you seek. The traces usually stand out pretty clearly even when they are hard to hear. Even were the result of a new scheme to be a fully wide-open band with no limits on bandwidth or mode, like-modes would still tend to congregate in quickly known segments of the band. I agree that it would be sort of like being a one-legged man at a butt-kicking to try to crank through the entirety of the 80m band. With a band plan, presumably, such band segments would be assigned (and honored).

With either my IC746Pro or the IC756ProIII, I can scan easily through a wide band segment and quickly center the signal on the waterfall, then narrow to any filter width down to 50Hz, though I have never had to go narrower than 200Hz in practice.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 24 2005,14:41)]AB0WR "The physical laws that come into play are those of spectral power density, propagation effects, decoder capabilities, and "aggravation coefficient" (my term ).

Tim,

Just to clarify, when you use the term spectral power density, are the units that this is measured in watts per hertz? #I am familiar with this term being total power in the specified bandwidth divided by the specified bandwidth. #Sometimes I have seen it written in dBm or dBw per Hertz. #Is this what you are referring to?

73,

Mark N5RFX
I should be more accurate in my wording. I used the term "spectral power density". I should have used the term "power spectral density".

The power spectral density would be the integral from f1 to f2 of the square of the magnitude of the signal. This is actually the area under the spectral density curve.

This really only makes sense in the concept of a received signal. For two signals with the same peak signal level (i.e. in mV) you can calculate the area under the spectral density curve using the integral above. You will find the area under the curve for a pactor III signal to be much higher than that of a SSB voice signal if both have the same received strength. The crest factor of the signal is a indicator of what the area under the spectral density signal will be.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 25 2005,07:43)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,09:16)]I can't even imagine how this could be done on 75m in the evening. It would be difficult to even find psk31 signals among the interference from SSB, let alone have a qso. The narrower the filter you use, the harder it would be to find psk signals because of the tuning rate that would be required. I just can't imagine the "aggravation factor" that would be involved.
I think part of the problem here is that you are a relative "novice" with PSK31, and part of the problem may be the 751A.

Using the waterfall and a wide filter, it is not all that hard to find the activity you seek. The traces usually stand out pretty clearly even when they are hard to hear. Even were the result of a new scheme to be a fully wide-open band with no limits on bandwidth or mode, like-modes would still tend to congregate in quickly known segments of the band. I agree that it would be sort of like being a one-legged man at a butt-kicking to try to crank through the entirety of the 80m band. With a band plan, presumably, such band segments would be assigned (and honored).

With either my IC746Pro or the IC756ProIII, I can scan easily through a wide band segment and quickly center the signal on the waterfall, then narrow to any filter width down to 50Hz, though I have never had to go narrower than 200Hz in practice.
Albert,

I'm not sure I agree. The reason I was having a problem was a SSB signal firing up on the frequency normally considered a "psk31" frequency. Should the US be able to fire up SSB qso's on that same frequency I question just how long it will be before that happens, bandplan or no bandplan. I mean, the frequency is known world-wide as a psk frequency, yet it was being interfered with. I don't think that will be a uncommon occurence should a wide open plan be implemented.

Once that happens, then there will be no "watering hole" that can be depended upon to find psk31 signals.

Trying to find psk31 signals amongst strong SSB signals will be a problem even with a 746 or 756 rig. Find a foreign SSB signal in the 40m CW band sometime and fire up your psk program. See if you can see anything lower than 800hz on your waterfall.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 24 2005,08:01)]Quote[/b] ]n5rfx:
The problem that I am trying to address is the fact that there are data transmissions on this frequency that are not authorized. It happens every day, and there are no complaints. It would be good to update the rules to authorize this practice. A similar situation occurred in the RTTY/Data subbands. There was a protocol developed that allowed analog SSTV emissions to mix with digital MFSK16 emissions. No one complained to the FCC and it worked well. I made everyone aware that this was not authorized, and most operators made a decision to cease this type of operation. No one complained to the FCC, no one was cited. This last example was why I filed my petition with the FCC. The point I am making is that there is no evidence that digital mode usage would increase simply by changing the rules to allow operation that is currently not authorized. I look at it as sort of a jury nullification thing. It is done, it is not authorized, but it doesn't cause any problems.

How do we know that no complaints were made to the FCC?

In fact, I know complaints have been made to the FCC by psk31 operators being interfered with by automated pactor stations. There is no evidence that anything was done in those instances either - to people looking in from the outside there is no evidence that any complaints were ever made.

It is this "situation" that makes it problematic for me that any plan that is based on "interference enforcement" by the FCC will ever be workable.

tim ab0wr
Tim,

Your example of PSK31 and Pactor is a digital on digital problem, not an analog/digital mixing problem that I have been discussing. There certainly was a reminder by Riley Hollingsworth with regard to interference

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/03/100/

My question is, where are the complaints when analog and digital modes are mixed? Where are the complaints when data content is sent where it is not authorized? I gave two long standing examples of clear violations where the FCC took no action. Why do you suppose this occurred? My guess is that no body cares because it is not a problem.

While you are looking, how about finding some discussion from region 1 that is more than statements saying that digital and analog should be separated. How about some analysis from region 1 powers that be of the perceived problem? The things you have posted in the past provide no information as to why digital and analog signals should be separated only saying that they should be separated.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,10:34)]Trying to find psk31 signals amongst strong SSB signals will be a problem even with a 746 or 756 rig. Find a foreign SSB signal in the 40m CW band sometime and fire up your psk program. See if you can see anything lower than 800hz on your waterfall.
Thanks, but no thanks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif We are in agreement on this in principle. The point I sought to make was more academic than practical.

What you are posting is a pretty good rationale for the narrow-slot segmentation put forth in the League's petition in that sequestering narrow modes (e.g. PSK and CW) in their own sub-bands would indeed obviate the interference potential from wider modes, whether digital or analogue. This would leave the CW and PSK folks to sort out their own issues with band planning.

That is the part of the petition that I like and could support, though I fully understand opposing viewpoints on that issue (most notably, AG4YO's fairness issue), but I tend not to agree with most of the views that I feel are simply seeking to protect, preserve and defend one mode against the future.

73

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 24 2005,09:19)]The power spectral density would be the integral from f1 to f2 of the square of the magnitude of the signal. This is actually the area under the spectral density curve.

This really only makes sense in the concept of a received signal. For two signals with the same peak signal level (i.e. in mV) you can calculate the area under the spectral density curve using the integral above. You will find the area under the curve for a pactor III signal to be much higher than that of a SSB voice signal if both have the same received strength. The crest factor of the signal is a indicator of what the area under the spectral density signal will be.
Tim,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the digital signals that I am aware of will have a greater power spectral density than SSB under the conditions that you give. I would not hesitate to say that those with good FEC will survive such conditions. I cannot comment about PIII since I don't have any way of decoding that mode, but it would be interesting to see when the retries go up using that protocol when faced with interference. With MT63, and Olivia there would not be much noticeable degradation. There is a new mode hitting the airwaves called DominoEX. It is another MFSK type of signal, but no FEC from what I have heard. Can we agree that there are digital modes that can handle QRM pretty handily?

As far as evaluating the affects on SSB, it is really your aggravation factor that kicks in here. Remember we are looking at the worst case scenario. The fact remains that unless there is a big increase in digital use, we should not see a big increase in QRM because of mixing analog and digital modes. It has gone unnoticed so far it seems.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 24 2005,09:48)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,10:34)]Trying to find psk31 signals amongst strong SSB signals will be a problem even with a 746 or 756 rig. Find a foreign SSB signal in the 40m CW band sometime and fire up your psk program. See if you can see anything lower than 800hz on your waterfall.
Thanks, but no thanks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif We are in agreement on this in principle. The point I sought to make was more academic than practical.

What you are posting is a pretty good rationale for the narrow-slot segmentation put forth in the League's petition in that sequestering narrow modes (e.g. PSK and CW) in their own sub-bands would indeed obviate the interference potential from wider modes, whether digital or analogue. This would leave the CW and PSK folks to sort out their own issues with band planning.

That is the part of the petition that I like and could support, though I fully understand opposing viewpoints on that issue (most notably, AG4YO's fairness issue), but I tend not to agree with most of the views that I feel are simply seeking to protect, preserve and defend one mode against the future.
Tim and Albert,

I agree too that this is not a desirable situation and Albert you make a good point with respect to the protection areas set up in the ARRL petition. I don't feel that this is necessary, but if the majority of folks feel that protection is needed, then the ARRL petition does afford that protection by regulation. As far as how much protection is given, it seems that the ARRL petition is in agreement with the venerable region 1 bandplan. Man, if this keeps up I may have to change my position on this petition.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 25 2005,08:48)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 25 2005,10:34)]Trying to find psk31 signals amongst strong SSB signals will be a problem even with a 746 or 756 rig. Find a foreign SSB signal in the 40m CW band sometime and fire up your psk program. See if you can see anything lower than 800hz on your waterfall.
Thanks, but no thanks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif We are in agreement on this in principle. The point I sought to make was more academic than practical.

What you are posting is a pretty good rationale for the narrow-slot segmentation put forth in the League's petition in that sequestering narrow modes (e.g. PSK and CW) in their own sub-bands would indeed obviate the interference potential from wider modes, whether digital or analogue. This would leave the CW and PSK folks to sort out their own issues with band planning.

That is the part of the petition that I like and could support, though I fully understand opposing viewpoints on that issue (most notably, AG4YO's fairness issue), but I tend not to agree with most of the views that I feel are simply seeking to protect, preserve and defend one mode against the future.

73
Fairness is fairness. It does not "protect" one mode, but ensures spectrum is divided based on use. The plan must be flexible so as use patterns change, the bandplan can adapt. The "changes" in the bandplan must not take place ad-hoc, but must balance spikes with trends. Lest we spend all our time with a bandplan that changes weekly to the point of total confusion. Additionally, fairness means that modes are segregated to the degree possible to ensure quiet enjoyment by all. A SSB signal showing up in the moddle of a digital voice QSO is not fair, nor is a SSB net dealing with the splatter of a "because I can" digital signal 3khz away. Same applies to CW. It's a two way street, and just because one mode can operate OK when it interferes with another does not make it right or desirable to be law.

Albert, your mode "protection" record has a groove where the needle has been stuck for two years. Might be time to nudge it along, amigo.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 25 2005,14:07)]Albert, your mode "protection" record has a groove where the needle has been stuck for two years. #Might be time to nudge it along, amigo.
I'm an old hippy from the sixties, Charlie. Groovy suits me just fine.

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

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 25 2005,12:52)]I agree too that this is not a desirable situation and Albert you make a good point with respect to the protection areas set up in the ARRL petition. #I don't feel that this is necessary, but if the majority of folks feel that protection is needed, then the ARRL petition does afford that protection by regulation. #As far as how much protection is given, it seems that the ARRL petition is in agreement with the venerable region 1 bandplan. #Man, if this keeps up I may have to change my position on this petition.
We all will never agree on the "perfect" plan. In that respect, a frequency allocation plan that offers the most "protection" to the various current modes, whether digital or analogue, and allows room for development of new techniques, and that is allied with a band plan to assign turf very much the way we operate today, makes the most sense to me.

Though it is overly complex in many ways, the ARRL petition does meet this need, in my view. And you are quire correct, Mark, in that it very closely parallels the Region 1 plan due to go into effect next week. Though only the Shadow knows what in hell is transpiring in Newington, I suspect that is intentional but could never prove it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

As I have said time and again, but for the idiocy of letting the robots freely roam about with up to 2.4kHz bootprints, it would not be a bad deal. Sure it needs some tuning, but I think that could be done via comment.

My problem with the Think Tank petition is that "free-for-all" that has the potential to make everyone's life (save the very few) difficult in the extreme.

73

[k3xf]

"In theory this sounds logical and wonderful. Unfortunately I agree with Albert about human nature. "

Let me carry this line of thought a bit . . . if human nature will disregard current regulations and interfere with QSOs in process . . will adding more or less or different regulation do anything? . . . answer: it will regulate the ops who follow the rules . . . that is, punish and restrict the innocent for the actions of the miscreant . . . and create more miscreants rather than diminish the problems.
Considering this, those who violate current regulations will follow new ones is like repeating the same experiment and expecting different results.

-ap

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k3xf @ Dec. 25 2005,15:07)]"In theory this sounds logical and wonderful. Unfortunately I agree with Albert about human nature. "

Let me carry this line of thought a bit . . . #if human nature will disregard current regulations and interfere with QSOs in process . . # will adding more or less or different regulation do anything? . . . answer: it will regulate the ops who follow the rules . . . that is, punish and restrict the innocent for the actions of the miscreant . . . and create more miscreants rather than diminish the problems.
Considering this, those who violate current regulations will follow new ones is like repeating the same experiment and expecting different results.

-ap
Sorry, Art, but that is a little too existentialist for me. Extended through amateur radio to society as a whole, your approach eventually would lead to chaos and anarchy, not to justice or equality. Indeed, I believe that we are witnessing some of the ill potential of such a course in society already.

Human nature inevitably seeks to lust in increments, and it is a rare few (thank God) who are brazen enough to grab wholesale in disregard for any and all restraint.

Rules necessarily provide guidance and set limits that are clear and known to all, whether for the operation of a ham radio or the operation of a civilization. That there will always be some who choose to operate outside the rules is not a reason to remove all restraint, thereby discouraging rather than encouraging compliance.

The state of affairs in amateur radio right now, it seems to me, is teetering somewhere close to the balance point. Given the outrageous witness borne on some parts of 75m, the idea of less governance rather than more seems to run counter to all reality.

If we are to get less and less enforcement (which seems all to clear, alas) then I believe that we need to seek a structure that will make those offenders stand out so starkly that what little enforcement we may count on will be visible to all.

73

[k3xf]

"Extended through amateur radio to society as a whole, your approach eventually would lead to chaos and anarchy, not to justice or equality."

Ouch . . . though I do subscribe to the adage that absolute power corrupts absoulutely and slight power corrupts lesser people . . .
I believe people, in majority, are inherently able to conduct themselves in a civilized manner in every day life. 'particularly among the members of the amateur radio community. Though there are minority exceptions which must be managed.
Therein is the difference and it is a fundamental one. . . unlikely to be changed here.

On that note I wish you and the entire world a happy and joyous holiday season, and all the best for 2006.


73

Art

[n5rfx]

W3MIV:"I have said time and again, but for the idiocy of letting the robots freely roam about with up to 2.4kHz bootprints, it would not be a bad deal. Sure it needs some tuning, but I think that could be done via comment."

Albert,

You and I certainly agree here. I have my reservations about the changes to the automatic control regulations, because this has made this a tough sell for this petition and the concept of updating the rules to allow image emissions, both analog and digital in the RTTY/Data subbands, and data emissions in the Phone/Image subbands. The fact that the latter occurs every day, and the former occurred for over a year without complaint to the FCC speaks volumes for allowing this activity to continue/resume.

I am glad however that I took the approach that I did in asking the FCC to allow image emissions in the RTTY/Data subbands. I thought that I had read the tea leaves correctly. It is too bad that this process is going on 3 years just to authorize an activity that occurred for over a year without complaint. This is the part of using bandplans that is appealing to me; but, since we are a ship adrift, with no strong leadership, it is no wonder that we have to rely on "big brother" to take care of us.

The intransigent nature of those arguing against the petition because of mixing analog and digital emissions and some sort of inane fairness doctrine have me re-examining my intransigent attitude toward automatic control.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 26 2005,02:58)]The intransigent nature of those arguing against the petition because of mixing analog and digital emissions and some sort of inane fairness doctrine have me re-examining my intransigent attitude toward automatic control.
Gadzooks, Mark. Grip those reins a little tighter, pardner. Just 'cause the herd is arunnin' off the cliff don't mean yew gotta git middle in the bunch! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I do not argue against voluntary band planning, though my response to Art may have seemed so. I whole-heartedly support the need for a good plan that apportions the frequency sub-bands in ways that would permit Charlie to work CW unhindered by me working PSK or either of us to bubble and babble unchafed by some other bozo trying out his brandy-new digital voice modem.

One of the primary virtues of the League's cut on this idea is that the narrowest sub-bands SHOULD remain relatively free of interference from PacTOR x or packet or RTTY or MT63 or whatever-comes-along, leaving Charlie and I to work out our problems via the band plan.

I believe that PacTOR II and RTTY and similar width modes could also co-exist with appropriate band planning in the 500Hz sub-band.

The rub, of course, will be in the widest sub-bands where the greatest pressure is expected to occur due to the impending idiocy of 05-235. Here is where all of the prayers and band planning may have little effect without suitable REGULATORY control over the robots.

Consider this possible scenario: As the crowd of newbies grows denser on the phone bands, many of them will find that more watts than the usual hundred-pack will help them immensely in the tangle. Tune 'em up and head 'em out. Flip on the speech compressor just to be sure, and then crank the mic gain a little more so we be shure ta be heerd downstream. Ya copy?

Now, just for the sake of fun, let's run a jpeg-laden PacTOR III WinLink email of Buffy and Chip's latest adventure off Majorca to the mix. Does anybody seriously believe that an RF arm-wrassle will not happen?Does anybody seriously believe a voluntary band plan is going to hold up under such a test? Does anybody seriously believe that Steve's pledges to hold to fixed numbers and locations will hold under such pressure? We will all be suffering the effects of such contests. Why, when the answer is so easy?

Whether or not my Armageddon Scenario has any merit as a probable reality or not is not as important as the potential it holds for pure disaster that simply sequestering the robots in their own sub-bands would obviate.

Art: I actually agree with you that most people, when given the option, are really law-abiding and decent folks who (like Spike Lee?) will "do the right thing." But the bets don't always hold up when push comes to shove. As I've said before, 75m is a test tube culture that shows what could easily be the result. If we cannot now control that mess with regulation, what hope will ANY band plan have?

I hate to be a cynic, but I weep for the future. Liberty all to easily becomes license.

[n5rfx]

Albert,

Just a re-examination, no cliff jumping yet.

I think we can sum up everyone's concern as capacity. The barriers that we have up today do keep the phone guys separated from the RTTY/Data guys. CW through long standing tradition has had an area to operate. This area is not setup by regulation, but by gentlemen's agreement. From a regulatory standpoint there is not a reason why the entire RTTY/Data subband could be filled up with digital emissions. The same holds true in the Phone/Image subband. From a regulatory standpoint there is not a reason why the entire Phone/Image subband could be filled up with digital emissions. With respect to digital SSTV, and digital voice, the amateur community was willing to make room for these new modes when they appeared on the scene. Digital emissions are authorized in 100% of the HF bands, it is gentlemen's agreements that keep things the way they are, not regulation.

What effect will 05-235 have on this? I am not sure; but I feel that we can work it out. This is what I am re-examining.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 26 2005,10:10)]From a regulatory standpoint there is not a reason why the entire RTTY/Data subband could be filled up with digital emissions. #The same holds true in the Phone/Image subband. #From a regulatory standpoint there is not a reason why the entire Phone/Image subband could be filled up with digital emissions. #With respect to digital SSTV, and digital voice, the amateur community was willing to make room for these new modes when they appeared on the scene. #Digital emissions are authorized in 100% of the HF bands, it is gentlemen's agreements that keep things the way they are, not regulation.

What effect will 05-235 have on this? I am not sure; but I feel that we can work it out. #This is what I am re-examining.
I presume here you meant "entire RTTY/Data subband could" NOT "be filled up" in each of your citations. I agree, and I agree that the band plan is crucial to whatever and however we end up doing whatever we do, should we end up doing anything at all (which also remains uncertain).

A good band plan on the Think Tank proposal to open all could, indeed, be manageable; I personally prefer the idea of further slicing the pie (and that is naught but my preference, and I could live with the CTT plan should I have to).

Before, now and ever, my only true and harrowing worry is the damned robots. I spent far too many years working with the "captains of industry" -- the same kinds of guys and gals who now want to use WinLink in lieu of a play-for-pay service -- to trust them to play by the rules when the inevitable frustrations of HF reality begin to build, as soon or late they must.

Put the auto/semi-auto ops in their own arenas and I will support nearly any proposal, but my first love remains narrow/moderate/wide sub-bands to keep the sheep out of the cattle's lot.

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

I look forward to seeing your thinking in some detail when and if the turkey emerges from its coop.

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

73

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 25 2005,12:37)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 25 2005,14:07)]Albert, your mode "protection" record has a groove where the needle has been stuck for two years. Might be time to nudge it along, amigo.
I'm an old hippy from the sixties, Charlie. Groovy suits me just fine.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hey, I'm the one using the "recordplayer" metaphor in a DVD world! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]w3miv:
"Now, just for the sake of fun, let's run a jpeg-laden PacTOR III WinLink email of Buffy and Chip's latest adventure off Majorca to the mix. Does anybody seriously believe that an RF arm-wrassle will not happen?Does anybody seriously believe a voluntary band plan is going to hold up under such a test? Does anybody seriously believe that Steve's pledges to hold to fixed numbers and locations will hold under such pressure? We will all be suffering the effects of such contests. Why, when the answer is so easy?


The problem here is not just Steve and Winlink.

Consider:

There are about four scenarios that can play out here. Perhaps some war game analysis will help claify what plans need to be made.

The big assumption behind the ARRL proposal is that digital is the coming thing and especially high-speed access to the internet. So we have two different scenario choices here - yes it will happen and no it won't happen.

Along with this is the claim that Winlink will limit their growth. Again, this will either happen or it won't happen.


So we have four alternatives:


Growth happens, Winlink limits their individual growth.
Growth happens, Winlink doesn't limit their growth
Growth doesn't happen, Winlink limits their growth
Growth doesnt' happen, Winlink doesn't limit their growth.

Let's look at the last two since they will be the easiest to dispose of.

If we do *not* see much growth in digital, then whether Winlink limits their growth or not is kind of moot. The existing regulation scheme will continue to work as it does today. Strategic plans for the future can be simple and straightforward. The only changes needed would be some minor ones such as allowing image and data together in the CW portions of the band. Easily done and will provide for at least the near future (e.g. 5 years and beyond when digital voice may actually be a player).

Now, let's assume that the growth in digital does happen, especially in the high-speed internet access arena that Winlink plays in. It is obvious that this is where the ARRL proposal is aimed.

Now we have to allow for the choices that Winlink will make in order to lay our strategic plans.

It shouldn't take too much analysis to understand that it reallys doesn't matter much what Winlink actually decides. The deciding factor will be the demand.

If Winlink decides to try and satisfy the demand, we will see growth of Pactor III in the wideband areas, regardless of promises.

If Winlink decides to not try and satisfy the demand, SOMEONE ELSE WILL! We will still see growth of Pactor III in the wideband areas, regardless of promises from Winlink.

So Albert is right. The arm wrestle will occur unless we make strategic plans to prevent it.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]n5rfx:
The intransigent nature of those arguing against the petition because of mixing analog and digital emissions and some sort of inane fairness doctrine have me re-examining my intransigent attitude toward automatic control.


Saying people have an "intransigent nature" is just another method to stereotype people with differing points of view in order to be able to dismiss their arguments out of hand.

If you want ot re-examine your stance about automatic control then do it for the right reasons. Don't do it because someone has a different point of view than you do.

BTW, you keep asking for studies showing that digital and analog can't co-exist. I am working on that project to get some repeatable results. In the meantime we have the empirical results based on actual observation in Region 1.

(I am having to build up a transmit interface between the computer and the rig to get rid of some hum and to control the input levels. I'll get to that sometime this week. )

In the meantime, I have been researching to see if I can find some studies showing that they *can* co-exist. I can *not* find any. Your baseband study shows good results for baseband but I am sure that RF studies will be needed to decide the issue one way or the other. There are too many variables that have to be considered at RF, I just don't believe that baseband results can be interpolated to RF receiver/tranmitter/propagation results.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

AB0WR: "Saying people have an "intransigent nature" is just another method to stereotype people with differing points of view in order to be able to dismiss their arguments out of hand."

Your right, that was harsh. Maybe I can say it in a less harsh way. There are two very polarized views on this subject. When this occurs, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I have myself been very intransigent when it comes to the automatic control issue, so perhaps I need to revisit my views.

I concede that digital and analog signals can cause QRM to each other, but it is also true that they can co-exist. It happens now, it has happened in the past, it will happen in the future.

AB0WR: "If Winlink decides to try and satisfy the demand, we will see growth of Pactor III in the wideband areas, regardless of promises."

This can be controlled if the current automatic control regulations are maintained. But I do have one question, where has there been any claim that Winlink plays in the high-speed Internet access arena? The Winlink association with the Internet is through store and forward email. I must be missing something.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

AB0WR:"I have been researching to see if I can find some studies showing that they *can* co-exist. I can *not* find any. Your baseband study shows good results for baseband but I am sure that RF studies will be needed to decide the issue one way or the other. There are too many variables that have to be considered at RF, I just don't believe that baseband results can be interpolated to RF receiver/tranmitter/propagation results."

I agree Tim. The baseband recordings were simply to counter your statement from page 56 of the ARRL FILES REGULATION-BY-BANDWIDTH PETITION, From the ARRL Letter.

"A digital modem can't tell a digital signal at S1 from one at S3 or one at -18db S/N from one at 0db S/N. If you try to run two Pactor sessions on the same frequency at the same time, they *will* interfere."

While I don't have a PIII modem to test, I did use MT63 as an example showing that indeed a digital modem can tell the difference between signal levels and that digital signals will not always interfere. I even went further to show that analog signals will not always interfere with digital modems. This is all that the baseband recordings were intended to show. This is where I felt a bit of intransigence showing up. I am not making claims that digital modes are totally unaffected by QRM, or that they themselves never cause destructive QRM. I am just showing that digital signals are tolerant to QRM and do not always cause totally destructive QRM. Perhaps I miss-read your statement.

You do mention propagation and that really does make things more complicated on HF. The varying nature of propagation gives us a whole new distribution of probabilities with respect to signal strength in a faded environment. I look at this as further evidence that analog and digital modes can co-exist. I know you probably don't feel this way. We have differing viewpoints.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 26 2005,19:15)]There are two very polarized views on this subject. #When this occurs, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. #I have myself been very intransigent when it comes to the automatic control issue, so perhaps I need to revisit my views.
Perhaps it is only because I tend to share the position, but I do not consider that your view of the auto ops has been "harsh."

It is the issue itself that is harsh.

It is the potential impact of the issue that is harsh.

It is the loss of what is at stake that is harsh.

Should the current rules be retained, WinLink will not suffer greatly. As Skip Teller has pointed out on these fora on several occasions, the practical loss that would result by being reduced to the use of PacTOR II as opposed to PacTOR III is not so great as many would suppose (or, indeed, the WinLink folks would propound). Under the current rules, up to 500Hz robots can operate freely, can they not?

Were we to successfully acquire a series of sub-bands devoted to the auto/semi-auto ops of up to 3.5kHz bandwidth, even that minor loss would be reduced to insignificance, and everyone could "live happily ever after." Pollyannaish? I think not.

With regard to "intransigence" among those holding fast to rigid positions vis-a-vis the two petitions versus the status quo, I plead guilty. Happily so. If there comes a time to compromise, I will cross that bridge once we arrive at the bank. Not before.

Stay the course.

[n5rfx]

The new RSGB band plan derived from the Region 1 bandplan.

http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/Papers....n06.pdf (http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/Papers/IARUR1_bandplan_radcom_jan06.pdf)

Also the Region 1 Permanent HF Committee NEWSLETTER (http://www.iaru-r1.org/HFC%2059.pdf) has some interesting bandplan news in section 59.4 Bandplan 2006.

There is some discussion of analog/digital separation from the Norway part of the working group (NRRL) You can read that paper here (http://home.comcast.net/~mdmiller7/DV05_C4_11.pdf).

The position paper that lead to the recommendation above can be read here (http://home.comcast.net/~mdmiller7/NRRLPositionPaper.pdf).

It seems that there is room in the Region 1 bandplan for mixing analog and digital modes.

IARU Region 1 Bandplan (http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%2 0(Amended).pdf)

73,

Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Thanks, Mark. Good post. I think that one part of that newsletter bears inclusion here, just for the sake of clear discussion.

"59.4 Bandplan 2006
The new HF Bandplan decided in principle at Davos and agreed by a majority vote on the HF
Managers reflector comes into use on the 1st January 2006. For those not at Davos the Bandplan
represents a shift away from bandplanning by mode but rather by bandwidth, although the
immediate changes are not so obvious. A number of changes have taken place within the
frequency segments historically used by datamodes in an attempt to separate the unattended
automatic data stations from attended keyboard operations.
There is still slight confusion when it comes to the definition of the “All modes” usage part of the
bandplan. Further discussions still needs to take place on this subject to try and ensure that all
understand the meaning of this terminology.
The Bandplanning Working Group has received one detailed letter of criticism regarding the
adoption of bandplanning by bandwidth and this has originated from outside of the Region. At the
time of compiling this Newsletter the BWG is still exchanging emails with the person concerned."

I will not also post the entire Region 1 (new) band plan here, but strongly urge everyone interested in this topic to go to the links in Mark's post above and examine the documents very carefully.

73

[k5rks]

The discussion on this thread is getting more focused lately. Excellent exchange of ideas.

I have a question about the Region 1 Bandplan. There are references in the region 1 bandplan to "automatic" (which is 'unattended' operations). There is no mention of "semi-automatic". As construed by the Region 1 Bandplan is "semi-automatic" (which Winlink claims to be) "automatic" or not?

73 Roger K5RKS

[n5rfx]

Roger,

The Region 1 Bandplan (http://home.comcast.net/~mdmiller7/DV05_C4_13.pdf)document has the following definitions:

The term “automatically controlled data stations” includes Store and Forward stations.

With respect to unmanned stations: IARU member societies are requested to limit this activity on the HF bands. It is recommended that any unmanned transmitting stations on HF shall only be activated under operator control except for IARU approved beacons or specially licensed experimental stations.

Click on the Region 1 Bandplan link above to read the DV05_C4_13 document. BTW this document says nothing about separating analog and digital emissions, but references separating automatically controlled stations, and limiting unmanned station activity.

73,

Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 26 2005,11:57)]Quote[/b] ]n5rfx:
The intransigent nature of those arguing against the petition because of mixing analog and digital emissions and some sort of inane fairness doctrine have me re-examining my intransigent attitude toward automatic control.


Saying people have an "intransigent nature" is just another method to stereotype people with differing points of view in order to be able to dismiss their arguments out of hand.

...

tim ab0wr
ROFL! Mark it seems you're taking your bat and ball and going home because we won't let you pitch.

1. Since when is asking for fair representation on the committees bad?

2. Since when is asking the ARRL to keep their word regarding an accompanying bandplan bad?

3. Since when is asking for a flexible plan that accounts for current use bad?

4. Since when is wanting to see data supporting "take my word, digital and analog won't interfere" unfair?

5. Since when is not wanting automatic stations not to disrupt ongoing QSOs bad?

6. Since when is supporting an id