Does the ARRL Bandwidth Plan Go Far Enough?

[ky5u]

Does the ARRL Bandwith Proposal Go Far Enough?

As discussion begins concerning the petition filed by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) to regulate usage by bandwidth, some Amateurs are saying the plan does not go far enough in providing space for digital use to grow. The ARRL plan calls for segmentation of the amateur bands by bandwidth in 200hz, 500hz, and 3.5khz segments.

In the "Digital Connection" section of the December edition of CQ Magazine, author Don Rotolo (N2IRZ) calls for the addition of a 25khz segment on the most popular HF bands, saying that 3.5khz does not provide enough bandwidth for decent data rates. He describes data rates at 3.5khz by saying that for large events (like Hurricane Katrina), amateurs will not be able to send data over the air at any more than a "snail's pace". He confirms that with the bandwidth limitation of 3.5khz provided by the ARRL, higher data rates become impossible. The point by Mr. Rotolo raises an important question: Does the ARRL Proposal go far enough?


History

The limitations on data rates posed by current HF mode based regulations have been discussed in many QRZ.COM articles over the past two years, many by me. This argument appears elsewhere in comments made to the FCC concerning the invalidity of no-code arguments alleging that telegraphy testing prevents the ARS from attracting the "younger generation". My own point to the FCC and here on QRZ has been that the "younger generation" want more internet type services. Uses such as music downloads, video, file transfer, etc that younger users want require data rates which are not possible on HF given the ARRL proposal and current bandwidth limitations.

Most recently I made comments in opposition to the ARRL Petition for regulation by bandwidth by saying that the limitation on data rates renders the "modern" digital services proposed for HF under the plan "old technology and not cutting edge". Example: Compared to internet email, Winlink moves at a "snail's pace", which also supports Mr. Rotolo's conclusion.


AM and FM

Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM. Mr. Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not an exception for 25khz data? Perhaps a more valid question might be, "why not an exception over the years for FM on HF?" Relevence?

Recently on QRZ, KC2YNP asked why many radios did not have FM modes for HF. The best reply came from Joe, K7JEM, who said, "FM is not used on HF for a lot of reasons. The first issue is the bandwidth. FM is 3 to 6 times wider than an SSB signal, so on crowded bands it doesn't make much sense. Normal FM is only allowed above 29 MHz..." And to Joe's point, FM would have taken up more bandwidth than AM, ensuring less SSB QSOs could occupy the bands. Would operators who barely tolerate AM and are unwilling to tolerate FM signals on HF be prone to accept a 25khz wide data signal?


God and Digital

An old saying goes, "When God wants to really punish us, he gives us what we want!" There is no better sentiment when examining the ARRL Petition. Without universal input, the ARRL plan reflects the needs of a narrow group of digital users and simply ignores the actual issues involved. The best example is the plan's call for a 35khz segment for the 200hz bandwidth applications which would include all CW and most digital users (narrowband digital modes). Phone modes would gain some spectrum but have to contend with 3.5khz automatic stations. The biggest winners are the 500hz digital modes which would get 70khz in bandwidth. This includes wider PSK modes and the Pactor II modems as used by Winlink 2K. As Mr. Rotolo notes, the plan forgets about digital rates requiring higher bandwidth on most popular HF modes.


Solving the Problem

If we don't want automatic data stations and wideband digital in the voice bands, where do put them? If we need more room for CW which is still the second most popular mode, where do we go? If we don't want eight data QSOs at 25khz to displace a hundred SSB QSOs on HF, what do we do? If you want to send data over HF and need 25khz, where do you go?

A few years ago I was in charge of a large group of youngsters in their early teens. We had one soccer field, but we had three groups. One wanted baseball, one football, and the other soccer. The solution was to mark off a section 25 yards wide at mid field for touch football, at one end the baseball group moved the goal around and used it at one corner as a backstop for a baseball diamond, and the other group used the remaining end of the field for "half-court" soccer. No group was perfectly happy, but after 10 minutes they were having too much fun to care.

The obvious solution to the CW versus Digital versus SSB/AM issue is to divide the soccer field in 3 parts. Why this is such an onerous concept to digital proponents is perplexing to say the least. For almost 2 years I have discussed a (not set in stone) bandplan that called for 3 band segments or "modes" identified basically CW, Analog Voice, and Other. The "other" segment would contain all modes not CW and/or Analog Voice (AM/SSB) but including new digital modes.

The sample plan called for (using 40 and 20 meters as an example) 60khz for "CW", 90khz for "Other/Digital", and the current amount for "Analog Voice". It also encouraged the "Other" mode segment to use bandwidth bandplanning. The thought process is that when and if CW and Analog Voice lose popularity, the "Other" segment could be expanded in either direction taking up nearly the entire band if digital proponents’ predictions are true. At that time the entire band would have bandwidth control.


What We Should Not Do

What we should not do is all go out and file bandplan petitions at least not until the FCC decides whether to act on the League's filing. In predictable style, the FCC misunderstood the many restructuring petitions as some sort of mandate to delete code testing, and would likely adopt something in the bandplanning arena that we would be struggling to fix for years to come. What we should do is unite and bid the FCC not accept the ARRL petition for action. We should ask that it be dismissed and the ARRL directed to come up with a better plan.

The FCC has not mandated a bandwidth based bandplan! That said, we do our fellow amateurs who have a genuine interest in digital applications a disservice by not asking for some solution to their mode issues. We need to unite and demand that the ARRL (or some other organization) sit with a cross-section of all Amateurs to hammer out a solution. It must take the realities of HF propogation, use, and possible bit rates into consideration.

Given the sample "three mode band plan" discussed here, Mr. Rotolo could/would indeed have 25khz for higher data rates on most HF bands in the "other" segment. Can the ARRL plan promise as much without taking spectrum away from CW or analog voice modes? Yet by wanting the world, the proponents of the ARRL plan effectively snub narrowband digital modes by attempting to wedge them into 35khz with CW, and wide band users (25khz) by ignoring them altogether.

Whatever your interest, let's insist that whatever plan we support for adoption is fair.

[KQ6XA]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does This Petition Carry Us Far Enough?
I just read it... I personally think the space devoted to 200Hz and 500Hz is probably unnecessary. FCC could end up just combining everything into 3kHz or 3.5kHz bandwidth, with other provisions for wider bandwidths, like the rest of the world already does. This would enable USA hams to communicate with the rest of the world on the valuable 40 meter international band, especially during emergencies. Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of that, a better way would be a two-step 10kHz (or more) bandwidth overlay mask in the HF bands with emissions that are outside the 3kHz bandwidth allowed at reduced average power level. This would allow AM but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their efforts to accommodate the status quo, but there are other ways to enable AM without defining it on a mode basis.

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

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

73 --- Bonnie KQ6XA

PS: Read the Petition. Form your own opinion.

















.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[K1MVP]

Wow,--Some things DO NOT CHANGE,--another "soapbox"
rant from KQ6XA.
I guess if one SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH and LONG
ENOUGH the desired results will come about.

73, K1MVP

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Dec. 04 2005,17:16)]Wow,--Some things DO NOT CHANGE,--another "soapbox"
rant from KQ6XA.
I guess if one SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH and LONG
ENOUGH the desired results will come about.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
and your solution is?

Steve, k4cjx

[nf0a]

Sounds like regurgitated grass as what cows chew on....
Whatever happens gonna happen anyway we like it or not. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,17:23)]What we should not do is all go out and file bandplan petitions at least not until the FCC decides whether to act on the League's filing. In predictable style, the FCC misunderstood the many restructuring petitions as some sort of mandate to delete code testing, and would likely adopt something in the bandplanning arena that we would be struggling to fix for years to come. #What we should do is unite #and bid the FCC not accept the ARRL petition for action. #We should ask that it be dismissed and the ARRL directed to come up with a better plan.
I agree entirely that we should not file anything more until the FCC either puts the League's petition out for comment or otherwise gives some indication that they are eager to entertain other ideas. Remember, the "deregulation" petition was filed and also remains in limbo.

As to the FCC misunderstanding the plethora of petitions filed with regard to Morse testing, I cannot disagree more. They misunderstood nothing, Charlie; they have been moving to kill off Morse test requirement for more than a decade and finally had the opportunity and the mandate to do so (both in terms of the ITU and in terms of a very large and vocal segment of the amateur population). I regret what they are doing, and would have it otherwise, but cannot see it as anything but intentional. Though I hope and pray to see Morse retained for AE, I will be surprised if they do.

The whacko 25kHz bandwidth thing came out of the ARRL's HSMM "task force," and this guy is the first person that I have seen take it seriously. It is pure masturbation on the part of a few ivory-tower geeks, and would produce no benefit whatever for amateur radio IMO.

Bonnie: Your posts are the best argument we have to use against you. Keep it up, we will take all the help we can get wherever we can find it. Nuff said.

[kb7uxe]

Geeze, next they'll outlaw my spark-gap,
and make me use that Amplitude Modulation thing.
wayyy to complicated for me..

[W0MT]

After reading the ARRL’s Petition for Rulemaking, it has become obvious to me that it is so poorly drafted that it should never see the light of day. Regardless of where you support or oppose the concept of regulation by bandwidth, what the ARRL wrote contains errors that are simply unacceptable.

There are at least three major faults with the draft submitted by the ARRL. First, it uses expressions that are not defined. Second, it defines bandwidth to be whatever is “just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions.” This means a 200Hz bandwidth signal can occupy as much frequency spectrum as it needs. The result of this is that my 3.0 kHz SSB signal meets the definition of a 200 Hz bandwidth signal as it is “just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions.” Finally, the proposal allows semiautomatic operation to occur throughout the Amateur bands. Each of these is discussed below.

Bad writing for changes to Part 97 does make a difference. For example, the proposed language for Section 97.3(a)(8) uses the language “a given class of emission” but fails to define what a “given class of emission” is. Is a “given class of emission” defined by its bandwidth, modulation mode, information being transmitted, or something else? This term is not defined in Part 97 nor is it defined in the proposed change.

Another example of bad writing occurs in the proposed language for Section 97.3(a)(42). Here we find the language “allocated frequency band.” Does anyone know what an “allocated frequency band” is? Again, the language is not defined in Part 97 nor is it defined in the proposed rule changes.

The definition of terms must be contained within Part 97. It is not an accident that Part 97 starts with a long list of definitions.

Next, whoever drafted the proposed changes to Section 97.3(a)(42) has attempted to define a “spurious emission.” Unfortunately, they adopted the very poor language of the existing Part 97.3(a)(8) which reads:

Bandwidth. The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean power of the transmitted signal within the band.

The problem with this definition is that the expression “frequency band” normally means something like the 40 meter Amateur band. In this definition it means the amount of frequency spectrum occupied by a particular signal.

The unfortunate thing is that this poor drafting has been used in the proposed Section 97.3(a)(42). It reads:

Spurious Emission. For the purposes of this Part, emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the allocated frequency band and which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products.

Notice how this new definition of spurious emission uses the language “frequency band” just like it was used in the existing Section 97.3(a)(8). Rather than trying to make the language of Part 97 more clear, the ARRL’s proposed changes make it more difficult to understand. And of course, one reading of this very sloppy drafting is to say that any emissions that fall within the “frequency band” (using the common definition of frequency band such as the 40 meter band) are not spurious emissions. So if I am transmitting on a frequency of 7.15 MHz and I am splattering from 7.0 MHz to 7.3 MHz, that is NOT spurious emissions. Is that what the ARRL intends? I hope not!

The next issue is the logic of this proposed change. The ARRL is proposing a new definition of bandwidth. The new proposed Section 97.3(a)(8) is as follows:

Bandwidth. For a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions (See the definition of Necessary Bandwidth in Section 2.1 of this Chapter and Section 97.101(a) of this Part).

Here is the current definition of bandwidth:

Bandwidth. The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean power of the transmitted signal within the band.

Now I am just guessing but I think the reason for this proposed change is because most Hams do not have the means to measure the bandwidth of their transmitted signal. I don’t and I certainly do not have any plans in the near future to invest in the necessary equipment to do so.

Remember that “given class of emission” is undefined as I previously pointed out but my guess is that this is being used to mean the various maximum bandwidths allowed for the various sub-bands. In other words I am guessing that a “given class of emission” means one of the maximum bandwidth signals such as 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 3.5 kHz, etc. Well under the current bandwidth definition, a signal that has a 200 Hz bandwidth must be attenuated by at least 26 dB at the edges of the signal. The problem is that under the ARRL’s proposed definition of bandwidth, there is no such requirement. If the signal were attenuated by .0000001 dB (or less) at its edges as long as the signal width was “just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions” it would be acceptable. Under the ARRL’s proposed changes, that same signal might be attenuated by 26 dB at 3.5 kHz and still meet the requirements for a 200 Hz bandwidth signal as long as it was “just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions.” This means that a normal SSB signal (or any other legal signal) whose bandwidth was “just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions” could be transmitted anywhere in the Amateur bands.

This is a giant problem. Not only did the writer of this proposed rule change not write with any degree of clarity, the writer did not even think about the consequences of what was written. And if the writer and reviewers haven’t thought about the simple consequences of what they have written, I suggest they haven’t even begun to think about the consequences of this entire proposed rule change.

My final point is the proposed rule change itself. As it is written, I believe it is a poor idea. The proposed change concedes than what is commonly referred to as “fully automatic control” is problematic in the HF bands (see Paragraph 15 of the Petition for Rule Making). The reason that this type of operation is a problem is that stations operating under such control can and do initiate transmissions that interfere with ongoing communications. This point is conceded in Paragraph 15. Then the proposed change tries to reason that what is commonly called “semi-automatic control” should be allowed to operate freely within the HF sub-bands where other similar bandwidth operation is allowed (see Paragraph 16 of the Petition for Rule Making). Unfortunately, stations operating under semi-automatic control can and do interfere with ongoing communications as well. While one of the stations operating under semi-automatic control has an operator present who can insure the particular frequency is not being used, the station without an operator present does not do so. It is very common in high frequency operation that only one end of a two-way communication can detect that a particular frequency is in use. If the only end that could make this determination is the station without an operator being present, then the ongoing communications will experience interference. This is not a hypothetical point as it does currently happen with great frequency. The obvious solution is to segment both fully automatic and semi-automatic operation to a small portion of the available frequency bands to preclude such interference.

If this proposed rule change sees the light of day at the FCC in its current form, I believe that it must be rejected.

[n5rfx]

AG4YO:"The "other" segment would contain all modes not CW and/or Analog Voice (AM/SSB) but including new digital modes."

Why can't your other segment include all modes?

73,

Mark N5RFX

[NY7Q]

IMHO, THE ARRL IS WRONG AND SO IS BONNIE.

[AF4K]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Dec. 04 2005,12:21)]Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Dec. 04 2005,17:16)]Wow,--Some things DO NOT CHANGE,--another "soapbox"
rant from KQ6XA.
I guess if one SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH and LONG
ENOUGH the desired results will come about.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
and your solution is?

Steve, k4cjx
The solution is obvious. KQ6XA and K4CJX should take up their QRMing digital activity on the 27 MHz band
and stop proposing solutions to a non-problem.

After 49 Pages that proved hthat the majority of hams do not want this crap forced on them, the two of you continue to ignore the wishes of most of the other hams
and just bray away here in a new thread when you can't seem to get your way.

Hardly surprising...

[K1MVP]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Dec. 04 2005,17:21)]Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Dec. 04 2005,17:16)]Wow,--Some things DO NOT CHANGE,--another "soapbox"
rant from KQ6XA.
I guess if one SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH and LONG
ENOUGH the desired results will come about.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
and your solution is?

Steve, k4cjx
Ya know, Steve,--I have commented little if any, on
this "new" bandwidth management issue.

But I HAVE commented plenty on the restructuring
proposals out there both here on QRZ and the FCC
EFCS comment website.
The "restructuring" issue has been my "pet peeve" and
these other issues (BPL, Bandwitdh) etc, are just part of the "bigger picture" IMO, as to why ham radio is in the
"mess" its in.

I don`t pretend to have all the answers, BUT I also
know that the "big boys" in Newington don`t either.
I strongly believe that the "seeds" for this mess
were because of a lack of leadership, in that the
ARRL #"reacted" to something they should have
seen coming a long time ago.

I DO NOT believe that the HF bands should be
turned into an "alternative internet", in spite of
what some believe.

I also DO believe that one of the biggest mistakes
was the turning over of the exam system from
the FCC to the NCVEC,--and that has led to
a "credibility" issue with these "watered down"
exams,IMO.

It does NOT take a "phi beta kappa" to see that its
going to take more than just "intellectuals" to fix
this mess,--Its going to take guys with some technical
expertise , experience, AND common sense.
I fail to see much of any, lately coming from the ARRL,
especially in the area of common sense.
All I sense,--is "fear", or "what is going to happen if
we don`t get the numbers up".
So thats "my take" on this mess.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # 73, K1MVP

[N3JI]

Here's a solution:

1. Leave analog voice alone. #Don't change a thing with the rules -- it's been working (for the most part). #Perfection it's not, but it's better than unleashing a pile of "Bandwidth Cops" telling everyone that their Phishfinder Ic@m bandscopes says we're illegal. #That's a big can of worms that needs to be left unopened.

2. Limit Digi-Wigi to some number that we can all live with. #20 kHz doesn't seem unreasonable to me when 50 or 100 kHz or more of spectum can be observed unused any given day or night (not always, but quite often). #I wish I was more of an expert at HF Digi modes so I could offer an opinion, but I can say this: I was in New Orleans, and the CQ Article speaks the truth. #As well as we did, we could have really knocked their socks off with decent basic file transfer rates over HF. #I know everyone wants to keep their little piece of HF, but you know what? #If we keep up this fighting over who can use 6 kHz of SSB or who shouldn't be using some digi mode, none of us will have any HF at all! #Think it's not possible? #Keep living in your fantasy worlds. #A commercial, rapid deployable HF system could easily be designed for emergency use and our freqs could very well be harvested for it. #Think about it. #While you guys are worried about being able to operate QRPppppp..... #on 7060 (or whatever damn freq it is -- why 7040 or 7120 isn't as good is beyond me) with some kind of guarantee of zero QRM, the whole damned thing could go. #Same goes for every other "special" interest mode. #The best way to ensure our bands are kept for our use is to use them for real, useful, and efficient emergency communications when the country needs us. #And if the bands aren't used in support of a real-world emergency, they should be used as efficiently as possible. #10s or 100s of kHz of "no-man's land" in our bands is counter-productive.

3. I say open the bands up. #We already have intentional QRM rules, and resources should be used heavily enforcing that instead of scarcely enforcing too many rules. #Basically, I say let's all "play nice" and quit acting like you own a frequency, understand that band conditions can change on occasion, and be adult about moving your QSO a couple kHz away. #The only time anyone should be worried about what is going on beyond their bandpass is when you need to exercise your VFOs and move if band conditions change. #I for the life of me can't understand why you all care so much about what mode is in use 10, 20 or 100 kHz away from where you are. #If I want to use AM on 3760, and there isn't anyone +/-5 kHz away (verified by asking), who cares? #Same with CW on 14.250 or SSB on 7100. #I just don't get what the problem is. #Nobody is guaranteed 100% QRM-free use of HF. #Why act like it's some right you all are entitled to? #If there's a contest on some weekend that I'm not participating in, I simply find something else to do. #You are not guaranteed exclusive use of the bands to "hang with your buds" on your "normal" frequency. #Is it fun? #Do I do it? YES!! #But I don't bit...I mean complain incessantly when a couple days a year I can't. #Could be contests, CMEs, noise, or just lousy band conditions that create it, but the point is don't whine about it! #I can't help but think there's some unsaid reason or fear about why the 160m bandplan (or many other countries' bandplans) shouldn't be implemented. #It obviously works -- 2m is another decent example, albeit a non-worldwide band. #Did you know there's nothing in the FCC rules that says I can't use FM on 144.1 or SSB on 147.5. #There's more to life than getting on the same freq with the same guys night after night after night. #It won't kill you to put the mic down. #Really. #Try it sometime.

So I leave you with this: Why is it okay to cram into 150 kHz sometimes while 300 adjacent kHz is vitually silent? #Why should I care that a few guys are using CW or AM or PSK 20 kHz away from my current bandpass?? #Why claim that something "ain't broke" when clearly it is? #Why shoot ourselves in the foot one more time with the ARRL's proposal? #Why won't the Canadian bandplan work in the US? #What are you all really afraid of?

Joe, N3JI

[k3msb]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,15:23)]My own point to the FCC and here on QRZ has been that the "younger generation" want more internet type services. Uses such as music downloads, video, file transfer, etc that younger users want require data rates which are not possible on HF given the ARRL proposal and current bandwidth limitations.
This is no reason why an amateur should be permitted to download music, video files, perform misc file transfers etc on HF. #The only exception would be in times of emergency, and in those times I'd do it anyway if neccessary and explain myself to the FCC later.

This is something that needs to be impressed upon the FCC. #Just because we can do this type of activity on HF does not mean we should allow it (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding).

If the "younger generation" wants to download music and video, perhaps they should acquaint themselves with the internet. #Just call Al Gore.

[k9cn]

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 04 2005,21:13)]Here's a solution:

1. Leave analog voice alone. Don't change a thing with the rules -- it's been working (for the most part). Perfection it's not, but it's better than unleashing a pile of "Bandwidth Cops" telling everyone that their Phishfinder Ic@m bandscopes says we're illegal. That's a big can of worms that needs to be left unopened.

2. Limit Digi-Wigi to some number that we can all live with. 20 kHz doesn't seem unreasonable to me when 50 or 100 kHz or more of spectum can be observed unused any given day or night (not always, but quite often). I wish I was more of an expert at HF Digi modes so I could offer an opinion, but I can say this: I was in New Orleans, and the CQ Article speaks the truth. As well as we did, we could have really knocked their socks off with decent basic file transfer rates over HF. I know everyone wants to keep their little piece of HF, but you know what? If we keep up this fighting over who can use 6 kHz of SSB or who shouldn't be using some digi mode, none of us will have any HF at all! Think it's not possible? Keep living in your fantasy worlds. A commercial, rapid deployable HF system could easily be designed for emergency use and our freqs could very well be harvested for it. Think about it. While you guys are worried about being able to operate QRPppppp..... on 7060 (or whatever damn freq it is -- why 7040 or 7120 isn't as good is beyond me) with some kind of guarantee of zero QRM, the whole damned thing could go. Same goes for every other "special" interest mode. The best way to ensure our bands are kept for our use is to use them for real, useful, and efficient emergency communications when the country needs us. And if the bands aren't used in support of a real-world emergency, they should be used as efficiently as possible. 10s or 100s of kHz of "no-man's land" in our bands is counter-productive.

3. I say open the bands up. We already have intentional QRM rules, and resources should be used heavily enforcing that instead of scarcely enforcing too many rules. Basically, I say let's all "play nice" and quit acting like you own a frequency, understand that band conditions can change on occasion, and be adult about moving your QSO a couple kHz away. The only time anyone should be worried about what is going on beyond their bandpass is when you need to exercise your VFOs and move if band conditions change. I for the life of me can't understand why you all care so much about what mode is in use 10, 20 or 100 kHz away from where you are. If I want to use AM on 3760, and there isn't anyone +/-5 kHz away (verified by asking), who cares? Same with CW on 14.250 or SSB on 7100. I just don't get what the problem is. Nobody is guaranteed 100% QRM-free use of HF. Why act like it's some right you all are entitled to? If there's a contest on some weekend that I'm not participating in, I simply find something else to do. You are not guaranteed exclusive use of the bands to "hang with your buds" on your "normal" frequency. Is it fun? Do I do it? YES!! But I don't bit...I mean complain incessantly when a couple days a year I can't. Could be contests, CMEs, noise, or just lousy band conditions that create it, but the point is don't whine about it! I can't help but think there's some unsaid reason or fear about why the 160m bandplan (or many other countries' bandplans) shouldn't be implemented. It obviously works -- 2m is another decent example, albeit a non-worldwide band. Did you know there's nothing in the FCC rules that says I can't use FM on 144.1 or SSB on 147.5. There's more to life than getting on the same freq with the same guys night after night after night. It won't kill you to put the mic down. Really. Try it sometime.

So I leave you with this: Why is it okay to cram into 150 kHz sometimes while 300 adjacent kHz is vitually silent? Why should I care that a few guys are using CW or AM or PSK 20 kHz away from my current bandpass?? Why claim that something "ain't broke" when clearly it is? Why shoot ourselves in the foot one more time with the ARRL's proposal? Why won't the Canadian bandplan work in the US? What are you all really afraid of?

Joe, N3JI
Unfortunately, Joe, that makes way too much sense to be taken seriously.

73,
Phil

[kk6fr]

Breaker-Breaker 10-4 good buddy, Not that far down the road. At least it will be a nice equipment upgrade.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Dec. 04 2005,17:05)]
We should all support this ARRL petition to the FCC. It greatly expands our freedom on the HF bands for all hams in USA.
I disagree. No ham should back the ARRL proposal based only on the beliefs of another ham or group of radio amateurs -- no mater whom he, she or that group might be.

All hams should read the proposal for themselves; find out what it means to them personally; ask questions if there is something thats not understood and then make up their own minds without undue influence from anyone else.

As the very future and ultimate survival of the United States Amateur Radio Service may well hinge on what happens with this proposal from the ARRL and, likely, other (counter) propoosals, it becomes the duty of everyone with a license to educater himself or herself and comment only from a position of personal knowledge.

If I may borrow a well worn phrase: "Education not reaction is the key that unloks the door to the future."

Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
Editor: ARNewsline

[nk4k]

Anybody that has any doubts about how the bands will sound after the influx of high speed digital should visit 3990 to 4000 KHz nightly to see if he/she can penetrate this DRM signal. You can't.

And, before you go willy-nilly crazy with how much bandwidth is actually needed for transmission of data, remember that you can easily fit 56kb into a 300-3000 Hz phone line bandwidth, which translates to 2.7Khz.

Can't make a transceiver do that? I can and have done it. I may patent it.

Are you sending text data, or do you want to send full blown HTML pages with images? Why do you need them in an emergency? Even the ARRL format for text messaging doesn't include fancy HTML... yet.

Further, have you bothered to calculate how many actual channels will be present for 35KHz data on the 160 (if you can make it work through the noise), 80, 40, 30, and 20 meter bands?

14.00 to 14.35 = 350 KHz. THAT'S 10 CHANNELS AT 35KHz, if and only if you exclude the necessary signal edge guard zones.

Still think it's a great idea, Mr. Bandwidth Hog?

Clearly, there is no science at the root of the bandwidth proposals here, i.e. let's all access the Internet on 40 meters!!

73
Kris Harrison
NK4K

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (AF4K @ Dec. 04 2005,18:23)]Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Dec. 04 2005,12:21)]Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Dec. 04 2005,17:16)]Wow,--Some things DO NOT CHANGE,--another "soapbox"
rant from KQ6XA.
I guess if one SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH and LONG
ENOUGH the desired results will come about.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
and your solution is?

Steve, k4cjx
The solution is obvious. KQ6XA and K4CJX should take up their QRMing digital activity on the 27 MHz band
and stop proposing solutions to a non-problem.

After 49 Pages that proved hthat the majority of hams do not want this crap forced on them, the two of you continue to ignore the wishes of most of the other hams
and just bray away here in a new thread when you can't seem to get your way.

Hardly surprising...
I couldn't say it any better.....

Solution to what?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?

I don't think they will find any space on 11 meters, even the "Good Buddies" are smarter then that.

Wow, here we go again.....

W6NJ

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 05 2005,00:05)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Dec. 04 2005,17:05)]
We should all support this ARRL petition to the FCC. It greatly expands our freedom on the HF bands for all hams in USA.
I disagree. #No ham should back the ARRL proposal based only on the beliefs of another ham or group of radio amateurs -- no mater whom he, she or that group might be. #

All hams should read the proposal for themselves; find out #what it means to them personally; ask questions if there is something thats not understood and then make up their own minds without undue influence from anyone else. #

As the very future and ultimate survival of the United States Amateur Radio Service may well hinge on what happens with this proposal from the ARRL and, likely, other (counter) propoosals, it becomes the duty of everyone with a license to educater himself or herself and comment only from a position of personal knowledge. #

If I may borrow a well worn phrase: #"Education not reaction is the key that unloks the door to the future."

Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
Editor: ARNewsline
Good one Bill,

We all have opinions, and in the end we aren't sheep to follow a battle cry, even when it is sent with eye shattering "BOLD FONTS".

I don't have much more to say on this subject other then to say that most everything has been said, and now we will see what happens.

The comments will flow to the FCC, and I am confident that the right decision will be made.

Freedom is about thinking, not following someone saying "Follow ME".

But if you don't have an argument that holds any water, I guess "BOLD FONTS" are your only choice.

73 - W6NJ

[N8NOE]

Man Can Bonnie Type or WHAT!.....
Someone made Comment about SOAP-BOX, I think this to be an Understatement! "ALE" is Dead as of Macintosh also!
(That will get her Shorts Twisted)
Long and Short:

YES!..........

This alone could End Amateur Radio as we have Grown to Know it!.... But, Can we change it?.... NOPE!.. Seems the ARRL don't listen to th eMembers any longer, SO my Membership will Laps and Keep Lapsing!...

I was told a long time ago, Love-um or Hate-um there all we got, And this is the Hate-um part!...

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 04 2005,18:25)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,17:23)]My own point to the FCC and here on QRZ has been that the "younger generation" want more internet type services. Uses such as music downloads, video, file transfer, etc that younger users want require data rates which are not possible on HF given the ARRL proposal and current bandwidth limitations.
Hmm. Then maybe they should use the internet for that.
Hey, I'm all for that !!!!

I can save $42 a month on broadband.

Too bad that it just won't work on HF. I want to be polite, but it seems to me that this whole subject is a prime example of some hams that read the fine Gordon West books, get licenses, and don't have a clue.

Hey, I am not saying that it is bad to enter this service with limited knowledge, but it is bad to try to force bad ideas on some of us that know bandwidth and technology, when you don't have a clue.

Some of this banter is just so stupid from a technical standpoint, that I just can't even believe it.

20 meters is 14.000Mhz to 14.350 Mhz. Hello, that is 350 Khz of bandwidth. I know it's not in the Gordon West book, but how many Videos are you going to download using the whole 20 meter band?

I think it is a mistake to get into the code/no-code argument, but if we get rid of the code, at least we should know a bit about RF and bandwidth.

Unbelievable......

W6NJ

[kb7uxe]

I think you've made good sense so far. Quote[/b] ]I think it is a mistake to get into the code/no-code argument, but if we get rid of the code, at least we should know a bit about RF and bandwidth.

You should at least have to know more than just the test answers.
It seems that the classes I've seen, only teach the test.
Any body can answer questions if the answeres are redundently and repetiously thrown at you.

Dan. kb7uxe.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]AG4YO: #We need to unite and demand that the ARRL (or some other organization) sit with a cross-section of all Amateurs to hammer out a solution.

That has already been suggested by myself Charlie. #Last Sunday, I composed a letter to the ARRL President imploring him to consider doing exactly as you suggest. #Mr. Haynie promptly replied, but just as the ARRL has done with this petition filing, all relevant concerns were ignored.

Want to see the correspondence? #Go to my web page, click the link to my "ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - Anatomy of a Disaster", and you will find a link marked with a "NEW" message to the e-mails.

Link to AD4MG Web Page - CLICK HERE (http://www.ad4mg.org/)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 04 2005,23:13)]What are you all really afraid of?

Joe, N3JI
I can easily live with most of the League's proposal as it is written, but for the removal of the §97.221( c ) limit on remotely controlled mailboxes and the opening of all of the HF bands to the robots. To my mind this is both unnecessary and potentially disastrous given the probability of a swelling of the numbers of voice ops filling the air in the near future.

Put all auto/semi-auto ops behind firewalls where they are free from us and we are free from them, and I would be happy.

But in my view this issue is serious enough all by itself to warrant opposition to the petition unless it were modified. If it comes out for comment as it is, I will oppose it as vigorously and publicly as I can, and I would urge everyone else to do so as well, most particularly those eager NCTs who will become bright-eyed and bushy-tailed new NCGs avid to fill the bands without being stomped on by robots.

See, Bonnie, no need to shout.

[w2adb]

Since when are "high" data rates even possible on the HF bands?

What error-free data rates could a 25KHz wide signal possibly achieve?

The most advanced data modes currently in use on HF are poor performers on HF.

Pactor-II, with a speed of 50 characters/second on a wired circuit, only achieves a miserable 10 characters per second average on Winlink, using a bandwidth of 450 Hz.

Pactor-III, with a speed of 225 characters/second on a wired circuit, only achieves 15 characters/second average on Winlink, but uses FIVE times (500%) the bandwidth of Pactor-II for a speed gain of only 50%!

Check it out for yourself at http://www.winlink.org/status.

The problem is that data transfer must be error-free to be acceptable, and there is just too much QRM, QRN, or QSB on HF to sustain high data rates without so many repeats to achieve error-free reception that the data rate slows to a snail's pace.

If wider bandwidth emissions are requested on the HF bands for higher data rates, then operation under an STA must be required first to prove it is possible and what bandwidth is required.

[N3JI]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 04 2005,07:21)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 04 2005,23:13)]What are you all really afraid of?

Joe, N3JI
I can easily live with most of the League's proposal as it is written, but for the removal of the §97.221( c ) limit on remotely controlled mailboxes and the opening of all of the HF bands to the robots. To my mind this is both unnecessary and potentially disastrous given the probability of a swelling of the numbers of voice ops filling the air in the near future.

Put all auto/semi-auto ops behind firewalls where they are free from us and we are free from them, and I would be happy.

But in my view this issue is serious enough all by itself to warrant opposition to the petition unless it were modified. If it comes out for comment as it is, I will oppose it as vigorously and publicly as I can, and I would urge everyone else to do so as well, most particularly those eager NCTs who will become bright-eyed and bushy-tailed new NCGs avid to fill the bands without being stomped on by robots.

See, Bonnie, no need to shout.
Albert,
I agree with the non-identifiable robot issue. #However, if they are forced to ID in CW (or voice, for that matter), it would be much easier to mitigate the interference caused by them. #To me it's simple -- enforce the intentional interference rules swiftly and harshly, and the problem will be minimized. #Will anything be 100% clean? #Absolutely not. #I'm not, and neither is anyone else. #We all make mistakes, but to do it repeatedly and intentionally is another matter that deserves enforcement action.

Joe, N3JI

[N3JI]

Quote[/b] (k9cn @ Dec. 04 2005,00:37)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 04 2005,21:13)]Here's a solution:

1. Leave analog voice alone. #Don't change a thing with the rules -- it's been working (for the most part). #Perfection it's not, but it's better than unleashing a pile of "Bandwidth Cops" telling everyone that their Phishfinder Ic@m bandscopes says we're illegal. #That's a big can of worms that needs to be left unopened.

2. Limit Digi-Wigi to some number that we can all live with. #20 kHz doesn't seem unreasonable to me when 50 or 100 kHz or more of spectum can be observed unused any given day or night (not always, but quite often). #I wish I was more of an expert at HF Digi modes so I could offer an opinion, but I can say this: I was in New Orleans, and the CQ Article speaks the truth. #As well as we did, we could have really knocked their socks off with decent basic file transfer rates over HF. #I know everyone wants to keep their little piece of HF, but you know what? #If we keep up this fighting over who can use 6 kHz of SSB or who shouldn't be using some digi mode, none of us will have any HF at all! #Think it's not possible? #Keep living in your fantasy worlds. #A commercial, rapid deployable HF system could easily be designed for emergency use and our freqs could very well be harvested for it. #Think about it. #While you guys are worried about being able to operate QRPppppp..... #on 7060 (or whatever damn freq it is -- why 7040 or 7120 isn't as good is beyond me) with some kind of guarantee of zero QRM, the whole damned thing could go. #Same goes for every other "special" interest mode. #The best way to ensure our bands are kept for our use is to use them for real, useful, and efficient emergency communications when the country needs us. #And if the bands aren't used in support of a real-world emergency, they should be used as efficiently as possible. #10s or 100s of kHz of "no-man's land" in our bands is counter-productive.

3. I say open the bands up. #We already have intentional QRM rules, and resources should be used heavily enforcing that instead of scarcely enforcing too many rules. #Basically, I say let's all "play nice" and quit acting like you own a frequency, understand that band conditions can change on occasion, and be adult about moving your QSO a couple kHz away. #The only time anyone should be worried about what is going on beyond their bandpass is when you need to exercise your VFOs and move if band conditions change. #I for the life of me can't understand why you all care so much about what mode is in use 10, 20 or 100 kHz away from where you are. #If I want to use AM on 3760, and there isn't anyone +/-5 kHz away (verified by asking), who cares? #Same with CW on 14.250 or SSB on 7100. #I just don't get what the problem is. #Nobody is guaranteed 100% QRM-free use of HF. #Why act like it's some right you all are entitled to? #If there's a contest on some weekend that I'm not participating in, I simply find something else to do. #You are not guaranteed exclusive use of the bands to "hang with your buds" on your "normal" frequency. #Is it fun? #Do I do it? YES!! #But I don't bit...I mean complain incessantly when a couple days a year I can't. #Could be contests, CMEs, noise, or just lousy band conditions that create it, but the point is don't whine about it! #I can't help but think there's some unsaid reason or fear about why the 160m bandplan (or many other countries' bandplans) shouldn't be implemented. #It obviously works -- 2m is another decent example, albeit a non-worldwide band. #Did you know there's nothing in the FCC rules that says I can't use FM on 144.1 or SSB on 147.5. #There's more to life than getting on the same freq with the same guys night after night after night. #It won't kill you to put the mic down. #Really. #Try it sometime.

So I leave you with this: Why is it okay to cram into 150 kHz sometimes while 300 adjacent kHz is vitually silent? #Why should I care that a few guys are using CW or AM or PSK 20 kHz away from my current bandpass?? #Why claim that something "ain't broke" when clearly it is? #Why shoot ourselves in the foot one more time with the ARRL's proposal? #Why won't the Canadian bandplan work in the US? #What are you all really afraid of?

Joe, N3JI
Unfortunately, Joe, that makes way too much sense to be taken seriously.

73,
Phil
Thanks, Phil.

I've posted this idea a couple of times now, and there has been surprizingly little discussion about it. #I'm not so sure that your comment isn't spot-on!!

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

Joe

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 05 2005,10:10)]I agree with the non-identifiable robot issue. #However, if they are forced to ID in CW (or voice, for that matter), it would be much easier to mitigate the interference caused by them. #To me it's simple -- enforce the intentional interference rules swiftly and harshly, and the problem will be minimized. #Will anything be 100% clean? #Absolutely not. #I'm not, and neither is anyone else. #We all make mistakes, but to do it repeatedly and intentionally is another matter that deserves enforcement action.

Joe, N3JI
Eminently reasonable, Joe, and I can appreciate the logic in your argument. Jack Gerritsen and Glenn Baxter, however, seem to mitigate the efficacy of seeking relief through the auspices of the FCC.

Consider that a lot of the stations calling the remote robots will probably have plenty of "reasons" to not be too concerned about causing the rest of us some "minor" interference (Gee, I didn't know the gun was LOADED, ye honah). It happens now with growing frequency, and interference is illegal, whether intentional or not.

My druthers would put them in their own sub-band allocations, just as auto ops now are confined, and let them do as they will. We can certainly expand the slots to make more band available, depending upon which of the HF bands can accommodate additional room, but I would not opt to have them freebooting all over HF.

They have invested heavily in the SCS gear, and I feel their pain at having to continue to use PacTOR, but I cannot accept that they cannot continue to keep to PII and not occupy 5x the bandwidth to achieve the little bit of gain that would result.

No, Joe, no deal. As I have said, I like the basis of the ARRL's petition, but this particular poison pill is far too deadly for me.

Ahm agin it.

73

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 04 2005,18:25)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,17:23)]My own point to the FCC and here on QRZ has been that the "younger generation" want more internet type services. Uses such as music downloads, video, file transfer, etc that younger users want require data rates which are not possible on HF given the ARRL proposal and current bandwidth limitations.
Hmm. Then maybe they should use the internet for that.
Yeah, definetely. #If I can get a service called "clearwire" and use said service anywhere I can plug in the modem (and there is service, of course) then I can have my internet anywhere.

If not, many cell phone companies also offer internet connectivity.

And if that's not enough, and you need internet service when you're in the sticks, then perhaps your need for being so connected means you need to stay closer to civilization!

Course, the reason why you're seeing this filter into ham radio is because the internet is filtering into everything else. #Don't get me wrong, I like my email and getting/sending it, but this inherant need for everyone to be in contact constantly is getting a bit old http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I use my radios to communicate. #I use the internet to communicate. #They are 2 seperate mediums both with thier advantages and disadvantages. #They should be kept that way.

The bottom line for most of these "want the internet via ham radio" people seems to be the bottom line-why buy equipment and pay a service fee every month when we can just buy equipment and step on everyone else so we can have our email whereever we want it. #Or we can only attract kids with great technology.

Well, in the next few years with the advent of things like clearwire, pretty soon you won't need ham radio to get internet anywhere anyway-they will come up with something reliable that will work anywhere.

Its funny too how you need all of this bandwidth to do internet applications. #I notice there isn't as much bandwidth needed in the 2GHZ area to do it, I have a router now that will keep my laptop connected down the block. #Why not use the current techology and keep stuff off the ham bands?

And WHY THE HECK do you want to use HF for data transmission anyway? #Data transmission needs a nice clear channel or you're retransmitting stuff 20 times. #You would think that if you need internet access in the sticks that a higher frequency transmission would work better than HF that is subject to the whims of the sunspot cycle. #There isn't a place in the US that isn't within 50 miles of something major enough to have some form of internet access, and if there is, they haven't gotten it yet for a reason.

I would think if the HF areas were the best place for data transmission for the home or everyone else, cell phones and all that stuff would have kicked us out of there long ago. #And the excuse to have to have the ability to send point to point via HF only isn't one either, the internet is everywhere. #The only real need should be from the nearest internet access point. #There are more efficent methods than HF to do this.

This proposal isn't going to lose because everyone is screaming, but because people who have a clue about internet service and really have a need to have it everywhere will ALWAYS rely on a commercial solution. #Otherwise, its simply not that critical-you can wait till you get home or into a cellular area to get your email. #If you really need to stay that connected with your email and internet, then you need to stay where the food is, and leave the 'beaten path' to those of us who can stand to not read our email for a day or two.

Leave Amateur Radio alone with all of this digital stuff-If I need photos, mp3's, email or whatever, I will use the the device designed for all of the above-the computer. #

And lets get away from Ham Radio having to keep up with technology. #TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT EQUAL THE INTERNET, although most people seem to think integrating the internet into anything including the cell is an advance in technology.

I will NOT view the internet being integrated into my toilet or shower as an advance in technology. #The internet, though a useful tool integrated into life today, isn't nessacarily the basis of technology, and the integration of the internet into Ham Radio by using HF to send email is not an advance in technology when the technology already exists and does the job. #To me, sending data over HF when said data needs a nice clean channel is a step backwards. #Why would you be satisfied waitng 10 minutes to get your email because its retransmitting 200 times when you could get it via another method in 20 seconds? #I don't understand the undying need to undo the good technology we have now just so you can watch your HF rig light up the airwaves.

I would really appreciate someone explaining to me how sending data via AR HF is an advancement in Technology. #If I need my email, I go to my computer, not my radio. #If I need to make a phone call, I grab my cell phone not my radio mic. #If I want to call my ham buddy on the repeater, then I grab my radio mic.

Its time we all get together and wake some people up. #You don't need your dang internet on the radio when you already have it elsewhere. #Quit trying to reinvent the wheel-we're on the verge of the internet being everywhere anyway.

And enough of this bravo sierra about needing internet access in the middle of a disaster. #Some of these service agencies need to really wake up if they need COMPUTERS in order to function. #In a disaster they need to go back to the old reliable way of doing things, otherwise one of these days when the disaster is simply the internet imploding, NOBODY will be able to do anything AT ALL.

The warehouse I work at already suffers from this. #If the power goes out or the computers don't work, NOTHING GETS DONE AT ALL. #Doesn't it scare ANYONE that no emergency service agency is capable of functioning unless supposdely some ham radio operator is there with a router to have internet access ready to go?

As it is, we'll be like the book 1984 within 20 years anyway. #But what happens when the computers fail? #

Reliance on technology is good because it is efficent, but by falling back to that way of reliance, one of these days we're all going to be looking stupid if someone invents a supervirus and takes those systems down, even for a few hours.

Amateur radio has been indispensable over the years in disasters because it ISN'T relying on all this technology and email ability. #It is best left alone, lest it be as disabled as the rest of everything if we get a bit too Technogeeky.

QRZ headline 10 years into the future: "MY HF RIG GOT A VIRUS AND NOW IT WON'T WORK!"

All of this integration into the internet scares me. If it can be connected to via the internet, that means that someone with the skills and knowhow can proabably manipulate it or mutilate it via the same . Might be a good idea to keep some stuff off the internet-Amateur Radios included http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

The ARRL bandplan goes TOO far, what we need is a band without a plan, unlimited bandwidth for all modes and unlimited power. CBers do just fine like that, those over powered over modulated distortions are somehow understood by SOMEONE or they wouldn't bother with those radiddeo things, right?

Freedom, freedom, FREEDOM! Go Aretha, GO GIRL! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 05 2005,09:59)]ARRL testimony to Congress about Amateur Radio response to Hurricane Katrina, 2005: "As has been proven consistently and repeatedly in the past, when communications systems fail due to a wide-area or localized natural disaster, Amateur Radio works, right away, all the time"

ARRL testimony to Congress about Amateur Radio response to Hurricane K****, 2015: "As has been proven consistently and repeatedly in the past decade since all our disaster communications have come to rely on internet connections, when communications systems fail due to a wide-area or localized natural disaster, Amateur Radio fails also, right away, all the time. "
Exactly!!!!!!!

With this inherant need for the internet everywhere, couldn't you see some poor ham sending out a bulletin on his keyboard, and alas, the wind blows his cup of coffee onto the keyboard, rendering it useless?

"Grab a microphone, we can use voice!"
"What the heck is a microphone? There is only a keyboard jack on this radddio!"

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]MIV: But in my view this issue is serious enough all by itself to warrant opposition to the petition unless it were modified. If it comes out for comment as it is, I will oppose it as vigorously and publicly as I can, and I would urge everyone else to do so as well, most particularly those eager NCTs who will become bright-eyed and bushy-tailed new NCGs avid to fill the bands without being stomped on by robots.

Good point, Albert. It was also the point of my opinion piece. I'm not proposing a bandplan, just one of many possible solutions that good amateurs can hash out when all factions are represented. We need debate on 25khz use on HF and whether it serves Amateur Radio. We need debate on automatic stations. We need public debate on identifying what metric is fair and what is not when allocating spectrum in a bandplan.

We need to expose the "digital haters" and the "CW haters" and weed them out of the process. We need to weed out any conflict of interest even if it is only appearances. Hopefully we'll end up with a space for digital use that is fair based on popularity but is expandable for the future.

Personally, I think folks like you and Mark could do a great job moderating a discussion for concensus. We differ on some things, but I trust you both want to do the right thing by Amateur Radio. I bet Skip Teller could really help too. Winlink and TAPR have given us this ARRL proposal, maybe it's sombody else's turn. Let's see what the FCC does with the ARRL petition and if they (god forbid) accept it for comment, it may be time for a REAL crossection to look at the problem.

[ab9lz]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Dec. 05 2005,09:08)]Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 04 2005,18:25)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,17:23)]My own point to the FCC and here on QRZ has been that the "younger generation" want more internet type services. Uses such as music downloads, video, file transfer, etc that younger users want require data rates which are not possible on HF given the ARRL proposal and current bandwidth limitations.
Hmm. Then maybe they should use the internet for that.
Yeah, definetely. #If I can get a service called "clearwire" and use said service anywhere I can plug in the modem (and there is service, of course) then I can have my internet anywhere.

If not, many cell phone companies also offer internet connectivity.

And if that's not enough, and you need internet service when you're in the sticks, then perhaps your need for being so connected means you need to stay closer to civilization!

Course, the reason why you're seeing this filter into ham radio is because the internet is filtering into everything else. #Don't get me wrong, I like my email and getting/sending it, but this inherant need for everyone to be in contact constantly is getting a bit old http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I use my radios to communicate. #I use the internet to communicate. #They are 2 seperate mediums both with thier advantages and disadvantages. #They should be kept that way.

The bottom line for most of these "want the internet via ham radio" people seems to be the bottom line-why buy equipment and pay a service fee every month when we can just buy equipment and step on everyone else so we can have our email whereever we want it. #Or we can only attract kids with great technology.

Well, in the next few years with the advent of things like clearwire, pretty soon you won't need ham radio to get internet anywhere anyway-they will come up with something reliable that will work anywhere.

Its funny too how you need all of this bandwidth to do internet applications. #I notice there isn't as much bandwidth needed in the 2GHZ area to do it, I have a router now that will keep my laptop connected down the block. #Why not use the current techology and keep stuff off the ham bands?

And WHY THE HECK do you want to use HF for data transmission anyway? #Data transmission needs a nice clear channel or you're retransmitting stuff 20 times. #You would think that if you need internet access in the sticks that a higher frequency transmission would work better than HF that is subject to the whims of the sunspot cycle. #There isn't a place in the US that isn't within 50 miles of something major enough to have some form of internet access, and if there is, they haven't gotten it yet for a reason.

I would think if the HF areas were the best place for data transmission for the home or everyone else, cell phones and all that stuff would have kicked us out of there long ago. #And the excuse to have to have the ability to send point to point via HF only isn't one either, the internet is everywhere. #The only real need should be from the nearest internet access point. #There are more efficent methods than HF to do this.

This proposal isn't going to lose because everyone is screaming, but because people who have a clue about internet service and really have a need to have it everywhere will ALWAYS rely on a commercial solution. #Otherwise, its simply not that critical-you can wait till you get home or into a cellular area to get your email. #If you really need to stay that connected with your email and internet, then you need to stay where the food is, and leave the 'beaten path' to those of us who can stand to not read our email for a day or two.

Leave Amateur Radio alone with all of this digital stuff-If I need photos, mp3's, email or whatever, I will use the the device designed for all of the above-the computer. #

And lets get away from Ham Radio having to keep up with technology. #TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT EQUAL THE INTERNET, although most people seem to think integrating the internet into anything including the cell is an advance in technology.

I will NOT view the internet being integrated into my toilet or shower as an advance in technology. #The internet, though a useful tool integrated into life today, isn't nessacarily the basis of technology, and the integration of the internet into Ham Radio by using HF to send email is not an advance in technology when the technology already exists and does the job. #To me, sending data over HF when said data needs a nice clean channel is a step backwards. #Why would you be satisfied waitng 10 minutes to get your email because its retransmitting 200 times when you could get it via another method in 20 seconds? #I don't understand the undying need to undo the good technology we have now just so you can watch your HF rig light up the airwaves.

I would really appreciate someone explaining to me how sending data via AR HF is an advancement in Technology. #If I need my email, I go to my computer, not my radio. #If I need to make a phone call, I grab my cell phone not my radio mic. #If I want to call my ham buddy on the repeater, then I grab my radio mic.

Its time we all get together and wake some people up. #You don't need your dang internet on the radio when you already have it elsewhere. #Quit trying to reinvent the wheel-we're on the verge of the internet being everywhere anyway.

And enough of this bravo sierra about needing internet access in the middle of a disaster. #Some of these service agencies need to really wake up if they need COMPUTERS in order to function. #In a disaster they need to go back to the old reliable way of doing things, otherwise one of these days when the disaster is simply the internet imploding, NOBODY will be able to do anything AT ALL.

The warehouse I work at already suffers from this. #If the power goes out or the computers don't work, NOTHING GETS DONE AT ALL. #Doesn't it scare ANYONE that no emergency service agency is capable of functioning unless supposdely some ham radio operator is there with a router to have internet access ready to go?

As it is, we'll be like the book 1984 within 20 years anyway. #But what happens when the computers fail? #

Reliance on technology is good because it is efficent, but by falling back to that way of reliance, one of these days we're all going to be looking stupid if someone invents a supervirus and takes those systems down, even for a few hours.

Amateur radio has been indispensable over the years in disasters because it ISN'T relying on all this technology and email ability. #It is best left alone, lest it be as disabled as the rest of everything if we get a bit too Technogeeky.

QRZ headline 10 years into the future: "MY HF RIG GOT A VIRUS AND NOW IT WON'T WORK!"

All of this integration into the internet scares me. #If it can be connected to via the internet, that means that someone with the skills and knowhow can proabably manipulate it or mutilate it via the same . #Might be a good idea to keep some stuff off the internet-Amateur Radios included http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Amen, Im a professional programmer and use the internet all day long. Being a new ham, but an old timer in the internet age, I find *most* of the digital modes on HF absurd for the reasons stated above.

73
Mark.

[ky5u]

Maybe we need to not discuss a bandplan, but the ground rules for putting together a bandplan.

1. Fairness - Spectrum allotment needs to be based on use.

2. Flexibility - Use patterns change, the plan needs to adapt.

3. Inclusive - It must not create problems by judging the importance of digital modes over others, or discouinting the realities of CW/AM/SSB use..

4. Effective - It must solve the problems facing digital users today.

5. Future Oriented - It must allow for the advancement of the Science of Radio over implementation of "rehash" technologies. It should not EXCLUDE these technologies, just establish priorities to meet the long-time digital hype.

6. Realistic - It must accept the reality of increased SSB use with the NCGs and not deny the reality of CW or Am use.

I am sure you guys could add more....

[k3xf]

"I have no confidence at all that the ARRL will look out for my interests. "

This statement says it all. The ARRL plan clearly doesn't go far enough at this time. It should continue to the trash can.

And the 2% hard core ARRL supporters who seem unable to operate their computer in other than bold caps (it is sad to need such tripe to add credibility . . .), are simply wrong.

I have conducted both short and long term band occupancy surveys and find only two changes are required. 1. enforce existing non-interference regulations and 2. eliminate special interest band plans.

160 works. Yes, ops break the regs. Additional regulations will not prevent this.

-ap

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]What we should do is unite and bid the FCC not accept the ARRL petition for action. We should ask that it be dismissed and the ARRL directed to come up with a better plan.

This approach can work very well.

[ae1x]

Gentlemen,

The problem is that this proposal rocks the boat and there is far too much that is unknown and makes us uncomfortable.

The gentleman that started this thread has asked a question that is still before the ARRL BOD. There is a Multi-Media committee looking into wider bandwidth digital modes and the bandwidth allocations that will be needed to achieve this goal.

In my view, digital is good for some things. Is it good for large volume data on HF? Is there a commerical service using HF for this purpose? I venture to thing that the answer is no.

The WinLink people are providing a service to remote users. It gives many with no other access technology a chance to get e-mail. This is fine until you start understand that people want to send more than just text messages.

I worked for M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory from 1972 until 1999. During that time we developed a man portable communications system for the military that used a 75bps data link. It work great for text messages, but a General of Southern Command decided that he didn't want just to send text messages. He wanted to send ExCel files. Can you imagine the transmit time to move this volume of information over a 75bps link? I was able to develop the code to do this, but when he learned that it would take hours to send even a small spreadsheet, well I think you get the picture. Now remember this was a uWave link on a satellite and not a HF link, but the problem is the same.

This proposal is an attempt to provide an adaptable regulation infrastructure for our service to operate within. The one area that the present infrastructure does not support is switching between voice mode to a digital image mode and back. The real issue will be whether a voluntary bandplan will work or not.

Ken

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (w2adb @ Dec. 05 2005,06:50)]Since when are "high" data rates even possible on the HF bands?

What error-free data rates could a 25KHz wide signal possibly achieve?

The most advanced data modes currently in use on HF are poor performers on HF.

Pactor-II, with a speed of 50 characters/second on a wired circuit, only achieves a miserable 10 characters per second average on Winlink, using a bandwidth of 450 Hz.

Pactor-III, with a speed of 225 characters/second on a wired circuit, only achieves 15 characters/second average on Winlink, but uses FIVE times (500%) the bandwidth of Pactor-II for a speed gain of only 50%!

Check it out for yourself at http://www.winlink.org/status.

The problem is that data transfer must be error-free to be acceptable, and there is just too much QRM, QRN, or QSB on HF to sustain high data rates without so many repeats to achieve error-free reception that the data rate slows to a snail's pace.

If wider bandwidth emissions are requested on the HF bands for higher data rates, then operation under an STA must be required first to prove it is possible and what bandwidth is required.
And that is the real bottom line. You can buy a $600 Pactor box, and not get even half the speed that you would with a twenty year old 300 baud modem.

Yet all of the arguments come up about how kids want videos. Well that isn't going to happen on hf. Kids are using 2-4 Mbs connections. A dial-up 56 KBaud modem is a painful experience when you are used to broadband.

Do you think you are going to impress some kid by sending 10 characters per second when they can download a 100 megabyte video in a couple minutes?

You could use the whole 20 meter segment, and not get much performance.

I don't know why this is so hard for a few folks to understand. Digital isn't magic. It has limits.

Just incredible.

73 - W6NJ

[K3UD]

Here is a simple solution.

Lets put all of the digital modes exclusively on 30 meters and 12 meters.

Any digital mode regardless of bandwidth could play on all of the space these two bands have to offer. 30 meters offers reliable propagation almost anytime while 12 meters opens up world wide possibilities during periods of high sunspot activity as well as periods of sporadic E skip regardless of where the sunspot cycle is. It is also a good band for local work when no ionospheric propogation is available.

With the fabled ability of some digital modes handling weak signals there would almost always be the potential for weak signal scatter modes. This is where digital could really shine. It also eliminates restriction on the General class as to using digital modes without wondering where your bot is.

These bands should be great for HF email and offer enough bandwith so you can attach the latest JPGs of your yacht or RV at the remote camping or cruising location. No need to sign up with an expensive commercial service when you can get it all for the price of a ham license and the equipment.

(if the digital ops can somehow sort out the potential interference problems) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Oh give me a home where the robots can roam and pactor and psk play.....and never is heard a discouraging word when the interference continues all day

73
George
K3UD

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Dec. 05 2005,05:18)]Quote[/b] ]AG4YO: #We need to unite and demand that the ARRL (or some other organization) sit with a cross-section of all Amateurs to hammer out a solution.

That has already been suggested by myself Charlie. #Last Sunday, I composed a letter to the ARRL President imploring him to consider doing exactly as you suggest. #Mr. Haynie promptly replied, but just as the ARRL has done with this petition filing, all relevant concerns were ignored.

Want to see the correspondence? #Go to my web page, click the link to my "ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - Anatomy of a Disaster", and you will find a link marked with a "NEW" message to the e-mails.

Link to AD4MG Web Page - CLICK HERE (http://www.ad4mg.org/)
After reading the reply, I know why there has been no bandplan. #It sounds like the idea is to just have at it.

The mention of the evils of slicing the bands or "Balkanizing" as it was put, is very telling. #

I just find it unbelievable, that we would think that a "free for all" is a good thing. #

I've been a ham since the 70's, and have been through Amtor, Pactor, and the rest, and have yet to see any earth shaking modes that require any of this.

A shift to less CW and more character base digital may well happen, but they need to be isolated. #

I gave up trying to convince the ARRL folks, they have made up their mind, and that is that.

Amazing....

73 - W6NJ

[nc5s]

Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Dec. 05 2005,11:51)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Dec. 05 2005,05:18)]Quote[/b] ]AG4YO: #We need to unite and demand that the ARRL (or some other organization) sit with a cross-section of all Amateurs to hammer out a solution.

That has already been suggested by myself Charlie. #Last Sunday, I composed a letter to the ARRL President imploring him to consider doing exactly as you suggest. #Mr. Haynie promptly replied, but just as the ARRL has done with this petition filing, all relevant concerns were ignored.

Want to see the correspondence? #Go to my web page, click the link to my "ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - Anatomy of a Disaster", and you will find a link marked with a "NEW" message to the e-mails.

Link to AD4MG Web Page - CLICK HERE (http://www.ad4mg.org/)
After reading the reply, I know why there has been no bandplan. #It sounds like the idea is to just have at it.

The mention of the evils of slicing the bands or "Balkanizing" as it was put, is very telling. #

I just find it unbelievable, that we would think that a "free for all" is a good thing. #

I've been a ham since the 70's, and have been through Amtor, Pactor, and the rest, and have yet to see any earth shaking modes that require any of this.

A shift to less CW and more character base digital may well happen, but they need to be isolated. #

I gave up trying to convince the ARRL folks, they have made up their mind, and that is that.

Amazing....

73 - W6NJ
Well, the positive thing about Haynie's post. He only used two paragraphs to tell you to take a hike.

I was a member of the ARRL until I realized that the only interest they were representing was theirs and not mine.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Dec. 05 2005,13:34)]The WinLink people are providing a service to remote users. It gives many with no other access technology a chance to get e-mail. This is fine until you start understand that people want to send more than just text messages.
Ay, Polonius...

What is even more "human" than your general, perhaps, is the fact that lots of these folks will not only want to send "more than just text messages," but they will be impatient about waiting for previous links to clear before they can hook up to send Buffy the latest jpegs of Sniffles doing his tricks in the forward lounge (oohh, the carpet!).

How many folks out there want to wager on the "patience quotient" of some bozo in his Trumpy off Majorca wanting to send that damned email now. Right NOW! And just who in hell is this idiot who is sending the OED and causing me to wait??!

Put 'em all behind firewalls and let them all have at it, safely away from the rest of us.

If this petition comes out as it went in, it needs to be snuffed. Nuff said.

[W9WHE]

ARRL's proposal does NOT go far enough. What we need is BANDWITH AND PRIVELEGE by class.

Class I (ARRL Directors) can do anything, anywhere, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Class II (ARRL Members & contesters) can operate almost anymode, almost anywhere at almost any time. But in a contest, have Class I priveleges.

Class III (Ordinary hams LIKE YOU) can only operate on 10m during the bottom of the sunspot cycle, unless there is a contest, then in order to give class I & II hams more points, may operate anywhere, unless a Class I holder wants the frequency, in which case, the Class III OP must relinquish.

[N3JI]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 04 2005,12:30)]Maybe we need to not discuss a bandplan, but the ground rules for putting together a bandplan.

1. Fairness - Spectrum allotment needs to be based on use.

2. Flexibility - Use patterns change, the plan needs to adapt.

3. Inclusive - It must not create problems by judging the importance of digital modes over others, or discouinting the realities of CW/AM/SSB use..

4. Effective - It must solve the problems facing digital users today.

5. Future Oriented - It must allow for the advancement of the Science of Radio over implementation of "rehash" technologies. It should not EXCLUDE these technologies, just establish priorities to meet the long-time digital hype.

6. Realistic - It must accept the reality of increased SSB use with the NCGs and not deny the reality of CW or Am use.

I am sure you guys could add more....
Charlie,
It sounds you me like you described exactly what I just proposed.

Joe

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 05 2005,12:44)]ARRL's proposal does NOT go far enough. What we need is BANDWITH AND PRIVELEGE by class.

Class I (ARRL Directors) can do anything, anywhere, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Class II (ARRL Members & contesters) can operate almost anymode, almost anywhere at almost any time. But in a contest, have Class I priveleges.

Class III (Ordinary hams LIKE YOU) can only operate on 10m during the bottom of the sunspot cycle, unless there is a contest, then in order to give class I & II hams more points, may operate anywhere, unless a Class I holder wants the frequency, in which case, the Class III OP must relinquish.
Amend Class III to read:

If you don't belong to the ARRL, we don't believe you exist thus you have no right to operate, period, the end.

Why not, they consulted all of us before releasing this proposal, didn't they?

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 05 2005,12:51)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 04 2005,12:30)]Maybe we need to not discuss a bandplan, but the ground rules for putting together a bandplan.

1. Fairness - Spectrum allotment needs to be based on use.

2. Flexibility - Use patterns change, the plan needs to adapt.

3. Inclusive - It must not create problems by judging the importance of digital modes over others, or discouinting the realities of CW/AM/SSB use..

4. Effective - It must solve the problems facing digital users today.

5. Future Oriented - It must allow for the advancement of the Science of Radio over implementation of "rehash" technologies. It should not EXCLUDE these technologies, just establish priorities to meet the long-time digital hype.

6. Realistic - It must accept the reality of increased SSB use with the NCGs and not deny the reality of CW or Am use.

I am sure you guys could add more....
Charlie,
It sounds you me like you described exactly what I just proposed.

Joe
I think one other item needs to be added:

7. The bandplan, as proposed, needs to be enforced by the FCC.


Otherwise, like now, it will just be a plan, and if nobody has to answer to the FCC, it will be useless to have. We can put anything on paper, but without an agreement being made and someone to back it up, its just a signed piece of paper that most people would choose to abide by, but those few who didn't would ruin it for the rest of us.

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 05 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 05 2005,13:41)]Here is a simple solution.

Lets put all of the digital modes exclusively on 30 meters and 12 meters.

Any digital mode regardless of bandwidth could play on all of the space these two bands have to offer. 30 meters offers reliable propagation almost anytime
Hey, no thanks! 30 meters is a great band just the way it is, precisely for the reasons you give. You fill it up with a couple of wide digital signals and it will ruin the band for the many more who use it for CW and narrower digital modes.

No, let's stick the wide digital someplace that isn't being used for something else, like 28.700 - 29.000.
Don't you see? Under some proposals it will fill up with digital anyway. Think of it as making a sacrifice for the greater good of the digital community http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Seriously, my post was a bit of a joke, but the issues certainly are not a joking matter. Until we see a for real proposed bandplan which addresses the issues and mitigates against incompatible mode interference there is really not much to talk about.

No matter how it is structured someone's ox will be gored and some will win and some will lose.

73
George
K3UD

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 05 2005,13:30)]Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 05 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 05 2005,13:41)]Here is a simple solution.

Lets put all of the digital modes exclusively on 30 meters and 12 meters.

Any digital mode regardless of bandwidth could play on all of the space these two bands have to offer. 30 meters offers reliable propagation almost anytime
Hey, no thanks! 30 meters is a great band just the way it is, precisely for the reasons you give. You fill it up with a couple of wide digital signals and it will ruin the band for the many more who use it for CW and narrower digital modes.

No, let's stick the wide digital someplace that isn't being used for something else, like 28.700 - 29.000.
Don't you see? Under some proposals it will fill up with digital anyway. Think of it as making a sacrifice for the greater good of the digital community http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Seriously, my post was a bit of a joke, but the issues certainly are not a joking matter. Until we see a for real proposed bandplan which addresses the issues and mitigates against incompatible mode interference there is really not much to talk about.

No matter how it is structured someone's ox will be gored and some will win and some will lose.

73
George
K3UD
Wouldn't be much of a loss to anyone if the current space between .060 and .150 was made to house most digital operation. Anyone feel free to correct my perception...

[n7okl]

The biggest push I see for the new proposal comes from SOME digital proponants wanting more bandwidth for their proprietary system that *should* be illegal under FCC rules preventing the use of ham radio to by-pass comercial services...

High speed digital is not feasible on HF. Those wanting internet speeds are doomed to failure. Thoughput could be improved by including error corection...Clover usses it put never really cought on as Pactor came out at the same time and only HAL was making Clover modems. Wish someone would come out with a soundcard based Clover program.....

There must be a way to allow data, CW, and voice modes to be used on HF, but mixing them in a free-for-all is an extremely bad idea that I feel would result in nothing but digital modes (mostly Winlink) on the bands.

I do use digital modes, but feel that the robots should be totally banned from HF....it is almost a garentee that as soon as you make a contact, some robot will pop up and knock you off the freq....

I know...rant, rant, rant.....

I feel that the move is toward more and more robots on the air. The only workable option I can think of is to set up a digital sub-band and stick it all there. Since the digital stuff can not tell when there are signals on the freq that are not of that mode, let the digital stuff fight each other for air time.

Not that anything I say is the only idea around.....just my opinion....take it for what you feel it is worth....

Mel
N7OKL

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 05 2005,13:30)]Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 05 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 05 2005,13:41)]Here is a simple solution.

Lets put all of the digital modes exclusively on 30 meters and 12 meters.

Any digital mode regardless of bandwidth could play on all of the space these two bands have to offer. 30 meters offers reliable propagation almost anytime
Hey, no thanks! #30 meters is a great band just the way it is, precisely for the reasons you give. You fill it up with a couple of wide digital signals and it will ruin the band for the many more who use it for CW and narrower digital modes.

No, let's stick the wide digital someplace that isn't being used for something else, like 28.700 - 29.000.
Don't you see? Under some proposals it will fill up with digital anyway. Think of it as making a sacrifice for the greater good of the digital community http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Seriously, my post was a bit of a joke, but the issues certainly are not a joking matter. Until we see a for real proposed bandplan which addresses the issues and mitigates against incompatible mode interference there is really not much to talk about.

No matter how it is structured someone's ox will be gored and some will win and some will lose.

73
George
K3UD
Fill up with digital?

LOOK AGAIN!!

The top portion of 30m will fill up with SSB based on the ARRL bandwidth regulation.

They even admit it!!!

They put in some weasel-worded comment about hoping a *voluntary* bandplan would prevent this from happening, but who believes that?

(If you do think a voluntary bandplan will prevent SSB from moving onto 30m send me an email, I have some beachfront property in Arizona that you will LOVE!)

tim ab0wr

[N2EY]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 02 2005,15:23)]
Quote[/b] ]The obvious solution to the CW versus Digital versus SSB/AM issue is to divide the soccer field in 3 parts. Why this is such an onerous concept to digital proponents is perplexing to say the least. For almost 2 years I have discussed a (not set in stone) bandplan that called for 3 band segments or "modes" identified basically CW, Analog Voice, and Other. The "other" segment would contain all modes not CW and/or Analog Voice (AM/SSB) but including new digital modes.


Better yet, four parts:

1) CW only

2) "Conventional" digital (PSK31, etc.) with BW up
to 1 kHz and no automated operation. Also CW
on a secondary basis

3) "Anything goes" digital - auto operation, any BW
that fits in the subband, digital voice, whatever. Also
analog voice on a secondary basis

4) Analog voice and image

Quote[/b] ]
The sample plan called for (using 40 and 20 meters as an example) 60khz for "CW", 90khz for "Other/Digital", and the current amount for "Analog Voice". It also encouraged the "Other" mode segment to use bandwidth bandplanning. The thought process is that when and if CW and Analog Voice lose popularity, the "Other" segment could be expanded in either direction taking up nearly the entire band if digital proponents’ predictions are true. At that time the entire band would have bandwidth control.


I'd say 15% CW only, 15% "conventional" digital,
15% "anything goes" digital, and the rest analog
voice. Give or take a few percent.

On 80, 40 and 20 meters you have the problem of
what to do with the old Novice and Tech plus
subbands. My answer is that Novices and Tech Pluses
would get their segments moved down into the
new CW-only parts.

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[ab0wr]

I still say the best proposal is to refarm the Novice bands to all-digital, anything goes band segments. Keep everything else the same until we see how that plays out.

That will give the digital enthusiasts 400khz on 10m (lots of room to play with wideband modes), 200khz on 15m, 50khz on 40m and 50khz on 80m. They will get a wide range of propagation, noise, etc and lots of room to play with.

Spectrum usage in these areas is on the low end so the fewest users will be affected.

Charlie's plan and mine have the same paradigm, just a different scope.

And to those who say the bands should be unlimited so they can move to areas of the bands that are not in use, I say --- learn to use different modes and you can do that. You can do it today, you can do it under Charlie's plan, or you can do it under mine.

If the SSB portion is full but the CW portion is not, learn Morse Code. If the CW portion is full but the digimode portion is not, learn to use psk31.

These plans FOSTER operating diversity in the amateur radio ranks and provide an incentive for advancing technical knowledge in each and every one.

The FCC *should* see this as an advantage if they actually know their own regulations. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the ARRL BOD to figure it out.

tim ab0wr

[WD8OQX]

I said it before & I'll say it again (until I see a reason otherwise) - why not just leave well enough alone. I waited to read some of the post before I commented & I still don't see any valid reasons to change (not yet anyway) what we have has been working so far. No, it's not the best but it IS working. Until I see something better, and believe me I'd like to, (I like the digital stuff, too) this will remain my opinion.

The old adage "if it ain't broke..." comes to mind real quick. Please, someone change my mind on this.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif