View Full Version : FCC activates the Bandwidth process
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 29 2006,17:36)]
Quote[/b] ]N2EY sez: Quote[/b] ]The reason you're not convincing many people of the soundness of the CTT proposal is the lack of solid answers to the above questions.
Not quite, Jim. They are not convinced because they HAVE READ the proposal and understand it all too clearly.
I think you are quite right on that.
Some opinions might change if there were solid answers to the questions posed. But no such answers have appeared - we're just supposed to believe it will all work itself out in the end.
Right!
Quote[/b] ]Shorn of the robots and the WinLink (and imitations and iterations using email links of doubtful legality), we could all probably get along under the ARRL proposal, deficient as it is in many respects.
Agreed - but that would require some serious rewriting.
Some of the concepts in the ARRL proposal are sound, but they're buried in a bad implementation and weighed down with unacceptable problems.
Quote[/b] ]But not under the CTT proposal: that will yield naught but chaos.
Maybe. Which brings up an observation:
Some may wonder why there's so much resistance to the CTT proposal. Here's one more reason:
Suppose the CTT proposal were enacted as written. And suppose - just suppose - the result *was* the chaos many predict.
Would the CTT folks say to FCC "We were wrong, the result is chaos, put it back the way it was, please!" ?
And would FCC put it back the way it was?
Apply same questions to the ARRL proposal.
73 de Jim, N2EY
W3MIV
01-31-2006, 12:28 AM
Quote[/b] (N2EY @ Jan. 30 2006,18:49)]And would FCC put it back the way it was?
Does toothpaste and a tube come to mind?
Humpty Dumpty and all those bits of egg shell and road apples (the king's men and horses long gone)?
Get on the ECFS and enter a rousing, raucus NO to both petitions. You know it's the right thing to do, Spike, so get typing!
Reading comments to RM-11306... of the first dozen supporters of the plan:
1. Howard Radke Winlink User and the Secretary of Northwest Adventist Amateur Radio Association who's #1 purpose is "Providing a support mechanism for radio communications for missionaries."
2. Susan Landry Winlink user aboard a sailboat who's FCC comments add: "To follow our adventures go to, http://7knots.com and click Captains Log. Enter Sea Trek above the search button and click search. All of our posts are there."
3. Michael Nettles KB5WBH Winlink user who's activity was covered in an ARRL bulletin, "WINLINK: KB5WBH reports good progress with the Winlink 2000 system. He sends thanks to Glenn N5GK and Steve K4CJX for getting the PMBO at ADEM going on HF."
4. Rod McLennan is the trustee for W6IM, the San Diego Yacht Club Amateur Radio Group station. He is the system operator of W6IM, which is one of about 30 Winlink stations situated around the world. W6IM handles about 3500 separate contacts and processes around 7,000 messages each month.
5. Scott Thile K4SET who is affilated with Radio Ministries.org who states their purpose, "Providing communications solutions for Christian missions." Scott states on his website, "We are extremely excited about Winlink, and what it can do for missionaries working in the field. In fact, that is the main reason we started RadioMinistries."
6. Don Moore KM0R who is mentioned on the Winlink website, where Don says, "Plans are underway to more actively promote the Winlink system within the Missouri section. Winlink is now included in the Section Emergency Operations Plan Digital Addendum and is promoted by several of us any time we get the chance."
7. Jerrold Curry KL7EDK who runs a Winlink station on Alaska.
These were the easy ones where searching by call and "Winlink" turned up a connection. How many more of the 12 were supporters with no web history?
These are the people who want regulation by Bandwidth! Just say NO!
RM-11305 is proposed by a group of people from the Great Lakes who work AM.
You can read more about this proposal and what it will do at:
RM-11305 (http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm)
Sit back, close your eyes, and imagine a radio world without boundaries where everyone can do anything they want on any frequency! Good for Howard Stern, bad for the little guy.
73 Tom
Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 02 2006,04:52)]
Quote[/b] ]RM-11305 is proposed by a group of people from the Great Lakes who work AM.
You can read more about this proposal and what it will do at:
RM-11305 (http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm)
Sit back, close your eyes, and imagine a radio world without boundaries where everyone can do anything they want on any frequency! Good for Howard Stern, bad for the little guy.
73 Tom
Well said, Tom
TWO MORE POINTS:
Hidden in RM-11305 are the following:
- Unless I misread the proposal, Generals would have their 40 meter privileges REDUCED to 7025-7150. (Probably a typo, but if so it got through all of those who signed the petition)!
- Novices and Techs-with-HF would be allowed to use any mode in their subbands. A free upgrade of privileges that would reduce their incentive to upgrade.
73 de Jim, N2EY
W8JI would like everyone to think his way. That's nice! He would like you to believe that the people who proposed RM-11305 are evil and to do this, he exaggerates things and presents them as facts. In some cases they are funny!
For example, I work all kinds of modes from AM to FM and SSB and SSTV and RTTY. He says that I am an AM'er, an evil term to be sure, but on Tom's web page, he admits to having a Valiant and working AM too! That makes him as much an AM'er as I am. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
He also states that people like me have no right to file any proposal. Well, the FCC gives me that right, even if Tom doesn't. As part of the FCC process, they open the proposal up for comments from everybody has a right to participate.
I helped author RM-11305 because I love the hobby. I believe that removing the phone/cw restrictions from Part 97 and substituting the ability to follow the IARU Region 2 band plan makes sense!
The sub band allocations are old and they are broke. It is not fair that CW, which accounts for less than 30% of all ham activity, should have the relatively exclusive use of 1/2 of the amateur bands!
Some say that the CTT proposal would result in chaos. I listen to 75/80 meters often and all I hear is chaos, and I don't think it could get worse!
Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!
Think on your own, don't listen to those like Tom, who makes money off of us hams and has a $$$ interest in seeing that things go his way! He has exaggerated the truth, in many cases, and I hope that you can see through it. Make up your own mind and be sure to participate in the process as have I. Please file your comments to both RM-11305 and RM-11306.
--Larry W8ER
wa4dou
02-02-2006, 03:57 PM
I will file my comments on both 11305 and 11306 at the last moment and they won't be favorable.
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 02 2006,07:05)]
Quote[/b] ]W8JI would like everyone to think his way.
I think the CTT folks would like everyone to think *their* way, too!
Quote[/b] ]He would like you to believe that the people who proposed RM-11305 are evil and to do this, he exaggerates things and presents them as facts. In some cases they are funny!
I don't see him claiming anyone is 'evil'. Misguided and mistaken, maybe, but not evil.
Nor do I see any exaggeration in his claims.
Quote[/b] ]For example, I work all kinds of modes from AM to FM and SSB and SSTV and RTTY.
How much of your time is spent operating low-power PSK31 or CW?
Quote[/b] ]He also states that people like me have no right to file any proposal.
No right? I don't see that.
Everyone has the right to file proposals and make comments. Whether the commenters and proposers are qualified is another matter.
Quote[/b] ]I helped author RM-11305 because I love the hobby.
I oppose RM-11305 because I love Amateur Radio.
I'm pretty sure W8JI opposes RM-11305 because *he* loves Amateur Radio, as well.
Quote[/b] ] I believe that removing the phone/cw restrictions from Part 97 and substituting the ability to follow the IARU Region 2 band plan makes sense!
I don't. I think it's a bad idea.
More important, the proposal doesn't say that the IARU Region 2 bandplan is the one to be followed. It simply talks about voluntary agreements without naming any specific one.
What if the IARU decides something in the bandplan that we US hams don't want to do? Suppose the bandplan calls for AM to be effectively eliminated from HF amateur radio by reworking the bandplan so that there are only a few places where AM is allowed. Then what?
Quote[/b] ]The sub band allocations are old and they are broke.
They're not very old, and I don't think they're broken.
However, I think most hams, if they thought the subbands were broken, would rather update and fix them rather than simply tossing them out.
It's like saying that since some speed limits aren't popular with some drivers, we shouldn't have any speed limits at all.
Quote[/b] ]It is not fair that CW, which accounts for less than 30% of all ham activity, should have the relatively exclusive use of 1/2 of the amateur bands!
Hold it right there!
Let's look at the *FACTS*:
1) There are *NO* exclusive-CW subbands on the HF/MF amateur bands.
None at all. Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
*ALL* are shared with digital modes, and with non-US 'phone modes.
2) Let's look at how much of each US amateur band below 30 MHz is available for 'phone modes to an Amateur Extra:
160 meters: 100% (200 of 200 kHz)
80 meters: 50% (250 of 500 kHz)
40 meters: 50% (150 of 300 kHz)
30 meters: 0% (0 of 50 kHz)
20 meters: 57% (200 of 350 kHz)
17 meters: 58% (68 of 100 kHz)
15 meters: 55% (250 of 450 kHz)
12 meters: 60% (60 of 100 kHz)
10 meters: 88% (1400 of 1700 kHz)
Total all 9 HF/MF bands: 68.74% (2578 of 3750 kHz)
More than two-thirds of the HF/MF bandspace is available to 'phone modes *now*, and has been for a long time.
If that's inadequate, why not petition for more space rather than simply tossing the subband concept completely?
Quote[/b] ]Some say that the CTT proposal would result in chaos. I listen to 75/80 meters often and all I hear is chaos, and I don't think it could get worse!
I don't hear chaos on 80 meters, and I operate there regularly. 75 meters can be pretty nutty sometimes.
The CTT proposal seeks to spread the nuttiness/chaos down into 80 meters. Why?
(Did you know that Part 97 lists 80 and 75 as separate bands?)
Quote[/b] ]Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!
Several observations:
1) 160 isn't as popular as other bands, in part because effective antennas are pretty large.
2) The contest was a one-band contest, wasn't it?
3) Was 160 *really* wall-to-wall CW for all 200 kHz? Or were there places without much activity?
Quote[/b] ]Think on your own, don't listen to those like Tom, who makes money off of us hams and has a $$$ interest in seeing that things go his way!
I am thinking on my own. I've listened to all sides and I think RM-11305 is a bad idea and should be completely rejected.
If something is truly in the best interest of amateur radio, why wouldn't W8JI support it? It could only help his '$$$$ interest', right? Or to put it another way, how could RM-11305 be a bad thing for his '$$$$ interest'?
Besides its other deficiencies, RM-11305 ignores the growing use and variety of digital modes and the need for them to have their own bandspace. RM-11305 also ignores the concept of promoting the use of spectrum-efficient modes, and instead wants to remove those incentives by allowing all modes everywhere, regardless of how much of the band they occupy.
Quote[/b] ]He has exaggerated the truth, in many cases, and I hope that you can see through it. Make up your own mind and be sure to participate in the process as have I.
I don't see any exaggerations in what W8JI has written.
I have made up my own mind.
If I were to participate in the process as you have, I would write my own proposal.
Quote[/b] ]Please file your comments to both RM-11305 and RM-11306.
I sure will!
--
BTW:
Unless I misread the CTT proposal, it would *REDUCE* the amount of 40 meter bandspace allowed to General Class amateurs in Region 2. They would only be allowed to use 7025 to 7150 if RM-11305 were enacted.
Or did I miss something?
Also, under the proposal, Novices and Techs-with-HF would be allowed to use all modes on HF, not just the modes allowed to them now. Which would reduce the incentive for them to upgrade to General or Extra.
Why?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Jim N2EY,
I think if you read my post correctly, you'll see that I don't expect people to think like me or the CTT. As an example, I specifically asked everyone to participate in the process and I didn't ask them to file in any particular way. So now I guess you can be added to those who are exaggerating or misinterpreting or twisting what I said to make it seem that I said something else.
And yes, Tom is insinuating that people are evil or bad or stupid. If you read his web page he attacks people on a very personal level, interpreting what they might have posted on their web page and putting his own spin on it. That's just what you're doing here!
Jim you may disagree with me all you want. The fact remains that I got off my tail and worked at helping to formulate a solution to what quite a few people see as a problem. There are some who have nothing to contribute except attacks and negativity. Your contributions here are well noted but about as effective as pissing on a three alarm fire!
Quote[/b] ]Everyone has the right to file proposals and make comments. Whether the commenters and proposers are qualified is another matter.
I hope that you are not arrogant enough to suggest that you have the knowledge or the right to make that determination! Please!
I would like to invite you take the time to register your comments during the FCC comment period, the right way.
--Larry W8ER
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 02 2006,12:28)]
Quote[/b] ]I think if you read my post correctly, you'll see that I don't expect people to think like me or the CTT.
Hi Larry,
If you search the calls W8MW, WA3VJB, W8ER, WD8BIL, W9AD, W8LX, and K3XF on Google, you will find five out of seven come up on AM pages.
Now I'm not saying AM is bad, I work AM and I've restored old radios, but it is not mainstream amateur radio. The AM Window pages are really for more than casual AM users, and that's where most of the Think Tank members have a common connection.
This isn't an insult, it's just a fact.
The CCT, without properly analyzing data or considering problems, submitted what most people seem to think is an unworkable proposal. The CCT even has spokesman who argue against what the CCT says will happen.
For example Bud Chiller has a web page that pretty much told people if he was on a frequency operating AM and they wanted to get close enough to be bothered or cause a problem, he would not move. His exact words were:
Quote[/b] ]
DON'T LIKE A.M. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards to your recent objections. Here are some facts you need to keep in mind.
1 – A.M. is a legal mode.
2 – No on “owns” a frequency. If it is clear at 7 p.m. I’ll use it. If you come on at 7:30 p.m. and operate on or near that frequency so as to cause interference YOU are not following the rules.
Tisk Tisk!
3 – I don’t really care that you and your friends have been using that frequency since Adam bit the fruit.
4 – There are no bandwidth limits specified in Part 97. In fact is says: “ (a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and EMISSION TYPE being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.”Part 97.307a
So ya see, bandwidth is dependant upon mode.
If you’re SOOOO concerned about bandwidth then operate CW. Your sideband signal uses the spectrum of 4 cw qsos.
5 – I’m sorry the VFO on your expensive ricebox only works on one frequency.
6 – I am absolutely positive that I operate in a legal and considerate way.
I expect the same from you !!
7 - I don’t care about your OPINION. Part 97 is the ONLY thing that governs the operation of my station.
8 – Your harassment on or off the air will not change things for me.
There is nothing you can send to Riley that will affect my license or operating status.
In closing let me say I find your objections and behavior quite childish ! This is a hobby. We’re suppose to have fun doing it. It is unreasonable for you to get so worked up over something that can be solved with the turn of your dial.
If you insist on operating near an AM group don't come cryin' to me about interference!
I won’t fire up on or near a frequency you are already operating on.
I won’t be bullied off a frequency I’ve been on for an hour. That’s the way it is.
Like it or not.
J.B.Chiller WD8BIL
Lorain, Ohio
I find his own words a good example of why unlimited bandwidth and any mode on any frequency won't work.
Your proposal would require people bending and compromising, working together like friends, and caring about each other. Everyone would have to be considerate at all times, and understand how wide their rigs are.
Bud is part of the CCT and a spokesperson of the CCT, yet his very own words pretty much tell anyone who dislikes or questions his wide AM signal to go take a flying leap.
So you see the paradox. To the FCC and to the public Bud and the CCT claim everyone will be nice and friendly and work together because we are considerate.
On the other hand Bud's own web pages contained the above text that says "4 – There are no bandwidth limits specified in Part 97. In fact is says: “ (a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and EMISSION TYPE being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.”Part 97.307a
So ya see, bandwidth is dependant upon mode."
and equally snotty:
7 - I don’t care about your OPINION. Part 97 is the ONLY thing that governs the operation of my station.
I hate to tell Bud this, but if the CCT proposal passes it would require all of us TO CARE about the other person.
The CCT spokesman is the best example of why the CCT proposal will not work.
Quote[/b] ]
And yes, Tom is insinuating that people are evil or bad or stupid. If you read his web page he attacks people on a very personal level, interpreting what they might have posted on their web page and putting his own spin on it. That's just what you're doing here!
The words are clear. I did not alter them. I'd bet money 99% of the people reading them would dislike the tone.
If Bud was proud of those words and thought they were harmless, he would not have cancelled that page.
On the other hand if you search my website everything you find is geared to encouraging people to narrow their bandwidth. There isn't a single thing on my website that tells other Hams "I don't care what you think".
The fact Bud removed several of his pages and the AM Window removed references to RM-11305 speaks volumes.
There wouldn't be a single page to remove unless someone is embarrassed by their own harsh words to fellow Hams.
Quote[/b] ]I hope that you are not arrogant enough to suggest that you have the knowledge or the right to make that determination! Please!
Larry, if you had chosen a wide mix of qualified people no one could fault the concept of a "Think Tank". It would have to be a carefully chosen group with opposing members to come to a rational logical solution.
With a team of think alike "yes men" around me, I would never propose the most radical irreversible change in the history of amateur radio. I might be involved in a large group that solicted opinions and took time to argue technical points, but I would never think myself so almighty that I could, with a handful of friends, make a good decision for the 500,000 other people affected.
This is the real area where we differ. The CCT never considered the following:
Mixing Modes (http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm)
They simply said "people will work it out".
People cannot work it out. Flex plans that mix modes and do not restrict modes or bandwidth are unworkable. The FCC does not allow that in ANY service.
Please look at this objectively from a viewpoint outside of your narrow group. What you are proposing could very well be the end of amateur radio and the start of chaos. Please, think carefully before asking for something next time. I love Ham radio too much to stand by and let it be ruined by seven people.
73 Tom
wa4dou
02-03-2006, 03:33 AM
Wa3VJB wrote:
Contests provide an example of intense spectum consumption. Non-participants may consider it rude behavior, and indeed they've asked contest organizers to add frequency constraints to the rules of the event.
-------------------------------------------------------
There are frequency constraints as almost all contests are phone only or cw only or RTTY only or PSK31 only, etc. The only exception that I can think of is Field Day.
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:
Frankly I don't know of any activity other than contests that has a more polluting effect on a band for bystanders trying to engage in other forms of communication. Even the high-powered DX exchanges involving pileups limit themselves to a tight range of frequencies.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pileups for a dx station are confined to a relatively narrow frequency segment because a dx station can only make one contact at a time. In a contest hundreds and even thousands of stations are making hundreds and even thousands of contacts simultaneously.
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:
It's ridiculous to suggest things would automatically get worse if the bands were unfettered by artificial, full time boundries the U.S. imposes that have long been outdated by changes in patterns of use.
-------------------------------------------------------
We keep hearing that the present segmentation of our bands is outdated and obsolete. Says who and how?
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:
I expect responsible behavior, and in the time since I've been licensed, that has been my experience the vast majority of the time. For inadvertant interference, a good-natured word between those involved usually settles the issue quickly and without rancor.
-------------------------------------------------------
The majority have acted responsible during your time as a ham because the bands have been mode based. What you're asking for is to have a dynamically changing situation constantly. Its called anarchy and chaos. No one is fooled by this smokescreen. CW won't benefit, data won't benefit, only wideband modes like phone, both ssb and am. The fact is that you and your ilk wish to populate the bands with inefficient wideband modes and these will dominate the bands completely. As it is now, there is room for growth in the existing narrowband segments as more and more recognize that it only makes sense to pursue those modes. AM, SSB and FM are hogish modes using disproportionate bandwidth in view of amateur band loading. Thats right, phone modes are very wasteful of precious spectrum and advocates of increasing consumption of spectrum for wasteful modes are very selfish and are not interested in the future health of amateur radio.
wa4dou
02-03-2006, 04:33 AM
Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!
-------------------------------------------------------
If you're speaking of the same 160 meter cw contest that I participated in, you're wrong! CW occupied 1.800-1.880 mhz, less than 1/2 the band. Phone operation, both SSB and AM continued right on in the 1.850 range and up and made for difficult working conditions for the cw stations and made working dx difficult. It proves that qrm from narrow modes affect wide modes far less than the reverse situation.
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 02 2006,21:33)]Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!
-------------------------------------------------------
If you're speaking of the same 160 meter cw contest that I participated in, you're wrong! CW occupied 1.800-1.880 mhz, less than 1/2 the band. Phone operation, both SSB and AM continued right on in the 1.850 range and up and made for difficult working conditions for the cw stations and made working dx difficult. It proves that qrm from narrow modes affect wide modes far less than the reverse situation.
That is what makes me question the integrity, wisdom, or technical skills of the Think Tank.
They keep using 160 as an example, yet they hardly seem to know how the band works or does not work.
Their flawed theory works only on the assumption SSB (or worse yet AM) can detect weak narrow band signals, and it works only on the assumption that everyone can hear and respect everyone else.
It works only when the mode has brick-wall spectrum rolloff at each edge, yet there own members had spectrum displays showing their own transmitters had very poor rolloff of high order IM products. (Of course they REMOVED those displays when I pointed them out.)
Anyone proposing such radical sweeping changes should have looked at operation and the history of 160 closer, they should have looked at their own transmitter spectrum displays and considered how to prevent off-channel interference.
They did none of that. Although imperfect themselves in many ways and using far from perfect rigs in far from perfect locations (just like the rest of us), they proposed a system that will only work in a perfect world of perfect radios and perfect people.
I think they should call themselves the "We Didn't Think Tank".
73 Tom
Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 02 2006,19:15)]
Quote[/b] ]The CCT never considered the following:
Mixing Modes (http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm)
Tom,
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation of why narrow and wide modes don't mix well. It's basic radio
theory, nothing more. Doesn't even take a lot of math
to show the facts.
Quote[/b] ]Flex plans that mix modes and do not restrict modes or bandwidth are unworkable. The FCC does not allow that in ANY service.
Excellent point! And those other services are more regulated than the ARS.
btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about why CTT wants to reduce Region 2 privileges for Generals to 7025-7150.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 02 2006,19:15)]
Hello Tom,
Thanks for your reply. Let me address a few of your points and maybe you can better understand what I am trying to say and what the CTT is trying, or maybe NOT trying, to do.
Quote[/b] ]
If you search the calls W8MW, WA3VJB, W8ER, WD8BIL, W9AD, W8LX, and K3XF on Google, you will find five out of seven come up on AM pages.
and why is this significant? It appears that you are trying to associate each of them with a much maligned group (AM'ers) for the purpose of discrediting them!
They each work "other" modes. I reviewed their activities also and I would place them in the category of well rounded radio amateurs. Here's the real fact: There are two members of the CTT, Ron W8LX is predominately a CW person who has NEVER worked AM as is the case with Mike W8MW who does not work AM at all! #Geez how did they get in there!
Quote[/b] ]
Now I'm not saying AM is bad, I work AM and I've restored old radios, but it is not mainstream amateur radio. The AM Window pages are really for more than casual AM users, and that's where most of the Think Tank members have a common connection.
This isn't an insult, it's just a fact.
Tom this is just not true and you know that! AM, as a mode, is probably the most maligned and attacked mode in existence. You use that! It would be no different than if I said Tom W8JI is gay. I could follow that with "hey, I think he is a nice guy" and "I know lots of nice homosexuals". Then to follow that with "This isn't an insult, it's just a fact." would be an insult to my intelligence.
Tom you know clearly what you are doing! You misstate facts and then throw out comments about them and follow that with "I am just stating facts" and that's absurd!
Quote[/b] ]
The CCT, without properly analyzing data or considering problems, submitted what most people seem to think is an unworkable proposal. The CCT even has spokesman who argue against what the CCT says will happen.
See Tom, here is more, a clear case of you making assumptions, without really knowing!!
In your opinion the CTT acted this way but the fact is that you really don't know what the CTT did or how they did it! Because the conclusion does not keep with what you believe, you say "without properly analyzing data or considering problems" and that is not true. Seven very very experienced amateurs sat down and for a long time looked at problems and worked together coming up with solutions.
The key is that you were not involved in any way so you really don't know what we did. Your assumptions and conclusions are just that, not facts!
Quote[/b] ]
For example Bud Chiller has a web page that pretty much told people #... <snip>
You know Tom, if you knew Bud as well as you would like everyone to believe, I find it difficult to believe that you didn't just pick up the phone and call Bud and ask him about it. Sometimes vetting a frustration has a theraputic effect and that is what Bud told me when I asked him.
Frankly I have seen you and Rich Measures call each other names and bash each other to the point that I had to stop reading what you put on the web. So I suppose that gives me call to quote from some of those raves of yours and spout conclusions about you as a result. Naw, I understand and if it bothered me, I would drop you an email or call you and ask you about it and I have never claimed to be an acquaintence of yours, although we have met, we have shared coffee and talked on the telephone and on the radio!
Quote[/b] ]
Your proposal would require people bending and compromising, working together like friends, and caring about each other. Everyone would have to be considerate at all times, and understand how wide their rigs are.
Tom, I think that is what the CTT is saying also. I also think that most amateurs fall into that category. Some unfortunately do not. Let's not dwell on the behavior of a few and let them set the bar for the rest of us.
But let's look at what you just said versus what you do! Your hot button is bandwidth and how wide rigs are. We all have seen that in your postings many times. Yet you designed or redesigned many of the amplifiers that Ameritron sells. Give a ham one of "your" amplifiers and let him create signal products that substantially add to his bandwidth. Why would you do this if your concern is pure and for the betterment of the hobby?
Quote[/b] ]Bud is part of the CCT and a spokesperson of the CCT .. <snip>
Bud this and Bud that, is not appropriate Tom. First you really do not know Bud. Second Bud is a member of the CTT but is not it's spokesman, as you keep trying to claim. Third he helped by providing some excellent insight regarding his experiences as an amateur, both technically and socially! To trash Bud as you seem to want to do and hold him up as the group spokesman is just totally wrong!
Quote[/b] ]
If Bud was proud of those words and thought they were harmless, he would not have cancelled that page.
Tom, this is but another BIG example of where you went wrong in your thinking. Your lambasting Bud is for all of the wrong reasons.
I host Bud's website and the websites of a few other's. I found a hosting service that was significantly less expensive and nearly three weeks ago I switched all of the domains to my new service. There was a problem with Bud's web site and he did not have a recent backup. He lost many things including a lot of valuable Bolivian pictures that he had posted. Why didn't you mention them?
This is the kind of misunderstanding that results from your kind of attacks! You twist facts, without knowing, and add your own version of what they mean. You interpret. Then you say, ther it is, it is fact. No Tom, not really!
Quote[/b] ]
Larry, if you had chosen a wide mix of qualified people no one could fault the concept of a "Think Tank". It would have to be a carefully chosen group with opposing members to come to a rational logical solution.
With a team of #think alike "yes men" around me, I would never propose ... <snip>
I am surprised at your assertion here! Why would you even say such a thing except that you wish to trash the CTT? Look at the backgrounds of the CTT participants. Others have. We are all radio amateurs from a diverse background, lots of time on the ham bands, in all modes, and all hold commercial FCC licenses as well as extra class amateur licenses. I think the CTT is a mix of exceptionally well qualified amateurs and just because you don't think so, makes me question why you would say such a thing!
Calling the CTT team unqualified and saying that they are a bunch of "yes men" is derrogatory. It shows that your intent is nothing more than an effort to trash the CTT because you don't agree with it's conclusions!
Quote[/b] ]
Please look at this objectively from a viewpoint outside of your narrow group. What you are proposing could very well be the end of amateur radio and the start of chaos. Please, think carefully before asking for something next time. I love Ham radio too much to stand by and let it be ruined by seven people.
Our "narrow" group has looked at this objectively Tom. We don't call people names and we don't twist things to trash anyone. If you have no faith in the people that make up amateur radio, that's clearly a problem that you need to work out. Anyone who thinks, as you do, really needs to step back and ask themselves "why do I think that hams need rules and enforcement? why do we need little boxes to put ourselves in? and why would I want to sit on a radio and talk to anyone who thinks I am so "moronic" (your word Tom) that I can't be a gentleman?"
Give hams more credit than this Tom. We have doctors, lawyers, attorney, electricians, office workers, politicans (whoops) among us. #No part of ham radio is more important than any other. It's all a bunch of hot air being passed and doing it on SSB or CW or AM or RTTY or PSK31, it's still a bunch of guys getting together and enjoying talking about nothing! It's a hobby and I love it too Tom!
73 Larry
wa4dou
02-03-2006, 03:15 PM
I see no flaw in the arguements that W8JI has advanced on why RM-11305 is too technically flawed to be considered either a good plan, sound reasoning or worthy of consideration. Therefore, I also oppose it as it reflects very poor judgement on the group who concocted it and is meant to benefit the few at the expense of many. The lofty verbage and appearance of being with the "greater good" of the amateur service in mind is a smokescreen.
Quote[/b] ]I see no flaw in the arguements that W8JI has advanced on why RM-11305 is too technically flawed to be considered either a good plan, sound reasoning or worthy of consideration. Therefore, I also oppose it as it reflects very poor judgement on the group who concocted it and is meant to benefit the few at the expense of many. The lofty verbage and appearance of being with the "greater good" of the amateur service in mind is a smokescreen.
Tom W8JI,
This is a good example of the harm that your tactics are responsible for. What guys like this fail to see is that you are representing your own conclusions and assumptions, not facts, and you twist everything to suit your conclusions. This poor guy probably believes that Harry Potter is a real person!
--Larry W8ER
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 03 2006,07:52)]
Quote[/b] ]Anyone who thinks, as you do, really needs to step back and ask themselves "why do I think that hams need rules and enforcement?
Because without rules and enforcement, we'll have chaos. That's not theory or negativism - it's been proven by what has happened in other radio services without rules and enforcement.
In the case of "why subbands by mode/bandwidth?" the answers are a bit more complex, but here they are:
1) Narrow and wide modes don't mix well. Basic radio theory shows that. For example, if I'm running QRP PSK31 on 3579 kHz, and you listen for me with an AM receiver set for 16 kHz bandwidth, you might not hear me at all under certain conditions.
But sharpen up the receiver to 160 Hz (perfectly usable for PSK31) and turn on the BFO, and there I am!
2) We have limited bandspace available. Reserving some of it for more spectrum-efficient modes is an incentive to develop and use spectrum-efficient modes. It's the same principle as HOV lanes on a crowded highway.
It's really that simple. Getting the most out of our limited HF/MF bandspace means we need regulations to keep order. Maybe those regulations need some fine-tuning - but they don't need to be tossed out wholesale.
73 de Jim, N2EY
wa4dou
02-03-2006, 07:23 PM
Police detectives have long known that a person's thoughts and actions reveal motive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the motive behind RM-11305. Once a person begins to investigate the characters behind RM-11305, it becomes obvious what their motive really is. The fact that so many of us began reaching the same conclusions is testimony that its obvious on the face of it. Just look at the type of characters behind RM-11305 and look at the document itself and its crystal clear that it is self serving and bad for amateur radio as a whole. Its as plain as the nose on your face.
wa4dou
02-03-2006, 07:42 PM
I don't believe that it has been demonstrated that our regulations require any fine tuning.
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 03 2006,07:52)]
Quote[/b] ]quote=w8er,Feb. 02 2006,12:28]
Hello Tom,
Thanks for your reply. Let me address a few of your points and maybe you can better understand what I am trying to say and what the CTT is trying, or maybe NOT trying, to do.
Quote[/b] ]W8JI wrote
If you search the calls W8MW, WA3VJB, W8ER, WD8BIL, W9AD, W8LX, and K3XF on Google, you will find five out of seven come up on AM pages.
and why is this significant? It appears that you are trying to associate each of them with a much maligned group (AM'ers) for the purpose of discrediting them![/QUOTE]
No one knows who you guys are. You formed a group, picked a name that makes it sound like you are thinkers, and made a rule-making proposal that deeply affects every other amateur who is active or will be active on HF.
If you are going to represent every single amateur, all of us deserve to know the background of each person representing us.
I am simply pointing out what a Google search shows as the background of Think Tank members. We have a right to know the mindset and radio background of anyone who is willing to propose a rule that so radically affects us all.
If you have better information, publish it. Don't tell me how you guys use the hobby isn't important. You all met somehow.
This is a good example of how the Think Tank jumped the gun and submitted a proposal affecting us all without bringing the mainstream community on board. I think any amateur group really intending to do the right thing for the hobby would have introduced themselves. Since you didn't, I did the best I could using Google.
Quote[/b] ]Tom this is just not true and you know that! AM, as a mode, is probably the most maligned and attacked mode in existence. You use that! It would be no different than if I said Tom W8JI is gay. I could follow that with "hey, I think he is a nice guy" and "I know lots of nice homosexuals". Then to follow that with "This isn't an insult, it's just a fact." would be an insult to my intelligence.
That's a very odd thing to say. It's very unusual and rare to use an untrue sexual reference about another person in a technical discussion about FCC rules.
It's a fact that a Google search turns up links that show most Think Tank members active on pages related to AM operation. AM isn't a dirty word; it isn't a nasty mode. It just shows most Think Tank members come up high in a search by callsign related to AM activity.
Why be ashamed or offended by that?
Quote[/b] ]In your opinion the CTT acted this way but the fact is that you really don't know what the CTT did or how they did it! Because the conclusion does not keep with what you believe, you say "without properly analyzing data or considering problems" and that is not true. Seven very, very experienced amateurs sat down and for a long time looked at problems and worked together coming up with solutions.
So the best solution you could find is to ask the FCC to abolish all rules governing bandwidth and mode? What problem were you "fixing"?
YOU say you are all smart and wonderful, and we should trust you. Why didn't the Think Tank let the community decide if the community wanted you to represent us?
Where are the background resumes that show us the experience of Think Tank members?
Quote[/b] ]Frankly I have seen you and Rich Measures call each other names and bash each other to the point that I had to stop reading what you put on the web. So I suppose that gives me call to quote from some of those raves of yours and spout conclusions about you as a result.
You'll never find a post where I call Rich Measures a name, or where I made any personal insults about him. I don't do that. (Your "gay" comment, however, is similar to inuendos Measures uses.)
The idea we can tear down all the fences, mix wide modes with narrow modes, and not make things worse is nothing short of moronic. RM-11305 makes absolutely no sense at all. It doesn't make sense socially, it doesn't make the least bit of sense technically.
You can see from the responses to the FCC page, if you do a search on those who agree with you, the majority of supporters are ESSB or AM operators. It is clearly a proposal that would benefit those using the widest modes.
As for the rest of this, none of this is about ME.
It's all about RM-11305 and what is behind the minds of the self-proclaimed "Think Tank" members who decided all on their own they were capable of submitting a proposal from which there will never be any going back.
Now I'm sure WD8BIL's spectrum shots of his analyzer just happened to disappear a few days after I put the link up through "random happenstance", just like the words RM-11305 disappeared from the AM Window pages through random happenstance at the same time.
Fortunately I have some of those words archived, and everyone can read them.
This isn't to make Bud out to be a bad guy. Just to prove that many people, including Bud, use bandwidths that extend fully to the limit and beyond FCC rules.
As top your question about Ameritron, let me say this. Ameritron had a choice of using cheap Russian tetrodes in amplifiers. The hard fact is when we tested tetrodes, they were 10-20 dB worse than any triode amp we had for IM products, and they could not be made better without significant expense. That was a HUGE factor in not using tetrodes.
But again, it's not about me. It would be if I was telling everyone six buddies and I decided we were so smart we could decide what was best for the 500,000 other people.
In that case it would be all about my operating habits, technical background, and what I do with my radios.
Right now it's all about the seven Think Tank members. No one knows who you are, we only have your word about how smart you are and how careful you were.
At the same time, most people know mixed modes can't work. Why don't you understand that?
What about
Mixing modes (http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm)
73 Tom
Tom,
It is interesting to watch how you twist and turn things. There are some things that you just have no way of knowing and yet you throw it out there as if you have an inside track.
Quote[/b] ]No one knows who you guys are. You formed a group, picked a name that makes it sound like you are thinkers, and made a rule-making proposal that deeply affects every other amateur who is active or will be active on HF.
Right, but that's your requirement not the FCC's requirement! It's not a bad idea but the last time I checked Charles T. Rauch was not yet in charge of the FCC! So you take it upon yourself to criticize us because we followed the rules! Outrageous behavior on your part!
What you don't seem to understand is that the process itself is similar to a suggestion box but very controlled. Proposals are most of the time discarded by the FCC and never given an RM number. What is the criteria? I don't know nor do I care! The CTT proposal was a formal suggestion and anyone, even you Tom, can file one! Again, outrageous that you would criticize us for following procedure.
Next, you don't like the name "Communication Think Tank". #According to you we picked a name that makes it sound like we were thinkers! That is really funny Tom!
Here's what really happened. One of the CTT members complained about the logo that was being used at the top of the board that we used to communicate. I jokingly replaced the logo with a picture of Rodin's "Thinker" because we were burning the midnight oil -- thinking!It was a hoot and we all laughed. About two weeks later someone else popped up a message that referred to CTT and none of us could figure out what that person was talking about. When the person replied that it meant Communication Think Tank, we all nearly died laughing about it and despite the humor, it stuck!
The name was not the result of some overt action trying to come up with a name that lent some imagined credibility to our group, #AS YOU ASSUMED AND OFFERED AS A CRITICISM. We never sought to give ourselves a name, it just happened. You just didn't know but you act as though you did!
Many people, including you, have a view of what our hobby should be. You are not wrong, from your perspective and the CTT group is not wrong (as you suggest) from their perspective. We simply disagree!I am convinced that the real answer lies somewhere in between complete elimination of the sub band rules and allocating sub bands by bandwidth!
This process by the FCC is designed to pull that out of us! It takes suggestions that are relevant from the box and asks everybody to comment. It considers the comments and may ask questions and then issues an NPRM, if it thinks the matter needs attention. Remember the FCC may choose to pick this and pick that and write their own NPRM as a solution or they may even choose to do nothing. It is highly unlikely that they will take either 305 or 306 as it is written. That just doesn't happen!
That is exactly why it's not important to know who we are, which you seem to demand. Notice too Tom, that we have not chosen to put up a web page or web site with all known statements by WA8IJI or W8JI and just because he doesn't agree with us. God knows we have the capability but it isn't necessary! You may, as we all may, file our comments to the FCC (and you have) and they will sort it out. Have a little faith in the process Tom, if not faith in your fellow hams!
--Larry W8ER
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 03 2006,15:03)]
Quote[/b] ]I am convinced that the real answer lies somewhere in between complete elimination of the sub band rules and allocating sub bands by bandwidth!
Really?
Then why are you proposing complete elimination?
Why not propose what you really want?
Quote[/b] ]This process by the FCC is designed to pull that out of us! It takes suggestions that are relevant from the box and asks everybody to comment.
Maybe.
FCC is not required to pay attention to the comments other than to accept them and read them.
Quote[/b] ]It considers the comments and may ask questions and then issues an NPRM, if it thinks the matter needs attention. Remember the FCC may choose to pick this and pick that and write their own NPRM as a solution or they may even choose to do nothing. It is highly unlikely that they will take either 305 or 306 as it is written. That just doesn't happen!
Oh yes it does!
For example, there have been 18 proposals regarding Morse Code testing since July 2003.
At least two of those proposals simply said "Dump Element 1 and leave everything else alone".
The others were all over the map.
The recent NPRM on Morse Code testing proposes to simply dump Element 1 and leave everything else alone.
A count of all filings showed that a majority of those who commented want at least some Morse Code testing to remain in place.
But FCC isn't required to go by majority opinion.
And I don't think anyone will be really surprised if FCC simply drops Element 1 and leaves everything else alone.
Be careful what you ask for - you may just get it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Quote[/b] ]
It is interesting to watch how you twist and turn things. There are some things that you just have no way of knowing and yet you throw it out there as if you have an inside track.
And you ignore the issues Larry.
The real issue is seven people after chatting on Internet (according to you) decided they would propose the FCC eliminate all mode and bandwidth restrictions.
Now you say:
Quote[/b] ]
Many people, including you, have a view of what our hobby should be. You are not wrong, from your perspective and the CTT group is not wrong (as you suggest) from their perspective. We simply disagree!I am convinced that the real answer lies somewhere in between complete elimination of the sub band rules and allocating sub bands by bandwidth!
Why then, if you are convinced the real answer lies between elimination of sub band rules and allocating sub bands by bandwidth, did you sign on to an RM that would be a disaster to our hobby?
Larry, this is a very serious issue.
We are faced with BPL, and the FCC does not want to act. We are faced with a regulation by the state of Florida that allows police to arrest people causing TVI, and the FCC has not acted to preempt that law.
The quickest way to get rid of us is to just wash their hands of us like they did with CB radio. The quickest way to that point is to turn our bands into any mode, any bandwidth, anywhere.
In the middle of a big BPL problem, the ARRL and CCT both burden the FCC by wasting more FCC manpower to process petitions that (as you admitted) the submitters themselves don't even agree with!
You may think it is a small thing, but it isn't. Getting the FCC involved in ANYTHING that can't be solved some other way is just begging for problems.
Quote[/b] ]That is exactly why it's not important to know who we are, which you seem to demand. Notice too Tom, that we have not chosen to put up a web page or web site with all known statements by WA8IJI or W8JI and just because he doesn't agree with us.
You are welcome to do that. You accused me of calling Measures names or something like that. Put up some post where I did that.
Quote[/b] ]
You may, as we all may, file our comments to the FCC (and you have) and they will sort it out. Have a little faith in the process Tom, if not faith in your fellow hams!
I have great faith in my fellow hams. I support anything that, as a body, they want to do.
I don't think people should present themselves as a Communications Think Tank based on a joke and then submit a proposal to the FCC that asks for all mode and bandwidth restrictions to be removed. I especially don't think someone should put their name on a paper asking for a rule making they don't 100% agree with and then depend on the FCC "sorting it out" and getting it right!
Quote[/b] ]
I am convinced that the real answer lies somewhere in between complete elimination of the sub band rules and allocating sub bands by bandwidth!
Larry, let's be careful here. The RM process is a very serious matter. It is our window to the FCC. We should be very careful not to put something before the FCC that we, as signers, are not 100 percent behind!
In my opinion the system needs a rework. I think the phone bands could be expanded, but at the same time we need better transmitter bandwidth specifications for all modes.
What we absolutely don't need are strong AM, FM, or SSB signals being able to move anywhere they choose with any bandwidth they feel like using.
You did not comment on my analysis of mixing modes and signals of different bandwidths. #It's a valid technical argument against RM-11305, and one that should have been addressed before RM-11305 was filed.
Filing an RM isn't a joke, and we should not depend on the FCC to correct our mistakes or omissions in a RM proceeding. We should take such things seriously, and drag the FCC into extra work the very least we can.
I hope the next time someone files, they don't do this:
Quote[/b] ]
What you don't seem to understand is that the process itself is similar to a suggestion box but very controlled. Proposals are most of the time discarded by the FCC and never given an RM number. What is the criteria? I don't know nor do I care! The CTT proposal was a formal suggestion and anyone, even you Tom, can file one! Again, outrageous that you would criticize us for following procedure.
Filing a RM petition you don't fully support and depending on the FCC to toss it out or change it does not seem like a good idea. Not caring about it seems an even worse idea.
We should take those procedures seriously. We likely already are considered a burden on FCC resources.
73 #Tom
Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 03 2006,17:07)]
Quote[/b] ]We should take those procedures seriously. We likely already are considered a burden on FCC resources.
I agree 100% - on both counts.
Here's what I don't understand about both the ARRL and CTT petitions:
Why, in heaven's name, weren't these proposals adequately discussed and publicized *BEFORE* being sent to FCC?
Is there *any* real reason we hams can't come up with a comprehensive proposal that the vast majority of us can support - *BEFORE* it is sent to FCC?
Imagine if ARRL, or some other group, hammered out such a proposal in full view of all interested parties, got wide support for it, and then submitted it to FCC? Then when FCC put it up for comment, the comments would be so overwhelmingly positive that FCC could simply rubberstamp it.
Instead, FCC is bombarded by multiple proposals on all sorts of issues, all without consensus or even wide support.
Think about why FCC only allowed 30 days for comments.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Quote[/b] (N2EY @ Feb. 03 2006,17:35)]I agree 100% - on both counts.
Here's what I don't understand about both the ARRL and CTT petitions:
Why, in heaven's name, weren't these proposals adequately discussed and publicized *BEFORE* being sent to FCC?
Is there *any* real reason we hams can't come up with a comprehensive proposal that the vast majority of us can support - *BEFORE* it is sent to FCC?
Imagine if ARRL, or some other group, hammered out such a proposal in full view of all interested parties, got wide support for it, and then submitted it to FCC? Then when FCC put it up for comment, the comments would be so overwhelmingly positive that FCC could simply rubberstamp it.
Instead, FCC is bombarded by multiple proposals on all sorts of issues, all without consensus or even wide support.
Think about why FCC only allowed 30 days for comments.
I'm distressed to find out after all this time Larry isn't even fully in favor of the petition they submitted.
The "Think Tank" asked for this now:
ERRATUM
We respectfully request that the FCC remove a table referenced in Petition RM-11305, entitled
Proposed Changes, Section 97.301. It appears starting on page "v" and extends through "viii," inclusive.
It contains an error brought to our attention during the public vetting process. Our intention remains to ask that you grant us the flexibility in the use of all modes on all frequencies where applicable, and in line with, the IARU Bandplan Guidelines for Region 2.
We refer to our support for this IARU plan in page iii, paragaph four, and remain convinced this provides a workable band plan within which we can accomplish our stated goals without the future need to revisit the rulemaking process.
Submitted for the public record, -SMichael Wingfield et al
6931 Ryan Road
Medina, OH 44256
So they are actually changing their proposal after it was submitted!!!
There's a big danger in submitting RM petitions that aren't hashed out and looked carefully through prior to submission.
First, it makes us all look unprofessional.
Second, it wastes the FCC's time.
We can't even get enforcement of BPL violations despite the ARRL badgering them, and now we are tying them up with petitions the petitioners themselves considered flawed!
What are we trying to do? Get booted off the air?
73 Tom
Tom,
I will address you because Jim is holding your hand and answering you, answers him as well.
The RM process is a serious process and none of us ever took it any other way. You must understand the process and I'm afraid that many amateurs don't. I am getting the strong feeling that you don't either. This is not a pass fail process. #Many of the comments simply say I oppose 305 but do not say why. Hell this is not a voting process, it is a comment process as it is named!I am not ignorant either and the opposition I am sure will be noted but it is not what the FCC is looking for in this part of the process.
Ideally, if I were to have my personal way, I support 305. Since I am not a spokesman for the group, merely a member, I want you to understand that my comments to you are MY personal feelings and those that I conveyed to the CTT during the formulation of the proposal that was filed on June 20th.
Let's take a look at the BIG picture. We, despite the protestations of some, do have a problem with sub bands and the present alignment. You see that too as you said in your last reply to me. It has the bands poorly utilized (some more than others) but in general the popularity of phone modes is overwhelming. Turn on a receiver and listen, it's obvious.
Why has it gotten that way? Obviously the allocations were formulated a long time ago when the selection of modes was much simpler, CW or Phone, and the reasons for the allocation (AT THAT TIME) made sense! Since then we have pushed the newer modes in wherever we could get them .. oh PSK here and SSTV there etc. Before now, no one took a serious look at where it was all headed nor did anyone stand up to a worsening situation caused by the explosion of phone becoming an exceeding popular mode.
Let's step aside a second and look at what ham radio is really made up of. Again, turn on your receiver and listen! It seems everybody has a Jap transceiver connected to a damn Ameritron amplifier, has the accessorized microhone plugged in, and they sit and chat with their buddies. It's a given that there are other modes such as CW and RTTY and PSK32 etc but the enormous popularity of the old plug and play KenSUCom-Tron combination is here .. it's is getting more popular .. and it's never going away. Don't like it OK but that's how it is. Tom, you enjoy or CW but even though it is the second most popula it is way down the list and it isn't going to get more popular. In particular, when the forces that be, stop morse as a requirement for licensing, we are going to have an influx of activity from guys that don't know the code and don't care to. While CW will never go away as a mode it's popularity will continue to decline. Digital modes, barring something unforseen popping up, isn't going to burn the barn down either!
So what do we do here. Set up the allocation such that the modes align themselves by doing away with sub bands. I personally think it is the only correct answer! This is what the CTT proposes (in a nutshell) (big picture). It keeps us from revisiting this painful process 10 years from now to realign the damn sub bands again so that the spectrum allocated to the amateur service is again properly utilized.
Does the CTT proposal address all of the ills of such a realignment. NO emphatically NO! We never meant to because we understood that guys like Skip TY with far more digital experience than us were out there and claimed to be in the process of filing a proposal. He didn't. That would have brought three proposals forward each covering a piece of the puzzle and then there is SPARS who kept saying that they were going to file a proposal to cover this and that but they never got off of their butts to file anything!
If you understand the process you will clearly see that the CTT was not meant to be and end all. It was meant to introduce a concept, which I still think is valid!
Did we expect that the CTT proposal would be accepted in it's entirety without modification. Hell no! We even offered to help other groups any way we could, including #the offer to walk their proposal down to the FCC offices in Washington and assist them in the filing process! We expected others to add the necessary expertise to complete the picture.
So what do we have now? We still have a process that can address the very ills that I have outlined and you admitted exist. They will not be address completely as we saw, that is a total opening of the sub band structure. We will have to revisit reallocation in the future, a big goal of the CTT proposal was to eliminate this need. Will the bands be realigned, as I said, I suspect that the answer will lie somewhere in between the CTT proposal and a further complicated sub division by a new measurement "bandwidth".
But Tom you must understand that CW no longer enjoys special status. I know it is your primary interest but it's use is fading and the allocations, if we are to have them, must be appropriate. Others say hey give me a keyboard and PSK31 or give me a big old heavy AM rig. These all are valid uses of the hobby and NO ONE INTEREST has a right to exist at the expense of the other.
Let me address the AM or wider modes that you seem to have a passionate dislike for. Do they have a right to exist .. your damn right! Do they deserve the bad press that you and others have given them NO! "Reasonable" bandwidth #on some modes are wider than others. Restricting these modes is not the answer because at the very best you might recover a few khz here and few khz there. Opening up the bands is more of an answer because we are talking about hundreds of khz of space, not just a few here and there.
I support your dislike for operators who misuse and misadjust their transmitters. It is uncalled for but there are present regulation that cover these situations. The biggest problem here is ignorance by some of those who transmit improperly and also by operators who are the victim of their own receiving equipment and thier lack of understanding of its use. I applaud you and your website for the effort that you have undertaken in the process of education but I also am critical of your personal bias against wider modes that has turned off some of the very people that need to visit your pages.
To comment on your page on the mixing of modes. It's a nice piece of work BUT the concept is very narrow and thus the conclusion accurate but flawed. You refer constantly to signals as they relate to signals just above the noise floor. That is not real world!!! I listened to #160 and 75 meters and the bulk are in the -70 to -40 dbm range. I don't know how else to get this across, most of the signals that I listened to, over most of the band, were not at the noise floor! Thank you Ameritron! So here we have a SSB QSO in progress and a guy on CW calls CQ right in the middle of the SSB passband. The CW guy gets a contact and they have a whole QSO, right down to signal reports and rigs and the SSB guys kept right at it and so did the CW guys. Put the average scenario into your conclusions, not the extreme ones, and I will be much more impressed. We all don't work weak signal DX with beverages and foour square arrays Tom!
I apologize for the long post but I don't know how I could have put it in fewer words and I am sure that I missed or said something that is not clear. I believe that there is a huge amout of misunderstanding that is causing all of the venom to be spewed around here and other places. It has to do with a process that many hams don't understand and a group of guys that saw a problem and tried to do something, other than sit around and bitch about it! I am talking about the ARRL of course!! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I would be glad to discuss anything about my views and the views that I imparted to the CTT and answer questions about the CTT, if they are appropriate, but I will turn the computer off at the point the conversation disentigrates into anything other than civility.
--Larry W8ER
Tom, one other thing:
Quote[/b] ]I'm distressed to find out after all this time Larry isn't even fully in favor of the petition they submitted.
You may cut the sarcasm and the twisting of what I say or we have concluded this conversation. And yes the process that we have entered allows for revisions and corrections. You clearly are pointing to things and twisting things and expressing your own conclusions and trying to make up your own rules and you are wrong!
--Larry W8ER
Larry,
Thanks, this is the first real technical dialog any CCT member has offered. The others have all been defending the idea to abolish all mode and bandwidth restrictions, or accusing others of releasing bad information.
About the FCC.....
RM proceedings are not intended to be a forum where we post an idea and see what technical input others have. We cannot depend on the FCC taking a bad idea, reading hundreds of pages of submissions, and then correcting flaws in the original proposal.
Years ago the FCC was technical. The fellow at the very top was an amateur, and the people all through the FCC were largely engineers. That's changed now. For the most part people at the FCC don't understand radio or radio communications.
Everyone should keep that in mind when we think they will make a good technical choice.
The CCT Proposal
As a quick overview, here is my take on what you did.
The CCT conducted a questionable (at best) "study" of amateur activity. It was almost certainly flawed because counting the number of stations active at any time isn't possible with a spectrum analyzer, it isn't possible at one location (particularly an urban location) or region, and it would require at least several years of data.
A well-publicized open opinion poll would be much more accurate, and could be easily done.
CW activity probably runs about 40% according to what I read, but that does NOT mean CW should have 40% of available spectrum.
The fact is neither the CCT nor I actually know how our resources should be divided between wide and narrow modes, so neither of us can comment on that division based on accurate information. That division has to be based on what the majority of users want, and filtered through accurate technical analysis of how to meet that need.
Mixing Bandwidths and Modes
This is a no-brainer. Wide modes and narrow modes cannot be mixed. It has been this way since time began, and there is NOTHING in equipment that has changed to permit this.
As a matter of fact, it has gotten worse. My Collins KWM-2 typically measured -50dB PEP for third order off-channel IM products, a 756PRO and most other rigs measure
-30dB PEP or less for off-channel IM3.
Worse yet new SSB rigs are just like the spectrum displays of Bud's AM transmitter. They roll off at a very slow rate compared to older gear. If we only consider the 5th order products problematic we would have to keep the SSB rig at least 10Khz from weak narrow bandwidth signals. I can often hear SSB splatter from strong LSB stations on 1843 kHz down to 1835 kHz. The dominate problems are rigs like the 756PRO, look at the ARRL lab tests and you will see why.
By far transmitters are the problem compared to receivers, and it isn't getting better with time.
Remember these rules of thumb for IM3 bandwidth:
The maximum frequency spacing of new intermodulation products is the difference between the lowest and highest pitched tones modulating the transmitter.
The significant energy bandwidth of a SSB transmitter with -30dB PEP IM products is 3 times the modulated frequency bandwidth!
SSB Splatter (http://www.w8ji.com/transmitter_splatter.htm)
If we limited speech to 300-3000 Hz the IM trash and main signal would occupy about 8-9kHz.
AM transmitters are even worse. If Bud had not removed the spectrum plots of his transmitter, we could look and see this is true. Even AM transmitters I've worked on to limit bandwidth and improve modulated stage linearity are wide.
Boatanchors (http://www.w8ji.com/boatanchors.htm)
In the days when KWM-2's were around, some GG amplifiers degraded the KWM-2 IM perfromance. Today a YaeKenAlinCom rig is so bad that a triode GG amp has insignificant effect on IM products. Remember Eimac data is dB below one tone, while ARRL data is dB below PEP.
The ARRL data tends to make IM look 6dB better than it is by commercial standards.
The primary exceptions to insignificant BW degradation when run through properly tuned linears are tetrode linear amps and transistor amps running at low voltage. Both low voltage solid state amps and grid driven tetrode amps are gaining popularity, and their raw IM performance is so low they often make a noticeable to significant degradation is IM products.
A QST review showed the cheaply designed Ameritron AL-800H having more than 10dB less IM products than ETO and QRO tetrode amps!
The excessively strong off channel modulation byproducts common to SSB and AM transmitters, the inability of the vast maority of people to be able to measure and control them, and the fact that wider bandwidth receivers have less useful signal detection level for a fixed external noise level are the reasons wide multi-tone or voice modes cannot be allowed to move into narrow mode sub-bands.
SSB and voice wasn't historically excluded from narrow sub-bands while CW was allowed full reign on all frequencies because of percentage of use or prejudice, it was set up that way because people making the rules understood the effects of mixing modes.
I cover the mixing mode issues at:
Mixing Modes (http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm)
It's my opinion the CTT, had they looked at this in an open forum with external input from people of diverse backgrounds, would have realized how seriously flawed their concept was and never submitted the RM as they did.
As it is written right now, RM-11305 will destroy narrow mode operation.
The destruction of narrow modes, along with a Google search to see what forums and interests most Think Tank members shared, is why I formed the opinion RM-11305 was designed to eliminate or seriously discourage narrow mode activity. Intentional or not, if adopted RM-11305 would turn the bands into a form of licensed freeband CB.
Experimentation with spectrum conserving modes would vanish and be replaced with an effort to use more and more bandwidth, since the wider informational bandwidth signal is almost always signifciantly less impacted by narrow frequency QRM.
This is where my problem is Larry. It isn't what Bud, you , or anyone else does on the air. It's the technical fact that wide voice modes have low level garbage sticking out a few to several channel widths, wide bandwidth receivers can't hear narrow signals well, and cross modes can't communicate.
A true "Think Tank" would have solved or minimized these problems before submitting to the FCC.
The best thing for amateur radio would be for the "Think Tank" to withdraw their petition and rewrite it with the input of people from dissimilar views, and a better understanding of how the radio systems we use work.
The reason I posted Bud's attitude statement wasn't to pick at Bud, but rather to show that people who think they can plop down first and stay there will be the very people who ruin amateur radio. That isn't just Bud, it is a very common attitude.
This is why historically wide modes are fenced from narrow modes, and the widermode is always significatly more restricted in available frequency. It's at the very core of why our mode regulations are written as they are.
If we are going to clean up or stop the backwards slide of modulation related odd-order IM product perfromance, we have to establish a guideline for -40 and -80dB points. While the FCC doesn't need to enforce it or monitor it on a daily basis, it would serve as the referee in a dispute.
"I was here before you" doesn't work when we mix modes or move a voice signal near weak CW signals, because the voice guy doesn't often understand how bad his transmitter is.
The Think Tank made a very serious technical mistake. Too bad you didn't solicite outside opinions in well-publicized open forums before creating a plan that will destroy amateur radio as we know it today. RM-11305 is asking the FCC to consider a rule change that will ruin the hobby we all share.
I really wish you would have thought this through before submitting RM-11305.
73 Tom
Tom,
Again Tom we have a difference of opinion of just how the proposal process works. I accept that you are much more inclined to be cautious in making a proposal. Under the circumstances, I see that caution has been observed and it is my opinion that we have waited way too long to request the change that 305 does.
Also I would like you to think about possibly broadening your view of amateur radio. You are deeply deeply involved in weak signal DX CW work on 160 even if you claim to visit other modes! I'm impressed that you have worked nearly 300 countries. Your technical approach to many things, receiver performance, antenna design, transmitter specification and so on is based entirely on how it is perceived from your weak signal DX CW work. I am not saying that these things are not applicable or important to other aspects/modes/interests of the hobby but their significance changes drastically!
Your attention to signals at the "floor" is an especially good example. Receiver noise performance is critical to what you do but, just for a moment, consider what receiver noise figures means to the guy that gets off work, grabs supper and a beer and heads to the shack to talk to his buddies, who by the way have KenSUComs and Ameritrons (all cranked to the wall because of overcrowding). He's a ham and isn't doing anything wrong but enjoys a different aspect of ham radio and the only noise he hears is QRM! What possible concern does he have that his receiver can hear a flea fart in Equador?
I think everyone has a tendency to be protective of their particular interest and focus on just that. #Even a lot of the technical pages on your site, while wonderful, are focused on or have a basis in weak signal CW DX needs. Take a look at that Tom. Look at some of your pages, while brilliantly presented, ask yourself how it relates or address other modes and interests.
I wish everyone would broaden their views and look at the hobby as a shared resource and understand that what I do, as much fun as I think it is, is boring to others.
--Larry W8ER
Larry,
After rereading your post I think I should go through it point by point.
You wrote:
"Let's step aside a second and look at what ham radio is really made up of. Again, turn on your receiver and listen! It seems everybody has a Jap transceiver connected to a damn Ameritron amplifier, has the accessorized microhone plugged in, and they sit and chat with their buddies."
Jap is a derogatory word, as is "rice box" when referring to a Japanese manufactured radio. We really should try to be less bigoted.
"Tom, you enjoy or CW but even though it is the second most popula it is way down the list and it isn't going to get more popular."
You have not proven it is "way down the list". CQ Magazine did an open poll, The results were:
Whether you think the FCC should (choose one):
Response: % of all respondents
Eliminate the code test requirement for all amateur license: 25%
Eliminate the code test requirement for General, but keep for Extra: 21%
Replace the current 5wpm code test with a code recognition test or similar: 4%
Leave the code test requirement as it is: 50%
A recent ARRL Survey shows:
http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=334
26.5 % of amateurs use Morse code more than 76% of the time.
13.5% use CW between 26 and 75% of the time.
15.8% use CW less than 25% of the time.
44.1% use no CW.
Your claim CW is a small minority of use is untrue, especially since the ARRL poll includes operators without HF privileges. We can safely say about half of active US amateurs use CW, more than that if we count only those licensed for full HF operation.
"In particular, when the forces that be, stop morse as a requirement for licensing, we are going to have an influx of activity from guys that don't know the code and don't care to. While CW will never go away as a mode it's popularity will continue to decline. Digital modes, barring something unforseen popping up, isn't going to burn the barn down either!"
How do you know that, when you don't have CW usage correct? Please state your source.
"So what do we do here. Set up the allocation such that the modes align themselves by doing away with sub bands. I personally think it is the only correct answer! This is what the CTT proposes (in a nutshell) (big picture). It keeps us from revisiting this painful process 10 years from now to realign the damn sub bands again so that the spectrum allocated to the amateur service is again properly utilized."
You are proposing eliminating ALL narrow band protection, including narrow digital (CW is digital) mode protection, based on what? Your personal opinion of use?
"Does the CTT proposal address all of the ills of such a realignment. NO emphatically NO! We never meant to because we understood that guys like Skip TY with far more digital experience than us were out there and claimed to be in the process of filing a proposal. He didn't. That would have brought three proposals forward each covering a piece of the puzzle and then there is SPARS who kept saying that they were going to file a proposal to cover this and that but they never got off of their butts to file anything!"
Why are you doing that? The FCC already considers us a pain because of the fight against BPL. Now the Think Tank knowingly burdens the FCC with something they know does not address the problems RM-11305 creates to solve what most people think is a non-problem!
"Did we expect that the CTT proposal would be accepted in it's entirety without modification. Hell no! We even offered to help other groups any way we could, including the offer to walk their proposal down to the FCC offices in Washington and assist them in the filing process! We expected others to add the necessary expertise to complete the picture."
Then you should have done all this BEFORE you asked for a specific rule change, not after.
"So what do we have now? We still have a process that can address the very ills that I have outlined and you admitted exist. They will not be address completely as we saw, that is a total opening of the sub band structure. We will have to revisit reallocation in the future, a big goal of the CTT proposal was to eliminate this need. Will the bands be realigned, as I said, I suspect that the answer will lie somewhere in between the CTT proposal and a further complicated sub division by a new measurement "bandwidth"."
Then that is what you should have solved before asking for a rule change.
"But Tom you must understand that CW no longer enjoys special status. I know it is your primary interest but it's use is fading and the allocations, if we are to have them, must be appropriate. Others say hey give me a keyboard and PSK31 or give me a big old heavy AM rig. These all are valid uses of the hobby and NO ONE INTEREST has a right to exist at the expense of the other."
That's correct. Releasing wide modes into narrow mode areas effectively allows wide modes to operate at the expense of narrow modes. We need a fence to protect narrow modes of all types from wide modes, and limits on how wide a signal can be, and limits on what modes can be used where. What the CCT proposed does exactly what you claim should not be allowed to happen.
There never was "special treatment" of CW. The mode seperation was actually based on good engineering practices. Nothing else.
"Let me address the AM or wider modes that you seem to have a passionate dislike for."
You will NEVER find a place where I say I dislike AM or wider modes. They have a place. Wide modes do NOT belong mixed in with narrow modes. There are very sound technical reasons for not mixing them.
" Do they have a right to exist .. your damn right! Do they deserve the bad press that you and others have given them NO!"
You may be confusing technical facts with bad press. Measurements prove amplitude varying voice and data transmitters of all types, including SSB, have spurious products that cause interference outside the occupied channel. Older AM transmitters are particularly bad, and many Internet mods make them significantly worse.
That's a fact, and anyone who has looked on at an old AM transmitter on an analyzer knows it.
It's a technical fact that for the same information type and rate, AM wastes significant spectrum. It's a technical fact that even when properly operated, plate modulated amateur style AM transmitters have significantly wider bandwidth for high order spurious products than any other system available to us on HF.
"I support your dislike for operators who misuse and misadjust their transmitters. It is uncalled for but there are present regulation that cover these situations. The biggest problem here is ignorance by some of those who transmit improperly and also by operators who are the victim of their own receiving equipment and thier lack of understanding of its use."
The typical modern transceiver (see, we can say that without insulting Japanese people) has a 5 kHz IM3 dynamic range of 60-90 dB. The typical SSB transmitter has an IM3 dynamic difference of about 30dB. By far most modern receivers are significantly cleaner than any era's transmitters, the poorest receivers are those using DSP as primary filtering!
On the other hand the top-of-the-line Collins 75A4 has a 5kHz IM3 dynamic range of 59dB (January 2006 QST). AM transmitters are significantly worse than modern transceivers for off channel IM products.
Most of the problem lies with transmitters, not modern receivers. Of course older receivers, being significantly worse, might give a user the impression other signals are dirty. The same is true for improperly used modern receivers such as those with a noise blanker or excessive amplification on, but as a general rule it actually is the transmitter at fault.
"I applaud you and your website for the effort that you have undertaken in the process of education but I also am critical of your personal bias against wider modes that has turned off some of the very people that need to visit your pages."
I'm not biased against wider modes. I'm biased against wasting spectrum by transmitting unnecessary bandwidth.
"To comment on your page on the mixing of modes. It's a nice piece of work BUT the concept is very narrow and thus the conclusion accurate but flawed. You refer constantly to signals as they relate to signals just above the noise floor. That is not real world!!! I listened to 160 and 75 meters and the bulk are in the -70 to -40 dbm range. I don't know how else to get this across, most of the signals that I listened to, over most of the band, were not at the noise floor!"
You miss the fundament concept of communications systems. We cannot push signal levels higher when determining limits of allowable transmitter interference. We are not on channelized commercial circuits using uniform modes, we are in a dynamic system with mode mixing. By disallowing the facts I gave you are in effect saying "let's just toss out the dynamic range advantage of narrow modes and consider them equal to the worse mode we use".
YOUR plan would force everyone on narrow modes to run 40dB gain amplifiers when 40dB less signal would work, just to get through the racket caused by SSB or AM transmitters 3-10kHz up the band. In effect our voice modulated transmitter and receiver performance would set the noise floor limits of narrow modes. That concept makes no logical sense at all Larry!
"Thank you Ameritron! So here we have a SSB QSO in progress and a guy on CW calls CQ right in the middle of the SSB passband. The CW guy gets a contact and they have a whole QSO, right down to signal reports and rigs and the SSB guys kept right at it and so did the CW guys. Put the average scenario into your conclusions, not the extreme ones, and I will be much more impressed. We all don't work weak signal DX with beverages and foour square arrays Tom!"
We will all have to run high ERP and directional receiving antennas just to work from Georgia to California if your plan goes through Larry. In order to share a SSB channel equally, the CW station would have to have at least a ten to thirteen dB ERP advantage.
Why not just use each mode to their maximum capability by keeping the wide modes away from narrow modes? That system has worked for years, and appears to still be working quite well. It's significantly more efficient to limit transmitter frequency choice problems than to try to balance two incompatible modes sharing the same frequency.
"I would be glad to discuss anything about my views and the views that I imparted to the CTT and answer questions about the CTT, if they are appropriate, but I will turn the computer off at the point the conversation disentigrates into anything other than civility."
Then I respectfully suggest we avoid using words like "Jap", "holding you hand", and so on. I'm uncomfortable with remarks like that in technical discussions. When they are used, along with words like "damn" people tend to attribute the words to BOTH parties, even when it is only one of the parties using them.
73 Tom
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 04 2006,07:57)]
Quote[/b] ]Again Tom we have a difference of opinion of just how the proposal process works. I accept that you are much more inclined to be cautious in making a proposal. Under the circumstances, I see that caution has been observed and it is my opinion that we have waited way too long to request the change that 305 does.
Maybe I'm correct. Perhaps you jumped the gun, and proposed something not needed, or proposed something most people consider a step backwards.
If you are correct Larry, why are the very few positive comments towards RM-11305 mostly from people who come up active in ESSB or AM forums?
Quote[/b] ]
Your attention to signals at the "floor" is an especially good example. Receiver noise performance is critical to what you do but, just for a moment, consider what receiver noise figures means to the guy that gets off work, grabs supper and a beer and heads to the shack to talk to his buddies, who by the way have KenSUComs and Ameritrons (all cranked to the wall because of overcrowding). He's a ham and isn't doing anything wrong but enjoys a different aspect of ham radio and the only noise he hears is QRM! What possible concern does he have that his receiver can hear a flea fart in Equador?
It's all about dynamic range Larry.
Good engineering never sets the limit of maximum dynamic range based on the least dynamic range requirement.
Doing so would restrict all systems to the capability of the poorest system. If we all wanted to blast from Cleveland, Ohio to the New Jersey shores on 75 meters running 1500 watts, then that's where we should analyze the system. Most people do not have that as the ultimate ambition in life.
Your idea would also require both ends to have 1500 watts.
I think you'll have a tough time selling people on the idea our systems should be limited to the most wasteful use of a frequency in terms of power over distance. Traditionally communications systems are designed to maximize use of the available propatation and external noise floor, not minimize it.
Quote[/b] ]I wish everyone would broaden their views and look at the hobby as a shared resource and understand that what I do, as much fun as I think it is, is boring to others.
I already understand that. That's why I don't work so much AM.
It's even more important that each of us be considerate to others, and not take away what they enjoy just to get some more room for wide modes that waste spectrum.
In my opinion, anyone who wants to use ESSB or AM should put up with the QRM they get. Wider modes, especially when the bandwidth does not contribute to effectiveness of communications, should not take over space of more effiicient modes.
We should have rules that limit bandwidth, not rules that encourage wasting spectrum.
There would be nothing wrong with expanding some phone bands, but turning it all loose won't work when most people have the attitude "I was here first so you get lost".
73 Tom
Tom,
Your theories and postulates are all based on perfect situations but ham radio is not perfect and a good example of how theories are many times wrong! Also you have a unique perspective of what you think ham radio should be and many people don't agree with you.
Tom Said:
Quote[/b] ]This is a no-brainer. Wide modes and narrow modes cannot be mixed. It has been this way since time began, and there is NOTHING in equipment that has changed to permit this.
further Tom Says:
Quote[/b] ]The mode seperation was actually based on good engineering practices. Nothing else.
Tom, you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.
Since narrow and wide modes cannot possibly exist together, can I put you down as opposing any bandplan that would allow CW in the Phone portions of the bands?
Tom said:
Quote[/b] ]We should have rules that limit bandwidth, not rules that encourage wasting spectrum.
The FCC said (in DA-04-3661 in response to RM-10740 which was a request to limit signal bandwidth):
Quote[/b] ]"We conclude that Petitioners’ request for an amendment of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service." "The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community is either warranted or necessary" "Moreover, the Commission has previously declined to restrict bandwidth for AM because to do so would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of amateur service and our desire to offer amateur operators the opportunity to experiment with various types." #
Tom also said:
Quote[/b] ]Wider modes, especially when the bandwidth does not contribute to effectiveness of communications, should not take over space of more efficient modes.
Tom .. efficient modes use less bandwidth by definition and thus need less. However ham radio is about many things other than just efficiency! #To say that we need to cripple wider modes for the privelege of those who use spectrum more efficiently is nonsense. Why? Because #HAM RADIO ITSELF IS NOT AN EFFICIENT USE OF BANDWIDTH! #I'm sure that you get my point.
I really don't think that carrying on here about "he said you said" is going to accomplish anything. So I will just thank you for the time that you have taken to respond. I do wish that you would call Bud. I think he is quite hurt by the attacks and if you are really friends, it would help. If there is anything that I can clarify please email me at larry@w8er.com.
73 -- Larry W8ER
Larry,
You wrote:
"Tom, you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.
Since narrow and wide modes cannot possibly exist together, can I put you down as opposing any bandplan that would allow CW in the Phone portions of the bands"
Larry,
Very clearly I've pointed out the problem is the wide mode is basically UNAFFECTED by the narow mode, but the narrow mode is devistated by the wide mode.
All along I've said over and over again that wide modes need to be fenced off from narrow mode areas. My web page on mixing modes says that. I've also said it here.
As a matter of fact I've used the very specific example that a narrow mode can be REMOVED from the passband of a wide mode with minimal problem while the converse is not true.
This is why narrow modes are less restricted in operating range, NOT because the FCC made a prejudical rule.
So the answer is no, I won't support restricting very narrow modes from the area where wider mode are held #on the basis of preventing QRM. Narrow modes are easily removed from wide modes, and that technology has been available for 70 years.
Second, narrow single tone modes do not have the odd-IM distortion that increases bandwidth outside the occupied channels that multiple simultaneous tone modes like voice or some data modes. Multiple tones at the same time create off channel products through odd-order mixing.
If you read my webpage on mixing modes, you'll understand why the rules are as they are. Wide modes just destroy narrow modes, but the converse is generally not true.
CW was actually necessary in phone bands because of increased communications effectiveness and because it does not destroy the wider voice modes. The converse is NOT true. SSB or AM has no range advantage, no equipment advantage, and SSB and AM also have modulation byproducts that destroy adjacent channel weak signals.
This has all been explained before.
RM-11305 was very poorly thought out, or it never would have been filed.
73 Tom
Quote[/b] (w8er @ Feb. 04 2006,14:36)]
Quote[/b] ]you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.
I listen to 40 and 75 meter 'phone regularly - and I don't hear any routine CW operation.
I work CW contests and none of the CW contesters are in the US 'phone bands.
CW is allowed in the 'phone bands but it is rarely if ever used there.
Meanwhile, foreign 'phones are all over the CW/data parts of bands like 40 meters.
73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY
Quote[/b] (N2EY @ Feb. 05 2006,05:49)]
Quote[/b] ]you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.
I listen to 40 and 75 meter 'phone regularly - and I don't hear any routine CW operation.
I work CW contests and none of the CW contesters are in the US 'phone bands.
CW is allowed in the 'phone bands but it is rarely if ever used there.
Meanwhile, foreign 'phones are all over the CW/data parts of bands like 40 meters.
73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY
You don't hear regular CW operation in the phone bands because there isn't any.
On 160 meters, there is somewhat regular SSB activity outside the bandplan. About every day I hear SSB below 1840 even though there is lots of empty space above 1840. And what you say about foreign SSB is true. The low end of 80 has foreign SSB on a regular daily basis, and the low end of 40 in the morning always has dozens of SSB stations.
I'd wager any amount of money at any given time when there is moderate to long distance propagation I can find SSB stations below 3550 and below 7050 on 40 and 80 meters.
Now the CCT wants to allow USA stations to join the mix, when stations north and south of the USA don't follow bandplans.
73 Tom
wa4dou
02-05-2006, 07:24 PM
I echo-The reason you don't hear regular cw operation in the phone bands is because there isn't any.
All that I ever heard was generally where an ssb/am qso failed under heavy qsb and the ops got in a quick last comment and/or goodby before totally losing each other.
At least one respondee to this thread tried to minimize the current usage of cw on the bands. In fact Tom replied to him with statistics from CQ about their cw usage poll. CW has/is undergoing a resurgence in popularity and is especially popular in contests. K7C reported they made more qso's from Kure I. on cw than ssb.
If we have to deal with NPR's, the least we should be able to expect is to have accurate, well thought out, well rounded proposals before us. RM-11305 is a farce, a fraud and a failure and by and large, we all know it!
wa4dou
02-05-2006, 08:34 PM
Here are some interesting statistics that serve to illustrate
possible band loading with each mode mentioned. No effort has
been made to illustrate every possible mode as all fit between
these bandwidth extremes under 29.0 Mhz. No effort has been
made to factor in any possible necessity for needed bandspace
between qso's, only to show the relative bandloading possible
with different modes.
It assumes 9 Khz. BW for AM, 3.5 Khz. for ESSB, 3.0 Khz. for
SSB, 200 Hz. for CW, 31 Hz. for PSK-31.
160 meters(1.8-2.0 Mhz)
----------
AM- 22 qso's
ESSB- 57 qso's
SSB- 67 qso's
CW- 1000 qso's
PSK31- 6451 qso's
80 meters(3.5-4.0 Mhz)
---------
AM- 56 qso's
ESSB- 143 qso's
SSB- 167 qso's
CW- 2500 qso's
PSK31- 16129 qso's
40 meters(7.0-7.3 Mhz)
---------
AM- 33 qso's
ESSB- 86 qso's
SSB- 100 qso's
CW- 1500 qso's
PSK31- 4839 qso's
30 meters(10.1-10.15 Mhz)
---------
AM- 6 qso's
ESSB- 14 qso's
SSB- 17 qso's
CW- 250 qso's
PSK31- 1613 qso's
20 meters(14.0-14.35 Mhz)
---------
AM- 39 qso's
ESSB- 100 qso's
SSB- 117 qso's
CW- 1750 qso's
PSK31- 11290 qso's
17 meters(18.068-18.168 Mhz)
---------
AM- 11 qso's
ESSB- 29 qso's
SSB- 33 qso's
CW- 500 qso's
PSK31- 3226 qso's
15 meters(21.0-21.45 Mhz)
---------
AM- 50 qso's
ESSB- 129 qso's
SSB- 150 qso's
CW- 2250 qso's
PSK31- 14516 qso's
12 meters(24.89-24.99 Mhz)
---------
Same as 17 meters
10 meters(28.0-29.0 Mhz) (Only this segment considered)
---------
AM- 111 qso's
ESSB- 286 qso's
SSB- 333 qso's
CW- 5000 qso's
PSK31- 32258 qso's
You can obliterate hundreds and thousands of your fellow
amateur's qso's with a phone band expansion that will yield
relatively few additional qso's. You can also join us in the
use of narrower bandwidth modes. Pursuing lower power use
and narrower bandwidth modes will contribute towards more
spectrum availability for all of us and less QRM! The results
you achieve will impress you!
RM-11305 seeks to allow band dominance by relative few at the
expense of the rest of us.
Just say NO! to RM-11305 Do it today
wa4dou
02-06-2006, 12:27 AM
Anyone looking at the above chart can easily and quickly see how many users can be displaced by a relatively few just by their mode of choice if RM-11305 became law.
I personally abandoned AM in 1966 on HF and only ever used it again for a short time on 6 meters around 1970. I'd like to see its use discontinued below 29 Mhz. but the Commission has decreed that all modes must be allowed for. There is allowance made for it in all of our MF/HF phone bands. The CTT however lusted for all available amateur frequences and shamelessly initiated a proposal to get them under the guise of "benefiting" all amateurs. One supporter/apologist on this thread even began to reinvent himself when it became so apparent and CTT began to take on the aura of a benevolent body. Thankfully we know better.
N2MMM
06-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 05 2006,17:27)]Anyone looking at the above chart can easily and quickly see how many users can be displaced by a relatively few just by their mode of choice if RM-11305 became law.
I personally abandoned AM in 1966 on HF and only ever used it again for a short time on 6 meters around 1970. I'd like to see its use discontinued below 29 Mhz. but the Commission has decreed that all modes must be allowed for. There is allowance made for it in all of our MF/HF phone bands. The CTT however lusted for all available amateur frequences and shamelessly initiated a proposal to get them under the guise of "benefiting" all amateurs. One supporter/apologist on this thread even began to reinvent himself when it became so apparent and CTT began to take on the aura of a benevolent body. Thankfully we know better.
Stick your SPAR where the sun don't shine. AM FOREVER.