View Full Version : The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!
Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 04 2006,15:08)]I have been monitoring the discussion for the last week or so. This is a very animated discussion with much good info from all sides.
For me the main issue is: Digital automatic and semi-automatic robots must be separated from all other operations. I believe this should be done "by rule in part 97" not by bandplan. Maybe a bandplan could possibly work but since neither the ARRL or the CTT have a bandplan on the table the default is that we must have the separation by rule.
In my opinion these issues are NOT the crux issue:
1. #The fact that Winlink may or my not be appropriate to ham radio since it "competes" with commercial ISPs that provide for message service at sea
2. The fact that Winlink uses a particular type of modem that only a fraction of hams have and that the modulation scheme is not open to the amateur community
3. The fact that Winlink users fit some type of profile -- such as "digital elitists" kicking back in their yachts or missionaries working in a jungle without even basic necessities
4. The ARRL either is or is not listening to its members
-------
I think the crux of the problem is obvious. It has nothing to do with a "we vs. them" argument. We all gain if inherently incompatible stuff is separate.
I don't know whether the "robot" section should be 5Khz, 10Khz, or 50Khz on a given band. That would have to be negotiated once we come to our senses and agree in principle that robots need to be confined to their own space. The robots should have a dedicated space where all other operations are not allowed. Also the robots should not be allowed except in their own space.
The problem with Winlink is not that it is digital or even "wideband digital". The problem is that is uses "robots". Requiring robots to be in a specific area does not equate to the idea that ham radio is ruled by a bunch of hidebound old guys who are against progress.
To the extent that Winlink is a mode of the future, it needs to be "protected" by having an exclusive domain in which to work along with other "robot" operations. # #
The XYL and I get E-mails from a missionary family in Nigeria all the time via our local church. I believe that in some cases (depending upon where the missionaries are at their various field stations) that these E-mails reach our church office via Winlink. Since Winlink (as a "robot" operation) is so incompatible with non-robots they should have a protected place to operate. #
Just for the record: The XYL and I are members of First Baptist Church of Del City OK. The missionaries are supported by the International Mission Board which is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
73 Roger #K5RKS
Roger: Great insight and post. But, the ARRL has made this emotional, and perhaps in need of same, since their petition fails to discern the issues you mention. And, most of us feel that this has been done on purpose. Why? To hide the very points that you made.
Many here are fans of innovative communications methods. Yes, even digital modes.
The petitions need to be essentially dismissed, since neither have made the case for doing away with the segregation of robots and supposed semi-robots.
There's little doubt that the HF bands need refarming, based on the usage patterns of the US amateur community and, IMO, this should be done, in keeping with international agreements.
If you haven't, please provide your thoughts in the form of brief comments to RM-11305 and RM-11306 at the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing web site.
Thanks and 73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 05 2006,12:08)]1. #The fact that Winlink may or my not be appropriate to ham radio since it "competes" with commercial ISPs that provide for message service at sea
2. The fact that Winlink uses a particular type of modem that only a fraction of hams have and that the modulation scheme is not open to the amateur community
3. The fact that Winlink users fit some type of profile -- such as "digital elitists" kicking back in their yachts or missionaries working in a jungle without even basic necessities
4. The ARRL either is or is not listening to its members
73 Roger #K5RKS
Roger,
I do see the 4 items as problems.
(1) I have no problem with Winlink, but I don't see why Winlink would need all of the band, unless there was abuse. A small segment would be enough to service legitimate ham activity. So abusive use is an issue, especialy when allowed to interfere with legitimate use.
(2) Opening the bands to "a particular type of modem that only a fraction of hams have" is a hugh issue. In a limited segment, the Pactor folks can monitor the other Pactor folks. To allow the unpublished transmissions, that require a $1000 box across the bands, would pretty much give Pactor II and III, freedom to transmit at will. How will we identify them?
(3) I beleive the "digital elitists" term comes from a group that thinks CW and SSB should go away. Just as I would be a "CW elitist" if I suggested special CW priviledges at the expense of Hams using other modes.
As far as "kicking back in their yachts or missionaries working in a jungle", there is a huge difference. No one has a problem with missionaries using Winlink. However, I do have a problem with someone driving around in a $500,000 motorhome or boat, abusing Ham Radio to avoid spending a few bucks a month for a commercial email service.
(4) Maybe you aren't a member, but some of us have been discussing this for 2 years. The ratio of folks against this now is about like it was then. The ARRL is listening to their members, they just don't carry out the wishes of their members. To send a proposal to the FCC, and comment, that they are representing Ham radio is flat out false, and that point is an issue that should be pointed out to the FCC.
Reading the comments, will make it clear that the wishes of Ham Radio Operators are not represented by RM-11306. It is obvious that the ARRL has pushed the proposal without the approval of the majority of members, and tries to convince the FCC otherwise as a selling point. A big issue.
Comments close tomorrow, mine are in, and we will see what happens.
Keep in mind, that unmonitored Winlink usage with mass abuse, will effect those missionaries working in a jungle also, if they can't get a clear circuit.
73 - Bob
k5rks
02-05-2006, 08:45 PM
To W6EM:
My comments are on record at the FCC regarding
RM-11305 and RM-11306.
As my comments to the FCC state, I am against both proposals for the reasons given in the comments.
I am not "against" the ARRL and/or Winlink and/or
"digital elitists" (if there is such a thing).
For the purpose of this discussion I am
"neutral" on the idea of the SCS modem being used by a segment of the ham community that uses a "closed" architecture.
I support Winlink as long as it continues to operate in subbands which are "appropriate" given the number of Winlink users compared to the total ham population operating in the HF bands.
73 Roger K5RKS
ad4mg
02-05-2006, 08:49 PM
Quote[/b] ]W6NJ: #To send a proposal to the FCC, and comment, that they (the ARRL) are representing Ham radio is flat out false, and that point is an issue that should be pointed out to the FCC.
Agreed 100%. #I pointed this out in my comments to RM-11306, uploaded today. #Browsing through the comments leaves one with little doubt as to the validity of this point!
Best 73,
Luke
k5rks
02-05-2006, 09:24 PM
I think that what the ARRL does or doesn't do is slightly off topic but since the ARRL submitted the proposal now known as RM-11306 I guess it is fair game to discuss the ARRL.
I have been an ARRL member continuously since 1958 when I was an 18 year old novice. My call then was WV6DCF. I support most of what the ARRL does: (a) setting up DXCC and WAS awards, (b) publishing QST, © working to control BPL interference, (d) helping hams with tower issues, (e) setting up LOTW, etc etc.
However, I don't agree with either the petition the ARRL filed or the way that the ARRL used to develop the petition. I agree with many of you that the method the ARRL used in developing the petition was not even close to one that represents equal input from all the various "constituencies" in the membership. Where were the CW guys, the Phone guys, the QRP guys, the DX guys, the Contest guys, the ragchewing guys, the emergency service guys. There are so many facets in this hobby.
The only thing the ARRL did was put a group of digital gurus in a room. And "half" (I don't know the exact percentage) of them ended up walking out in protest. As another poster has said, "smells like a railroad job to me".
The ARRL did seek some comments at bandwidth@arrl.org. I did put in my comments last year when I was still in Calif (with call NQ6C). The ARRL did make some minor tweaks but they never engaged the essence of the comments of their own members.
Maybe I am an optimist. Here is the outcome I am hoping for:
1. The FCC rejects both the CTT and ARRL proposals.
2. The ARRL continues on its very important (but belated) job of heading up the effort to come out with an Region 2 bandplan.
3. Then we can catch our breath.
4. Later (I don't know how to define later) we can
petition the FCC in light of what the bandplan says and in light of the extent that some in the ham community ignore it or "bend" it. In the best of all possible worlds (maybe you guys think I've been drinking too much Koolaide) we won't have to petition the FCC. You know what the Hippocratic oath says, "First do no harm".
73 Roger K5RKS ex NQ6C ex WA6DCF
wa4dou
02-05-2006, 10:01 PM
K5RKS, said it very well. I am a League member and I also support the League in much of what it does. Because RM-11306 has the potential to affect all licensed amateurs, if HQ had been even slightly imaginative, they'd have solicited opinion from the entirety of amateur radio and crafted a proposal that would have had very broadbased support. Instead they got confused and thought their representation was only of League members and then paid little attention to us(the members). It became quite apparent in these Internet threads about the 2 BW proposals that many opinions brought out many angles of consideration and that both proposals were defective. RM-11306 is the least defective but still needs major rework. I too would like to see the League withdraw this RM proposal and go back and do it right. Its time to hold the League accountable for yet another major blunder and clean out the leadership. If indeed the ARRL is the "national voice of amateur radio" then it needs to begin to recognize its responsibility to represent all of us, not just the membership.
WA0LYK
02-06-2006, 03:48 AM
After doing much thinking, one of the problems with the ARRL's bandwidth plan is that it throws more traffic into one of the heaviest used part of the amateur radio.
11305 does have a point that SSB is the biggest part of ham radio on HF. While I don't agree with that petition since it is very selfish with the attitude that since they have the largest population they should have access to all of every band. I don't know how they made that leap of logic! They didn't even discuss simply expanding the phone bands, just do away with everything and if phone runs over everything else, so be it.
Anyway, they do have a point, and the ARRL's plan of putting wideband data mixed into phone only exerbates the problem. The ARRL should have at least discussed the reason they didn't do like Region 1 and define digital voice as digimode.
For multimedia, they could have treated it as a computer based, data type mode, which is where the term originated. If you want to send image as data, use digital voice and go at it. Phone with image would still be allowed.
wa4dou
02-06-2006, 03:53 AM
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 now!
wa4dou
02-06-2006, 04:09 AM
Our future ought to be about doing more and more with less and less. Specifically less bandwidth and less power. Less bandwidth occupied and less power output used allows more and more users to participate. Every plan to expand phone band usage will displace far more narrow band users than enable phone band users. Would you really seek to balance a few #narrow mode users against an equal number of wide band users? As it is now, there is incentive to move in the direction of the greatest performance for an occupied bandwidth, which is away from the phone bands.
WA5BEN
02-06-2006, 04:09 AM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 02 2006,22:02)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 02 2006,19:18)]The only "boorish insults, mis-direction, obfuscations, smoke screening" that I see are directed at those of us who have the technical experience, expertise, and courage to counter the obvious BS that comes from the SMALL and VICIOUS group that hates everything that isn't AM, CW, or SSB voice.
"Technical experience, expertise"?
I was working on North American Rockwell analog to digital IC's in the seventies. It was part of NASA research money. It was called digital sampling of analog waveforms. Old news, check your history.
The comments so far, to the FCC sure doesn't indicate a "small group" as you indicate.
I know it is hard to take reality, but your vision of ham radio, does not gel with the "small group" that you describe, that is really a very "large group" of Hams.
Why not argue the facts?
Someone asked Keith to suggest Lotto numbers after he once again tells us how it "WILL BE", and that is BOORISH?
This guy does nothing other then tell us how we are idiots that don't understand the future that he has already seen. Hell yeah, send me those Lotto numbers.
You are the man. The Nostradamus of Ham Radio.
I think posting over and over again, how we are idiots if we don't agree, is BOORISH? But it isn't hard to see the pattern.
Experts don't need to call others names. They prove it, and you haven't proven anything, other then you have no idea what you're talking about from a technical standpoint.
As far as Pactor II & III, it may be time to bring this threat to our homeland, to the Department of Homeland Security. The FCC doesn't seem to get the reason for the rules that were laid out many years ago.
It is not very good, that a German company is selling a box, that they advertise as being designed to hide email content, for use on ARS HF bands that have wordwide propogation. And beyond that, the ARRL promotes this box, and Winlink as the future of Ham radio.
A box that most hams won't buy, because it costs more then an HF rig, and has limited value because of the cost. But the Kings in Newington know nothing of the common man.
I have hesitated in this regard, as it could spell the end of Ham HF.
But if it is not addressed soon, it will be the end anyway.
Let this get on the TV networks, and we are dead.
One mention of this reality, and both political parties will kill Ham Radio faster then you can even imagine. Bpl is just interferance. A felony rap for transmitting is a bit more then that.
If hidden messages are allowed to remain, we risk the end of the ARS at anytime.
I say it is best to get PACTOR II & III off the Ham bands, unless Peter decides to make the format open.
But why do that? Hans-Peter Helfert (DL6MAA) is a legend in his own mind. No regard for what is right, or sensible, just his own lust for fame. Famous or Infamous is a fine line. If UBL uses his technology for his evil wishes, DL6MAA may be in the history books in a way he didn't imagine, but then it may not matter, as long as he is in the books?
Patent laws protect his hardware, so I don't even understand why he goes on this path, other then a paranoid love for more money.
Is it really a good idea, to do everything possible to hide the method needed to read Pactor transmissions, that could allow a terrorist to go unnoticed on the ARS bands?
Is there anyone in their right mind, that supports a format that purposely tries to hide content on public airways, that would help Iran to import and set off a Nuclear weapon in a major city? Really, think about it.
What a good plan. Hidden messages across HF. The ARRL, promoting an infrastructure for UBL to use from his antenna outside the cave.
Great idea? Lets make sure that there is more space on the HF bands to transmit the hidden "green light" that kills some more Americans.
We better start thinking this through. Because the end of ARS will be quick. Real quick. An Executive order can stop our operations tomorrow, just like happened in WWII.
And unlike Gerrison, when it comes from the top, you WILL go straight to prison, with a trial sometime in the future? MAYBE?
When it comes to a subject like hidden Pactor formats, that can help UBL kill Americans, then you better beleive I am VICIOUS, real damn VICIOUS.
BOORISH enough OM??? I'm trying very hard, but find it isn't hard at all. Not in the least.
Think it through.
Your posts may be part of a congressional hearing some day on why Ham Radio was allowed to be the communication method used to launch the next attack that killed millions.
73 - Bob
Your post boils down to: "The SCS modem uses codes or ciphers or some other mystery code, and I don't like that".
That, sir, is (at the very least) uninformed or misinformed. That is exactly the kind of "mis-direction, obfuscations, smoke screening" to which I referred.
I personally know of two people -- who do not make a living writing code or building modems -- who were able to decode Winlink PACTOR III transmissions WITHOUT an SCS box. That information was posted on QRZ several months ago.
The formats have been posted. The demand EVERY time information has been offered has been "build us something and give it to us so that we can read this without doing anything".
The phrase that was seized upon for this "coded transmission" garbage was something like "protected from the casual listener". That means if I am a non-technical person without specialized equipment and I tune across it, I can't read it. Plain old CCIR-476 FEC fits that definition -- as does HDTV. But, if I have a decoder, I can READILY read it.
If you wish to be recognized as an idiot, ask Homeland Security to act against this "threat". They will undoubtedly laugh you out of the building.
Speaking from an area in which I have recognized expertise, I can tell you that there are methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power.
Why on earth would anyone even THINK of putting ANY secret on an open system and transmitting it HF? We can only hope that the terrorists are that stupid -- but we well know that they are not.
In other words, the entire premise upon which you base your response is false.
And, since you brought up the 70's, here is an excerpt:
Designed, developed, and demonstrated the first video conferencing system with voice-actuated camera switching and high-level (speaker from 7 foot screen) audio. (Live microphones. Blasting audio. No delay. No feedback.)
Designed, engineered, and installed the first Electronic News Gathering system that was placed in service West of the Mississippi -- and possibly the first in the nation. (The first of 35 stations that I designed and installed.)
Responsible for the first MiniCam transmission West of the Mississippi.
Ran production studio. Proivided equipment and crews, engineered, and lit 20th Century Fox promos with William Holden, Dom De Luise, Gene Wilder, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and others.
Elected to Active Grade in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers because of the above accomplishments.
WA0LYK
02-06-2006, 04:29 AM
Quote[/b] ]wa4dou
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.
Just a couple of things most folks don't think about. Most rigs, if properly equipped for CW only have 500 Hz filters. A lot of the new ones have better than this, but I suspect they are still in the minority of all rigs used.
When computing bandwidth, you also have to include a factor for interference. For example, if a SSB signal 4 kHz away is 60 db over S9, his 3 order intermod products are still going to be 20 or 30 db over S9. If everyone ran similar power and had similar antennas this wouldn't be so important.
Your ultimate conclusions are exactly right, and one reason doing away with the Morse Code requirement would be a bad thing!
Jim
WA0LYK
I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have not seen a bandplan that has E-mail robots gulping up the frequencies. #Why? #The bandplan hasn't been developed, yet. #You're jousting with windmills, my friend. #Wait until the bandplan is being developed and then voice your opinion.
WA5BEN
02-06-2006, 04:45 AM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2006,08:42)]Readers should also note the frequency range given above. Speech above 2.8khz has become recognized in recent years as contributing significantly to speech intelligibility. Yet the ARRL wants to forever restrict research into that area by restricting bandwidths to 3500hz. What are they thinking?
tim ab0wr
You always cite something that "has become recognized" or "research". The funny thing is that these mysterious sources conflict with a LOT of existing data.
It is quite well known (proven in extensive tests and used for US and foreign military and police specs) that the human ear "supplies" the components above 2500 Hz. The telephone cuts off below 300 Hz and above 3000 Hz. There is very good intelligibility.
VHF/UHF radios have had 300 Hz to 2500 Hz passband for years. Good intelligibility.
The essential portions for intelligibility are the "clues" that enable the brain to "hear" the components that are not present. Many of these clues are in the mid-range frequencies.
Intelligibility can be significantly improved by altering the relative levels of the VOWEL sounds (low frequency, most of the power) and the consonant (high frequency, low power) sounds. This can be done without clipping. (Heavy clipping often removes some mid-range components.)
There is also a technique that takes advantage of the frequency "holes" in speech to compress a wide range of frequencies into a smaller bandwidth -- and spreads them out at the receiver.
In other words, there is ample research to clearly show that restriction to a 2.5 kHz bandpass (300 to 2800 Hz) does not negatively impact intelligibility. In point of fact, transmitting frequencies out to 6 kHz merely wastes power that could be used to send components that would aid intelligibility.
BTW: We confirmed these conclusions on an HF simulator, and in field trials. Intelligibility did not suffer horribly for a male speaker until we dropped to just above 2200 Hz on the high side (300 to 2200 Hz passband). Then it went rapidly to pot. A female speaker could require a couple of hundred Hertz above that. (We tested the female voice only at the higher bandwidths -- 2.5 kHz and above.) Tactical HF radios typically have audio bandpass of 300 to 2400 Hz.
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:09)]Your post boils down to: #"The SCS modem uses codes or ciphers or some other mystery code, and I don't like that".
That, sir, is (at the very least) uninformed or misinformed. #That is exactly the kind of "mis-direction, obfuscations, smoke screening" to which I referred.
I personally know of two people -- who do not make a living writing code or building modems -- who were able to decode Winlink PACTOR III transmissions WITHOUT an SCS box. #That information was posted on QRZ several months ago.
The formats have been posted.
Where??? The SCS site or some hacker that told you that this is true?
Give us the URL to the secret code?
ab0wr
02-06-2006, 01:28 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:45)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2006,08:42)]Readers should also note the frequency range given above. Speech above 2.8khz has become recognized in recent years as contributing significantly to speech intelligibility. Yet the ARRL wants to forever restrict research into that area by restricting bandwidths to 3500hz. What are they thinking?
tim ab0wr
You always cite something that "has become recognized" or "research". #The funny thing is that these mysterious sources conflict with a LOT of existing data.
It is quite well known (proven in extensive tests and used for US and foreign military and police specs) that the human ear "supplies" the components above 2500 Hz. #The telephone cuts off below 300 Hz and above 3000 Hz. #There is very good intelligibility.
VHF/UHF radios have had 300 Hz to 2500 Hz passband for years. #Good intelligibility.
The essential portions for intelligibility are the "clues" that enable the brain to "hear" the components that are not present. #Many of these clues are in the mid-range frequencies.
Intelligibility can be significantly improved by altering the relative levels of the VOWEL sounds (low frequency, most of the power) and the consonant (high frequency, low power) sounds. #This can be done without clipping. #(Heavy clipping often removes some mid-range components.)
There is also a technique that takes advantage of the frequency "holes" in speech to compress a wide range of frequencies into a smaller bandwidth -- and spreads them out at the receiver.
In other words, there is ample research to clearly show that restriction to a 2.5 kHz bandpass (300 to 2800 Hz) does not negatively impact intelligibility. #In point of fact, transmitting frequencies out to 6 kHz merely wastes power that could be used to send components that would aid intelligibility.
BTW: #We confirmed these conclusions on an HF simulator, and in field trials. #Intelligibility did not suffer horribly for a male speaker until we dropped to just above 2200 Hz on the high side #(300 to 2200 Hz passband). #Then it went rapidly to pot. #A female speaker could require a couple of hundred Hertz above that. #(We tested the female voice only at the higher bandwidths -- 2.5 kHz and above.) #Tactical HF radios typically have audio bandpass of 300 to 2400 Hz.
Larry,
I have posted *QUOTES* on here from sources ranging as widely as the current design requirements for fire annunciation systems to office design requirements in Canada.
I'm not surprised that you refuse to remember them.
The office design requirements were posted verbatim just a few messages back.
Most of the research you are speaking of was done 20-30 years ago. In the past decade, *SIGNIFICANT* research has been done that refutes what you quote.
Perhaps you remember this quote I provided?
*************************************************
CBD-139. Acoustical Design of Open-Planned Offices
Normal speech has a dynamic range of some 30 dB and a frequency content from 250 to 6000 Hz. The middle frequency components are more important than the extreme high and low frequencies, but for 100 per cent intelligibility the full 30 dB range of the speech signal across the complete frequency spectrum should lie above the prevailing background noise.
************************************************** *****
The human brain does NOT supply missing components.
I refer you to the new MFJ receive enhancement units that boost the audio frequencies above 3khz to enhance intelligibility. They even advertise it as boosting intelligibility.
There is a major formant in speech at about the 2200hz frequency, Larry. That is why your intelligiblity went to pot.
BTW, please note carefully what I am speaking of -- HIGH intelligibility speech - not just "good enough" speech.
The ARRL did a study of NTS traffic accuracy a few years ago and couldn't understand why so much voice traffic was relayed inaccurately. They refused to understand and you seem to be doing the same.
2.1khz to 2.8khz speech does not provide enough intelligibility to accurately relay formal traffic under even good conditions.
That's one reason for the office design requirements above. Business can't afford to have inaccurate relaying of information either.
I suggest you do some *recent* research before taking someone to task about intelligibility.
BTW, your example of compressing into a smaller bandwidth is not compatible with existing transmitters. Use of ISB would be!
This isn't anything we haven't discussed at least twice before, Larry. Perhaps you should take notes you can refer to before trying to take me to task for something I *have* the research to show.
tim ab0wr
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 04 2006,23:53)]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.
_
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 now!
Your model assumes exclusive use by each mode. #If you examine CTT's band occupation study, it does a reasonably good job of depicting usage by mode. #Uninfluenced by contesting, etc. #But, they do nothing with the numbers. #Probably because only 5.9% of the QSOs observed were digital. #And even then, did not identify what the digital modes were.
Spectrum conservation is important, and its already in current FCC regulations. #By virtue of bandwidth restrictions on modes at HF when contrasted to VHF and higher. #But, there is a loophole that should be closed. #97CFR307(f)(1-7) appears to place bandwidth restrictions solely on FSK digital transmissions. #All digital transmissions, including Pactor, should be required to comply.
I agree with your premise that HF spectrum should be conserved and that research and development efforts focused on accomplishing more with less (bandwidth) instead of more with more. #Leave the digital bandwidth restrictions as they are now or certainly no more than 1kHz, irrespective of mode. #If a digital modem can be devised to digitize speech and stay within 1kHz bandwidth, great accomplishment.
The ARRL is totally off the mark, in this regard. #In fact, last week's ARRL Letter boldly states that the BOD has a goal of multimedia on the HF bands by 2010, and they don't mean slow scan TV. #Based on their petition's agenda, they imply through much wider bandwidth limits. #Of course, broadband is already on (or should I say across) HF, compliments of BPL.
I guess I could take a pessimistic view of this and conclude that fewer and fewer QSOs (and robot exchanges) will be our future.
Perhaps its time for some new ARRL direction from its membership. #Canceling memberships won't help.
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:09)]If you wish to be recognized as an idiot, ask Homeland Security to act against this "threat". #They will undoubtedly laugh you out of the building.
Speaking from an area in which I have recognized expertise, I can tell you that there are methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. #They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power.
Why on earth would anyone even THINK of putting ANY secret on an open system and transmitting it HF? #We can only hope that the terrorists are that stupid -- but we well know that they are not.
Would I get the same laugh as someone would get in 1999, for suggesting people would hijack jetliners and fly them into buildings?
Maybe you should call the NSA and tell them to stop wasting their time and our dollars, as you know the terrorists are using "methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power."
Ok, I'll tell them of a possible security hole, and you tell them to stop wasting their time in the "impossible" task of trying to intercept information about the next terror attack.
And I'm an idiot?
Interesting.
K1MVP
02-06-2006, 02:27 PM
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 05 2006,21:09)]Our future ought to be about doing more and more with less and less. Specifically less bandwidth and less power. Less bandwidth occupied and less power output used allows more and more users to participate.
Doing "more" with "less" ,hmmm, an interesting concept,
in today`s world of "more and bigger" is better.
If the ARRL, and the "powers that be" REALLY believed
this, why would the be "pushing" the megabuck rigs
such as the Icom, IC-7800 and other "big buck rigs".
Also in "doing more with less",--maybe the ARRL will
have to do more with less,--ouch,--that might hurt,
and involve accepting some pain,--not too popular a
concept with most Americans,IMO
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 05 2006,10:14)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:09)]If you wish to be recognized as an idiot, ask Homeland Security to act against this "threat". #They will undoubtedly laugh you out of the building.
Speaking from an area in which I have recognized expertise, I can tell you that there are methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. #They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power.
Why on earth would anyone even THINK of putting ANY secret on an open system and transmitting it HF? #We can only hope that the terrorists are that stupid -- but we well know that they are not.
Would I get the same laugh as someone would get in 1999, for suggesting people would hijack jetliners and fly them into buildings?
Maybe you should call the NSA and tell them to stop wasting their time and our dollars, as you know the terrorists are using "methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. #They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power."
Ok, I'll tell them of a possible security hole, and you tell them to stop wasting their time in the "impossible" task of trying to intercept information about the next terror attack.
And I'm an idiot?
Interesting.
Larry's "in the know" on this one. #He's admitted to working for (and being accredited by) Hollywood, and DOD. So, most likely, he has expertise in NSA thinking.
And, throw in terrorist psychology as well.
NSA wouldn't waste their time being concerned with convoluted codes and ciphers, just the simple monitoring of landline and cell phone traffic.
Yep, those guys who wander around amongst the rocks and the caves wouldn't think of using anything but the simplest of means to communicate. #Couple of cans and some string.
Remember a phone phreak called Kaptain Krunch? #He got the nickname from using a whistle from a box of #cereal by that name that he used to blow into the phone to access Ma Bell's switching trunks back in the '70s.
Ah, but I'm digressing. # Just "off-the-shelf" hardware and a little innovation.
NJ, your logic is right on the money.
WA0LYK
02-06-2006, 04:25 PM
Quote[/b] ]WA5BEN
There is also a technique that takes advantage of the frequency "holes" in speech to compress a wide range of frequencies into a smaller bandwidth -- and spreads them out at the receiver.
If this is easy to do, and economic, why don't more commercail, marine, and amateur rigs already have this technique included? Is it a State secret?
Quote[/b] ]In other words, there is ample research to clearly show that restriction to a 2.5 kHz bandpass (300 to 2800 Hz) does not negatively impact intelligibility. In point of fact, transmitting frequencies out to 6 kHz merely wastes power that could be used to send components that would aid intelligibility.
BTW: We confirmed these conclusions on an HF simulator, and in field trials. Intelligibility did not suffer horribly for a male speaker until we dropped to just above 2200 Hz on the high side (300 to 2200 Hz passband). Then it went rapidly to pot. A female speaker could require a couple of hundred Hertz above that. (We tested the female voice only at the higher bandwidths -- 2.5 kHz and above.) Tactical HF radios typically have audio bandpass of 300 to 2400 Hz.
Who was the control group that provided the intelligibilty assessments?
When you mention "Tactical HF radios" it sounds like young military men in their 20's were the target. Did it include a broad range of ages and folks with differing hearing losses due to age, accidents, etc.?
Did the research include both significant on channel qrm or adjacent channel qrm from a high power station with a steerable arrray versus a 100 watt station with a compromise antenna? The last I knew, if there was significant qrm on a military tactical HF net, especially on channel, someone would get their ass kicked, and severely!
Jim
WA0LYK
Comment pace over at the FCC has really picked up. As of 1PM, EST, there were 244 comments received just today alone for 11306. I didn't check 11305.
I scanned quite a few, and all seem to oppose the petition rather vociferously.
Lee
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Feb. 06 2006,11:16)]Comment pace over at the FCC has really picked up. #As of 1PM, EST, there were 244 comments received just today alone for 11306. #I didn't check 11305. #
I scanned quite a few, and all seem to oppose the petition rather vociferously.
Lee
I just went through 100 of the latest.
96 against RM-11306
2 praising WL2K, but no opinion on the actual proposal.
2 for RM-11306.
It is really amazing to me, that the ARRL didn't take our complaints seriously for the last two years, and put this proposal in.
They sure don't seem in touch with the "Real World" of ham radio. The harm they have done to their credibility is going to be the only effect I see from this mess.
I hope the ARRL gets it into their heads, that they are not representing the majority of hams, and that they have a lot of work to do in that area.
A monkey running for office in a two man, or lets say one man and one monkey election, could get more then 2% of the votes.
But who knows, maybe the FCC will do it anyway. But I doubt it.
73 - Bob
Bob,
There certainly is a disconnect at ARRL HQ. I just received an email from my division director that was a bit castigating in its content. It is taking hams to task because not enough letters are being sent to congressmen concerning House resulation 230 (BPL bill) which urges the FCC to do a complete evaluation of how much BPL will interfere with ham radio operations.
Just a few days ago I received something from the ARRL urging me to participate in sending in my ideas for a bandplan when (not IF) the FCC approves RM-11306.
Of course RM-11306 would allow semi and auto operation to create all kinds of QRM in the phone band segments. Interference is interference regardless of how it is generated or where it comes from. The fight against BPL is important. The ARRL tells us so. I would think that the fight against any interference would be just as important, but the ARRL seems to think that WL2K and the interference generated by mixing incompatible modes in the same bandwidth segments is not really interference and it could somehow be managed. Dave Sumner himself warned us that we can expect increased interference over and above what we have now due to increased WL2K operations.
Is there really a difference?
73
George
K3UD
Quote[/b] ]rks: In my opinion these issues are NOT the crux issue:
1. The fact that Winlink may or my not be appropriate to ham radio since it "competes" with commercial ISPs that provide for message service at sea. This would violate FCC rules. The need is for the FCC to clarify these rules before encouraging more digital use vis-a-vis the petitions.
2. The fact that Winlink uses a particular type of modem that only a fraction of hams have and that the modulation scheme is not open to the amateur community. It is more on point to argue that these modems and programs are ineffecient and will use bandwidth more often. It goes to point that the petitions would call for additional use that will by nature ineffecient (unfair to existing users).
3. The fact that Winlink users fit some type of profile -- such as "digital elitists" kicking back in their yachts or missionaries working in a jungle without even basic necessities.Only to the extent that they represent 1% of Amateurs trying to take spectrum away from 99%. That in their arguments, they don't want room for experimentation and use, they want it ALL.
4. The ARRL either is or is not listening to its members. This is on point where the ARRL claims to represent its membership in filing the petition. If they would say, this petition represents the view of the board only, then your statement would be correct.
My comments in bold above....
Quote[/b] ]rks: Maybe I am an optimist. Here is the outcome I am hoping for:
1. The FCC rejects both the CTT and ARRL proposals.
2. The ARRL continues on its very important (but belated) job of heading up the effort to come out with an Region 2 bandplan.
3. Then we can catch our breath.
4. Later (I don't know how to define later) we can
petition the FCC in light of what the bandplan says and in light of the extent that some in the ham community ignore it or "bend" it. In the best of all possible worlds (maybe you guys think I've been drinking too much Koolaide) we won't have to petition the FCC. You know what the Hippocratic oath says, "First do no harm".
Here we agree. But the key is to defeat the two petitions. The best way to do this is to be forthcomming in your opposition. You have your reasons, I have mine. But we agree that the ARRL and all of us need to go back to the drawing board.
k5rks
02-06-2006, 09:23 PM
To WA5BEN:
Could you direct me to the web site that contains the
algorithms used by the SCS modems that are used by Winlink?
I am a retired software engineer. I have significant experience in implementing digital signal processing algorithms using the sound card. Before retirement I did extensive development using the Microsoft Visual C/C++ platform using the Microsoft Foundation Classes.
I was a manager in microcode development doing firmware for high end disk storage subsystems.
If you can point me to the source of "sample code" or documentation then I will put something together as a klude to demonstrate that it is possible to implement the algorithm on a Windows machine using a soundcard.
If I am successful in doing this I will let various interested parties (such as the routine posters on this thread) know.
A couple of years ago I was playing around with code to decode RTTY and PSK31 using a sound card. My code is not nearly as elegant as MixW (i.e. I don't have a nice waterfall display for example, or logging, or rig control, or rotator control, etc etc) but in terms of the root funtion is works "OK". If I can get a hold of documentation (or better yet) sample code for the SCS modem then I might "dust off" my stuff and see what happens.
73 Roger K5RKS
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Feb. 06 2006,13:29)]Bob,
There certainly is a disconnect at ARRL HQ. I just received an email from my division director that was a bit castigating in its content. It is taking hams to task because not enough letters are being sent to congressmen concerning House resulation 230 (BPL bill) which urges the FCC to do a complete evaluation of how much BPL will interfere with ham radio operations.
Just a few days ago I received something from the ARRL urging me to participate in sending in my ideas for a bandplan when (not IF) the FCC approves RM-11306.
73
George
K3UD
I'm sure we would have more time to write congress about our feelings on BPL, if we weren't busy writing the FCC asking them to protect us from the ARRL's interference threat.
In that they are so sure that RM-11306 is a done deal, maybe there is something that stinks in Newington and Washington.
But looking at the comments, to go ahead with something that has this much opposition, would stir up a hornet's nest on the FCC. The AM'ers alone would be filling congresses mail boxes and fax machines.
In reality, I think the folks in Newington have lost reality. One comment I read, compaired the ARRL leadership to the "Mindless Robots" they want to spread across the bands. That was a good one.
Some of us told them the problem along time ago, but they told us the the comments to "bandplan@arrl.org" where favorable. Of coarse, we never got to see what those comments said. A hidden process the whole way.
After a couple replies from Haynie how I was completely wrong on every issue I brought up, I gave up on them as I knew that they would go through with this plan, if even 80% of the ham community didn't like it. It now seems that it is even more then 80% against it.
Unlike the ARRL comments, the FCC comments are in public view, and it isn't favorable at all.
This complete and arrogant attitude that US amateurs have no say in the future of ham radio, and that the future should be controlled by a few folks in Newington is beyond belief.
At this point, I can't believe they (the ARRL), just continue to ignore us all, and continue on this destructive path.
The ARRL is out of control, and if this doesn't prove it nothing ever will. The ARRL has drawn the line in the sand, and the proof is showing up on the FCC website.
The ARRL is going to do what they like with Ham Radio, and Hams better get used to it, because obviously ham radio belongs to Newington, and not to the hams.
Incredible.
73 - Bob
Time for somebody from Newington to drop in (to defend QST, the Handbook and Repeater Directory. (Oops. Oh yeah, the book that won't be necessary with broad band 100kHz and wider stuff on top of the coordinated repeater spectrum.)
Hello, out there.....
Ed Hare usually monitors QRZ.COM and so did Jim Hainey.
Lee
****Comment Filing Deadline***
Per the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System:
"The filing deadline times for comments are as follows: Electronic/email - before 12:00 a.m. midnight, Hardcopy (paper) - by 7:00 p.m. Comments become available throughout each day as they are disseminated."
Even though it is now after normal business hours, the system will still receive your comments. #And, they'll be valid as having been filed on February 6, until 12:00AM.
Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 06 2006,14:23)]To WA5BEN:
Could you direct me to the web site that contains the
algorithms used by the SCS modems that are used by Winlink?
73 Roger # K5RKS
Roger,
While I doubt Larry will send any links.
Just in case he does, I will caution you that Hans-Peter Helfert (DL6MAA) has made it clear that his code is protected, private, and not for our eyes.
That being the case, you may run into some legal problems fooling around with Pactor II or III. It would be like posting algorithms to Microsoft Windows. Quick greetings from a Microsoft lawyer.
At $1000 a box, I'm sure Peter has real good lawyers.
73 - Bob
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Feb. 06 2006,14:59)]Time for somebody from Newington to drop in (to defend QST, the Handbook and Repeater Directory. #(Oops. Oh yeah, the book that won't be necessary with broad band 100kHz and wider stuff on top of the coordinated repeater spectrum.)
Hello, out there.....
Ed Hare usually monitors QRZ.COM and so did Jim Hainey.
Lee
Lee,
If I was one of the folks in Newington, that had read the RM-11306 comments, I wouldn't show my face until I had the lawyer widthdraw RM-11306.
Then Sumner would post a message on arrl.org to apologize for misreading the desires of the general ham public. And promise to do better in the Future.
And of course, all the Ski Lifts are operating in Hell after all the snow this season.
I'll defend QST, the Handbook, and Repeater Directory myself, but they have really pushed it this time, and they would be wise to save some face at this point.
Still just incredible.
Hello ARRL, we don't want RM-11306. Withdraw, say your sorry, and show respect to the ham radio community.
One thing that is a very bad idea in the US, is to tell the majority, that they don't have a say, and they are voiceless. That's the job of the 9th District Court anyway.
Now it will get interesting. Might be a while before we hear from the FCC.
73 - Bob
WA5BEN
02-06-2006, 11:13 PM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 06 2006,07:14)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:09)]If you wish to be recognized as an idiot, ask Homeland Security to act against this "threat". They will undoubtedly laugh you out of the building.
Speaking from an area in which I have recognized expertise, I can tell you that there are methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power.
Why on earth would anyone even THINK of putting ANY secret on an open system and transmitting it HF? We can only hope that the terrorists are that stupid -- but we well know that they are not.
Would I get the same laugh as someone would get in 1999, for suggesting people would hijack jetliners and fly them into buildings?
Maybe you should call the NSA and tell them to stop wasting their time and our dollars, as you know the terrorists are using "methods of absolute message secrecy that are available to anyone. They cannot be broken, regardless of available super-computing power."
Ok, I'll tell them of a possible security hole, and you tell them to stop wasting their time in the "impossible" task of trying to intercept information about the next terror attack.
And I'm an idiot?
Interesting.
Again, you try to twist what was said into what you "wish" had been said.
My point was and is that actual unbreakable secure communications are available to anyone. Given that FACT, why would a reasonably sophisticated enemy trust an open modem protocol that has no encryption capability?
To attempt to create an issue where there is none, you distort the truth. That is sad.
I see "Gentle BEN" is back......
K1MVP
02-06-2006, 11:26 PM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 06 2006,15:44)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Feb. 06 2006,14:59)]Time for somebody from Newington to drop in (to defend QST, the Handbook and Repeater Directory. #(Oops. Oh yeah, the book that won't be necessary with broad band 100kHz and wider stuff on top of the coordinated repeater spectrum.)
Hello, out there.....
Ed Hare usually monitors QRZ.COM and so did Jim Hainey.
Lee
Lee,
If I was one of the folks in Newington, that had read the RM-11306 comments, I wouldn't show my face until I had the lawyer widthdraw RM-11306.
Then Sumner would post a message on arrl.org to apologize for misreading the desires of the general ham public. And promise to do better in the Future.
And of course, all the Ski Lifts are operating in Hell after all the snow this season.
I'll defend QST, the Handbook, and Repeater Directory myself, but they have really pushed it this time, and they would be wise to save some face at this point.
Still just incredible.
Hello ARRL, we don't want RM-11306. #Withdraw, say your sorry, and show respect to the ham radio community.
One thing that is a very bad idea in the US, is to tell the majority, that they don't have a say, and they are voiceless. That's the job of the 9th District Court anyway.
Now it will get interesting. Might be a while before we hear from the FCC.
73 - Bob
Bob,
I agree,-it may be a while before we hear from the FCC.
as they(the lawyers) haggle over what the ARRL has
put forth in "justifying" their reasons to populate the
HF bands with "automated robots".
Problem is,--(as I see it) is, there are so few guys with technical experience at the FCC,(with mostly lawyers there now),-- that the "haggling" on these issues might take forever, and by the time any of these guys figure out what all the "fine print" means, we could well be into the next decade,IMO.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
kc2gow
02-06-2006, 11:29 PM
This is definetly an article where anyone who has never operted hf before should be excluded. If the ARRL can promote there program, how come I CAN'T?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif They should not try to change the bandplan like this just for some annoying software thing can just pick a random frequency and transmit over an ongoing QSO... Besides, like every other fad that comes through this hobby, the main hype will disappear in about a year and who will be dumped on? The rest of the ham population!!! Another nail in the coffin..........................
wa4dou
02-06-2006, 11:36 PM
I have to say that I am especially pleased to see that a subject discussed here and on another site, interactively, has allowed many of us to raise our understanding of the issue and in so doing we have come to realize that our "national voice" misrepresented our opinions and was marching to its own tune. We suspected it and its exactly the way things unfolded. If issues such as this can be so misrepresented by our leadership in Newington, then it is time to say to them, no further representation without open, honest, interactive dialogue and consensous. The League can be changed but it will take a message like this and the threat of wholesale membership cancelation and the willingness to carry it out, if necessary, to effect it. The easiest path in life is to always be willing to face an issue headon and admit responsibility and take the medicine. Attempts to cover up or explain away or run almost invariabily make things worse and further destroy credibility. I will say that QRZ.com and the other major site have really lived up to something worthwhile besides entertainment, on this issue.
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,16:13)]Given that FACT, why would a reasonably sophisticated enemy trust an open modem protocol that has no encryption capability?
Pactor III is an "open modem protocol" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
We are still waiting for your directions to get the method of reading Pactor III without giving SCS many $$$$ for a overpriced box.
We are still waiting?
WA5BEN
02-07-2006, 12:03 AM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 06 2006,06:28)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 05 2006,21:45)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 03 2006,08:42)]Readers should also note the frequency range given above. Speech above 2.8khz has become recognized in recent years as contributing significantly to speech intelligibility. Yet the ARRL wants to forever restrict research into that area by restricting bandwidths to 3500hz. What are they thinking?
tim ab0wr
You always cite something that "has become recognized" or "research". The funny thing is that these mysterious sources conflict with a LOT of existing data.
It is quite well known (proven in extensive tests and used for US and foreign military and police specs) that the human ear "supplies" the components above 2500 Hz. The telephone cuts off below 300 Hz and above 3000 Hz. There is very good intelligibility.
VHF/UHF radios have had 300 Hz to 2500 Hz passband for years. Good intelligibility.
The essential portions for intelligibility are the "clues" that enable the brain to "hear" the components that are not present. Many of these clues are in the mid-range frequencies.
Intelligibility can be significantly improved by altering the relative levels of the VOWEL sounds (low frequency, most of the power) and the consonant (high frequency, low power) sounds. This can be done without clipping. (Heavy clipping often removes some mid-range components.)
There is also a technique that takes advantage of the frequency "holes" in speech to compress a wide range of frequencies into a smaller bandwidth -- and spreads them out at the receiver.
In other words, there is ample research to clearly show that restriction to a 2.5 kHz bandpass (300 to 2800 Hz) does not negatively impact intelligibility. In point of fact, transmitting frequencies out to 6 kHz merely wastes power that could be used to send components that would aid intelligibility.
BTW: We confirmed these conclusions on an HF simulator, and in field trials. Intelligibility did not suffer horribly for a male speaker until we dropped to just above 2200 Hz on the high side (300 to 2200 Hz passband). Then it went rapidly to pot. A female speaker could require a couple of hundred Hertz above that. (We tested the female voice only at the higher bandwidths -- 2.5 kHz and above.) Tactical HF radios typically have audio bandpass of 300 to 2400 Hz.
Larry,
I have posted *QUOTES* on here from sources ranging as widely as the current design requirements for fire annunciation systems to office design requirements in Canada.
I'm not surprised that you refuse to remember them.
The office design requirements were posted verbatim just a few messages back.
Most of the research you are speaking of was done 20-30 years ago. In the past decade, *SIGNIFICANT* research has been done that refutes what you quote.
Perhaps you remember this quote I provided?
*************************************************
CBD-139. Acoustical Design of Open-Planned Offices
Normal speech has a dynamic range of some 30 dB and a frequency content from 250 to 6000 Hz. The middle frequency components are more important than the extreme high and low frequencies, but for 100 per cent intelligibility the full 30 dB range of the speech signal across the complete frequency spectrum should lie above the prevailing background noise.
************************************************** *****
The human brain does NOT supply missing components.
I refer you to the new MFJ receive enhancement units that boost the audio frequencies above 3khz to enhance intelligibility. They even advertise it as boosting intelligibility.
There is a major formant in speech at about the 2200hz frequency, Larry. That is why your intelligiblity went to pot.
BTW, please note carefully what I am speaking of -- HIGH intelligibility speech - not just "good enough" speech.
The ARRL did a study of NTS traffic accuracy a few years ago and couldn't understand why so much voice traffic was relayed inaccurately. They refused to understand and you seem to be doing the same.
2.1khz to 2.8khz speech does not provide enough intelligibility to accurately relay formal traffic under even good conditions.
That's one reason for the office design requirements above. Business can't afford to have inaccurate relaying of information either.
I suggest you do some *recent* research before taking someone to task about intelligibility.
BTW, your example of compressing into a smaller bandwidth is not compatible with existing transmitters. Use of ISB would be!
This isn't anything we haven't discussed at least twice before, Larry. Perhaps you should take notes you can refer to before trying to take me to task for something I *have* the research to show.
tim ab0wr
Obviously, you cannot find a supporting study that applies to communications channels, so you obfuscate. You cite "CBD-139. Acoustical Design of Open-Planned Offices". In case you missed the point of the study, ambient noise hurts intelligibility -- and contributes to worker fatigue. Lowering ambient noise in critical frequencies improves things a lot.
This impacts a communication channel HOW?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I do know a couple of things about acoustics, from actual experience. (I designed and built a sound studio that exhibited an almost perfect shape factor. It was used to record musical groups and commercials.)
"The human brain does NOT supply missing components."
(Why do I bother?) If the human brain did not (as has been extensively proven) supply the missing components, the modern telephone could not work -- and the early telephones would not have worked. (...and neither would your radio!)
"There is a major formant in speech at about the 2200hz frequency, Larry. That is why your intelligiblity went to pot."
I assure you that I know about the frequency ranges of the various formants. My designs had to take those into account.
Contrary to your assertion ("BTW, your example of compressing into a smaller bandwidth is not compatible with existing transmitters."), frequency compandored speech is FULLY compatible with existing SSB transmitters. It has been used on them!
And, contrary to your assertion ("Use of ISB would be!"), ISB requires a DSB transmitter. Each sideband is independently modulated. Most existing transmitters are SSB. (And why do we need to carry TWO SIMULTANEOUS messages on a single carrier???)
You see, I have actually worked with factors that influence intelligibility for tactical radios and encryption devices, frequency compandoring, and ISB. I have been responsible for new product concept and development, and have done "hands-on" research. Unlike you, I speak from actual experience.
WA5BEN
02-07-2006, 12:05 AM
Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 03 2006,17:37)]Two Winlink PMBO's have also seen fit to file comments merely criticizing the posting without ever offering any facts refuting the posts!
Looks like Winlink is unable to find any counter argument to the simple TRUTH disclosed here, so they have resorted to character assination instead in a desperate attempt to stem the flood of opposition to changes in 97.221.
If there WERE any facts coming from the "bash Winlink / ARRL / SCS" side, they could be easily answered. The problem is that all FACTS that have been presented by those attempting to have an honest dialog have been answered by pure rubbish.
I started out very much on the fence. I now wholeheartedly support the bandwith proposal. Why? Because the only FACTS that I can verify have come from those who have taken the time and trouble to learn, create, and DO.
Not a single one of the loud opposition has shown any evidence of any attempt to actually DO anything. You whine that you cannot know who is transmitting, but you have done NOTHING to permit yourself to read an ID that is sent as plain text.
I place credence in statements those who DO, because they speak from experience. I put little credence in statements of those who do nothing, as they have no experience from which to speak.
WA5BEN
02-07-2006, 12:08 AM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 06 2006,16:38)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,16:13)]Given that FACT, why would a reasonably sophisticated enemy trust an open modem protocol that has no encryption capability?
Pactor III is an "open modem protocol" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
We are still waiting for your directions to get the method of reading Pactor III without giving SCS many $$$$ for a overpriced box.
We are still waiting?
As you should be well aware, the information has been posted on QRZ.
WA5BEN
02-07-2006, 12:36 AM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Feb. 06 2006,09:25)]Quote[/b] ]WA5BEN
There is also a technique that takes advantage of the frequency "holes" in speech to compress a wide range of frequencies into a smaller bandwidth -- and spreads them out at the receiver.
If this is easy to do, and economic, why don't more commercail, marine, and amateur rigs already have this technique included? Is it a State secret?
Quote[/b] ]In other words, there is ample research to clearly show that restriction to a 2.5 kHz bandpass (300 to 2800 Hz) does not negatively impact intelligibility. In point of fact, transmitting frequencies out to 6 kHz merely wastes power that could be used to send components that would aid intelligibility.
BTW: We confirmed these conclusions on an HF simulator, and in field trials. Intelligibility did not suffer horribly for a male speaker until we dropped to just above 2200 Hz on the high side (300 to 2200 Hz passband). Then it went rapidly to pot. A female speaker could require a couple of hundred Hertz above that. (We tested the female voice only at the higher bandwidths -- 2.5 kHz and above.) Tactical HF radios typically have audio bandpass of 300 to 2400 Hz.
Who was the control group that provided the intelligibilty assessments?
When you mention "Tactical HF radios" it sounds like young military men in their 20's were the target. Did it include a broad range of ages and folks with differing hearing losses due to age, accidents, etc.?
Did the research include both significant on channel qrm or adjacent channel qrm from a high power station with a steerable arrray versus a 100 watt station with a compromise antenna? The last I knew, if there was significant qrm on a military tactical HF net, especially on channel, someone would get their ass kicked, and severely!
Jim
WA0LYK
Jim,
Thanks for an intelligent question set!
Actually, frequency compandoring is a snap with DSP. It was a bit trickier with active filters.
Our intelligibility tests used a wide variety of speakers. Each did a single set of words one time. We used some test subjects (listeners) who were communicators (ham, military, police) and some who were office workers. Ages varied from 19 to about 66.
The test consists of strings of words spoken individually one time. Words are not repeated in a string, different strings have different words and/or order, and the test subject is used only once. Words are chosen that have the same or highly similar vowel sounds, that differ only by a consonant sound, and that are easy to confuse if you cannot see the speaker. The test subject must write the word that they heard, and there is no list to give a "hint" of which words.
For some tests, we applied randomly varying noise, and randomly varying selective fading. The noise could exceed the signal (and sometimes did), and the selective fading could totally cancel the signal (and sometimes did).
For repeatable tests (random is not, by definition, repeatable), we set a 12 dB SNR; for others 6 dB; and for others 0 dB.
Intelligibility is taken as total words in the group of series compared to total correct words. Percentages were taken at each different SNR.
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 06 2006,16:36)]I have to say that I am especially pleased to see that a subject discussed here and on another site, interactively, has allowed many of us to raise our understanding of the issue and in so doing we have come to realize that our "national voice" misrepresented our opinions and was marching to its own tune.
And by ignoring the voice, and pushing RM-11306, the ARRL has not only caused itself problems with members, but has lost a lot of credibility in dealing with the FCC.
The next time they approach the FCC and talk about how most hams have a problem with BPL, the FCC via comments on RM-11306 has plenty of ammo to ask how the ARRL knows what most hams think.
RM-11306 doesn't show the ARRL in touch at all.
Back in the bandpland@arrl.org comments stage, many of us asked for the comments to be released. That would be the honest thing to do, but no reply and no info.
It soon became clear that there was an agenda to push this, and that the will of the ham community wasn't going to stop the ARRL.
When RM-11306 was announced, at first I was amazed, but then I found that at the very least, the real truth would come out.
The comments tell the story.
Now, one way or the other, the ARRL needs to wake up. Because this whole situation has been completely unacceptable, and is a slap in the face of a large numbers of hams.
As was mentioned about FCC lawyers, and what I have seen in the BPL situation, I am sorry to say that I wouldn't bet a dime either way on the outcome of this.
If the ARRL and FCC destroy the ARS and turn it into the AES, Amateur Email Service, I guess we can post here and tell newcomers about the old days when you had a microphone. My rigs will head to Ebay to get the $5 or $6
they will bring at that point. Maybe $10 for the Mark-V.
73 - Bob
kh6ty
02-07-2006, 12:40 AM
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,17:08)]Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 06 2006,16:38)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,16:13)]Given that FACT, why would a reasonably sophisticated enemy trust an open modem protocol that has no encryption capability?
Pactor III is an "open modem protocol" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
We are still waiting for your directions to get the method of reading Pactor III without giving SCS many $$$$ for a overpriced box.
We are still waiting?
As you should be well aware, the information has been posted on QRZ.
Fact: Winlink uses the F6FBB protocol.
Fact: The author of the F6FBB protocol claims it cannot be decoded "on the fly" by a third party.
Can it be recorded and then decoded? Maybe...but that would be "sampling", not "monitoring".
Fact: Winlink PMBO N0IA promotes using the BBS (i.e. the F6FBB protocol) protocol "in order to be secure from casual monitoring".
Whether or not Pactor-III, or even Pactor-II can be decoded for monitoring purposes may be a moot point, since there is also a definite, published, intent by Winlink to use the F6FBB protocol for their Emails "for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication", under the meaning of 97.309.
Here is proof of that purpose, taken from the Winlink presentation by N0IA:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/secure2.jpg
BTW, I am still waiting for Hans-Peter Helfert's explanation why Pactor-III only achieves an average speed of 18 cps in actual HF use by Winlink, and takes 3.6 minutes to send an Email that his numbers say should take only 7.5 seconds.
AC0GT
02-07-2006, 03:21 AM
I wish I would have thought of mentioning this sooner but I was too distracted by the noise over Winlink. People have pointed out how many comments submitted to the FCC were in oppositon to the band plan change. What people forget is that this is a comment period, not a voting period. If the comments in opposition do not state the reason for the opposition, or the reasoning is flawed, the FCC will just ignore the comment.
If the FCC saw valid arguments against the new band plan that also does not mean it won't happen. The FCC may simply address the issue with a slight change to the proposal, or give reasoning for why the proposal goes unchanged, when the proposal comes up for it's next comment period.
It's not numbers the FCC looks at, it's logic.
K1MVP
02-07-2006, 03:29 AM
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,17:05)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 03 2006,17:37)]Two Winlink PMBO's have also seen fit to file comments merely criticizing the posting without ever offering any facts refuting the posts!
Looks like Winlink is unable to find any counter argument to the simple TRUTH disclosed here, so they have resorted to character assination instead in a desperate attempt to stem the flood of opposition to changes in 97.221.
If there WERE any facts coming from the "bash Winlink / ARRL / SCS" side, they could be easily answered. #The problem is that all FACTS that have been presented by those attempting to have an honest dialog have been answered by pure rubbish.
I started out very much on the fence. #I now wholeheartedly support the bandwith proposal. #Why? #Because the only FACTS that I can verify have come from those who have taken the time and trouble to learn, create, and DO.
Not a single one of the loud opposition has shown any evidence of any attempt to actually DO anything. #You whine that you cannot know who is transmitting, but you have done NOTHING to permit yourself to read an ID that is sent as plain text.
I place credence in statements those who DO, because they speak from experience. #I put little credence in statements of those who do nothing, as they have no experience from which to speak.
Since when do most lawyers and politicians, DO anything
BUT talk?
And what kind "experience" do most of these guys have?
other than "interpret", ot "attempt to interpret" the
meaning behind "legal writings"?
It is my understanding,--there are VERY FEW if any with
any technical or engineering background employed with the FCC.(such was not the case 40 years ago)
And even with the ARRL,--most of those in "leadership"
positions are basically nothing but "politicians" or
"slick saleman",--and most of them ARE NOT "doers"
in my opinion, and many others also.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
P.S,--why do you think the "war" against BPL was
# # # "ineffective"?--politics involved--just maybe?
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Feb. 06 2006,20:21)]It's not numbers the FCC looks at, it's logic.
If that is the case, then RM-11306 will be gone soon.
Beyond that, I don't understand why you think the FCC will ignore comments that state support or opposition, if they don't have a 25 page document attached. I beleive they will take the numbers into consideration. A simple "I am opposed to RM-11306" will be considered.
And yes there "COULD" be a second round, or it could be shot down and then there will not be a NPRM.
73 - Bob
ab0wr
02-07-2006, 04:57 AM
Larry,
Sadly, *you* are the one that have nothing to offer here. I have provided you numerous references over several threads and you do nothing more than pooh-pooh them.
I'm sure you have done good work in the past. But I think the word "past" is the operative word here.
Ambient noise exists in a communication channel just like it does in a business environment, Larry. Just how stupid do you believe the readers on QRZ are?
What do you consider fire annuciation systems to be if they aren't communication channels? UL 1480 requires fire annuciation speakers to have a minimum upper flat bandwidth of 4khz.
A communications channel does nothing more than provide a physical medium to get sound from the originator to the recipient. If the speaker has a minimum upper bandwidth of 4khz, what good is it with a system that cuts off below 3khz?
Here is another reference for you that I got from a company named System Sensor:
************************************************** **
System Sensor
Voice Evacuation Design Information
Tips for Voice Evacuation System Intelligibility
# # # #- #NFPA 72 - 2002, 3.3.208 Voice Intelligibility. Audible voice information that is distinguishable and understandable. #-
The system should have a good enough signal to noise ratio, i.e., it must be loud enough. NFPA 72, in general, requires public mode evacuation signals to be 15 dB above ambient noise. Signal to noise ratios above this level produce diminishing returns.
Speakers should have good frequency response between 150 Hz and 11 kHz, the frequencies that male and female voices fall into. The frequency response should be as flat as possible, that is, the response should not vary considerably at the low and high end. While UL only requires that speakers used in fire protection applications have a response from 400 Hz to 4000 Hz, studies have shown that up to 20% of intelligibility is contributed by frequencies above 8 kHz. Frequency response can be affected by speaker installation including the type of junction box and whether or not the speaker is flush or surface mounted.
************************************************** **
Again, what good would it do to have speakers with response out to 11khz if the communication channel is limited to less than 3khz?
I've told you this before and provided you the references on it as well - the telephone bandwidth used today of 300hz to 3000hz was based on economics and acceptability, not on intelligibility. When the initial toll cables were being laid between cities, Bell Labs had to figure out where to draw the line on bandwidth. Higher bandwidth cost more but was more acceptable. So they did studies with the aim of determining what the economic breakpoint was. That has survived to this day.
It's only been in the past decade that real research contradicting this has been done - primarily associated with hearing impairment research.
That's why research today has shown why it is so hard to distinguish between certain sounds over the telephone. Pole and toll, foal and sole. The frequencies that let us distinctly distinguish these apart are associated with consonants that are above the 3khz range. The brain doesn't "fill in" the missing frequency components to let you *ACTUALLY* understand the speech - it fills in enough so you only *think* you do!
Like the horse you can lead to water but can't make drink, I can keep giving you studies and references but I can't make you read them or accept them. I suspect I could post enough reference quotes on here to drown the proverbial frog but it would make no difference to you at all.
So, unless you can give me references to research that has been done in the past decade that shows high intelligibility speech can be done with a high frequency limit of 3khz, I'll believe the research I have found.
Frequency compandoring requires similar encoders and decoders on both ends, Larry. While you can send the compandored speech through a SSB transmitter, the other end is going to have a difficult time understanding it without a matching unit!!!!
On the other hand, if you use ISB to send the speech (low freq audio in one sideband, hi freq in the other) you are compatible with ALL existing SSB transmitters AND RECEIVERS. They will understand you just fine!!!
And, Larry, in case you haven't noticed, no one puts any credence in your bragging. I'm sure you have done lots of research and development. So what? 20years ago you could get away with the "appeal to authority" argument. With all the research material available on the internet, that just doesn't work any more.
If you want to refute the REFERENCES I keep giving you, give us something more than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" to go look at. In all of the exchanges we have had, you have never supplied a single book reference, article reference, or even web page reference for us to research as backup to your claims. You've got to do better than the "I'm smarter than you argument".
Well the comment period is over. Although we don't know what the FCC will do, what we do know is that those commenting did not like the ARRL proposal. It was obvious to most that automatic stations in the voice band were bad, and that 1% of users should not dictate to 99% of users, despite the pompous windbag comments of late trying to obfuscate this simple fact.
Many of us want to see digital experimentation, but in spectrum allocated without interfering with CW, SSB, and AM. Pretty simple, huh? Be nice if we could work that out. But we're so dumb and they are so much smarter.
W3MIV
02-07-2006, 01:32 PM
Anybody notice the cribbing on the comments using a "cookie-cutter" format by AE4TM, KN6KB & W5SMM?
Such a waste of brain power! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ab0wr
02-07-2006, 03:46 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 06 2006,17:05)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 03 2006,17:37)]Two Winlink PMBO's have also seen fit to file comments merely criticizing the posting without ever offering any facts refuting the posts!
Looks like Winlink is unable to find any counter argument to the simple TRUTH disclosed here, so they have resorted to character assination instead in a desperate attempt to stem the flood of opposition to changes in 97.221.
If there WERE any facts coming from the "bash Winlink / ARRL / SCS" side, they could be easily answered. #The problem is that all FACTS that have been presented by those attempting to have an honest dialog have been answered by pure rubbish.
I started out very much on the fence. #I now wholeheartedly support the bandwith proposal. #Why? #Because the only FACTS that I can verify have come from those who have taken the time and trouble to learn, create, and DO.
Not a single one of the loud opposition has shown any evidence of any attempt to actually DO anything. #You whine that you cannot know who is transmitting, but you have done NOTHING to permit yourself to read an ID that is sent as plain text.
I place credence in statements those who DO, because they speak from experience. #I put little credence in statements of those who do nothing, as they have no experience from which to speak.
Do anything?
Tell you what.
You forward me $1000 and I'll buy a Pactor III capable modem and start monitoring.
Without a means of monitoring Pactor III, there isn't anything else to *do*.
You've been asked repeatedly for a reference to a Pactor III protocol description detailed enough for it to be implemented in a sound card.
As usual, nothing is forthcoming from you except statements about how stupid and lazy other people are.
I *know* the fbb compression can be figured out. It *is* available in enough detail to allow that to be done.
Pactor III is another matter entirely.
My address is good in here in QRZ. I'll be waiting for a check. I *won't* be holding my breath for either the check or the reference.
tim ab0wr
****Replies to Comments #Open***
From today through Monday, February 27, is what is referred to as the "Replies to Comments" phase. #(47CFR1.405(b)).
You #may submit replies to the comments of others, but only to comments of other commenters, in general.
Anyone that wants to still comment may file an "Exparte" or "Late-Filed" comment, or, if they were physically unable to make the filing, appeal to the Secretary of the Commission for an extension of time.
So, if there's anyting anyone said in a filed comment that you take issue with, and want to argue about, have at it.
You have until midnight Monday, February 27.
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 07 2006,06:32)]Anybody notice the cribbing on the comments using a "cookie-cutter" format by AE4TM, KN6KB & W5SMM?
Such a waste of brain power! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
My favorite is how AE4TM starts with:
"In my opinion the ARRL, whose leadership is made by the majority vote of the amateur radio community, best represent the Amateur Service with their Petition"
Now that's funny.
73 - Bob
ab0wr
02-07-2006, 04:14 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 07 2006,06:32)]Anybody notice the cribbing on the comments using a "cookie-cutter" format by AE4TM, KN6KB & W5SMM?
Such a waste of brain power! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And not a single refutation of any of the technical issues raised by so many people.
They didn't even address the "hidden transmitter" effect except to basically say it isn't as big of a problem as others say.
Say what?
Like these people care? They are the ones running the interfering robots. It's not like they sit there and listen all day to even see if the hidden transmitter effect problem actually occurs. It's not even obvious that they understand the hidden transmitter problem.
They didn't even address the simple fact that even SCAMP doesn't address the problem entirely. It is certainly feasible to have a station in California query a PMBO in Canada that can't hear the Florida station conversing with a Maine station. Yet the Canadian PMBO will interfere with the Maine station being able to hear Florida.
Once the California-Canada session is established I'll guarantee you the "busy detection" gets turned off. When the Maine station comes on it won't be able to break into the California-Canada session.
They didn't address having 100khz signals across the 2m repeater bands.
They didn't address the issue that a well-designed WL2K system, using a protocol that will meet well-known trunking design rules, could handle all the current WL2K traffic in *five* 500hz channels today.
They didn't provide any usage studies to actually show the increase in digital growth that would justify the base assumption in the proposal.
They didn't provide any underlying reason for having chosen 200hz, 500hz, and 3.5khz for the bandwidth limits.
They just whined and cried about all the poor idiots telling lies about Winlink and unfairly criticizing the ARRL.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the FCC to sort all this out. My best guess is that they will bury it but my fondest wish is that they will open it again for a Reply to Comments session. Then I'll get to criticize the comments of Poor, Waterman, and whoever else for being nothing more than "trust me" statments.
tim ab0wr
ab0wr
02-08-2006, 12:12 AM
Partial quote of Victor Poor, w5smm
Quote[/b] ]
An important feature of higher speed digital operation is the opportunity to reduce the total ‘footprint’ that a data exchange makes on the spectrum. It has been shown that efficient high speed digital modes have a lower bandwidth/time product than typical keyboard-to-keyboard modes even though the latter uses a narrower bandwidth. Efficient higher speed modes of operation make the spectrum accessible to more users than would otherwise be possible with the limitations of available space on HF bands. Many more users can have access to amateur radio services using fast ‘get on and get off’ semi-automatic modes such as are offered using Pactor and Winlink than by keyboard, SSB, or CW modes.
This, as much as anything posted on here, should show where the mindset of the ARRL proposal authors are coming from.
Amateur radio, from its inception to today, has been a place for amateurs to talk to each other in real time. It has been a place to discuss technical issues, personal issues, political issues, weather issues with friends and acquaintenances. It has been a place to *make* new friends through real time communications.
Yet the Winlink people seem to feel that non-real time modes are more deserving of spectrum space on the amateur bands than real time communications. "Many more users" can be accomodated using email service on the amateur bands than one-on-one real time modes.
This mindset doesn't seem to recognize that the majority of hams do not want to use EMAIL to communicate. They want to communicate in real-time.
That is why they are not concerned about the interference impacts that will be seen by the "less efficient" modes. They are not as deserving of spectrum space as Winlink and Pactor.
Perhaps the Winlink people prefer communication by email. I certainly don't. No one I know does.
It is this paradigm for the future of the amateur service that really needs to be squelched at the ARRL. It is this paradigm that is at the root of everything else - expansion of email robots with no limits, removal of baud rate limits, a desire to kill all systems that might compete with Winlink, allowing 100khz data signals into the 2m FM repeater segments, limiting future experimentation by capping signal bandwidths, and on and on and on..........
What is at issue here is your future use of your microphone and key. If you want to continue using SSB to talk to your friends, you need to make sure your ARRL Directors know that you are against using the amateur bands as internet email access channels for anything other than incidental use.
If you get a chance to read Mr. Poor's comments, note carefully that he doesn't even address the future use of Digital Voice only email.
tim ab0wr
kh6ty
02-08-2006, 12:47 AM
Tim,
In addition to your excellent summary is the fact that Pactor-III takes FIVE times the bandwidth of Pactor-II in ACTUAL use on HF, for only 50% speed gain, making the "time-bandwidth" product of Pactor-III inferior to Pactor-II.
These are based on Winlink's own numbers from http://www.winlink.org/status , CMS Traffic tab.
Poor's comments only apply to performance over VHF or UHF or a wired circuit, not to HF, where QSB, QRN, and QRM force more block repeats the wider you get.
The Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee Dissenting Recommendation includes the Winlink numbers for both Pactor-II and Pactor-III for 2003, provided to the Committee by K4CJX.
Basically, the performance comparison is roughly the same in 2006 as it was in 2003, except that the linking time is a smaller percentage in 2006, since the average message size is up to about 3800 characters in 2006, compared to about 1700 characters in 2003. Hmm, wonder why that is! I'd sure like to know, since 3800 characters (average!) is one HUGE "personal" message! (Uh, probably the size of an Excel spreadsheet!) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Also note that if the 3800 character Email REALLY went out at 500 cps, it would take only 7.5 seconds on the average, instead of the 3.6 minutes it actually does on Winlink on HF. This means MORE PMBO stations can share a single frequency, since the maximum WAIT for a clear frequency (if two PMBO's shared a single frequency) would be only 7.5 seconds, instead of 3.6 minutes! That would make a BIG difference, wouldn't it!
If you agree with the numbers and the interpretation, it might be worthwhile to file reply comments pointing this out to the FCC and adding your own technical explanation.
73, Skip KH6TY
Quote[/b] ]From Amfone.net
FOR AGAINST
RM-11305 (CTT petition) 44 244
RM-11306 (ARRL petition) 143 695
RM-11305 had a comment ratio of 85% against, 15% for.
RM-11306 had a comment ratio of 83% against, 17% for.
Thanks to all who said no!
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 07 2006,17:12)]Partial quote of Victor Poor, w5smm
Quote[/b] ]
Efficient higher speed modes of operation make the spectrum accessible to more users than would otherwise be possible with the limitations of available space on HF bands. Many more users can have access to amateur radio services using fast ‘get on and get off’ semi-automatic modes such as are offered using Pactor and Winlink than by keyboard, SSB, or CW modes.
This, as much as anything posted on here, should show where the mindset of the ARRL proposal authors are coming from.
tim ab0wr
I remember reading that comment yesterday, and thinking about how exciting it would be to send emails on Amateur Radio?
Because that is what the statement says. Get rid of CW, SSB, AM, and all keyboard modes, and use HF Email. More users can operate on the bands.
Even if that were true, the question is, who would?
The mindset of these folks is amazing to me. If Email was the only mode on Ham Radio, you wouldn't have 1000 hams left.
Setup an HF station to send Email very slowly, when I have a 6mbs internet connection? Why? Buy a mobile HF rig, and pactor box just for Email?
For the equipment cost, I could pay for the service on my cellphone until I was around 135 years old, and I won't last that long. Not much value.
If you get excited about sending email on HF, then good for you. If it comes to that, I will sell my gear and do something else enjoyable as Ham Radio was before it was destroyed by the HF Email Service.
#
The whole concept is insane. Reading the comments shows that the hams having the most fun, building and learning Radio, are the AM'ers. I haven't pushed the am button for a long time, but reading the comments has me ready to try some again.
Sure a lot more fun then hooking up pc's to pactor boxes to HF rigs, then typing emails, all the while listening to vulgar digital garbage coming out of your speaker.
73 - Bob
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 07 2006,20:44)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 07 2006,17:12)]Partial quote of Victor Poor, w5smm
Quote[/b] ]
Efficient higher speed modes of operation make the spectrum accessible to more users than would otherwise be possible with the limitations of available space on HF bands. Many more users can have access to amateur radio services using fast ‘get on and get off’ semi-automatic modes such as are offered using Pactor and Winlink than by keyboard, SSB, or CW modes.
This, as much as anything posted on here, should show where the mindset of the ARRL proposal authors are coming from.
tim ab0wr
I remember reading that comment yesterday, and thinking about how exciting it would be to send emails on Amateur Radio?
Because that is what the statement says. Get rid of CW, SSB, AM, and all keyboard modes, and use HF Email. More users can operate on the bands.
Even if the were true, the question is, who would?
The mindset of these folks is amazing to me. If Email was the only mode on Ham Radio, you wouldn't have 1000 hams left.
Setup an HF station to send Email very slowly, when I have a 6mbs internet connection? Why? Buy a mobile HF rig, and pactor box just for Email?
For the equipment cost, I could pay for the service on my cellphone until I was around 135 years old, and I won't last that long. Not much value.
If you get excited about sending email on HF, then good for you. If it comes to that, I will sell my gear and do something else enjoyable as Ham Radio was before it was destroyed by the HF Email Service.
The whole concept is insane. Reading the comments shows that the hams having the most fun, building and learning Radio, are the AM'ers. I haven't pushed the am button for a long time, but reading the comments has me ready to try some again.
Sure a lot more fun then hooking up pc's to pactor boxes to HF rigs, then typing emails, all the while listening to vulgar digital garbage coming out of your speaker.
73 - Bob
That's it. It's the Poorg. Resistance is futile, we will assimilate you.
wa4dou
02-08-2006, 04:49 AM
W5SMM doesn't speak for me. I'm not interested in email over ham radio and I'm not interested in seeing amateur radio converted to this purpose. I'm also not going to stand by and watch it happen, sponsored by the League and remain a League member. I have no intention of giving up amateur radio to suit the whim of anyone who would pervert and corrupt amateur radio to suit a clueless generation. But if they succeed, I'll move up to 6 meters and down to Part 15 operation on 136 khz., or whatever is still open to me as an option.
wa4dou
02-08-2006, 05:18 AM
Bob, I disagree with you on who is having the most fun building and learning radio. You did qualify your comment to those who commented on the RM petition(s). However, the QRP movement is right up there as well, as are many individuals who don't necessarily identify with any particular movement. I'm sure there are others as well. As for me, I abandoned AM in 1966 and only ever used it again briefly around 1970 on 6 meters mobile. I'm not going back. Its a terribly inefficient mode, a waste of spectrum resources and was well replaced by SSB. I don't begrudge AM'er a place in amateur radio and have never spoken against it until recently when it became obvious that AM'ers were behind RM-11305.
kh6ty
02-08-2006, 11:21 AM
The majority of people that find Email on HF to be "fun" are the Winlink sailors who get great joy from using the ham bands to avoid the cost of commercial email, and who only got a license for that purpose - those, and a few of the Emcomm people for whom ham radio is but a means to an end.
What Winlink/ARRL tried to pull off is not only outrageous, but malicious, and in this regard the ARRL Executive Committee is the enemy of ham radio as a hobby and no longer the protector.
Everyone who voted for the ARRL petition should be recalled or voted out of office or we will be fighting the same battle all over again soon, as the new ARRL president has publicly committed to the adoption of the ARRL petition.
I strongly resent the fact the my "Spectrum Defense" contribution, and my ARRL dues, will be spent on a Washington lobbiest to convince the FCC to adopt an ARRL petition that 83% of the hams in the US do not want.
Compare the open comment procedure of the FCC to the way ARRL asked for comments on the draft petition to bandwidth@arrl.org, and then ignored all calls to publish the results.
The ARRL wants their bandplans to replace FCC rules so they can deny our right of due process and tighten their grip on ham radio and five voting directors on the Executive Committee can dictate to 650,000 hams in the US where they can or cannot operate and what equipment they can or cannot use, without any open comment process. #It is just unbelievable!
Yes, unbelieveable. My biggest shock is that they would elect another clique member as President. But I am going to reserve judgement to see how he approaches his job. In an era where the ARRL tells us we must change with the times, they refuse to change.
Its time for the ARRL to poll members (and non-members who care to participate) once a year on any hot issues. I am not asking they be required to follow the poll, but as Amateurs, we need a true concensus of where we all stand on issues. The League has used the fact that most Amateurs are in the dark or ambivilent about current affairs to do the will of a handful of self proclaimed Amateur Royalty.
If not for BPL fighting and the other things the ARRL is doing good for Amateur Radio, I would have suggested a mass exodus. But I want them to succeed. That is why the yearly poll would be a simple way to begin to restore member confidence.
Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 07 2006,22:18)]Bob, I disagree with you on who is having the most fun building and learning radio. You did qualify your comment to those who commented on the RM petition(s). However, the QRP movement is right up there as well, as are many individuals who don't necessarily identify with any particular movement. I'm sure there are others as well. As for me, I abandoned AM in 1966 and only ever used it again briefly around 1970 on 6 meters mobile. I'm not going back. Its a terribly inefficient mode, a waste of spectrum resources and was well replaced by SSB. I don't begrudge AM'er a place in amateur radio and have never spoken against it until recently when it became obvious that AM'ers were behind RM-11305.
I do apologize for the narrow comment.
I have the most fun with qrp myself. As soon as the Elecraft KX1 with the 80/30 meter option is available, I am going to build one and see how I like it compaired to the K1. There is nothing like going up into the mountains and throwing a wire in a tree and working with a couple watts. Real Fun.
I just find it refreshing that a large group like the AM crowd is building and experimenting. And while AM is wide, they do operate clean stations. While I use SSB, and it is efficient, there are way too many operating SSB, that don't even know how to set the mic drive by using the ALC meter. Nothing against contests, but it sounds like 11 meters during contests, with all of the overdriven signals.
There are lots of hams that have built Elecraft K2's, that can be repaired and aligned, without spending $1000 for surface mount soldering equipment. And they work just fine on all modes. So, you are right that it isn't just AM that has lot's going for it.
What I do know, is if all you could do on HF is send Email, this hobby would die in a flash.
73 - Bob
wa4dou
02-08-2006, 04:31 PM
As a League member, I was vaguely aware
of the BW proposal talk back a couple of years ago. Didn't know much about it and hadn't heard much about it and certainly didn't know or suspect that it had the far reaching consequences to radically change amateur radio. I also wasn't aware that there were those behind the scene all too willing to radically change the essential nature of amateur radio. Such a concept was unthinkable. After all there are only so many things that we can stay up with and on top of. These threads on the Internet have served to open the eyes of at least some of us and we now realize the fox has been guarding the hen house. Personally I'm grateful and will be paying this subject a lot more attention.
k8rcz
02-08-2006, 05:36 PM
I don't understand why the ARRL is so bent on destroying Amateur Radio and turning it into big business, or perhaps I have answered my own question.
Quote[/b] (k8rcz @ Feb. 08 2006,10:36)]I don't understand why the ARRL is so bent on destroying Amateur Radio and turning it into big business, or perhaps I have answered my own question.
But the amazing part is that what they are doing, would destroy the ARRL business, and the Ham equipment suppliers businesses, that are dependent on us.
As soon as the bands are full of Pactor garbage, myself and many others will be dumping rigs on Ebay as fast as possible. HRO and the rest won't be selling many rigs, when you can buy them used for 1/4 of street price. At that point, I would only pray to get 1/4 street price. Who would even be buying rigs?
Say goodbye to the ads in QST.
The bottom line, is the ARRL will go down along with Ham Radio. SCS and Winlink will do just fine.
We in a sense, maybe saving them from their own stupidity.
Beyond the obvious that we already know about the ARRL leadership, it would seem that they have a real problem understanding their business, and where the money comes from.
Their "dark" motives could come back to bite them, but we may have stopped this epic blunder. It's on the FCC table now, and I pray they have a little more sense then the bunch in Newington. Time will tell.
73 - Bob
W3MIV
02-08-2006, 07:09 PM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Feb. 08 2006,13:39)]Their "dark" motives could come back to bite them, but we may have stopped this epic blunder. It's on the FCC table now, and I pray they have a little more sense then the bunch in Newington. Time will tell.
I don't believe there were, or indeed are, any "dark motives." I think the BOD is being driven in "futurist" directions that are not necessarily where the majority of amateurs want to go. As a group, we tend to be more reactionary than progressive.
I think the the BOD was sold a bill of goods by those that Charlie (among others) style as "digital elitists." I feel that there is an honest feeling among the BOD that the League needs to look to the future and try to scope out the directions that amateur radio will head over the next few to the next few dozen years. I believe a bee has been put in their bonnets over "futurist" communications techniques that will become ever more important in an overall sense, but far less important for hams.
They see us as having some vast, vital role in the future as more and more EMCOMM needs are developed by Homeland Security and related state and local agencies. They see a need for technologies that will keep us in the center of the eye, whether we want to be there or not.
Funny thing about all of this, in my opinion, is that the very technologies that have served all of us very well during the worst of the calamities to strike the US (and the world) during the recent past have been those of the "older" or more "mature" technologies. WinLink proved to be a virtual no-show, whereas all of the other, "traditional" modes handled the load. And did so with elan.
In short, you cannot lead by being in the middle of the pack any more than you can lead from behind. The League, bless 'em all, has tried to lead from out front, where they should be, but they got a little carried away and went over the hill with this well-intentioned, but sadly misguided petition.
If any of this seems to mean that I do not think that polling the membership a good idea, disabuse yourself of that notion. I think that such polling would be both wise and efficacious, even if the cost were high.
One hopes that those in the League leadership may take a lesson from all of this brouhaha. There is clearly something amiss in the fanatical propulsion of these WinLink notions that is both unhealthy and unwise. The BOD has to very carefully examine their involvement with WinLink and its most avid promoters. Incest is as sinful for institutions as for people.
It would perhaps be best to throw open the windows in Newington. Perhaps as well to throw a few folks out of those same windows.
73 to one and all.
kh6ty
02-08-2006, 07:31 PM
Gentlemen,
The events leading up to the petiton, such as Haynie appointing TWO Winlink people instead of just one to the committee, and then making the architect of Winlink the chairman, and then Sumner providing the IARU bandplan to a committee never chartered to produce a bandplan, and then Paul Rinaldo caught passing "private" instructions to the chairman, and then Sumner adopting the committee report as ARRL's own, and then burying the dissenting recommendation, leads to the conclusion that, "bandwidth by segmentation", while probably having some merit, is NOTHING MORE THAN A RED HERRING, to try and distract everyone from the apparent underlying purpose of the petition, which is obviously a Faustian bargain to, "Give Winlink 2000 access to ALL HF frequencies, in exchange for ARRL access to the Winlink network for ARRL traffic handling."
Several of the few members who were able to actually talk to a Director said they were told that the ARRL was "desperate" to get access to Winlink.
Fortunately, 83% of the hams saw through this scheme and voted thumb's down to the FCC.
All the conjecture about why ARRL acted and petitioned as they did tends to overlook the real underlying purpose of the petition.
That's why so many things seem to make no sense, except for the rewording of 97.221 and some of the bandwidth segment boundaries which Winlink chose to specifically favor their own operations.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2006,12:09)]I don't believe there were, or indeed are, any "dark motives." I think the BOD is being driven in "futurist" directions that are not necessarily where the majority of amateurs want to go. As a group, we tend to be more reactionary than progressive.
I think the the BOD was sold a bill of goods by those that Charlie (among others) style as "digital elitists." I feel that there is an honest feeling among the BOD that the League needs to look to the future and try to scope out the directions that amateur radio will head over the next few to the next few dozen years. I believe a bee has been put in their bonnets over "futurist" communications techniques that will become ever more important in an overall sense, but far less important for hams.
They see us as having some vast, vital role in the future as more and more EMCOMM needs are developed by Homeland Security and relat