The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

[kh6ty]

Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

ARRL now wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands!

In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.

The current practice of Winlink 2000, where Pactor-II is allowed, which is anywhere in the RTTY/Data/CW segment of the bands, is to scan two or more channels by each fully automatic Pactor-II Email robot.

THIS IS DONE JUST SO THE MOBILE STATIONS WILL NOT HAVE TO WAIT AS LONG AS 4 MINUTES FOR A FREQUENCY THAT IS BEING USED BY ANOTHER EMAIL ROBOT, and so they can go to another frequency where there is no Email robot, even if there is a already a CW or SSB station there, and let an Email robot just take over the frequency.

If a single Pactor-III Email robot requires a 2.5 KHz channel, then a fully automatic Email robot scanning two channels will use 5 kHz.

There are currently 25 Winlink Email robots in the US and another 25 overseas, some of which can still interfere with communications in the US. There are another, perhaps 25, Email Robots assigned for Emcomm use by Winlink.

Assuming an average of 40 Winlink Email robots can be heard worldwide on 20 meters, and each one automatically scans only two frequencies, then 40 Email robots will take up 40 x 5 = 200 kHz of the 20 meter phone band, which is 80% of the phone band!

ARRL claims that the operator triggering the Email robot to transmit should not allow it to transmit on a busy frequency, but of course, it usually does anyway, or it just may not hear stations in QSO local to the robot but remote to itself, so the Email robot can just wipe out the local QSO, as is so often the practice now for CW and PSK31 QSO's, AND THIS WILL BECOME A REALITY FOR ALL PHONE OPERATORS IF RM-11306 is adopted.

If you think that sacrificing 80% of the 20 meter phone band to be used for Email messaging for Winlink's less than 1% of the US ham population is a good idea, you should file comments with the FCC stating that you agree with the ARRL rewording of Part 97.221.

BUT, IF YOU THINK THAT EMAIL ROBOTS SHOULD BE CONFINED TO A SEPARATE SPACE ON THE BANDS, THEN YOU ALSO NEED TO FILE COMMENTS TO THE FCC AND LET THEM KNOW YOUR POSITION!

It is as easy as 1-2-3-4 to file a comment!

1. Go to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

2. Fill in RM-11306 (in all caps) where it says "1. Proceeding"

3. Fill in the rest of the spaces with your name and address where indicated

4. Type a brief comment to the FCC where it says "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)

Please make an effort to file a comment on RM-11306 before February 5!

[AD5CA]

How does this belong in the "News" section?
Just another rant...........
Mark # AD5CA

[n7oey]

the last thing we need in amateur radio is a bot, look at the chat rooms on yahoo they are so full of bots you can not even chat with someone else without a bot popping up bots are useless plus 20m is great voice band and it does not need to be destroyed. winlink2000 needs to be destroyed it has caused more trouble than any other software that has been devolped in amateur radio.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AD5CA @ Jan. 28 2006,10:27)]How does this belong in the "News" section?
Just another rant...........
Mark # AD5CA
Mark,

It is news because the FCC has asked for comments on the ARRL bandwidth petition, RM-11306, and the comment period closes February 5. Did you know that?

If adopted, the ARRL petition will now let Pactor-III Email robots go anywhere they wish in the phone bands, which means they will pop up unannounced at random on top of your phone QSO if you are accidentally on one of their published frequencies and they want to download their email.

This has never been allowed before, and phone operators have no idea how disruptive Email robots are. To date, only digital and CW operators have suffered this.

My explanation was never intended to be a "rant", but a detailed explanation of what may happen so you and everyone else can make an informed decision and comment on RM-11306 before it is too late.

Do you think a 30% duty cycle phone signal can possibly compete with an 90% duty cycle Pactor-III Email robot that automatically keeps trying to punch through your phone QSO until you lose contact with the other person and it dominates the freqeuency?

The Pactor-III signal looks like this:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/pactor3.jpg

Please file comments on RM-11306 before February 5.

73, Skip KH6TY

[AC0GT]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

{yawn}

I, for one, welcome our new Winlink using overlords.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Jan. 28 2006,11:19)]THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

{yawn}

I, for one, welcome our new Winlink using overlords.
ROFL!!!!

Have you passed your General test yet?

Have you had a psk31 qso wiped out yet by a Winlink station?

Have you had an Olivia qso wiped out by a Winlink station on 40m or 20m yet?

You don't need to answer. We know you haven't.

tim ab0wr

[w6em]

Down with the Bots! I filed my comments earlier this morning.

Also, check out the ARRL Letter, Volume 25, No. 4, that just came out. The League Directors now have a goal of having wideband, high-throughput multimedia on the ham bands by 2010!

3.5kHz won't be nearly enough.

Just think, HF of the future will be limited to a couple of QSOs per band, with that kind of objective.

And, away we go.......

Lee
W6EM

[NY7Q]

down with the arrl....they are useless.

[n4qa]

All you farmboys out there (of which I *am* one),
If you don't understand Skip's plot of the Pactor-III emission, just climb down off'n that tractor and backhand ten adjacent corn stalks real fast to get an idea of what you'd hear on your favorite phone frequency if ARRL had its way. Talk about "rough as a cob"!

Humans...GOOD

Robots...BAD

"NO" to RM-11306...NO to RM-11305 too!

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ Jan. 28 2006,13:40)]All you farmboys out there (of which I *am* one),
If you don't understand Skip's plot of the Pactor-III emission, just climb down off'n that tractor and backhand ten adjacent corn stalks real fast to get an idea of what you'd hear on your favorite phone frequency if ARRL had its way. Talk about "rough as a cob"!

Humans...GOOD

Robots...BAD

"NO" to RM-11306...NO to RM-11305 too!

You already know what SSB sounds like, but
just turn up the volume on your computer speakers and click on this link to find what out you would hear instead of your QSO partner or that DX station you are trying to snag:

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/WAV/PACTOR-III_16.WAV

73, Skip KH6TY

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Jan. 28 2006,12:43)]Down with the Bots! #I filed my comments earlier this morning.

Also, check out the ARRL Letter, Volume 25, No. 4, that just came out. #The League Directors now have a goal of having wideband, high-throughput multimedia on the ham bands by 2010!

3.5kHz won't be nearly enough.

Just think, HF of the future will be limited to a couple of QSOs per band, with that kind of objective.

And, away we go.......

Lee
W6EM
What is funny, is the previous paragraph where the board has adopted the ARRL Education Mission and Vision Statement.

The board better get some people that understand digital and bandwidth, to educate the board first.

They really don't have a clue. State of the art on HF in 2006 is sending characters very slowly, and SSTV. Yet in 2010, we will be downloading HDTV on 20 meters.

Well that is if we can use the entire band for around 35 years for the download.

The ARRL board's technical knowledge, seems to be non-existent at this point.

They don't have a technical clue, yet ham radio should be completely changed to make room for their unproven pipe dreams.

Unreal.

73 - Bob

[G0GQK]

Regarding this discussion, have the ARRL had discussions with other amateur radio organisations around the world ? It would be hard to believe that those who control the thinking behind this proposed roving Winlink e mail BBS, or whatever they choose to call it, would be unaware of its effects internationally, or do they not care ?

I suffered the effects of the Pactor BBS years ago, and it caused great anger to those who were using Pactor 12 years ago. The bloody thing would just drop on a frequency, and completely wipe out any QSO's in an instant.

If this is the way forward in American amateur radio then every device possible needs to be used to prevent what the ARRL believes will be an asset to amateur radio.

I fail to understand why mobile stations need to send e mails from their cars, is it a case of finding something of little importance to send in an e mail so that the Winlink system can be used.? As in Britain 95 % of the stuff that is sent by Packet is just clutter and rubbish which need not be sent. Are there not enough mobile phones and other methods of transmitting messages available without causing a hindrance to users of the amateur radio frequencies outside the USA

Has anybody at the ARRL fully explained why this communication system is so badly needed ? Are people writiing to QST demanding such a system, are they writing to newspapers ? Are people asking questions on TV ? Of course they aren't because its a stupid ill thought out idea. Unless of course the US Home Security government department is demanding that such a system is devised, naturally of course to defend the American homeland.

G0GQK

[K2WH]

ARRL or the writer of this posting has been watching way too much Battle Star Galactica episodes. #The bots were built to serve man and there are many copies. #They have a plan.

Oh brother, relax.

K2WH

[WD8OQX]

Sounds like a gentleman's agreement for a sub band just for this is in order. May not help with "across the pond" stuff but would for here, anyway.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Jan. 28 2006,15:16)]Regarding this discussion, have the ARRL had discussions with other amateur radio organisations around the world ? #It would be hard to believe that those who control the thinking behind this proposed roving Winlink e mail BBS, or whatever they choose to call it, would be unaware of its effects internationally, or do they not care ?

I suffered the effects of the Pactor BBS years ago, and it caused great anger to those who were using Pactor 12 years ago. The bloody thing would just drop on a frequency, and completely wipe #out any QSO's in an instant.

If this is the way forward in American amateur radio then every device possible needs to be used to prevent what the ARRL believes will be an asset to amateur radio.

I fail to understand why mobile stations need to send e mails from their cars, is it a case of finding something of little importance to send in an e mail so that the Winlink system can be used.? As in Britain 95 % of the stuff that is sent by Packet is just clutter and rubbish which need not be sent. Are there not enough mobile phones and other methods of transmitting messages available without causing a hindrance to users of the amateur radio frequencies outside the USA #

Has anybody at the ARRL fully explained why this communication system #is so badly needed ? Are people writiing to QST demanding such a system, are they writing to newspapers ? #Are people asking questions on TV ? #Of course they aren't because its a stupid ill thought out idea. #Unless of course the US Home Security government department is demanding that such a system is devised, naturally of course to defend the American homeland.

G0GQK
The ARRL intentionally completely disregarded the published IARU restrictions on "digimode" transmissions, even though they were well aware of them.

This was because the basis of the ARRL plan was drafted by the same people who bring us Winlink, and they just did not want any restrictions on where they can spread out. As far as ARRL is concerned, IARU Region 1's published bandplan apparently is not worthy of any consideration.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

You might want to read this link:

http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html

which explains where the basis of the ARRL petition came from, as ARRL #states in the petition itself.

This Email communications system primarily serves just over 5000 Winlink clients, mostly yachtsmen sailing the seven seas, so they can get email without having to pay for a commercial service. The connection with ARRL is that they have decided to use the Winlink network for the ARRL traffic system, so they sorta "made a bargain with the devil" in order to get access to Winlink, and in return are trying to get FCC rules changed to let Winlink operate anywhere they wish, including all over the phone bands.

If Region 1 hams oppose such a plan, it would do no harm to also send in comments to our FCC to let them know the problems it would cause across the ocean. You do not have to be a US amateur or even a ham operator to comment. The FCC always includes references to IARU Region 1 in their regulations anyway, We need all the help we can get to get the ARRL petition denied so our ham bands can continue to be used for communications between two persons instead of mainly for Email for the Internet.

In fact, the most recent ARRL Letter states the following, "The FCC has ordered several rule revisions to implement changes agreed to at
the international level during World Radiocommunication Conference 2003
(WRC-03). Acting Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Catherine W.
Seidel signed the Order, released January 19. The changes affect §97.111,
Authorized transmissions; §97.113, Prohibited transmissions; §97.115, Third
party communications, and §97.117, International communications.

"These amendments will ensure that the Commission's Amateur Radio Service
rules conform to Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted
at the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference, and will further the
Commission's ongoing efforts to streamline its Amateur Service Rules," the
FCC said. "The overall effect of this action is to update the Part 97
Amateur Radio Service rules in the Code of Federal Regulations to conform to
now-effective international agreements."

Just click on this link to file comments and use RM-11306 (all caps) for the Proceeding number:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Please have as many hams as you can file comments, but hurry, because the comment period ends February 5.

73, Skip KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 28 2006,15:36)]ARRL or the writer of this posting has been watching way too much Battle Star Galactica episodes. #The bots were built to serve man and there are many copies. #They have a plan.

Oh brother, relax.

K2WH
K2WH,

Regardless whether or not you think there is any reason for concern, please study the petition yourself, RM-11306, and file your comments with the FCC. If you do not, you may later be sorry you did not make yourself heard. There are many proposed changes to the regulations that may affect where and how you may operate.

You can read RM-11306 as filed by going to:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/rm11306.pdf

Sorry, to disappoint you, but I have never watched "Battlestar Galactia", because I spend most of my spare time working CW and PSK31 on the air and designing QRP transceivers. I did get a chuckle out of your depiction of the Winlink Email robot! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

However, they actually look like this:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/pactor3.jpg

"A word to the wise is sufficient..."

[w6em]

Intereting, that Steve Waterman, k4CJX, one of the ARRL Winlink ad hockerssays in RM-11306 (page 8, paragraph 10) that "it has a 5600 baud rate, while occupying only 2.4kHz of bandwidth."

Now, KH6TY, Skip, posts a Pactor-III spectral display, showing 10 tones, the last of which is at 2.6kHz.

Who's whistlin' Dixie?

Ah, but the ARRL has that covered. They asked for 3.5kHz of bandwidth. What's the harm of a little error?

What else isn't quite correct in RM-11306?


Lee
W6EM

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Jan. 28 2006,17:17)]Intereting, that Steve Waterman, k4CJX, one of the ARRL Winlink ad hockerssays in RM-11306 (page 8, paragraph 10) that "it has a 5600 baud rate, while occupying only 2.4kHz of bandwidth."

Now, KH6TY, Skip, posts a Pactor-III spectral display, showing 10 tones, the last of which is at 2.6kHz.

Who's whistlin' Dixie?

Ah, but the ARRL has that covered. #They asked for 3.5kHz of bandwidth. #What's the harm of a little error?

What else isn't quite correct in RM-11306?


Lee
W6EM
The statement attributed to K4CJX is probably not about Pactor-III, but a hopeful, yet undeveloped, future mode. . . "About the potential to test a new mode with a symbol rate of nearly 5600 baud and a
bandwidth of 2.4 kHz. The amateur rules currently restrict symbol rates to 1200 baud on
10 meters and 300 baud on all other HF bands."

Pactor-III has six different "speed levels", and the one I depicted is speed level 4. Speed level 3 is more commonly attainable and I think it "only" takes up 2.1 kHz. Much more efficient in bandwidth usage is Pactor-II, which only takes up 450 hz bandwidth, but has a speed on HF of 10 cps.

However, a 5600 baud, 2.4 kHz wide mode, for HF is nothing more than a pipedream, and no excuse to radically revise all the regulations to legitimize a mode that can be tested today under an STA if it is developed.

The latest, most modern, HF modes use a baudrate of under 100 in order to handle multipath and have good sensitivity. It is a complex issue, but basically, multiple tones with low baud rates are the latest in HF mode development.

Pactor-III is capable of 225 characters per second on a wired circuit, but only achieves 15 cps on HF! This is due to the QRN, QSB, and QRM on HF, which necessitates so many repeats of data blocks that the actual throughput is very poor. Therefore, the dream of high-speed multimedia on HF is just that - a dream, and we must vigourously oppose any changes to the rules that penalize person-to-person communications to make more room for highspeed data on HF that just cannot be done.

Look how poor Pactor-III performs on HF, which is the best HF error-free data mode yet developed, and it already uses 2.4 kHz or 2.6 kHz bandwidth. HF is only good for voice, realtime text transfers, and long-time image transfers (SSTV -about 2 minutes or HDSSTV- about 30 seconds, not including post-processing time) and little else.

Please send in your comments to the FCC opposing RM-11306 because, for one reason, what it promises for the future is just not possible as far as we know. RM-11306's underlying intent is not really to accomodate fantastic new digital modes, but to allow Winlink to spread Pactor-III all over the phone bands so they do not have to wait for a Robot-free clear frequency.

Any phone operator that thinks this will not happen had better talk to some CW or PSK31 operators and listen to what it is like to live every day with Pactor-II robots always disrupting their communications without any warning.

Please send in comments for RM-11306 to: #

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Thanks!

Skip KH6TY

[w6em]

Thanks, Skip, for the explanation.

My comments opposing it and the CTT RM-11305 are in the hopper, or in-basket, whichever the case, at the FCC.

Let's hope this robot-spreading fiasco is stopped before it causes irreparable harm.

At least the FCC is giving all interested amateurs the opportunity to be heard, and posting comments for all to see. Much more than the ARRL did for us.

I would have to conclude that most ARRL members, if given the petition to read and comment on before it was submitted would oppose it.

73, and again, thanks for your efforts.

Lee

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]

kh6ty:

However, a 5600 baud, 2.4 kHz wide mode, for HF is nothing more than a pipedream, and no excuse to radically revise all the regulations to legitimize a mode that can be tested today under an STA if it is developed.

The latest, most modern, HF modes use a baudrate of under 100 in order to handle multipath and have good sensitivity. It is a complex issue, but basically, multiple tones with low baud rates are the latest in HF mode development.


Skip,

Gosh I'm glad someone else recognized this!

First off, this is a nonsensical way to state things based on todays usage.

Baud rate is typically considered to be the symbol rate of change. A 1200baud circuit where each symbol change designates two bits would give you a 2400 bit per second rate.

I suspect what Steve was trying say is they want a 5600 bit per second rate in a 2400hz bandwidth. That would indicate a bit/baud difference of 2.3. In essence a mode that would give you 2.3 bits per baud.

Bottom line: you will never get a 5600 baud circuit in a 2400hz bandwidth. You can get a 5600 bit/sec circuit in a 2400hz bandwidth with some advanced signaling methods.

Somebody pointed out earlier that the ARRL needs to get some better technical representation to vett what their people are saying.

I AGREE!

It's no wonder their proposal is such a mess! Their proposal contains no technical backup for any of their claims - BECAUSE IT CAN'T ---- ITS WRONG IN ALMOST EVERYTHING IT STATES!!!!

What has happened to the ARRL? They used to be considered a place to go for technical expertise. Now I would rather send my questions into the Nuts & Volts magazine.

tim ab0wr

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Jan. 28 2006,15:16)]Regarding this discussion, have the ARRL had discussions with other amateur radio organisations around the world ? #It would be hard to believe that those who control the thinking behind this proposed roving Winlink e mail BBS, or whatever they choose to call it, would be unaware of its effects internationally, or do they not care ?

G0GQK
The ARRL doesn't give a damn about it's own members, so I have a feeling that they feel the rest of the world can flat out "go to hell".

Those folks (ARRL BOD) have completely gone over the edge, and nothing will stop their BS. They have decided that they are above the members and the rest of the world , and know what is best. A few arogant asses, that think they are special.

They also think a new ARRL President will change the complete disagreement from ARRL members.

I won't quote the replies I got from Haynie, but I am sure the new President will have the same BOD approved replies.

The ARRL will die over this one. It has to be, if they continue the present coarse.

They are killing Ham Radio. Sad to say that, but it is true.

They don't care about US hams, ARRL members, or the rest of the hams in the world, as it seems that the ARRL leadership is comprised of strange individuals that think ham radio is about the ARRL.

73 - Bob

[N1BHH]

With fewer amateurs joining the ARRL, it is a must that every active amateur contact all his old amateur friends and pass the word that this measure should be shot down in a hurry. Get your comments in and stress your displeasure in being forced to put up with this crud in the phone bands. There should be a small section of the bands specified for this mode and it should not be right in the middle of the phone bands. It's time these Newington clowns #roll up the tent and find something more useful like protecting the existing frequency usage.

[k7ov]

Hi all,

I have never been a fan of Winlink for many reasons.

That being said, am I the only one who thinks the ARRL is being two faced by crying foul when the FCC pushes BPL destroying our ham bands just to replace it with RF noise and junk of our own making?

I wonder what kind of drugs they are on? Or maybe someone just paid them off!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I made my comments known, but I wonder, shouldn't we email our section managers and ask them how they stand on this issue? Another question should be answered as well, if they support this proposal and you don't, is there a way to recall these people and put in someone who will fight this nonsense?

73,

Mike - K7OV

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Jan. 28 2006,17:16)]Regarding this discussion, have the ARRL had discussions with other amateur radio organisations around the world ?
I have noticed that a few foreign amateurs have filed comments on the CTT petition, RM-11305 which also permits WinLink (and any future iteration or imitation) to rove where they will. When it comes to WinLink-like robots, both petitions are equally bad.

Their comments clearly show how others outside of our borders feel about these issues.

[kh6ty]

Time is running out for filing comments on RM-11306!

If you are a phone operator and a member of a net, please make everyone aware of what RM-11306 would do to phone operations, and ask every member to visit this Topic on QRZ.COM, make up his mind, and please file a comment before February 5!

If you talk to someone on the air, please ask him if he has filed a comment yet, and if not, to please do so, and talk it up on the air.

Again, the link to filing a comment on RM-11306 (all caps) is:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Please file comments before it is too late!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Jan. 28 2006,02:58)]Hi all,

I have never been a fan of Winlink for many reasons.

That being said, am I the only one who thinks the ARRL is being two faced by crying foul when the FCC pushes BPL destroying our ham bands just to replace it with RF noise and junk of our own making?

I wonder what kind of drugs they are on? Or maybe someone just paid them off!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I made my comments known, but I wonder, shouldn't we email our section managers and ask them how they stand on this issue? Another question should be answered as well, if they support this proposal and you don't, is there a way to recall these people and put in someone who will fight this nonsense?

73,

Mike - K7OV
Nope, you aren't alone.

You make perfectly good sense, with respect to asking *why* the NAAR on one hand hates BPL digital noise yet says its OK to destroy good, useable spectrum with willy-nilly, uncontrolled noise, created by digital robots.

I see a tremendous loss of their effectiveness #before the FCC as a result of the Petition. #In fact, the ability to claim damage from elevated noise floors and the like just may become moot. #Especially with statements about expecting broadband, high-throughput multimedia on the bands by 2010. #(Don't look now, BOD, its already there. #Its called B-P-L)

Ah, but maybe the NAAR BOD is all knowing. #The only way to use the bands, post-BPL rollout, would be with digital modes. #So, they've already given up the fight. #But, then, if that's the case, why continue to pay Chris Imlay for all the anti-BPL letters, petitions, etc?

Nah, doubt the BOD are on drugs. #Just intoxicated from eating too much ego cheeze and the color of green (without salad dressing).

Do write your Section Managers, Assistant and Division Directors.

A recall? #Hmmmmm. #Now, that sounds interesting.

Don't resign or threaten to, as some post from time to time, as there's still a chance the ship can be righted before it sinks.

Besides, what better way to claim (that) they don't represent your interests than remaining a member. #A non-member has less influence, and no ability to effect a change or get involved in leadership to help speed the change.

Lee

[K1MVP]

Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Jan. 28 2006,19:35)]The ARRL doesn't give a damn about it's own members, so I have a feeling that they feel the rest of the world can flat out "go to hell".

Those folks (ARRL BOD) have completely gone over the edge, and nothing will stop their BS. They have decided that they are above the members and the rest of the world , and know what is best. A few arogant asses, that think they are special.

They also think a new ARRL President will change the complete disagreement from ARRL members.

--------------------------------------------
This whole "mess" is nothing but the ARRL promoting
a special agenda, for the "elite digital" crowd,--pure
and simple.
Read the ARRL link from K4CJX`s webpage about how
"wonderful" ham radio is/will be with winlink and all
these "PC" digital modes.

Looks and sounds like a sales brochure from a "slick"
car salesman, IMO.
It`s all about POLITICS, POLITICS, and more POLITICS,
to make people believe that ham radio is going to "save"
the world.

It`s also a continuing attempt to present ham radio as being on the "cutting edge" of technology to the average person who does not "have a clue" as to what is going on.

It`s also about getting the number`s up to save the ARRL`s collective butt.
These guys are becoming so "transparent" it`s
"mind-boggling".

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

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 25 2006,06:09)]Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

ARRL now wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands!

In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.
Uh, that would be 14.150 to 14.350.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Jan. 29 2006,08:12)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 25 2006,06:09)]Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

ARRL now wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands!

In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.
Uh, that would be 14.150 to 14.350.
Uh, please check the table on page 23 of RM-11306, which specifies a 3.5 kHz bandwidth from 14100 to 14350. Since "phone" is over 500 Hz wide, it would be allowed, under RM-11306, from 14100 t 14350, which would become the new phone and wideband digital "band".

ESSB experimenters should note that while RM-11306 permits DSB AM anywhere in the "phone bands" with up to 9 kHz bandwidth, ESSB with a bandwidth over 3.5 kHz is NOT permitted. If you do not agree with this, you should be sure to file comments registering your opposition to this 3.5 kHz limit, which discriminates against ESSB use, but not against DSB AM. If DSB AM is a "legacy" mode, is ESSB also a "legacy" mode (but a later one), since it is already being practiced and the FCC has already refused to put a bandwidth limit on ESSB?

Don't you think that the regulations should be fair to everyone and not favor one analog mode over another, or one operational behavior (such givng as Email robots the same run of the band as CW has always had). CW is a "backup mode" when all else fails, but the Email robot is obviously not!

You can read RM-11306 as filed either at this link or at the very bottom of the FCC comments:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/rm11306.pdf

When studying the ARRL petition, be sure to go to the one here or or the FCC website (both are the same) and NOT previously released or announced ARRL versions, as there seem to be some important minor differences between them.

73, KH6TY

[n4zkf]

I have run a Packet BBS for YEARS on HF. I'm at 14.098. The digital modes need to stay where they are. Out of the phone bands. When I go to the phone portion I don't want to hear a digital step all over a QSO.
I'm not a winlink fan because it's getting shoved down our throat here in Florida. Where is Rick's comments on this.

73 Dave N4ZKF

[ky5u]

Besides the significant technical evidence against both proposals, there is really only one thing you need to know:

On RM-11306 the ARRL Petition- 1% of Amateur users (who use wideband digital) are trying a spectrum grab from 99% of Amateurs (who use SSB, CW and narrowband data). If you're an NCT, you'll get to be a General and have to contend with less spectrum to use.

On RM-11305 the CTT Petition- Nothing in the proposal protects the bands from 200kHz wide data signals which would occupy almost the entire HF spectrum on each HF band. (200kHz is needed to give data rates of about 128kbps). FYI: CQ Magazine has article this month on ID-1 from ICOM where it discusses data rates and needed bandwidth. You want to see hundreds of Amateurs waiting to use HF while one or two digital elitists hog the entire band?

Digital Elitists do NOT CARE what the impact is on you. They believe digital is the wave of the future and if you get drowned, then so be it.

Just say NO to both petitions. Do it now. Thanks!

[K4JF]

"In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.

Uh, that would be 14.150 to 14.350.

Uh, please check the table on page 23 of RM-11306, which specifies a 3.5 kHz bandwidth from 14100 to 14350. Since "phone" is over 500 Hz wide, it would be allowed, under RM-11306, from 14100 t 14350, which would become the new phone and wideband digital "band"."

Uh, I checked the table on the ARRL website which states that the phone band is from 14.150 to 14.350. If the original post had not said "is" and rather had said "will be" then it would have been correct. I think it is important to know and respect our regulatory limits, which is why I commented. The phone band is 14.150-14.350. It may be changed, then again it may not, or it may be changed to something else entirely.

[km1r]

I've said before... and will say it again...

I am really sick of trying to work a guy on 30m with my puny 200 watts and have some MULTI-kw robot email station open up on top of me. Before anyone says: "Are you sure its not a commercial?", it's not... Been on 30m for decades in the military then in commercial career. I KNOW a 200w signal vs a rockcrusher... and I can copy the PSK or Winlink if need be.

So I guess with the blessing and urging of the newest ISP (ARRL), I can get my pants blasted off by some guy in his car trying to send very important email to some guy on a sailboat.

Time to build a three-holer using tubes with BIG handles.

Yes, I have sent a response to the FCC regarding RM-11306, written much more professionally than this post!

73 to all, see you in the QRM...

Mike KM1R

[w6em]

One thing I found quite interesting in the RM-11305 petition was the usage study. Quite a thorough job, and guess what? It netted only 5.6% of QSOs as being digital. And, no identification as to what type(s) of digital modes observed. They apparently lumped RTTY, Pactor 1,2, and 3, and packet and whatever else into "digital."

Interesting to have undertaken such a great deal of work, yet the petition says nothing about what to do with the information.

In ethically conducted committee proceedings, this would imply a lack of majority consensus on what to do with the data. Or, more to the point, instead of reinforcing the committee's objective, perhaps thought to help defeat it........

[K4JKA]

Well, I fired my warning shots across the bow of the FCC... I'm a NCT who is working on learning the code. It's bad enough to have to look forward to getting flattened on the CW bands, but now I'll have to contend with it on the Phone bands too... On the one hand everyone is lamenting the fact that Amateur Radio is dying out, and on the other hand a very small percentage of Amateurs want crap like this passed so there isn't room for the rest of us. Well, I for one will NOT abandon ship or give up without a fight.

[km1r]

how about this approach? (Modify as necessary) opinions? is it worth it? a good/bad idea?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear (insert QST advertiser here)

The ARRL's promotion of RM-11306, would be the cause of destructive interference in the amateur bands and basically render amateur radio useless over the next decade. There is a distinct possiblity that eventually the amateur bands might even be void of most signals with the exception of WinLink, etc., signals. (fewer radios being purchased).

The majority of radio amateurs I have spoken to are strongly against this proposal, based on two premises:

1) There was absolutely no input solicited or accepted from the general amateur population by the organization that petitioned it. (ie; no representation).

2) On a technical level, the ramifications are terrible, as noted above.

As I feel our voices are not being heard by the ARRL, (which purports to represent us) and the proposal seems to benefit only a few amateurs as well as the QST advertisers, I intend to do the following if the petition is passed:

I will NOT purchase any equipment, parts or services advertised by you in QST or any other ARRL publication.

The short term benefits you receive by catering to this ill conceived plan would not be worth losing many amateur customers.. amateurs who supported you over the years.

73,

KM1R
---------------------------------------------------------------

or something to that effect... Hey, I'm burning and admittedly, there is not much we can do about this latest attempt by "my representative in Newington" to become an ISP instead of our organization. But I'll entertain any sensible means to fight this petition.

KM1R

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Jan. 29 2006,10:39)]Uh, I checked the table on the ARRL website which states that the phone band is from 14.150 to 14.350. #If the original post had not said "is" and rather had said "will be" then it would have been correct. #I think it is important to know and respect our regulatory limits, which is why I commented. #The phone band is 14.150-14.350. #It may be changed, then again it may not, or it may be changed to something else entirely.
I guess the confusion is just a matter of definition.

The petition filed with the FCC does not specify a "phone band", but a range on 20m for signals 3.5 kHz wide from 14100 to 14350. "Phone signals" can operate anywhere in this range, but not lower. So can wide digital signals, SSTV, etc.

The current "phone band" on 20m is 14150 to 14350, as you say.

What I was referring to is not the current "phone band" but where phone could operate if RM-11306 were adopted, and that is from 14100 to 14350.

I don't know what table you are looking at on the ARRL website as there have been more than one version posted. The defining table at this point in time is ONLY the one submitted to the FCC, even if it is differerent from the one posted on the ARRL website and can be found on the FCC site at the bottom of the comments if you select View "all".

If I stated the 20m phone band incorrectly, I apologize. Anyone wishing to confirm which one the ARRL is proposing can look at the table in RM-11306, on the FCC website.


The important thing is to decide if you support or oppose RM-11306 and file comments before February 5.



The link to upload comments is:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

If you have not done it, please take the time now to submit your comments!

Thanks!

73, Skip KH6TY

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (km1r @ Jan. 28 2006,15:40)]how about this approach? (Modify as necessary) opinions? is it worth it? a good/bad idea?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear (insert QST advertiser here)

The majority of radio amateurs I have spoken to are strongly against this proposal, based on two premises:

1) There was absolutely no input solicited or accepted from the general amateur population by the organization that petitioned it. (ie; no representation).
They did solicit comments on the subject, about a year or so ago. Whether regulation by bandwidth was a good idea.

They didn't publish any comments. They didn't say how many were for or against even the concept.

Charlie, AG4YO, I think can back me up on this one. (Or straighten me out!!!)

A reasonable approach would have been to ask for comments on the specific, final form. Post all comments, then decide, based on what the majority of member comments preferred, whether to even file a petition. Ahhhh, but that would have been far too simple. Actually, all they would have had to do was *mirror* the FCC's rulemaking process (comments, replies to comments, then comes the decision).

Our problem is we love democracy and true representative government. So, when organizations act totalitarian or Facist, well, ugh, we get upset.

Lee

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 25 2006,06:09)]Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

ARRL now wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands!

In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.

The current practice of Winlink 2000, where Pactor-II is allowed, which is anywhere in the RTTY/Data/CW segment of the bands, is to scan two or more channels by each fully automatic Pactor-II Email robot.

THIS IS DONE JUST SO THE MOBILE STATIONS WILL NOT HAVE TO WAIT AS LONG AS 4 MINUTES FOR A FREQUENCY THAT IS BEING USED BY ANOTHER EMAIL ROBOT, and so they can go to another frequency where there is no Email robot, even if there is a already a CW or SSB station there, and let an Email robot just take over the frequency.

If a single Pactor-III Email robot requires a 2.5 KHz channel, then a fully automatic Email robot scanning two channels will use 5 kHz.

There are currently 25 Winlink Email robots in the US and another 25 overseas, some of which can still interfere with communications in the US. There are another, perhaps 25, Email Robots assigned for Emcomm use by Winlink.

Assuming an average of 40 Winlink Email robots can be heard worldwide on 20 meters, and each one automatically scans only two frequencies, then 40 Email robots will take up 40 x 5 = 200 kHz of the 20 meter phone band, which is 80% of the phone band!

ARRL claims that the operator triggering the Email robot to transmit should not allow it to transmit on a busy frequency, but of course, it usually does anyway, or it just may not hear stations in QSO local to the robot but remote to itself, so the Email robot can just wipe out the local QSO, as is so often the practice now for CW and PSK31 QSO's, AND THIS WILL BECOME A REALITY FOR ALL PHONE OPERATORS IF RM-11306 is adopted.

If you think that sacrificing 80% of the 20 meter phone band to be used for Email messaging for Winlink's less than 1% of the US ham population is a good idea, you should file comments with the FCC stating that you agree with the ARRL rewording of Part 97.221.

BUT, IF YOU THINK THAT EMAIL ROBOTS SHOULD BE CONFINED TO A SEPARATE SPACE ON THE BANDS, THEN YOU ALSO NEED TO FILE COMMENTS TO THE FCC AND LET THEM KNOW YOUR POSITION!

It is as easy as 1-2-3-4 to file a comment!

1. Go to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

2. Fill in RM-11306 (in all caps) where it says "1. Proceeding"

3. Fill in the rest of the spaces with your name and address where indicated

4. Type a brief comment to the FCC where it says "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)

Please make an effort to file a comment on RM-11306 before February 5!
The Emotional Scare tactics are very effective for those who have little information, but contain little truth. #

Domestically and elsewhere if possible, Winlink 2000 now operates within the Part 97.221 sub-bands for Pactor 3, and volunaritily below RTTY, excludes the voluntary PSK-31 area, and voluntary above CW for Pactor 1 and 2.

Legally, domestic operations of the 24 Winlink stations may operate Pactor 1 or Pactor 2 anywhere below the existing phone band, but they do not. They voluntarily stay in the between other such operations.

Each station scans several frequencies so that if one frequency is busy, the user may move to another. Currently all 24 Pactor 3 stations, which are 2.2 KHz wide (-24), operate in the sub-bands allotted. For example, All 24 Winlink stations using a 2.2 KHz wide protocol now operate in only 5 KHz allotted on 40 meters.

RM-11306 suggest band segmentation by bandwidth and not by mode of operation. This certainly does not mean that the 24 Winlink stations will move all over the band segments allotted to its use, regardless of bandwidth, now or in the future. This means that through the proper band plan, any digital operation that is between 500 Hz and 3.5 KHz will be sharing the space with any other station that falls within these bandwidth band segments. And, with proper band planning, such segmentation may be managed with some flexibility.

QUOTE from the FCC "Order" from RM-10740, 11/2004:

"Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to ‘reallocate’ the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor."

RM-11305 and RM-11306 are not about 24 Winlink 2000 stations, they about the future of Amateur radio.

On June 4, 2003, in Docket 04-140 , in the Commission’s “Discussion” regarding “High Frequency Privileges,” the Commission indicated their concern toward the ability of the Amateur service to further develop the radio art in the present regulatory environment.

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

Think now what would have happened if the FCC had listened to the status quo and emotional "scare" tactics of those using the new SSB mode back when the "phone band" was dominated by AM. What would have happened if they put SSB in its own tiny Sub-band? #It would have taken years to make any change whatsoever. Likewise, and realistically, Part 97.221 type of operation will be in effect for any higher speed data transfer be it data, image, or even digital voice operations at some point. It is that way now everywhere else in the telecom industry. There is "wired" and "wireless."

Advances are continually being made in digital technology every day toward the concept of wired or wireless. However in the Amateur service, little digital development is happening, especially from the United States. We need to insure that the Amateur service in the US is given every opportunity to experiment and contribute to the radio art. Without it, we will continue to lose to other services. Isn't this obvious?

Current regulatory band segmentation-by-mode restrictions at a Federal level have left little room for advancement of the “radio art” and emergency communications per Part 97.1. Relaxing such regulation to possibly include band segmentation by bandwidth, while maintaining proper abuse control, will provide an opportunity for such advancement. The Amateur community may then properly deploy a voluntary plan for the specifics.

For the changes recommended by RM-11305 or RM-11306, there will never be consensus in the amateur community. Historically, the status quo does not push for innovation, advancement, or any change at all. RM-11306 is a compromise between the status quo and future users of the Amateur service. The ARRL has done a remarkable job balancing current needs and modes, while providing an excellent opportunity for further advancements, and their proposal should be accepted.



Steve, k4cjx

[n4zkf]

Steve,

You keep mentioning "Radio Art". When in fact the system you are refering to uses the internet to connect it all. What happens when your using it for emcomms and the backbone goes down?

Dave n4zkf

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 28 2006,11:01)]Quote[/b] (AD5CA @ Jan. 28 2006,10:27)]How does this belong in the "News" section?
Just another rant...........
Mark # AD5CA
Mark,

It is news because the FCC has asked for comments on the ARRL bandwidth petition, RM-11306, and the comment period closes February 5. Did you know that?

If adopted, the ARRL petition will now let Pactor-III Email robots go anywhere they wish in the phone bands, which means they will pop up unannounced at random on top of your phone QSO if you are accidentally on one of their published frequencies and they want to download their email.

This has never been allowed before, and phone operators have no idea how disruptive Email robots are. To date, only digital and CW operators have suffered this.

My explanation was never intended to be a "rant", but a detailed explanation of what may happen so you and everyone else can make an informed decision and comment on RM-11306 before it is too late.

Do you think a 30% duty cycle phone signal can possibly compete with an 90% duty cycle Pactor-III Email robot that automatically keeps trying to punch through your phone QSO until you lose contact with the other person and it dominates the freqeuency?

The Pactor-III signal looks like this:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/pactor3.jpg

Please file comments on RM-11306 before February 5.

73, Skip KH6TY
Mark,

There are ONLY 24 such 100 watt stations in the US.

Like any other digital signal, I do not expect that they will be in the same band space as will be SSB since the entire idea of the ARRL proposal is separation by bandwidth rather than mode of operation. With any reasonable band planning, segements within each bandwidth will be estabished as they are today. I would think that the encroachment of SSB on a space for 24 digital signals will be more imposing than the other way around. Currently this is the bandspace per Part 97 used by these stations, plus fully automatic stations, plus any other operation that is allowed below the existing "phone bands."

21.090-21.100 MHz
18.105-18.110 MHz,
14.0950-14.0995 MHz,
14.1005-14.112 MHz,
10.140-10.150 MHz,
7.100-7.105 MHz,
3.620-3.635 MHz

These "scare" tactics are the rants of those with other agendas. No one is complaining in other countries with no band segmentation at all. Canada and Australia are two such countries.



Steve, k4cjx

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 29 2006,10:15)]Besides the significant technical evidence against both proposals, there is really only one thing you need to know:

On RM-11306 the ARRL Petition- 1% of Amateur users (who use wideband digital) are trying a spectrum grab from 99% of Amateurs (who use SSB, CW and narrowband data). If you're an NCT, you'll get to be a General and have to contend with less spectrum to use.

On RM-11305 the CTT Petition- Nothing in the proposal protects the bands from 200kHz wide data signals which would occupy almost the entire HF spectrum on each HF band. (200kHz is needed to give data rates of about 128kbps). FYI: CQ Magazine has article this month on ID-1 from ICOM where it discusses data rates and needed bandwidth. You want to see hundreds of Amateurs waiting to use HF while one or two digital elitists hog the entire band?

Digital Elitists do NOT CARE what the impact is on you. #They believe digital is the wave of the future and if you get drowned, then so be it.

Just say NO to both petitions. #Do it now. Thanks!
I have been an Amateur since 1955. I can remember the same concept coming over AM radio during nets. If you want SSB invading your space, vote it down. What would we do with this space today if such static thinking was in place? Would we all be in our little SSB sub-bands waiting for someone to undo hard coded formal regulation? #

The ARRL band plan by bandwidth segmentation instead of mode is a wise move to provide flexibility for the future. Excuse me, someone is calling on my "analog" cell phone.

Steve, k4cjx

[kh6ty]

Our thanks to K4CJX for confirming our calculations!

24 domestic Winlink stations x 3 Pactor-III scan frequencies each = 72 scanned frequencies

72 scanned frequencies x 2.5 kHz per Pactor-III = 180 kHz

on 20m,

14350 kHz - 14100 kHz = 250 kHz

180 kHz / 250 kHz * 100 = 72% of the new 20m phone band

Additionally, some Winlink PMBO stations overseas (and in Canada, like VE2AFQ) are as strong here as US PMBO stations. Assuming only 15 non-US PMBO stations will be strong enough to interfere with communications on 20m, and each scans three frequencies:

15 overseas Winlink stations x 3 Pactor-III scan frequencies each = 45 scanned frequencies

45 scanned frequencies x 2.5 kHz per pactor-III = 112.5 kHz

112.5 kHz plus 180 kHz = 281.5 kHz, or ALL of the new 20m phone band!

However, by five Winlink PMBO stations sharing a single frequency:

24 + 15 = 39 stations /5 = 8 frequencies * 2.5 kHz per frequency = 20 kHz

If all used Pactor-II instead of Pactor-III (1/5 the bandwidth of Pactor-III, but only 10cps / 15 cps = 35% slower, only 20 kHz / 5 = 4 kHz is actually needed for all Winlink traffic.

So, why does Winlink need access to ALL HF frequencies, when they only absolutely NEED 4 kHz?

By scattering their scan frequencies all over a band, others have no way to know where to operate to avoid the Winlink robots!


Don't believe what K4CJX is "promising" you!

There are NOT only 24 Pactor-III PMBO stations as K4CJX keeps emphasizing. There are many more outside the US that are just as strong here as they are abroad, due to the worldwide propagation on 20m and on other bands at night.

If you want to continue to enjoy phone in the future, please file comments with the FCC and oppose any rewording of 97.221 in RM-11306 (written by K4CJX for the ARRL, by the way).

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 28 2006,18:00)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Jan. 28 2006,17:17)]Intereting, that Steve Waterman, k4CJX, one of the ARRL Winlink ad hockerssays in RM-11306 (page 8, paragraph 10) that "it has a 5600 baud rate, while occupying only 2.4kHz of bandwidth."

Now, KH6TY, Skip, posts a Pactor-III spectral display, showing 10 tones, the last of which is at 2.6kHz.

Who's whistlin' Dixie?

Ah, but the ARRL has that covered. #They asked for 3.5kHz of bandwidth. #What's the harm of a little error?

What else isn't quite correct in RM-11306?


Lee
W6EM
The statement attributed to K4CJX is probably not about Pactor-III, but a hopeful, yet undeveloped, future mode. . . "About the potential to test a new mode with a symbol rate of nearly 5600 baud and a
bandwidth of 2.4 kHz. The amateur rules currently restrict symbol rates to 1200 baud on
10 meters and 300 baud on all other HF bands."

Pactor-III has six different "speed levels", and the one I depicted is speed level 4. Speed level 3 is more commonly attainable and I think it "only" takes up 2.1 kHz. Much more efficient in bandwidth usage is Pactor-II, which only takes up 450 hz bandwidth, but has a speed on HF of 10 cps.

However, a 5600 baud, 2.4 kHz wide mode, for HF is nothing more than a pipedream, and no excuse to radically revise all the regulations to legitimize a mode that can be tested today under an STA if it is developed.

The latest, most modern, HF modes use a baudrate of under 100 in order to handle multipath and have good sensitivity. It is a complex issue, but basically, multiple tones with low baud rates are the latest in HF mode development.

Pactor-III is capable of 225 characters per second on a wired circuit, but only achieves 15 cps on HF! This is due to the QRN, QSB, and QRM on HF, which necessitates so many repeats of data blocks that the actual throughput is very poor. Therefore, the dream of high-speed multimedia on HF is just that - a dream, and we must vigourously oppose any changes to the rules that penalize person-to-person communications to make more room for highspeed data on HF that just cannot be done.

Look how poor Pactor-III performs on HF, which is the best HF error-free data mode yet developed, and it already uses 2.4 kHz or 2.6 kHz bandwidth. HF is only good for voice, realtime text transfers, and long-time image transfers (SSTV -about 2 minutes or HDSSTV- about 30 seconds, not including post-processing time) and little else.

Please send in your comments to the FCC opposing RM-11306 because, for one reason, what it promises for the future is just not possible as far as we know. RM-11306's underlying intent is not really to accomodate fantastic new digital modes, but to allow Winlink to spread Pactor-III all over the phone bands so they do not have to wait for a Robot-free clear frequency.

Any phone operator that thinks this will not happen had better talk to some CW or PSK31 operators and listen to what it is like to live every day with Pactor-II robots always disrupting their communications without any warning.

Please send in comments for RM-11306 to: #

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Thanks!

Skip KH6TY
Goodness!

Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a 200 bps max rate.

Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud and is capable of a maximum raw throughput of 2722 bps. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using compression, a standard feature of WinLink 2000, at least 500 characters/sec (5.5 bit/character) are achieved.

But none of this has anything to do with a band plan for the future. It does this regardless of band plan. And, before long, there will be other protocols to complain about. It does make for great "scare" tactics to provide to the uninformed for comments in your favor.

Let's just leave everything like it is, shut all the ODFM error free digital protocols down, and let the rest of the world's services eat the Amateur service alive. Seen BPL?



Steve, k4cjx

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 29 2006,15:16)]Our thanks to K4CJX for confirming our calculations!

24 domestic Winlink stations x 3 Pactor-III scan frequencies each = 72 scanned frequencies

72 scanned frequencies x 2.5 kHz per Pactor-III = 180 kHz

on 20m,

14350 kHz - 14100 kHz = 250 kHz

180 kHz / 250 kHz * 100 = 72% of the new 20m phone band

Additionally, some Winlink PMBO stations overseas (and in Canada, like VE2AFQ) are as strong here as US PMBO stations. Assuming only 15 non-US PMBO stations will be strong enough to interfere with communications on 20m, and each scans three frequencies:

15 overseas Winlink stations x 3 Pactor-III scan frequencies each = 45 scanned frequencies

45 scanned frequencies x 2.5 kHz per pactor-III = 112.5 kHz

112.5 kHz plus 180 kHz = 281.5 kHz, or ALL of the new 20m phone band!

However, by five Winlink PMBO stations sharing a single frequency:

24 + 15 = 39 stations /5 = 8 frequencies * 2.5 kHz per frequency = 20 kHz

If all used Pactor-II instead of Pactor-III (1/5 the bandwidth of Pactor-III, but only 10cps / 15 cps = 35% slower, only 20 kHz / 5 = 4 kHz is actually needed for all Winlink traffic.

So, why does Winlink need access to ALL HF frequencies, when they only absolutely NEED 4 kHz?

By scattering their scan frequencies all over a band, others have no way to know where to operate to avoid the Winlink robots!


Don't believe what K4CJX is "promising" you!

There are NOT only 24 Pactor-III PMBO stations as K4CJX keeps emphasizing. There are many more outside the US that are just as strong here as they are abroad, due to the worldwide propagation on 20m and on other bands at night.

If you want to continue to enjoy phone in the future, please file comments with the FCC and oppose any rewording of 97.221 in RM-11306 (written by K4CJX for the ARRL, by the way).
Pactor 3 is only allowed in the Part 97.221 space provided.

21.090-21.100 MHz
18.105-18.110 MHz,
14.0950-14.0995 MHz,
14.1005-14.112 MHz,
10.140-10.150 MHz,
7.100-7.105 MHz,
3.620-3.635 MHz


The entire domestic operation uses these spaces for Pactor 3. Another attempt to deceive. What makes you think anything would spread it out as you have stated. How absurd.

What an excellent scare tactic to obtain comments your way.


Steve, k4cjx

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 29 2006,15:20)]Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a 200 bps max rate.

Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud and is capable of a maximum raw throughput of 2722 bps. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using compression, a standard feature of WinLink 2000, at least 500 characters/sec #(5.5 bit/character) are achieved.



Steve, k4cjx
See why you cannot trust what K4CJX says!

The current Winlink 2000 Common Message Server status shows that this month, 3.6 air minutes, or 3.6 minutes * 60 seconds/minute = 216 seconds per message.

Average message size was 3822 characters.

3822 characters / 216 seconds = 17.69 characters per second.

So why does K4CJX claim Pactor-III has a throughput of 500 characters per second, when in actual use by Winlink, it only achieves 18 characters per second on the average? That's an exaggeration of 27 times!

As I have posted before, "high-speed" data on HF, with its QSB, QRN, and QRM, is just not possible, and the Winlink Pactor-III numbers show that even the most "advanced" HF data mode (Pactor-III) cannot achieve high-speed, error-free, transfer rates on HF.

Oh, here is a screenshot, taken at 5:33PM today of http://winlink.org/status , CMS status, so you can see the numbers for yourself:


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/wl2kcps.jpg

KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 29 2006,15:43)]The entire domestic operation uses these spaces for Pactor 3. Another attempt to deceive. What makes you think anything would spread it out as you have stated. How absurd.

Steve, k4cjx
Winlink cannot spread out like they do with Pactor-II, only because the rules do not allow it.

This is the whole point - Rules are absolutely necessary to keep Winlink from spreading out like they do with Pactor-II.

If you have not yet done so, please file comments with the FCC and oppose any changes to the current 97.221 if you want to continue to be able to enjoy operating phone in the future.!

Of course, K4CJX thinks your analog SSB mode is outmoded, and besides, sending Email over ham radio is much more fun, so if your idea of the future is just sending Emails over ham radio, just send in comments supporting the adoption of RM-11306.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

KH6TY

[K3UD]

I just received the my Great Lakes Division newsletter from the division director. Here is the part that deals with the ARRL's proposal and bandplan.


"- BOARD MEETING REPORT: Now for the Bandplan
- BOARD MEETING REPORT: Grassroots Effort
- Help wanted
- Separation of Division and Section
- Division Convention

NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN

All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation Primarily by Bandwidth petition have been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie within our bands. None of these references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- e.g., where will Techs be allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? There are still more aspects to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other words, the tough work has not yet been discussed.

More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing the bandplan. The most critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will need a lot of input from members and nonmembers alike as we proceed with the band planning.

It is too early to call for input on the bandplan, but I want to let
you know you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. The objective of all this is to develop a bandplan that is logical and has sufficient buy-in from the amateur community that it is respected and observed voluntarily by the Amateur Radio community."

It looks like they are asking for member (and non-meber) input for a bandplan. On the other hand they also asked for input on the proposal. I am not sure if the ARRL really wants input of if this is just window dressing to make the petition look more pallatable to the members. Since when does the ARRL ask non members for any input? Great PR though.

I read into this that the ARRL sounds pretty confident that the FCC will adopt their petition and that they will be the organization that will craft the gentlemen's agreements that all of us will be expected to adhere to.

73
George
K3UD

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 29 2006,15:48)]Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 29 2006,15:20)]Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a 200 bps max rate.

Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud and is capable of a maximum raw throughput of 2722 bps. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using compression, a standard feature of WinLink 2000, at least 500 characters/sec #(5.5 bit/character) are achieved.



Steve, k4cjx
See why you cannot trust what K4CJX says!

The current Winlink 2000 Common Message Server status shows that this month, 3.6 air minutes, or 3.6 minutes * 60 seconds/minute = 216 seconds per message.

Average message size was 3822 characters.

3822 characters / 216 seconds = 17.69 characters per second.

So why does K4CJX claim Pactor-III has a throughput of 500 characters per second, when in actual use by Winlink, it only achieves 18 characters per second on the average? That's an exaggeration of 27 times!

As I have posted before, "high-speed" data on HF, with its QSB, QRN, and QRM, is just not possible, and the Winlink Pactor-III numbers show that even the most "advanced" HF data mode (Pactor-III) cannot achieve high-speed, error-free, transfer rates on HF.

Oh, here is a screenshot, taken at 5:33PM today of http://winlink.org/status , CMS status, so you can see the numbers for yourself:


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/wl2kcps.jpg

KH6TY
CHARACTERS PER MINUTE, please.

Steve, k4cjx

[kh6ty]

AT 500 characters per second, a 3823 character message should take only 3823 characters / 500 characters per second = 7.6 seconds.

Then why does the average 3823 character message take 3.6 minutes on the average on Winlink, when it should only take 7.6 seconds?

According to the Winlink "RF footprint" presentation, Pactor-III has a raw speed of 225 characters per second (on a wired circuit, I assume), but in actual practice, on the air on HF, it only achieves 18 characters per second according to the latest status at winlink.org/status.

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 29 2006,16:50)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 29 2006,15:48)]Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 29 2006,15:20)]Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a 200 bps max rate.

Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud and is capable of a maximum raw throughput of 2722 bps. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using compression, a standard feature of WinLink 2000, at least 500 characters/sec #(5.5 bit/character) are achieved.



Steve, k4cjx
See why you cannot trust what K4CJX says!

The current Winlink 2000 Common Message Server status shows that this month, 3.6 air minutes, or 3.6 minutes * 60 seconds/minute = 216 seconds per message.

Average message size was 3822 characters.

3822 characters / 216 seconds = 17.69 characters per second.

So why does K4CJX claim Pactor-III has a throughput of 500 characters per second, when in actual use by Winlink, it only achieves 18 characters per second on the average? That's an exaggeration of 27 times!

As I have posted before, "high-speed" data on HF, with its QSB, QRN, and QRM, is just not possible, and the Winlink Pactor-III numbers show that even the most "advanced" HF data mode (Pactor-III) cannot achieve high-speed, error-free, transfer rates on HF.

Oh, here is a screenshot, taken at 5:33PM today of http://winlink.org/status , CMS status, so you can see the numbers for yourself:


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/wl2kcps.jpg

KH6TY
CHARACTERS PER MINUTE, please.

Steve, k4cjx
Now that I know what you are touting, I think, here is a
direct quote from the inventor of Pactor 3, Hans-Peter Helfert, "PACTOR-III is capable of a maximum throughput of 2722 bit/sec. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using text compression, a standard feature of WinLink, at least 500 characters/sec (5.5 bit/character) are possible." What I see with our B2F compression is 3600 bps.

Take it up with Hans-Peter. However, this really has nothing to do with future protocol development to enhance the radio art (unless you are using your "scare" tactics for those who know no better.) A lot of conversation for 24 one hundred watt stations willing to be contained in a reasonable volunteer band plan.



Steve, k4cjx

[kh6ty]

Steve, it is not rocket science to divide 3822 characters per message with 3.6 minutes per message and get 1016 characters per minute.

Dividing that by 60 seconds per minute and you get 18 characters per second, not the 500 characters per second you have been telling everyone, and just imortalized on QRZ.COM!

Gee, if the Winlink Network Administrator cannot understand second-grade math, then the ham bands are in real trouble! (Of course, they ARE in trouble with Winlink!)

What this has to do with the future of the radio art is that high-speed data or multimedia is just not possible on HF, regardless of what you have been telling (and selling) everyone. Winlink's own Pactor-III traffic numbers prove this.Pactor-III already uses over 2 kHz bandwidth and can only manage to transfer one half of a standard page of type in one minute, on the average. This is very far away from "high-speed" data or multimedia transfer!

It takes Winlink 3.6 minutes to send what you claim should go in only 7.6 seconds!

The lesson is that you cannot trust Winlink to say the truth, even about their own performance, and you certainly cannot trust them to adhere to any "voluntary" bandplan.

So, please file comments to the FCC opposing any rewrite of 97.221if you want to continue to enjoy phone operation.

[KG8FV]

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Jan. 28 2006,12:58)]down with the arrl....they are useless.
That's right..I agree.. A.R.R.L is Worthless..Never been a member and never will be..

KG8FV

[n2pee]

Claims that Pactor III is going to take over the phone bands are just as unrealistic as a claim that AM phone is going to take over the phone bands.

A Voluntary Band Plan will allow the accommodation of all modes without the drawn out need to change laws.

I have faith the my fellow Hams to work together for a fair plan.

73 Scott

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (n2pee @ Jan. 29 2006,18:07)]Claims that Pactor III is going to take over the phone bands are just as unrealistic as a claim that AM phone is going to take over the phone bands.

A Voluntary Band Plan will allow the accommodation of all modes without the drawn out need to change laws.

I have faith the my fellow Hams to work together for a fair plan.

73 Scott
Let's look at just two examples of how well Winlink abides by "gentlemen's
agreements", in particular, the existing ARRL bandplan
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

Visit www.winlink.org and check each Winlink station to see what
frequencies they use.

ARRL QST:
7.080-7.100 data
7.100-7.105 automatically digitally controlled stations

ARRL bandplan:
7.040 RTTY DX
7.080-7.100 RTTY
7.171 SSTV
7.290 AM calling frequency

Note that Pactor is just a more modern form of "Packet", or "packetized"
transmissions.

Winlink:
KA6IQA: 7066.9
KB6YNO: 7063.9
KQ4ET: 7067.2
K4CJX: 7076.9
K4SET: 7074.9
K6CYC: 7069.9
W7IJ: 7068.9
...and the 40m list goes on...

ARRL:
10.130-10.140 RTTY
10.140-10.150 Packet

IARU Region 2 Bandplan:
10100 - 10130 CW
10130 - 10140 Digimode, CW
10140 - 10150 Packet Priority, CW

Winlink:
KB6YNO: 10124.9
K4CJX: 10123.9
K6CYC: 10123.9
W7IJ: 10139.5
...and the 30m list goes on...

NOW IS IT CLEAR WHY 30m CW COMMUNICATIONS ARE SO OFTEN DISRUPTED BY WINLINK
STATIONS?

Winlink uses Pactor-III ONLY in the FCC subbands, because FCC *REGULATIONS*
do not permit it to be used outside the subbands, right? Wrong! VE2AFQ, a
Winlink PMBO in Canada near Montreal, operates Pactor-III daily on 14068.9,
but the subbands on 20m, and the ARRL bandplan, require that Pactor-III
stay within 14.095-14.0995 or within 14.1005-14.112.

Winlink obviously has the option to refuse VE2AFQ connection to the Winlink
servers, but THEY ELECT NOT TO DO SO. VE2AFQ is not bound by FCC
regulations, and Canadian regulations (so often quoted by some as a model
for the US to follow), allow anything anywhere, so Winlink takes advantage
of this in order to expand their network to frequencies other than the ARRL
bandplan or the FCC rules where Pactor-III can be used.

Of course Winlink clients in the US cannot legally use VE2AFQ when
operating Pactor-III, but VE2AFQ caters to a large group of French-speaking
sailors, and dominates 2.4 kHz just below the PSK31 activity on 20m. VE2AFQ
is 20 db over S9 here in South Carolina and it is obvious that Canadian
stations must be considered US stations from a potential interference
standpoint.

The point is that Winlink will disregard any bandplan, or "gentlemen's
agreement" that they find too restrictive, and so will others. THEY CANNOT
DISREGARD FCC RULES WITHOUT PENALTY.

This is why we need *RULES* in those cases where there has been repeated
disregard for bandplans. Unattended activities of all kinds is one area
where restricitve *RULES* have been proven to be absolutely necessary. Too
bad, but "one bad apple spoils the whole bushel".

Please file comments and tell the FCC we must have RULES to keep all kinds of automatic operations in one place on each band.

KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Scott,

I guess you forgot to mention you are a Winlink Telpac Gateway station.

Do you have Winlink inside information that they guarantee that they will not spread out with Pactor-III PMBO scan frequencies the same way they now spread out with Pactor-II scan frequencies?

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Jan. 28 2006,20:08)]Take it up with Hans-Peter. However, this really has nothing to do with future protocol development to enhance the radio art (unless you are using your "scare" tactics for those who know no better.) A lot of conversation for 24 one hundred watt stations willing to be contained in a reasonable volunteer band plan.



Steve, k4cjx
Sure, pawn it off on the guy who pockets the $1000 per box (to be able to use Pactor III)

You, sir, and the ARRL missed a boatload of points. #Including:

1. #Mode development, especially WIDE BANDWIDTH development should take place where there's lots of spectrum to play with. #Try 6M and above.

2. #Ever heard of STA (Special Temporary Authority), or Experimental licenses, or even 47CFR15.201, et. seq.?

3. #Ever thought for a second just how much HF spectrum there is, in total available to we hams. #Below 28MHz, its just over 2MHz total! #And you, and your ego-enhanced BOD buddies want to cram multimedia into/onto/across that spectrum by 2010?

4. #ARRL is Sumner's Club. #Plain and simple. #Its not an organization run by and for the majority of ARRL members. #If it were, there would be a TOTALLY DIFFERENT result. #Certainly not the petition submitted.

5. #You expect the FCC to somehow incentivize the spectrum you propose to screw up with automatic digital robots willy/nilly? #Why didn't you solve that one for them. #All you did was restate all subband privileges just the way they now are.

6. #How about letting CTT's nice utilization study solve the dilema. #If only 5.9% of the total traffic observed was digital, irrespective of mode, let's refarm the HF bands based on that usage. #And, confine your robots to not more than 1kHz of bandwidth. #I can live with that. #Especially since on most bands, the 1kHz segments, based on CTT's numbers, would be only a couple of kHz.

Ah, well, that's about all for now. #You can read these in more formal form in the 11 pages of my comments that should hit the PDF machine tomorrow.

73,

Lee
W6EM

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (n2pee @ Jan. 28 2006,21:07)]Claims that Pactor III is going to take over the phone bands are just as unrealistic as a claim that AM phone is going to take over the phone bands.

A Voluntary Band Plan will allow the accommodation of all modes without the drawn out need to change laws.

I have faith the my fellow Hams to work together for a fair plan.

73 Scott
You do the math. A couple dozen robots attempting connections to forward email using 2.5kHz each on 40M, for example, would take quite a bit of spectrum. And, if each scans 3 frequencies and transmits, as Steve tells us, that's most of it.

Is an example of good voluntary planning, proposing 100kHz bandwidth across most of the 2M band above what is now CW and SSB segments? Sure sounds like ARRL plans to dump its own bandplans, and step on the many organizations that have coordinated repeater and remote base NBFM activity across the nation.

I, too, have faith in the 94.1%, at least, of my fellow hams that use modes other than Pactor w/Winlink to tell the organization that's supposed to represent them and their best interests to do WHAT THEY WANT IT TO.

73,

Lee
W6EM

[AC0GT]

I see an interesting train of thought arising here. We can make all the rules we want here in the USA but that will not change how the Amateurs act outside our borders. Pactor-III operation is already legal in other countries where it would be illegal here. Voice transmissions from other countries are already legal on our non-voice sub-bands. Amateurs licensed in other countries are legally transmitting on HF without having passed a Morse code test.

If the fear mongers are to be believed we would already have an all out war on HF with e-mail bots transmitting on top of foul mouthed no-coders so the poor righteous 20 WPM Extras can't find 30 hertz to send some QRP CW.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Get a grip people.

The only bandplan I can support is one where all countries can agree on. I don't see that happening anytime soon. What we can do is allow the flexibility in where we choose to operate with the mode we choose to operate so that we can begin to enjoy communicating with the stations in countries that have different ideas on bandplans than ours. The only way to do that is allow all modes on any frequency within our operating privileges.

Try to stop the ARRL or FCC from changing the band plan all you want. It's not going to keep the Pactor-III stations from operating on "your" frequency.

I'm not trying to defend Pactor-III. In fact I don't even like Pactor-III. The only way a person can use the mode is with a license from a single vendor. I don't think that fits in with the basis and purpose of Amateur radio. If you want Pactor-III to go away I suggest you all take it from that angle.

We should force the vendor of Pactor-III modems to either open its protocol or discontinue selling modems to Amateurs. Either way they are going to lose money on the deal. Chances are that they will not open the protocol to preserve their sales to the maritime radio market.

In the small chance that they do open the Pactor-III protocol then we will still have the option of enforcing the rules as they exist in the prevention of interference. These stations are, by definition, under the control of some licensed operator. The operator is individually responsible for any harm it may cause. Find those that are operating outside of proper Amateur practice and shut them down. Which is what we should be doing right now instead of trying to legislate them off the bands.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 29 2006,12:48)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Jan. 29 2006,10:39)]Uh, I checked the table on the ARRL website which states that the phone band is from 14.150 to 14.350. #If the original post had not said "is" and rather had said "will be" then it would have been correct. #I think it is important to know and respect our regulatory limits, which is why I commented. #The phone band is 14.150-14.350. #It may be changed, then again it may not, or it may be changed to something else entirely.
I guess the confusion is just a matter of definition.

The petition filed with the FCC does not specify a "phone band", but a range on 20m for signals 3.5 kHz wide from 14100 to 14350. "Phone signals" can operate anywhere in this range, but not lower. So can wide digital signals, SSTV, etc.

The current "phone band" on 20m is 14150 to 14350, as you say.

What I was referring to is not the current "phone band" but where phone could operate if RM-11306 were adopted, and that is from 14100 to 14350.

I don't know what table you are looking at on the ARRL website as there have been more than one version posted. The defining table at this point in time is ONLY the one submitted to the FCC, even if it is differerent from the one posted on the ARRL website and can be found on the FCC site at the bottom of the comments if you select View "all".

If I stated the 20m phone band incorrectly, I apologize. Anyone wishing to confirm which one the ARRL is proposing can look at the table in RM-11306, on the FCC website.


The important thing is to decide if you support or oppose RM-11306 and file comments before February 5.



The link to upload comments is:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

If you have not done it, please take the time now to submit your comments!

Thanks!

73, Skip KH6TY
You're right, Skip, the confusion was in the way we each have stated it. But I have seen hams go to a proposed operation sooner than it was legal, so I felt I should note that the boundaries haven't changed yet. Hopefully they won't change!

The FCC listing is the defining one, of course, but I don't believe the ARRL one is any different. They have been pretty accurate over the years in presenting the regulations to us.

But as a Life Member, I have to say they are completely wrong on this proposal and I have filed comments with FCC saying so.

[ab0wr]

You folks haven't seen anything yet!!

Take a close look at the ARRL proposal and what it does with Part 97.307(f).

97.307(f)(3) limits the baud rate on HF to 300 baud.

97.307(f)(4) limits the baude rate on 10m to 1200 baud.

97.307(f)(5) limits the baud rate on 2m and 70cm to 19.6 kbaud

Guess what! The ARRL proposal does away totally with these limitations.

Under the ARRL proposal the maximum baud rate will basically be the equal to the widest signal bandwidth allowed on the applicable band.

The maximum baud rate on HF will 3500baud.

The maximum baud rate on 2m will be 100 kbaud.

The maximum baud rate on 70cm is not able to be figured since the ARRL proposal provides for unlimited bandwidth signals on 70cm. In other words if you want to fire up a 30Mhz wide signal on 70cm, have at it. If you can do it at a time that the whole band is idle and you can keep the signal running 24/7 you can tie up the whole band with no one to say Boo! under the regulations the ARRL is proposing. Kiss off your 70cm repeaters if they ever all go idle at once and someone wants to tie up the band!

I haven't yet figured out what the ramifications of this will be.

A 3500 baud rate data signal carrying perhaps a 32 bit QAM signal is going to have a very low crest factor (i.e. a very high average power output) and will require LARGE output powers to make the quantization levels be higher than the noise level on the HF bands.

I suspect this means that if you operate phone on the HF bands you should be prepared for some VERY high powered, VERY high power density signals to start showing up very quickly.

If you think Pactor III is bad, wait till they start firing up 1500 watt output Pactor IV signals with a power crest factor of 2 (e.g. 750 watt average output -- kind of like a BIG AM signal running continuously).

I'm going to have to think this one through pretty quickly in order to revise my comments to the FCC.

I certainly don't want to compete on SSB with signals like this.

tim ab0wr

[K2TFT]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Give em the phone band...all of it...ON 12M.

[K2TFT]

Quote[/b] (K2TFT @ Jan. 30 2006,06:21)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Give em the phone band...all of it...ON 12M.
....between 0001z and 0500z....
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 29 2006,17:30)]So, please file comments to the FCC opposing any rewrite of 97.221if you want to continue to enjoy phone operation.[/b]
I really have to chuckle at the panicked “calls for action” from all the crusty, “sky is falling” curmudgeons who have firmly convinced themselves the FCC really gives a flying flip about what they want or think. #

Frankly, it is quite evident from th FCC's recent (and well documented) actions that they couldn’t care less. As I have outlined in other forums, I’m convinced the FCC is now following their own, far more sweeping strategic agenda…an agenda that will ultimately result in a largely de-regulated Amateur Service in the United States. #

It would now appear the FCC is well on track to strike down most (if not all) of the remaining artificial mode and other “incentive licensing” barriers that have arbitrarily denied full and equal access to our bands to many tens of thousands of otherwise well-qualified people for decades. #

So, it should now come as absolutely no surprise when the FCC ultimately opens up our operations to the MAXIMUM recommended ITU bandwidths allowed, regardless of the inevitable howls of protest from the “sky is falling” crowd.

And, for those of you who are STILL unconvinced that the FCC could really care less about what we want, I would think some serious reflection on the letters “B, P and L” might just change your mind.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[kh6ty]

Keith, regardless of where you think the FCC might be heading with regards to deregulating emitted bandwidth, they still need rules covering the transmission of foul language, pornography, commercial content, etc., on the ham bands, and where any kind of automatically controlled stations may be used.

So, please file comments on RM-11306 to the FCC and at least let them know that all automatically controlled digital stations must be confined by rules, and not only voluntary bandplans, to separate, contiguous, spaces on each band so they can continue to function without constantly disrupting person-to-person communications daily as they do now.

You might also ask yourself, What does the Winlink/ARRL rewording of 97.221 have to do with ARRL's plan to segment by bandwidth?


Thanks!

Skip KH6TY

[w6em]

CQ Magazine had some interesting commentary. They made a solid case *why* willy-nilly automatic robots can be a large problem, in that distant ones may initiate transmissions and interfere with ongoing QSOs, etc.

Yet, in the end, they suggest the only "automatic control" be a "listen before transmit protocol."

I guess they don't want to lose potential advertising revenue for Pactor III boxes and perhaps a role in frequency coordination.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 30 2006,08:17)]Keith, regardless of where you think the FCC might be heading with regards to deregulating emitted bandwidth, they still need rules covering the transmission of foul language, pornography, commercial content, etc., on the ham bands, and where any kind of automatically controlled stations may be used.

So, please file comments on RM-11306 to the FCC and at least let them know that all automatically controlled digital stations must be confined by rules, and not only voluntary bandplans, to separate, contiguous, spaces on each band so they can continue to function without constantly disrupting person-to-person communications daily as they do now.

You might also ask yourself, What does the Winlink/ARRL rewording of 97.221 have to do with ARRL's plan to segment by bandwidth?


Thanks!

Skip KH6TY
No, Skip, the very LAST thing we need is yet more “rules”! #

Just like everywhere else on the Planet, there are already MORE than enough rules contained in the International Radio Regulations (not to mention in Part 97) to enforce penalties for the transmission of intentional interference as well as “foul language, pornography, commercial content, etc.” on the Ham bands. #

Nobody is arguing for the elimination of those rules.

However, it IS quite apparent that many people ARE now confusing the continuing need for such rules with their own fervent wish for the FCC to “do something” via regulation about the automatic packet robot (etc) and other compatibility issues that a wide-open, de-regulated bandwidth approach will most certainly create. #

But, quite frankly, once you maintain regulatory verbiage in any so-called “regulation by bandwidth” rulemaking that speaks to a specific mode, then it seems to me you are right back to regulating by mode. #

Which is why I see absolutely no need to waste any of my life’s precious moments filing comments (either pro or con) to support the current FCC’s rulemaking farce. #That’s because it is quite apparent from their prior actions that they’ve already made up their collective minds on the subject. #

To put it bluntly, my guess is that, in the eyes of most FCC staffers, Ham Radio has probably now become little more than a “pimple” on the rear end of “progress”. #

And, sadly, all the whining from the “sky is falling” crowd simply reinforces that perception.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Jan. 29 2006,13:28)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 30 2006,08:17)]Keith, regardless of where you think the FCC might be heading with regards to deregulating emitted bandwidth, they still need rules covering the transmission of foul language, pornography, commercial content, etc., on the ham bands, and where any kind of automatically controlled stations may be used.

So, please file comments on RM-11306 to the FCC and at least let them know that all automatically controlled digital stations must be confined by rules, and not only voluntary bandplans, to separate, contiguous, spaces on each band so they can continue to function without constantly disrupting person-to-person communications daily as they do now.

You might also ask yourself, What does the Winlink/ARRL rewording of 97.221 have to do with ARRL's plan to segment by bandwidth?


Thanks!

Skip KH6TY
No, Skip, the very LAST thing we need is yet more “rules”! #

Just like everywhere else on the Planet, there are already MORE than enough rules contained in the International Radio Regulations (not to mention in Part 97) to enforce penalties for the transmission of intentional interference as well as “foul language, pornography, commercial content, etc.” on the Ham bands. #

Nobody is arguing for the elimination of those rules.

However, it IS quite apparent that many people ARE now confusing the continuing need for such rules with their own fervent wish for the FCC to “do something” via regulation about the automatic packet robot (etc) and other compatibility issues that a wide-open, de-regulated bandwidth approach will most certainly create. #

But, quite frankly, once you maintain regulatory verbiage in any so-called “regulation by bandwidth” rulemaking that speaks to a specific mode, then it seems to me you are right back to regulating by mode. #

Which is why I see absolutely no need to waste any of my life’s precious moments filing comments (either pro or con) to support the current FCC’s rulemaking farce. #That’s because it is quite apparent from their prior actions that they’ve already made up their collective minds on the subject. #

To put it bluntly, my guess is that, in the eyes of most FCC staffers, Ham Radio has probably now become little more than a “pimple” on the rear end of “progress”. #

And, sadly, all the whining from the “sky is falling” crowd simply reinforces that perception.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
The clue, for all those needing a hint is contained in 97.221©(2):

No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

You see, the FCC really removed any ambiguity with respect to what it expected for digital bandwidth maxima on the HF bands with that statement. (Unlike 97CFR307© and 97CFR307(f)(1-7)) It really DID see a need to conserve the HF spectrum. And, hadn't intended to allow wideband, non-FSK modes in the first place. Just a regulatory oversight.

The ARRL wants it 97CFR©(2) stricken so that automatic pactor robots can use up to 3.5kHz of bandwidth.

Nobody wants fewer regulations? And, apparently being Canadian, you should enjoy your extra non-US phone space while you can. As, if the FCC listens to any realistic argument for spectrum refarming, you'll have a boat load of company from us. Irrespective of pactor robotics.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Jan. 29 2006,19:44)]Quote[/b] (n2pee @ Jan. 28 2006,21:07)]Claims that Pactor III is going to take over the phone bands are just as unrealistic as a claim that AM phone is going to take over the phone bands.

A Voluntary Band Plan will allow the accommodation of all modes without the drawn out need to change laws.

I have faith the my fellow Hams to work together for a fair plan.

73 Scott
You do the math. #A couple dozen robots attempting connections to forward email using 2.5kHz each on 40M, for example, would take quite a bit of spectrum. #And, if each scans 3 frequencies and transmits, as Steve tells us, that's most of it.
Lee,

You and Skip are assuming no channel stacking is or will be taking place. Even if all the Pactor email robots are scanning 3 frequencies, all of them can use the same three frequencies in any given band. For Pactor-III using 2.4KHz bandwidth and allowing adequate guard space a segment of 10 KHz would sufficeofr today's traffic levels. In order for these systems to be of any use to clients, they must be on known frequencies. For a truely effective, globally usable email system, it could even be argued they should be using the same three frequencies globally. It would certainly make sense from a network management and ease of use standpoint if such were the case. That way you never have to program more than three frequencies per band no matter where you are in the world and could pretty much guarantee you could hit one or more PMBOs to send and retrieve your email.

The question for all of us however is should the size and location of the band segment for these types of operations be hard coded in the FCC regulations or managed by a bandplanning process. with proper safeguards, a bandplanning process is preferable, IMO. However, lacking those safeguards, regulatory restrictions are a must.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Jan. 30 2006,10:50)]Nobody wants fewer regulations? #And, apparently being Canadian, you should enjoy your extra non-US phone space while you can. #As, if the FCC listens to any realistic argument for spectrum refarming, you'll have a boat load of company from us. #Irrespective of pactor robotics.
Nope….I’m a US Citizen born and raised, but I’ve chosen to spend most of my time in Canada these days. #However, I still own and maintain a home in (and spend a lot of time operating from) the USA.

And I must admit that, in the five years I’ve spent up here, it has been VERY interesting to look back across the US/Canadian border from this vantage point and see how many things in Amateur Radio (and elsewhere) that I once took as “the only way to go” appear to now be anything but.

Specifically, as I and others here have already said, Canadian Hams (as well as many other nations around the world) have enjoyed “regulation by bandwidth” for decades. And the sky has yet to fall.

It’s also really sad when people are apparently so distrustful (dare I say “hateful”?) of their fellow Hams' motives that they fervently believe in the absolute need for ever more stringent “government regulation” to protect themselves from each other.

The truth is that persons bent on breaking rules are going to do so regardless of how many of those rules pre piled one on top of one another. #And, right now, there are already MORE than enough “thou shalt nots” contained in Part 97 (my printed copy goes on for some 64 pages of single-spaced type!) to choke the proverbial horse. #

Sadly, even a cursory reading of the current way Part 97 is written makes it quite apparent that, in the eyes of the FCC, we are ALL “crooks” who are not to be trusted and bear watching at all times. #In addition, it is apparent that the FCC has also made the basic assumption that we are ALL so totally stupid and completely ignorant that we absolutely NEED to be told (in excruciating detail) where, when and how we can operate under all conditions and in every conceivable circumstance. #

By contrast, the Canadian Amateur Regulations are simple, straightforward and written with the basic underlying premise that we Hams are (for the most part) knowledgeable, thoughtful, upstanding and considerate members of the community who are quite willing (and capable) of largely regulating ourselves. #

But, don’t take my word for it. #If you haven’t already, I suggest you now download and read the Canadian Radio Information Circulars (the RICs…Canada’s Part 97) and see for yourself:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic....3e.html (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf06073e.html)

All of which now begs the question: #Which way would YOU rather be regulated?

Would you rather your government assume (and then treat you as) a “crook that bears watching at all times”? #

Or, would you rather they NOT insult your intelligence by giving you credit at the outset (that is, unless and until you prove otherwise) for being a fine, upstanding and knowledgeable member of the Amateur Service?

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
kb1sf:

Specifically, as I and others here have already said, Canadian Hams (as well as many other nations around the world) have enjoyed “regulation by bandwidth” for decades. And the sky has yet to fall.



That's because Canada has 44,000 hams while the US has 680,000.

The US is holding up the sky right now. Take that support away and the sky will fall on Canadian hams like a ton of bricks. There will no longer be a place on the bands for the Canadian hams to get away from the qrm of the US - as I heard a couple of Canadian hams talking about two days ago.

Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.


Quote[/b] ]
By contrast, the Canadian Amateur Regulations are simple, straightforward and written with the basic underlying premise that we Hams are (for the most part) knowledgeable, thoughtful, upstanding and considerate members of the community who are quite willing (and capable) of largely regulating ourselves.


Is that why I have had psk31 qso's stomped on three times in the past four weeks by SSB on 40m and 80m?

Based on what you say, those Canadian hams and South American hams who are so knowledgeable, thoughtful, and upstanding and considerate should know better and be more capable of regulating themselves.

I guess we should not consider them as harbingers of things to come - we should just look the other way and keep saying to ourselves --- things *will* get better when the US hams can go anywhere with SSB.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] ]You and Skip are assuming no channel stacking is or will be taking place. #Even if all the Pactor email robots are scanning 3 frequencies, all of them can use the same three frequencies in any given band. #For Pactor-III using 2.4KHz bandwidth and allowing adequate guard space a segment of 10 KHz would sufficeofr today's traffic levels.

Mike, I agree with you completely! My prediction as to what would happen if RM-11306 were adopted reflects the current Winlink practice for Pactor-II, where there is almost no stacking.

You are absolutely right that a reasonable amount of space needed per band, is 10 kHz, and that a reasonable level of stacking is three per frequency. An additional reasonable practice would be not to use Pactor-III when Pactor-II (using only one-fifth the bandwidth of Pactor-III, but only 33% slower) is feasible. However, if there were only 10 kHz per band for automatic operations of all kinds, Winlink could decide whether to use Pactor-II or Pactor-III in order to make most efficient use of that 10 kHz. It would not be necessary, or proper, to tell them how to run their network, but it is necessary to only sacrifice enough space from communications to allow the automatically controlled digital networks to function in a reasonable manner.

The way to ensure that efficient use of bandwidth is made by stacking is to limit the space to 10 kHz by RULES, which Winlink, by rewording 97.221 for the ARRL, is trying to eliminate. I am sure you can guess why they want it reworded, and what the result would be! Except for 40m, the current subbands provide more than enough space for all Winlink traffic, now and in the future.

We have never wished for Winlink to be outlawed, even though every day they routinely break the rules most everyone else tries to follow, but only that ALL automatic operations, of any kind, be confined to a single, contiguous, space on each band, so they do not randomly pop up on top of QSO's and ruin the experience for everyone else, and others know where they are and can avoid that space.

Winlink already does not adhere to bandplans, so REGULATIONS are absolutely necessary to insure they do not take unfair advantage of everyone else. After all, they are only 5000 Winlink users out of about 670,000 others trying to use the same space.

Everyone please send in comments to the FCC on RM-11306 and insist to the FCC that 97.221 not be reworded.

73, Skip KH6TY

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 30 2006,13:04)]The US is holding up the sky right now. Take that support away and the sky will fall on Canadian hams like a ton of bricks. There will no longer be a place on the bands for the Canadian hams to get away from the qrm of the US - as I heard a couple of Canadian hams talking about two days ago.

Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.
Tim,

The fact is that most of the space on our HF bands is now "deader" than the proverbial "doornail", with most of our given bandwidth being horribly UNDER (not over) utilized. #

And, at least part of the crowding problem you mention is because the FCC (in its infinite wisdom) continues to force all Amateur HF operations in the USA into narrow, mode and license-class-based regulated sub-bands based on what the USA's Ham population and popular mode usage WAS back in the mid to late 1950s. #
#
I strongly suggest you and others who firmly believe the "sky will fall" if the FCC starts regulating things by bandwidth (rather than by license class and mode) might now want to actually LISTEN to all the dead air on the rest of our HF bands. #The sooner the FCC’s archaic “regulation by mode” restrictions are completely removed, the sooner US Hams can then begin to re-allocate available spectrum to better reflect today’s operational realities.

For, rather than the US “holding up the SKY”, I think a far more fitting observation might be that it’s the FCC's outdated, bureaucratic and archaic Part 97 regulations that are now “holding up PROGRESS" for ALL North American Amateurs…not just those in the United States. #


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Jan. 25 2006,06:09)]Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

ARRL now wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands!

In the ARRL "bandwidth" petition, RM-11306, Pactor-III Email robots, 2.4 KHz wide (requiring a channel width of 2.5 KHz), are allowed everywhere phone is allowed, which on 20m is 14100 to 14350 KHz.

The current practice of Winlink 2000, where Pactor-II is allowed, which is anywhere in the RTTY/Data/CW segment of the bands, is to scan two or more channels by each fully automatic Pactor-II Email robot.

THIS IS DONE JUST SO THE MOBILE STATIONS WILL NOT HAVE TO WAIT AS LONG AS 4 MINUTES FOR A FREQUENCY THAT IS BEING USED BY ANOTHER EMAIL ROBOT, and so they can go to another frequency where there is no Email robot, even if there is a already a CW or SSB station there, and let an Email robot just take over the frequency.

If a single Pactor-III Email robot requires a 2.5 KHz channel, then a fully automatic Email robot scanning two channels will use 5 kHz.

There are currently 25 Winlink Email robots in the US and another 25 overseas, some of which can still interfere with communications in the US. There are another, perhaps 25, Email Robots assigned for Emcomm use by Winlink.

Assuming an average of 40 Winlink Email robots can be heard worldwide on 20 meters, and each one automatically scans only two frequencies, then 40 Email robots will take up 40 x 5 = 200 kHz of the 20 meter phone band, which is 80% of the phone band!

ARRL claims that the operator triggering the Email robot to transmit should not allow it to transmit on a busy frequency, but of course, it usually does anyway, or it just may not hear stations in QSO local to the robot but remote to itself, so the Email robot can just wipe out the local QSO, as is so often the practice now for CW and PSK31 QSO's, AND THIS WILL BECOME A REALITY FOR ALL PHONE OPERATORS IF RM-11306 is adopted.

If you think that sacrificing 80% of the 20 meter phone band to be used for Email messaging for Winlink's less than 1% of the US ham population is a good idea, you should file comments with the FCC stating that you agree with the ARRL rewording of Part 97.221.

BUT, IF YOU THINK THAT EMAIL ROBOTS SHOULD BE CONFINED TO A SEPARATE SPACE ON THE BANDS, THEN YOU ALSO NEED TO FILE COMMENTS TO THE FCC AND LET THEM KNOW YOUR POSITION!

It is as easy as 1-2-3-4 to file a comment!

1. Go to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

2. Fill in RM-11306 (in all caps) where it says "1. Proceeding"

3. Fill in the rest of the spaces with your name and address where indicated

4. Type a brief comment to the FCC where it says "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)

Please make an effort to file a comment on RM-11306 before February 5!
This is just more of the same old worn-out lies and distortion.

Fact: There are no "robots"

Fact: Every session is initiated by a live operator