Band Width Regulation

[wa8rti]

There is much complaining that the ARRL is out of touch with its membership in pushing for their regulation by band width plan. #My question is-what are the objections to this change over?? #Please no flaming answers-I really would like to hear what the arguements are against it. Perhaps if I had followed the story more closely I could answer my own question. I know that the shortwave band plan (137 kHz to 28 mHz) issued by the German ARC (DARC) organization shows band width restrictions for various frequency segments. It ranges from 200 Hz for CW portions #to 2700 Hz for all mode segments and 6000Hz for narrow band FM. Other than for those wanting to use AM, what are the objections??? #Thanks for contributing to #my education.

[N5PVL]

It's probably best to read the comments at the FCC web site on RM-11306, the ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal.

I say this because there are a number of objections to the ARRL proposal for a number of differing reasons. - The only way to get a clear picture of them all is to read those comments.

It is generally accepted that from 80 to 85% of those comments are against the proposal, so have a cup of coffee handy while going over them. - There's a lot there to read.

[K3UD]

The concept of regulation by bandwith is not the problem. The problem centers around as to how it would be implemented. It seems that the main issues revolve around incompatible modes in the same bandwidth segments and the possibility of semi or automatic operation causing substantial interference to ongoing QSOs.

It all depends on how the band is segmented by bandwidth. There are those who are asking for a wide open range (no bandwidth segments) where any mode using any bandwith could go anywhere in the bands (subject to their license class), and there are some who want to allow any mode in the bandwidth segments offering the amount of bandwidth needed for the mode.

IE: If there is a bandwidth segment in the 80 meter band which offers 3.5kHz up to 10kHz, every mode could play in that particular segment. This means that all modes presently used on HF could pack into that segment.

IMHO what we need is something like regulation by bandwidth by mode and some kind of isolation ward for semi and automatic operating modes in order to limit interference.

As Charles has suggested take a look at the comments posted for RM-11305 and RM-11306. You will get a good education about the issue.

73
George
K3UD

[wa3vjb]

Hi Raymond, your curiosity is natural and understandable, but I agree there's a comprehensive database for you to first do your homework from.

I will add that it's not just the AM community who was provoked at being treated like a non-compliant footnote to the scheme Newington dreamed up.

The protests carry a theme that a very small special interest group had pushed this proposal through Newington's political structure, which failed to establish that the premise* was valid among mainstream, popular modes and specialities.

Somewhat proving the point, the League's attorney, at the end of the FCC public comment period, filed a Reply that was widely interpreted as flippant, cavalier, and completely dismissive of the valid concerns that were raised.

*the premise of using the regulatory structure to help force acceptance and use of "digital" communications.

[wa8rti]

Thanks for the info-I began reading the FCC site with the comments on RM-11306-very interesting but I had to give up for awhile after reading about 60. My eyes were beginning to hurt. I'll have to take it in small doses.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (wa8rti @ Mar. 29 2006,07:41)]Thanks for the info-I began reading the FCC site with the comments on RM-11306-very interesting but I had to give up for awhile after reading about 60. My eyes were beginning to hurt. I'll have to take it in small doses.
Good reading fer shure.

The basic "prime directive" of the Amateur Service has been to share the spectrum and not interfere with others. The bandwidth proposals do neither. The original problem is allowing digital experimentation without the need to get new modes approved by the FCC every time. This problem could be fixed in current regulations by defining these modes as "none of the above" in the mode designators and defining this use in the current data subbands. Likewise mixed mode use could be handled by expanding the top of the phone bands 20kHz into the data bands and defining this as mixed mode only use.

Unfortunately, a small special interest group took this as an opportunity to make a spectrum grab from 99% of Amateurs who use AM, SSB, CW, and narrowband digital modes. The chairman of the original Ad Hoc committee for the ARRL that proposed the first plan is WinLink's Victor Poor. Read his comments on the FCC site to the petition. He distances himself/Winlink/wideband data from narrowband data users in his comments.

[PE1RDW]

The biggest problem probably was that when you remove any part of the fcc bandplan you need to have a volentary bandplan to take it's place, arrl forgot that so people feared the worse, with the adhoc groups history it might be right to fear.

[WA3KYY]

Add to what PE1RDW said that a bandplan without any enforcement provisions other than the good will of those involved will likely be worthless and you can see where much of the opposition stems from.

Mike WA3KYY

[ab0wr]

There are a lot of technical issues associated with the opposition to the bandplan as well as just fear of people not adhering to voluntary bandplans.

The ARRL did no spectrum efficiency or interference mitigation studies whatsoever for use in making informed policy decisions on how to mix modes. They did no spectrum usage studies to determine if 200hz, 500hz, and 3.5khz bandwidths are the right ones to use or not. They did no occupation studies to determine what the allocation of spectrum to each bandwidth should be.

The bottom line is that they took a recommendation from 3 people with a vested interest in a mode and system representing less than 1% of the amateur community and tried to foist it the other 99% of the community. They didn't even make an attempt to use good engineering practices in developing the proposal nor did they make an attempt to involve the 75% of the amateur community that are not ARRL members in the process when they would be highly impacted.

While stating they are all for experimentation, their proposal will limit experimentation with such things as high-intelligibility speech (which requires 4-5khz of audio bandwidth) and would put 100khz data channels right on top of the 2meter and 70cm FM repeater spectrum.

So if you are more interested in having high speed internet links on 2m than in having 2m FM repeaters useful in day-to-day communications as well as in emergency situations, then this regulation plan is what you want.

If you are more interested in having a rational, studied plan laid out for how we integrate the operations of 10% of the amateur community interested in internet data links on the amateur bands with the operations of the other 90% of the amateur community, then you are probably not going to be interested in the ARRL plan.

Just some food for thought.

tim ab0wr