ARRL and AM. minute #64, July 19-20, 2002

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0TDH, Aug 15, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. KA1OGM

    KA1OGM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything...  It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the "necessary bandwidth" for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO).  

    Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea.  The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes beyond stupidity.  The whole idea that the use of allocated spectrum needs to be "efficient" only indicates how out of touch the people in Newington really are.  Ham radio is not a business with manufacturing activities that need to be made more "efficient".  It's the kind of "central planning" that went out the window with the demise of the Berlin Wall.  When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to arrive in the 21st century???

    We took the right step with the "privatization" of testing, and the "de-regulation" of a simpler license structure.  But now you guys want to go back to "central planning" and make the bands even MORE regulated?  How whimsical and trite!

    I'm sorry Ed, but you haven't come shining through to me as any shining pinnacle of intellectual prowess on this at all.  Six kilohertz, indeed...  

    Jeff Barnard
    KA1OGM
     
  2. W5ATX

    W5ATX Guest

    Actually, 6 KHz is a good bandwidth for AM. Communications quality audio is generally considered to contain audio frequencies from 300-3000 Hz. As such, with the highest modulating frequency being 3000Hz, that would make a properly modulated DSB signal 6KHz wide.

    As for the rest of this issue, I'll wait to see what FCC has to say about it. I maintain that they CAN think without ARRL leading the way.
     
  3. N0XU

    N0XU Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ Aug. 17 2002,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the sole purpose of amateur radio is to transmit only signals with minimum bandwidth, then let's outlaw AM, SSB, SSTV, PSK-31 and all other modes that take up more bandwidth than plain ol' Morse CW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    PSK-31 actually uses less bandwidth than CW. See the technical description here: http://www.w5bbr.com/psk31.html. Click the link halfway down the page to see the measured spectra.

    It's amazing to me that we can pack literally dozens of QSO's into the bandwidth occupied by SSB.

    73 de Drew N0XU (First PSK31 ops in Antarctica)
     
  4. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    &gt; I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything... It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the &quot;necessary bandwidth&quot; for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO).

    I made it clear that my personal off-the-cuff idea of what might constitute a reasonable limit for bandwidth was 6 kHz. Your characterization of this as a &quot;decision&quot; and those who want to discuss this as being &quot;bandwidth&quot; police is confrontation at best, disengenous at worst.

    Why are you doing this?

    73,
    Ed Hare,
     
  5. KA1OGM

    KA1OGM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Disengenuous?  If you mean disingenuous, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.  I'm being as straightforward as I can be here, Ed.  If anything, I'm being discourteous and rude.

    Look, I'm sure you mean well, and I'm sure that you're a nice enough person, but you're just not impressing me with your leanings about bandwidth.  If you weren't someone who's admittedly an influence in Newington, I wouldn't be picking a fight with you here.  This issue has been on the table before, and it's a very sore point with those who spend any amount of time working towards surpassing &quot;communications quality&quot; audio in the AM mode.

    But aside from the smaller AM issue that's dear to my heart, there's the evident mindset in Newington that bands need to be divided up according to defined bandwidth.  It's such a disingenous way of, ostensibly, paving the way for new modes that I can't just sit back and say nothing, because this issue was attempted quite some time ago under another, albeit, more up front guise.  The way to provide for new modes is to deregulate, decrease the &quot;central planning&quot; nature of the sub-band regulations, and opening things up.  As long as ARRL continues to address things like this from the viewpoint of &quot;Mom and Pop trying to bring the kids into line&quot;, this kind of reaction from people like me will continue in the same tradition of outrage and anger.

    It's nice to have shills in the audience when you want to sell a bill of goods to the audience, but your shilling here for the rationalizations behind this whole &quot;sub-bands defined by bandwidth&quot; idea is patently offensive to me, especially when you claim that it's only your opinion.  When you have the ear of board members on something as far reaching and backwards as this, AND you come into a discussion about it here in the public view, don't expect that we're all too stupid to swallow it.

    The fact that you've evidently got a closed mind on this issue, and that you've already drawn your line in the sand on it, only leads me to this posture of simply attacking you and doing everything I can to make it obvious that you haven't been forthright and straightforward at all, but have, in fact, been quite disingenuous about it.

    You can count on a lot more head to head confrontation, not only from me, but from many others with you on this issue, for as long as you continue to defend it.  Some will be more polite, and assume that you're amenable to the possibility that your mind might be changed.  I, however, don't believe it's possible at this point.

    Jeff Barnard
    KA1OGM
     
  6. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka1ogm @ Aug. 17 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to know where the bandwidth police came up with 6 kHz as the outside limit on anything...  It's so frustrating to see someone like Ed Hare making such an arbitrary decision that the &quot;necessary bandwidth&quot; for AM (or any other mode) has to now have a defined limitation (IHO).  

    Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea.  The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes beyond stupidity.  The whole idea that the use of allocated spectrum needs to be &quot;efficient&quot; only indicates how out of touch the people in Newington really are.  Ham radio is not a business with manufacturing activities that need to be made more &quot;efficient&quot;.  It's the kind of &quot;central planning&quot; that went out the window with the demise of the Berlin Wall.  When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to arrive in the 21st century???

    We took the right step with the &quot;privatization&quot; of testing, and the &quot;de-regulation&quot; of a simpler license structure.  But now you guys want to go back to &quot;central planning&quot; and make the bands even MORE regulated?  How whimsical and trite!

    I'm sorry Ed, but you haven't come shining through to me as any shining pinnacle of intellectual prowess on this at all.  Six kilohertz, indeed...  

    Jeff Barnard
    KA1OGM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    &gt; Dividing bands up by mode is a really stupid idea.
    &gt; The idea of dividing them up by bandwidth goes
    &gt; beyond stupidity. The whole idea that the use of
    &gt; allocated spectrum needs to be &quot;efficient&quot; only
    &gt; indicates how out of touch the people in Newington
    &gt; really are. Ham radio is not a business with
    &gt; manufacturing activities that need to be made
    &gt; more &quot;efficient&quot;. It's the kind of &quot;central planning&quot;
    &gt; that went out the window with the demise of the
    &gt; Berlin Wall.

    Equating my post on QRZ.com to the end of the division of the city of Berlin is stretching things beyond credibility.

    The idea of spectrum efficiency is not just my idea. It is a principle that the FCC uses on a constant basis to allocate spectrum. If Amateur Radio doesn't pay heed, it may not bode well for us, in the short and long run. Read the speech that was made by Dale Hatfield, then the OET Bureau Chief.

    http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/misc/dnh061700.html

    Amateur Radio is faced with a difficult challenge, with the need to balance technical issues like spectrum efficiency against the need to provide reliable emergency communications. Our mode diversity is an important part of that balance, so my casual reference to &quot;spectral efficiency&quot; is not intended to undermine whatever your favorite mode might be.

    &gt; When are you Ivory Tower boys in Newington going to
    &gt; arrive in the 21st century???

    I am curious why you characterize me as being in an ivory tower. I get out to about a dozen conventions a year; I spend time on a number of mailing lists and newsgroups; I am in general touch with the FCC, amateur and non-amateur industry and I probably personally communicate with about a thousand hams a year. That doesn't sound very &quot;ivory tower&quot; to me. Did you use that term to give your words an importance they might not otherwise have had, or was it just a good opportunity to take a shot at a newcomer to this forum?

    If you disagree with me, I welcome the exchange about why, but being personally insultive is really not welcome in any venue, nor it it very productive.

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
  7. K6UEY

    K6UEY Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am curious as one posting suggested that bandwidth limitations be taken off,how would the usuage be allowcated. In the past on the phone portions it was by Gentlemans agreement adjacent stations would use 3 kc  spacing,a SSB using the recognised communications BW of 300 to 3kc would have a signal 2.7 kc wide leaving a slight buffer of 300 cps to the adjacent station,the last few years stations have moved closer together using only 2 kc spacing  and some times even closer,obviously this creates QRM even with the audio BP narrowed to 2.4 kc in some rigs. With BW restrictions removed we will have much less room and account for fewer stations on the air at the same time,do we draw lots to see who gets to use the spectrum first or do we as often done now just set in on top of an exsisting QSO.If things are bad now removing BW restrictions would mean total anarchey on the bands. I would think tighting the restrictions to allow more use of the spectra with maybe sub bands for those modes who use more than normal amounts of BW. ....73,   ORV
     
  8. KA1OGM

    KA1OGM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not unaware of the complexities involved with FCC agendas and the ARRL's difficult and time consuming work in defending our service, allocations, and continued existence.  I applaud most of this, and I'm very glad to have this organization there to do the work.

    Getting under your skin on this particular issue, however, is definitely my intention.

    Where &quot;central planning&quot; and the demise of the Berlin wall come into the picture is symbolic in the world sweeping changes that our government has made over the past two decades in changing how and what the government controls.  By allowing the market to run free and &quot;sort itself out&quot;, a fundamental ideological change has taken place in that governments no longer operate on the assumption that it must control everything with &quot;central planning&quot; in order for things to go well.  It has affected everything.  It is the most significant and fundamental thing that has happened with our government and the world in a century.  

    Smaller governing bodies have not caught up with this, however.  When you get down into individual states, towns and cities, the old &quot;central planning&quot; mindset is still alive and well, running things into the ground.  I see this also with non-governmental bodies as well, and the ARRL is no exception.

    Consequently, I'm not equating your post with the city of Berlin, but with the outdated mindset of &quot;central planning&quot; that regulates things into complete and utter unworkability.  It was not a literal reference, but a symbolic one.  

    The idea of spectrum &quot;efficiency&quot; may be one that plays well in political circles amongst vested interests, but when the ARRL goes along in agreement with it, like a leaf in the winds of fate, our allocations are certainly doomed.  Spectrum &quot;efficiency&quot; is completely antithetical to any and all of the actual activity that takes place on the ham bands, day in and day out.  The rhetoric of &quot;spectrum efficiency&quot; is the basic argument AGAINST the amateur service, and anyone who doesn't take a firm stand on this ploy has got their head in the sand.

    Amateur Radio is faced with a nearly impossible challenge, with a simple need to increase numbers into a range that might equal or surpass the number of people in jail in this country, for instance, or maybe the number of people who can trace their ancestry back to Tierra Del Fuego, etc.  We are such a tiny and comparatively insignificant number at this time, that it's always understated by the ARRL how much we have against us.  And yet, the ARRL has never taken a true leadership role in reaching the millions of people in this country who would be interested in two way radio.  They led the way in orphaning the 11m band, and they've led the way alienating larger and larger numbers of licensed hams.  The &quot;ivory tower&quot; is more than appropriate, given the downside in evidence all around us.

    The &quot;ivory tower&quot; in Newington is comprised of those who are fully immersed in the political problems and complexity of fighting for our service.  I respect that work, as I said above, but where those in the &quot;ivory tower&quot; are immersed in their activity, the rest of the ham population that's actually on the air every day and every week will have a very different viewpoint.  It is the viewpoint of the active hams on the air regularly, not those who sacrifice their air time for political service time, who understand this very prevalant sense of our league being out of touch.

    If you can't understand the appearance of someone like me, who is thoroughly enflamed by your words here in this thread, when you posted everything with absolutely no slightest intention of enflaming anyone, then pay attention:

    Your representation of your viewpoint here REALLY PISSES ME OFF!  And I am, by no means, the only person that's repeatedly outraged and angered by this kind of attitude and implied sense of &quot;fait accompli&quot; with any of the brilliant &quot;solutions&quot; that the ARRL might come up with next.  The process is to shove things of this ilk through a period of committee activity, recommendations to the board, resolutions by the board, (all of which are buried deep within the small print of board meeting minutes that nobody wants to have to wade through) and then, by the time it finally becomes visible to those who would vehemently disagree or oppose it in any way, the damn thing is on the FCC docket as an official proposal.  In this instance, however, it was noticed at the initial stage of its journey through the &quot;process&quot; with Tom Frenaye's motion at the board meeting in July.  

    As if nobody in Newington has any idea what a volatile issue this is!  As if nobody in Newington could possibly imagine how upset and angry anyone might get over this thing!  And then you come onto this forum SHILLING for this idea!  Give me a break!  You deserve to be insulted a lot more than I'm doing here on this issue, that's for sure!

    But like I've said before, I'm sure that you mean well, and that your intentions are good.  What I'm trying to do here is blast through that seemingly impervious sense of being &quot;well informed&quot; about what's going on with people outside of the political fold, the one's that you never talk to on the air, and the ones who aren't sucking up to you with an agenda.  Ham radio is not about the politics in Newington for the vast majority of those who are actively operating on the air, day in and day out.  Ever notice that membership is not the majority of licensed hams?  

    I'm sure that if I get a chance to talk to you at Boxboro next week, you'll see that I'm not prone to insults, or being offensive with people I disagree with.  In print like this, in a public forum, however, I pull no punches.

    Jeff Barnard
    KA1OGM
     
  9. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka1ogm @ Aug. 18 2002,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not unaware of the complexities involved with FCC agendas and the ARRL's difficult and time consuming work in defending our service, allocations, and continued existence.  I applaud most of this, and I'm very glad to have this organization there to do the work.

    Getting under your skin on this particular issue, however, is definitely my intention.

    Where &quot;central planning&quot; and the demise of the Berlin wall come into the picture is symbolic in the world sweeping changes that our government has made over the past two decades in changing how and what the government controls.  By allowing the market to run free and &quot;sort itself out&quot;, a fundamental ideological change has taken place in that governments no longer operate on the assumption that it must control everything with &quot;central planning&quot; in order for things to go well.  It has affected everything.  It is the most significant and fundamental thing that has happened with our government and the world in a century.  

    Smaller governing bodies have not caught up with this, however.  When you get down into individual states, towns and cities, the old &quot;central planning&quot; mindset is still alive and well, running things into the ground.  I see this also with non-governmental bodies as well, and the ARRL is no exception.

    Consequently, I'm not equating your post with the city of Berlin, but with the outdated mindset of &quot;central planning&quot; that regulates things into complete and utter unworkability.  It was not a literal reference, but a symbolic one.  

    The idea of spectrum &quot;efficiency&quot; may be one that plays well in political circles amongst vested interests, but when the ARRL goes along in agreement with it, like a leaf in the winds of fate, our allocations are certainly doomed.  Spectrum &quot;efficiency&quot; is completely antithetical to any and all of the actual activity that takes place on the ham bands, day in and day out.  The rhetoric of &quot;spectrum efficiency&quot; is the basic argument AGAINST the amateur service, and anyone who doesn't take a firm stand on this ploy has got their head in the sand.

    Amateur Radio is faced with a nearly impossible challenge, with a simple need to increase numbers into a range that might equal or surpass the number of people in jail in this country, for instance, or maybe the number of people who can trace their ancestry back to Tierra Del Fuego, etc.  We are such a tiny and comparatively insignificant number at this time, that it's always understated by the ARRL how much we have against us.  And yet, the ARRL has never taken a true leadership role in reaching the millions of people in this country who would be interested in two way radio.  They led the way in orphaning the 11m band, and they've led the way alienating larger and larger numbers of licensed hams.  The &quot;ivory tower&quot; is more than appropriate, given the downside in evidence all around us.

    The &quot;ivory tower&quot; in Newington is comprised of those who are fully immersed in the political problems and complexity of fighting for our service.  I respect that work, as I said above, but where those in the &quot;ivory tower&quot; are immersed in their activity, the rest of the ham population that's actually on the air every day and every week will have a very different viewpoint.  It is the viewpoint of the active hams on the air regularly, not those who sacrifice their air time for political service time, who understand this very prevalant sense of our league being out of touch.

    If you can't understand the appearance of someone like me, who is thoroughly enflamed by your words here in this thread, when you posted everything with absolutely no slightest intention of enflaming anyone, then pay attention:

    Your representation of your viewpoint here REALLY PISSES ME OFF!  And I am, by no means, the only person that's repeatedly outraged and angered by this kind of attitude and implied sense of &quot;fait accompli&quot; with any of the brilliant &quot;solutions&quot; that the ARRL might come up with next.  The process is to shove things of this ilk through a period of committee activity, recommendations to the board, resolutions by the board, (all of which are buried deep within the small print of board meeting minutes that nobody wants to have to wade through) and then, by the time it finally becomes visible to those who would vehemently disagree or oppose it in any way, the damn thing is on the FCC docket as an official proposal.  In this instance, however, it was noticed at the initial stage of its journey through the &quot;process&quot; with Tom Frenaye's motion at the board meeting in July.  

    As if nobody in Newington has any idea what a volatile issue this is!  As if nobody in Newington could possibly imagine how upset and angry anyone might get over this thing!  And then you come onto this forum SHILLING for this idea!  Give me a break!  You deserve to be insulted a lot more than I'm doing here on this issue, that's for sure!

    But like I've said before, I'm sure that you mean well, and that your intentions are good.  What I'm trying to do here is blast through that seemingly impervious sense of being &quot;well informed&quot; about what's going on with people outside of the political fold, the one's that you never talk to on the air, and the ones who aren't sucking up to you with an agenda.  Ham radio is not about the politics in Newington for the vast majority of those who are actively operating on the air, day in and day out.  Ever notice that membership is not the majority of licensed hams?  

    I'm sure that if I get a chance to talk to you at Boxboro next week, you'll see that I'm not prone to insults, or being offensive with people I disagree with.  In print like this, in a public forum, however, I pull no punches.

    Jeff Barnard
    KA1OGM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    &gt; Getting under your skin on this particular issue,
    &gt; however, is definitely my intention.


    Suit yourself, but my participation here is personal -- or shall I say was personal. If it is the social custom here to try to get under the skin of people who show up here, count me out. There are plenty of places I can go where people do not tell me that they think I mean well, then tell me that they are setting out to get under my skin. I do not need that sort of petty nonsense.

    Best of luck to you all.

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
  10. W0TDH

    W0TDH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I was requested to Post a response from W6PSS on this subject;

    Dear Tom,
    It's good to hear from you noting your concern for the longevity of the AM mode.
    Thanks to the astute and longtime AM'er K4KYV (Don), I became aware of the meeting but not of the details. I took that information to broadcast his concern about the possible impact that limiting bandwidth could have on the AM mode.
    Thanks to the magic of the Internet, that concern got to President Jim Haynie of ARRL for this clarification. Mr. Haynie's response follows:
    From: W5JPB
    To: W9ac@arrl.net ; K1ZZ@arrl.org
    Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:44 PM
    Subject: Re: Proposed HF Spectrum Bandwidth Restrictions
    &quot;The ARRL is going to petition the FCC to regulate subbands by bandwidth.&quot;
    1. First off, we do not have a petition.
    2. You can't work phone in the SUBBANDS now.
    3. What we are interested in, is two new modes of digital. Clover 2000 and Pactor 3.
    4. Under the present rules, 300 baud RTTY is the signal width standard. Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 are a bit wider. It is felt that by being able to accommodate these two new technologies, amateur radio would be in compliance with its charge under part 97 to &quot;promote and enhance the art...&quot;
    5. Presently our technical team is looking at what frame work is needed to accommodate the new modes.
    I hope this helps and if you would pass it on so as to quell the fears of the AM'ers.
    73
    Jim Haynie, W5JBP
    President, ARRL&quot;
    Tom - As you see, ARRL is now on record &quot;pass it on as to quell the fears of the AM'ers. I remember a former ARRL Pres., visiting the Leo Meyerson Chapter of QCWA at Palm Springs in the 90s, who was privately hostile to AM and said he would do everything in his power to terminate its use!
    This welcome clarification by Jim Haynie should do much to quell fears of loyal ARRL members and AM operators at large as well as those enjoying hi-fi SSB.
    Full credit goes to Don K4KYV, former Editor AM Press Exchange, for keeping a focus on proceedings
    of the fine organization Hiram P. Maxim started. &quot;TOM's&quot; autobiography available Electric Radio magazine. This inspirational book recommended reading for all Radio Amateur's.
    Tom, won't you kindly place this in QRZ COM window for wide dissemination - thanks.
    David, deacon of AM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page