FCC activates the Bandwidth process

"Late" Snuffy Smith? When did that happen? He's still in my paper!!

 

Truthfully, I have never seen a more wide based support of anything on QRZ.COM than those agreeing to say no to both bandwidth petitions.

My "no" comments to both are filed. How about yours?

 

I think you are quite right on that.

Some opinions might change if there were solid answers to the questions posed. But no such answers have appeared - we're just supposed to believe it will all work itself out in the end.

Right!

Agreed - but that would require some serious rewriting.

Some of the concepts in the ARRL proposal are sound, but they're buried in a bad implementation and weighed down with unacceptable problems.

Maybe. Which brings up an observation:

Some may wonder why there's so much resistance to the CTT proposal. Here's one more reason:

Suppose the CTT proposal were enacted as written. And suppose - just suppose - the result *was* the chaos many predict.

Would the CTT folks say to FCC "We were wrong, the result is chaos, put it back the way it was, please!" ?

And would FCC put it back the way it was?

Apply same questions to the ARRL proposal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Reading comments to RM-11306... of the first dozen supporters of the plan:

1. Howard Radke Winlink User and the Secretary of Northwest Adventist Amateur Radio Association who's #1 purpose is "Providing a support mechanism for radio communications for missionaries."

2. Susan Landry Winlink user aboard a sailboat who's FCC comments add: "To follow our adventures go to, http://7knots.com and click Captains Log. Enter Sea Trek above the search button and click search. All of our posts are there."

3. Michael Nettles KB5WBH Winlink user who's activity was covered in an ARRL bulletin, "WINLINK: KB5WBH reports good progress with the Winlink 2000 system. He sends thanks to Glenn N5GK and Steve K4CJX for getting the PMBO at ADEM going on HF."

4. Rod McLennan is the trustee for W6IM, the San Diego Yacht Club Amateur Radio Group station. He is the system operator of W6IM, which is one of about 30 Winlink stations situated around the world. W6IM handles about 3500 separate contacts and processes around 7,000 messages each month.

5. Scott Thile K4SET who is affilated with Radio Ministries.org who states their purpose, "Providing communications solutions for Christian missions." Scott states on his website, "We are extremely excited about Winlink, and what it can do for missionaries working in the field. In fact, that is the main reason we started RadioMinistries."

6. Don Moore KM0R who is mentioned on the Winlink website, where Don says, "Plans are underway to more actively promote the Winlink system within the Missouri section. Winlink is now included in the Section Emergency Operations Plan Digital Addendum and is promoted by several of us any time we get the chance."

7. Jerrold Curry KL7EDK who runs a Winlink station on Alaska.

These were the easy ones where searching by call and "Winlink" turned up a connection. How many more of the 12 were supporters with no web history?

These are the people who want regulation by Bandwidth! Just say NO!

 

RM-11305 is proposed by a group of people from the Great Lakes who work AM.

You can read more about this proposal and what it will do at:


RM-11305

Sit back, close your eyes, and imagine a radio world without boundaries where everyone can do anything they want on any frequency! Good for Howard Stern, bad for the little guy.

73 Tom

 

Well said, Tom

TWO MORE POINTS:

Hidden in RM-11305 are the following:

- Unless I misread the proposal, Generals would have their 40 meter privileges REDUCED to 7025-7150. (Probably a typo, but if so it got through all of those who signed the petition)!

- Novices and Techs-with-HF would be allowed to use any mode in their subbands. A free upgrade of privileges that would reduce their incentive to upgrade.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

W8JI would like everyone to think his way. That's nice! He would like you to believe that the people who proposed RM-11305 are evil and to do this, he exaggerates things and presents them as facts. In some cases they are funny!

For example, I work all kinds of modes from AM to FM and SSB and SSTV and RTTY. He says that I am an AM'er, an evil term to be sure, but on Tom's web page, he admits to having a Valiant and working AM too! That makes him as much an AM'er as I am.

He also states that people like me have no right to file any proposal. Well, the FCC gives me that right, even if Tom doesn't. As part of the FCC process, they open the proposal up for comments from everybody has a right to participate.

I helped author RM-11305 because I love the hobby. I believe that removing the phone/cw restrictions from Part 97 and substituting the ability to follow the IARU Region 2 band plan makes sense!

The sub band allocations are old and they are broke. It is not fair that CW, which accounts for less than 30% of all ham activity, should have the relatively exclusive use of 1/2 of the amateur bands!

Some say that the CTT proposal would result in chaos. I listen to 75/80 meters often and all I hear is chaos, and I don't think it could get worse!

Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!

Think on your own, don't listen to those like Tom, who makes money off of us hams and has a $$$ interest in seeing that things go his way! He has exaggerated the truth, in many cases, and I hope that you can see through it. Make up your own mind and be sure to participate in the process as have I. Please file your comments to both RM-11305 and RM-11306.

--Larry W8ER

 

I will file my comments on both 11305 and 11306 at the last moment and they won't be favorable.

 

I think the CTT folks would like everyone to think *their* way, too!

I don't see him claiming anyone is 'evil'. Misguided and mistaken, maybe, but not evil.

Nor do I see any exaggeration in his claims.

How much of your time is spent operating low-power PSK31 or CW?

No right? I don't see that.

Everyone has the right to file proposals and make comments. Whether the commenters and proposers are qualified is another matter.

I oppose RM-11305 because I love Amateur Radio.

I'm pretty sure W8JI opposes RM-11305 because *he* loves Amateur Radio, as well.

I don't. I think it's a bad idea.

More important, the proposal doesn't say that the IARU Region 2 bandplan is the one to be followed. It simply talks about voluntary agreements without naming any specific one.

What if the IARU decides something in the bandplan that we US hams don't want to do? Suppose the bandplan calls for AM to be effectively eliminated from HF amateur radio by reworking the bandplan so that there are only a few places where AM is allowed. Then what?

They're not very old, and I don't think they're broken.

However, I think most hams, if they thought the subbands were broken, would rather update and fix them rather than simply tossing them out.

It's like saying that since some speed limits aren't popular with some drivers, we shouldn't have any speed limits at all.

Hold it right there!

Let's look at the *FACTS*:

1) There are *NO* exclusive-CW subbands on the HF/MF amateur bands.

None at all. Zero. Zip. Nada. None.

*ALL* are shared with digital modes, and with non-US 'phone modes.

2) Let's look at how much of each US amateur band below 30 MHz is available for 'phone modes to an Amateur Extra:

160 meters: 100% (200 of 200 kHz)
80 meters: 50% (250 of 500 kHz)
40 meters: 50% (150 of 300 kHz)
30 meters: 0% (0 of 50 kHz)
20 meters: 57% (200 of 350 kHz)
17 meters: 58% (68 of 100 kHz)
15 meters: 55% (250 of 450 kHz)
12 meters: 60% (60 of 100 kHz)
10 meters: 88% (1400 of 1700 kHz)

Total all 9 HF/MF bands: 68.74% (2578 of 3750 kHz)

More than two-thirds of the HF/MF bandspace is available to 'phone modes *now*, and has been for a long time.

If that's inadequate, why not petition for more space rather than simply tossing the subband concept completely?

I don't hear chaos on 80 meters, and I operate there regularly. 75 meters can be pretty nutty sometimes.

The CTT proposal seeks to spread the nuttiness/chaos down into 80 meters. Why?

(Did you know that Part 97 lists 80 and 75 as separate bands?)

Several observations:

1) 160 isn't as popular as other bands, in part because effective antennas are pretty large.

2) The contest was a one-band contest, wasn't it?

3) Was 160 *really* wall-to-wall CW for all 200 kHz? Or were there places without much activity?

I am thinking on my own. I've listened to all sides and I think RM-11305 is a bad idea and should be completely rejected.

If something is truly in the best interest of amateur radio, why wouldn't W8JI support it? It could only help his '$$$$ interest', right? Or to put it another way, how could RM-11305 be a bad thing for his '$$$$ interest'?


Besides its other deficiencies, RM-11305 ignores the growing use and variety of digital modes and the need for them to have their own bandspace. RM-11305 also ignores the concept of promoting the use of spectrum-efficient modes, and instead wants to remove those incentives by allowing all modes everywhere, regardless of how much of the band they occupy.

I don't see any exaggerations in what W8JI has written.

I have made up my own mind.

If I were to participate in the process as you have, I would write my own proposal.

I sure will!

--

BTW:

Unless I misread the CTT proposal, it would *REDUCE* the amount of 40 meter bandspace allowed to General Class amateurs in Region 2. They would only be allowed to use 7025 to 7150 if RM-11305 were enacted.

Or did I miss something?


Also, under the proposal, Novices and Techs-with-HF would be allowed to use all modes on HF, not just the modes allowed to them now. Which would reduce the incentive for them to upgrade to General or Extra.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Jim N2EY,

I think if you read my post correctly, you'll see that I don't expect people to think like me or the CTT. As an example, I specifically asked everyone to participate in the process and I didn't ask them to file in any particular way. So now I guess you can be added to those who are exaggerating or misinterpreting or twisting what I said to make it seem that I said something else.

And yes, Tom is insinuating that people are evil or bad or stupid. If you read his web page he attacks people on a very personal level, interpreting what they might have posted on their web page and putting his own spin on it. That's just what you're doing here!

Jim you may disagree with me all you want. The fact remains that I got off my tail and worked at helping to formulate a solution to what quite a few people see as a problem. There are some who have nothing to contribute except attacks and negativity. Your contributions here are well noted but about as effective as pissing on a three alarm fire!

I hope that you are not arrogant enough to suggest that you have the knowledge or the right to make that determination! Please!

I would like to invite you take the time to register your comments during the FCC comment period, the right way.

--Larry W8ER

 

Just say NO!

 

Hi Larry,

If you search the calls W8MW, WA3VJB, W8ER, WD8BIL, W9AD, W8LX, and K3XF on Google, you will find five out of seven come up on AM pages.

Now I'm not saying AM is bad, I work AM and I've restored old radios, but it is not mainstream amateur radio. The AM Window pages are really for more than casual AM users, and that's where most of the Think Tank members have a common connection.

This isn't an insult, it's just a fact.

The CCT, without properly analyzing data or considering problems, submitted what most people seem to think is an unworkable proposal. The CCT even has spokesman who argue against what the CCT says will happen.

For example Bud Chiller has a web page that pretty much told people if he was on a frequency operating AM and they wanted to get close enough to be bothered or cause a problem, he would not move. His exact words were:

I find his own words a good example of why unlimited bandwidth and any mode on any frequency won't work.

Your proposal would require people bending and compromising, working together like friends, and caring about each other. Everyone would have to be considerate at all times, and understand how wide their rigs are.

Bud is part of the CCT and a spokesperson of the CCT, yet his very own words pretty much tell anyone who dislikes or questions his wide AM signal to go take a flying leap.

So you see the paradox. To the FCC and to the public Bud and the CCT claim everyone will be nice and friendly and work together because we are considerate.

On the other hand Bud's own web pages contained the above text that says "4 – There are no bandwidth limits specified in Part 97. In fact is says: “ (a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and EMISSION TYPE being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.”Part 97.307a
So ya see, bandwidth is dependant upon mode."

and equally snotty:

7 - I don’t care about your OPINION. Part 97 is the ONLY thing that governs the operation of my station.

I hate to tell Bud this, but if the CCT proposal passes it would require all of us TO CARE about the other person.

The CCT spokesman is the best example of why the CCT proposal will not work.

The words are clear. I did not alter them. I'd bet money 99% of the people reading them would dislike the tone.

If Bud was proud of those words and thought they were harmless, he would not have cancelled that page.

On the other hand if you search my website everything you find is geared to encouraging people to narrow their bandwidth. There isn't a single thing on my website that tells other Hams "I don't care what you think".

The fact Bud removed several of his pages and the AM Window removed references to RM-11305 speaks volumes.
There wouldn't be a single page to remove unless someone is embarrassed by their own harsh words to fellow Hams.

Larry, if you had chosen a wide mix of qualified people no one could fault the concept of a "Think Tank". It would have to be a carefully chosen group with opposing members to come to a rational logical solution.

With a team of think alike "yes men" around me, I would never propose the most radical irreversible change in the history of amateur radio. I might be involved in a large group that solicted opinions and took time to argue technical points, but I would never think myself so almighty that I could, with a handful of friends, make a good decision for the 500,000 other people affected.

This is the real area where we differ. The CCT never considered the following:

Mixing Modes

They simply said "people will work it out".

People cannot work it out. Flex plans that mix modes and do not restrict modes or bandwidth are unworkable. The FCC does not allow that in ANY service.

Please look at this objectively from a viewpoint outside of your narrow group. What you are proposing could very well be the end of amateur radio and the start of chaos. Please, think carefully before asking for something next time. I love Ham radio too much to stand by and let it be ruined by seven people.

73 Tom

 

Wa3VJB wrote:
Contests provide an example of intense spectum consumption. Non-participants may consider it rude behavior, and indeed they've asked contest organizers to add frequency constraints to the rules of the event.
-------------------------------------------------------
There are frequency constraints as almost all contests are phone only or cw only or RTTY only or PSK31 only, etc. The only exception that I can think of is Field Day.
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:

Frankly I don't know of any activity other than contests that has a more polluting effect on a band for bystanders trying to engage in other forms of communication. Even the high-powered DX exchanges involving pileups limit themselves to a tight range of frequencies.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pileups for a dx station are confined to a relatively narrow frequency segment because a dx station can only make one contact at a time. In a contest hundreds and even thousands of stations are making hundreds and even thousands of contacts simultaneously.
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:

It's ridiculous to suggest things would automatically get worse if the bands were unfettered by artificial, full time boundries the U.S. imposes that have long been outdated by changes in patterns of use.
-------------------------------------------------------
We keep hearing that the present segmentation of our bands is outdated and obsolete. Says who and how?
-------------------------------------------------------
WA3VJB wrote:

I expect responsible behavior, and in the time since I've been licensed, that has been my experience the vast majority of the time. For inadvertant interference, a good-natured word between those involved usually settles the issue quickly and without rancor.
-------------------------------------------------------
The majority have acted responsible during your time as a ham because the bands have been mode based. What you're asking for is to have a dynamically changing situation constantly. Its called anarchy and chaos. No one is fooled by this smokescreen. CW won't benefit, data won't benefit, only wideband modes like phone, both ssb and am. The fact is that you and your ilk wish to populate the bands with inefficient wideband modes and these will dominate the bands completely. As it is now, there is room for growth in the existing narrowband segments as more and more recognize that it only makes sense to pursue those modes. AM, SSB and FM are hogish modes using disproportionate bandwidth in view of amateur band loading. Thats right, phone modes are very wasteful of precious spectrum and advocates of increasing consumption of spectrum for wasteful modes are very selfish and are not interested in the future health of amateur radio.

 

Most of those who are against RM-11305 would like you to believe that a voluntary plan would not work. I disagree! This past weekend there was a CW contest and the one band that has no sub band allocations, 160 meters, went CW from one end to the other and phone operations mostly went away for the duration. It was smooth, no chaos, and everybody had fun. I have seen that happen time after time on 160, the band that has no sub band regulations and NO CHAOS!
-------------------------------------------------------
If you're speaking of the same 160 meter cw contest that I participated in, you're wrong! CW occupied 1.800-1.880 mhz, less than 1/2 the band. Phone operation, both SSB and AM continued right on in the 1.850 range and up and made for difficult working conditions for the cw stations and made working dx difficult. It proves that qrm from narrow modes affect wide modes far less than the reverse situation.

 

That is what makes me question the integrity, wisdom, or technical skills of the Think Tank.

They keep using 160 as an example, yet they hardly seem to know how the band works or does not work.

Their flawed theory works only on the assumption SSB (or worse yet AM) can detect weak narrow band signals, and it works only on the assumption that everyone can hear and respect everyone else.

It works only when the mode has brick-wall spectrum rolloff at each edge, yet there own members had spectrum displays showing their own transmitters had very poor rolloff of high order IM products. (Of course they REMOVED those displays when I pointed them out.)

Anyone proposing such radical sweeping changes should have looked at operation and the history of 160 closer, they should have looked at their own transmitter spectrum displays and considered how to prevent off-channel interference.

They did none of that. Although imperfect themselves in many ways and using far from perfect rigs in far from perfect locations (just like the rest of us), they proposed a system that will only work in a perfect world of perfect radios and perfect people.

I think they should call themselves the "We Didn't Think Tank".

73 Tom