Having read this again, it seems to be a repeated request to proceed in RM-11708, now NRPM 16-239, and RM-11759, as well as RM-11828 over the objections of numerous dissenting commenters, in the guise of a "revised" bandplan. ARRL has never substantively refuted the criticism of numerous interested parties, including lauded scientists, who have indicated over and over again that there is no need or valid rationale for any change championed by ARRL. It's a good thing the ARRL applied for a 1-2 million dollar government loan, as I don't believe this will sit well with many current members, not to mention the 80% of hams who choose not to belong to the club in Newington. http://www.zerobeat.net/pactor-III_16.wav http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html
It gets even more interesting when you do a little number crunching on their message count stats. Their numbers are fairly stable month to month with about 50k +/- total messages per month but if you reduce it to HF only it averages about 25k +/- messages per month world wide. Now if you consider ARSFI-Winlink reached their peak message throughput of about 150k per month (HF and VHF+ included) somewhere around 2007-- the date is important, think RM-11306--and they had exactly the same spectrum available as now, the logical conclusion is they need less not more space. The kicker is they want Pactor 4 and complain that 5kHz can only support 2 stations running that mode or other wide bandwidth modes. There's the answer to why the expansion, can't wait in line for an open frequency like the rest of us 'cuz email is important, like a BBC news feed or an update on an Amazon delivery. They also don't want lesser modes polluting their sandbox, not even the <500Hz modes they and their clients use. If anyone doubts the 'pollution' comment ARSFI was kind enough to describe narrow modes as such in an FCC filing, not a cheap shot at Winlink just a fact. That filing Is an interesting read, difficult to wade through some of their convoluted logic and thinking though, which should tell you a lot about the authors.
The fallacy of this logic lies in several points -No expectation of a guaranteed 'clear channel" -Propagation variation will often mean multiple stations across geography will be able to use the same frequency simultaneously -It is reasonable to wait for opportunity to transmit -No station should monopolize (own) a frequency BTW, my listening has found that multiple stations are often running traffic on the same frequency or overlapping...Propagation rules all. b.
That dissent is dated 2003. That's 17 years ago. Someone born then would have a license to drive, be submitting applications to universities, and possibly be registering to vote in the next election. Has this really been going on this long? Here's an idea, let's just start over. I mean tear up the whole license structure and band plan and start over. That's a bit of hyperbole because starting over still means living within some constraints set by treaty and legislation. Here's one starting point, Extra stays as it is. Agreed? That's the top license and it is defined by the limits of what is allowed by law and treaty. Here's another constraint, three tiers of licenses and three written tests to get from one tier to the next. Perhaps we can play with that a bit and have two tiers but the first tier has to pass two tests to get a license, each covering a different knowledge set so complaints on "noobs" being ignorant of some important aspects can be addressed. Maybe have one test and license for above 30 MHz, like Technician was originally intended to be, and another for below 30 MHz. The difference this time would be one doesn't have to be qualified/tested/whatever for one to get the other. If a person wants a license only for MF/HF then they can take one test and get some set of privileges in that space. To maintain the constraint that Extra be at the top then perhaps one would have to pass both of the lower tier tests before taking the third. Or not. But the FCC has said they want to keep a three tier system so we should probably stay with that. What they didn't say was that newcomers have to start above 30 MHz. The first tier license could be HF only. There's 120 questions total to get to Extra, perhaps we should keep that but move the numbers around. Again I'm seeing complaints of "noobs" being ignorant so let's make the first license one would have to take contain more questions. How do we divide it? Now it's 35/35/50. Maybe make it 50/35/35. Perhaps split it evenly 40/40/40. However we do this we need a plan on what the privileges are, and how to incorporate people already licensed into this new plan. What I believe needs to go is this needless and confusing slicing and dicing of the bands. Either they get access to all of the band or none of it. That alone would take a good portion out of the question pool and make room for questions that matter. We are quizzing people on their band privileges and then having them upgrade to where a good sized portion of the privileges they were tested on becomes irrelevant. Does this mean disposing of "incentive licensing"? I guess it does if one is to believe incentive licensing actually worked. I'm seeing plenty of evidence of it not working. If there is incentive licensing then the goals of the incentive needs to be defined. Why are we incentivizing people to upgrade? How does this help us? I'm seeing how it hurts. It's making people fight over nonsense on diminished incentives and hypercomplex band plans. How can we say we have an incentive license system when I'm not seeing the goals of the incentive defined? Go ahead. Keep thinking that there's incentive licensing for another 17 years. It's been a fantasy for 17 years, and 17 years before that, and perhaps many multiples of 17 years. Well, four multiples of 17 years, it was 1952 when Technician was created and it appears that ever since then licensed Amateurs have been fighting over just how to define that license. Let's get rid of it, and General too, and start over. Create new licenses to replace them and define a clear path from how to move from the old licenses to the new. It's not likely to end all our problems with band plans and license privileges but it will at least end all the old problems of trying to shoehorn a 1950s license into a 2020 world.
@AC0GT, great idea(s). Back up, look at the larger picture, clarify the goals/objectives, simplify the rules to better achieve those goals/objectives. Make them universally known, consistently applied and non-selectively enforced. This is a proven technique that makes the most people the most happy for most of the time in the long run. I did this on smaller teams many, many times on my teams in the Air Force. (That's why the U.S. Air Force is #1 in the world!) One problem with that. Changing from what we have right now to something better in the near future is easy to say, but nearly impossible to do in public. There's always someone who will resist any change, even for the better, at all costs. I've fought this concept my whole life. I've struggled my whole life to keep things as simple as possible. I thought things would get easier after I retired from the Air Force. But no, things keep changing and things keep getting more complicated. Keeping things complicated and messy right now is something that can be used (is now used) to accomplish other things (most of the time for selfish reasons, sometimes for nefarious reasons) for smaller groups of people. And since most honest, God fearing people are too busy doing things like going to work, feeding their families, paying they mortgage and being overwhelmed by other things right now, we won't have a majority of the 750,000 hams stand up and demand change for the better. It's not just ham radio that is becoming more unnecessarily complicated these days. It's got to break down completely before something can be done to change for the better. Sometimes it breaks down completely... and then it stops there. I think we still have at least a couple of decades left before the last CW op gives up the ghost. Then we'll just continue arguing about where the line is in the middle of each band between voice and digital.
How about encryption on upper bands. We need encryption to secure communications especially for anything useful. The ARRL should lobby for this. If you want real digital communications for amateur radio, you do it at the 2 and 5ghz bands and allow security. Put up some satellites to bounce off of and you will not care about Winlink or these other little digital modes. Leave the lower bands for CW, FT8, and SSB. We dont need to try putting pictures or email across those HF bands.
Bruce Perens, @K6BP, wrote a few articles over the years on crypto signatures that I believe should be given more discussion. It doesn't take encryption to have value, and encryption on Amateur radio would be a step too far out of it's mandate that I cannot see that happening with any regularity. Getting signatures though would have value, breaks no rules, and by validating who sent what adds plenty to security and enforcement that I believe crypto signatures should be nearly routine. I believe that sending pictures on HF will never end. I recall that weather charts are routinely broadcast on HF for ships and aircraft. Or it was until satellite communications became the norm. I actually want to see more images sent on HF. A picture is worth a thousand words, and sending an image could actually save on bandwidth when trying to convey complex information. Complex information like weather patterns or a photo of a missing person. When it comes to sending e-mail that's just a formatted to/from message suitable for routing on the internet. To ban that could mean having unintended consequences for any other kinds of formatted messaging intended for routing by other means. There is IP space allocated for Amateur radio use. Instead of fighting it perhaps we should find ways to make it more efficient. Such as perhaps including crypto signatures so that enforcement can be improved.
There's a lot I could go into there, and I appreciate the reply. I will say that when it comes to the goal of the licensing I have in mind is to get back to treating it like any other license. We license based on the equipment operated, much like a license for driving or flying. We'd have to set some somewhat arbitrary dividing lines on the privileges but like driving and flying the nature of the beast makes some lines relatively easy to draw. For vehicles on the road most people drive vehicles with four wheels, therefore the most common license is one for four wheeled vehicles. People needing to operate vehicles with two wheels, or 18, need some kind of endorsement or higher class of license. For Amateur radio most people operate radios under 200 watts, so let's define that as a place to start. Few people operate repeaters so maybe make that something that only higher classes of licenses would be allowed to do. I'd want to avoid regulation by modes, that just seems to violate much of the spirit of Amateur radio as a place for experimentation. I'd consider regulating by bands if there's high probability to interfere with other services that share those bands. The goal is to simplify and regulate on matters of safety. If someone is deemed safe to operate on part of a band then they are safe for the entire band. I'm fine to have a reasoned debate on dividing wide and narrow modes on bands, I can see some value in that. I'm just thinking that much of the opposition to a real reform of licensing will die off in less time than you do.
That is exactly what it is. anyone making silly comments about revising the license structure is playing right into the arrl's plan.
Yes I agree, crypto signatures would help a lot for many remote control scenarios or verified messaging. That would be a good start. Do you think it will ever happen? As far as weather pictures go, I think with internet access coming to remote locations through low orbit satellites that will be how people get their pictures. I get the fun part of it but it is not anything useful to me.
Not going to happen unless you can get the ITU on board. See ITU Article 25 . The only group squawking for encrypted messages is the emcomm bunch, another dying function of amateur radio.
I believe people are misinterpreting the intent of the statement about providing emergency communications in Part 97.1. The intent isn't about the equipment that comes with licensed Amateurs, the intent is experienced radio operators that comes with getting licensed and using a radio. Have you seen people with their first time operating a kids walkie-talkie or FRS radio? I've seen where they don't know enough to release the PTT after they are done talking. I've seen where they think that they can just cut someone off by pushing the PTT and the other can hear them. They don't know about how far they should be able to talk, what could be blocking a signal, how to set channels or PL tones. This is in the manual for the FRS radio but then someone that is experienced with FRS, CB, business band, airband, or other radios will pick up on a lot of this and this is a set of basic skills that will come in handy in emergency communications regardless of the radio service. Part 97 is to create a pool of people not a pool of radios. If people can show up with radios then that can help but it's the people that Part 97 is concerned about. Where does Amateur radio come in then? If there's not enough people in the community, and you can size that community as you wish, then Amateur radio operators are there to fill in when the professional communicators are overwhelmed. There's still likely going to be professionals to guide any volunteers but if someone is a licensed Amateur then that relieves considerable burden on the professionals on getting someone up to speed on not just operating a radio but in making minor repairs to electronics. Every little thing can help and most of the skills from Amateur radio translate directly to other radio services. Our radios may not have encryption but they don't have to. If the volunteer fire department needs people to help to coordinate paramedics, automobile traffic, and so on in an emergency then will you be able to step up to the dispatch radio and have at least some idea on what all the buttons and dials do and which way is up on the microphone? If that's all you got out of Amateur radio then you are miles ahead of most of the general public, and that makes you intensely valuable.
I believe that it is nearly inevitable. There will be people that will try to spoof a message on radios and by signing them this issue disappears. With software defined radios adding some computing power to our radios it's nearly trivial to put in some kind of signature on digital text or voice. People may recognize a voice over a radio but text is text which makes spoofing easier. I believe K6BP gave an example of a signed control message to a repeater as an example on how this is valuable. The command is in the clear, the call sign is in the clear, and both are signed. If the signature matches, and the callsign is on the list of approved operators, then the repeater carries out the command. If no match then the command is ignored. There can be a time element to the signature to avoid replay attacks. The point of Part 97 is not always for licensed Amateurs to bring their gear with them for emergency communications, it's the experience that they need to bring. If licensed Amateurs are going to be valuable as a pool of trained radio operators from which the military, public safety, and private industry can draw then licensed Amateurs need to have seen something similar to how the "pros" do things. So, perhaps, the "pros" rely solely on satellites for transferring images over great distances. If Amateurs know something about how this works before being called into doing things the same as how the pros do things then it's still a valuable experience. With more Amateur satellites this might not be as much of an issue since now Amateurs have greater access to experience satellite communications. So long as the pros continue to use HF for transmitting images then Amateur radio should absolutely be able to do the same. Even then the matters of encouraging experimentation should leave this open.
No argument there, but that's not the way most amateur emcomm (we're communicators here to save the world when all else fails) is practiced. All disasters are local and require local solutions. If hams want to get serious about backing up local agencies / communities they need to get trained and certified to meet local requirements, not some national control and one size fits all cert program. Get out there and make the local connections, find out what the agency / community needs are and work towards those goals. Oh, and if you do get called out don't refuse to wash dishes in a shelter if asked
This does not seem like a "Final Band Plan," at all, especially if the ARRL's Board of Directors initiates a Petition to the FCC to try to get this into the regulations. That's where active, concerned licensees can challenge the unwarranted proposed set-aside for automated digital modes.
