ARRL FILES REGULATION-BY-BANDWIDTH PETITION

Absolutely.

First, if you will take a look at the very first page of this thread, about the sixth message down, you will see a very visual example of the power density difference between voice and Pactor.

If you will google for the terms "SSB", "peak power", and "average power" you will find any number of references that will confirm that the average power of a SSB transmission using the typical male voice is 20%-33% of the PEP power. The ICAS rating can actually be lower than that because of the inter-syllabic pauses.

If you absolutely need me to give you a reference, try http://www.mfjenterprises.com/man/pdf/MFJ-962D.pdf.

Since the English language is decoded in the brain using many information modes such as dynamic amplitude, phase relationships, frequency relationships, etc, single conversations can be picked out of a multitude of conversations. I have found mulitple studies of this in my research on high intelligible speech. If you want some specific references, I would be happy to send you a list.

Pactor, on the other hand is close to 100% duty cycle (while transmitting) or 3 to 5 times the power density of an audio signal. Thus the PEP and average power are very close to the same. The ICAS rating of Pactor is, of course, lower because of the pauses in transmission listening for ARQ packets.

This allows multiple conversations to take place on the same frequency using voice SSB. The same is not true for frequencies in use for Pactor.

Since one of the FCC defined metrics for spectrum efficiency is "users satisfied", the spectrum efficiency for voice SSB is higher than that for wideband Pactor.

Do you need me to post the FCC definition for spectrum efficiency or do you have it available?

tim ab0wr

 

First, we can "beat them"

Second, you sure do post plenty, so I guess you are saying that we should only post if we agree with the ARRL and you.

I think that folks should post any opinion they like.

I guess your view is that we shouldn't question the government either.

How about letting people voice their opinions, or is that not "COOL" in Canada?

Sorry, this a US matter, and we can have any opinion we want, and we don't have to ask permission to have an opinion.

As far as getting involved, some of us have been involved for over a year, and the ARRL response is "take a hike".

Trying to manipulate free expression is a pretty sad tactic. Do you really think that you are going to succeed with the "Guilt Trip" tactic?

W6NJ

 

Well, first of all, this issue certainly IS “my matter” because, even though I live and work in Canada, I remain a US Citizen as well as an active US Licensee (not to mention being a regular Volunteer Examiner for US license candidates with both the ARRL as well as W5YI).

And, certainly, everyone should be absolutely free to express his or her opinions (or even question the government) to any person (or in any forum) that will listen.  In fact, I THOUGHT I was advocating just that in my posts.  It would now appear I haven’t made myself clear on that point.

My invitation was simply to encourage people who really don’t like the road the ARRL is now on to volunteer for one of their many posts, or run for office as a Director or Vice Director so as to directly advocate their suggested changes from within.  

I’ve also found that a person's “involvement” in such activities can mean any number of things.  

Simply posting one’s protestations here and elsewhere about this or that policy (either FCC or ARRL) is certainly a first step.  However (and as I’ve related in previous posts regarding my own personal AMSAT work) creating real, meaningful change in such organizations often requires FAR more individual commitment than simply sitting on the sidelines and tossing verbal bombs into the middle of the proceedings.

Put another way, I’ve found over the years that creating lasting change in volunteer organizations is much like preparing a bacon and egg breakfast.  The chicken was most certainly ”involved” in the process. However, there is no doubt that the pig was “committed”.

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF

 

Keith, something doesn't add up here.

You say,
creating real, meaningful change in such organizations often requires FAR more individual commitment than simply sitting on the sidelines and tossing verbal bombs into the middle of the proceedings.


Yet you've never taken part as an individual in the actual regulatory proceeding afforded to you when presented with a proposal ?

Far from it being duplicative, you could demonstrate the courage of filing in support or in opposition to documents your group has developed on behalf of such a proposal.

What better way to illustrate your committment to your group's work, or your evidence of being disenfranchised by that group, than by filing formal Comments?

Please explain.

The way it sits, you've patronized us by telling us we should only work within a system that may not represent us, or that we've concluded shall not be in concert with our views on an issue.

Is that what you intended to say?

Paul/VJB

 

Ed,

Let's take a look at some of the FCC definitions for spectrum efficiency:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Federal Communications Commission
Spectrum Policy Task Force
Report of the Spectrum
Efficiency Working Group

SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY occurs when the maximum amount of information (i.e., output) is transmitted within a given amount of spectrum (i.e., input), or equivalently, when the least amount of spectrum is used to transmit a given amount of information. This could be
expressed as:

spectrum efficiency =  (output) / (spectrum impacted)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------
Federal Communications Commission
Spectrum Policy Task Force
Report of the Spectrum
Efficiency Working Group


After considering the comments and reviewing the record, the Working Group concludes that it is not possible, nor appropriate, to select a single, objective metric that could be used to compare efficiencies across different radio services. Any metric would provide, inherent in its assumptions, advantages to certain services and technologies, and disadvantages to others. The Working Group does conclude, however, that rough estimates of spectrum efficiency may be useful in certain situations, as they could allow for some comparisons between technologies. While not adopting a single metric, the Working Group still believes it to be possible, and prudent, to promote the efficient access to and use of spectrum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

87 F.C.C. 2d Federal Communications Commission Reports FCC 81-289

Although there is no universally accepted measure of spectrum efficiency, it can be defined in general terms as the ratio of communications accomplished to spectrum used.

These terms are usually difficult to quantify, but they may involve parameters such as:

information delivered, users satisfied, radio frequency bandwidth occupied, geographical area covered and the time the spectrum is denied to other users.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, according to Single-Sideband Systems and Circuits by Sabin & Schoenike on Pages 18-20, the typical peak-to-average power of speech is around 14db (thats a peak-to-average ratio of around 25:1).

The crest factor of a Pactor III signal is 3db to 4db according to SCS specifications. That's a peak-to-average ratio of around 2:1.

(as a comparison, I believe MT63 has a crest factor of about 4db or 2.5:1, very similar to Pactor III)

So a 100watt PEP SSB transmitter modulated by a typical voice will run about a 4watt average output. On the other hand, a 100watt PEP SSB transmitter modulated by a Pactor III signal will run about 50watts average output.

It should be obvious why you can mix mulitple SSB voice conversations on a frequency using propagation stacking while this is prevented by the Pactor signal.

Now, perhaps we should consider some speech recognition information.

from: "The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: Implications for patients with cochlear implants";  Philipos C. Loizou, Michael Dorman, Michael Dorman.

"Our results suggest that a relatively wide dynamic range is needed for a high level of vowel recognition and a relatively small dynamic range is sufficient to maintain
consonant recognition."

So a high dynamic range actually leads to increased vowel recognition in speech. This is in direct contrast to the use of compression or clipping to raise average power output, isn't it? Lowering the crest factor may actually hurt speech intelligiblity rather than enhance it! That's why I keep saying that high-intelligibility speech is a wide open area for reseach in amateur radio.

For other considerations, e.g. noise versus speech power see http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/speech/section2.htm. In essence, a 6db S/N ratio can still result in an 80% articulation factor if the noise is band limited and is between 1800 to 2500hz. A good example of this is a competing SSB signal. If the competing SSB signals on a frequency, i.e. noise, are as little as a single S unit weaker than the signal of interest, a very good articulation ratio can be acheived.

So how does this apply to the spectrum efficiency factor? Well, since multiple users across a large geographic area can use a spectrum slice when using voice modulated SSB, SSB voice has a much higher spectrum efficiency than Pactor III does when considering the number of users satisfied metric and the geographic area metric.

This gets even higher when considering the time the spectrum is denied to other users. If a Pactor III station regularly uses a frequency, other users tend to stay away from that frequency because they have no way to avoid being interfered with when the Pactor station comes on. That denies the use of the spectrum to many users for a significant amount of the time. On the other hand, voice SSB is easily recognized when someone is using the frequency and it is also easily recognized when another station is NOT using the frequency. Therefore a specific slice of spectrum, when dedicated to SSB-voice use, suffers very small amounts of denial to others.

Again, SSB-voice is a big winner over Pactor III for spectrum efficiency when considering the time denied metric.

If you have large amounts of text data to move from point-to-point with an specified accuracy requirement, Pactor III is more efficient than voice. Pactor would win in this metric. If, however, the information is point-to-multipoint (e.g. weather net, health&welfare net transmitting situation information, coordinating multi-group logistical or tactical movements, etc.) SSB voice is a much more efficient mode than Pactor. SSB voice would win in this metric.

Is this enough scientific data to validate my statement, in your opinion anyway?

tim ab0wr

 

Well, Paul, it appears you may not have fully understood my reply to your previous post on the subject.

I HAVE participated in the processes you mention...and I have done so on numerous occasions.  Now, granted, I have not filed such comments as an individual, but rather, I've chosen to have my comments included in AMSAT's corporate comments filed on behalf of that organization.  

I also elected not to abuse the FCC's electronic comment process (or create even the appearance of a conflict of interest with my corporate leadership role at the time) by filing what would have clearly been duplicative comments of my own on these subjects.  I made that choice at the time, and, upon reflection, I'd make that same choice again ... and for the same reason.

And I am certainly NOT suggesting that one "should “only” work within a system that may not represent you".  I'm merely offering "working within the system" as yet another option for folks to consider who are serious (rather than just talking) about effecting real change within such organizations or processes.

Certainly, as you have suggested, filing electronic (or written) comments at the appropriate time in the regulatory and policy process with the FCC is one way to have one's voice heard.  But, so is getting up off our finals and offering our time and talents in any number of capacities to volunteer organizations like the League that are helping to shape those same policies and processes.  

I know my own 10-year plus, volunteer leadership role with AMSAT offered me a fantastic opportunity to have a major, lasting impact on issues of critical importance to at least one part of Ham Radio’s future…much more so than if I’d simply been content to just talk about them at the time.  

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF

 

Keith,

All of what you mention are wonderful things, but I have problems with the logic.

First, I am a member of the ARRL, and I don't see how a member's opinion should not have any validity, unless they are a volunteer, or elected official.  Membership in the ARRL, is not some honor given by the Lords of Newington.  If all I am is a voiceless source of dollars to the ARRL, then I guess I and every other member are complete fools, to finance a dictatorship.

Though it is not likely, if every ARRL member decided to quit today, the ARRL would fold.  That is an absolute fact.  That being the case, it is in the best interest for the ARRL leadership to listen to the members.  In this case they have not.

Second, you talk about working in the system.  While you may be correct that there is some closed door hijinks going on between the FCC and the ARRL, it sure doesn't seem proper, when the ARRL doesn't even have anywhere near a majority of licensed hams as members.  

And if this stuff you allude too is going on, I hope no one ever proves it, because it isn't proper.  But since you were "one of the boys", I guess you would know the secret world that us normal folks don't know about.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an organization that maybe has 1/4 of licensed hams as members, is the "system" we have to work within.

The ARRL is not the governing body of Ham radio, and I have lost my faith in their fairness and judgement.

You can go on and on about how we better work with them, and how they are the "system", but the fact is, we can also get mad enough, to put the end to the ARRL.  If they push hard enough, it can happen.

Even you admit to the fact that the proposal is flawed, so I am really amazed why you continue to beat the ARRL drum and try to find any spin possible to justify the fact that they are ignoring popular will?

Keith, I really think you have good thoughts on how we should cut back on regulation.  But if we want to go voluntary, then it should 6Khz across HF with a proposed bandband.  What they have proposed with all of the different bandwidths, is more complex then what we have, and is really not what I would call open.

By the way, the ARRL never asked for volunteers on this issue, unless they were digital folks.  So why bother trying to take that route.

My league issue now is quit, or "throw the bums out"

Still thinking on that one.

73 - W6NJ

 

Tim,

I will reply once by mentioning a common finding seen in all of my Pactor conversations.

When I carry out a SSB voice conversation as opposed to a Pactor-II/III digital conversation, my transceiver generates far more heat from the transceiver finals when I operate SSB. Furthermore, my QSO's are brief and to the point saving time on our amateur spectrum. My findings are independent of the bands chosen to operate. In scientific terms, SSB cannot maintain a connection at -18dB S/N ratio like Pactor-II/III.

Tim, I request you sit back and ask yourself if spectrum efficiency will be increased if YOU request all SSB operators lower their outputs by 18dB?

I refuse to make this request because SSB operators have a license and training to work their hobby as they do currently. On the contrary, I will fight to keep Pactor-II/III's right to operate regardless of this mode's ability to work to a -18dB S/N ratio.

Ed AE4TM
http://www.ecjones.org/Doppler/DSC01747.JPG

 

Judging by the misdirection in his reply Tim, I think the answer is a resounding YES!  

 

Keith,

All of what you mention are wonderful things, but I have problems with the logic.

First, I am a member of the ARRL, and I don't see how a member's opinion should not have any validity, unless they are a volunteer, or elected official.  Membership in the ARRL, is not some honor given by the Lords of Newington.  If all I am is a voiceless source of dollars to the ARRL, then I guess I and every other member are complete fools, to finance a dictatorship.

Though it is not likely, if every ARRL member decided to quit today, the ARRL would fold.  That is an absolute fact.  That being the case, it is in the best interest for the ARRL leadership to listen to the members.  In this case they have not.

Second, you talk about working in the system.  While you may be correct that there is some closed door hijinks going on between the FCC and the ARRL, it sure doesn't seem proper, when the ARRL doesn't even have anywhere near a majority of licenses hams as members.  

And if this stuff you allude too is going on, I hope no one ever proves it, because it isn't proper.  But since you were "one of the boys", I guess you would know the secret world that us normal folks don't know about.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an organization that maybe has 1/4 of licensed hams as members, is the "system" we have to work within.

The ARRL is not the governing body of Ham radio, and I have lost my faith in their fairness and judgement.

You can go on and on about how we better work with them, and how they are the "system", but the fact is, we can also get mad enough, to put the end to the ARRL.  If they push hard enough, it can happen.

Even you admit to the fact that the proposal is flawed, so I am really amazed why you continue to beat the ARRL drum and try to find any spin possible to justify the fact that they are ignoring popular will?

Keith, I really think you have good thoughts on how we should cut back on regulation.  But if we want to go voluntary, then it should 6Khz across HF with a proposed bandband.  What they have proposed with all of the different bandwidths, is more complex then what we have, and is really not what I would call open.

By the way, the ARRL never asked for volunteers on this issue, unless they were digital folks.  So why bother trying to take that route.

My league issue now is quit, or "throw the bums out"

Still thinking on that one.

73 - W6NJ[/QUOTE]
...and "throwing the bums out" is certainly an option!

If you firmly believe the League is "ignoring the popular will", then that might be all the more reason to "throw them out".  That's obviously one way to get their attention!

And, “getting mad enough to put an end to the ARRL" is certainly an option, too. However, before that happens, I'd suggest those who’d like to do so might first want to determine whether it is the organization itself that is flawed or the current crop of people who are running things who are the problem.  The former will require a very different set of solutions than the latter.

I agree with you that the League has not done a particularly stellar job of handling this extremely contentious issue, and I also concur the results of their deliberations in this case are far from perfect.  

But, is it now time to “throw the baby out with the bath water” in retaliation?  What (or who) would we replace the League with?  How would we do that? And when?

Like it or not, “an organization that maybe has 1/4 of licensed hams as members IS the "system" we currently have to work with”.  The reason only ¼ of licensed Hams are now members is because the other ¾ have, either through disinterest (or disgust), simply chosen not to belong.

And who is it that owns THAT particular problem?

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF

 

Could you run that one by us again

You must have one hell of a compressor for SSB. When I run SSB, I set drive with the ALC, and looking at the power meter on the Mark-V it looks like I am running 40 watts. If I didn't have a seperate peak hold meter, I wouldn't know that the peaks were 200 watts.

On PACTOR, it shows 200 watts on the Mark-V meter.

So unless you running a "Mr Big Mouth" mic from the local truck stop on SSB, I don't know how you would be generating all of the heat you describe.

As a matter of fact, though full power is fine on the Mark-V, I can remember a couple of HF rigs I had, that had warnings to lower the power to 50% for RTTY and digital, but no problem with SSB.

Sorry but what you describe makes no sense.

73 - W6NJ

 

...and "throwing the bums out" is certainly an option!

If you firmly believe the League is "ignoring the popular will", then that might be all the more reason to "throw them out".  That's obviously one way to get their attention!

And, “getting mad enough to put an end to the ARRL" is certainly an option, too. However, before that happens, I'd suggest those who’d like to do so might first want to determine whether it is the organization itself that is flawed or the current crop of people who are running things who are the problem.  The former will require a very different set of solutions than the latter.

I agree with you that the League has not done a particularly stellar job of handling this extremely contentious issue, and I also concur the results of their deliberations in this case are far from perfect.  

But, is it now time to “throw the baby out with the bath water” in retaliation?  What (or who) would we replace the League with?  How would we do that? And when?

Like it or not, “an organization that maybe has 1/4 of licensed hams as members IS the "system" we currently have to work with”.  The reason only ¼ of licensed Hams are now members is because the other ¾ have, either through disinterest (or disgust), simply chosen not to belong.

And who is it that owns THAT particular problem?

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF[/QUOTE]
Keith,

Isn't debate wonderful. I can't find one thing in your post to argue with.

I like the propogation emails and the equipment tests, and I even got the family the ARRL study books as opposed to Gordon West because they have actual stuff to learn in them, other then tricks to memorize the answers (Sorry Gordon).

I think you are right, in that I think I would better spend my time to recruit new members to "throw the bums out", then to get rid of the ARRL.

The real issue is that we shouldn't replace one set of complex regulations, with another set of complex regulations.

The ARRL should approach this by getting a consensus on a workable bandplan first. Then we propose to the FCC 6Khz across HF, higher bandwidth as the frequencies go up.

If we can all agree (a challenge) that a bandplan will work, then we don't need to have bandwidth regulations that are just as restrictive and even more complex then the mode regulations that we have now.

That is the problem I see. On one hand we say we have too many restrictions, and we can work it out, but then we just add, too many new restrictions, and the robot can of worms.

By proposed bandwidth regulation, digital can go up where ssb is, but ssb can't go down where digital is. Is that flexible? What if people get bored with digital, and all the new no-code HF users like SSB?

In any case, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Next time around, everyone will be ready for some compromise.

73 - W6NJ

 

Ed,

What you are offering here is a non sequitur. Your premises don't support your conclusion.

WHY would the SSB operators *need* to cut their power back by 18db? It would only lower their signal to noise ratio's. It *might* allow an even HIGHER spectrum efficiency by allowing more conversations on the same frequency, but only if the power cutback doesn't drop the signals into the noise.

But that does not mean that Pactor has a higher spectrum efficiency than SSB.

It still begs the question of how many Pactor users can share a frequency at once. A digital modem can't tell a digital signal at S1 from one at S3 or one at -18db S/N from one at 0db S/N. If you try to run two Pactor sessions on the same frequency at the same time, they *will* interfere. That limits the number of users satisified under the spectrum efficiency metric.

And since Pactor signals regularly using a spectrum slice tend to drive modes away, the time denied metric for that spectrum slice goes way up.

That just makes the spectrum efficiency of Pactor less than SSB. Do you disagree?

The other point that you seem to be missing is that MOST, and I want to emphasize MOST, amateurs like conversing by voice, not by keyboard. That is why keyboard data modes remain at less than 10% of total usage on the bands.

I would have to go back and add up the figures again but let's just assume we have a 60% voice, 30% CW, 10% digimode split on the bands.

Since the SSB-voice mode is very spectrum efficient, that means a lot of users get satisfied in the bandwidth they are allowed to operate in.

If we move the wideband digimodes into the same area as SSB operation we *will* be lowering the overall spectrum efficiency of our bands because fewer users will be satisfied.

There just isn't any way around that conclusion.

I have never suggested that Pactor be banned. It is a good mode. I use it every day.

But I don't believe that it should be mixed in with analog voice. And NO WAY should any kind of Pactor robot be allowed in with analog voice.

IARU Region 1 agrees. Not only that but I believe Region 1 passed unanimously a resolution that new digital modes be designed from the get-go to share frequencies ala Packet. They have seen the light. Willy-nilly horizontal spreading of digital modes is inefficient as all get out. It *lowers* spectrum efficiency.

The FCC is going to do what they are going to do with the bandwidth proposal. I'm not so naive as to believe that we will change that. But I *will* try to get the changes made that I feel it needs. I can only hope that the FCC will look at some of these issues (and I will bring them up in my reply) and see that an objective study of spectrum efficiency, technical efficiency, and economic efficiency does not favor most digital modes as they are designed today. At least another generation of design will be needed to bring them to a level of spectrum efficiency that SSB-voice offers today. That next generation needs to bring in upper transport layer design so that frequency sharing is an integral part of the design - just like Packet did 15 years ago (btw the q15x25 mode used with HF Packet today does frequency sharing also and is much more robust).

tim ab0wr

 

I'll remind the readers that all the previous arguments in this thread DO NOT include the sensitive error correction provided by the pactor modes. Several pactor data bursts below the audible level can be reassembled by the SCS modems to generate a 100% (within CRC definition) error free signal. When one operates SSB, you do not have any CRC error correction. To get a signal across to a receiving station without any error correction schemes such as SSB, one must run higher average output power as compared to pactor to get an output above the noise level. This will cause the finals to generate more heat on average.

All the crest factor arguments in this thread are totally void until one considers the error correcting abilility of a mode utilizing syncronized bursts established by the time of flight delay of the radio travel time between two transceivers (186.282 mi / mS in vacuum). Pactor utilizes an error correction based on the radio wave time delay between two stations accurate to 0.6mS!

Ed

 

Ok Doc whatever you say.

Got to go work on my Phaser now. Stun mode doesn't work (too strong), and I burned a hole in my wall.

Going to hook it to my zigatrometer and see what's up.

73 - W6NJ