ARRL ODFM (Spread Spectrum) Testing on 6M

The following is reprinted from the Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio (SPAR) newsletter, The Roundtable, September 2006 with permission.
by Charlie Young, AG4YO

In 2003, The Daily Herald in Chicago published an article about the Chicago Cubs being 47 and 47 (W/L) at the all-star break called "Glass Half Empty or Full?" Coming off of a 67 and 95 season the "Half Full" analogy of a .500 season was obvious. But the article went on to say that nobody wins a Pennant with a .5000 season. In the end, they finished the season 88 and 74 well out of the running and to the disappointment of many fans.

Over the past few years, we have seen several regulatory actions related to Amateur Radio by the ARRL. When taken individually, the negative results of each action were fairly evident on their own merit. For example, the ARRL Restructuring Petition among other things sought to upgrade all Technician Class Licensees to General Class without the need to take Element 3. The Bandwidth Bandplan Petition sought to mix data applications with voice in the voice bands on HF and increase spectrum use for data above 50 MHz to 100 kHz. The petition to remove power control on Spread Spectrum (SS) applications sought to disregard well known interference data and allow high power for SS applications while the ARRL used the "interference and need for low power" card with impunity in the BPL SS fight. Lately, in an experiment sanctioned by the ARRL, amateurs have been testing 200kHz wide data/SS use on 6M. (www.arrl.org/hsmm/ofdm_intro.html)

In light of these actions (for the average Amateur) is the glass really half empty or half full? When taken together, the ARRL actions along with the actions of other groups could be ominous. Assuming all ARRL Petitions had been/are adopted, we would be witnessing an immediate upgrade of Technician Class operators to General and an overnight emptying of most frequencies over 50mHz. Much has been written about NCI President Carl Stevenson's involvement with IEEE 802.22. (www.ieee802.org/22/) which uses automatic software control to search for open parts of frequencies above 54 MHz to use for higher power SS data application use. (www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3134)

Additionally, the Regulation by Bandwidth plan seeks to open up spectrum above 50mHz for wideband data applications as well as mixing data with voice on the HF voice bands. The petition to remove power control on Spread Spectrum flies in the face of convention where, in commercial applications, power control is mandated to mitigate interference. One only needs to read the ARRL objections to BPL to find power control plays an important role in the "anti-BPL" fight. And now we have the 200kHz data application test on 6M using OFDM Spread Spectrum from the ARRL.

Half Empty, Black Helos, Straw men, and Red Herrings are all epithets that those attempting to serve as ARRL watchdogs have endured. Taken as a whole, the ARRL regulatory actions do not bode well for users of CW, AM, SSB, and narrowband data modes. These actions also intersect for the moment at 6M where many parallel digital activities point to the loss of voice band spectrum and more wideband data use. Assuming there is wholesale SS wideband data use at 6M (and above), the need (in the eyes of digital proponents) for relaxing the automatic power control rules for SS applications is more obvious. The Restructuring plan clears the bands, the Bandwidth Bandplan opens up voice bands for data use, the removal of SS Power Control allows high power data and the present tests on 6M prove how effective wideband data can be in an HF like environment.

There is also another possibility. Perhaps the digital elitists in Amateur Radio want to restrict data use to frequencies above 50mHz. A comprehensive plan to limit wideband data use on HF to current levels and move most wideband activity to 6M and above makes sense. But is the glass half empty or half full? Unfortunately, most amateurs can’t even get a look at the glass.

What is obviously missing here is openness on the part of the ARRL. They seem content to whisper in back rooms as to their real intent for data applications and by default, the 99% of Amateurs who don't use them. It is very tempting to look at the makeup of League Committees and seeing the same names occur regularly, conclude that groups supporting WinLink, TAPR, and data use above all other modes are indeed running the show and calling the shots. With no mechanism for members to voice opinions to the League and publicly show the statistics concerning member opinion, the back room activity will continue.

If you are one of the 99% of Amateurs who do not use wideband digital applications and believe that the ARRL glass is half empty, the only thing you have going for you is evaporation. The half empty glass will eventually be completely empty with evaporation. Eventually we'll all know what the "master plan" is that will be perpetrated on us by the digital elitists running the ARRL. By that time if all the "Red Herrings" were correct, it will be too late. If you are a CW, AM, SSB or narrowband digital user, all you need to know is that the entire 20M band is 350 kHz wide. What impact would a 200 kHz wide digital signal have on that band on your CW, AM, SSB or narrowband data use? If that day comes (and like the 2003 Cub Fans) we'll all be looking at a losing season and trying to make sense of it all. No doubt there will be many disappointed fans.

SPAR urges all Amateurs to follow ARRL actions closely and join us in the pursuit of full disclosure on the part of the League. We also urge the ARRL to poll members regularly on issues before filing petitions and publish the results of any polls conducted. We find ourselves in the undesired role of ARRL Watchdog, when we’d rather be partners with an open and honest ARRL. Like the Cubs of 2003, nobody wins with half a glass of water whether it is half empty or half full.

Links:
Half Empty or Half Full: www.taoism.net/living/2001/200104.htm

Carl Stevenson and 802.22: www.ieee802.org/22/

IEEE 802.22 description: www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3134

ARRL 200kHz data test on 6M: www.arrl.org/hsmm/ofdm_intro.html

Notes:
1. In the ARRL 6M test article (link provided) above, the author identifies OFDM as offset frequency division multiplexed incorrectly. OFDM is actually ORTHOGONAL frequency division multiplex. To learn more, see the article “Digital Writer Retracts 25kHz Request” on QRZ.COM in the news section on page 2.

2. Although the Bandplan Petition by the ARRL specifies 100 kHz data bandwidth for 6M abd above, the article on the 6m test (link provided) says in the first paragraph, " If this system proves successful, the ARRL may petition the FCC for use of up to 200 kHz bandwidth in the VHF amateur band. The current petition...requests 100 kHz maximum bandwidths on the VHF bands."

{Note: Edited to fix the links}

 

WHAT ARRL IDOT CAME UP WITH THIS?


http://www.arrl.org/announc....ev2.doc


They don't even seem to get that for 40+ years 50.400 IS a AM calling frequency and 50.700 commonly used for RTTY/PSK modes.

6 METERS IS NOT A EMPTY BAND ..... the first 400 khz is active except when the band is compleatly closed and 51.5 and up widely used for FM modes.

SPAR HAS THIS EXACTLY RIGHT .......

"SPAR urges all Amateurs to follow ARRL actions closely and join us in the pursuit of full disclosure on the part of the League.  We also urge the ARRL to poll members regularly on issues before filing petitions and publish the results of any polls conducted.  We find ourselves in the undesired role of ARRL Watchdog, when we’d rather be partners with an open and honest ARRL. Like the Cubs of 2003, nobody wins with half a glass of water whether it is half empty or half full."

NO ONE has asked me and i have been a leage member for almost 40 years and a life member more than 25 ...

Bruce WA4GCH
SMIRK# 70 ( issued 2/74 )
ON 6 SINCE 66

 

While I think the ARRL could do better by being more open about this process, I personally don't see anything wrong with this particular group obtaining the necessary permission to experiment on this band. I think it's an interesting experiment, and I'm one of the hams interesting in pursuing amateur digital communications on amateur frequencies. I don't think this necessarily puts any other type of traffic in danger, but, it definitely doesn't hurt for the ARRL to talk more about it and to listen to what the community has to say.

Also, in reference to WA4GCH's post, I don't see in the document to which you've linked where they said they chose those frequencies because they weren't used. They said the first segment was designated for "all modes", whereas the second was designated for "nonvoice modes".

Anyway ... my $0.02 is that they should be allowed to experiment with the appropriate oversight (which they seem to have). It may prove useful, or it may not, but we don't know until someone has tried it. A lot of the innovation in amateur radio has happened due to experimentation. Sure, this could take a turn for the worse, but so can everything else. So rather than lashing out at it, how about consider what they're trying to accomplish, looking at their results, and then keeping in touch with the ARRL regarding their plans for the future?

 

What has happened with the NARL (National Association for Amateur Radio-ARRL) over the past 8 years in particular is sad. SPAR has identified a number of areas in which ARRL Board and staff actions have been counter-productive in terms of the best interests of amateur radio in general. There is no question, from a look at committee composition, that there is a digital-elite agenda and, as SPAR points out, the majority of amateurs are not involved in the digital modes.

The area of amateur radio which I know best is Emergency Communications (EMCOMM). Unfortunately in the Emcomm arena we have seen far too much in the way of "smoke and mirrors" out of the League for a long, long time. The first anniversary of Katrina has come and gone. Yet, no report and no recommendations out of the League's Blue Ribbon Committee designed to study the Katrina response. Want to bet that the report, when it is published, will focus on how wonderful the response was and if there is a suggestion for improvement it will be that Winlink 2K ™ be expanded as the cure all needed for future disasters. Sad---very sad.

 

I don't think anyone would propose a 200KHz wide signal on a 350KHz wide band that is already well occupied. It's statements like that when people lose credibilty. 200KHz out of 4 MHz is 5% of the band. ATV can be 9 MHz wide. In the 420 band that is around 30% of the band, yet we have allowed that for years. Let them try their experiments and see where things go. It's too early to make any kind of guess on this one.

Joe

 

yes but there are ops
that just love to cry!

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING,

and of course its always the ARRL's fault

Mac

 

Mac-

Very true. ARRL, CB, NCT, FCC, etc, are all the bogeyman to some hams.

Joe

(Edited to correct Mac's name. I thought he had changed it to Mas, as in "more" in Spanish)

 

SPAR. Society to Prevent Advancement of Radio.

Dear SPAR,

If you really want your society to "Preserve Amateur Radio" you certainly can't do it by trying to:
1. Prevent legal experimentation.
2. Prevent progressive rulemaking.
3. Prevent new developments in the radio art.
4. Squelch creativity.

In fact, ham radio doesn't really need your "preservation society" to preserve it. Ham radio is vibrant and full of life. Ham radio will outlive you... if you and your ilk don't succeed in driving your "spar" through its heart.

I say, Bravo! to the innovative hams experimenting with OFDM at 50MHz! 200kHz is a reasonable bandwidth signal for the 6m VHF band. 6 meters is very sparsely populated, and a whopping 4MHz wide... it is the perfect place for those experimental stations! They have an FCC experimental license.

For those who have not used OFDM before, it is a wonderful ham radio mode, that makes maximum use of any given bandwidth. In this case, it can easily provide voice, high quality video, and texting QSO simultaneously. OFDM is also presently in use on all the HF bands with 2.5kHz bandwidth. Hams are just starting to scratch the surface of what we can do with more advanced modulation techniques.

I've got a lot of years of fun ahead in ham radio, so I'm not ready to see it "preserved" as a museum exhibit just yet. Rumors of Amateur Radio's death are a bit premature. Please don't apply the formaldehyde yet.

Full speed ahead with the High Speed Multi Media on VHF, and OFDM!

 

True. The people that restore and preserve model T's don't care if a new car comes on the market. But maybe it's "preserve" as in "keeping anything from changing". Truly, if you did preserve AR at this point, you would advocate no changes to the rules and regulations, modes or equipment. This could also be called "stagnation".

 

LETS BRING BACK SPARK GAPS ON 160 - 10 meters ....

"I personally don't see anything wrong with this particular group obtaining the necessary permission to experiment on this band.  I think it's an interesting experiment, and I'm one of the hams interesting in pursuing amateur digital communications on amateur frequencies."

So for your own selfish didital modes you would distroy all weak signal work on 6?
NOW 200 khz wide anything on 6 meters is just plane stupid. TIMES THAT BY THOUSANDS 200 khz wide each! All tring to use that segment of the band ??

HISTORY !!!! Remember the reasons for outlawing modulated osc's and spark gaps was THEY WERE TOO WIDE .... in the 1930's.

6 meters has far too many stations and thoes who think this would not render this band useless better think what will happen in a BIG band opening and how many dirty stations are on HF can you even think what THOUSANDS of 200 KHZ wide signals all +40 would do to any band??

Better think this out if you love 20 or 40 because IT WILL NOT STOP on 50 mhz ........

 

Amateurs should be as free to experiment as other amateurs are to make their own evaluation of the relevence of the experiments. Like many endeavors of the elitists, they turn discussion about what their experiments and actions in the Amateur community might mean to us into "anti-experimentation", "anti-ARRL", and "anti progress".

Since when is paying attention to what is going on stifling anything?

 

No, I don't think any signal (other than emergency ones) should necessarily take priority over any others on the amateur frequencies. We're all equal (at least, in the places where we share the same band allocations), and we use good amateur practices and etiquette to be considerate to others. Yours is no more important than mine.

As far as 200kHz bandwidths, go, like a previous poster stated, I seriously doubt they'd petition to use 200kHz on anything where the bandwidth wasn't available. I also doubt they'd be granted such privileges where it wasn't available. But there's a lot of bandwidth available on 6m, and this was for experimentation with spread spectrum technologies.

You know, it might interfere with some other stations on 6m. It's entirely possible that *any* transmission we make will interfere with others. That's where we, as responsible amateur radio operators, figure out what's best for the community and go from there. I'm not particularly up to speed on my ham history, but did all this nonsense happen when the first voice modes were used? What about the first digital modes (CW not included)? My guess is that all newcomers have been met with unwarranted skepticism, and it's probably what chases a lot of people from this hobby.

Anyway, I state my position again. Let them experiment. If there's a problem, we can deal with it then. But banning something you don't understand isn't a particularly bright idea to advocate.

 

I see the glass as mostly broken

Ed

 

Two things that should concern anyone who wants to preserve the quality of the enviornment we call ham radio:

1. The group in Newington failed to describe any efforts to avoid interference with others who could encounter the digital telemetry and be unaware of its source and identity.

2. The experiment itself did not rise to a level of public scrutiny in the amateur community until a brief and well-buried report to this group's paid and volunteer administrators.

As with other examples highlighted and discussed here and elsewhere, it is not the League's activity that many of us question, it is their invariably covert method of carrying it out.

Paul/VJB

 

w5alt none of your links work.

Test before posting.