ARRL ODFM (Spread Spectrum) Testing on 6M

It's pretty simple to me.

Behavior

You either have to legislate good behavior, or punish bad behavior to maintain order. The FCC on its own does very little to punish bad behavior. Given this fact, the rules should be written to minimize any conflict that might cause bad behavior. Otherwise it is not unreasonable to EXPECT bad behavior if we don't address the issue.

Fairness

The three parts of fairness are:

1. Spectrum should be allocated based on mode popularity as it relates to the spectrum popular modes need.

2. Mixing modes should consider how technically well they use spectrum together and how they might interfere with each other.

3. Spectrum should be allowed for digital experimentation but this should not cause undue interference with other modes.

The bandwidth proposals thus far have not addressed these simple issues.

 

Charlie,

One shortcoming in your plan is how to establish the size of the space you would provide for specialty digital modes. None of them have "caught on" among active ham radio operators to an extent that deserves full-time, reserved space on the HF bands.

The 6M experiment that spawned this thread was deliberately intended to take up a LOT of spectrum.

How do we assign a "value" to such activity in handing out spectrum allocations, when it is not popular, takes up a lot of space, and promises not to co-exist very well with mainstream operating?

The path I support involves voluntary cooperation, clear identification, and the use of today's rules against deliberate interference. it also happens to match the FCC's prevailing philosophy against handing out special treatment to any modes or activities in the form of protection, frequency set-asides, or other unfair regulatory advantages.

Paul/VJB

 

The easiest way is to assign the current data use model or (on 20m for example) 14.070 to 14.150. In other words, start where we are now practically.... CW uses 14.000 to 14.070, Data uses 14.070 to 14.150, and Analog Voice uses 14.150 to 14350.

 

I dunno Charlie, it does not seem that easy.

So it sounds like you're proposing an exclusive reservation. Okay, maybe that would work, but wouldn't the operators of existing, popular modes and activities resent the newcomers who may feel entitled to set up shop listening only for their specialty.

The more diplomatic approach may prove to be an incubator of some kind, narrow and shared slots where behavior, bona fide activity, and compatibility can be measured in practice. If they can play nice with others, then it could be considered to whether to expand the range of area these non-mainstream modes can utilize, either exclusively or on a level playing field with others, as the FCC has shown its preference for effecting.

As it stands, you've got a 200Kc 6M experiment that did not include any published anti-interference protocols, no documentation they even HAD a receiver when they were transmitting this signal, and a smarmy sort of cloaked "project" backing by a group pushing an agenda.

Hardly a nice way to introduce yourself to the neighbors.

 

I am simply suggesting that all the FCC needs to do is to open the bandwidth between 070 and 150 for "digital experimentation" up to 9kHz (same as AM). Also do what SPAR proposes and overlap voice and data for a few kHz for mixed modes. Urge the bandplanners to re-emphasize all this and the current bandplan. I heard an RTTY signal last night on 7.018 from an American station calling CQ.

Anyway, I read TAPR had their 25th Aniversary "convention" with 100 attendees. No doubt they have done some very good things, but it is a pretty clear emphasis that data use is in the minority on Amateur Radio.

 

I understand your logic, but pragmatism trumps logic in this case. You cannot ignore what the FCC has been telling us. Your spectrum allocation based on mode popularity has no precedent in the ARS. The FCC has only used the bandwidth of modes to determine if they can coexist harmoniously. The bandwidth proposals have not addressed your simple issues, because they are not issues that the FCC has been willing to regulate in the ARS.

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Yes, and we all had a very good time.

Friday was APRS day.
Saturday was Software Defined Radio Day
Sunday we learned all about FPGA's

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Fair enough, but it gets back to process. I have always been for the ARRL to push for a bandplan that addresses all the issues, which can be an overlay on a Bandwidth based allocation. For example, the regulation could be something as simple as the 100hz, 500hz, 9khz split many have proposed as long as we could see (and vote on) the bandplan overlay (addressing the concerns) BEFORE a petition was filed.

 

AG4YO says:

Back when TAPR still had a sense of responsibility about the hobby, we would have one hundred hams standing around in the corridors outside of the seminars because they were so packed. In those days, if a total of just one-hundred hams had showed up, we would have had to consider whether or not to arrainge for the hall again the following year.

It appears that TAPR is now operating under a reduced set of expectations. This would explain thier glowing announcement about a whole one hundred hams showing up at thier big anniversary whing-ding.

This hundred hams, I suppose, are the that so-called "one percent" ( I think the actual number is much lower ) of hams who are supposed to benefit from the recent ARRL/TAPR proposals to the FCC while the other 99%+ of us are screwed by them.

I guess TAPR figures that now that only a hundred or so hams bother to show up for thier big anniversary function, that those hundred hams must be more important than all the rest of us put together.

If that's not insane enough for you, consider the fact that TAPR goons managed to talk the ARRL HQ crew into agreeing with them in this assessment, with ARRL HQ backing up TAPR's anti-ham policies and proposals with the full weight of the ARRL's reputation. ( While it lasts, at any rate. )

They actually talked ARRL HQ into turning against its own membership in order to back up irresponsible and stupid proposals that threaten the very existence of amateur radio. These proposals threaten the hobby by systematically seeking to dismantle the regulatory protections that shield us from having our spectrum taken over for other uses.

I'd like to see more hams wake up and smell the roses on this stinky situation, so we can nip it in the bud.