ARRL Readies Bandwidth Recommendations

All these posts about all the good that Winlink does miss the point entirely! Amateur radio has a long history of helping with communications, whether it be using ssb, CW, NBFM, or more recently, radio email or Echolink.

One main point is whether or not 75%, or 50%, or whatever significant %, of the ham radio spectrum has to be open to Winlink's less-than-1% of the US hams at the expense of space for everyone else. They do not need that much room, even if they need more than the 18 kHz that their spokesman Howard White threw out.

The other major point is that Winlink refuses to operate in a single, contiguous, space, like CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV, and SSB phone operators do, instead, insisting on spreading randomly all over the band and depriving everyone else of the opportunity to avoid where Winlink operates.

If that were rectified, it would not be necessary to "Just say NO! to Winlink expansion." We are unable to mark our digital frequency readouts with 50 frequency ranges to stay away from, and we cannot depend on the DX station calling CQ to have done the same thing, as we must answer on whatever frequency it chooses to call CQ on, but we could easily figure out how to stay away from the FCC sub-bands for automatically controlled digital stations.

Why does Winlink consistently refuse to group in one place, like everyone else does as a matter of course?

What is so "special" about Winlink that they think they do not have to, or cannot, congregate in one place like everyone else does voluntarily?

Can Winlink explain or rectify this, first, and then we can all go on and figure out how to operate as best we can, without excessively QRM'ing our own kind?

 

I too cannot understand why this is unacceptable to the Winlink group.  They repeatedly point out how CW operators stay in what is perceived as "their" part of the band.

Here's the perspective of the average ham, not a Winlink participant, on this.  CW operators are a polite bunch, by virtue of not operating everywhere.  They have shown this type of behavior for many, many years.  The general amateur community "trusts" the CW op's to continue with this behavior, thus no additional regulation is needed.

Maybe it's the track record, maybe it's perceived arrogance, but it matters little ... the amateur community as a whole does not trust the Winlink group.  We are suspicious of them for being less than honest, secretive, and failure to answer inquiries about their operation (there are exceptions).  Therefore, the amateur community does not trust Winlink to stay in any particular spot on the dial.

No amount of improved signal detection will suffice, as the final decision on hitting the send button will always be placed upon the operator.

Lets get off the Winlink reference, and note that to have any chance to move forward without massive opposition, "TOR" style operations (Pactor, Pactor II, & Pactor III), must be seperated by bandwidth as the proposal suggests, but further seperated from everyone else by a voluntary bandplan.  There is no excuse for the Winlink camp not to accept this, as the bandwidth proposal will make it easier to dynamically change frequency allocations according to usage.  This is the solution for the immediate problem.  If the Winlink camp finds this unacceptable, then I submit that they do, indeed, have a hidden agenda to use all of the MF & HF bands.

This is why a voluntary bandplan has to be drawn up and found acceptable to the majority BEFORE the bandwidth proposal is submitted to the FCC.

Its all about compromise. Note, to show an effort towards compromise, I have abandoned the battle against internet e-mail being passed on amateur frequencies (for now ... I reserve the right to continue if it is my only way to fight what I perceive as being unfair, and should the attitude of the Winlink camp continue along its present path).  A "VE7" posted that he's glad he's not in the states ... right now, I wished I could say that.  This endless bickering is pathetic.  Don't make any mistake assuming I will stop participating in it though, as I believe there is a real danger to all outside the Winlink camp at this time.

Please ... what could possibly be the problem with this suggestion?  I would delighted to have Steve, K4CJX, address this suggestion.  His answer will dictate my actions for the remainder of the time needed to address this proposal.  And many others as well, I presume.

73,
Luke

 

Luke:

Well said.

I am unsure regarding the idea of E-mail on the ham bands. This issue is "above my pay grade" so I'll not weigh-in on it.

I think the only thing that is in the way of a solution to this whole issue is for Winlink to indicate the frequencies ranges in the various HF bands where they propose to operate. If they did this we could negotiate a voluntary blandplan -- along with every other type of amateur radio mode -- and solve the whole problem.

We wouldn't have to waste time discussing whether "semi-automatic" is or isn't a definable term. We wouldn't have to raise the issue of the extent to which a typical Winlink operator and/or his/her software "listens first".

The amateur community has a long standing tradition of establishing "gentlemen's agreements" establishing frequency ranges where various types of operation congregate. Winklink needs to step up to the plate on this and do the same.

 

Skip, where did you get this? Did you make it up? Since my QRZ messenger has been empty for weeks and your email address has been on my accept list ever since you threatened to subpoena me to testify against Winlink and the FCC a few years ago, your email still remains on that list. Again, what are you trying to accomplish here? In the future, please refrain from using my callsign in your postings.

Dr. Ed AE4TM

 

I threatened to subpeona you to testify against Winlink AND the FCC?    

You wrote: "For the past several weeks, someone feels "blessed" to pirate others calls and send out junk characters for hours at a time outside the current Gentleman's agreements. Fortunately the FCC has a fix. Guess who it is?"


Since you are now accessible, who is it, Ed? From your email it looks like the FCC has told you, or are you just phishing?

Here is what I received when I tried to politely reply to you:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

 NoSpam@ae4tm.com
   unrouteable mail domain "ae4tm.com"

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <hteller@comcast.net>
Received: from redwing.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.246])
by fallback-peafowl.pas.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #4)
id 1DN1ap-00027K-00
for NoSpam@ae4tm.com; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:41:11 -0700
Received: from egret-120.pocket ([10.4.120.211] helo=egret.mail.pas.earthlink.net)
by redwing.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
id 1DN1ap-0003s4-00
for NoSpam@ae4tm.com; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:41:11 -0700
X-MindSpring-Loop: ae4tm@ecjones.org
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39])
by egret.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EarthLink Mail Service) with ESMTP id 1dn1AM45O3NZFmj0
for <ae4tm@ecjones.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nec (pcp01016352pcs.mplsnt01.sc.comcast.net[68.59.23.165])
         by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP
         id <2005041704410801500nn0lpe>; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:41:08 +0000
Message-ID: <00a901c54306$a6d3f2a0$6400a8c0@nec>
From: "Skip Teller" <hteller@comcast.net>
To: <ae4tm@ecjones.org>
Subject: Who is it?
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:33:49 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Who is it?

73, Skip  KH6TY

 

Charles:

I found your post of 16 April 2005 that started with "In Australia, the Winlink stuff is illegal." The post included my name. However, I fear that the quote misleads readers about my opinion and role in promoting amateur radio and Winlink in Australia.

Your position vis-à-vis Winlink would be more credible had you made the effort to assess the current situation in Australia about Winlink. In fact, there are now three (3) legally-operating Winlink stations in Australia. For your information, these stations played a major role in providing emergency support during the aftermath of the recent tsunami disaster.

Having played a major role in the legalization of Winlink in Australia, I am dismayed that there now appears to be so much discord among amateur radio operators in the US about Winlink. Without wishing to buy into your political situation, I almost gain the impression that civil debate on just about any issue, including Winlink, appears to be fueled by polarized ideological extremists. In Australia we tend to look up to the US as the example for innovation in technological development and, yes, as a champion of civilized debate. These admirable qualities are not "self-evident" in the posts that I saw at www.qrz.com.

Your post, like some in the past in Australia, perpetuates the lack of understanding of what Winlink is all about. Much of the venom appears to be directed at Winlink's feature to store and forward email. This, of course, is "much ado about nothing." Do Winlink email opponents really believe that anyone with Internet access would choose to send their email via erratic, unreliable and slow amateur radio means? Of course they do not!

Let me tell you how Winlink is used by the typical User, that is, by people in extremely remote locations. These are the people without access to any other form of electronic communication. I'll quote from my recent experience cruising by sailboat from the Atlantic to the Pacific side of the Americas via the Panama Canal. (Of course, Winlink serves also the many land mobiles in outback Australia.)

On board while underway, first thing in the morning we would send a request to Winlink for the local marine weather forecasts, as well as the report about hurricane developments in far away oceans that might affect the safety of our crew and vessel. At the same time we would file a Position Report with a small caption indicating our situation so that relatives and friends can view this on the Internet and be reassured of our well being. Occasionally, we might also ask for the “Piracy Report.” That risk was increasing in our cruising area, for example, in Venezuela. In respect of the international security situation, which as you would know is now destabilized, we occasionally might also ask for a news digest to reassess longer term destinations .

In the process of gathering this essential information we may or may not send or receive email. The type of email that we send is usually about matters that pertain to the prevention of emergencies, like the need to restock a medicine, replace a pair of prescription glasses lost overboard or the repair of an engine part. We periodically file a "Float Plan" or itinerary of our proposed next stage of travel so that those who need to know are aware of our intentions. Email that we might receive is usually from family who alert us to an emergency at home, like a hospitalized parent, or an insurance premium that needs renewal. Obviously, there is no idle gossip as it takes time to make a “connect” with a free station; when the maximum connect time is only 30 minutes per 24 hours; and, because onboard power supply is limited.

Of course, some opponents advanced that all of these communication needs can be met by using commercially available services. If they so believe than I would dare them to get me a quote for 30 minutes connect time that will provide worldwide weather charts and text reports; position reports; piracy reports; access to medical advice; filing of itineraries; and email - all in error free digital format. All digital is a must. Just try to relay – error free - by voice, a spreadsheet that shows lost and found sailing vessels in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia after the tsunami.

However, what counts more than anything else is the "service" in Amateur Radio Service. Hams are noted worldwide for their dedication to volunteer public service. There is no greater service than assisting others in remote locations during emergencies and from a mariner's point of view, especially, the prevention of emergencies. Amateurs worldwide, including now in Australia, provide that support to US cruisers. By the same token foreign cruisers receive reciprocal support when within radio range of the US. That’s amateur radio at its very best!

US amateur radio should not go the same way as Australia did when guided by people who regarded anything but CW as not worthy of amateur radio. The Wireless Institute of Australia (WIA - the equivalent of ARRL) has now less than 3,000 full members. But recently WIA reinvented itself and moved with the times. Also, the Australian Communications Authority, the regulator, following WRC 2003 undertook an exhaustive participatory review of the status and role of amateur radio. It resulted in the formulation of one of the most advanced and liberal regulations of amateur radio in the world. Therefore, in using examples of other countries to support of your views; please, in the future make use of the most up-to-date information.

To close, most unfortunately, participation in amateur radio, including Winlink, must be regarded as an opportunity for training radio amateurs in emergency communications. The risk of natural and manmade disasters and emergencies, as the world including the US recently experienced, has increased. When power supplies and parts of the Internet are down, and commercial and official communications dismally fail, properly trained and experienced radio amateurs can stay on the air almost indefinitely. Let’s hope that US amateurs will stop the apparent internecine bickering, and instead continue to support progress, innovation and civil debate.

Anthony Van Vugt (VK1VM - KN4VM)
Founder www.aussiewinlink.org

 

This is just what we need. A giant wifi dx network loaded with automatic robots qrming everyone who tries to use the bands in the interest of some greedy slob out to make more money at all amateurs expense. I hope the FCC shoots this mess down in flames. I can imagine this as nothing but a nightmare for them to enforce. The FCC barely can enforce the existing rules we have, let alone this mess. And whats to stop pirates from just buying gear and getting on the bands unlicensed when nobody without a fancy thousand dollar modem can tell who or what they are transmitting? This also opens the door to illegal buisness operation on the amateur bands by allowing people to send buisness related email unchecked by even an OO, unless they purchase said modem. And what about the unmanned robots qrming qso`s all over the spectrum while some idiot checks his email? I have nothing against digital technology, even on ham radio. But this proposal seems to just open the floodgates wide open to digital all over the spectrum with signals as wide as phone. Not a good thing! This is a recipe for disaster. If this mess passes, imagine the whole spectrum flooded with contest like noise, except it will be digital noise instead of morons screaming 5-9. This opens a can of worms I hope the FCC is smart enough to avoid like the plague.

 

Wow Skip,

Your headers are just great. In the event you do decide to subpoena me to testify against the FCC, will these headers you posted actually agree with those provided by my ISP? Think twice my friend.

Ed

 

Gee, Ed, I don't know! Why don't you post yours so we can see...

 

Since this thread started out discussing some technical stuff. I would like to throw some questions out to see how everyone answers them in relation to the band plan.

1) What mode designator would be used for (i.e., 3K00J3E):

Pactor 1
Pactor 2
Pactor 3
PSK31
MFSK31

2) What mode is the transmitter in when operating the above modes?

3) When using a sound card, if the background noise is high, what limits the RF bandwidth of the transmitter? Would it meet a designator like 0K50J3D?

4) When using digital modems, if the transmitter "picks up" noise, what limits the RF bandwidth of the transmitter? Would it meet a designator like 0K50J3D?

5) Is anybody experimenting with other types of modulation, i.e. pulses or is everyone using single sideband suppressed carrier?

6) Would it be correct to say there is little experimentation going on with any unique types of modulation?

7) Would it be correct to say there is little experimentation going on with other modulation techniques like QAM on the HF bands? Why?

8) Will the ARRL's proposed bandplan limit any experimentation with other modulation techniques, or will we be RESTRICTED to SSB?

 

1. First, I am not going to try to play "name that mode". There are valid points that one may make for more than one mode type. That question must be defined as "in this service, this mode designator is used for this type of transmission".

2. Most transmitters are in SSB, so that the maximum amount of power is available to the transmitted information.

3. Why difference would background noise make? The DSP generates the tones. Unless there is a poorly designed interface, the input to the transmitter should have at the VERY least a 50 dB SNR.

4. Same answer as (3.). Transmitters do not "pick up" noise. Noise may be coupled through bad interfaces, but it does not magically appear.

5. Pulse modulation (OOK) would have to be at a VERY slow (in relation to common data bit rates) repetition rate to fit inside a 3 kHz bandwidth. (Look at the bandwidth versus speed for CW.) Rise and fall times impact bandwidth, limiting the information rate well below the maximum. To pass through a 2.1 kHz filter, the maximum rate for OOK would have to be in the vicinity of 1000 Baud.

6. Any ideas?

7. Now here is an area where I can claim a bit of expertise, as I have designed HF modems for military tactical and special operations usage. (I also created the concept that became GTOR. It was divulged in a 1993 meeting with Phil Anderson.)

Short answer: Yes.

Correct answer: QAM is usable with these caveats:

Correct detection of a symbol is dependent upon correct recovery of both amplitude and phase. (difficult on HF)

By definition, QAM requires us to be able to have 8 points in the "constellation" to send 3 bits per Baud, represented by :

Bit value Amplitude Phase shift
000 Half None
001 Full None
010 Half 90 deg
011 Full 90 deg
100 Half 180 deg
101 Full 180 deg
110 Half 270 deg
111 Full 270 deg

These shifts in phase on a single tone produce frequency components that are several times the highest signaling tone frequency. This widens the bandwith, and limits the information rate. (Think of the situation where my tone has just completed a positive half-cycle, and most now shift 180 degrees - producing another positive half-cycle. The frequency components in the reversal greatly exceed the tone frequency.) For that reason, QAM is difficult to deploy in a limited bandwidth.

Also, because the system uses amplitude, it can be severely upset by the common phenomenon of "selective fading" - caused by the combination of signals from constantly changing reflection layers.

For these reasons, QAM is not the best performer on HF.

(Wireline and fiber QAM-nnn implementations use up to 512 points in the constellation.)

(QPSK provides some advantage over straight QAM, but still lacks robustness over HF.)

WHY FSK/AFSK: In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize recovery at the receiver, we need all transitions to be PHASE CONTIGUOUS. This implies that we may transition at some interger multiple of the tone frequencies and/or control our tone generation so that no tone ever begins or ends at any point other than at the zero crossing - and in phase.

Because our tones must now (hopefully obviously) be a multiple of the Baud (symbol or signaling) rate, we must design our system based upon some inter-related factors. Further, the optimum tone shift for a given Baud rate is equal to the Baud rate (or a multiple thereof).

From these factors, we may conclude that (for instance) a 300 Baud modem should have a shift of 300 Hz. This is "kinda" true. A shift of 600 Hz would actually be better on HF, as we would further separate the tones, and enhance "in band diversity". The trade-off, obviously, is wider bandwidth - which implies that we will encounter more noise in the passband of the receiving modem. (Which leads to yet another design decision...)

When we need to run faster data rates, the common technique is to employ multiple ORTHOGONALLY SPACED tones, and coherently shift plus and minus from the "center" frequency. (Orthogonal spacing places tone "B" at the power minima of tones "A" and "C".)

Because HF is a VERY noisy environment, we must signal very slowly. A signaling rate of 75 Baud to 100 Baud is common. We can successfully transmit 2400 bps to 3600 bps over 16 tones within a < 2 kHz bandwidth. To reduce or prevent re-transmission, in band diversity may be used if selective fading is encountered (slowed data rate), and techniques of automatic error detection and correction may be employed by using symbol look-up tables with error correcting patterns (no impact on data rate).

8: If one can output the signal, one is not restricted to any type of transmitter. The signal will look the same. Essentially, the transmitter is just translating the baseband to the output frequency.

 

Analysis of the ARRL Bandwidth Proposal posted in the "Just say NO to Winlink expansion" thread.  The numbers tell the real story behind the proposal.  There is no verbage from anyone that suggests any additional limitations to digital allocations as of this posting.

Considering that 89.81% of ALL MF & HF Amateur Radio allocations will become digital's "playground", ask yourself if this is fair to all amateur radio operators.

 

This is a very interesting subject, and I would like to take a stab at answering your questions and include my reasoning. I read your qualifications, let me quickly state mine.

I am systems engineer and systems integrator. Which means that one of my duties has been to take the boxes that you design and put them together with other boxes to satisfy the requirments of that particular system. With that said, I am a big fan of the ITU emissions designators, because for me it takes the ambiguity out of what is required when it comes to the:

type of modulation of the main carrier

nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier, or as I like to put it the nature of the baseband signal

type of information to be transmitted, or another way of saying it, the content of the transmission.

So starting with your 1.1 I want to start with the 1st symbol (excluding the necessary bandwidth).

Since Pactor 1 is a FSK emission, then the first symbol is normally an F. Now as you correctly indicated in your post, a Single Sideband radio can transmit my many modulation types, simply because SSB is a frequency translation process. The base band audio frequency is translated to the operating frequency. The ITU did include Single-sideband, suppressed carrier as a specific modulation type, and gave called it J. So J is also a valid first character for Pactor I.

Pactor II is DPSK so the first symbol is most correctly a G, but it can be argued that an F is just as appropriate; and for the reasons listed above J is also good. In fact the same reasoning applies to Pactor III, and PSK31.

I am not familiar with MFSK31, but I am familiar with MFSK8 and MFSK16, so my answer applies only to those modes. MFSK8 and MFSK16 are m-ary FSK signals with 8 and 16 FSK levels. Since these are FSK emissions, then the first symbols listed for Pactor I apply.

Now on to the second symbol. All of the modes you listed contain a single channel containing quantized or digital information without the use of a modulating sub-carrier. The second symbol is a 1. The audio input to a single sideband transmitter is considered a modulating sub-carrier many times so a 2 is appropriate when the first symbol is a J. All of the modes listed can be transmitted with a properly designed transmitter that is used for F3E emissions. In this case a 2 is most definitely appropriate.

The third symbol is what gets us in trouble. It is the least technical of the symbols and describes the type of information to be transmitted. All but one of the third symbol definitions is clearly defined. Data (D) is the most ambiguous and least well defined third symbol type in all of CFR Title 47. Telemetry and telecommand are well defined but data transmission is ambiguous. Because of this ambiguity, data is sometimes substituted for digital, which is incorrect. For the listed modes, the third symbol depends on what it is you are trying to send. B, C, and D are most common, but E is not out of the question.

The necessary bandwidth is the minimum value of the occupied bandwidth sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required for the system employed, under specified conditions. We can look at the modes that you have enumerated and simply look at their occupied bandwidths. A properly designed and adjust transmitter will be necessary to meet the minimum bandwidths. Here is my analysis of these signals.

PACTOR I 350 Hz but 500Hz is better
PACTOR II 500 Hz
PACTOR III 2.4 KHz 3KHz is better
PSK31 32 Hz 50 Hz is better
MFSK16 350Hz 500Hz is better

Putting it all together:

Pactor I 350HF1B, 350J2B
Pactor II 500HG1B, 500HF1B, 500HJ2B
Pactor III 2K4G1B, 2K4F1B, 2K4H2B
PSK31 32HG1B, 32HF1B, 32HJ2B
MFSK16 350HF1B, 350H J2B

I only listed one third symbol, but others apply. In our current regulations emissions authorization is given my the definitions in 97.3c. 97.305 lists authorized emissions by band and relies on the definitions of rtty, data, phone, and image. The modulation types and nature of the modulating signals are very generous. There is really no mode that is restricted. The third symbol enumeration makes a problem for us in the HF bands because in many cases you must change frequency when your content type changes.

2. The mode that the transmitter is in for Pactor I is FSK but the mode could also be USB, or LSB. For all of the rest it is USB, or LSB

3. One has to assume a properly designed soundcard. Your point is well taken however.

4. Again point well taken.

5. I use FSK, USB, and LSB. I think you would agree it is much simpler that way, but I always go back to the fact that we have to assume properly designed and aligned equipment.

6. Absolutely not. SSB transmitters give us the ability to experiment with all types of modulation types. Frequency translation is very flexible.

7. I think PACTORIII uses QAM. There is a software package called HamDRM that uses QAM. You need to be careful what it is you are transmitting and make sure you are in the proper subband when you are in the 80 through 10-meter bands.

8. That is a good question, something to think about.

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Skip,

Why do you continually bring up trash in order to get a reaction? This will be the fourth time I have refuted your accusations regarding an all-user message that will periodically be sent to refresh the email list. There have been NO virus's, only attempts. When a certain number of attempts for SPAM and virus's bounce off the firewall, we simply refresh the list.


Steve, k4cjx

 

Luke,

There are approximately 24 Winlink stations operating in the US. These are publicaly listed. (Do you publicaly list your frequencies? If you did, how many would you list?)

Those Winlink stations operating Pactor 3, do so in the Part 97.221 sub-bands. They share their operation with machine-to-machine or fully-automated stations who have no means of listening before they transmit. Our current problem, not yours.

About 90 percent of the operation consists of Pactor 3 within these narrow sub-bands. Narrow? How about 5 to 10 total KHz for a 2.1 KHz signal? Not good for digital exspansion, at least for data transfer.

The other 8-to-10 percent of the Winlink usage consists of Pactor 1, and 2 and it is contained within a 400 Hz bandwidth.

This 8 percent operates in the following areas:

3590 to the bottom of the auto sub-band. However, there are only 10 such US station, and one is in Hawaii.

7077 to 7064 except for the areas between 7070 and 7072.

10123 to 10130, but this operation is now mainly in the auto sub-band along with P3 in order to save space, and user time.

14077 to 14064 except for the areas between 14070 and 14072.

The average scan time for each station is 9 to 18 seconds. Each station spends a maximum of 3 seconds on each frequency it scans. Most stations scan 2 to 4 frequencies per radio used in order to provide the user with a clear frequency option for their station.

The Airmail client software will only call for a period of 3 seconds per frequency scanned of the calling station plus a three second FEC identification containing the station called and the calling station.

PMBO K4CJX operates two frequencies on 30 meters unless a radio is broken. That is a total scan cycle of 3.0 seconds on one frequency and 2.4 on another, totaling approximately 6 seconds. Someone calling will call for 9 seconds.

None of this is a secret. It is public information. Much more so than most operations and certainly more than future auto-response digital operations will proivide, I am sure.

I would think that those stations operating Winlink 2000 are much more exposed than the other Amateur stations, and this is intentional, because there is nothing to hide.

Lastly, regardless of what you hear, there is no opposition to semi-auto operations being in their own space, but the major point here is that this space should not be formally regulated any more than any other type of operation. WE HAVE THAT NOW. HOW DO YOU LIKE IT? Only 8-to-10 percent of the US Winlink operation is anywhere other than an existing sub-band.

On UHF, today, there is an option to connect the ICOM ID-1 to a router and via Amateur radio and surf the Internet with the same radio on the other end. It takes about five minutes to set it up. On a much more limited basis, what is to keep this from taking place on the HF bands as digital protocols are enhanced? NOTHING. But this has nothing to do with your easy current target, Winlink 2000.

What do you do with the formally regulated space when the mode or methodology used for that space is no longer used? You have vast pockets of dead spectrum space just like you now have today, and if these spaces are formally regulated, they will remain dead until someone proposes a change. Such change typically takes from 5 to 10 years. That is, unless someone with lobby with money gobbles them up because they are not being used.

I have no particular interest in having the SSB and AM communities with their many KW operations use the entire wideband spectrum. Nor would I want to see the 9 or 6 KHz enhanced SSB or AM take over the entire wideband spectrum. However, what portion should the 9 KHz wideband enhanced SSB use? What portion should DV use? How about Digital operations as it pertains to being tied into a router like device on the slave end? How about auto-start RTTY? How much space should it take? How should the CW and PSK and other such FEC protocols be split? How about answering these questions and posting them. You will certainly have that opportunity, soon. As for Winlink 2000, if I am asked to participate in such a plan, I will respond just like you will as a response to my post.

So, Luke, what should we do, specifically, please? I would be delighted to hear your response. I have no idea what will result if space is given to digital development over 500 Hz. However, I do know I cannot recommend that it become hard-coded in formal regulation.

Luke, here you are on the Internet reading my post and stating that you are putting the Integration of Amateur radio and the Internet "on hold." Funny that those bashing the integration of Amateur radio with the Internet are using the Internet to to the bashing.




Steve, k4cjx