ARRL Readies Bandwidth Recommendations

Steve, maybe we don't hear each other too well at times, but this is the answer to one of my questions that I've been asking for a long time.  I agree!  Formal regulation should not be necessary ... but ... why can't allocations be assigned according to immediate need by way of a voluntary bandplan or gentlemen's agreement?  This does not bind anyone to any long term commitments, and this type of coordination is easily changed.  I state this has to be done BEFORE submittal of any bandwidth proposal to the FCC, or the opposition will continue. I believe the majority will not accept mixing of digital and analog voice in the same spectrum, and I agree. They are incompatable with each other, and its just begging for trouble. The technical issues with this proposal need to be addressed as well.  We sure don't want the FCC doing our homework for us.

Well, for reasons I stated in the post you are responding to, its up to you guys to operate in a manner that will gain trust of the amateur community to prevent this.  If the entire community feels that digital operations will adhere to a voluntary bandplan as a 2nd layer of coordination, then it need not be hard-coded in regulation.  I personally find the concept entirely acceptable, but I cannot speak for others.  I tell you, from my viewpoint, this is the first time you have issued a statement with any value that indicates your intention is NOT to expand all over the bands.

Steve ... there is no integration when I post on QRZ.  These are two seperate activities.  My internet computer is on one side of my shack, my radio equipment on the other. I would just as willingly discuss this with you on the band of your choice, if you desire. I prefer voice though ... and to tell the truth, I don't find this medium particulary easy to convey true feelings and intentions.  It's just too impersonal, and the grandstanding that we are all guilty of distorts the real meaning of some posts. Too interpretive.
Steve, it may feel like bashing on your end when we relentlessly ask questions that go unanswered. That is not intended ... we have real concerns, and we are trying to work with you guys, and everyone SHOULD have a say in this, as this proposal has the capability of changing the very "look and feel" of amateur radio. Its way past time to resolve these issues.  After all, there is limited amount of spectrum available to us, and we're gonna have to share, like it or not.  Right now, all of us are spending premium operating time arguing over where all of us are going to operate.  Ironic indeed.

I appreciate the toned down dialog ... I hope we can get all of this worked out to most everyone's satisfaction so we can get on with our other interests. Staying with this type of dialog should speed this up considerably.

73,
Luke

 

Steve, for what its worth, I agree that you guys are crowded into a very small segment of spectrum. There is ample underused spectrum that should be re-assigned. This is where much support is available for you guys ... just for the asking, in my opinion.

 

One of the problems people have with winlink on HF is that although the above quote says what you have today it doesn't say how many you will have in the future, 1 year, 2 years, 10 years down the road.

You want to assuage our fears, give us a firm forecast of how many HF stations you will limit your system to, ever.

This is just not winlink bashing. Let me explain, your system would never fly in a commercial environment where a single frequency license may cost (for example only) one million dollars. With spectrum costs like this, your first priority would be to minimize spectrum use and maximize usage.

Would you let us know how this rates in winlink's goals? Does winlink have any specs or design documents available that discuss how this will be accomplished?

What everyone here has been trying to tell you is that there is a spectrum cost to each station you add. It may not be monetary, but there is a cost in reduced frequencies available for other interests. Because of this cost, everyone is expecting your service to have as one of its basic and fundamental goals, the design intent of minimizing the frequencies needed.

I was around in telecommunications when the computer and data terminal craze in businesses begain. IBM charged an arm and leg for the data ports and terminals (in essence radios/modems). They also required a dedicated cable between each of them (frequency spectrum). Do you know what limited their sales capability? It wasn't really the data port and terminal cost, it was the limited infrastructure to install cables, i.e. the lack of frequency spectrum. Buildings just didn't have the capacity for this much cable. As time went by, IBM expanded their sales capablity by coming up with token ring technology that maximized the usage of a single cable. In other words, the maximum amount of traffic on a single frequency.

One of my long term jobs in telecommunications was network design. I can recognize in your system, that it is essentially unbounded in mathematical terms. This means as your customer base and usage increases, your channel capacity must increase almost exponentially to handle the traffic. This occurs because you do not have the means to detect busy channels or the means to handle multiple requests on a single channel, i.e, queuing in its most basic sense. There is no way to characterize the traffic and use established poisson, erlang, neil-wilkerson or other traffic engineering methodologies to determine the number of stations you need. Read up on CDMA/CA (Collision Detection Multiple Access Collision Avoidance and token ring (if you can find much) to see how some of their basic principles could be used to maximize the usage of a single station.

I could sit here and describe a basic system using a token passing scheme and variable timing transmit windows from CDMA/CA but that isn't the point I am wanting to make. To many folks, by ignoring the cost of HF amateur radio spectrum you appear to be more interested in the art of the internet when most feel you should be interested in the art of radio and preserving spectrum.

The only apparent reason that people can determine for why you are not minimizing HF spectrum use is because the spectrum is "free" as far as monetary costs. You also refuse to even acknowledge that the interference and the number of channels used by winlink extract a cost from everyone else.

Just think how much less critcism you would receive if you could show everyone the design specs and their implementation for how you have designed the system to minimize the amount of frequenies required.

Jim
WA0LYK

 

To all,

I had been thinking of telling my director that I disagreed with the bandwidth plan and recommending the Canadian plan. However, last night something else came to me.

What do you think about using the necessary bandwidth as expressed in emission designators as the determing factor? That is, less than or equal to 2K50XXX is the lower portion of a band and greater than 2K50XXX is the upper.

Certain designators could be allowed in other portions, i.e., CW (XXXHA1A) throughout the band, or some could be restricted.

This would then give maximum flexibility to developing a band plan that would assign certain emission types to certain segments.

New emission types would only have to use the ITU/FCC accepted calculations for determing necessary bandwidth to decide where they operate.

It would certainly remove one of my main complaints about having to measure the occupied bandwidth of transmitters to insure they meet the requirement. You also wouldn't need waivers for DSB-AM or ISB or anything else. You could also set a limit for necessary bandwidths like 10K0.

Jim
WA0LYK

 

Luke,

I have NEVER stated that I am opposed to segmentation on the Amateur bands. Others with axes to grind about Internet integration, personal vendettas, and such have made assumptions in order to promote their points-of view. What I have stated is that I have opposition to formal regulation, period. It just does not work, and it takes too long to implement change. On the other hand, it will put the burdon of responsibility on the Amateur community, which some feel very uncomfortable with. They would rather have "Big Brother" do the work.

Their is no telling what digital formats, protocols or methodologies will be forthcoming, and that includes Winlink 2000 or anything like it. I can tell you this: regardless of the label given to any particular protocol or service, they will be as small or large as the user community makes it. If no finds value in any such operation, again, including Winlink 2000, then it will be small in comparison to whatever is in favor at the time. However, if those who use it, find it appealing and the appeal spreads, then obviously, it will grow. That is about as far as I can take any prediction.

Currently, we ONLY provide additional stations where additional users are found. There is no great satisfaction just sitting their watching your radio spin without it being used. Pior to the Tsunami disaster, there was not much activity in that area. Now there is.

In addition, the system is tightly administered in order to keep it clean and free of all kind of grimlins. Most of the administration is now automatic such as real-time network monitoring of stations, logs of activities, redundant server operations, etc. And, there is the task of monitoring message content, regardless of origination or destination. Look at it as a "controlled Net"
and one that no one has to use if they choose otherwise.

One factor that is overlooked on all these discussions, and one that has grown faster and larger than I would have ever imagined, and that is the use of Winlink 2000 in emergency communications. It has always been used on HF by many, but lately the "last mile" need within communities, has put Packet radio back on the map in certain areas, and placed new digital opportunities in front of those who wish to take advantage of them. And, it is not over. We are in the bushes waiting for several promising protocols on VHF/UHF that will assist those wishing to provide EmComm for their community agencies. To my surprise, this is happening everywhere, and not just in the U.S.

The use of Winlink 2000 for EmComm is not meant to replace anything that currently exists, but to add a value-added component to the existing toolkit already being deployed by Amateurs, everywhere. How to fix the generator, provision of innoculation or food inventory for shelters, and other complex messaging that requires accuracy and a permanent record for point-to-multi-point communications. For emergency communications, we are working diligently on supplimenting broken Internet links with Amateur radio links in the UHF spectrum. The use of de factor SMTP email has made a positive impact on the way Amateurs are viewed by those who need EmComm in their communities.

All this is happening today, and tomorrow, something could replace it in a heartbeat, or it could continue to grow. It is all dependent on the user community to make those determinations. It is also limited by the number of people who are willing to write code, and administer the system.

So, in answering your question, Winlink 2000, like any other Amateur activity, is driven by consumption, not production. Also, LIKE ANY OTHER Amateur activity, it will need to be sliced and diced in order to make it properly fit into the Amateur spectrum, not statically over a ten year period, but dynamically, as use increases or diminishes.

Regarding the "toned down dialog," it is difficult to see bulletin type "Bull #### in bold" messages with no-truths and half-truths, and purposely placed misinformation in some of these posts. Fortunately, it also turns off those responsibile for carrying our choices forward. It also does not create an atmosphere for discussion, just one for broadcasting obvious vendettas.

Lastly, in my opinion, like it or not, if we are going to attract new Amateurs, or remain here ourselves, we must stop fighting the Internet. Fighting the Internet is like standing in middle of the tracks, demanding that an on-comng train move asside. Like it or not, we will survive more easily if we embrace the Internet, and use it to our advantage. That is, not to replace Amateur radio, but to bring it along with the rest of telecommunications in this century. How much time do you spend on the Internet compared to the time you spend on the (HF) air?

Thanks for your comments,



Steve, k4cjx

 

Unfortunately, embracing the internet will be the destruction of amateur radio. You are living proof of that. Using our hf frequencies for email is just about the worst use of amateur radio that I could possibly imagine.

The internet does have uses. It does not have to become part of amateur radio. Why should it? Why not use the internet when you can use the internet, and radio when you can use radio? Why do they have to be intertwined? Why not create the IES, Internet Emergency Service? You will literally have millions of potential operators willing to invest their time. Why is it so essential that it become part of amateur radio?

 

Why not? It's just another tool in our communications bag.

For one thing, I can see generating data in one place and using the internet to connect it to a remote transmission site. I received weather images from a commerical source that came down from the remote microwave receiving system over a TCP/IP network and I processed them in a ground station. One could develop multi-processor schemes to achieve increased computing power to handle complex tasks and distribute the results. The internet has not been explored at all as source for additional tools for use by our community.

BTW, I distributed precipitation images using a compression algorithm developed at M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory to general aviation aircraft reducing the cost of this service from $100k to $8k. The images where as large as 512x512 and were compressed to fit in space of 3500 bits. It took 15 seconds to send these images to the aircraft display. The tranmission mechanism was via the datalink capability of a Mode S transponder using X.25 packet protocol. We have not even begun to use suitable data compression techniques on the air in our service.

There are a lot of things that can be done with digital technology that are not being done today. The flexibility represented by the proposed plan, with appropriate modifications, will provide the necessary venues for these developments.

There is one thing that may not be evident in all of this and that is that there may be some contraction of phone spectrum should there be an explosion of amateur activities using new modes. I don't think the phone community truely understands this possibility or that they do and are ready to fight it. In fact, I think there are a number of people that see this very problem and they are unwilling to permit this to happen.

Ken

 

Digital and Internet are not synonyms.  I have no problem with digital modes.  I do have a problem with trying to turn radio into the internet, and the internet into radio.  I do have a problem with email on radio.  I would also have a problem with weather forecasts on amateur radio HF in ANY format.  There are much better services to handle this type of communication.

 

It's just another tool for the tool kit!

Ken

 

It's a tool that can take an enormous amount of bandwidth.  It's a tool that has huge potential abuse.  Email is not checked by anyone, nor is anyone pinned with the responsiblity of whether the content is legal or not.  

What's next?  Amateur radio internet explorer?  Porn?

 

Look, the stations involve are responsible for the content. K4CJX has indicated that they are monitoring the content.

E-mail is legal as long as the content meets the usual specifications. Use of the a browser to surf the net is not legal. There are advertisements that violate the content regulations and Porn certainly is illegal under international law not just FCC regulations!

I think you are obsessing with you dislike of digital modes and with WL2k in particular. You need to get a grip on reality.

Digital is the way all communications is header. We do have to balance spectrum access for all modes according usage. If digital usage is growing, it should get more space. I'm sorry if this does not agree with your vision of amateur radio. There will have to many compromises over the next 10 years and even after that. You can not just define amateur radio by some past standard and say it can not grow beyond this point.

AR is going to change. That is a given, but what it will become is unknown. I have my concerns about the growing usage by recreational users who are not really interest in amateur radio, but rather in a service someone is pushing.

You may recall the explosive growth that VHF/UHF FM repeaters experience prior the introduction of cell telephones. I can tell you that many people were attached to amateur radio, not for amateur radio's sake, but for their own personal desire to be where it's at and have the latest and greatest gadget. Autopatching became a rage and is now nearly gone because one can use a cell phone from nearly anywhere. WL2k is another of these success stories. It will go its own way once the next great advancement comes along.

Ken

 

That's not what he said.  He said they are responsible just as any other "store and forward" system.  That essentially means, if it is illegal, someone has to make the person aware of it, and once they become aware they have to stop forwarding.  Meanwhile, it was still forwarded.  There is actually NO ONE to hold responsible under fcc law.

Files are transferred all of the time.  Are you telling me winlink knows exactly what is being transferred?  They look at every picture?  They read every email?  No way.

No, I think you are confusing winlink with something that is good for amateur radio.  I think you look at it as progress.  I look at is as a disgraceful use of our frequency spectrum.  I have no problem with digital modes, but there should be a way to allow these modes as their popularity increases.  This band plan is a free-for-all.

As far as reality goes, I understand the dangers completely.  There is no way I am going to sit on my butt knowing what the potential is here.  After it happens it is too late.

Yes, I mentioned this very same thing in the other thread.

We have the ability to make it a known commodity if we choose to do so.  We don't have to make it a hodge-podge of junk that no one will ever bother with, and we don't have to make it the internet.  We already have the internet.  We don't need to re-invent it.

 

We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our prejudices. What is so, so what!


Steve, k4cjx

 

Winlink 2000 complies with §97.221 for an Automatically controlled digital station:

For Wider than 500 Hz: 97.221 (b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments.

For 500 Hz: 97.221 © A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on ANY OTHER frequency authorized for such emission types provided that: (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

----

Winlink 2000 complies with §97.109 Station control, for 3rd Party traffic rules:

(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, EXCEPT a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.

---

Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219© for 3rd Party traffic Content Rules:

§97.219© provides protection for licensees operating as part of a message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part are NOT accountable for the violative communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such communications once they become aware of their presence.“


(AGAIN...From the FCC QUOTES FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004.)

"As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.[1] We believe that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator’s development of new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications that COMBINE image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency segments where data emissions are authorized is NOT a technical reason, but rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image and data emission types on any HF frequency segments.[2] We also note that amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we ARE persuaded that our Rules are NOT in harmony with current emission and operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio operators in advancing the radio art."

I know I have repeatedly placed this statement on these discussions, but apparently, some are not reading the words. So, there they are again. I do not see anything that opposes the IETF RFC 2821 for SMTP mail, which has certainly become the de facto standard for written communications, Amateur or otherwise.

Likewise, after cross-connecting the ICOM D-Star 100,000 bps ID-1 to a router, and the other end to a computer to find that I essentially had an Amateur Radio UHF CAT 5 cable, although of no use or interest to me personally, I can see how this would interest the younger Amateur, who has grown up on the Internet. Likewise, when using 802.11 to bridge Winlink components, I notice that those younger, more Internet proned Amateurs find this facinating.

Rocks are hard, water is wet and things change. We cannot do something we don't know if we keep doing what we do know. Meanwhile, those with the Billions of dollars are flying over us like vultures, waiting for signs of disagreement about our antiquated technologies.



Steve, k4cjx

 

Steve,

This is why I support this proposal PERIOD.

I have referred to this statement in my comments a number of times.

I think that there will be a hew and cry because of this proposal because it removes the restrictions from the regulations that have made things comfortable for many.

There are people that are still obsessing over INCENTIVE LICENSING whether or not it was a success or failure it became the law. I think something, along the lines the ARRL has presented for comment, will become law. Does it represent a FREE FOR ALL? It could, but past history does not support this conclusion. I'll repeat myself, there are those that fear the loss of some spectrum to new uses. As I recall, SSB replaced AM and as this developed there was a hew and cry about SSB moving aside all the wonderful AM operations. This is until it became inexpensive and the norm. It will take time, but there will be a place for all forms of digital communication technologies.

I'm going to repeat again. The FCC has indicated that we need more flexibility in our spectrum so that there is space for growth of new technologies. I think it's just too bad that some choose to resist the wave of change that is coming. Unfortunately, they will either embrace it and move with it or they will be swept away like the enitre earthly population was int Noah's time by the flood.

I must choose to participate in this change and help to make this necessary change a workable reality. I have made unknown my concerns and feelings concerning the proposal on the table. It is incombant on the opponents to develop their own proposals and present them so that a real and valuable debate can be engaged. The present status quo does not appear to be acceptable to the FCC based on the above statement.

Ken