Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan for USA

Bonnie I commend you on 'thinking outside of the box'. After reading some of the other posts I must say you have struck some nerves. Others have pointed out valid flaws in your plan. BUT at least you gave it THOUGHT. My own opinion, 'a concept before it's time.'

 

More and more it seems like we never learn our lessons. When I say "we" I mean we amateurs, the ARRL, and the FCC. We keep going around and around in circles.

In the 60s and before, we had the different classes of licenses, including the Novice. Then, in everybody's "wisdom" it was decided that the Novice, as an entry license, was "useless" and "outdated" so it was done away with. NOW, it's proposed to bring it BACK again as an entry license.

We need to make use of the amateurs still around with their "institutional memory" and their wisdom instead of needlessly and wastefully repeating history....

As far as the question of "will we be called on to provide emergency communications," we have more than enough history to give us that answer.
With the use of vhf frequencies for emergency communications, when we are called on, the greatest danger that we face is the FCC and others saying we no longer need HF for emergency communications and deciding we can be relegated to VHF. There is very little HF emergency communications going on anymore. You listen to the FCC designated emergency frequencies during and emergency and you will hear dead air.
With the advent of the internet, cell phones and other technology, there is virtually NO health and welfare traffic sent anymore ... not on MARS or amateur bands.
The only type of traffic I hear on NTS or other nets is what has come to be called "spam" traffic. The "welcome to amateur radio" or "learn cw by checking into cw nets" type of traffic.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 01 2004,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, 10 kHz is much too narrow.  If we want to conserve spectrum, it's time to experiment with low power wide bandwidth digital modes.  I'd allocate the top 100 kHz of 40, 15, and the top 400 kHz of 10 meters to 50 kHz or wider, low power modes.  

This is the 21st century.   If we're going to move Ham Radio ahead, it's time to move high bandwidth applications to HF.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HF should not be turned into a 802.11 WLAN that is meant for short range communication. Because of the vagaries of the ionosphere, dynamic range is huge on HF(up to 90dB) and users often suffer the affects of the near-far problem. If some well meaning soul (I've toned down my language considerably here) who is right down the street from me fires up with a 100 KHz wide CDMA signal, I am done. Even if he is running 100mW, I might as well head upstairs and turn on the television. On the other hand, if my neighbor down the street fires up with CW running 1.5KW, I can probably snuggle up right next to him and pull out a S3 signal provided that his phase noise isn't too bad and that I have a receiver with pretty good blocking dynamic range. Even if I am in the game too and running some kind of spread spectrum, I doubt that I am going to get 90dB of processing gain which is what I would need to pull that weak one out from under my neighbor.

The folks who are proposing this CDMA multiple access scheme for HF need to think it through a bit more. It would be a big mess because of the near-far problem. Sure I say allocate some spectrum for it on the top end of 10 meters where there is a lot of unused spectrum, but please don't let that genie out of the bottle in the middle of 20 meters, I have enough broadband noise to contend with from all of the junk electronics that permeate the neighborhood.

BTW, HF does not lend itself to high bandwidth (read high data rate) applications. For christ sake its only 28 MHz wide. Over any given ionospheric path, only a tiny fraction of that bandwidth is useable. Sure you can spread low data rate streams over wide bandwidths using spread spectrum and get away with lower power, but you still have the near-far problem that is going to kill you. For high data rate applications, you need high power (read Shannon's Law). Also contrary to popular belief spread spectrum doesn't increase capacity. You can only put so many SS signals on a given channel before you degrade the SNR of each individual signal to the point that you get diminishing returns (there is no free lunch). An that is for a controlled line-of-sight channel where signals have roughly the same strength (not 90dB spread). If you want to send streaming video or hi-fi audio to your buddy in Kaula Lampur, use the dang internet.

HF has utility because it requires minimal infrastructure and is this well suited for emergency communications. During an emergency you want to adhere to the KISS principle. You want cool heads, A CLEAR CHANNEL, ERP, and reliability. High bandwidth in most cases won't be a priority (sending "we need a medical team at location XX" doesn't require HDTV), especially if that extra bandwidth comes at the cost of reliability. The first responders to the 9-11 WTC scene had big interoperability problems with their fancy digital trunked radios. In some cases, they were just a few hundred feet away from each other, but they couldn't communicate. Technology strictly for technology's sake is childish. You want new technology because it solves a problem you couldn't solve before. So ask yourself, what problem would wide band high data rate spread spectrum on HF solve? And then ask yourself what problems would it create? If you do a thorough job of that, I think you'll rethink your position.

73 de Mike, W4EF.............

 

Legthly, well articulated, but simply stated still boils down to a thinly vailed proposal to reduce the amount of CW spectrum and increase the amount of SSB spectrum.
We all had to know refarming proposals like this would soon follow the ARRLs proposal. What realy gets me is that one of the reasons for these proposed changes is the expected overcrowding of the bands if the ARRLs proposal is adopted. If the ARRL proposal is going to cause problems that might require drastic change in the band plan than as far as I'm is just yet another good reason not to do it. 73 Gary AF4LD

 

Hmmmm,

Seems that Bonnie's first attempt to present her idea of a new bandwidth plan for discussion has hit the usual barrier: 'knee jerk flames'.  

There were other 'lunatics' like Bonnie who wanted to discuss new ideas, things which maybe didn't go perfectly the first time and had to be refined.  Oh, The Wright Brothers, H.P. Maxim, Henry Ford.  Some morons in the very early 1960's actually thought that we'd send men to the moon and back safely.  Oh and those 'kooks' who actually tried to communicate using invisible waves in the ether without wires... you know 'wireless', 'radio'...

OK - so you see where this is going.  How about a rational discussion with points and counter points, rather than strawman and personal attacks.  We can make some progress as Hams -or- we can let the government control this in it's usual , heavyhanded form //Remember 11 meters becoming CB by thier decree? //  

Second point: "HFPackers are anti-CW" ?  Oh, ?  I didn't know that - neither did they.  See, I've been a military CW op, conducting long range, secure high speed burst and hand sent CW communications for many years, operating in 'denied areas'. You know: real life & death "stuff".  I'm also a CW back country Op here in country so wild that most Hams - who live in urban areas - couldn't even imagine how remote it is.  As a side 'job' I taught wilderness survival and have been dropped-off by bush plane for weeks at a time in REAL wilderness, deserts and mountains.  I can guaratee you that Ham was the only contact with the outside world until our pick-up by aircraft in a pre-designated meadow.  All comms were by CW, though I'll likely include SSB for check-in with the Noon Net and 60 meters Ops in the Pacific north west for the next trips.

How essential Ham HF is for real time emergency communication?  Maybe in urban and sub-urban areas, cell phone are fine, but here in this wild and mountainous country, our state and counties are VERY active on HF SSB and increasingly on data.  60 meters SSB - though regrettably a VERY small allocation - is being employed daily for NVIS and NVIS mobile operations.  I know because I'm right in the middle of it along with my EC, State Disaster Management and other agencies. When Hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters strike around the world, first reports are generally received by HF operators. HF requires no existing infrastructure, if you take care of a few essentials such as power, antennas etc.  HF is essential to emergency comms, particularly in rough terrain and/or disrupted areas such as NYC post 9/11.

So - if you enjoy operation only from your home in an air conditioned or heated room using commercial power , a KW, commercially made beams, towers and all that - enjoy it! I'll think of you while I'm freezing my buns off in a snow shelter with my QRP rig - ha ha. I'll likely CALL you when there is a need for a 'big gun' station.  You call me when you need agile and highly mobile EMCOMM -deal? It's a great hobby with a lot more variety in it than most people know and SEROUS comunication when the chips are down.

 If you love CW using "Doerle" regen receivers and 6L6 transmitters -   I do too //I'm a glowbug nut//.  I haven't met the 'anti-CW' HFPackers you mentioned, and I've been at this quite a while. By the way, have you ever worked Bonnie in CW?  I have.  Even to this old military Op, she's an excellent, accurate and FAST CW operator and I haven't met many of them on Ham.  You?

Remember though, technology marches onward and we can either ride the wave or lament that we got bucked off. Part 97 Ham radio is only a hobby until NEEDED, then it's intended to be serious emergency communication.  Past experience shows me that we will do in an emergency no more than we generaly do daily.

What have "we" done to advance Part 97 Ham/EmComm today? I was testing NVIS mobile in deep canyons in Idaho.  It worked well, by the way.  Tomorrow I'll be on skiis in the back country testing one or more of my emergency manpacks with my area E.C. and exercising the charging system as well as myself!    //much needed and refreshing...//.

>Ray  ..._ ._
W7ASA in Central -very rural- Idaho

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By devoting parts of our largest and least-used HF bands to 10kHz bandwidth, we make space for experimental signal types, wideband SSB, AM, FM, digital voice, time-division-multiplex, wideband digital voice, OFDM, email, high resolution images, high definition television, and simultaneous multimedia.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now I know this is a joke.

Why should experimental ops be pushed to the back of the bus? The least-used frequencies are just that for a reason. Usually propagation, or lack of it, dictates the choice of band. 75 meters is most used in early evening and into the nite because it supports propagation desired by the majority of operators.

Operating in a band the has poor conditions during the times I'm most likely to be "experimenting" is somewhat self defeating. Results of my efforts most likely will be diminished or totally masked by the lack of optimum band conditions.

The vast majority of our bands need only a little "tweeking" to remedy a FEW problems. At total overhaul is not required.

The major problems occur in the 75 and 40 meter phone bands. On 75 there's more than 100kcs of cw sub-band that goes unused 99% of the time. Seems to me a 4 to 1 split would solve a multitude of problems. 3500 - 3600 cw only and 3600 - 4000kcs phone. And leave it at that! (Phone is anything other than CW !&#33

On 40 meters run it 7.0 to 7.1Mcs cw and 7.1 to 7.3Mcs
phone.

There's no need to complicate things.
Bonnie's band plan does just that !!

ps... that's right ... I'm a cwphobe !!!
HI HI

 

Don't stop there.... Throw in some space on 15 and 10 meters also. Just to clarify it in my mind you're saying 100Khz CW ONLY the rest for SSB, DIGITAL, etc. Correct??
I think I could support that. Seems a pretty fair compromise.

John FISTS #8690

 

I hate to say it, but this plan is more half baked then the ARRL`s give away proposal. Way too complex. I also cant imagine using modes that are 10 kc wide on the bands. This is a terrible waste of spectrum. Makes no sense that on one side Bonnie talks about avoiding qrm and saving band space, then on the other side, promotes using modes that are 10 kc wide! I also cant imagine a hodge podge of modes mixed together all over the amateur spectrum as suggested. I believe this would result in nothing but chaos. Just my 2 cents.

 

"I'll think of you while I'm freezing my buns off in a snow shelter with my QRP rig"
Seeing that makes me think of my good ol' South Dakota where I'm at.  It least it gets cold somewhere besides here. (probably colder where you are if you are close to Canada.)  
Anyway, that line made my day!
73
KCØOFZ

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Jan. 29 2004,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Recent advancements in radio technology and licensing structure mean amateurs desperately need a better frequency plan in the USA. We Need A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan for the next decade of Amateur Radio...  a plan that is Mode-Independent.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You and the League people just don't seem to get it. Why do we need even more nitpicking government regulations? The United States is the only country in the world that has government-mandated emission subbands. Changing the criterion for defining those subbands from emission to bandwidth does nothing to improve our radio service. We will still have the de facto "American-free" zones on our DX bands and restricting bandwidth would still restrict experimentation.

Americans love to preach about freedom to the rest of the world. Yet American hams just love to be overregulated by their government. Enough is enough!

 

Hi Bonnie,

I fear that what you are seeking to implement will, in reality, be completely unenforceable. The average radio amateur cannot be expected to go out and purchase an expensive spectrum analyser and other sophisticated test equipment, merely to ensure that he is in compliance. Then there is the added burden to an FCC which is trying to de-load itself of as much supervision of non-revenue-producing radio services as it can.

Another aspect is that all this goes way beyond the ITU regulatory structure as it applies to the ARS. At a time when WRC-2003 has left the Morse requirement up to the choice of each member Administration, and somewhat simplified the rest of the S.25 framework, your proposed concept calls for a whole new layer of regulation. I do not think these proposals will fly.

The Canadian maximum TOBW limit is quite generous, and emission-independent. Industry Canada RIC-2 specifies 6kHz per channel at the -26dBc points, on all HF bands except 30m (1 kHz) and 10m (20kHz). Permissible maximum TOBW on bands > 30 MHz are even greater. Perhaps such overall limits could be a workable alternative to the current US emission-specific sub-band allocations.

Best 73,
Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (public14 @ Feb. 12 2004,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi Bonnie,

... The average radio amateur cannot be expected to go out and purchase an expensive spectrum analyser and other sophisticated test equipment, merely to ensure that he is in compliance.  
....
The Canadian maximum TOBW limit is quite generous, and emission-independent. Industry Canada RIC-2 specifies 6kHz per channel at the -26dBc points, on all HF bands except 30m (1 kHz) and 10m (20kHz). Permissible maximum TOBW on bands > 30 MHz are even greater.  ...

Adam VA7OJ ....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
.
KQ6XA REPLIES:

Dear Adam,

As you rightly point out, Canada already has Bandwidth-Based Frequency Rules that are wider and more free than the Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan for USA presented here.

We share the same HF ham bands, and the sky did not fall when Canada put bandwidth-based rules in place... in fact, most USA hams never even noticed!

Perhaps we neighbors to the south of Canada prefer slightly different flavors of freedom, with different bandwidths. But, we are essentially seeking the same freedom Canadians and many other hams in other countries around the world already enjoy.

Under present rules, we already have bandwidth limitations that amateurs have been complying with for many years. For phone and image emissions, we have the 6kHz rule, mainly applicable to AM, SSB, and image on HF. We have an FM bandwidth rule. For data emissions we have a baud rate similar rule which equates to narrower bandwidth than the phone/image rule. For CW, we have key-click standards that are commonly exhibited on the air and troubleshot and enforced using bandwidth measurement. And most recently we have the 2.8kHz rule for USB on 60 meters. In addition, we have an area of the interpretation of the bandwidth rules which has led to on-the-air conflicts and enforcement action regarding wideband SSB on HF.

The rules have already been established for amateurs to conform to bandwidth limitations. We are presently responsible to know and comply with limits of our transmission bandwidth. So the concept of hams determining and measuring bandwidth of signal is nothing new. There are a number of methods that hams have used which enable us to comply with the rules.

99% of hams use commercially manufactured transmitters, and simply rely upon the published specifications of the radio's bandwidth. For practical purposes, this is normally adequate to comply with bandwidth rules. So, the "average ham" has no problem, and already knows the bandwidth of their own signal, just by looking in their transceiver's manual.

For modifications to commercially manufactured radios, the amateur operating with the mod rig would be responsible to make sure the applicable bandwidth limit is not exceeded, or that the estimate is within a wide enough margin of error that it comfortably complies with the bandwidth limitation of the band segment used.

For homebrew rigs, hams usually rely upon their own measurements, computations, tried and true circuits, filters made from crystals, baudrate computations, monitoring on a calibrated receiver, and/or baseband filtering of the modulation waveform, etc.

How would "the average ham" measure an unknown signal's bandwidth?
Recently, audio spectrum analyzer software has become commonplace among computer soundcard programs for ham radio. Waterfall displays and other types of spectral analysis displays are part of many types of digital programs (available as free software). Of course, a monitor receiver must be used that has a wide enough IF and demodulator/audio bandwidth, so as not to limit the measurement.

Most commonly, a ham receiver may easily be used as a bandwidth measurement instrument, after it is calibrated and characterized using a simple procedure.

Lastly, enforcement. The FCC already has bandwidth measurement instruments, and enforces the existing rules for amateur bandwidth to the extent that it deems necessary, so nothing would change in this area of concern.

Conclusion: We already have bandwidth rules, common measurement, and enforcement. A bandwidth-based frequency plan simply changes the criteria upon which the band segments are divided: from mode... to bandwidth.

Bonnie KQ6XA







.

 

.


Question:Would the Bandwidth-Based Plan reduce the amount of spectrum for "The CW Band"?

Answer: There would be no reduction in the amount of spectrum authorized for CW.

Under FCC Rules, "The CW Band" is currently the entire band, on every amateur radio band in the entire spectrum (except 60 meters).

In the new Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan, CW is still FCC-authorized on the entire band, on every amateur radio band in the entire spectrum.

If you include the new plan for 60 meters, the "CW band" would actually gain 14 kHz and another band!


IARU bandplans would also continue.

Under FCC rules, CW currently shares the band with more than 50 other modes. The number of emission types and modes will continue to increase, regardless of bandplans and frequency plans. The big difference is that right now, under current FCC rules, other countries are able to use some of those modes, and USA amateurs cannot. If we are to continue to advance, we need the freedom to explore new modes. Otherwise, amateur radio in USA will stagnate and we will lose the spectrum to other services who can put it to good use.

Morse code is no longer the big issue in amateur radio that it was last year. HF now has many operators internationally who did not have to pass a morse code test, and the number will continue to grow after USA's rules change soon. It is no longer necessary to rally any troops into a defensive position for protection of "our CW bands". The threat to our bands is not from within the ham ranks. Instead, use some of that valliant energy to defend against the commercial services who want our spectrum, and are willing to pay big dollars for it. They are the real threat.

Bonnie KQ6XA


.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Feb. 12 2004,05:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.


Question:Would the Bandwidth-Based Plan reduce the amount of spectrum for "The CW Band"?

Answer: There would be no reduction in the amount of spectrum authorized for CW. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No just a reduction in space where a CW Operator can operate without being QRM'd to death.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Answer: There would be no reduction in the amount of spectrum authorized for CW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Response: There should be !!

Spectrum to usage ratio in most cw bands is wastefully high. Good guess is 80% of the cw bands sit idle 99% of the time.

Don't believe it

Tune 1.8-1.85, 3550-3750,7050-7150,14.05-14.15 ect....
any given day or night. (cw contests excluded. they're the 1% of the time the cw bands are fully utilized).