ENHANCED SINGLE SIDEBAND (ESSB) CONTROVERSY And SURVEY

I dont think we need more regulations, but we seem to have specific frequency allocations for modes like CW, AM, PSK, SSTV etc.. So, why not a ESSB window segment (by gentleman's agreement,- not FCC bandwidth regulation) for "extended" ESSB experiments?

Wouldn't it help to alleviate any concerns and possibility of interference caused to others?

Wouldn't such an agreement help people who are currently at war with one another on both sides of the issue ?

.

 

if "certain" operators were "gentlemen", then, there would be no need for a "gentleman's agreement".
no "agreement" is going change them


oh,.......................... and i want an agreement for my favorite mode too.

 

If you listen on the bands, you will always find people who operate questionably within the limits of law but in a place or manner that they know gets them the attention they crave.

You'll also find others who just do not fully know how radios and communications systems work. This is the entire reason we need guidelines of where to do what. One of the fellows who was part of a group petitioning for elimination of all segmenting, having everyone decide on their own spirit of cooperation where to operate what mode, had a long rant on his web page about how if he was somewhere first and someone else wanting to use the band up or down from him complained...it was just too bad.

I found that one of the most hypocritical examples. In a petition to eliminate mode bandwidth restrictions a person tells the FCC how Hams traditionally cooperate with each other and don't need mode/bandwidth restrictictions....yet that person's very own web page had a "nasty note" advising SSB people not to tell him he is causing a problem with his AM transmitter.

We will always need regulations because everyone always thinks the other person in a disagreement is wrong.

 

Right now, one of the biggest problems with the extended bandwidth essb is the 3khz and 6KHZ "mindset", at least on 75 and 40m
For as long as I can remember, there has been a general rule of thumb that an SSB signal needs 3KHZ and an AM signal needs 6KHZ. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally this has worked reasonably well for decades.

Enter extended bandwidth essb.
The mindset still exists for many of them, but now they have a 4-6KHZ bandwidth. They may hear their buddies on a frequency and, without a second thought, join; but that frequency is 3 away from another group. Or, out of habit, and without thinking, they start up 3 away from an existing QSO, because that is what they have always done, and it was never an issue before.

This is not intentional, but it has become a real problem of late on 75m and is beginning to be on 40m as well.

 

This extended ESSB craze is definitely growing in popularity and as long as it does, I suspect the bands will start experiencing deterioration issues.

I have nothing against ESSB, it's just that if everyone starts using it, then what...? T It would seem the availability of choosing an open frequency to use will suddenly start becoming a whole lot smaller.

Similarly, if operating SSTV was all the rage instead of ESSB, and we didn't establish any operational parameters such as where or how it could be used, there would be utter chaos occurring.

As ESSB continues to grow in popularity, so does the problems encountered at the same exponential rate and the problems encountered using wide mode ESSB heard on 80 meters is just the beginning.

I think this is the original intent behind having a gentleman's agreement in the first place. This also explains why band segments were historically arranged for various modes which is intended to serve to avoid these issues. Yes, it does seem they knew what they were doing when this idea was originally created back then.

I suppose, there's only so much room we can take up and use. This is why I feel it's important we utilize our bands in such a manner it preserves the quality of the overall experience for everyone, not just a select few.

.

 

Charles,

Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, the 'phone experience today is far higher in quality from an interference standpoint. More phone spectrum, poor conditions, and unfortunately, fewer ops. The extended SSB stuff is not my taste but the responses to the poll have certainly got me more curious and a little more open to it. For enhanced SSB there really is no degradation of adjacent frequencies, only improvement in intelligibility on the passband being used (less that 3 KC). People who use enhanced SSB basically feel that 'hey---works for me, I don't care if you use it or not.' The same could be said for CW. Clearly people need to be more open on what they are using and what the effects are/settings. I think we will see far more of this in coming months. Some folks really did want to see an effort to break the ice.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

POLL RESULTS will be summarized and posted here around 0200 UTC 2 June (1 June local here).

73,
Chip W1YW

 

LEGALITY OF OTA DEMO?

This may sound kind of silly, but I'd like to get some thoughts on the legality of transmitting a one way transmission with the intention of demonstrating various psychoacoustic effects on the transmitted speech in enhanced SSB. No product will be mentioned, just effect and settings and a demo of those effects.

It makes more sense to do this as a 'produced pre-recorded piece', so that it can be heard several times if desired. In otherwords, I would be demo'ing a 3-5 minute pre-recorded piece from a CD. No music of course.

Its my understanding that this is AOK, much like bulletins on SSB from W1AW. Id welcome comments though.

I have no interest in 'playing broadcaster'. That's not my thing: if it was I'd get a milliwatt TX from Ramsey. Not me. But I am a scientist and love to show people how its done. I envision an occasional one-way transmission, not something that is scheduled on a specific frequency at a specific time to the detriment of others using that frequency.

Comments? Would that be helpful? If so I can get it out this Summer.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I think that would be a really cool demo.

Legality? As described it sounds no different then calling a longwinded or repeated CQ from a voice-keyer with some technical changes made and flagged over the duration.

Put a post up on the Zed with a date, time and target frequencies, with plus/minus tolerance or alternate(s) on whatever band(s).

Check the frequency for use beforehand; move a little if needed. Little doubt that somebody will hear it and put the spot up.

Let ‘er rip Chip!

73
John WØPV

 

The rules do permit one way "transmissions necessary to transmit informational bulletins." I can think of a few instances where hams are conducting forums and other tutorial transmissions on local repeaters, just as one example, of how loosely that can be interpreted. I have done such forums, using my own call. There is no difference in kind between my one-way transmission onto that local repeater and a similar transmission on HF.

If you have any doubt, make it a two-way QSO in which one guy is a lot more long-winded than the other.

I might also suggest posting the audio tutorial on a web site.

73,
Ed, W1RFI

 

Thanks for the feedback on the demo xmission (W0PA; W1RFI).

I think the best way to do this is to do an occasional weekend demo during August/September with a 3-5 minute 'show the psychoacoustic effects' emphasis--naming names on settings, how it was acheived, etc. After that the real value to ham radio has to be shown in something that's reasonably unique to us: weak signal intelligibility enhancement at HF. That should be a series of TESTS where I (or someone else) XMITS at various signal levels and and is recorded at various other DX locations.

I very much want to see this as a PARTICIPATORY activity--you guys don't hear it at this end but there is a HUGE INFO GAP BETWEEN THOSE WHO use essb (and don't want to get any beef about it) and those who haven't even heard of it (No QST articles, not in HANDBOOK, etc.) That's not an ARRL fault BTW--its the culture of ham radio in 2011.

I'll pull something together in the next several weeks. Let's have some fun with this.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Thanks Ed,

I interpreted Part 97 the same way, but the last thing I want is to get harrassed and jammed a la VE7KFM (to name a unsavory extreme), and so on. Deliberately provoking that would be exactly the opposite of the intent of the transmission.

I think the DX-RX RECORDINGS of the demo would actually be more helpful, as seeing how that sounds with the 2+KHZ RX passbands with QSB and QRN and the usual capriciousness of propagation are more telling.

I'll give you a heads up and copy before I put it OTA.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

When I first read the thread, and ran across ESSB, I immediately though of those that are operating SSB with extended bandwidth. It's pretty clear from the way that the thread developed, many just assumed the same thing (your clarifications notwithstanding). I might suggest that if there is a dearth of information on the techniques you are describing, it is an ideal time to pick a slightly different acronym, as the "ESSB" assocation with "Extended SSB" may be an impediment to the very valuable techniques you are describing. EnSSB may be a reasonable acroynm that does help with the differentiation. Any acronym that requires the repeated clarification you offered here is probably in need of change. When I ran a Google search on "Enhanced SSB," most of the results were related to increasing the bandwidth.

I suspect that the culture involved, Chip, is those that are doing this sort of work have not really documented or promoted it. "Work in progress" could be documented on web pages and in magazines like QEX. I would be more than happy to put up a page on the ARRL.org site, in the Technology information pages area. Although we could probably get HQ staff to put something together, for our Technology pages, I have been moving toward the paradigm of having those that are doing the doing at least take a first cut at providing the content. The basic format the ARRL Lab is using for these pages is to have some .html information, links to ARRL and other articles and links to other sites and pages. In some cases, we have vounteers maintaining content directly, such as the QRP page, or in others we have a volunteer who provides us with updates as needed and staff put it up as content. In general, I am very open to any and all ideas on what information ARRL can put up to help disseminate information on all things technical. This can range from ideas to content to actual page management.

73.
Ed, W1RFI
ARRL Lab Dad

 

Many thanks Ed!

I really hate the name 'enhanced SSB' (limit 3 KHz) myself. I was just using the convention I saw in those same internet searches. There's room for a better name, that's for sure!

I've been having a great series of exchanges with K0DK and we think we're heading towards writing something up. Of course, that shouldn't prevent anyone else from writing up an article. Wasn't trying to draw a line in the sand, only point out there is sand to write in. Dick has written for QEX, of course.

I'd like to concentrate on the OTA effort for the short term, but it can also be a good gauge of interest for article(s) for something later in the year/can be inclusive of that. I also owe Zack and crew an outline for an article on a different subject and editorial is being more than patient with me and my minor but article -retarding ailments and overwork

I think there is often a perception that the League doesn't reflect the experimental interest of hams. Of course, that's wrong. I just wanted to point out this --the ARRL understands Part 97 and encourages us all to execute and have fun with the mission of the ARS.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I bet the HAM radio rent a cops will send you an "OO" card. lol