SCAMP, Win Link,  and Black Helos?

While I can't deny my relative speed to a large rock is decreasing, I will correct your perception. I am not afraid today that digital will kill off other modes, nor do I deny that mode popularity can change. Your logic says that since you wil eventually die, I should be able to shoot you in the head to make room for whomever needs your house next. Or should I wait until you die by natural causes before we occupy your residence?

In this case, the bullet to the head is the mixing of automatic digital modes with voice and CW. And one more thing, IMHO the most goofy reason to do something is because some other country is doing it. We have to evaluate change ourselves as it effects us. Yes, looking at what others do can be a helpful source of info, but your mother probably helped you out with the fallacy in, "...why can't I do it...everyone ELSE is!!". LOL.

Howard, I'd love to see your stats on that one. Every survey I have seen shows digital popularity is less than 5%. While it is statistically possible for 5% of users to transmit 75% of the traffic on Amateur Radio, we'd have to agree on the definition "traffic". Share your data and elighten me.

Responding to my comment that my position does nothing to revent you from experimenting and Winlink to continue moving forward you said:

Symantics. I favor changing the rules to allow you to experiment while not changeing other things about Amateur Radio. You are in effect saying that if you can't have your way and have access to ALL frequencies, then we're preventing you from experimenting. In reality, there is nothing standing in Winlink's way today. You guys simply want more bandwidth. Other digital software may need the rules changed to allow them. I favor that change. Again, nothing I am proposing will stop you from experimenting. What I don't favor is a bandwidth based bandplan solution. It is not the only viable solution to accomplish the goal. "Medio tutissmus ibis".

 

Regulation by bandwidth will open up the bands for experimentation as it will get the government entirely our of the business of deciding what modes are authorized... This already works in many other countries...You are missing the point of bandwidth regulation..... as long as the mode fits in the permitted bandwidth.. it is authorized...

Not that does not make sense if you are experimenting with modes such as PSK/MFSK and the New Olivia... Walsh MFSK for over the pole connections for example...

HF is very different than VHF/UHF if you are trying to test modes for DX operations...

 

Once the protocols are worked out on the air on VHF or UHF and the connections are reliable, you are then attempting communication not experiementing with exception of possibly adjusting parameters to account for the vagarities of propagation.

Concerning MFSK being illegal, it seems to me that bandwidth sub-band allocation will not resolve this problem by itself, but rather the elimination of the regulations that spell out what modes are in fact legal.

Ken

 

Ken:

The point of regulation by bandwidth is just that simple... The FCC would state that any signals must be within a specific Bandwidth... say 200Hz or 500Hz or 6 Khz... and what we send or how we send it is not their business...

The ARRL Bandplan is to further segregate the bands into subbands of 200Hz, 500Hz and 6 KHz... to keep some separation between modes...but not restrict modes or content that fit into those bandwidths...

Other countries are not even that restrictive... eg. Canada.. which only restricts you to say 6KHz on HF bands... {This is perhaps the only policy the Canadian government ever got right since they decided not to join the US Revolution in 1776}... and provides no bandwidth segregation whatsoever...and Not Surprising to Rational People... It works very well...

One of the reasons I keep on mentioning other countries is that radio waves transcend borders.. and we need to look at the rest of the world when we contemplate rule changes... Bandwidth only regulation has worked rather well everywhere else in the world... so why would people assume that it would fail in the USA? Are US Hams such bad operators that they need an extra set of rules that most of the rest of the world does not have?

The real joke in the matter is that as much as we would love to believe that the USA owns the world, we still have to share ham bands with the rest of the world.. They have freedom to experiment in the same space that we can't ... we can hear them do it and we legally cannot reply....

 

Ken:

Adjusting parameters, restructing protocols for the vagariities of propagation is the essence of HF experimentation...

Protocols that work very well on VHF/UHF need to be restructured and redesigned to take into account phase delays, multipath, etc., etc. etc on HF which is why there is so much experimentation on HF...

SCAMP is a good example... VHF was a no brainer...Worked almost the first time...

HF has taken 18 variations on the code so far...and we still have not got close to the VHF performance...nor do we expect to get to even within 50% of VHF throughputs...

 

Winlink now passes more than 150,000 emails per month... the combined totals of NTS, MARS and all other Amateur Radio Traffic Systems is less than 75,000 per month... and MARS is not even in the Ham Bands. So if you deduct MARS.. which I believe to be about 25,000 per month

150,000/ (150,000 + 75,000 - 25,000) = 75%

Also I really do not believe that 5% statistic... just listen to PSK and MFSK and RTTY and Packet sometimes... I can't believe that only 5% of ham are responsible for all that on air usage...


I suspect that of the ACTIVE HAMS, digital modes may approach 50%...

 

Thanks for the reply, Howard. Something in your reply caught my eye:

Perhaps all the traffic you hear is generated by ONE Winlink station?? LOL!

Seriously, every survey I have ever seen pegs digital use at 5% (most recent statistically significant one was done by CQ magazine). I am trying to find one survey I saw that was for "digital users only" to say what their favorite mode was. There was a selection for "I hardly ever use digital" and of the 200+ participants, 45% chose that selection. I do tune the bands and what I hear is about five times as many CW QSOs on HF than any kind of digital signal including RTTY. Perhaps SSB and CW signals don't reflect well off the California granola trees.....

As for the 75% statistics, I kinda figured that's what you were getting at. For ECOMM and other email related use I would have to agree that the "popular" modes don't burn up the airwaves with "traffic" any more. It's really a shame because I actually suggested about a year ago that NTS put an email type interface up whereby you could use a simple email address to send traffic to them. Those guys are amazing in that they have hardly any traffic these days but they are so hung up on formal message protocols and syntax that...well nevermind....

Even if we disagree on the statistics, I do agree that digital modes should have spectrum to flourish. I'll leave the technical discussions to Tim, Charles, and Ken but I do want digital modes to be good neighbors to other modes, and I want us to monitor their growth to ensure they move forward. Where mixed modes are not allowed, we need to fix that in a non destructive way.

 

Here is a post by Bonnie KQ6XA which states the case for bandwidth regulation much more eloquently than I can...

 

ve3gfw:

Depending on Bonnies post is depending on feathers to support lead weights.

First off, it is riddled with unwarrented assumptions:

"Now, there are some who want to build new and different technology jails into Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management rulemaking for USA. These jails take the form of innocent-sounding exceptions to spectrum management based upon bandwidth alone. In some cases, they want to harken back to mode restrictions, in other cases they want to fence off certain protocols or operating procedures."

No one has proposed putting in "jails" based on bandwidth alone. Unwarranted assumption No. 1.

Hearken back? There is nothing to hearken back to! Unwarranted Assumption No. 2

This argument is nothing more than emotional heart-tugging. The facts are wrong.

Many of the newer methods of communication technology make use of "handshaking", auto-transponding, or ARQ communication techniques."

Many of the OLDER **digital** methods of communication use ARQ techniques. Unwarranted assumption No. 3.

"These are important techniques that can be applied to almost any emission type or signal method to enhance the ability for hams to dodge QRM, avoid interference from locally generated RFI noise, and even mitigate the interference from BPL."

These are important techniques for **digital** communication protocols. Not all ARS communications are **digital** so this becomes unwarranted assumption No. 4. Any proposal needs to take into consideration protocols and modes that DON'T use ARQ techniques.

"Some say "the sky is falling", "

No one is saying the sky is falling. This is just one more emotional appeal with no backup. Unwarranted Assumption No. 5. What some of us are saying is that we don't want to see the ham bands become a competition to see who can develop the most aggressive, ARQ mode with the most repeat cycles and longest timeouts.

I need to get to work. I will post more later.

Perhaps this will give people a start on actually analyzing what Bonnie has said and to see that it is actually quite empty of fact and emtpy of actual proposals to solve anything.

tim ab0wr

 

Darn it! Someone just pressed my "Bonnie" button....

Hurry and throw out all that comprises the hobby you enjoy because some foreigners are doing it and I, BONNIE CRYSTAL, THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT!!!! You aren't a REAL patriotic American if you don't do what the foreign countries are doing!! ROFLMAO!

I am being as serious as I can muster after reading that when I say, we don't want "technology jail", we want "goofy" jail. What difference is it if you're limited to a block of frequencies if you have a fair amount of spectrum? Especially when your goal is to rule the world! To borrow a little of your melodrama, Harold, when I read that post I see Hitler drooling over Poland before the invasion.

Suffice it to say that the piece you shared with us was poorly written, not based by any science, emotional, childish, and done with an touch of faux sacrosanct. In other words, its alot like what I write! LOL.

 

One of this group's goals that they are a bit cagey about admitting is that they want all content restrictions eliminated.

Porno, commercial content, SPAM, - you name it. - All in the name of an alleged "need" for secure communications over open ham radio frequencies, for thier single application.

Toss out PART97 for Winlink... Riiiiiiiight.

We need secure (encrypted) communications over open ham frequencies about like we need - porno, commercial content, SPAM, and so on.


Charles Brabham,  N5PVL

Director: USPacket
Admin: HamBlog.Com
Weblog: N5PVL's  Blog

 

Bonnie KQ6XA says:

The problem is that the bandwidth proposal is not likely to be considered by itself. The FCC has a tendency to combine like petitions for consideration as a whole. The narrow technology jails that you are so against would most likely be considered simultaneously.

Ken

 

What we send is there business. We would still have to abide the prohibition against handling business related messages. We are also prohibited from using anykind of the scheme to intentionally hide the content of our messages, while it is permissible to use some standard coding to aide in the decoding of the content.

This statement would indicate to me that this group is interested in providing full InterNet access to the sailboat crowd like they are providing e-mail and other messaging to them now. How nice, another perk for the monied class.

Ken

 

Charlie:

Just to make you feel good about CW in EMCOMM... here is a quote from the ARRL today...

Yes... this is a great example of the biodiversity of Ham Radio.. working in EMCOMM....

 

Don't let it get you down, Howard. All they were really doing is swapping instructions over CW on how to set up their Winlink software...LOL.