Suppressed Report Becomes Public

:rock: I THINK THAT ANY SUBJECT TO BE VOTED ON,AS IMPORTANT AS THIS,SHOULD BE IN ARRL FORUM FOR ANY MEMBERS TO LOOK OVER.THIS IS WHAT KEEPS HARD FEELINGS +DISSENTION @ BAY! ALTHOUGH I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES THE COMMENTS MADE ARE SORT OF "IN ONE EAR+OUT THE OTHER.SO,THE QUESTION ISOES IT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHAT US REGULAR AMATEUR OPPERATORS THINK OR IS THIS JUST A DIVERSION TO MAKE US THINK IT MATTERS???THINK ABOUT IT!ARE WE REALLY EVER PART OF THE GAME OR IS THE GAME ONLY PLAYED BY THE "BIG BOYS"???SURE WE ELECT OFFICIALS,BUT DO THEY ACTUALLY CARE THAT ALL OF US OUT HERE IN THE REAL WORLD DON'T HAVE LOTS OF MONEY TO SPEND ON EQUIPMENT.I REALLY DON'T LIKE POLITICS BUT IT SEEMS TO BE WHAT AMATEUR RADIO IS BECOMING. IS IT MONEY OR IS IT POLITICS?WHY CAN'T IT JUSTBE AMATEUR RADIO?ROBOTS?

 

charles ag4yo thanks for the Reply realy this will not effect me one way or the other, i am not on hf yet but the way some of these people treat the no code tech,s i will go with the arrl ( not a member yet But soon will be) thin i can vote , and i will use my vote to combat  these kind of people ,I wish you the Best for what ever you do in ham Radio  Bill

 

Thanks Bill. Hope to run into you on HF one day or even a good repeater! Joining the ARRL is a good idea. Some of us may not always agree with them, but we need them.

 

.
.
.

Hi Skip,

Be assured, of course, I support IARU regional bandplans and guidelines for non-interference such as the "Considerat Operator's Guide".

But as you know, that is different from a bandwidth-based frequency plan that would become part of FCC rules.

I think it is fine that you are making an effort to point out the Pactor/Winlink problems of the Ad Hoc Committee's plan. I agree that it seems the committee's plan was put together in a "digital vacuum" where no one spoke anything other than "digital".

There is a bigger picture here. And most people involved with this seem to be missing it.

In USA, so-called "Land Of The Free", we are lagging way behind the rest of the world in ham radio spectrum freedom on the air. Most other countries have way more spectrum freedom for hams than USA.

We are losing the battle on some of our bands to encrouching commercial wireless interests who want to occupy our "unused spectrum". While at the same time, many hams are crammed into one part of a band while the rest of the band is dormant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that... just tune across 75 meters or 40 meters and listen for yourself.

What I'm pointing out here is that an alternative to the ARRL Ad Hoc Digital Committee's bandwidth plan does exist. And it is a much more balanced equitable approach to spectrum efficiency that isn't just a way to push a digital system or mode.

A Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan for USA

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

 

I note this proposal does effectively do away with AM on 40M.

 

Jim,
On the part where it states that ... A digital committee should be made up of digital people... Excluding, Skip and maybe one other... Were they (The Ad Hoc Committiee) proficient at DIGITAL via RF or Just Digital via Internet... They seem to not know how to do Digital via RF...

Just an observation of the proposal..

I still say Shelve it, save face.. And lets get back to building ham radio up instead of dividing us all like this...

73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section

 

Bonnie,

I have studied your bandplan several times before. I agree with your theory, but what I specifically want to know is:

1. Are digital signals of the same width as SSB phone allowed to mix?

2. If so, how can they negotiate for the use of a shared frequency?

3. Specifically, if I am in QSO on SSB and a digital signal comes on the frequency I am already using, how do I ask it to QSY?

4. If I am a SSB phone net control station, and our net meets at 3930 every night, and a digital signal comes on the net frequency so we cannot copy checkins, how do I ask the digital station to QSY until the net is over?

This is common practice on all net frequencies, and is usually effective at sharing frequencies.

I'd just like to know specifically how your bandplan handles this for each of the four points listed.

The current FCC "bandplan, if you will" separates phone from digital modes, of course, and the IARU bandplans include voluntary separation by mode, even though there is some legal separation by bandwidth.

CW is allowed everywhere under the current FCC regulations, but up to now, phone operators were expected to understand CW and CW operators can, of course, understand phone, because both are audible modes, and understood with the human brain.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

Skip, and all:

First off, I'm not a digital afficionado.  And, I don't currently have anything on HF.  However, as written, the bandplan proposal is not a fair and balanced approach to spectrum conservation.  In fact, as pointed out, it will allow wide bandwidth unattended digital modes to utilize phone bands which is not acceptable, for the reasons already stated, such as inability to easily identify the station to all, such as via a CW id.

Unattended stations, like repeaters, should be coordinated and channelized, to avoid stepping on each other, and other modes which can and must listen before transmitting.  Repeater channel coordination is a good example of what should be done with any and all unattended stations irrespective of their bandwidth, so that interference will be minimized and spectrum efficiency maximized.  Since the duration of digital text transmissions will be short, it only makes sense for many stations to share one channel..

On the subject of Pactor III, the issue of demanding the source code is, in my opinion, going way too far.  Especially since you have demonstrated a desire to create competing technology, and the source code is essentially someone's property.  Not the protocol, mind you, but the source code.

All that you deserve from the inventor of Pactor III is its protocol, namely, start and stop bits, word size and perhaps checksum arrangements.  That way, if you desire, you can create your own program to receive and decode and send information using the Pactor III protocol that will be transparent to users of the SCS box.

So, if you intend to sue everyone to obtain what you want (Pactor III source code?), under the guise of claiming you are afraid of a lawsuit, you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I do think, however, that the ARRL should pull the proposal, as written, since it is a convoluted Trojan horse band plan by a very biased group which has their pecuniary interests at heart, and not what is best for all in our community.  Channelization and coordination of HF digital operations appears to be sorely needed and is not addressed by the plan as written and needs to be to preserve order on our crowded HF bands.


73,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL




.

 

Skip,

This is not entirely true. Today phone modes can be digital or analog and are allowed to co-exist in the 160 through 10 meter bands, with the exeption of 30 meters of course. Digital image modes are allowed to co-exist with analog image modes and digital/analog phone modes. The only restriction today is that digital/analog image modes cannot co-exist with digital data/rtty modes.

I think what you are suggesting is that we separate digital modes from analog modes?

Lee,

Excellent idea, the only sticking point would be an international coordination body, but hey that is what the IARU is for, right?

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Mark,

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Perhaps you can suggest a solution to this problem that I posed to Bonnie:

I am phone net control station that meets nightly on 3930 KHz at 8 PM. Just as the net starts, a keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor-III station starts up on the net frequency, for some unknown reason.

How do I ask it to QSY?

Even worse, suppose the Pactor-III station is an email robot, triggered by a remote station well before the net started, but passing 30 minutes of traffic, nonstop, with callsigns inserted by Airmail in Pactor-III every 10 minutes?

What happens to the net?

In a real life situation, an analog phone station coming on an analog phone net frequency is politely asked to QSY or wait until the net is terminated. That station can understand my request, and usually helps out. What happens if it is a digital station instead of another analog phone station?

Yes, digital phone will be another problem to be solved, with the same cross-mode communication problem. How would you propose to solve the frequency-sharing need between analog and digital phone?

IMHO, I think that legal separation of some kind, or voluntary grouping of modes that are able to understand each other, will eventually be the only solution, but I could be wrong. For those who abuse voluntary separation, legal separation will probably be necessary.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

Lee,

I assume you are referring to the SCS refusal to release just enough documentation about Pactor-II and Pactor-III (the request has not yet been made) so Pactor-II receive-only can be added to DigiPan so we can identify interfering Pactor stations.

To create competing technology, one would have to be interested in the transmission technology also, and that is not our intent, although I don't know how closely related the receive and send technologies are.

Obviously there is a fine line between source code and public documentation, but the amateur bands are supposed to be self-policing, and without enough information to monitor traffic, there is no way to determine if there is illegal commercial content, and, especially, no way to identify an interfering station if the callsign is sent only in Pactor-II. If we are unable to identify an interfering station, how can we possibly let it know of the interference, which may be completly accidental, but regular?


73, Skip KH6TY

 

Skip/Mark, I think this kind of separation will be crucial as a first step. Once the digital modes gain popularity and address the various concerns, there would be nothing wrong with a more comprehensive plan as long as no current mode was slighted or forgotten. In the mean time with separation, people would be able to use multimedia modes and begin to experiment without all the squabbling.

 

Skip,

I am in the same boat as you.

Skip,

I don't know that there is a requirement for the net control to ask the P-III station to QSY. Each party in the P-III QSO has a speaker on their respective rigs. It is the reponsibility of the P-III station to make sure that the frequency is clear.

Skip,

I would handle it the same way it is handled today on 14.236 and 18.1625 where I have observed J1E (or maybe it is J2E) emissions. The QSO starts out using J3E and moves to J1E. The parties can listen for either emission using their ears. The same thing happens on 14.233. The QSO switches back between J3E and J1C. All operators are responsible to insure that they are not interfering with others. If that means that you need to use your ears, or eyes (waterfall, spectrum display, etc) to make sure that the freq. is clear, then so be it. The requirement is here today since mixing of some analog and digital modes are authorized.

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Charlie,

I guess this is where I disagree with you and Skip. I am not convinced that there is a need to separate analog and digital emissions. They are not always separated today and it does not seem to cause a problem. Image (both analog and digital) and Phone (both analog and digital) are authorized on the same frequencies in the 80 through 10-meter bands.

Image and RTTY/Data emissions are not authorized on the same frequency in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Phone and RTTY/Data are also not authorized on the same frequency in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Digital or analog have no bearing on these restrictions today.

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

.


Thanks for the reply, Skip.

Note: For those who want to read the other document Skip and I are discussing, please click here: Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan

Yes, Skip. Since a Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan is mode neutral or silent on the question of "mode", digital mode signals and SSB mode signals would be allowed to mix.

That aspect would not change. We presently mix SSB and digital signals regularly on the HF bands... this is not new, but it will be increasing more and more. In fact, we presently mix CW with digital signals and SSB.

Mixing modes on the same band segments is a fact of life. Let's accept it and go on to consider the merits of what a good Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan should be.

That is becoming increasingly complex these days. My present recommendation is that all operators listen first on SSB to the passband they intend to transmit. Most operators are using SSB transceivers for digital anyway, so this is a no-brainer. SSB is the likely common denominator for 3kHz bandwidth passbands for some years into the future. For the 500Hz narrow or 10kHz/25kHz very wide modes, similar attention should be paid to listening to the entire passband and making short preliminary transmissions to test the waters before starting a QSO on it. This is just good operating practice (...that a lot of hams have forgotten unfortunately).

Simply keep transmitting on SSB, and say "The frequency is already in use".

If the Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan was implemented, you and the other competing station would have much more spectrum to spread out in on 75 meters, and it is much less likely that there would be a problem like that...


But it may not be possible to keep your net frequency reserved every night if the other station is transmitting there first when you show up for the net. This has always been a problem with nets since as far back as I remember. I'm a net control operator on 20 meters... so I understand your frustration. It happens with SSB to SSB competing operators today, why would it be any different with other emission types? It's a fact of life. Accept it and move on, but don't blame it on modes or bandwidth.

The fact is, a Bandwidth-Based Frequency plan has nothing at all to do with the issue of frequency sharing. Frequency sharing and negotiation of use of the frequency is a matter of courtesy between operators. There is no way to legislate it equitably, and we should not try to.

It seems that courtesy and good operating practice would dictate that all the operators who want to use the same frequency should try to get along, and that might mean the recognition that we should utilize common operating procedures to help settle such situations, including standard emission types to initiate a contact for this purpose.

Let's face it, Skip, very many incompatible voice emission types are already in use now sharing the same band segments under our present mode-based rules... including digital voice, and many more will be used in the future. We need to plan for it, and try to forge new ways to make things run smoother. But segregation of these different emission types into separate band segments is not the way to solve the sort of problems you mention. The only way is to come up with a better, more equitable plan for it and forge new standards for it.

73---Bonnie KQ6XA



.Click here for a better alternative: Bandwidth Based Frequency Plan







.