The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

For purposes of discussion, here is a comparison between the current 97.221 FCC subbands to the current IARU Region 2 bandplan.

Note that with elimination of Winlink's useless scanning and resonable sharing of frequencies, ALL Winlink, ARRL NTS and ARRL Emcomm traffic needs only 10 kHz per band, which is more than satisfied by the current 97.221 subbands, with the exception of those on 40m.

COMPARISON OF FCC 97.221 SUBBANDS TO IARU REGION 2

IARU Region 2 HF Band Plan
97.221 subbands shown in bold
PLAN DE BANDAS HF PARA IARU REGION 2

(This BAND PLAN was approved by the XIII General Assembly of Delegates of IARU Region II held at Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela from September 28 to October 2, 1998)

(Este Plan de Bandas HF fue aprobado por la XIII Asamblea General de Delegados de IARU Región II realizada en Porlamar, Isla Margarita, Venezuela del 28 de Septiebre al 2 de Octubre de 1998)


1800 - 1830 CW, Digimode  
1830 - 1840 CW, Digimode  (DX CW window)  
1840 - 1850 Phone (DX Phone window) - CW          
1850 - 2000 Phone - CW

3500 - 3510 CW (DX CW window)  
3510- 3525 CW  
3525 - 3580 CW, (Phone permitted, non interference basis)  
3580 - 3620 Digimode, (Phone permitted, non interference basis), CW
 
3620 - 3635 Packet Priority, (Phone permitted, non interference basis), CW  
3620 - 3635 15 kHz wide
3635 - 3775 Phone, CW  
3775 - 3800 Phone (DX Phone window), CW  
3800 - 3840 Phone, CW  
3840 - 3850 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW  
3850 - 4000 Phone, CW

7000 - 7035 CW  
7035 - 7040 Digimode with other Regions, CW  
7040 - 7050 Packet with other Regions, CW  
7050 - 7100 Phone, CW  
7100 - 7120 Digimode, Phone, CW
7100 - 7105 5 kHz wide
7120 - 7165 Phone, CW  
7165 - 7175 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW  
7175 - 7300 Phone, CW

10100 – 10130 CW  
10130 – 10140 Digimode, CW  
10140 – 10150 Packet Priority, CW
10140 - 10150 10 kHz wide

14000 - 14070 CW  
14070 - 14095 Digimode, CW  
14095 - 14099,5 Packet, Digimode, CW
14095 - 14099,5  ,5 kHz wide
14099,5 - 14100,5 IBP/NCDXF  
14100,5 - 14112 Packet, Phone, CW
14.1005 -14.112 11.5 kHz wide
14112 - 14225 Phone, CW  
14225 - 14235 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW  
14235 - 14350 Phone, CW

 

I kinda wonder when the first winlink pmbo in europe will be taken off air.
unlike usa it is only legal in region 1 to transmit 3th party trafic in emergiancy and all pmbos pass 3th party trafic daily, that is afterall what winlink was designed to do.

 

Perhaps it will happen first in Germany.

 

Is this true for all countries in Region 1 or does each country have different regulations, some of which may allow it?

Thanks,

Jim
WA0LYK

 

Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.


PA3DUV is very strong over here. He runs 400 watts to a 15 db gain beam. He is a good example or how non-domestic PMBO stations are just as strong as domestic ones.

http://winlink.org/stations/pa3duv.htm

K4CJX is always careful to say 24 "domestic" PMBO's could not possibly cause so many problems, but Frank Fallon told the RTTY reflector that there will be a total of 75 PMBO stations (I assume 50 for Emcomm), and all of those would be domestic. So, the total Winlink stations is around 100, and many non-domestic ones are as strong as domestic ones over here.

 

How about return email from a non-ham? Wouldn't that be third party traffic?

Jim
WA0LYK

 

I am indeed sorry that you find clear, plain, unadulterated, VERIFIABE technical facts from a person who has actually designed an HF modem "verbally abusive".

On the Rockwell-Collins HF Simulator in Cedar Rapids, IA, my (literally) pocket-sized HF modem tested within 1% of a $3,500.00 Frederick Electronics modem that was (at that time) commonly used in U.S. military communications. Several hundred of my modems were placed in service with our (fatigue) pocket MIL-810D/E qualified tactical secure message terminal by various military organizations -- including U.S. military/special ops.

I actually responded in far less caustic language than you have used against me, and I only remarked about your clear lack of knowledge because you have continuously attempted to pretend that you have expert-level knowledge. I thought it time that the simple technical facts should speak to illustrate just how lacking in knowledge you truly are.

I don't know if you actually have some technical knowledge, and have chosen to deliberately "twist" the details to suit your obvious agenda, or if you actually believe the stuff you put out. (I do have an opinion.)

This is a typical tactic of yours. When irrefutable evidence is presented, you pretend to be insulted and blame the person who presents the facts. Then you try to reference some ALLEGED "fact" to divert attention from the fact that your "technical data" is absolute hogwash. Sorry. Your problem, not mine.

When you can match my qualifications -- even just by studying -- we can discuss technical points as equals. Until then, please do everyone who is trying to understand the actual technical operation of an HF modem a favor and keep your false "technical data" to yourself.

 

Part 97.3(a)
46) Third party communications. A message from the control operator (first party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third party).

According to U.S. definitions it would be third party traffic if the receiving party is not an amateur station/control operator.

If the regulations where PA3DUV resides prohibit third party traffic then I'm not sure how they get around the restriction.

DELIVERY method does not determine if traffic is third-party traffic as far as the delivery end is concerned.

The examples shown as legal on the Winlink site are carefully constructed to be within the legalities. I'm not sure the typical user will understand the distinctions. And since no one is monitoring the traffic, who is to say what is going on anyway?

I'm sure it also gets fuzzy when there is no actual control operator at an automatic station but I suspect the FCC would read the regulations in such a manner that regular traffic is between the control operators of two radio stations regardless of control method. Anything else is third party.

tim ab0wr

 

Jim, seems like it would be. If I want to send an email to a Winlink sailor, I just address it to "sailorham@winlink.org". If sailorham decides to use PA3DUV to retrieve his mail, then PA3DUV must be passing third party traffic.

The way Winlink got our Part 97 regs written, PA3DUV is not responsible for breaking the rules, or even for passing illegal message content, but don't know how the Region 1 rules govern.

 

PA3DUV would be subject to his rules if he is outside the U.S.

It is not illegal for a U.S. ham to accept third party traffic from a ham in another country. So no U.S. station would have a problem accepting third party traffic from PA3DUV.

However, just as it doesn't matter how a third party message is delivered as far as determining status, the method in which a message is received for transmittal is not a determinant in whether it is third party traffic or not. So whether PA3DUV can retransmit messages received over the internet from non-hams is dependent on the rules where he is.

I don't know what the rules are at the PA3DUV location. Perhaps someone on here does?

tim ab0wr

 

Skip,

I wouldn't worry about what Larry says. He may be a modem expert but he apparently knows little about RF design. I noticed he has never answered my questions about what IF filters prevent that will keep a modem from operating at maximum. My guess is that we never will hear an answer from him.

Narrow filters will help. It gets a little complex but it has to do with slope factors on the filters, phase noise in the LO's, and mixing products in the IF mixers and product detector. Suffice it to say that the noise the modem will see at any specific modem tone frequency will be less with narrower filters in the IF. That's part of the problem with doing laboratory tests on modems using simulators for the radio channel. The radios we use, which may or may not be aligned well and which may or may not have good LO oscillators in them, many times don't provide optimum results.

Larry likes to run and hide behind the modem design. As with Winlink, however, what must be considered is the overall system, not just the individual pieces in isolation. That's why the determining piece for throughput *is* the weakest link. It is *always* that way. That's why the 8foot whip on an RV with a poor ground and vertical orientation will determine how many ARQ repeats are done, not the 105 foot dipole at 100 feet at the PMBO. Larry and the Winlink folks just seem to be unable to understand that and, again, run and hide behind modem design specs and laboratory tests that do NOT emulate the real world.

So it isn't you that doesn't understand the technical side, Skip. It's the people that don't even understand killer trunks or the need for control channels as well as data channels on a trunked system that need to go study up on things.

tim ab0wr

 

First: answered under "The IF filter"

Second: For a well-designed modem, and assuming reasonably decent filters -- practically none. A well-designed modem uses frequencies above the low roll-off, and below the high roll-off. A well-designed modem can also handle some roll-off from marginal filters. Because it uses the "sweet spot" of the bandpass, phase characteristics of even a fairly poor filter (by modern standards) will not impact a well-designed modem. For instance, a TS-520 or a KWM-2 will work fine with a well-designed multitone modem -- as will a 1960's vintage 400 Watt Russian transmitter in a Russian communications van in Egypt. (Been there, done that -- at 2400 bps full-duplex.)

Third: Point not in evidence.

RE: "Why bother .... IF filters". Selectivity.

RE: Antennas and sailboats and RV's (and other immaterial nonsense).
The point is that the "user" (a.k.a. "Joe Ham") may be in any location, using any type of antenna, and will most probably choose the PBMO that has good signal to his/her location. The "sailboats and RV's" nonsense is just more deliberately contrived and inflammatory ****.

CASE 1:
Even IF a sailboat is used, any sailboat big enough to spend the night on has enough backstay to have a large percentage of a quarter wave -- even at 7 MHz. The probable efficiency is better than 50%. At 50%, we are down about 1/2 of an "S" unit versus a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

CASE 2:
Even if we take a 20 percent efficient antenna, we are just over an "S" unit down from a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

An example of a 20% efficient antenna is an 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 7.2 MHz. (If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 35% efficient.)

CASE 3:
With a 6 percent efficient antenna, we drop just 2 "S" units below a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

An 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 3.9 MHz is just below 6% efficient. (If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 8% efficient.)

Once again, simple facts that are verifiable by anyone.

 

This latest nonsense is answered in my post above.

Just FYI: I have solved issues related to HF voice, data, and fax communications in more countries than most people have seen, and have probably interfaced more different types of equipment to more radios -- including some with schematics in Cyrillic. (No, the schematic symbols are not the same.)

The Rockwell-Collins HF simulator allows REPEATABLE "real world" tests. We would not have spent $5,000.00 per hour plus a couple of tickets, hotel expenses, and meals if there would not have been a proven return. (That test followed tests on our HF simulator, which I co-designed as the HF SME.)

 

YO: Here comes the train, better get off the track!

BEN: As an expert on trains, I recognize that it is a diesel electric locomotive.

YO: Yes but it's going to run over us!

BEN: If you were a qualified engineer like I am with 15 certificates, you'd know that it has a top speed of 30MPH!

YO: UH, I'm getting off the track, you can stay if you want.

BEN: My PHD is Train Science at the University of Budapest lets me comment that the.......

SQUISH!

Good discussion of the merits of various technical subjects and a "lay it on the table" measurement of electrical manhood, but all people really need to know is that a few Digital Elitists want to take over Amateur Radio frequencies. Yep, they're smarter than we are if you don't believe me just ask them. But a Digital Elite smart man QRMing my SSB QSO with a Pactor Modem is the same as "dumb as a post" CBer tuning up and whistling over my QSO. It's all QRM.

 

Classic example of distance equals the product of velocity and time. And, the ghost said, "Oh, but the maximum velocity was 30MPH, and they didn't tell me how to convert velocity into how much time I had left."