The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

Winlink cannot spread out like they do with Pactor-II, only because the rules do not allow it.

This is the whole point - Rules are absolutely necessary to keep Winlink from spreading out like they do with Pactor-II.

If you have not yet done so, please file comments with the FCC and oppose any changes to the current 97.221 if you want to continue to be able to enjoy operating phone in the future.!

Of course, K4CJX thinks your analog SSB mode is outmoded, and besides, sending Email over ham radio is much more fun, so if your idea of the future is just sending Emails over ham radio, just send in comments supporting the adoption of RM-11306.


KH6TY

 

I just received the my Great Lakes Division newsletter from the division director. Here is the part that deals with the ARRL's proposal and bandplan.


"- BOARD MEETING REPORT: Now for the Bandplan
- BOARD MEETING REPORT: Grassroots Effort
- Help wanted
- Separation of Division and Section
- Division Convention

NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN

All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation Primarily by Bandwidth petition have been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie within our bands. None of these references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- e.g., where will Techs be allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? There are still more aspects to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other words, the tough work has not yet been discussed.

More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing the bandplan. The most critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will need a lot of input from members and nonmembers alike as we proceed with the band planning.

It is too early to call for input on the bandplan, but I want to let
you know you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. The objective of all this is to develop a bandplan that is logical and has sufficient buy-in from the amateur community that it is respected and observed voluntarily by the Amateur Radio community."

It looks like they are asking for member (and non-meber) input for a bandplan. On the other hand they also asked for input on the proposal. I am not sure if the ARRL really wants input of if this is just window dressing to make the petition look more pallatable to the members. Since when does the ARRL ask non members for any input? Great PR though.

I read into this that the ARRL sounds pretty confident that the FCC will adopt their petition and that they will be the organization that will craft the gentlemen's agreements that all of us will be expected to adhere to.

73
George
K3UD

 

CHARACTERS PER MINUTE, please.

Steve, k4cjx

 

AT 500 characters per second, a 3823 character message should take only 3823 characters / 500 characters per second = 7.6 seconds.

Then why does the average 3823 character message take 3.6 minutes on the average on Winlink, when it should only take 7.6 seconds?

According to the Winlink "RF footprint" presentation, Pactor-III has a raw speed of 225 characters per second (on a wired circuit, I assume), but in actual practice, on the air on HF, it only achieves 18 characters per second according to the latest status at winlink.org/status.

 

Now that I know what you are touting, I think, here is a
direct quote from the inventor of Pactor 3, Hans-Peter Helfert, "PACTOR-III is capable of a maximum throughput of 2722 bit/sec. This translates to 340 bytes/sec (8 bit/byte). Using text compression, a standard feature of WinLink, at least 500 characters/sec (5.5 bit/character) are possible." What I see with our B2F compression is 3600 bps.

Take it up with Hans-Peter. However, this really has nothing to do with future protocol development to enhance the radio art (unless you are using your "scare" tactics for those who know no better.) A lot of conversation for 24 one hundred watt stations willing to be contained in a reasonable volunteer band plan.



Steve, k4cjx

 

Steve, it is not rocket science to divide 3822 characters per message with 3.6 minutes per message and get 1016 characters per minute.

Dividing that by 60 seconds per minute and you get 18 characters per second, not the 500 characters per second you have been telling everyone, and just imortalized on QRZ.COM!

Gee, if the Winlink Network Administrator cannot understand second-grade math, then the ham bands are in real trouble! (Of course, they ARE in trouble with Winlink!)

What this has to do with the future of the radio art is that high-speed data or multimedia is just not possible on HF, regardless of what you have been telling (and selling) everyone. Winlink's own Pactor-III traffic numbers prove this.Pactor-III already uses over 2 kHz bandwidth and can only manage to transfer one half of a standard page of type in one minute, on the average. This is very far away from "high-speed" data or multimedia transfer!

It takes Winlink 3.6 minutes to send what you claim should go in only 7.6 seconds!

The lesson is that you cannot trust Winlink to say the truth, even about their own performance, and you certainly cannot trust them to adhere to any "voluntary" bandplan.

So, please file comments to the FCC opposing any rewrite of 97.221if you want to continue to enjoy phone operation.

 

That's right..I agree.. A.R.R.L is Worthless..Never been a member and never will be..

KG8FV

 

Claims that Pactor III is going to take over the phone bands are just as unrealistic as a claim that AM phone is going to take over the phone bands.

A Voluntary Band Plan will allow the accommodation of all modes without the drawn out need to change laws.

I have faith the my fellow Hams to work together for a fair plan.

73 Scott

 

Let's look at just two examples of how well Winlink abides by "gentlemen's
agreements", in particular, the existing ARRL bandplan
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

Visit www.winlink.org and check each Winlink station to see what
frequencies they use.

ARRL QST:
7.080-7.100 data
7.100-7.105 automatically digitally controlled stations

ARRL bandplan:
7.040 RTTY DX
7.080-7.100 RTTY
7.171 SSTV
7.290 AM calling frequency

Note that Pactor is just a more modern form of "Packet", or "packetized"
transmissions.

Winlink:
KA6IQA: 7066.9
KB6YNO: 7063.9
KQ4ET: 7067.2
K4CJX: 7076.9
K4SET: 7074.9
K6CYC: 7069.9
W7IJ: 7068.9
...and the 40m list goes on...

ARRL:
10.130-10.140 RTTY
10.140-10.150 Packet

IARU Region 2 Bandplan:
10100 - 10130 CW
10130 - 10140 Digimode, CW
10140 - 10150 Packet Priority, CW

Winlink:
KB6YNO: 10124.9
K4CJX: 10123.9
K6CYC: 10123.9
W7IJ: 10139.5
...and the 30m list goes on...

NOW IS IT CLEAR WHY 30m CW COMMUNICATIONS ARE SO OFTEN DISRUPTED BY WINLINK
STATIONS?

Winlink uses Pactor-III ONLY in the FCC subbands, because FCC *REGULATIONS*
do not permit it to be used outside the subbands, right? Wrong! VE2AFQ, a
Winlink PMBO in Canada near Montreal, operates Pactor-III daily on 14068.9,
but the subbands on 20m, and the ARRL bandplan, require that Pactor-III
stay within 14.095-14.0995 or within 14.1005-14.112.

Winlink obviously has the option to refuse VE2AFQ connection to the Winlink
servers, but THEY ELECT NOT TO DO SO. VE2AFQ is not bound by FCC
regulations, and Canadian regulations (so often quoted by some as a model
for the US to follow), allow anything anywhere, so Winlink takes advantage
of this in order to expand their network to frequencies other than the ARRL
bandplan or the FCC rules where Pactor-III can be used.

Of course Winlink clients in the US cannot legally use VE2AFQ when
operating Pactor-III, but VE2AFQ caters to a large group of French-speaking
sailors, and dominates 2.4 kHz just below the PSK31 activity on 20m. VE2AFQ
is 20 db over S9 here in South Carolina and it is obvious that Canadian
stations must be considered US stations from a potential interference
standpoint.

The point is that Winlink will disregard any bandplan, or "gentlemen's
agreement" that they find too restrictive, and so will others. THEY CANNOT
DISREGARD FCC RULES WITHOUT PENALTY.

This is why we need *RULES* in those cases where there has been repeated
disregard for bandplans. Unattended activities of all kinds is one area
where restricitve *RULES* have been proven to be absolutely necessary. Too
bad, but "one bad apple spoils the whole bushel".

Please file comments and tell the FCC we must have RULES to keep all kinds of automatic operations in one place on each band.

KH6TY

 

Scott,

I guess you forgot to mention you are a Winlink Telpac Gateway station.

Do you have Winlink inside information that they guarantee that they will not spread out with Pactor-III PMBO scan frequencies the same way they now spread out with Pactor-II scan frequencies?

 

Sure, pawn it off on the guy who pockets the $1000 per box (to be able to use Pactor III)

You, sir, and the ARRL missed a boatload of points.  Including:

1.  Mode development, especially WIDE BANDWIDTH development should take place where there's lots of spectrum to play with.  Try 6M and above.

2.  Ever heard of STA (Special Temporary Authority), or Experimental licenses, or even 47CFR15.201, et. seq.?

3.  Ever thought for a second just how much HF spectrum there is, in total available to we hams.  Below 28MHz, its just over 2MHz total!  And you, and your ego-enhanced BOD buddies want to cram multimedia into/onto/across that spectrum by 2010?

4.  ARRL is Sumner's Club.  Plain and simple.  Its not an organization run by and for the majority of ARRL members.  If it were, there would be a TOTALLY DIFFERENT result.  Certainly not the petition submitted.

5.  You expect the FCC to somehow incentivize the spectrum you propose to screw up with automatic digital robots willy/nilly?  Why didn't you solve that one for them.  All you did was restate all subband privileges just the way they now are.

6.  How about letting CTT's nice utilization study solve the dilema.  If only 5.9% of the total traffic observed was digital, irrespective of mode, let's refarm the HF bands based on that usage.  And, confine your robots to not more than 1kHz of bandwidth.  I can live with that.  Especially since on most bands, the 1kHz segments, based on CTT's numbers, would be only a couple of kHz.

Ah, well, that's about all for now.  You can read these in more formal form in the 11 pages of my comments that should hit the PDF machine tomorrow.

73,

Lee
W6EM

 

You do the math. A couple dozen robots attempting connections to forward email using 2.5kHz each on 40M, for example, would take quite a bit of spectrum. And, if each scans 3 frequencies and transmits, as Steve tells us, that's most of it.

Is an example of good voluntary planning, proposing 100kHz bandwidth across most of the 2M band above what is now CW and SSB segments? Sure sounds like ARRL plans to dump its own bandplans, and step on the many organizations that have coordinated repeater and remote base NBFM activity across the nation.

I, too, have faith in the 94.1%, at least, of my fellow hams that use modes other than Pactor w/Winlink to tell the organization that's supposed to represent them and their best interests to do WHAT THEY WANT IT TO.

73,

Lee
W6EM

 

I see an interesting train of thought arising here. We can make all the rules we want here in the USA but that will not change how the Amateurs act outside our borders. Pactor-III operation is already legal in other countries where it would be illegal here. Voice transmissions from other countries are already legal on our non-voice sub-bands. Amateurs licensed in other countries are legally transmitting on HF without having passed a Morse code test.

If the fear mongers are to be believed we would already have an all out war on HF with e-mail bots transmitting on top of foul mouthed no-coders so the poor righteous 20 WPM Extras can't find 30 hertz to send some QRP CW.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Get a grip people.

The only bandplan I can support is one where all countries can agree on. I don't see that happening anytime soon. What we can do is allow the flexibility in where we choose to operate with the mode we choose to operate so that we can begin to enjoy communicating with the stations in countries that have different ideas on bandplans than ours. The only way to do that is allow all modes on any frequency within our operating privileges.

Try to stop the ARRL or FCC from changing the band plan all you want. It's not going to keep the Pactor-III stations from operating on "your" frequency.

I'm not trying to defend Pactor-III. In fact I don't even like Pactor-III. The only way a person can use the mode is with a license from a single vendor. I don't think that fits in with the basis and purpose of Amateur radio. If you want Pactor-III to go away I suggest you all take it from that angle.

We should force the vendor of Pactor-III modems to either open its protocol or discontinue selling modems to Amateurs. Either way they are going to lose money on the deal. Chances are that they will not open the protocol to preserve their sales to the maritime radio market.

In the small chance that they do open the Pactor-III protocol then we will still have the option of enforcing the rules as they exist in the prevention of interference. These stations are, by definition, under the control of some licensed operator. The operator is individually responsible for any harm it may cause. Find those that are operating outside of proper Amateur practice and shut them down. Which is what we should be doing right now instead of trying to legislate them off the bands.

 

You're right, Skip, the confusion was in the way we each have stated it. But I have seen hams go to a proposed operation sooner than it was legal, so I felt I should note that the boundaries haven't changed yet. Hopefully they won't change!

The FCC listing is the defining one, of course, but I don't believe the ARRL one is any different. They have been pretty accurate over the years in presenting the regulations to us.

But as a Life Member, I have to say they are completely wrong on this proposal and I have filed comments with FCC saying so.

 

You folks haven't seen anything yet!!

Take a close look at the ARRL proposal and what it does with Part 97.307(f).

97.307(f)(3) limits the baud rate on HF to 300 baud.

97.307(f)(4) limits the baude rate on 10m to 1200 baud.

97.307(f)(5) limits the baud rate on 2m and 70cm to 19.6 kbaud

Guess what! The ARRL proposal does away totally with these limitations.

Under the ARRL proposal the maximum baud rate will basically be the equal to the widest signal bandwidth allowed on the applicable band.

The maximum baud rate on HF will 3500baud.

The maximum baud rate on 2m will be 100 kbaud.

The maximum baud rate on 70cm is not able to be figured since the ARRL proposal provides for unlimited bandwidth signals on 70cm. In other words if you want to fire up a 30Mhz wide signal on 70cm, have at it. If you can do it at a time that the whole band is idle and you can keep the signal running 24/7 you can tie up the whole band with no one to say Boo! under the regulations the ARRL is proposing. Kiss off your 70cm repeaters if they ever all go idle at once and someone wants to tie up the band!

I haven't yet figured out what the ramifications of this will be.

A 3500 baud rate data signal carrying perhaps a 32 bit QAM signal is going to have a very low crest factor (i.e. a very high average power output) and will require LARGE output powers to make the quantization levels be higher than the noise level on the HF bands.

I suspect this means that if you operate phone on the HF bands you should be prepared for some VERY high powered, VERY high power density signals to start showing up very quickly.

If you think Pactor III is bad, wait till they start firing up 1500 watt output Pactor IV signals with a power crest factor of 2 (e.g. 750 watt average output -- kind of like a BIG AM signal running continuously).

I'm going to have to think this one through pretty quickly in order to revise my comments to the FCC.

I certainly don't want to compete on SSB with signals like this.

tim ab0wr