RadioBanter - View Single Post - ARRL . . Readies Bandwidth Recommendations

April 15th 05, 08:53 AM

wrote:
subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL
EC)
in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of
Amateur
HF
operations? Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for
the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they
are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show
logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot
produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

They've all been licensed and active in varying degrees for years.
Specific, personal activity levels and mode experiences completely
aside they are senior members of the League hierarchy who make policy
recommendations and decisions. What matters and all that matters is
the
policy proposals they come up with and whether or not thee, me and
the
rest of the ~670k of us support their propsals. Or not.

Why is it that we spend lifetimes accumulating "knowledge and
experience" only to have someone else try and dismiss it when we no
longer look like someone in the centerfold of "GQ" or "Cosmo"...?!?!

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed
out,
I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to
define,
let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA
to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement
for
verification.

That's not what he said but the net result is the same and it's
unacceptable. If the name of the game is mode separation by bandwidth
then the bandwidths obviously have to be specified in detail and
enforced. These "gentlemens agreement" and "self-regulation"
non-rules
worked pretty well in days of yore but in today's world they're shaky
at best and hopeless anachronisms at worst.

The advent of PSK31 et al is only further evidence that we need
appropriate subbands. Mike's experiences with W1AW are not unique, nor
is it any "evidence" of poor operating practice on the wider mode
station's part. Just like oil and water, there are some things you can
mix, others you can't, no matter how aggressively you stir the
contents.

First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and
regs
for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a
while,
so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that
established
first.

I don't know if it's carved in stone in Part 97 or if the
"listen-before-transmitting" rule falls into the nebulous collection
of
"good amateur operating practices" but it's out there and the
unmanned
mailbox-type stations are all in violation of it today. The proposal
recommends herding these modes into specific small slices of the
bands
which is one piece of it I agree with.

And sometimes even when the control operator listens dilligently,
he's going to miss something and someone's going to get stepped
on...Not "maliciously", but it's going to happen.

I've had occassions where I listened, sent "..--.." before my CQ,
then started my call, only to get a terse "QSY QSY" after the fact.

Oh well.

For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM
or
SSB) at any time?

They identify with whatever mode they're using. As long as the FCC
monitoring facilities can decipher it.

I am still of the opinion that some "standard" form of ID should
be included for the benefit of those who DO get interfered with in
order that they may contact the "offending" station in order to work
out differences without FCC involvement.

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF
Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a
service
in the public interest.

That would be nice but unless something very new pops up I don't
think
it's a realistic expectation. The history of the rise & fall of the
NTS
and the rise of the Internet and it's effects on ham radio is the
reality today.

My own beefs against this proposal are two-fold: Very seldom in the
history of regulation has a thicker rulebook generated an improvement
in the long run. The IRS code is a shining example. Secondly it is my
opinion that modes should to be allowed to duke it out on an equal
basis to sort out which survive and which can't stand the heat and
disappear. With some common-sense limitations like we have today like
the lower edges of the phone bands.

If you roll back to the 1950s a whole plethora of HF phone modes
showed
up on the bands and competed with the then-standard AM. We had NBFM,
double-sideband suppressed carrier, single-sideband suppressed
carrier
and variants on those. It was a helluva competitive joust spread over
about ten years.

In the end we basically got what we have today: SSB, a few AM
stations,
and later some SSTV, etc. The general approach to allowing
unfettered
competition worked back then and I don't see what has changed enough
to
essentially toss the whole works and start over just because some
users
of HF digital modes have shown up on the bands in the past few years.

Seems to me that this proposal is another result of the League being
a
whole lot more excited about HF digital modes and their impacts on
the
bands than the rest of us are.

I'm 50/50 with you on this one, Brian...I am not in favor of
thickening up that rule book like you illustrated, however there should
be SOME lines drawn for protecting those very-narrow and ultra-narrow
modes.

73

Steve, K4YZ