| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Extension of PSK segment
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31 segment or two. Presently, the "suggested frequencies" take up about a ssb voice slice of bandwidth per band. And that slice is getting pretty busy. esp on 20 meters. While the short and simple answer is just move to a new frequency, in practical terms it is nice for low power modes like PSK 31 to have a place to gather. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 13, 5:01 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements? Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31 segment or two. Heck, Mike, your first challenge will be to get the gentlemen to agree. ;-) Presently, the "suggested frequencies" take up about a ssb voice slice of bandwidth per band. And that slice is getting pretty busy. esp on 20 meters. Those suggested frequencies are simply that: suggested. While the short and simple answer is just move to a new frequency, in practical terms it is nice for low power modes like PSK 31 to have a place to gather. PSK31 isn't just a low power mode, Mike. If you need to boost your signal to compensate for band conditions, there's nothing precluding that. Dave K8MN |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements? Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31 segment or two. Hi Mike, I'm not a big fan of "gentlemen's agreements". Neither am I a fan of FCC mandated "segment by mode", a related issue. If the "market" is demanding more space for PSK31, then let the market forces prevail. A broader PSK31 segment will occur (or not occur) based on the priciple of supply/demand. Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation- by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice with each other." 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 14, 4:28?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals worth of space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em. I disagree! It seems to me that the best way for the different modes to coexist is for like modes to cluster together, rather than being spread about the band. If PSK31 is currently between Frequency A and Frequency (A plus 2.7 kHz), and more room is needed, it seems the most logical thing to do is to spread out a little below A and/or a little above (A plus 2.7) That way it's easy to find each other. IMHO the whole point of gentleman's agreements is not to set a hard line in the sand that marks absolute territory (the regs do that)., but rather to be a flexible line that moves as conditions warrant. This will be more and more important in the future, as more diverse modes share the same bandspace, often without the ability to intercommunicate. Expecting every amateur station to be equipped to transmit and receive every possible digital mode in use by hams on a band just isn't reasonable. So we need gentleman's agreements. IMHO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 15, 3:44�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Mar 14, 4:28?pm, Michael Coslo wrote: What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals worth of space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em. I disagree! It seems to me that the best way for the different modes to coexist is for like modes to cluster together, rather than being spread about the band. If PSK31 is currently between Frequency A and Frequency (A plus 2.7 kHz), and more room is needed, it seems the most logical thing to do is to spread out a little below A and/or a little above (A plus 2.7) That way it's easy to find each other. * * * * It does make it easy, very true. * * * * A little bit about my seemingly weird rationale. * * * * RTTY signals often trash the segment, especially when there is a contest going on. A couple RTTY signals in the segment, PSKer's just turn their radios off (or switch modes) *My thoughts were that if there were a RTTY station in between segments, another RTTY will probably set up far away from them to give us a little breathing room Maybe. It seems to me that there are really two problems here. The first is that there are times when there are so many PSKers' on simultaneously that more room is needed. That's the situation I imagined, and what my fix was aimed at. The second problem is when the band gets busy with contesters and such. That's a problem every mode faces, and going elsewhere in the band may or may not solve it. The WARC bands are one solution. IMHO the whole point of gentleman's agreements is not to set a hard line in the sand that marks absolute territory (the regs do that)., but rather to be a flexible line that moves as conditions warrant. This will be more and more important in the future, as more diverse modes share the same bandspace, often without the ability to intercommunicate. We really get hammered by those robot stations. Open up on top of us and since they are automatic, not much can be done about it. One solution is to expand the PSK31 watering hole outside the robot subband. * * * * Digipan does have recieve software so that we can ID the station and issue a complaint to the FCC. I haven't seen as much of it lately, mayber the complaints are working. Yup. It's important to document such things, particularly from robots, because one of the arguments put forth for allowing "semi-robot" operation all over the band was that the nonrobot end would avoid QRM. In the real world, that may not work out. I don't mean to sound like a wimp regarding PSK31. It is just a unique and low power mode that is easily disruptable by other modes. Nothing wimpy about it, Didn't sound that way either. Expecting every amateur station to be equipped to transmit and receive every possible digital mode in use by hams on a band just isn't reasonable. So we need gentleman's agreements. IMHO. It seems to me that as the variety of modes used by hams continues to grow, we need more and better agreements in order to be able to best use the spectrum available to us. -- K0HB has suggested that we let "the market" decide. I think that has been done, in a way. Some time back, a group calling itself the "Communications Think Tank" (CTT), proposed simply eliminating all subbands-by-mode from the regulations. Their proposal would have allowed all authorized modes on every Hz of every band. "The market" spoke very clearly, in the form of comments to FCC. The CTT proposal was overwhelmingly opposed. About 7 out of 8 comments on it clearly said NO. Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... "The market" spoke very clearly, in the form of comments to FCC. The CTT proposal was overwhelmingly opposed. About 7 out of 8 comments on it clearly said NO. Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! 73 de Jim, N2EY However, if a new market comes forth, one composed of amateurs with little or no knowledge of CW and only using digital voice and digital data transmission--it would be market controlled also, and one would suspect it would self-correct and frown on the use of the bands for wasteful analog and cw communications. I would disagree. Those modes are not wasteful. On the other hand, a vision of using the HF bands for data transmission would indeed be a way of filling up our bands pretty quickly, and for not a lot of gain. If I'm interested in Data Transmission, I would design a system for frequencies where there is less natural noise - VHF and up. Then bandwidth issues would be less of a problem too. Let's face it, digital voice is the only way to go. I would disagree. What I have seen in digital voice so far offers no particular advantage over SSB, unless we are talking about digital for it's own sake. Most schemes that I have seen have some fatal flaws, such as the received transmission must be received in toto - IOW if you don't catch the beginning, you don't catch anything. The solution to that would be channelizing HF, or assigning specific frequencies to Digital voice. In addition, unless there have been some big advances recently, Digital voice does not have any particular bandwidth advantages. Give me a Digital voice mode that I can tune across the band and pick up a conversation at any point in the transmission, and a 1 KHz or less bandwidth signal, and then I'll be interested. And of course, I'll need to see that some other folks are buying the digital radios too, so I'll have people to talk to. PSK is too slow for data transmission of LARGE and multi-megabyte amounts of data, end of story. As for PSK, you are correct that it is too slow for data transmission. But that little 31 baud signal was never intended for Data transmission. It was intended for correctable text at a rate that a reasonably proficient typist could tap away at the keyboard in real time. Also a mode that can be efficiently operated at QRP and lover levels. And for that, it is an excellent mode. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 15, 7:44 pm, wrote:
. Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! Actually I suspect it is a clear message from the embedded "gentlemen". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 15, 11:38�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: "The market" spoke very clearly, in the form of comments to FCC. The CTT proposal was overwhelmingly opposed. About 7 out of 8 comments on it clearly said NO. Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! 73 de Jim, N2EY However, if a new market comes forth, one composed of amateurs with little or no knowledge of CW and only using digital voice and digital data transmission--it would be market controlled also, and one would suspect it would self-correct and frown on the use of the bands for wasteful analog and cw communications. If a new market appears, use of various modes will change, and the new market can propose rules changes to FCC. If a new market really does emerge, such proposal will be widely supported in the comments. However, it seems to me that the "new market" may be more of an illusion than a reality. We've had PCs in hamshacks for a couple decades now, and yet the popularity of analog modes doesn't seem to be declining. I recall being told, 20+ years ago, that there would soon be a national highspeed digital amateur radio packet network using VHF and UHF that would turn HF into a backup system. Never happened. As for "wasteful analog and cw communications" - why do you call them wasteful? Can a real-time digital voice message be sent in the width of an SSB voice signal and result in the same effectiveness? (signal to noise, power requirements, lack of need to synchronize, tolerance of interference and fading, etc.)? Is there any non-text data mode (IOW, something you listen to rather than look at) which can replace Morse Code? Should AM voice be banned from amateur radio? How about FM voice? Let's face it, digital voice is the only way to go. Why? And which kind of digital voice? Why can't there be a choice of modes - digital, analog, old, new - available to hams? *PSK is too slow for data transmission of LARGE and multi-megabyte amounts of data, end of story. Not the end of the story at all. Yes, PSK31 is too slow for large amounts of data - because it wasn't designed for that. PSK31 was designed to be a keyboard-to-keyboard mode that uses very little bandwidth and has excellent performance with low S/N ratios. It was meant as an improvement to FSK RTTY for such QSOs. For real-time (live) QSOs, PSK31 is fast enough. An "industry standard" for encryption/compaction and decryption/de-compaction still needs to come forth to deal with HIGH transfer rates of digital voice and data transmission and availability to ALL hardware/software developers/manufacturers be assured to such a standard(s) ... Yup. And that's the "who's going to tie the bell on the cat" question. Who will come up with that standard? That's the key question to the whole issue. Who is going to do all that development work and then give it away free? G3PLX and a small group did it for PSK31. Great care needs to exercised when proposing and developing acceptable schemes to the above, we certainly don't need to create a "tower of babel" by not having free access to algorithms and standard methods in common use--and free use and experimentation needs to be right up front and encouraged--this only holds with the tradition of amateur radio! Agreed! And it's already been established as a tradition. PSK-31 is a classic example. Everything about it is wide open and free-for-the-download. OTOH, Pactor 2/3 is not free at all. Implementing it requires buying a specific hardware modem that is rather pricey. Some may say that $600 for a modem isn't much in the scheme of things, but even if that's true, it's the principle of proprietary methods that goes against the grain. btw, there is a downside to all this digital stuff. With 'analog' modes, such as AM, FM, SSB and Morse Code, anyone with a suitable receiver can hear amateur communications as they were meant to be heard. Tuning in SSB requires a specialized technique, and *understanding* Morse Code requires learning a skill or using a decoder, but all that is needed to receive them is a suitable receiver. IOW, they're wide open. With digital modes, the incoming message is incomprehensible without a decoding device - usually a computer. That creates a divide between those who are equipped and those who aren't. Some may think this is trivial in a world where computers are all over the place. And perhaps it is. But it may not be a trivial thing at all. In the days when AM voice was *the* voice mode used by hams on HF, amateur radio got a lot of new hams from folks who heard hams talking on their 'shortwave' receivers. That source all but disappeared when SSB replaced AM, because most SWLs couldn't receive SSB. More recently, we've gotten new hams from the ranks of the scanner folks, because they could hear amateur FM repeaters. Going digital would eliminate most of that. IOW, watch out for the Law of Unintentional Consequences. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
In article .com,
wrote: Can a real-time digital voice message be sent in the width of an SSB voice signal and result in the same effectiveness? (signal to noise, power requirements, lack of need to synchronize, tolerance of interference and fading, etc.)? The review of DRM-based digital voice in this month's QST makes a point of noting that both the WinDRM and hardware-modem-based systems require a pretty clean, fade-free propagation path in order to perform well. On less clean paths, they're prone to drop out... I infer that as soon as the facing or QRM is severe enough to overcome the forward error correction coding, you lose an entire packet. Not the end of the story at all. Yes, PSK31 is too slow for large amounts of data - because it wasn't designed for that. PSK31 was designed to be a keyboard-to-keyboard mode that uses very little bandwidth and has excellent performance with low S/N ratios. It was meant as an improvement to FSK RTTY for such QSOs. I've heard of at least two groups who have been working on a PSK31-based bulk data transmission system - both systems uses both forward error correction and an ACK/NAK protocol structure. It's not intended for megabytes of data, but for semi-unattended transmission of modest amounts of data during emergencies. For example, basic health&welfare traffic (queries and "We're OK, are in the shelter" responses) can be entered via online Web forms, the fields converted to a compact representation and heavily compressed, and then sent out in big batches via PSK31 or a similar narrow-bandwidth mode. The idea isn't to replace SSB voice (or CW net traffic) but to supplement it, reducing the operators' workload and reducing errors. It's certainly not intended as a substitute for broadband! Yup. And that's the "who's going to tie the bell on the cat" question. Who will come up with that standard? That's the key question to the whole issue. Who is going to do all that development work and then give it away free? G3PLX and a small group did it for PSK31. Agreed! And it's already been established as a tradition. PSK-31 is a classic example. Everything about it is wide open and free-for-the-download. OTOH, Pactor 2/3 is not free at all. Implementing it requires buying a specific hardware modem that is rather pricey. Some may say that $600 for a modem isn't much in the scheme of things, but even if that's true, it's the principle of proprietary methods that goes against the grain. There was some work going on towards an open-source higher-speed HF-data protocol a couple of years ago - SCAMP. If I recall correctly it's based on OFDM (like DRM) with heavy use of forward error correction. The last I heard of it, it had worked out well under clean-pathway conditions, but wasn't working all that well under noisy/fade-prone conditions and wasn't yet considered "ready for prime time" or (as yet) a serious competitor to Pactor 2/3. Haven't heard anything more about it in the last year or so - it's possible that development has stalled. IOW, watch out for the Law of Unintentional Consequences. a.k.a. "Oops!" :-) -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Extension of PSK segment
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 15, 11:38�pm, John Smith I wrote: wrote: [snip] PSK is too slow for data transmission of LARGE and multi-megabyte amounts of data, end of story. Not the end of the story at all. Yes, PSK31 is too slow for large amounts of data - because it wasn't designed for that. PSK31 was designed to be a keyboard-to-keyboard mode that uses very little bandwidth and has excellent performance with low S/N ratios. It was meant as an improvement to FSK RTTY for such QSOs. My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? The need for it doesn't exist in general. If it did, someone would have developed the appropriate digital mode by now. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 17, 2:19�am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? * I can think of a couple uses for it, Dee. First there's emergency/public service comms. The served agencies are used to being able to send emails with sizable attachments through the usual networks. A mode that would let them do that via amateur radio when the usual networks are not available would be a really good tool in the emcomm toolbox. IMHO it's the thinking pushing WinLink. Second, there are plenty of times in an ordinary QSO when it would be good to be able to send a picture, station description, article, a sound clip, etc. directly by radio, and have it in digital format at the other end. In the past, such modes as SSTV have gained limited acceptance because they required lots of extra apparatus, but with the widespread acceptance of PCs today the big limitation is software, not hardware. The need for it doesn't exist in general. In some cases, if something is presented to people, they will find a use for it. Look back on predictions about computers - in the early '50s it was predicted that a half- dozen or so general-purpose computers would serve all the needs of the USA, and in the '70s it was said that no ordinary person would ever need a computer in their home. Both pronouncements were made by knowledgeable professionals, and at the time seemed quite reasonable. Of course "if you build it, they will come" doesn't always work out. *If it did, someone would have developed the appropriate digital mode by now. I disagree. One of the big problems is that such development tends to be protected by the developers, and *not* made open-source. PSK-31 and Linux are exceptions, not the rule. In the bad old days, the focus was on hardware, and the idea of controlling a mode-concept wasn't taken too seriously. SSB, FM, SSTV, RTTY, AX.25 packet, etc., all came to amateur radio essentially as freebies. The standard was widely and publicly available, just meet it and go on the air. But you can't homebrew a Pactor 2/3 modem today the way you could homebrew an SSB rig 50 years ago. The "bell-the-cat" question is still *who* is going to develop such new modes and then just give them away for free. Groups that have tried (TAPR and the spread-spectrum idea) have taken years without much to show. All IMHO 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
[snip] My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? The need for it doesn't exist in general. If it did, someone would have developed the appropriate digital mode by now. Dee, N8UZE Erm.... Packet Radio..?! I ran a packet BBS for 11 years, ok so it was slow (1200/9600 bd) but it was reliable and transmitted a *lot* of data (ok most of it rubbish, but what the heck..?!) 73 Ivor G6URP |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 17, 1:19 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? "Because we can" Actually, I agree that there may be no particular ongoing NEED for an Amateur Radio high volume data channel, but neither was there a NEED for LEOs, APRS, and similar "tinkerer" modes, many of which had their genesis in ham shacks and now have morphed into commercial applications. I believe that the rules for Amateur Radio regulations should be loosened to the "least required to protect other spectrum users" with the intention to promote a renewed spirit of experimentation by hams. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 17, 2:19�am, "Dee Flint" wrote: My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? I can think of a couple uses for it, Dee. First there's emergency/public service comms. The served agencies are used to being able to send emails with sizable attachments through the usual networks. A mode that would let them do that via amateur radio when the usual networks are not available would be a really good tool in the emcomm toolbox. IMHO it's the thinking pushing WinLink. Perhaps they would like to have such but IMHO, when the catastrophe is serious enough and wide spread enough that hams are truly needed, that is apt to be coupled with power source limitations that would make it unwise to send such length attachments in many cases. Plain ascii text would be the most useful and results in low file size. There are several modes that can handle that. In addition, the power source limitations might make running computers as well as radios an unwise choice in some situations. Second, there are plenty of times in an ordinary QSO when it would be good to be able to send a picture, station description, article, a sound clip, etc. directly by radio, and have it in digital format at the other end. In the past, such modes as SSTV have gained limited acceptance because they required lots of extra apparatus, but with the widespread acceptance of PCs today the big limitation is software, not hardware. Yes the PC capabilities have done a lot for digital modes of all types. The need for it doesn't exist in general. In some cases, if something is presented to people, they will find a use for it. Look back on predictions about computers - in the early '50s it was predicted that a half- dozen or so general-purpose computers would serve all the needs of the USA, and in the '70s it was said that no ordinary person would ever need a computer in their home. Both pronouncements were made by knowledgeable professionals, and at the time seemed quite reasonable. Well the science fiction authors were envisioning small personal size computers almost from the day computers were invented. I must have read a lot of it as I've always believed that computers would become an everyday tool for everyone. Of course "if you build it, they will come" doesn't always work out. If it did, someone would have developed the appropriate digital mode by now. I disagree. One of the big problems is that such development tends to be protected by the developers, and *not* made open-source. PSK-31 and Linux are exceptions, not the rule. Well I disagree with your disagreement. To me it seems that there are enough hams that somewhere in that group are several people capable of doing this it they deemed it worth doing. Then we would have modes and software developed by hams for hams. Then there would be more likelihood that it would be shared in the same manner as PSK-31. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that development other than lack of interest. etc., all came to amateur radio essentially as freebies. The standard was widely and publicly available, just meet it and go on the air. But you can't homebrew a Pactor 2/3 modem today the way you could homebrew an SSB rig 50 years ago. Well the today's computer capabilities, the hardware aspect simply goes away. It becomes a software issue. The "bell-the-cat" question is still *who* is going to develop such new modes and then just give them away for free. Groups that have tried (TAPR and the spread-spectrum idea) have taken years without much to show. I think the problem with the spread-spectrum is that for ham radio operators, the usefulness simply doesn't justify setting up to use it. People want to get out there and find stations rather than having to have pre-arranged schedules for everything. If it doesn't seem useful to them, people will pass on it. This occurs in all fields of endeavor. A person has a bright idea, packages it, markets it, and it doesn't sell simply because the market doesn't perceive any significant need for or pleasure derived from the product. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message ... wrote: On Mar 17, 2:19�am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] On the pro side, it really makes a lot of sense in theory. If we hams could offer this kind of capability to emergency agencies, it would provide a much-needed communications capability in times of disaster. But it would need to be stand-alone and not depend upon repeaters that might be out of service, which to me implies HF. On the con side, a real disaster is the worst possible scenario for trying to get this technology to work reliably. You're potentially in a high-noise low-signal poor-antenna situation. The equipment required is fairly complex, and you need a fair amount of technical knowledge to set it up. When I build a mental image of someone at a shelter trying to set up this gear, it's hard for me to see success. Finally there's the issue of what data gets sent; some of it probably is not appropriate for transmission using amateur radio. Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst disasters. Not only do you have the bad signal to noise ratio and poor antennas, you may be power limited. People remark on the low power capabilities of PSK31 for example but they are only looking at transmit power. You really need to look at power consumption. That means adding in the computer/monitor combo. One might actually be better off with voice. Second, there are plenty of times in an ordinary QSO when it would be good to be able to send a picture, station description, article, a sound clip, etc. directly by radio, and have it in digital format at the other end. In the past, such modes as SSTV have gained limited acceptance because they required lots of extra apparatus, but with the widespread acceptance of PCs today the big limitation is software, not hardware. This one I find intriguing. I do think that if the capability existed, and did not require purchase of hardware in addition to a PC, that it would be interesting to enough hams to create a critical mass. It provides an alternative playground for hams who prefer to experiment using the keyboard of their PC rather than their soldering iron. 73, Steve KB9X I agree that the fun of it is the most probable driver. Yet SSTV has not grown as rapidly as one might expect when it became possible to do it all with one's computer. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 17, 1:19 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: My question on this is why would we be sending large amounts of data on amateur radio? "Because we can" Now that is the best answer I've seen. It embodies the spirit of amateur radio and the idea of experimenting be it hardware or software. Actually, I agree that there may be no particular ongoing NEED for an Amateur Radio high volume data channel, but neither was there a NEED for LEOs, APRS, and similar "tinkerer" modes, many of which had their genesis in ham shacks and now have morphed into commercial applications. That is how I view amateur radio. The concept is to develop something new and different not to try to integrate commercial developments into amateur radio unless it were necessary to use as a basis for that "new and different" development. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote:
That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all and is extremely poor policy. I understand your view, Phil, especially coming from your long background in a regulatory environment. But I think one of the failures of the FCC stewardship of Amateur Radio has been over-regulation. Pause here, and refresh your mindset on the difference between "regulation" and "enforcement". One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. (As an example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.) Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, "That government is best which governs least." I believe "that agency regulates best which regulates least." Give us a sandbox to play in, make sure we don't trash the surrounding neighborhood, and let us play our game. Use enforcement, not over regulation, to make sure the public interest is served. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 17, 7:31�pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote: That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all and is extremely poor policy. I understand your view, Phil, especially coming from your long background in a regulatory environment. But I think one of the failures of the FCC stewardship of Amateur Radio has been over-regulation. Pause here, and refresh your mindset on the difference between "regulation" and "enforcement". One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. *(As an example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.) Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, "That government is best which governs least." I believe "that agency regulates best which regulates least." Give us a sandbox to play in, make sure we don't trash the surrounding neighborhood, and let us play our game. *Use enforcement, not over regulation, to make sure the public interest is served. In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or at the very least don't work well. The proposed bandwidth subdivisions will be a disaster if they ever come to fruition. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 14, 1:47�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote: What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements? Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31 segment or two. Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation- by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are your band segments by license class. *Stay inside them and play nice with each other." This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would it be appropriate for Amateur Radio? Steve, K4YZ |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 17, 4:37 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message If it doesn't seem useful to them, people will pass on it. ever heard of APRS? ;) for some time it existed and described as a solution is search of a problem what is needed in digital mode "sexiness" for want of a better term. if it fun to do nobody (but grousers) will care how usefull it is |
Extension of PSK segment
"Steve Bonine" wrote ...
Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur radio more like "here are your allocations"? I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be sufficient. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly hope. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to do on our own. OTOH, Why should we be surprised if Amateur Radio appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general? It would be nice if we were better behaved, but perhaps that is too high an expectation. Richard Crowley KE7GKP |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 18, 2:10 am, wrote:
In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or at the very least don't work well. Thank you, Steve. Your point is very real, and the historic 'solution' has been for the government (FCC) to impose regulatory handcuffs on the market-based arbitration of that tension. This has the practical effect of total regulatory favor of the legacy use over the exploration of new ideas. New ideas not only have to overcome regulatory hindrance to feasibility trial (STA's, etc.) but once on the air must fit into a regulatory mishmash of allocation buckets already dominated by old legacy uses. This is the ultimate irony in the only radio service chartered to "advance the state of the radio art". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
Richard Crowley wrote:
OTOH, Why should we be surprised if Amateur Radio appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general? Not to mention the declining technical interest and mathematical expertise. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Extension of PSK segment
Michael Coslo on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:42:30 CST wrote:
John Smith I wrote: wrote: However, if a new market comes forth, one composed of amateurs with little or no knowledge of CW and only using digital voice and digital data transmission--it would be market controlled also, and one would suspect it would self-correct and frown on the use of the bands for wasteful analog and cw communications. I would disagree. Those modes are not wasteful. On the other hand, a vision of using the HF bands for data transmission would indeed be a way of filling up our bands pretty quickly, and for not a lot of gain. If I'm interested in Data Transmission, I would design a system for frequencies where there is less natural noise - VHF and up. Then bandwidth issues would be less of a problem too. I disagree with both of you...:-) For one thing, 300 WPM equivalent data rate at 170 Hz "Spread" on HF does a credible job of sending text in only a half-KHz of bandwidth. The presumption is that "data" somehow MUST have "perfect" conditions to avoid errors is false. The BER or Bit Error Rate rules the show and is a function of noise and transmission rate (in units per second) and bandwidth. Claude Shannon used the example of a teleprinter signal on his seminal 1947 paper...which became boiled down to the more familiarly-known "Shannon's Law." That was 60 years ago and Claude wasn't considering OOK CW modes. :-) "Data" can have a wide BER range depending on the design of the data coding, all compared data systems having the same data rate, signal-to-noise ratio, and channel bandwidth. Forward Error Correction improves the BER but isn't an absolute necessity. An example is the ordinary modem we use on-line. If you have a human handset as well as the modem line, try picking up the handset and making random noise in it while the modem is on-line. That's an extreme case, but survivable without data disaster. You might be surprised at how well it can survive without messing up the screen. Let's face it, digital voice is the only way to go. I would disagree. What I have seen in digital voice so far offers no particular advantage over SSB, unless we are talking about digital for it's own sake. Most schemes that I have seen have some fatal flaws, such as the received transmission must be received in toto - IOW if you don't catch the beginning, you don't catch anything. I disagree with that and I have seen/heard many such systems but - certainly - not all of them. The digitized bit stream can be structured to enable a receiver to ID it and lock onto it quickly. It there are lots of tones in the multiplexed digital signal (such as with OFDM) that should be enough for an ID and lock-in. The solution to that would be channelizing HF, or assigning specific frequencies to Digital voice. In addition, unless there have been some big advances recently, The "big advances" have already come, like in the late 1980s. I'm mentioning a hint to the U.S. military SINCGARS in its digital mode (with or without frequency-hopping). DSSS essentially. Such can be slowed down or scaled to reduce its bandwidth without disabling intelligibility (no encryption needed or allowed by amateur regulations). Digital voice does not have any particular bandwidth advantages. Maybe not, but the decoded voice can be crystal clear all the way to the threshold point (where it breaks up suddenly). It sounds like an FM link with lots of amplitude variation, yet there isn't any decoded speach amplitude variation. A case in point is HDTV that we've had in this house for a year. I've put an attenuator in the TV cable line and NOT see a bit of difference in video nor hear any in the audio until there is lots of attenuation reaching the threashold of input. Give me a Digital voice mode that I can tune across the band and pick up a conversation at any point in the transmission, and a 1 KHz or less bandwidth signal, and then I'll be interested. Those are already in the works. And of course, I'll need to see that some other folks are buying the digital radios too, so I'll have people to talk to. Hmmm...what if they are thinking the same thing? :-) Case in point: PSK31, Peter Martinez' clever brainchild was spread all over Europe and tested by many on the Continent for four years before it was first publicized in ARRL publications. Not many in the USA were aware that PSK31 even existed, let alone proven under "field conditions." Publicity caused its spread over on this side of the pond. PSK is too slow for data transmission of LARGE and multi-megabyte amounts of data, end of story. Sorry, John, but you haven't justified any NEED for "large and multi-megabyte amounts of data" in the amateur bands below 30 MHz. Please think harder on how much data throughput CAN happen with existing data bandwidths and rates first. It is quite large, although that is in subjective terms. As for PSK, you are correct that it is too slow for data transmission. But that little 31 baud signal was never intended for Data transmission. It was intended for correctable text at a rate that a reasonably proficient typist could tap away at the keyboard in real time. Absolutely so and that was a design goal of G3PLX way back in the begining. Also a mode that can be efficiently operated at QRP and lover levels. And for that, it is an excellent mode. Not necessarily true. PSK31 is efficient in terms of bandwidth reduction versus data rate, still well within Shannon's Law, but it can be used at high RF powers just as easily as low RF powers. It seems to me to be Conventional Wisdom (a new form of "CW") that "high power" in USA amateur bands is associated only with OOK CW or SSB. All other modes seem to be ignored in the literature as a general rule. That's not a technical thing, just a subjective thing of the high-power types' desires. I've observed that most of them are ultra-conservative (as a general rule) insofar as mode use is concerned. Sometimes one has to look "outside the box" of Conventional [amateur] Wisdom to see where contemporary limits are in the practical, working sense. 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 18, 9:22�am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Steve Bonine" *wrote ... Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur radio more like "here are your allocations"? I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be sufficient. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly hope. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to do on our own. OTOH, Why should *we be surprised if Amateur Radio appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general? It *would be nice if we were better behaved, but perhaps that is too high an expectation. Richard Crowley KE7GKP I can't agree with the "general societal decline" opinion. That's been a general remark all through seven decades of my life by each successive generation...who have all generally flourished despite all their dire predictions. What has been happening, to amateur radio as well as to "general society" is CHANGE. Changes upset our cozy concepts, those of the liked and familiar, with strange new things, unfamiliar and untried. Changes WILL happen and succeeding generations will consider them as "old hat" in their day yet to come. :-) I have to agree with Hans Brakob's "here are your bands, have a nice day" concept (borrowed from the late Don Stoner?). In general, that is. Practically, there must be a middle ground in regulations. I don't think that governmental micromanagement of mode allocations per band is the way to go...nor should there be so many conditional regulations on top of those when the rest of the radio world is exploring new things and making them work. The FCC presently yields a lot of options to amateurs insofar as mode use goes. If certain "gentlemen" are inclined to stick with their familiar options at the expense of other gentlemen, then the gentlemen ought to settle it themselves. All the FCC can do is enforce their long- standing "no interference with licensed users" dictum which I think is a good thing. There's no territorial imperative to be claimed in amateur radio spectrum allocations, nobody "owns" certain bandspaces nor frequencies. As time goes on, there WILL be changes to amateur radio bandspace divisions. There WILL be the usual cry by the established "gentlemen" and the general harrangues of those "gentlemen" desiring change. Seeking a middle ground is necessary and the FCC may have to step in (again) and change the subdivisions. If it must, then the "gentlemen" on both sides have failed to agree and the pessimistic view will be realized. I'm not optimistic that all are "gentlemen" and can settle things among themselves. I would hope they would but I've seen a lot of generations of humans do their thing on many varieties of activities. 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
Steve Bonine writes:
wrote: Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur radio more like "here are your allocations"? I can't speak for anybody else, but here in Norway this is the case. There are power limits, of course, and bandwidth limits - 6 kHz on most of HF, wider for higher frequencies. The IARU bandplans are respected, so although SSB is legal in below 14.1 MHz, you don't hear any. Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if anybody is curious. 73 de LA4RT Jon |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 18, 10:03?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Because amateur radio is supposed to be self regulating. Where is that written in the rules? I can't find it anywhere. Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur radio more like "here are your allocations"? Many countries outside the US do not have the specific subbands-by-mode that the USA does. What they do instead is to define the bands available to amateurs and the modes their amateurs are allowed on each of those bands. Where in a band that amateurs choose to use a particular mode in a particular band is left up to gentleman's agreements. Before applying this idea to US amateur radio, however, remember these points: 1) The US regulations in terms of subbands-by-mode are not much more complex than those of any other country. Above 30 MHz, most of the US amateur bands do not have subbands-by- mode at all. Same for 160 meters. The bands below 30 MHz (except 30 meters) are divided into two parts, with the lower part devoted to data modes and the upper part devoted to voice and image. CW (Morse Code) is allowed almost everywhere but is very rarely found in the voice/image subbands. 30 meters does not have a voice/image subband because it is only 50 kHz wide. 2) The number of amateurs in the USA who are authorized to operate non-QRP HF/MF transmitters is much greater than the number in any other country - or continent. 3) If the USA were to eliminate subbands-by-mode completely, the real-world effect would be to allow data modes all over the band instead of just the lower end, and voice modes all over the band instead of just the upper end. I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be sufficient. So would I. But the reality may be somewhat different. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly hope. I think it depends where you listen. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to do on our own. Part of the problem is lack of enforcement by FCC of other rules of the ARS for a considerable number of years. This situation has improved in recent years, but it's not perfect by any means. It should also be remembered that the requirements for an amateur license, and the enforcement of rules, is usually quite different in other countries. (Compare the written-test requirements in the UK and US, for example). There are also considerable cultural differences. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
"LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan" wrote in message ... Steve Bonine writes: wrote: Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur radio more like "here are your allocations"? I can't speak for anybody else, but here in Norway this is the case. There are power limits, of course, and bandwidth limits - 6 kHz on most of HF, wider for higher frequencies. The IARU bandplans are respected, so although SSB is legal in below 14.1 MHz, you don't hear any. I've heard quite a few below 14.1 during contests. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
Mike Coslo wrote on Sat, 17 Mar 2007
18:32:21 CST Often people will wonder why Hams don't run to every new mode that comes along. Some assume that we are not adaptable as a group. I would say it has a lot more to do with simply having someone on the other end to talk to. We need an early following to get the ball rolling, then there needs to be a good reason to use the mode. Mike, you've seen enough other licensed radio amateurs by now to understand that, technically, they are rather conservative in adopting "new" things. My own opinion is 'uber-conservative' but that is just personal. :-) PUBLICITY on new things, new modes is the key to getting attention. I'll recite that PSK31 was innovated in the UK and air-tested by many amateurs in Europe for years before it got its first write-up in QST for USA amateur radio consumption. Why? I don't know for sure but I will start shining some light on editors and frequent contributors to QST. I think that they were honestly unaware of it. It isn't like they are unaware of the RSGB periodicals. Another case is Mike Gingell's polyphase audio network. Mike, now a resident and ham licensee in the USA, did his PhD dissertation on that network. It enabled four quadrature-phased audio outputs with excellent phasing accuracy using lower-tolerance parts. It was publicized in Pat Hawker's column in Radio Communication magazine in 1973, the experimenter trying it out was Peter Martinez, G3PLX, the guy who would come up with PSK31 later. European hams have been trying it out for SSB modulation and demodulation ever since; makes for a smaller SSB sub-assembly. It got some attention from 1974 onwards over here, but not a lot. It even got lots of attention in the IEEE Communications magazine for frequency- multiplexed telephony but that was displaced by up and coming digital time-multiplexing right afterwards. Long-distance wired telephony was the first user of SSB, BTW. :-) Conservative USA amateurs tend to stay with what they know and learned when young...except for the few who actually work with higher-tech modes for a living...and some of those tend to "relax" with tried-and-true modes off-work. That re-enforces the conservative approach to "state of the Art" advancement. Part of that conservatism may be the "made only in America" thinking. Look at D-Star that's been getting publicity by the Big3 amateur radio makers of Japan. D-Star has been around for three years, innovated by the JARL. It seems to be very good in providing flexibility to connect with the Internet through VHF-UHF repeaters. [I got a demo of it just recently] No, it's not a "practical" thing on "the bands" (what so many amateurs call the HF bands) but it seems to work just dandy on handling both voice and data together on VHF-UHF. The difference between say Spread spectrum and say PSK31 is that PSK apparently serves some purpose for a growing number of Hams, and SS doesn't. Ummm...PSK31 was originally designed for HF ham bands and was deliberately narrow-band. Spread-Spectrum modes are for wider bandwidths available only on UHF and up in frequency. DSSS is already a proven winner in multiple-user WLANs in other radio services (no discernable interference or catastrophic BERs) but is good only for LOS radio paths. As a result, it will see application only in more densely populated urban areas in the USA. Conservative radio amateurs here stay on HF and all its narrowband limitations. Now, it MIGHT be that FHSS could be adapted to HF, even if only to 10m with that band's 1.7 MHz total bandwidth. That is uncertain since it absolutely requires a higher-accuracy timebase than is found in most upscale HF+ transceivers. [think timing update and correction via GPS] It will NOT be "tunable" like the older analog modes, at least that I can envision. Neither will it cause much interference to those legacy-mode users already there. However, it does have a potential of getting more users in the same bandwidth for higher throughput than is possible with analog modes. Many, many things are possible, even the digital voice and music on HF now being used for BC purposes. But, that's a niche thing and only proves the mode is practical and viable. On the other hand, there's some "comfort" in staying "establishment," of not having to spend time finding out how those new-fangled things work; i.e., survivalist conservatism. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint"
wrote: Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst disasters. There will always be a need because no matter how strong the infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability. Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world limitations Example: One of our med center nets is an inter-hospital net that carries traffic on bed availability, staff availability, and medical supply status and need to and from the Metro Regional Hospital dispatch, the "czar" of inter-hospital operation, which directs ambulances and supply resources to the available facilities. It is currently staffed by personnel located in another neighboring med center. The VHF simplex and repeater ham portion (ham stations located in the Emergency Departments of all the local hospitals) backs up a system which is a user group on the City of Portland's 800 MHz trunked system. When things get tight, the trunked system will be overloaded with police and fire operations, assuming that the system survives at all. That's where the hams come in. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com