Dear USA hams,

Recent developments and the difficulty of testing new methods of
communications in the ham bands in USA are part of the technology jail
we have built ourselves into with existing FCC rules. The ham bands
used to be a place for pioneering the airwaves, but we presently have
to go through strange contortions to work with new concepts in
communications.

Now, there are some who want to build new and different technology
jails into Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management rulemaking for USA.
These jails take the form of innocent-sounding exceptions to spectrum
management based upon bandwidth alone. In some cases, they want to
harken back to mode restrictions, in other cases they want to fence
off certain protocols or operating procedures.

Many of the newer methods of communication technology make use of
"handshaking", auto-transponding, or ARQ communication techniques.
These are important techniques that can be applied to almost any
emission type or signal method to enhance the ability for hams to
dodge QRM, avoid interference from locally generated RFI noise, and
even mitigate the interference from BPL. Yes, they can be applied to
"Phone, Image, Data, Morse-CW, etc". They are presently in use by many
other HF spectrum users, but relatively few hams. Eventually, these
techniques will become commonplace in amateur equipment and routinely
used by hams without a second thought.

Some say "the sky is falling", and they advocate carving out a chunk,
or the creation of a "technology jail", on each band in the HF
spectrum for these techniques. That is not only short-sighted, it is
counterproductive for USA's Amateur Radio Service. Other countries
that we communicate with on HF do not have rules with such "technology
jails" in their amateur spectrum like we have in USA. Indeed, our
neighbor to the north, Canada, has built no protocol prisons. We
co-exist every day with Canadians on HF.

To carve out small chunks of such restricted subbands would put us
back in the dark ages of the days when we had to work split
(half-duplex) with other countries... hey, come to think of it...
that's the way it is right now on 40m and 80m!

Let's break free of the amateur radio dark ages' technology jail and
abolish it forever.

Eliminate all mode, protocol, and operating-procedure exceptions from
new Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management rule proposals.

ARQ has nothing to do with bandwidth! ARQ can exist at any
bandwidth... including very narrow bandwidth... even slow Morse CW.
ARQ can exist as a data mode, a phone mode, or an image mode.
Protocols, operating procedures, and modes can be changed like the
flavor-of-the-month... at the click of a mouse!
Example: PACTOR 1, PACTOR 2, PACTOR 3, etc. etc. etc.

The Pactor card is being played as a boogie-man scare tactic. It is
not relevant to Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management. IARU Bandplans
are the place for discussions of Pactor. Perhaps if there was to be a
new committee comprised of a wider cross-section of enthusiasts for a
variety of amateur practices, this pitfall could be avoided.

Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management must be "protocal-neutral" and
"mode-neutral" to be fair, equitable, and provide a non-invasive
framework for the future of communications technology in the Amateur
Radio Service.

We all realize it is common in congress when they are writing a new
law, to allow "riders" on the bills that are passed. The riders often
have nothing to do with the original bill. But, this sort of
politicking is counterproductive when it comes to the long-overdue
need for technological advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. A
"Pactor Rider" on the Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management issue only
serves to divide us.

Those who want to develop rulemaking about ARQ and automation have
every right to do so in a separate proposal. But jamming it into the
bandwidth issue simply isn't the right way to go about it.

I don't fault some the proponents who propagate restrictive technology
jails. Many of them have never known the freedom USA hams had before
they were built in the mid-20th century. The vicious cycle of
continuing these restrictions was started within the ARRL's committee.
The ARRL adhoc committee was mainly concerned with data communications
and couldn't help being a Special Interest group... it was chocked
full of specialists and experts in digital data communications.

But if we are all to benefit from change, we need more hams to be
involved with these rulemaking proposals who can look beyond their
Special Interest and be fair for everyone. Let's put away the
microscope of Special Interest and get out the wide angle telescope.
Change is on the horizon... marching toward us.

Change happens. Technological change is inevitable. Let's provide an
open un-restrictive framework for technological change in the Amateur
Radio Service.

Why are some operators afraid of Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management?

One of the answers is:

Our present system encourages the use of brute force KILOWATTS to rule
the airwaves!

Bandwidth-Based Spectrum Management levels the playing field, so it
might be seen as a threat to big guns, loosening the tight grip of
"frequency management by kilowatt fiat".

Through the routine use of spectrum-efficient, time-efficient, and
power-efficient methods, it will be possible for the common amateur
station to co-exist more equally, and eventually evolve from a world
of QRO dinosaurs.

By the use of several standard emission bandwidths: 500Hz, 3kHz, and
10kHz, we can fit many more QSOs into our HF bands. Modern HF radios
with brickwall filters enable more signals in the same band. Under the
thumb of our olde 20th century mode-based frequency bands, many parts
of our HF bands are dormant, while other parts of the same band are
packed to the brim. It is not efficient, and we need to make use of
all the available spectrum to both accommodate the traffic and to
distribute activity so that amateurs maintain valuable spectrum. Use
it or lose it.

By allowing any mode with 500Hz nominal bandwidth throughout the
entire band, and allowing 80% of the band to be used by 3kHz nominal
bandwidth signals, we not only expand within our useful spectrum, but
we increase our ability to pioneer new modulation methods and
communicate internationally. By devoting parts of our largest and
least-used HF bands to 10kHz bandwidth, we make space for experimental
signal types, wideband SSB, AM, FM, digital voice,
time-division-multiplex, wideband digital voice, OFDM, email, high
resolution images, high definition television, and simultaneous
multimedia.

Management of HF Spectrum can be handled as a Communications
Engineering issue.

It need not be difficult or highly charged with opinion and infighting.

To begin with, the word "mode" needs to be thrown out of the equation,
along with the "mode war" that has been brewing.

It is extremely difficult to technically categorize what a "mode" is
these days (in the traditional sense) anyway, and the olde definitions
simply do not apply anymore.

Using simple math, it is easy to compute the proper spectrum
distribution to include various bandwidth signals, accommodated by
each band.

Here is an example of one simple way to use Radio Communications
Engineering, to enable equitable planning for at least 200
simultaneous QSOs in a typical 350kHz-wide Amateur HF band:

A sub-band 50kHz wide at the lower part of the band provides space for
100 QSOs (comm channels) at 500Hz bandwidth.
100ch x 0.5kHz = 50kHz

A sub-band 300kHz wide at the upper part of the band provides space
for 100 QSOs (comm channels) at 3kHz bandwidth.
100ch x 3kHz = 300kHz

Obviously, on HF, there will be spectrum re-use due to skip zones,
spacial distribution of stations, and propagation. Also, signals not
consuming the entire 500Hz or 3kHz allotted comm channel will make
even more QSOs possible. For purpose of example, lets say this would
lead conservatively to an estimated 33% more QSOs. One possible use
for some of this extra 33% "free" band space could be to provide about
50kHz for comm channel bandwidths of 10kHz. The wider comm channel
bandwidth portions could carry legacy AM signals, more advanced
high-content signals, very robust low-content signals, "time-shared"
or multiplexed signals, or many variations of future experimental modes.

Another key ingredient that can be supplied to fit into the equation,
by analysis, is the actual percent of signal bandwidth distribution of
amateur activity on the air. This could be combined with
extrapolations based upon bandwidth trends over the past 20 years, to
plan for the next 10 years or so.

With a good dose of "fair and equitable" thrown in, it would seem that
a "blue ribbon panel" from a wide variety of Amateur practice could be
convened to help sort out the parts of the spectrum planning equation
that are not easily handled by the simple math.

Are we as ham radio operators in USA, falling behind other countries
technologically? Yes. Let's plan together so that we can enjoy the
freedom in USA to progress technologically... a freedom that many
other countries' hams already enjoy.

Some of us patriotic USA hams seek the freedom that other countries'
hams already have. We don't want to be left in the dust
technologically due to antiquated FCC rules.

73---Bonnie KQ6XA
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan



..