|
ARRL . . Readies Bandwidth Recommendations
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv |
wrote in message oups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv \ Tell me about it. ARRL is acting more like Congress every day. I can see it all now. PSK-31 on 7.003 wondering why his AGC is "jumping" and his screen goes white. Dan/W4NTI |
As has been said before, if you think the ARRL or the FCC have
the best interests of amateur radio in mind when they do something, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some desert real estate I would like to sell you. And if you think Riley Holligsworth has anything on his mind other than how much money he can make while he's still a FCC employee and what company he will work for after retirement, then you really are simple minded. Then again, informed sources say Riley is greasing the skids after retirement to come back on board as a rehired FCC annuitant. Shalom & 73, Rabbi Phil Chief, Supreme San Hedrin Council |
wrote in message oups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy. So far, I have four comments: 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. 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. 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. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not "bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating. Yeah, sure wink, wink! This works on voice HF where you can tune over to the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal? It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Everyone knows that there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16 KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I don't have to measure it, so sue me!" 3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their" frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. Their idea of "sharing" in the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their bulletin frequencies. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm! 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. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked. --Clay N4AOX |
CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy. So far, I have four comments: 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? Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we should probably drop the "old men" pejorative. 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. 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. It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the bandplan, same as we have in the past. I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the breeding ground of disrespect. 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. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. dunno... Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not "bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating. Yeah, sure wink, wink! Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not defined? No definition, no rules breaking. This works on voice HF where you can tune over to the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal? It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Yup! Everyone knows that there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16 KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I don't have to measure it, so sue me!" 3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their" frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us, and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or change bands. Their idea of "sharing" in the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their bulletin frequencies. Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well, but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole segment. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm! 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. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked. Well put. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: CCW N4AOX wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy. So far, I have four comments: 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? Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we should probably drop the "old men" pejorative. You beat me to it, Mike. 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. I happen to know a number of them personally and have had radio contact with a number of others in numerous on-air activities. Some could be less active. 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. It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the bandplan, same as we have in the past. I tend to agree. I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the breeding ground of disrespect. 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. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. dunno... Part 97 is available for free online. Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not "bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating. Yeah, sure wink, wink! Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not defined? No definition, no rules breaking. Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz. This works on voice HF where you can tune over to the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal? It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Yup! We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is 200 Hz too wide. Everyone knows that there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16 KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I don't have to measure it, so sue me!" 3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their" frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments. Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us, and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or change bands. Their idea of "sharing" in the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their bulletin frequencies. Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well, but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole segment. Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched in an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is switched off? So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm! You'll note that none of this is currently etched in stone. If you have questions or comments, now is the time to voice them to the League. If you don't, you'll have an opportunity to make your views known to the FCC. 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. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked. Well put. Agreed. Dave K8MN |
subject, that is, policy.
So far, I have four comments:CCW N4AOX wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on 1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) .. . . this isn't degenerative . . ? . . never mind . . . 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. 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. 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. 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. So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. Like what? Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not "bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating. Yeah, sure wink, wink! This works on voice HF where you can tune over to the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal? It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Everyone knows that there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16 KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I don't have to measure it, so sue me!" Been covered. 3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their" frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. Which would do nothing about it. CW would still be allowed from the low edges to high edges of the bands just like it is now. Their idea of "sharing" in the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their bulletin frequencies. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF spectrum? No, that's not what's being proposed at all. See the proposal. Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm! There's a whole lot more to this bag of worms than just the auto-mailboxes. 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. --Clay N4AOX w3rv |
|
|
wrote: wrote: This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. Well, I don't know about that. First off, what, exactly, does the proposal recommend? If I read it correctly, it would subdivide the CW/data bands by signal bandwidth, rather than having anything allowed anywhere, as it pretty much is today. PSK31 on 7003 is legal right now. So is 850 Hz shift RTTY on 14010. Right. And there hasn't been a fatility yet. After how many years . . . ? It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now not allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands. Might be's and maybes don't count. Making provisions for modes which don't exist is like a state buying up real estate for highways which may or may not ever be built. As far as mode development space is concerned there are vast open spaces in the bands above 30 Mhz which are begging for experimental work. For example, you can't legally use digital voice outside the voice bands, even if you figure out how to do it in a 500 Hz bandwidth. There's also a rather arcane limit on the symbol rate allowed, regardless of the bandwidth used. Develop it up the spectrum then petition the FCC to take it down into the HF bands. IF it fits and has real potential for volume use. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any such thing to happen. Nine years ago this month the League petitioned the FCC to allow the development and use of ham spread spectrum comms at the behest of TAPR and the FCC obliged. I have yet to hear about the first-ever ham SS QSO. In my opinion the much-ballyhood "digital revolution in ham radio" is 99% hot air so far despite the fact that there are no regulatory impediments to the development of the technologies which could be used on HF. Including digital voice comms. The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue. I agree with that and the problem of unmanned stations*must* be addressed. But not by playing top-to-bottom 52 Pickup with the HF ham band regs. The way I see it, the best solution is to have the following: - Part of the band that's Take 80 meters: 3500-3575: CW only 3575-3625: "Narrow" data and CW - but no robots 3625-3675: "Wide or narrow" data and CW - but no robots. 3675-3725: All data and CW modes - including robots, Winlink, etc. I strongly support boxing in the robots but I'd much rather leave the rest of it alone to allow Darwinian-type evolution take care of the rest of the modes under the existing regs. What's the dividing line between "wide" and "narrow" data? I'd say 1000 Hz - if it's narrower than 1000 Hz it's "narrow". Otherwise it's "wide". Existing Generals, Advanceds and Extras keep what they have. Novices and Techs with HF get 3525 to 3725 CW, at the same power level they're currently allowed. Other bands would be similar. The 40 meter problems will improve as hams outside Region 2 get more kHz - the US should set up its plan for the future (worldwide 7000-7300 exclusive amateur) By doing what? Most if not all countries outside the U.S. including Canada allow voice all the way down to 7.000. Is that what you're suggesting? And how would that fit the ARRL proposal?? Why not? Because what you're suggesting and what the League is suggesting amounts to a welfare system to protect CW and the other narrow modes. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: Good plan Jim. Too good. It will never get passed the ARRL executive committee. Why? Because it makes sense. If enough of us say that it's what should be done, maybe they will listen. Imagine if the committee is deluged with folks promoting my plan, or a version of it? In any event, the main target is the FCC. Because *they* make the rules. ARRL has a good idea and a bad implementation, that's all. 73 de Jim, N2EY Dan/W4NTI wrote in message oups.com... wrote: This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. Well, I don't know about that. First off, what, exactly, does the proposal recommend? If I read it correctly, it would subdivide the CW/data bands by signal bandwidth, rather than having anything allowed anywhere, as it pretty much is today. PSK31 on 7003 is legal right now. So is 850 Hz shift RTTY on 14010. It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now not allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands. For example, you can't legally use digital voice outside the voice bands, even if you figure out how to do it in a 500 Hz bandwidth. There's also a rather arcane limit on the symbol rate allowed, regardless of the bandwidth used. The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue. The way I see it, the best solution is to have the following: - Part of the band that's Take 80 meters: 3500-3575: CW only 3575-3625: "Narrow" data and CW - but no robots 3625-3675: "Wide or narrow" data and CW - but no robots. 3675-3725: All data and CW modes - including robots, Winlink, etc. What's the dividing line between "wide" and "narrow" data? I'd say 1000 Hz - if it's narrower than 1000 Hz it's "narrow". Otherwise it's "wide". Existing Generals, Advanceds and Extras keep what they have. Novices and Techs with HF get 3525 to 3725 CW, at the same power level they're currently allowed. Other bands would be similar. The 40 meter problems will improve as hams outside Region 2 get more kHz - the US should set up its plan for the future (worldwide 7000-7300 exclusive amateur) Why not? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
For what its worth....here is what I sent in to ARRL, Alabama SM and SE
Director, etc. Below are comments from the South East Contest Club reflector. Written by K4SB. I find his arguement very compelling. In particular the part of automatic control. Additionally I want to say that I beleive a specific segement of CW only should and MUST be applied. I suggest the bottom 20 Khz of ALL HF BANDS, this to include 160 meters and the so-called WARC bands. Open to ALL those licensed for HF. There is NO need for a Extra class ONLY segement for CW. And based on the 5wpm code requirement I doubt the new Extras will be too concerned about a CW EXTRA ONLY segement. I believe if there is no restricted segment for CW you will find the digital modes of under 200 cycle width taking over and running CW off the bands for good. Attended or otherwise. Not completely on subject....I feel CW should be continued in Amateur Radio, and by allowing ALL HF licensees to use it in the same place, it could indeed help in keeping the mode alive. Daniel L. Jeswald W4NTI ARRL Life Member ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My own suggestion is to demand that the proposed petition be changed so that ALL unattended or automatic operations are ONLY allowed in areas where transmissions over 500 Hz are allowed. It is important to realize that significance of the 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 3000 Hz thresholds is that no signals wider than the threshold are allowed higher than the threshold frequency, but that signals more narrow than the threshold are still allowed wherever the wider signals are allowed. In practical terms, this means that Winlink could still use Pactor-II (500 Hz wide) where Pactor-III (2400 Hz wide) is used during the time Winlink was transitioning from Pactor-II to Pactor-III and SCAMP. Disallowing unattended transmissions, where either end of the link is unattended, would eliminate the QRM from Pactor mailboxes to CW, PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16, and other digital modes, that is currently such a problem, without harming Winlink's ability to handle their 150,000 emails for their currently 0.7% of the US hams. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
Dave Heil wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well, but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole segment. Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched in an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is switched off? Side issue here but I agree with Dave, something 'snot right in State College. The W1AW bulletins and code practice sessions are transmitted by big-bucks squeaky-clean commercial Harris SW transmitters. Yank the PL-259 out of the back of yer xcvr and stuff the end of ten feet of wire into the xcvr coax receptacle and tune around W1AW again and see if you're still hearing spurs from W1AW. If yes your xcvr front end probably has "issues". Dave K8MN w3rv |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Michael Coslo wrote: 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? Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we should probably drop the "old men" pejorative. You beat me to it, Mike. ************************* My profound apologies to those I may have offended by the "old men" term. This term Old Men, Old Man, or OM used to convey respect or endearment of fellow operators back in the day. I will add OM to my PC filters. ************************* 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. It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the bandplan, same as we have in the past. I tend to agree. I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the breeding ground of disrespect. **************************** My ARRL Handbook is from the last century, but nonetheless states: "According to FCC Rules, occupied bandwidth is: The frequency bandwidth such that, below its lower and above its upper frequency limits, the mean powers radiated are each equal to 0.5 percent (-23dB) of the total mean power radiated by a given emission". ..."Occupied bandwidth...can be measured on a spectrum analyzer,...". "Occupied bandwidth can also be calculated..." It is interesting to note that Part 97.3 (a) (8) uses 0.25 percent or (-26dB). Maybe this definition needs to be refined. But it is there now. **************************** 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. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. dunno... Part 97 is available for free online. ***************************** After laboring through several passages of the June 2004 version of Part 97, it is clear that the entire reg. needs a major overhaul. I think the ARRL EC proposal should state the Part 97 text "before" and "after" to demonstrate their changes. Otherwise it is not clear at all what is intended. I do not see Semi Auto DATA defined anywhere in the Part 97 text, but K1ZZ refers to this in his write-up. It would appear that the entire "Definition" section needs some rework to include these "new" data terms. Part 97.221 (c) (2) states that the Auto's bandwidth is to be limited to 500 Hz. K1ZZ, in the full write-up over on arrl.org turns this around and states that this paragraph doesn't apply to Auto DATA, but only applies to Semi Auto DATA. Does this need to be changed to accomodate the ARRL EC plan? 97.305, 307, and 309 also need some revision to remove the obfuscation, ambiguities, and circuitous logic. ***************************** Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz. We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is 200 Hz too wide. The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments. ******************************** The ARRL EC plan only tweaks the existing specific areas for Auto Data stations on HF. They are currently defined in 97.221 (b). Sorry, I did not realize that before I read the June 2004 version. It appears the major change for the Autos is to allow expansion of occupied bandwidth 7 fold. ******************************** --Clay N4AOX |
Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: CCW N4AOX wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC recommendations at this point . . . " http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 - - - - - - - This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse. w3rv I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy. So far, I have four comments: 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? Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we should probably drop the "old men" pejorative. You beat me to it, Mike. 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. I happen to know a number of them personally and have had radio contact with a number of others in numerous on-air activities. Some could be less active. 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. It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the bandplan, same as we have in the past. I tend to agree. I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the breeding ground of disrespect. 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. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the Auto and Semi-Auto stations. dunno... Part 97 is available for free online. Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not "bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating. Yeah, sure wink, wink! Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not defined? No definition, no rules breaking. Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz. This works on voice HF where you can tune over to the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal? It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Yup! We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is 200 Hz too wide. True, although I thought that the main point is that we aren't going to tell the robot station anything, braod signal or not. Everyone knows that there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16 KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I don't have to measure it, so sue me!" 3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their" frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments. Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us, and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or change bands. Their idea of "sharing" in the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their bulletin frequencies. Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well, but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole segment. Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched in an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is switched off? It is a strong signal, but the waterfall display shows spikes that extend across the whole display. They cut right through any psk signals, and tend to garble the transmissions. PSK31 is a nice mode, but 10 to 25 watts has a tough time competing with a big and possibly dirty signal. The NB is off, and although I haven't put in attenuation, the signal isn't so strong that it desenses the reciever. I'll try that. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm! You'll note that none of this is currently etched in stone. If you have questions or comments, now is the time to voice them to the League. If you don't, you'll have an opportunity to make your views known to the FCC. 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. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked. Well put. Agreed. Dave K8MN - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
|
|
robert casey wrote: wrote: "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, What about spread spectrum modes? Supposedly such a mode could use the entire data subband of a HF band but have only minimal QRM to other users? Doesn't work that way. It's more like "QRM to almost all other users". There was a clear discussion of this by KE3Z (IIRC) here some years back. The interference potential of SS on HF was clearly demonstrated. I can google it for you if you want. Here's a quick synopsis: Suppose I'm listening on 3825 with a 2.5 kHz wide receiver. A local fires up right on frequency with a signal that's 2.5 kHz wide. He's S9 + 20 dB, so unless I'm listening to someone even stronger than that, there's harmful interference. Now the local switches to an SS mode that is 250 kHz wide. To make the math easy we'll assume the transmitted energy is evenly distributed over the 250 kHz. The transmitted energy that was formerly packed into 2.5 kHz is now evenly spread over 100 times that spectrum, so the energy that gets into my receiver is 1/100th of what it was before. The S9+20 local's signal drops 20 dB - to S9. Only now he's S9 on 250 kHz of the band, rather than just a few kHz. Even if he drops his power 18 dB at the same time he goes SS, he's still S6 (assuming 6 dB per S unit). If a station runs 100 W to a dipole at a decent height, and the band is in good shape, that station will be S9 + 20 over a pretty wide area on 80/75. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
The transmitted energy that was formerly packed into 2.5 kHz is now evenly spread over 100 times that spectrum, so the energy that gets into my receiver is 1/100th of what it was before. The S9+20 local's signal drops 20 dB - to S9. Only now he's S9 on 250 kHz of the band, rather than just a few kHz. Even if he drops his power 18 dB at the same time he goes SS, he's still S6 (assuming 6 dB per S unit). If a station runs 100 W to a dipole at a decent height, and the band is in good shape, that station will be S9 + 20 over a pretty wide area on 80/75. So much for SS then. Another problem might be what QSB might do to that signal anyway.... |
wrote: robert casey wrote: wrote: "Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the long haul, What about spread spectrum modes? Supposedly such a mode could use the entire data subband of a HF band but have only minimal QRM to other users? Doesn't work that way. It's more like "QRM to almost all other users". There was a clear discussion of this by KE3Z (IIRC) here some years back. The interference potential of SS on HF was clearly demonstrated. I can google it for you if you want. How does that compare to BPL? BPL is allowed on the ham bands. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com