"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

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

wrote:

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.

Or the other areas. When W1AW fires up, we all go away.


The W1AW bulletins and code practice sessions are transmitted
by big-bucks squeaky-clean commercial Harris SW transmitters.

Okay, so it isn't possible for W1AW's signal to have a problem. Of
course there is the possibility that we there are all lids. Many people
there note the problem. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

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".

One of the things I forgot about in responding to Mike is that there are
some newer rigs in which the noise blanker is never really out of
circuit despite the position of its on/off switch. Your idea of the
short piece of wire would certainly help, especially if Mike has one of
those rigs.
I've never detected spurs on W1AW's sigs on any band.

Dave K8MN

"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