ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth Proposal:
from
W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL
on
July 20, 2005
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth Proposal:
ZCZC AG17
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 17 ARLB017
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT July 20, 2005
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB017
ARLB017 ARRL board adopts modified regulation by bandwidth proposal
Following considerable discussion and debate, the ARRL Board of
Directors has approved a modified set of recommendations to regulate
the use of amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by
emission mode. Last April, the ARRL Executive Committee reached
consensus on a set of regulation-by-bandwidth proposals (which can
be found on the web at,
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html)
to serve as the basis of an FCC Petition for Rule Making. Following
additional fine tuning based on hundreds of comments from the
amateur community, the Board formally adopted a further-modified
plan at its July 15-16 meeting.
The revised plan includes a stipulation that the League "will
promptly undertake a procedure to establish a band plan to be
utilized with the proposed subband allocation petition, and, until
such time as that band plan is in place, the existing band plan will
be in force." ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, remarked after the
Board's 12-3 vote that improved band planning is critical to the
success of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals and will
require the support of the amateur community at large.
"I think it's fair to say that the Board recognizes that regulation
by bandwidth is not going to work without a spirit of cooperation
among amateurs pursuing different interests," he said, "any more
than current regulations would be adequate without a spirit of
cooperation." Sumner pointed out that under the current rules, RTTY
and data enthusiasts may, by rule, operate in the low end of the CW
subbands. "They don't, because to do so would disrupt amateur CW,"
he said.
Sumner said that if the FCC ultimately implements the modified ARRL
recommendations, there's no reason to believe that amateurs will
operate right up to the absolute limit of what the FCC says they
may, any more than they do now.
The regulation-by-bandwidth issue dominated the Board's second
meeting of the year in Windsor, Connecticut. After a great deal of
give and take among its members, the Board ultimately okayed raising
the maximum bandwidth proposed for frequencies below 29 MHz from 3.0
kHz to 3.5 kHz. A provision permitting the continued use of
double-sideband AM with bandwidth of up to 9 kHz was retained.
Significantly, the Board also agreed that maximum permitted
bandwidth should be defined in terms of necessary rather than
occupied bandwidth. In addition, the modified proposal removes the
exception for independent sideband (ISB) emissions and drops certain
mode restrictions on Novice and Technician class operators.
The ARRL proposal would leave two important FCC rules unchanged.
Part 97.307(a) says: "No amateur station transmission shall occupy
more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission
type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
Part 97.101(a) reads: "In all respects not specifically covered by
FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with
good engineering and good amateur practice."
Per the Board's motion, the ARRL Executive Committee will review the
final rule making petition, which will be filed with the FCC at the
Committee's discretion.
The Board began work on the bandwidth concept in 2002.
In other action, the ARRL Board adopted a resolution to establish an
ARRL VHF/UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC) to address contesting issues
over a period of no more than three years. The new panel, to be
comprised of "exceptionally qualified and recognized members of the
VHF/UHF community," will seek input from VHF/UHF contesting
"public," identify important issues and "seek the sense of the
'public'" on those issues.
The Board also adopted five strategies to address improvements in
the ARRL advocacy program and members-only features of the Web site,
and review and analysis of ARRL programs.
ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, chaired this month's Board
meeting. Radio Amateurs of Canada President Earle Smith, VE6NM, was
a guest of the Board.
NNNN
/EX
Source: W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth
|
|
|
by K4JF on July 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry, they are still wrong. As a Life Member, I'll write to them, and will also file opposing comments at the appropriate time.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, now they try the token "pat on your..." approach, after an obvious firestorm on the web (and on the air).
Our only last resort, pay backs on the FCC ECFS, should the FCC even take the bait at all...
All of us, not just "members", will suffer under this lunacy!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AE1X on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This lunacy?
You have to correct solution, should oppose this idea. Our BoD has approved it and now they have to submit it. Will they? It seems they have to decide when it will appropriate to file this proposal if at all.
Any proposal like this is likely to languish within the FCC for a significant amount of time. I don't believe there is much of a need to worry right now. The FCC has two major initiatives on its plate with regard to our service. Each of these has been in the works for a long time...
Ken
|
| |
|
ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth
|
|
|
by NY7Q on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THIS ONLY REINFORCES THE MANY REASONS I RESIGNED FROM THE ARRL. NOW THAT THE FCC IS GONNA DO AWAY WITH CW TESTING, THE ARRL WILL PUFF ITS CHEST EVEN MORE, TO RUIN HAM RADIO FURTHER.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AC0H on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nothing changed from the previous proposal except bumping the 3Khz "wide" sections to 3.5Khz and allowing AMer's to run up to 9Khz.
They still haven't touched the apparent sacred cow of PactorIII/WinLink in the SSB portions of the bands which makes it a fataly flawed proposal in my eyes. Those modes which are diametrically incompatable with the predominant mode in use in that section of the band need to have CODIFIED contraints on where they can operate.
|
| |
|
ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth
|
|
|
by KA7GKN on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
lots of QRM!! I read various reports ...one says 3khz another says 3.5khz...
I ask are these whimsical parameters? I see no technical merit to this entire bandplan dog and pony show!!!!
We seem to be doing ok with what we have even with the new diggy modes. I say keep diggy modes out of voice modes because there will be a problem
regarding the cw issue..I'm saving space by ranting all in one.....
CW is a mode. I don't do CW BUT! I believe CW is a very important mode and should not become a dead language like Latin.
CW has saved lives when no other means worked..not just in radio. I have seen stroke victims use CW to communicate with their doctor, I have seem POW's use CW to communictae etc.
5WPM for extra and all other license levels are without CW testing big deal! leave the 5wpm test
on the other hand I don't do satellite or moon bounce but I'm still tested for it so why not include cw 5wpm in the extra exam.
marty, KA7GKN
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Nothing changed from the previous proposal except
> bumping the 3Khz "wide" sections to 3.5Khz and
> allowing AMer's to run up to 9Khz.
The change from "occupied bandwidth" to "necessary bandwidth" was a significant one. Under the necessary bandwidth provisions, all of the testing issues are no longer an issue. For digital modes, the calculation of necessary bandwidth is precise. For analog voice, it is not, so the actual occupied bandwidth of voice stations will continue to be regulated by "good operating practice," as it is now.
> They still haven't touched the apparent sacred cow of
> PactorIII/WinLink in the SSB portions of the bands
> which makes it a fataly flawed proposal in my eyes.
Under the proposal, the 3.5-kHz wide portio of the band is somewhat expanded from the present "phone" bands.
> Those modes which are diametrically incompatable
> with the predominant mode in use in that section of
> the band need to have CODIFIED contraints on where
> they can operate.
Slow-scan TV is equally incompatible, and it is legal in the entire "phone" band. Yet 99% of the SSTV operation occurs under the band plan. Why would manually controlled digital stations be expected to behave any less reasonably? 99% of hams don't want to interfere with each other, so they try to operate responsibly.
The premise that band planning is better than hard regulation is, IMHO, a good one. As a CW op, I note that on the days when the RTTY contest is on, the digital guys extend down into the "CW" part of the bands. But on the CW Sweepstakes weekend, the CW guys reciprocate in kind. That flexibility allows us all to adjust our operating to the need, rather than have the rules define the need in the first place.
If I had my personal druthers, the Part 97 rules would be really simple. They would say, "These are your band edges. These are your power limits. Stay within them." I can think of no better way to encourage innovation and activity in amateur radio.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed W1RFi wrote:
---->
If I had my personal druthers, the Part 97 rules would be really simple. They would say, "These are your band edges. These are your power limits. Stay within them."
<----
Care to theorize why the elected ARRL board doesn't see it that way? (besides of course the obvious Thorazine fog)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AC0H on July 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<"Slow-scan TV is equally incompatible, and it is legal in the entire "phone" band. Yet 99% of the SSTV operation occurs under the band plan. Why would manually controlled digital stations be expected to behave any less reasonably? 99% of hams don't want to interfere with each other, so they try to operate responsibly.">>
Have you ever operated SSTV?
ALL stations running SSTV ID, announce their intentions, and end their QSO's via SSB. Not so with PactorIII/WinLink.
How does someone who's QSO just got stomped by a Pactor connection attempt find out who the op is? How do you ask them to move off? The current state of the digital sub bands are a prime example. Once the PactorIII/Winlink stations start up you may just as well shut the rig off, your done.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on July 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<W1RFI
The change from "occupied bandwidth" to "necessary bandwidth" was a significant one. Under the necessary bandwidth provisions, all of the testing issues are no longer an issue. For digital modes, the calculation of necessary bandwidth is precise. For analog voice, it is not, so the actual occupied bandwidth of voice stations will continue to be regulated by "good operating practice," as it is now. >>
Hello Ed,
Actually the calculation of necessary bandwidth for an analog voice signal is precise, the determination of the audio bandwidth to use in the calculation is what is less precise.
Anyway, I am glad the ARRL discussed and chose to accept the necessary bandwidth designation that I recommended and wrote to my director about in detail.
However, there is one area that I am concerned about and maybe you can have some input to it. I am an experimenter and enjoy building receivers and transmitters. The changes to the proposal don't seem to address the need for allowing DSB suppressed carrier as an allowed mode. As you know, this is the easiest sideband transmitter to build and get on the air yet it won't be allowed even with the recommended changes. This means one must build, test, and align the crystal filter circuits to eliminate one sideband prior to putting the rig on the air.
Would you please introduce this to the folks involved with making the changes and ask them to include DSB-SC as an allowed mode either by extending the necessary bandwidth allowed or with a specific exemption?
Thanks,
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AB0WR on July 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI>"The change from "occupied bandwidth" to "necessary bandwidth" was a significant one. Under the necessary bandwidth provisions, all of the testing issues are no longer an issue. For digital modes, the calculation of necessary bandwidth is precise. For analog voice, it is not, so the actual occupied bandwidth of voice stations will continue to be regulated by "good operating practice," as it is now. "
Ed,
Respectfully, the committee does not seem to understand the definition of "necessary" bandwidth.
The FCC defines necessary bandwidth in this manner:
"For a given class of emission, the minimum value of the occupied bandwidth sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required for the system employed, under specified conditions. Emissions useful for the good functioning of the receiving equipment as, for example, the emission corresponding to the carrier systems, shall be included in the necessary bandwidth."
The ITU, in document RECOMMENDATION ITU-R SM.1138, basically outlines SSB-SC, as used in the amateur service as having a 2.7khz necessary bandwidth. The FCC generally concurs in the ITU definitions.
To couple the use of "necessary bandwidth" with a "maximum" bandwidth definition of 3.5khz fits the classical definition of an oxymoron.
Logically, if the defined purpose of this change is to keep amateurs from having to measure occupied bandwidths then the use of a "maximum" bandwidth is at odds with the defined purpose. For if a "maximum" bandwidth is specified then it can be assumed that the FCC will expect that maximum bandwidth to be respected.
It would make much more sense to just speak of necessary bandwidth - BY ITSELF - as a standalone concept, with no attendant *specified* maximum bandwidth. Let the phrase "good operating practice" be the determining factor for maximum bandwidth. Use 2.7khz as the specified neccesary bandwidth since it is in accordance with ITU definitions of the mode.
This will also prevent the need for defining the maximum bandwidth for all modes expected to be used in that part of the band. It is the need to do this today for all new modes that is one of the driving factors behind changing the method of regulation. We should not get caught up in the same trap with this proposal.
If a maximum bandwidth must be specified, specify one that ALL modes will have to meet - e.g. the 9khz bandwidth for AM. No mode will be allowed to have a wider bandwidth than 9khz.
I appreciate any help you can give in educating the ARRL staff in these issues - and in making sure the ARRL proposal doesn't impose limitations on future experimentation due to unintended consequences of trying to specify maximum bandwidths for modes rather than using necessary bandwidths.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on July 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR wrote:
>If a maximum bandwidth must be specified, specify one
>that ALL modes will have to meet - e.g. the 9khz
>bandwidth for AM. No mode will be allowed to have a
>wider bandwidth than 9khz.
Seems reasonable to me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. But the fact is they didn't and it simply shows to me digital bigotism rampent in the ARRL. Oh, gosh, don't want to offend any old crusty faced AM'ers, but lets put the shaft to the experimenters.
>I appreciate any help you can give in educating the
>ARRL staff in these issues -
I've had the exact opposite experince. Most of the ARRL staffers I have meet have been well educated, both in terms of the state of the FCC, what amateur radio needs as well as the technical issues.
Now, the elected ARRL officials (like the board)... that is another story. First of all, you'd need to build most of them backbones... as they respond almost exclusively to peer pressure and/or the glory of ecoms. Little rubber men who chase amblances to get attention. And try to present a reasoned arguement to them... lotsa luck Charlie. I've been in the hobby 25+ years, and if my district is any example of the ARRL elected leadership, we are in sad shape. I watched all the local CB gadflys, who gossip at the coffee breaks, and have little technical knowledge, rise up in the ARRL ranks.
But I digress, although it is a important distinction since YOU THE ARRL MEMBERSHIP ELECTED THESE clowns to represent you. Your now getting exactly what you paid for.
>and in making sure the ARRL proposal doesn't impose
>limitations on future experimentation due to
>unintended consequences of trying to specify maximum
>bandwidths for modes rather than using necessary
>bandwidths.
And that will require commenting on it to the FCC should it make it that far or offering a alternate proposals. This is easier to do then you think. And, so far, my read of the FCC is they are on the side of freedom and the experimentor, not these "homeland security" nuts who have taken over the ARRL.
Now if you really want my opinion.... ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on July 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one
on ATV, but SSBSC,DSDSC, SSB with carrier,
SSB with pilot tone, ISB, etc are all Amplitude
Modulation (unless, some new technology has
escaped me). So, as I read it, you have up to
9 kHz of occupied bandwidth for DSBSC.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on July 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forgot to say, Jim, the article
states for 9 kHz double side band AM and
makes no mention of full carrier,
suppressed carrier or no carrier
nor pilot tone.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on July 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm ole fart and slow, it finally came to me
the SSB with pilot tone is called
Amplitude Compandored Sideband.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AB0WR on July 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wa4mjf:
"Jim, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one
on ATV, but SSBSC,DSDSC, SSB with carrier,
SSB with pilot tone, ISB, etc are all Amplitude
Modulation (unless, some new technology has
escaped me). So, as I read it, you have up to
9 kHz of occupied bandwidth for DSBSC. "
Ronnie,
The ITU and the FCC defines
Telephony/DoubleSideband as mode 6K00A3E
Telephony/SingleSideband/FullCarrier as mode 3K00H3E
Telephony/SingleSideband/Suppressed Cxr as 2K70J3E
AM (i.e. DoubleSideband/FullCarrier) truly is a separate mode from DSB-SC since different methods are used to generate the signals.
I can make the assumption that the FCC considers AM and DSB-SC equivalent since both would have a 6khz necessay bandwidth but it certainly isn't obvious from the regulations.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on July 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, yes, in Part 2 (I think).
However, in 97.307 only the type
designator is used, that is with out
the first part indicating bandwidth.
For example, 97.307 (f) (2) A3E or
(f) (12) F8E.
The bandwidth is loosey goosey in
97.307 (a). This is the "good
amateur practice" that is the
catchall if the SCARE wants to
dump on you. It is kinda like we
have in the UCMJ, "conduct unbecoming
an officer and a gentleman" if your
CDR wants to stick it to you, but
doesn't have anything specific.
I think that technically, SSB is an
amplitude modulated signal, I can't
really lay any other modulation type
to it. It certainly is NOT angle
modulated (PM, FM).
If you're not on Riley's radar for something
(BC type SSB, for example),just experiment
away, heck, that is great part of being a ham.
The FCC just define it all as phone in Part 97
as far as I can tell. Part of the Reagan era
deregulation. However, even what was done
away with still comes under the "good
amateur practice". I saw a letter from SCARE
about a year or so ago about a station
that was not using a "well regulated power
supply on a transmitter below 144 MHz" and
had hum. Although, that specific reg went away
in the deregulation, the FCC can still
get you under good amateur practice,
because it was regulation for so long.
I still dual ID my RTTY, packet, etc even though
that regulation went away also, but it could
still be called good amateur practice as it was
around a long time, just like the well
regulated power supply reg.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"THE FCC IS GONNA DO AWAY WITH CW TESTING, THE ARRL WILL PUFF ITS CHEST EVEN MORE, TO RUIN HAM RADIO FURTHER."
Yes, the FCC will & good things will come of it. The ARRL has always wanted to have it both ways. They have been lining their nest with endless donation drives, claiming to be against everything. They also claimed to be "fighting" BPL. Then a certain ARRL employee who frequents this webpage, slipped & actually said they "never really were against BPL". That's not what they were saying in all those emotional pleas, bilking $1000's from clubs & individuals. Then they produced a joke of a video to "prove" they didn't have a clue how to convince anyone (other than hams) that there might be a BPL problem. This BPL fiasco is only the most recent case of many in my 23 years as a licensee.
They have had alot of practice puffing their chest, but it is all puff & no stuff. The fact they are now ignoring the overwhelming wishes of a majority of "members" who are clearly against this proposal will only further damage their ever shrinking ranks. They don't care what "members" or the majority of non-"member" hams think, so long as their payroll checks don't bounce. Their rampant duplicity has now been exposed for all to see, for those who wish to actually look.
If amateur radio could do away with the ARRL, it would thrive. Under the current ARRL "stupidity with intent to distribute" agenda, they have permenantly damaged the DNA of our once great service.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandw
|
|
|
by AB0WR on July 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wa4mjf
Ronnie,
SSB and AM do have a simlar mathematical evolution. An AM signal is represented by:
v(t) = (A)(sin Wc*t) + (A)(m)(sin Wc*t)(sin Wa*t)
Wc is the carrier freq in radians
Wa is the audio freq in radians
A is the signal amplitude
m is the modulation index
To generate a DSB-SC signal you get rid of the first term: (A)(sin Wc*t) using a balanced modulator or a filter.
The second term breaks down (using trig identities) into two terms based on (Fc + Fa) and (Fc - Fa)
Fc is the carrier freq, Fa is the audio freq
SSB-SC is therefore generated by removing one of these terms using a filter or by using the phasing method of SSB generation.
So while you are correct that they are all amplitude related modes they are all different modes.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by Bandwidth
|
|
|
by K1TG on July 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would seem that the ARRL, the democratic (?) organization which purportedly represents a fair number of hams, has sounded a death knell for CW operation. Between backing a no-code license and the new bandwidth proposals. I can rationalize the license
issue but the bandwidth caper is outrageous. I've
been a CW operator for 32 years and darned proud of it.
R. Kuchera - K1TG
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
