FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
K4RAF (K4RAF)
on
January 16, 2006
View comments about this article!
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
The 1st file, submitted by the Communications Think Tank group on the June 20, 2005, has been assigned RM-11305.
The 2nd file, submitted by the ARRL on November 4, 2005, has been assigned RM-11306.
The Other Petition to Reband by Bandwidth?
They call themselves the "Communication Think Tank" and say that they are concerned hams, worried about is the future of the hobby.
Currently, if you want to operate in voice or digital modes on amateur frequencies,
the rules require you to transmit in a selected portion of the band you've chosen.
This would no longer be true under the proposal from Communications Think Tank, a group of 7 radio amateurs. They says it's time to let hams decide what operating modes they use on what frequencies. You can read the entire ThinkTank petition that was filed on-line at:
http://w8er.com/proposal1.htm
Then you can freely comment at:
FCC Electronic Comment Filing System:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
In the upper right of the screen there are links to search for comments, file comments, and search history.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A two week sampling is NOT indicative of activity throughout a whole year. To be really useful, this study needs to be repeated with more sampling periods that include different seasons, heavy contest weekends and normal usage. I also needs a 'data' category to be fully inclusive of normal activities.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KZ1X on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Dennis. From a statistical perspective, the "Think Tank" proposal is woefully short on collected, time-weighted data. Otherwise, it's a superbly written document, authored by well-known and respected hams.
The idea of gentleman's agreements for signal-bandwidth boundaries does appeal to me, but codifying them (a la the League proposal) also has great merit.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not that this wouldn't be an entirely bad idea in scope but I don't really see any real advantages in this proposal over what we are already doing now.
I can only imagine that it might make the bands a little bit chaotic when a person tunes around on any given band.
For example, there's nothing like hearing a screeching SSTV or PSK transmission while listening for your buddy on a voice calling frequency.
I always thought the idea of seperating digital and other modes into specific allocations on a given band was for the intended purpose of preventing interference to voice mode operation.
I think the "Think Tank" may have sprung a leak somewhere.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N5GLR on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any attempt to "study" frequency usage during the low point of the sunspot cycle and then use that data as a basis for such a drastic change makes you wonder about their real agenda. These folks must think the rest of us are idiots.
Neither proposal is worthy of our support. They propose mixing of clearly incompatible modes and do not address the urgent need to regulate by signal width AND mode.
The "parking lot" is full. If you think it's tough to find a place to operate on HF now, wait until all of the new General class operators hit HF. We need to focus our efforts on developing and promoting modes/signals that are narrower, not wider. We certainly do NOT need wide digital modes roaming the overcrowded phone bands (ref. Pactor III).
Garry
N5GLR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Either of these proposals is going to require an agreed upon voluntary band plan in order to separate analog modes like SSB from digital modes in order to avoid interference. I don't think anyone is proposing that we intermix digital and analog signals throught the bands (even though the proposed rule changes would legally permit that). Present rules mix analog and digital voice signals, for example. It is not too much of a problem at the moment only because there are not very many digital voice stations around - yet. Guarenteed it will become a problem in the future if some type of band plan is not put into effect.
The goal is avoid having the government tell us what content we can transmit on which frequency. With digital modes it is technically possible to transmit different types of content (voice, pictures, data files, etc) without changing the modulation scheme of the transmitter. Technically you can even send different types of content during the same transmission. Under the current rules however you have to move to a different band segment when you change the content. This is one of the benefits of the proposals, to avoid specifying band segments according to message content.
Another benefit is that as technology and usage changes, the band plans can be changed without going to the FCC to get rule changes.
What remains to be seen is what the band plans will look like, who will administer them and authorize changes, and what kind of "teeth" can be put into them for the few who may refuse to abide by them. Hopefully such a structure will be in place before any rule changes take effect.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think this is a bad idea. This clearly gives an advantage to the phone operators. Pulling data for 2 weeks at the rock bottom of the solar cycle is not good data. Try gathering that data at the top of the solar cycle when band conditions are good.. I'm sure their findings would be different. I think things are fine the way they are. Why all of a sudden the need to change a method that has worked fine for decades?
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All,
Both petitions are flawed, and are deserving of our attention. Please urge the FCC to further delineate HF operations into two distinct sections per band -- analog and digital.
My previous comments on the ARRL's petition:
Mentioned in the petition's conclusions, the ARRL states that, "the regulation of emission modes in Amateur Radio Service allocations is a limiting factor with respect to Amateur Radio experimentation. It leads to attempts to put new technology into regulatory framework that was designed to deal not with digital emissions, but rather with older, analog technologies."
This statement is reasonable.
They go on to say, "the Commission's rules cannot efficiently prevent conflicts in HF spectrum usage or among amateur pursuing different interests. Of course, there must be mechanisms to minimize interference between analog and digital operation, since they cannot compatibly share the same channel or frequency range. However, the Commission's rules to subdivide the HF bands should be minimized."
Here's the rub in plain English... The ARRL believes that similar bandwidth emission types, say the most commonly used 3.5 KHz bandwidth, should not be subdivided at all - only by bandwidth. This means these similar bandwidth digital and analog emissions would have to peacefully co-exist - together! I don't believe this can happen - even given their belief the amateur community can establish workable and acceptable sub-bands on their own.
This plan needs to further subdivide wider bandwidth analog modes from the similar bandwidth digital counterparts. All "heck" will break loose if this doesn't happen.
73.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W2WO on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Change is usually difficult. I think we must look forward to an increasing number of transmission types and patterns of usage, especially for digital modes. These simply do not fit very well in the existing subband definitions. Is SSTV phone or digital? Is digitized voice phone or data or something else? Etc, etc, etc. I believe the ARRL proposal is a reasonable way to shape future usage. It is not perfect, but neither are today's subband definitions.
I see the ARRL proposal as protective in some areas. In particular, it protects traditional CW users from mindless PACTOR-style automated operation and from wider-band digital operations. The self-styled "Think Tank" seems to have utterly overlooked the different types of protection needed by different modes. Ham radio has its own share of nuts and I firmly believe we need something a little stronger than "gentlemen's agreements" for band usage. These informal agreements usually work, given a framework for initial agreement, but without that basic framework I do not trust all the gentlemen involved.
We all probably have different ideas about the exact definitions of the subbands. I do not use 75 meters, but I do use 80 meter CW. Nevertheless, I think the phone subband could probably extend down to 3650. Others will think differently, of course. The international situation on 40 meters makes it difficult to suggest changes there. AM operation is a hog, but it mostly exists on so few frequencies that I cannot get excited about it.
Bill - W2WO
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KI4GPX on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with most of the comments made by Garry, N5GLR, and KC8VWM. The "Think Tank" group should have thought about their proposal more before submitting it. Their conclusions are extremely short-sighted, not to mention premature.
Maybe I'm presuming too much, but it sounds like a group of fellas who are not happy operating in lesser used modes within the current gentleman's bandplan. My guess is that they want to operate these modes in more popular areas, such as those used by voice, CW, etc.
The idea won't work. It should be "tanked" or the result will be more LIDS, more abuse and less amateur operators truly enjoying this hobby.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NY7Q on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its a crock of cow manure.
I may follow n0ah to canada.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N4QA on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just went over to the FCC site and, essentially just said NO to both hair-brained proposals (RM-11305 & RM-11306).
Through the forseeable future it's status quo, baby!
Come back when there's a problem to solve...
We don't need no stinkin' 900-lb gorillas!
FCC wanabes...GO AWAY!
And, I'll STILL see you guys on RTTY, CW, PSK31, MFSK16 and all the other worthy modes :O)
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WS4Y on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Too many rule making petitions are being filed with
the FCC. The commission needs to wise up and put a
hefty filing fee requirement in order to file a
rule making petition. Also the commission should
require any organization filing a rule making
petition to have obtained a majority ballot of its
membership prior to filing of a rule making petition.
I have already filed my comments in opposition to
both of these petitions and a number of petitions
filed following the WARC rule changes. It is a pain.
I think I'll file a RM petition seeking $100,000.00
fee to file a RM petition and requiring organizations
a majority ballot prior to filing a petition. After
that no more petitions please!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W5GNB on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think I will go to E-Bay and get me one of those nasty old CB "LINYAR AMPLIFIERS"
I would not want to be unprepared for this wonderful new inovation of the "THINK TANK" !!!
These folks REALLY need to get a life!!!
73's
Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KI4HBS on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I also think Garry N5GLR hit the nail on the head..Bad idea...
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do so many hams feel compelled to "improve" ham radio, or "fix" ham radio? I know why the ARRL does what they do. They don't propose anything to the FCC unless it benefits their organization (increasing their membership or increasing cash flow into their coffers) or their closely-guarded inner circle of favorites. In this case, the benefactors would be the Winlink folks - those who make and sell the proprietary hardware that Winlink uses, and those who use Winlink as a free e-mail service. Well-healed yuppies on their sailing yachts that are too cheap to subscribe to commercial services such as Sailmail will benefit from this at the expense of the rest of the ham population that want to use the bands for legitimate purposes.
The ARRL needs to quit trying to rule and run ham radio for their own selfish purposes. They don't represent amateur radio. They don't even represent their membership. They represent the few in their inner circle of favorites.
This "Think Tank" group also should quit trying to fix something that ain't broke.
Get a life. Quit trying to impose your will on the masses. The current bandplan is just fine. Lets leave it alone.
I hope the FCC sees through these 2 asinine bandwidth proposals and dismisses them both.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC9DDI on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think I'll file a RM petition seeking $100,000.00
fee to file a RM petition and requiring organizations
a majority ballot prior to filing a petition. After
that no more petitions please!"
Seems contrary to the representative democracy we have for a government - there should NEVER be any kind of obstruction to a citizen petitioning his government to make considerations in legislation of any kind. Granted, that does mean many bad ideas will be submitted to government agencies, but all it takes is ONE good idea...
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K0RFD on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Calling something a "Think Tank" doesn't necessarily mean there's any brains in it. Like my gas tank, a "Think Tank" can be empty, or at best, full of nothing but fumes.
The "Communications Think Tank" proposal is stupid. No, actually, it's not stupid. It's very crafty. But it's still a stupid idea, not worthy of consideration. It's written to cause anarchy in the amateur bands, which is exactly what the petitioners want. Rather than waste energy and bandwidth commenting further about it here, I'll reserve my comments for the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Both proposals are unnecessary and seriously flawed.
All amateurs should comment on these proposals. - Just say "No" to chaos on the HF bands.
Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NB3O on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
!Two words: Incompatible Modes
!Oxymoron: Gentlemen's Agreement
!True or False: Pactor III = Higher Bandwidth Efficiency
!Beating the Dead Horse: How about refarming the old Novice Bands for digital experimentation?
73, Steve NB3O
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm
http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm
http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm
Learn what they are really asking for, and who is asking.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Out of the 43 comments filed in the public database so far, I counted a dozen or so comments that are in the support catagory of this proposal.
...Many are clearly opposed.
Well, the supporters are not exactly "supporting it" per se, but rather it seems the comments are directed in the sense that they are in favor of the deregulation aspects and operating freedoms this proposal seems to present.
Perhaps they are just translating this proposal to the idea that this will somehow mean less overall government control of the ham bands.
Of course when you don't have a clear set of rules for driving on the road....
73
|
| |
|
Why...
|
|
|
by W1DUD on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
....would any technician class radio operator be so concerned about this? If I read the proposal correctly it only effects 160-10 meters. "73" THE DUD
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've noticed W8JI hasn't commented on the flawed ARRL bandwidth proposal, only the "think tank" iteration.
What say, Tom?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The good points....
It limits bandwidth to prevent intentional bandwidth pigs from going anywhere and doing anything they like.
It does provide space for experimentation.
The bad points......
They forgot to solicite input from the community before before making the proposal.
They did not harmonize all bands below 30 MHz.
They mix incompatable modes. That won't work unless bandplans are enforcable by law.
It causes as many problems as it fixes, so I have no opinion one way or another.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KI4HBS on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W1DUD.....As a technician class operator that is working to upgrade, I am concerned about this. As a American Im concerned about this. As a human doing time on this planet that is interested in radio. This issue is one for the planet....Not just a issue here in the U.S....."73"
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While claiming to make digital experimentation more flexible, it actually does the opposite. Some of the newer digital transmission methods allow changing bandwidth and number of tones to match propagation conditions. That is easily done today on one frequency under mode regulation. It won't work well under the bandwidth proposal. Olivia will allow you to start at 250hz, move to 500hz, and finally 1000hz to get the fastest speed. Under bandwidth regulation you will have to start all Olivia conversations in the wide bandwidth segment and compete with all of the SSB signals for space. Not good!
While claiming to be for digital enthusiasts, the proposal will actually kill any fully automatic digital relay station on both HF and VHF. It will kill the NTS-Digital Network as well as many VHF packet networks set up for emergency communications using JNOS or similar software. It does this through the modification of 97.109(e) and 97.221. The ARRL stated this as a goal in their early documentation of the proposal. While they removed that verbiage, they didn't remove the rule change.
The proposal will put wideband data signals (i.e. Pactor III) into the phone bands causing significant reduction in spectrum efficiency for the amateur community. The typical SSB transmission of a 100 watt transmitter has around a 4 watt average power output due to the dynamic range of voice. This allows multiple SSB conversations to occupy the same frequency at the same time using geographic/propagation stacking. That is, you can have a QSO going on in the NE US, the SE US, and the Central US on 75m at the same time on 3920khz. Pactor, on the other hand, will have about a 50 watt average power output from a 100 watt transmitter. Put this with the 4 watt SSB signals and you will have significant interference. This will force people to stay away from the frequencies Pactor robots inhabit. By both spectrum efficiency metrics of "users satisfied" and "time spectrum is denied to other users", the use of the amateur bands will be negatively impacted.
I could go on for about 7 pages. My comments to the FCC will. The ARRL proposal is bad for amateur radio. It was ill conceived and badly implemented. The ARRL was told of these shortcomings and refused to fix them. It should be rejected.
The CTT proposal, while well-meaning, would probably be even worse. Anarchy is not a state I want to be in.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This issue is one for the planet....Not just a issue here in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------
A good portion of the planet is already using the bandwidth method. It is the U.S. that is still out of step.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Olivia is a good example Tim.
Any mode of transmission that automatically widens itself belongs with other wide modes of the same maximum bandwidth, not with narrow fixed band modes.
"Digital modes" run into the mic input of a SSB radio belong with other modes using in 2-3kHz wide segments, because they suffer the same bandwidth dynamic range limitations of any SSB transceiver.
These bandwidth/dynamic range limitations are why people who operate PSK whine and complain constantly about strong signals, and why I often hear PSK stations transmitting on two or more frequencies at the same time.
Let's no assume just because it comes out of a computer clean it is a mode compatible with other narrow modes. A 40dB dynamic range mode tossed through the mic jack of a SSB rig with a 2.7kHz filter is not the same thing as a RF generated controlled bandwidth signal for stacking when reasonable dynamic range is required, and a mode that adjusts bandwidth belongs with other modes that have the upper bandwidth limitations.
The biggest flaw with both the ARRL and Septic Tank proposals is they mix incompatible modes. If I am on CW and they let people who can't copy, operate, or understand CW operate near me, how am I going to tell them I am using the frequency???? Same if someone has slow scan, and I have a wider digital mode. That's the real flaw with the ARRL proposal. Incompatible modes can't be mixed, even if they are the same bandwidth.
If the let a 40kHz wide at -50dB down HiFized 1850 technology Viking transmitter on 3525, he will wipe out CW from 3500-3500kHz. When there is a SSB contest, I won't be able to move to CW and be safe. When I work phone, I can run 50kHz wideband FM any place I like. That's the flaw with the Stink Tank proposal. The Think Tank just set a new standard for not thinking.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm all for this Proposal now. I used to be very much ageist it but I have come to the conclusion that if this proposal becomes a reality the few people remaining in the ARRL will become so incensed that they will finally come to the realization that the ARRL serves only the small clique running it and not the majority of the ARRL membership. It will finally go away so maybe a new organization can be formed that truly represents all amateurs and not a few cliques that have perverted the original intent of the ARRL. If you think Incentive licensing was bad just wait. Even the contesters will quickly figure out they can't "compete" with a Pactor station that will not listen to any of "there" frequency's before cranking up to transfer Internet e-mail, don't care if anyone was using one of "there" frequency's for a phone conversation, and could care less about human operators. As a digital operator I put up with this robot trash for years so it's about time that the entire community of amateur radio operators on HF had to put up with it as well. Go ahead and bring it on! We can deal with the results later.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone really believe the FCC is our Friend here? In my opinion, the FCC is trying to slowly phase out ham radio. Case in point, BPL interference complaints, who's side does the FCC take? Even though these proposals were written by hams at a 'think tank' does not mean that they are in our best interest. Just think, who pays these people and what motivates them?
What I see is going to happen here is that there is a great potential for interference. There are just enough operators out there that don't operate in a responsible manner.
Lastly, I wonder if commenting on these proposals really does any good. I believe the FCC is going to do what motivates them the most and it aint ham radio brother.
Some things to think about.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WW5AA on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At last! now I can get out the old brass telegraph key and my model-T coil. I'll be able to work the whole band at once!
73, de Lindy
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While reading the comments, I found the file by K2PG of particular interest. He suggests adopting the Canadian bandplan which already deals with this issue.
I also wonder how license classes will deal with these proposals?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W6TH on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Any change of what we have been using for the past years will not benefit ham radio.
Leave well enough alone.
.:
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The bottom line is, everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Considering that the bulk of our HF spectrum was allocated to ham radio decades ago, it is unreasonable to think that we can accomodate a dozen different modes compacted within the exact same HF spectrum.
Ever notice how the "Save CW Prima Donnas" usually bark the loudest?
"Never Let CW Die, it's "real" ham radio" and "Your not a real ham unless you can pass 13-20 WPM", and Amateur radio will go to hell and a handbasket without it.
Therefore, 50% of the available HF spectrum must remain CW ONLY - ALWAYS and FOREVER.
Meanwhile, there is evidence that Phone operation exceeds CW by almost 2:1 but CW is the ONLY mode that is allowed ANYWHERE in the band, but has NEVER taken advantage of.
Why? Because most CW operation takes place at the BOTTOM of every band, usually near the "DX Windows." Sure, there's CW operation between 3.675 and 3.750, but there's so much unused space on 80, Tech Plus operators could be moved to a designated section at the lower end of the band.
You want to increase your code speed?? Practice working hams who are running at higher speed!
Interesting though, the HF Phone crowd used to operate 100% high bandwidth on AM but reduced bandwidth over 40 years ago by more than 50% by switching to SSB. Now 90% of HF Phone operation today consists of 3 Khz wide conventional SSB with the remaining 10% a mix of SSTV, AM, WSSB, FM and Digital.
Wow, how obnoxious.....
It seems to me that we need to make a simple decision:
Allow new modes of operation to be used in unused CW spectrum. CW won't go away, it will just change a little with the times. Not bad for a mode that's almost 200 years old.
Chris, WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more things change, the more they remain the same. When I was getting started it was compaints about those darn SSB guys corrupting the bands with all the "donald duck" sounding stuff that nobody can understand. If you want to experiment with SSB then move into the VHF spectrum and leave my HF bands alone. We've been doing fine with AM all these years and there is no need to make any changes :-)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KR6DJ on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I use CW mode 95% of the time. I use it because I get better intelligibility and greater distance all with less power. I don't see how that makes me a "prima donna". I think that makes me a ham who is following regulation using the least amount of power and bandwidth to achieve effective communication. I think that if you want more access to the bands then upgrade your ticket.
I'm totally against the band plans by bandwidth. From the articles that the ARRL has provided and a couple of email exchanges with ARRL there is tremendous fallacy in the reasoning behind it.
I very much doubt that any "gentleman's agreements" will be strictly adhered to. Any weekend contest with hams on top of each other and even competing for the same frequency is testament to the free-for-all which will ensue.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
There has been some concern about the testing used with the CTT proposal. It was brief but wasn't the only input or motivation or basis for the proposal. However, the testing was continued for five months and yielded CW ~ 30%, Data (at most) ~ 10%, and Phone 60%. This is also corroborated by ARRL field day records for some time. It was intended to be a relative indicator rather than an absolute measurement. I hope this helps those that were troubled by the test portion of the proposal.
73
Art
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by G0GQK on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The suggestion that radio amateurs should be allowed to make transmissions of whatever they use, wherever they choose, is a thoroughly bad idea.
I will go so far as to say that if the suggestions become fact, and the ability to operate anywhere becomes an accepted fact, you will regret it.
The result will be that many, many amateurs will become so angered by the interference which they will experience, that they will cease to use amateur radio as a hobby.
G0GQK
|
| |
|
Gentlemen's Agreements
|
|
|
by W4XKE on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only hams who respect "gentlemen's agreements" are gentlemen. All others respect no form of cooperation or mutual consideration.
This would be like repealing the laws concerning bank robbery and expecting everyone to abide by a gentlemen's agreement to abstain from robbing banks.
I don't like rules and laws any more than anyone else but you can listen to 75 meters any night of the week and you can just see how many "GENTLEMEN" you hear on the air!
Can you imagine tossing in a group of other modes of operation into this mix? The only big difference between this and Citizen's Band would be the havoc we would cause to the European nations!
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N0AH on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If this goes through, AM'ers rejoice and digital guy, hang it up- And you thought that the "Chinese Radar Dragon" or the Japanese Fishing fleets were bad splattering our low bands........can't wait for Bobby Brady to try out his new crystal radio in the 80M CWDX window. Marsha, come in Marsha? Jan and Cindy need you upstairs with Alice. Tiger and Greg have Mrs. Brady under the new 200lb amplifier and Mr. Brady is not home. Fluffy the cat is missing too! What's that beeping sound Peter?
|
| |
|
RE: Gentlemen's Agreements
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am perplexed as to why anyone with any experience behind a microphone would even consider such a proposal to the FCC.
I mean really?..Why?
They MUST be aware of the consequences this would cause on any given band if such a proposal was enacted.. Wouldn't they?
I am still trying to figure out the real intentions behind this proposal. I feel there's more to the story than just the proposal itself.
It just doesn't make any sense to make such a proposal.
|
| |
|
RE: Gentlemen's Agreements
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am perplexed as to why anyone with any experience behind a microphone would even consider such a proposal to the FCC.>>
Having a microphone, CW key, or computer does not make one thoughtful.
I mean really?..Why?>>
When any of us get into one narrow aspect of a hobby we get tunnel vision. It's human nature.
If you look at the calls of people sponsoring or supporting this whacky proposal on Google you will see they mainly operate modes that would benefit from increasing space for wide bandwidth or unlimited bandwidth modes.
If you search many of the calls you will find they largely proclaim the only thing they have to follow is part 97, and they don't want to be bothered doing anything beyond that. What more logical proposal would a person who wants to be as wide as he wants within limits of part 97 make than one that takes away all limits???
One mod tells how to take an AM transmitter and convert it to 180% modulation with flat response from 50-10,000 Hz. There is no doubt in my mind a Ranger like that would have detectable splatter 50kHz wide when strong.
Do a google search on:
ranger modification modulation audio
This probably causes fights on 75 or 40 meters. No wonder they want more room and freedom to move where ever they want!
<<They MUST be aware of the consequences this would cause on any given band if such a proposal was enacted.. Wouldn't they?>>
We all see the world from our own front window.
<<I am still trying to figure out the real intentions behind this proposal. I feel there's more to the story than just the proposal itself.>>
Unlimited bandwidth on unlimited frequencies. Pretty simple and basic.
<<It just doesn't make any sense to make such a proposal.>>
Not for you, but it does for a person who's whole world is seeing how much fidelity he can get into a ham rig, and how far he can make the wattmeter bounce forward when he says..."hellooooo ray-did-deo".
It's all a matter of perspective.
If you agree, file for it. If you disagree with unlimited bandwidth on unlimited frequencies, file against it.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The proposal is flawed. You cant mix digital and analog modes on the same frequency. Why does it take a "think tank" to figure this out?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Incompatible modes should not be using the same spectrum. This is precisely why we are limited to USB transmissions on the 60m channels. We are secondary users. The primary users use USB only, so we have to also.
If you want a taste of what incompatible modes using the same spectrum sound like, listen to 40m CW when foreign phone users are present.
The "Think Tank" people want anarchy to rule. The ARRL wants Winlink robots to rule. If either get their way, the majority of hams lose. Bandplans by mode make the most sense. Leave the current bandpalns in place.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NI0C on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Think tank, stink tank!
I agree with WS4Y-- too many frivolous petitions are being filed with the FCC based on selfish motives and hidden agendas.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA5ZNU on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH writes:
>Moving to Canada
Unless I misread your sense, you'll be disappointed in Canada.
IC, the Canadian government agency that has the FCC's job, does not regulate by operating mode, and only minimally by bandwidth.
The Canadian amateurs to seem to abide by the IARU region bandplan, and their RAC (like our ARRL) takes the job of developing, promoting, and encouraging band planning in Canada and harmonizing with other countries. But again note that this is not a government mandate, but is instead administered by the hams.
The bandwidths are the same across the whole band. almost all MF and HF bands have a 6KHz limit across the band, the exceptions being 30M at 1KHz and 10M at 20KHz. In VHF and up the bandwidths get wider (and no limits at 1.2GHz and up), again with no sub-bands at all.
See http://www.rac.ca/service/allband.htm for the chart
See http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/faqgovt3.htm for an FAQ, copied here:
Q - Where can I find information on Canadian sub-bands and operating modes?
A - Industry Canada no longer mandates sub-bands for Canadian radio amateurs. Canadian amateurs recognize that other countries do, and that cooperation is necessary to avoid problems. RAC has developed compatible band plans, available on this web site [http://www.rac.ca/service/bandplan.htm]. We encourage visitors to comply with these sub-bands and modes.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Too many rules are being filed with
the FCC. As we all know the FCC works ( well almost ) for our beloved Government.This means that petition filed today are send next month to Mr.Brown who send dublicates to Mr. Black, Mr.Green,Mr Red and Mr.White.
Mr. White then send all duplicates received to Mr.Brown and he once again make duplicates of the petitions. Most likely when all Hams here on E-Ham having their own real estate at the Green Whispering Willows Cemetery the petions are received but by then they will be obsolete.
Yes our Government is doing a great job !
Don't rely on your Government
Take a look at the fine Medical program that is now going on.That will give you a reason to emigrate to Canada or New Zealand
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am perplexed as to why anyone with any experience behind a microphone would even consider such a proposal to the FCC.
---------------------------------------------------
Because the regulation is only part of the total story. A voluntary band plan is supposed to be put into place that will further divide the sub-bands so that analog and digital modes, for example, do not share the same spectrum. Of course it appears that many U.S. hams don't believe that U.S. hams can be trusted to follow a band plan unless it is built into Part 97 as law and enforced by the FCC. Regulation by bandwidth appears to work in a number of other countries that have been using it for some time now, but many apparently feel that it can't work in the U.S. We U.S. hams, I guess, want the government to control us (or more specifically everyone else).
Because if you work many of the newer digital modes the system is indeed broken. Of course if you run SSB and CW then the present rules protect those modes quite well and allocate a good deal of spectrum to them.
Because some of us look into the future far enough to anticipate that the current rules will eventually become a problem for the SSB and CW people too. If digital modes spread out across the CW spectrum as they can legally do now then CW will have a problem. If digital voice becomes more popular and speads out throught the present phone bands then the SSB people will have a problem because the current rules do NOT separate analog and digital modes. Under the present rules, phone is phone regardless of whether it is analog or digital. The proposal actually protects CW and limits the maximum bandwidth to keep any mode (other than AM) from speading out beyond 3.5KHz (which upsets some people).
In my view, it is those who think that because the present rules have worked for the past 50 years or so they will continue to work for the next 50 years that have the blinders on.
I think the ARRL would have gotten more support if they could show how the band plan will work before submitting the proposal to the FCC. There are also some other issues (primarily concerning automatic control) that need to be worked out.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4JF on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Therefore, 50% of the available HF spectrum must remain CW ONLY - ALWAYS and FOREVER."
That is NOT the case now and I don't think it will be that way in the proposal.
Nevertheless, a terrible proposal. Totally unnecessary and should be defeated.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4JF on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
".......................
The result will be that many, many amateurs will become so angered by the interference which they will experience, that they will cease to use amateur radio as a hobby.
G0GQK "
One has to wonder if that isn't the underlying reason for the proposals.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH writes:
>Moving to Canada
--------------
You would need to install a mobile in a dogsled so you can communicate while travelling along the artic tundra bear trails to your job at the seal blubber factory.
In addition, you would eat mad cow burgers for lunch, drink copious amounts of beer everyday - even at work!; get a liver transplant at the free hospital clinic once a month on Saturday's; be required to learn the first letter of the alphabet: Eh!, and finally you will be forced to convert the letter "zee" to the letter "zed."
So my guess is that you will start finding yourself trying to comprehend strange things people are saying. Things like, "You got change for a looney?" You won't know whether you should take offense to the comment, or if you should just stand there looking confused.
So, eventually you would never understand the language spoken there and move back to the US.
When you get back from Canada, you will come to the conclusion that the following US statements will start making perfect sense:
"[I]t's a myth to think I don't know what's going on. It's a myth to think that I'm not aware that there's opinions that don't agree with mine, because I'm fully aware of that."
—George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Pa., Dec. 12, 2005
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." —George W. Bush, Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
"Americans should be prudent in their use of energy during the course of the next few weeks. Don't buy gas if you don't need it."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1, 2005
..and finally my more recent favorite quote:
"It's a heck of a place to bring your family."
— George W. Bush, on New Orleans, Jan. 12, 2006
73
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All,
Regarding both proposals:
I refuse to give a "carte blanche" check to the ARRL, in the hope they will generate some kind of "gentlemen's agreement" that supposedly meets the needs of everyone. Really, do most of us believe the League is impartial enough these days? I doubt it, and I hope you do, too. Let the FCC derive a modified, segmented, and workable regulation by bandwidth plan; let the FCC be the final judge.
Overall, the "regulation by bandwidth" idea isn't a bad one; it's just that the ARRL's Plan is too liberal in regards to mode coexistence. It needs to separate wideband digital and analog signals; those the ARRL proposes live together. Do big dogs and cats live together? They do only in Bill Murray's lines referring the end-of-the-world times in the movie "Ghostbusters." Oh, something about "mass hysteria" was mentioned by Bill, too! Both plans are ill-gotten and are disasters.
Moreover, does the League intend to reassure the general ham population with a timely, workable, and nationally vetted plan, or will they continue to push this 3.5 KHz HF free-for-all? Where's the vetted program regarding these national recommendations and proposals -- recommendations that that international implications on our HF bands? The FCC's job would be eased if the League presented a project managed and nationally, and potentially international, vetted plan.
I am an ARRL member, and am usually not a League basher. But, the League's recent positions regarding the no-code debate and this disastrous regulation-by-bandwidth proposal are seriously testing my belief in their fair representation.
Sometimes I really wonder...
73.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WB4M on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
".......................
The result will be that many, many amateurs will become so angered by the interference which they will experience, that they will cease to use amateur radio as a hobby.
G0GQK "
One has to wonder if that isn't the underlying reason for the proposals.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, it does make one wonder, doen't it?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
I suppose you believe Alaskans live in igloos, burn seal and whale blubber in their lamps, to include munching on muktuk in the dead of winter. Good one...
I'll be politically incorrect and state that after the USAF brought me up here in 1993, I have rarely considered going back to the "lesser-48" states. Only God knows how good my family and I have it up here -- the best quality of life anywhere in the world! I've been around the world, too...
73 from the Frozen Chosen in south-central Alaska.
NL7W
Palmer, AK
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, I've been to Alaska before. I agree it's very breathtaking to see in real life. I just wanted to stay there. Since I was a native of Canada at the time, the cold never bothered me in the least. TV camera's just can't capture the beauty of Alaska the right way for some reason.
I was trying to convince my wife and intending to move to Alaska at one point in my life, but she had diverted my husky dog sled team and brought me here to the lesser 48 after I was layed off my igloo building job (health care) in Canada.
I hope we can work each other some time down the frozen path when the northern lights are just right.
My Best.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N0AH on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
2 follow ups:
1. On Canada, I was kidding..................ok? Gsszzzzz
2. Amazing comments here. Some hams rewrite the band plan a few years ago for 160M accomodating their "personal preference" yet here we are being lectured to about this and that and how wrong anyone is screwing with band allocations.
RE: 160M....What it came down to was those hams with dominating stations bullied their way into a position of power screwing those using the band plan for the way it was written. Now if a few hams can do this, nothing will surprise me and I see Band Wars the Movie coming out Christmas 2008.
Over the past 10 years, we keep lowering the bar while trashing what our founders did to enhance things.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.........it has already happened that a so called group of experts fouled up one band. Might as well let these clowns screw up what's left for whatever-
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
***************************************************************
AA4PB:
Because if you work many of the newer digital modes the system is indeed broken. Of course if you run SSB and CW then the present rules protect those modes quite well and allocate a good deal of spectrum to them.
*************************************************************
I've been working primarily digital for the past four weeks on 80m, 40m, and 20m.
There isn't anything broken with the digital modes. I've made contacts using psk31, mfsk16, mt63, rtty, and Olivia. I thought I had a Domino contact but we never actually transferred any text.
It is actually hard to *find* anyone to talk to because of the paucity of people using the modes. You usually have to call CQ for a long time to get anyone (except for psk31).
I guess I would be interested in your backup for saying that digital is broken. I know that PAX has just started to be used. So new transmission methods are coming out all the time. That is hardly symptomatic of a system that is broken.
Want to know the biggest pains in the butt? Canadian and South American SSB and Pactor robots.
*************************************************************
Because some of us look into the future far enough to anticipate that the current rules will eventually become a problem for the SSB and CW people too. If digital modes spread out across the CW spectrum as they can legally do now then CW will have a problem.
*************************************************************
Why will CW have a problem? Guess what psk31 people complain about? Foreign SSB, Pactor robots, AND CW!
I've not heard of many CW people complaining about digital modes - just foreign SSB!
Just how far in the future is this explosion of digital going to be? I've been hearing this for almost 20 years, ever since Packet was going to be the killer application in the late 80's. Yet, as shown in at least one of the comments to the FCC, analyzation of Field Day results shows digital to still be way less than 10% of total usage.
Heck, digital usage is so low that none of the major manufacturers even include something as simple as psk31 in anything except their $10,000 transceivers. If there was an impending explosion of digital more manufacturer offerings would be hitting the market.
**************************************************************
If digital voice becomes more popular and speads out throught the present phone bands then the SSB people will have a problem because the current rules do NOT separate analog and digital modes. Under the present rules, phone is phone regardless of whether it is analog or digital. The proposal actually protects CW and limits the maximum bandwidth to keep any mode (other than AM) from speading out beyond 3.5KHz (which upsets some people).
****************************************************************
So what? Guess who will have the problem? It won't be SSB. Not unless some big advances are made in the near future. Current digital voice implementations won't handle the QRM that SSB will. Guess who will win in a mixed battle?
And, yes, the 3.5khz bandwidth limit bothers me. The proposal is supposed to foster experimentation. Guess what? Two areas of experimentation it would nip in the bud:
1. High intelligibility speech using ISB with bandwidths of 4khz (2khz upper, 2khz lower).
2. Highly efficient digital modes using separate signalling and data channels. This would allow implementation of telecom trunking principles and result in far FEWER channels being required to carry store-and-forward messages than is required today. Minimum bandwidth requirements: 4khz to 6khz.
The ARRL proposal was generated by four people lost inside a *single* tree located in a grove of digital trees that is only about 10% of the total forest of amateur radio trees. From wanting to kill off competitive networks using fully automatic stations to wanting access to all amateur frequencies to spread out Pactor robots, this proposal is aimed at growing that one single tree the four are lost in -- at the expense of the rest of the forest.
It's no wonder that there is a lot of opposition to it. The surprise should be that their isn't more than than there actually is!
***************************************************************
In my view, it is those who think that because the present rules have worked for the past 50 years or so they will continue to work for the next 50 years that have the blinders on.
**************************************************************
And those who claim that because something is new it is better are not making rational decisions.
********************************************************************
I think the ARRL would have gotten more support if they could show how the band plan will work before submitting the proposal to the FCC. There are also some other issues (primarily concerning automatic control) that need to be worked out.
**********************************************************
First they need to come up with a *PROCESS* for developing a bandplan that will be acceptable to the amateur community as a whole. Then they will have to implement that process to actually come up with a bandplan. If the Priest-Kings on the BOD and EC just come up with one of their own and try to dictate it, it will just turn out to be a major failure.
My guess would be that if they started today, it would take a full year just to get a *PROCESS* laid out and accepted by the amateur community. It would take another year to run the process and come up with an acceptable bandplan.
That's two years from now before something could be implemented.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH on January 17, 2006 .
.
Any change of what we have been using for the past years will not benefit ham radio.
Leave well enough alone........?
You GO Boy !
Excuse me ? Any change of what we have been using for the past years will not benefit ham radio??
I have come to respect your post over the years.
This one ,lacking . The door is wide open ,all we have to do is walk through.
With respect Sir .
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH,
Quit telling lies. It's just time to stop it.
The list of people who worked on the ARRL bandplan for 160 is readily available. I am not on that list.
For your information, I objected to the lack of a DX Window. I objected to digital being put down below 1810. I had just as much ability to change things as you did.
If I had my way, there would still be a DX window. It's the guys along the east coast with nothing between them and Europe except saltwater who want the Window gone.
Don't try to heap that stuff on anyobne except the guys in the northeast. Get your facts right.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4JF on January 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have visited Canada many times in the spring and summer and thoroughly enjoyed it. Some of the most wonderful people and beautiful scenery.
BUT!! Couldn't move there! It's just too bloody cold up there for this South Carolina guy!! I have this philosophy that one shouldn't be where the temperature is below his age. That's why I go to Key West in February!!
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by M0AFJ on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm just amazed at the arrogance of the ARRL / FCC in not consulting with the rest of the world, or maybe they now represent everyone and I've just missed the announcement!.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I received a few emails asking me to respond to posts and provide some of the reasons for the CTT proposal. Here's some of the logic. Other members of the group and advisers to the group have more reasons but these are some of the main bullet points for me . . . . I don't respond to personal attacks or motivational speculation.
1. Amateur radio operators who violate regulations will do so whether regulations are strict and autocratic (subject to 'favoritism') or more fair to all. Therefore, increased regulation most affects the operators who follow those regulations, the ops who would behave in most any environment, the ops who don't need the regulation as demonstrated in Canada and on 160 in the US would be restricted because of those who will not follow regulations anyway.
2. Narrow band modes have significantly higher penetration capability in good and difficult conditions. Consider a CW signal at 1500W and 750 Hz vs an AM signal at 1500W PEP and 9 KHz. The narrow band signal has at least a factor of 10 higher power density. King Kong is really a CW signal.
3. According to my tests and ARRL records CW is used about 30% and can operate anywhere in the bands. Phone is restricted to significantly less than its proportional use of the resource. How this has ocurred is sad in my opinion but that is water over the dam. Data has been very liberally assumed to occupy 10%. That is a really fat number as observed use over 5 months is around 5% of the total.
4. As an extra, I could operate phone in the lower 25KHz of a band and wouldn't think of doing so, not on 160 or 20M. I am hard pressed to believe many at all would do so. However, those who would do so will not be regulated anyway. See point one.
5. Digital ops will quickly realize they have significant liberty and want to preserve it. There would be no quicker way for digi to be burdened with additional regulation than to interfere with other modes. The digi folks may appear to be somewhat focused on their particular modes but they are not stupid.
6. The people who live in continual fear of others treading on their frequency or mode probably ought to set up microwave hops instead of utilizing a wide area, international, medium. If someone is on your intended frequency when you arrive, move off for crying out loud, it isn't rocket science.
7. The CTT and ARRL proposals will not eliminate interference. The CTT and ARRL proposals will not eliminate interference. However, I believe the CTT proposal allows more latitude (band space) to deal with interference issues in an increasing population in a more peaceful and cooperative manner. Particularly in view of current band loading. As such, it is more efficient.
8. A while ago a new mode was being experimented with and there was great consternation over it. There were proposals to eliminate it, regulate it, or force it into a small section of the bands. Now SSB is the predominant mode. The CTT proposal provides a freer environment for tomorrows technologies while managing todays resources more effectively.
Thanks for reading,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee Tim, if you think digital voice will not cause problems for SSB then why is everyone so worried about PactorIII stations mixing in with SSB?
You are sounding just like the AM boys years ago. This SSB stuff will never amount to anything. Only 10% of stations operate SSB. The other 90% use AM. It seems as technology changes many hams have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. Just human nature I guess.
Actually, the FCC tried to make the change to bandwidth about 15-20 years ago as I recall. Hams screamed so loud that it was dropped. We'll see what happens this time.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W5ESE on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> the ops who don't need the regulation as
> demonstrated in Canada and on 160 in the US would
> be restricted because of those who will not follow
> regulations anyway.
You must hear something different on 160m than what
I do.
> Consider a CW signal at 1500W and 750 Hz vs an AM
> signal at 1500W PEP and 9 KHz.
Or consider me on CW at 5 watts. Obviously you guys
don't give a rip about QRPers.
> 3. According to my tests and ARRL records CW is
> used about 30% and can operate anywhere in the
> bands.
More like 36-41%. I calculated, based on Field
Day results from 1995-2005, that CW use ranged
from a low of 35.8% (2000) to a high of 41.5%
(2003). Digital mode use never exceeded 2%.
Phone use ranged from a low of 56.9% (2005) to
63.5% (2000).
The data is available to ARRL members at:
(2000-2005)
http://www.arrl.org/members-only/contests/results/2005/FD/stats.html
(1995-2002)
http://www.arrl.org/members-only/contests/results/2002/fd/stats.html
I "rolled" the results in a comment to the FCC that
anyone can see (on page 2):
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518171648
> As an extra, I could operate phone in the lower
> 25KHz of a band and wouldn't think of doing so,
> not on 160 or 20M.
You're not everyone. It only takes a few for things
to get really ugly. Look at 2m FM in LA; one lid
made things miserable for thousands.
> There would be no quicker way for digi to be
> burdened with additional regulation than to
> interfere with other modes.
They already are. I've been interfered with many
times on 20 meters from PMBO's operating outside
where the "Gentlemen's Agreements" indicate
digital modes are supposed be located (above
14070 KHz). Look at the frequencies used at:
http://users.iafrica.com/z/zs/zs5s/bulls/PMBO.TXT
Many stateside PMBO's are operating below 14070
KHz today; they're already ignoring the
"Gentlemen's Agreements". Why should I think this
will change?
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I understood you and the frequent posters who disagree. My post was in response to others who requested I post some of my reasoning for participating in the proposal.
I have seen negative expectations of fellow hams and still believe in the majority of hams being darn good operators.
I believe interference is interference. If the mode dictates or the station is operated such that it doesn't monitor and inhibit if there is traffic on a frequency, it is an illegal mode per todays regulations and, hopefully, tomorrows more accommodating regs.
I also believe we don't know what tomorrow will bring and to dictate today the bandwidth and mask of the mode will surely inhibit experimentation and growth.
Ultimately, the decision will be made by the FCC. They will evaluate the responses and discard the obviously emotional, biased, and/or replicated inputs. They may then generate a rule making, perhaps including the best of all our inputs.
I urge everyone to make their opinion and reasoning known to the FCC. I won't attempt to dictate to you how you should think, or demand you align one way or another.
There are too many people doing that already.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
****************************************************************
aa4pb:
Gee Tim, if you think digital voice will not cause problems for SSB then why is everyone so worried about PactorIII stations mixing in with SSB?
***************************************************************
It is this kind of obfuscation by the ARRL that has so many people up in arms about their proposal.
Digital voice is not Pactor III. Do you need more explanation?
*****************************************************************
You are sounding just like the AM boys years ago. This SSB stuff will never amount to anything. Only 10% of stations operate SSB. The other 90% use AM. It seems as technology changes many hams have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. Just human nature I guess.
****************************************************************
You could tell what the coming thing was back then by the investments made by the manufacturers. Collins, Drake, Central Electronics, Johnson, Gonset, Hallicrafters, Heathkit, and on and on and on and on and on ......... were bringing out SSB transmitters along with new receiver designs to better handle SSB.
Today, not a single manufacturer has integrated a sound card or tnc into any of their equipment except for their $10,000 rigs. Their are some niche manufacturers but their success hardly presages a coming digital revolution.
I suspect if I dig out some of my old 1985 QST's I can find the same hype: Digital is coming! Digital is coming! Well, its 20 years later and Digital is Still Coming!
At this pace we'll see digital finally reach it's potential sometime in the next century. Plenty of time to worry about it then.
****************************************************************
Actually, the FCC tried to make the change to bandwidth about 15-20 years ago as
*****************************************************************
Yep, and digital use isn't any more popular now than it was then.
One big reason is sociological. Most people would rather converse one-on-one using voice rather than using a keyboard. It is quicker, more interactive, and has the entire human history of spoken language behind it. A lot of people enjoy using CW and Morse Code because of its simplicity and utility in marginal conditions. That leaves the very small minority who would rather converse using an isolating mechanism like a keyboard, who are more interested in the technical/experimentation side of the equation than in actual communications with others, or those with disabilities making keyboard modes a primary communications mode.
The other big reason is marginal utility. Digital in amateur radio would be very useful for store-and-forward operations. Guess what? We had a big packet network going in the US for just that purpose. It died when the internet reached the common consumer. The marginal utility of the internet is just so much higher for daily use that amateur radio couldn't compete. There is nothing on the horizon that will change that situation.
Those who keep saying that Digital is the coming thing can't see the forest of amateur radio because of the few digital trees surrounding them. To them, their digital hammer forces them to see everything as digital nails.
It didn't take SSB 20 years to make an impact. I wonder why?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
3. According to my tests and ARRL records CW is
> used about 30% and can operate anywhere in the
> bands.
More like 36-41%. I calculated, based on Field
Day results from 1995-2005,
-------
Considering that when other countries dropped the CW requirement, it lead to an increased activity in CW.
I can't help but wonder if and when the code requirement is dropped here in the US if it will result in 1000's of Tech's utilizing the CW portions of the bands in the near future.
I mean you can't exactly ignore that possibility because that's exactly what happened in other countries when they dropped the code requirement. People actually wanted to start learning code.
...Us humans are strange huh?
Of course this increase in CW activity may adversely affect the percentages you currently have at hand.
--... ...--
-.. .
-.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM:
"Considering that when other countries dropped the CW requirement, it lead to an increased activity in CW.
I can't help but wonder if and when the code requirement is dropped here in the US if it will result in 1000's of Tech's utilizing the CW portions of the bands in the near future.
I mean you can't exactly ignore that possibility because that's exactly what happened in other countries when they dropped the code requirement. People actually wanted to start learning code."
Charles, you shouldn't assume that the all the so-called "increased activity in CW" came from no-coders learning code once the requirement was dropped in their countries. Some of it maybe, but much of this activity came from hams who learned enough code to get HF privileges that weren't using it after they got their licenses. Once the WRC 2003 decision came down, many of these coded hams re-learned code so they could start using it on the air. After the WRC 2003 decision, many coded hams began to fear that the phone bands would suffer from much overcrowding due to the great multitude of no-coders migrating to HF. There are many such coded hams here in the States. I am one of them. I got my code software out on 8/1/03 to re-learn what I learned 3 1/2 years before for HF privileges but never used up to that point. I am not alone. When the floodgates open, I will be found in the lower 25 KHz of the bands, away from the rat race.
I predict that if the phone bands get too crowded once Element 1 is dropped, many of the no-coders with their newly-attained HF privileges will learn code to get away from the rat race on phone. Water seeks it's level. The same applies to human beings in crowded conditions. You're right! "Us humans ARE strange...".
73 de Mark
AG4RQ
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR said:
"First they need to come up with a *PROCESS* for developing a bandplan that will be acceptable to the amateur community as a whole. Then they will have to implement that process to actually come up with a bandplan. If the Priest-Kings on the BOD and EC just come up with one of their own and try to dictate it, it will just turn out to be a major failure.
My guess would be that if they started today, it would take a full year just to get a *PROCESS* laid out and accepted by the amateur community. It would take another year to run the process and come up with an acceptable bandplan.
That's two years from now before something could be implemented."
Agreed.
That process is called program or project management. I believe the ARRL doesn't have a clue about what takes to garner and gather the support needed to pull off such a sincere and broad-sweeping endeavor. They need to hire experienced project managers who have been through these types of political and technical processes.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark, I enjoyed reading your observations.
I have to openly admit, I haven't considered that there may be other instances on the opposite side of the same spectrum to readily explain a sudden upsurge in CW usage on the bands.
...It was interesting to speculate though.
73 OM de Charles KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K3XF on January 18, 2006
I received a few emails asking me to respond to posts and provide some of the reasons for the CTT proposal. Here's some of the logic. Other members of the group and advisers to the group have more reasons but these are some of the main bullet points for me . . . . I don't respond to personal attacks or motivational speculation.
1. Amateur radio operators who violate regulations will do so whether regulations are strict and autocratic (subject to 'favoritism') or more fair to all. Therefore, increased regulation most affects the operators who follow those regulations, the ops who would behave in most any environment, the ops who don't need the regulation as demonstrated in Canada and on 160 in the US would be restricted because of those who will not follow regulations anyway.>>>>
Actually history shows that statement isn’t true. The operators who cause controversy and problems are only reigned in by hard enforceable laws. It is the “I’m within the limit of rules” operators who cause problems and need regulations to stay in check. The folks with common decency and sense are not restricted at all by pushing to the very limit rules, so rules are no burden.If you look at the people who are largely behind the “any-mode any-where” Think Tank proposal, they largely want to push bandwidth to the limit and use modes that poorly attenuate wider bandwidth spurious distortion products. The spectrum-waters want more spectrum to waste.
<<2. Narrow band modes have significantly higher penetration capability in good and difficult conditions. Consider a CW signal at 1500W and 750 Hz vs an AM signal at 1500W PEP and 9 KHz. The narrow band signal has at least a factor of 10 higher power density. King Kong is really a CW signal.>>
Power density has nothing to do with it. The problem is power bandwidth.
If I reduce bandwidth 10 times, noise power is reduced 10dB. CW enjoys a lower noise power than SSB (about 10dB), and significantly less than AM (about 20dB for normal AM bandwidth). This is the real reason a narrow SSB signal goes much further than AM, and why CW goes much further than AM or SSB. This is why PSK has such a S/N advantage.
What happens is this. If the receiver was wide the noise power would mask and weak products. With a narrow receiver, noise floor is 10-20 dB less than a narrow AM bandwidth noise floor. If I listen with 3kHz bandwidth the wideband splatter of a transmitter is often hidden in background noise. When I narrow the bandwidth, the noise floor drops at a faster rate than the on-frequency splatter. When we park a wide information bandwidth mode on top of a narrow mode, it destroys the low noise floor of the narrow mode.
A second problem is removing an unwanted signal. I can use a notch and remove a CW or PSK signal from a SSB or AM signal without harming the SSB or AM signal very much. The converse is not true. I cannot remove trash caused by wide SSB and AM transmitters from narrow modes because it envelops the whole bandwidth of the narrow signal.
<<3. According to my tests and ARRL records CW is used about 30% and can operate anywhere in the bands. Phone is restricted to significantly less than its proportional use of the resource. How this has ocurred is sad in my opinion but that is water over the dam. Data has been very liberally assumed to occupy 10%. That is a really fat number as observed use over 5 months is around 5% of the total.>>>
That disagrees with other published data by several percent. The reason CW can operate anywhere legally is a narrow mode can be removed from a wide mode without harming the wide mode significantly. On the other hand a wide mode destroys a narrow mode that the operator can’t even detect!
The FCC made the mode rules the way they are because they understand how communications systems work, not because of any sinister reason to cheat AM or SSB people.
Anyone who understands communications systems knows all of this, but let’s pretend what you say is true.
In that case what we should do is let CW ops have 30-40%, SSB ops have 50-55%, and AM ops have 1%, the rest being digital. I’ll vote for that. I’ll vote for increasing NARROW SSB space, and restricting ESSB and AM space to 1%, and adjusting CW to 30-40% of all bands. Why should we let AM have 100% when all phone modes comprise about half the activity with AM being almost none?
<<4. As an extra, I could operate phone in the lower 25KHz of a band and wouldn't think of doing so, not on 160 or 20M. I am hard pressed to believe many at all would do so. However, those who would do so will not be regulated anyway. See point one.>>
And there are constantly those who do intentionally cause problems because they legally can. It only takes a few people to ruin things for thousands of people. That’s why we have and need laws.
<< 5. Digital ops will quickly realize they have significant liberty and want to preserve it. There would be no quicker way for digi to be burdened with additional regulation than to interfere with other modes. The digi folks may appear to be somewhat focused on their particular modes but they are not stupid.>>
The problem is voice modes almost always cannot recognize and often not even detect operators they will harm. They have wideband receivers and that gives them higher noise power. The higher noise power masks low level signals.
Digital people might not recognize CW of SSB, and CW receivers can’t recognize SSB or AM unless bandwidth and mode is changed. If an AM station pops on and asks if the frequency is in use, the burden would be on the CW or digital op to first recognize what the AM station is asking, switch to AM, warn him the frequency is in use, and do so before the guy gets the mindset the frequency was clear.
This is EXACTLY why we cannot mix modes, and need clear fences to limit wide modes.
<<6. The people who live in continual fear of others treading on their frequency or mode probably ought to set up microwave hops instead of utilizing a wide area, international, medium. If someone is on your intended frequency when you arrive, move off for crying out loud, it isn't rocket science.>>
One AM station can pretty much take out the entire useful nightime 40 meter CW area. One PACTOR wipe out a dozen or more PSK ops.
If unrestricted modes bandwidth is allowed everywhere the widest most power and spectrum wasteful modes will dominate band usage. That’s how it has always been, and the reasons are clear why it happens.
Telling someone they should accept a new level of problems and be prepared to move is not my idea of good fellowship. It is this “heck with what you want I am big and wide and can go where I want” attitude from Think Tank members and supporters that scares me.
I haven’t yet heard a “Think Tank” supporter say “we will avoid at all costs operating on frequencies we know other people use”. What they say is “if we land there first, it’s up to YOU to find a new spot to operate”.
The rest of the world is supposed to welcome and embrace the fact that anyone can operate any mode anywhere, because people will get along.
Well I have news for you, “I was here first so quit whining or find another band” may be OK in the Think Tank world, but it is NOT a good attitude to show how concerned you are about others!
<<7. The CTT and ARRL proposals will not eliminate interference. The CTT and ARRL proposals will not eliminate interference. However, I believe the CTT proposal allows more latitude (band space) to deal with interference issues in an increasing population in a more peaceful and cooperative manner. Particularly in view of current band loading. As such, it is more efficient.>>
What you really mean is with a wide mode or during a contest, people using up their allocation should have the freedom to randomly move to any spot they deem clear and operate. That certainly is better for the wide mode. The wider the mode, the better it works.
<<8. A while ago a new mode was being experimented with and there was great consternation over it. There were proposals to eliminate it, regulate it, or force it into a small section of the bands. Now SSB is the predominant mode. The CTT proposal provides a freer environment for tomorrows technologies while managing todays resources more effectively.>>
Which just goes to show the trend in advancing the state of the art is to make signals narrower, not wider. Making more room for wider signals reverses the incentive to develop and use narrow modes.
<<Thanks for reading, Art >>
Art, I see at
http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Arts_page.html
you are an avid AM operator.
Why is it nearly all the support for RM-11305 and the need for unlimited bandwidth on unlimited frequencies comes from people who enjoy one of the least spectrum and power efficient modes available?
Doesn’t it seem contradictory that the people promising less QRM and better harmony for all are those who would cause the most QRM and distress if they moved all over the band?
Why do AM people feel obligated to ask for unlimited space?
It seems odd to see the most wasteful people ask for the most room and promise it won't be a burden on narrow modes, as long as they are willing to move.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems odd to see the most wasteful people ask for the most room and promise it won't be a burden on narrow modes, as long as they are willing to move.
----
Oh, sure.. you can count me in!
Where do I sign up for this amazing radio enhancement service?
I enjoy listening to SSTV, PACTOR, PSK and especially AM signal interference over SSB voice signals I am trying to hear. ...Doesn't everyone?
Due to the overwhelming popularity of this most sensible and well documented proposal conducted by top radio research scientology think blanks, I am going to confidently predict it will get a green light long before they drop the code requirement!
Signed,
Can't Wait.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before the "Communications Think Tank" or the ARRL puts a proposal before the FCC that changes everything everyone does, why don't they first ask all amateur what THEY want?
Why don't they take that information and have a group of real communications engineers review it and determine the best way to accomplish what most people want?
I don't want a small group of people who have very special interests at heart deciding what is good for me!
73 Tom
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before the "Communications Think Tank" or the ARRL puts a proposal before the FCC that changes everything everyone does, why don't they first ask all amateur what THEY want?
Why don't they take that information and have a group of real communications engineers review it and determine the best way to accomplish what most people want?
I don't want a small group of people who have very special interests at heart deciding what is good for me!
73 Tom
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KH6TY on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eight good reasons to file your comments opposing RM-11306:
1. RM-11306 PROPOSES TO OVERTURN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER OF 1995, PR DOCKET 94-59, WHICH INTENTIONALLY LIMITED ALL AUTOMATIC OPERATIONS WITH BANDWIDTH OVER 500 HZ TO SUBBANDS COMPRISING 3.8% OF THE RADIO AMATEUR HF ALLOCATION.
2. THE PETITION'S UNDERLYING INTENT IS TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS TO ATTAIN FAVORED STATUS FOR A SMALL, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, WINLINK 2000, IN EXCHANGE FOR ARRL ACCESS TO THE WINLINK 2000 NETWORK FOR ARRL RADIO EMAIL MESSAGING USING THE AMATEUR BANDS.
3. THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO REWRITE SECTION 97.221 IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE AVAILABLE SPECTRUM WHERE AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED DIGITAL STATIONS WITH EMITTED BANDWIDTHS OVER 500 HZ CAN BE OPERATED.
4. RM-11306 IGNORES THE FACT THAT HF AMATEUR RADIO SIGNALS TRAVEL WORLDWIDE BY INTENTIONALLY AND TOTALLY DISREGARDING IARU REGION 1 RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE AUTOMATIC OPERATIONS OF ANY KIND MAY TAKE PLACE.
5. RM-11306 PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS ON EMITTED BANDWIDTH, EVEN THOUGH SUCH LIMITATIONS WERE DENIED BY THE COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER 24, 2004 (DA-04-3661).
6. AN ADDITIONAL UNDERLYING INTENT OF RM-11306 IS TO REMOVE REGULATIONS AND REPLACE THEM WITH ARRL BANDPLANS, GIVING CONTROL OF WHERE YOU MAY OPERATE TO A SELECT FEW ON THE ARRL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
7. HIGH-SPEED DATA OR MULTIMEDIA ON HF, TOUTED BY ARRL, IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT WINLINK'S USE OF PACTOR-III GAINS ONLY 50% IN SPEED OVER PACTOR-II, BUT UTILIZES UP TO FIVE TIMES THE BANDWIDTH. INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO RUN AT ITS SPEED OF 225 CHARACTERS PER SECOND ON A WIRED CIRCUIT, IN ACTUAL PRACTICE ON HF, PACTOR-III IS ONLY CAPABLE OF 15 CHARACTERS PER SECOND ON THE AVERAGE ON HF, MOSTLY DUE TO THE MANY REPEATS NECESSARY TO COMPENSATE FOR VARYING AND GENERALLY POOR HF PROPAGATION.
8. IF YOUR INTEREST IS MOSTLY IN PHONE OPERATIONS, BE AWARE THAT RM-11306, IF ADOPTED, WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE PHONE BANDS TO BE FILLED WITH AUTOMATIC PACTOR-III EMAIL ROBOTS WHICH WILL EASILY BURY ANY SSB PHONE SIGNAL ALREADY ON THE FREQUENCY, AND COULD POP UP AT RANDOM ANYWHERE IN THE PHONE BANDS.
IF YOU HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED THIS, TALK TO SOME CW, RTTY, MT63, OR PSK31 OPERATORS TO FIND OUT HOW DISRUPTIVE THIS IS TO TRYING TO SNAG THAT DX STATION OR CARRY ON A RAGCHEW.
So, if any of these eight reasons is about something you do not want to happen, just click on this link,
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi ,
fill in RM-11306 (in all caps) where it says "1. Proceeding", fill in the rest of the spaces with your name and address where indicated, and type a brief comment to the FCC where it says "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in), which can be as simple as, "I oppose the adoption of RM-11306.", or elaborate if you prefer.
For a detailed explanation of these points, just click here: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/comment.html
Skip KH6TY
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why is it nearly all the support for RM-11305 and the need for unlimited bandwidth on unlimited frequencies comes from people who enjoy one of the least spectrum and power efficient modes available?"
OK, OK, I will break with my policy of not responding to personal attacks and motivational curiosity:
True, I operate AM . . . I also operate FM, SSB, PSK, CW, M"N"QPSK experimental modes, VHF/SHF weak signal, and enjoy VHF/UHF contesting. I would like room to do all these things.
There is representation from the major operating modes within the CTT and advisors.
Check more closely on my page and you will see some innovative designs utilizing class E transmitters on AM. You will see replacement of the flakey relays in one of the cleanest SSB radios short of the FT-1000 class A, the FT-102. The FT-102 is a fine rig but isn't exactly a major AM player. I like to experiment with newer approaches and modify current equipment to work better. In fact I am working on an amplifier today to improve its thermal design. . . .solder out the bottom of the 3-500 . .but I digress.
The IC-706 page is inspired by my mobile station. The 706 is pretty good as is but receives like a diode detector (OK, that's an exageration, but it does seem that way some times) on AM and FM. The mods that appear on my page are an overall improvement on a mobile station which also work on AM.
Yes, I am an amateur radio operator and enthusiast. That's my best qualification to have an opinion on amateur radio frequency allocations.
That I talk to Bud on AM, Dave on SSB, and Mike on CW is a strawman at best. If you are investigating you could go beyond that which is necessary to support your point if you want to appear objective. For instance you could try looking up my call on Google and checking out VHF/UHF contest entries for many years.
Amateur radio operators, in general, are a diverse lot and have difficulty with those selecting themselves as a self annointed dictator of how they may conduct their hobby, (eg. what is "justifiably" efficient).
The CTT proposal is one of several suggestions on the table at this time. It's not an election. It is an effort by the FCC to acquire diverse input to the rule making process. My sense is neither the ARRL proposal nor the CTT proposal will become rulemakings in their current form.
Everyone is looking for the hidden agenda and motivation. Well, here's mine.
I am a life member of the ARRL but the ARRL is not representing me in their proposal. In fact, I only know one person who claims it is a great idea, as is. That is my major motivation for participating in this proposal. Are there opportunities for improvement in the CTT proposal, you bet! I tried to input to the ARRL proposal but was shut down at every attempt. Now, I . . . WE . . . have an input.
I am pleased you have the interest to participate in the process. There are so many who would simply wait until the code elimination fills the bands with phone operators and then state that "someone" should do something. However, I have a suggestion. Focus on the issue rather than the people and please get your opinion in to the FCC.
All the best,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regarding comments to the FCC;
Please do more than just state you oppose or support the RM. This is not an election. You oppose or support for a reason. That reason is input to the FCC and this is the mechanism for including your opinion in rule making.
Art
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by DARDENA on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't understand why this proposal is being rushed through the rule making. It looks to have very complex technical aspects, with the possibility of effecting great harm to users of the HF bands in the form of interference. Why the need for other than 'channelized' automated digital services? We have been using repeaters for years, with much success in linking automated digital services on VHF/UHF, why are 'free-range' roving automated digital services needed on HF?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art,
I work AM, FM, SSB, PSK, RTTY, and CW. So what?
If I were going to make a proposal to the FCC I'd go outside my little circle of friends and solicit input from multiple viewpoints.
I'd also check the technical accuracy of my thinking and logic with other people known to understand communications systems, and people who understand interaction between people.
You needed OUTSIDE opinions, not just those formed by your closed circle of friends. You need a few ringers who disagree with you to smoke out problems.
It's shameful we bother the FCC with petitions asking for things that the vast majority of people in the hobby consider terrible proposals. It wastes government resources and paints Hams as a group of people who are more bother than they are worth.
The reason you see so many people here and on the FCC comment against the "Communications Think Tank" is your group went off all on their own and came up with something that fits your own personal thought processes of how the world should be, like you know better than the rest of us how things work.
If your group had taken time to learn WHY modes have historically been segmented, you would have come up with some other proposal. As it is, you burdened the FCC with another nonsense thing that will create more problems than it ever solves.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.eham.net/articles/12335
and dozens of other articles about problems caused by lack of mode segmentation. As a matter of fact, the FCC has been constantly dragged into squabbles on 160 meters where SSB ops QRM CW in direct violation of "bandplans", and the same is true on 75 meters where AM and SSB people fight.
I can't even remotely fathom why an otherwise intelligent person would think abolishing all guidelines is a good idea and will work. Especially when your very own Bud Chiller proclaims part 97 is the only thing he obeys.
"I listen only to part 97, don't complain to me about how wide I am" and then later to the FCC "please remove all mode or bandwidth restrictions from part 97 and let us gentleman work it out."
Where is something on the AM pages showing me where people want a narrower signal?
Think about it objectively....
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
." . .great harm to users of the HF bands in the form of interference. Why the need for other than 'channelized' automated digital services? We have been using repeaters for years, with much success in linking automated digital services on VHF/UHF, why are 'free-range' roving automated digital services needed on HF?"
Great question. However, proposals don't create interfence, people do. If someone has someplace else to go, why would they interfere with your QSO? Yes, I know there are a number of examples of poor operators who jealously guard "their" frequency and will jam anyone who starts a QSO on it. However, to regulate the majority who do not interfere because of a minority who do is just wrong.
Good example. Repeaters have been operating for many years and must have a mechanism for monitoring their transmit frequency to inhibit TX if there is traffic on the frequency. I don't care if a mode is manual, semi-automatic, automatic, or magic, if you TX you must listen to determine if your transmission would intefere with communications in process. With liberty comes responsibility. If the data folks want lots of restriction all they have to do is live up to the scenarios presented by those concerned about interference. Otherwise, they are a low throuput email and internet network that will have a certain number of followers. My opinion is it will come and go as many things have: autopatches, VHF packet data networks, etc. I think it will fade into relative obscurity when the day is done. Yes, I know there are still some autopatches and VHF packet networks. Heck, there are still people using many modes that don't make up a significant percentage of amateur ops.
Rushing implies everyone won't have a chance to have their input included. Neither of the RMs are NPRMs yet. Perhaps now would be a good time to go to the FCC site and share your opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I work AM, FM, SSB, PSK, RTTY, and CW. So what?"
Tom, You are the one that expressed the opinion that the proposal authors were focused on one mode. You are wrong. That's what.
"If I were going to make a proposal to the FCC I'd go outside my little circle of friends and solicit input from multiple viewpoints."
. . . and you have it on good authority this didn't happen . . . how? Because you disagree? There's something to hang your hat on . . . but not mine.
"I'd also check the technical accuracy of my thinking and logic with other people known to understand communications systems, and people who understand interaction between people."
Yep, did that too. . . 'kinda have a background in it myself and numerous associates in industry who are communications engineers and hams. Some really liked the proposal and some didn't
"You needed OUTSIDE opinions, not just those formed by your closed circle of friends. You need a few ringers who disagree with you to smoke out problems."
Already responded a coupla points back.
"It's shameful we bother the FCC with petitions asking for things that the vast majority of people in the hobby consider terrible proposals. It wastes government resources and paints Hams as a group of people who are more bother than they are worth.
The reason you see so many people here and on the FCC comment against the "Communications Think Tank" is your group went off all on their own and came up with something that fits your own personal thought processes of how the world should be, like you know better than the rest of us how things work."
Nobly stated and well put from the higher ground of not wanting to waste government resources. This is probably your most transparent statement to date but I agree. And yet, it's done by our own "National Amateur Radio Association" all the time. Perhaps we should finally stand up and say representation of amateurs overall should be more than an organization that has less than 21% of licensed amateur radio operators and doesn't represent even their own members. However, if it is a choice between rolling over and taking another hair brained proposal from that source or generating an opposite pole to force more representation and reduce apathy . . . I'm up for it.
"If your group had taken time to learn WHY modes have historically been segmented, you would have come up with some other proposal. As it is, you burdened the FCC with another nonsense thing that will create more problems than it ever solves."
This concept works OK when you have two modes. Well, they aren't the only two modes any more. How do we define now what will be invented or tried on the amateur bands. It is more important to allow the freedom to experiment than to provide a separate spot on the dial for each mode. Effectively the segmentation mentality decreases resource efficiency as the number of modes increases. This idea carried to an extreme provides us with less and less room to operate even with more and more ops coming on line.
"I suggest you read this:
http://www.eham.net/articles/12335
and dozens of other articles about problems caused by lack of mode segmentation. As a matter of fact, the FCC has been constantly dragged into squabbles on 160 meters where SSB ops QRM CW in direct violation of "bandplans", and the same is true on 75 meters where AM and SSB people fight."
Yep, did that. . . . also noted the relative civility and adherence to the gentlemens agreement of frequency use on 160. You are citing exceptions rather than the norm. 75M gets the notorious focus all the time. It is segmented. 160M is not and there are less observed problems there. VEs have more latitude than W, K. in non mode based (more license focused) frequency allocation. Similar to 160, they seem to do OK. The US is one of the significant minorities in the world when it comes to excessive regulation of its amateur radio ops.
"I can't even remotely fathom why an otherwise intelligent person would think abolishing all guidelines is a good idea and will work. Especially when your very own Bud Chiller proclaims part 97 is the only thing he obeys.
"I listen only to part 97, don't complain to me about how wide I am" and then later to the FCC "please remove all mode or bandwidth restrictions from part 97 and let us gentleman work it out.""
Even if Bud said this he is one person. Doesn't this kind of overvalue his input when you have stated "solicit input from multiple viewpoints." OK, I get it, you don't like Bud. Heck, you dedicated part of your web page to putting him down. I get it . . .
"Where is something on the AM pages showing me where people want a narrower signal?"
Well Tom, it's tough to take someone elses scenario and premise and prove differently from their stated position. Nice try though.
On AM I use narrower AF bandwidth and brick wall filtering when it is required and go wider when interference is not an issue. I go to SSB when conditions deteriorate or someone fires up, up or down band from me.
"Think about it objectively...."
There we go. Thanks for the input so I can do so. BTW input from many sources was used in the formation of the proposal. Including opinions here and on QRZ.
Tom, you make a lot of good points. I think we would tend to agree on many things in other circumstances. However, quit attacking people, address issues and you will have a lot more credibility and shorter posts from me.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KX1G on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Both proposals sound like plans that will lead to spam on the bands and more digital interference to leasurely CW and SSB QSOs and contest QSOs alike.
But I fear that bandwidth proposals are being made in many parts of the world and the next international radio congress will be flooded with them.
Seems they ought to be accompanied by well thought out band plans and not voluntary bandplan proposals.
My 2 cents worth.
73,
KX1G
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I work AM, FM, SSB, PSK, RTTY, and CW. So what?"
<Tom, You are the one that expressed the opinion that the proposal authors were focused on one mode. You are wrong. That's what.>
The common thread from all the supporters is they have great interest in the widest modes. One only needs to search on the callsigns to see this. The fact people work other modes on occasion does not make them objective. If the group really represented the population, it would have a nearly equal share of CW and SSB ops who never work AM, some primarily digital ops, and maybe only one AM'er.
<<doesn't represent even their own members. However, if it is a choice between rolling over and taking another hair brained proposal from that source or generating an opposite pole to force more representation and reduce apathy . . . I'm up for it.>>
We strongly disgree on that key area. The idea should not be to intentionally generate an opposing force to the ARRL. All that will do is mess things up for everyone. The idea should be to represent as many people as possible and do what the majority want so long as there are no serious technical flaws.
"If your group had taken time to learn WHY modes have historically been segmented, you would have come up with some other proposal. As it is, you burdened the FCC with another nonsense thing that will create more problems than it ever solves."
<<This concept works OK when you have two modes.>>
We still have two primary modes. We are starting to have problems with intentionally wide modes like ESSB and AM wasting space on crowded bands. Removing bandwidth guidlines and regulations would turn AM and ESSB loose to do whatever they like.
Wide modes cannot be mixed with narrow modes, and it is very easy to prove and understand why.
<<as the number of modes increases. This idea carried to an extreme provides us with less and less room to operate even with more and more ops coming on line.>>
With more and more ops coming on line, we need to set bandwidth limits. We don't need to remove all bandwidth limts!! That's just silly.
Even if Bud said this he is one person. Doesn't this kind of overvalue his input when you have stated "solicit input from multiple viewpoints." OK, I get it, you don't like Bud. Heck, you dedicated part of your web page to putting him down. I get it . . .
"Where is something on the AM pages showing me where people want a narrower signal?"
<<Well Tom, it's tough to take someone elses scenario and premise and prove differently from their stated position. Nice try though.
On AM I use narrower AF bandwidth and brick wall filtering when it is required and go wider when interference is not an issue. I go to SSB when conditions deteriorate or someone fires up, up or down band from me.>>
The "when required" is the problem. With your proposal whoever carves out a channel first "owns it". That channel can be as wide as the person wants within the limits of his license. While YOU and I might go SSB when required, the problem is hearing those narrow bandwidth signals we might be bothering. It's a fact that as bandwidth increases narrow signals in that wide bandwidth become increasingly difficult to hear. We not only need to hear them, we need to recognize someone wants to use the frequencies we are intentionally needlessly hogging and narrow up.
It doesn't speak well of your group when one of your primary members announces he will be as wide as he likes and if you come on after he is there...too bad.
There are good solid technical reasons why we need segmentation AND bandwidth limits. There are good "people reasons" why we both. "I'm here first you go somewhere else" coming from a member of the "Think Tank" team is a reasonable topic. It illustrates the mindset that will cause problems.
One person can wipe up the fun of 1000 people. That's why we need rules.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI says:
--------------------
The idea should not be to intentionally generate an opposing force to the ARRL. All that will do is mess things up for everyone. The idea should be to represent as many people as possible and do what the majority want so long as there are no serious technical flaws.
--------------------
That in itself puts you in opposition to the ARRL, OM.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom,
Ok, I'm going off my 'don't focus on the people' personal rule:
I do understand your concerns. You display a propensity, however, to either dwell on worst case scenarios or use them to justify vendettas against modes (and people) you dislike or consider unworthy. That is the antithesis of the CTT proposal and the way I view amateur radio. This, and your continuing on a premise that has been discredited (ie. The CTT and I, favor or participate in only one mode.), tends to paint a less than compelling case to follow your 'advice'. I look forward to *your* proposal to the FCC since doing nothing or presenting only opposition accomplishes nothing.
This said I hope we meet sometime to tip a beer together under better circumstances.
All the best,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art,
First, the CTT claims everyone can get along. That opens a door.
It's not a personal attack to point to web pages and statements by key people who signed your proposal that seem to contradict a sprit of cooperation.
If you have really thought this through, I'm sure you would have separated wide, medium, and narrow modes and let the individuals have roughly compatible modes work out an enforceable bandplan with teeth.
As it is right now, your proposal tosses everyone on every mode into blender with 100% dependence on "good nature" to resolve conflicts.
You never even addressed how incompatible modes like AM and PSK would be able to communicate to tell the other guy the frequency was busy. You're smart enough to know that the noise floor or noise power in a receiving system is directly proportional to bandwidth, and a wide receiver can't even detect narrow band signals that are perfectly readable with narrow bandwidth.
You probably know enough to understand that plate modulated tetrode AM transmitters have low-level "junk" extending a long distance out from the carrier, just as modern SSB transmitters have odd order products extending out ten's of kHz.
When these rigs are in a band with other wide receivers, the background noise power masks these low level signals. Put the very same transmitters on a frequency adjacent to a narrow-band receiver listening to a weak signal, and the results are devastating.
This is why throughout history wide band signals have more restricted operating range than narrow signals.
Your group really should have thought that problem through before submitting a petition, especially in light of the fact that some of your own co-sponsers have publicly expressed a non-cooperative attitude.
This is why the historical behavior of your group is important, because they repute your own claims.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Morning Tom,
I appreciate your input. It's a whole lot more informative now. I have written a summary of your technical positions, and behavioral observations, and will present it at our next meeting.
The bottom line is something needs to be done. If we (you included) can be a catalyst for change and can guide that change in a positive direction we will have contributed. That's a good thing.
73,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Art,
I appreciate your work, but it would be better if I wrote my own technical summary about band usage and mode allocations. That way I’m sure the words would be mine.
Although I will give input, I refuse to be part of any narrow focus small self anointed group who submits a petition for the single largest change in the history of amateur radio. While I’m sure the members of the Communications Think Tank consider themselves the “best of the best”, the published conclusions indicate otherwise. What the CCT did is significantly worse than anything the ARRL has ever done, and what the ARRL does is barely palatable.
If you look at the FCC database you will see the ARRL proposal is running with just less than half the comments supporting it. Had they waited and gathered input, they could have easily had a majority of support. The things that are hurting them are not including 160 and mixing of incompatible system or modes. Both would have been easy to solve if the ARRL worked for people, instead of being dictators.
If the CCT put something out in several open forums, if they were a group of people with a really solid grasp of technical issues, and if every Ham had some way to give input in an open forum or discussion board over a reasonable time I would have a different view.
My opinion right now is the "Communications Think Tank" by filing a petition abolishing ALL bandwidth and mode restrictions has done serious potential harm to our fraternity. Your petition, because it was so poorly thought out, could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The FCC could very well just want to wash their hands of us, considering their reaction to BPL and even a state law in Florida that gives local authorities the right to arrest people interfering with radio or TV reception.
If you ever form a group that encompasses or reasonably attempts to include all radio amateurs in making legislative decisions that affect all amateurs, then I would have a different opinion.
As it is right now, the CCT and other groups pestering the FCC before they have their ducks in a row and agreement from the community are the problem we need to fix. We need to fix the ARRL first, and if we can't then we need to start another organization. The LAST thing we need is a group of hubristic people whose major common thread is AM operation deciding what is good for all of us.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by NL7W on January 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Tom,
Thank you for last post to Art. Your thoughts and conclusions regarding both petitions are spot-on.
I will review comments posted on both RM's, as well as some of the better comments from eHam and QRZ threads, and formulate draft responses this weekend. Hopefully, I will have time to sit on them for a few days, giving them fresh edits before sending to the Commission.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I refuse to be part of any narrow focus small self anointed"
My god Tom, you are the most self annointed person I have ever conversed with. Anyone who doesn't precisely agree with your perspective is chastised for their lack of thought and you extrapolate way beyond the scope of any evidence you present.
"If you look at the FCC database you will see the ARRL proposal is running with just less than half the comments supporting it."
It isn't an election. It is an effort to collect input from the amateur radio population at large. I know it's a tough concept but ponder a minute . . . Could it be this is an effort to bring people like you who actually think about the future of amateur radio out of their apathy?? . . .
"if the ARRL worked for people, instead of being dictators."
I'll be damned, we agree on something. Let's hold this warm feeling a minute . . . .
Tom,
I have really enjoyed our discussion.
If you want to send me a synopsis of your position, technical or otherwise, please do so to k3xf at yahoo.com. I will present it to the group. We are submitting comments and possible changes and your input is valued, at least by me . . . fear not, I won't associate your name or call with it.
If you can't, that's OK too. I'll still buy the first beer when we meet.
73,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all due respect. Firstly, I feel the FCC is going to see that there is a need for certain segmented controls to remain in place in order to maintain a certain level of operating standards that will serve in everyone's overall bests interests.
Secondly, I really don't feel the CTT has clearly identified and established "the need" for implementing this proposal.
It doesn't adequately describe in any clear detail, how any potential interference issues would be addressed.
When moving forward with this proposal, it would be prudent and in everyone's best interests to openly consider and assess *all and any* potential serious impact this proposal might have with respect to our current and accepted operating practices. This should be accomplished *before* the proposal is tabled in front of the ham community for our consideration otherwise the proposal would be incomplete.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reply by K3XF on January 20, 2006
<<My god Tom, you are the most self annointed person I have ever conversed with. >>
Everyone sees the world from their own perspective, and you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion of me. I would never even think I could represent our entire fraternity, and I would never consider myself so brilliant as to petition the FCC for the single largest rule change to ever be attempted!
Just who do you guys think you are anyway??? What makes you think you are so brilliant that you can decide how to change the world?
<<Anyone who doesn't precisely agree with your perspective is chastised for their lack of thought and you extrapolate way beyond the scope of any evidence you present>>
If your crowd was proud of what they do or stand for, they would not have pulled their web sites down or modified them. Why change or hide your published public opinions just because attention has been called to them? Chiller was proud of the bandwidth of his "Viking-Bud" and had a strongly worded web page about how he deals with QRM compliants, until I pointed them out.
Even the AM window changed their banner to disassociate themselves from encouraging or supporting RM-11305.
"Whoops, most amateurs won't like what we represent. Better remove those pages until after the comment period is over, then we can be ourselves again".
Look at this link:
http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm
Show me a similar link from your "thinking group".
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Charles,
"With all due respect. Firstly, I feel the FCC is going to see that there is a need for certain segmented controls to remain in place in order to maintain a certain level of operating standards that will serve in everyone's overall bests interests."
Charles, with questions unburdened by agenda and with concerns about the operational characteristics you will have nothing but my respect . . .and we agree that there should be separation of modes where possible, we think those segmentations can be in the form of a voluntary band plan as on 160. We feel this will be in everyone's overall best interests. Obviously many disagree with this position and want more regulation. We don't.
"Secondly, I really don't feel the CTT has clearly identified and established "the need" for implementing this proposal."
The need is based on; increasing amateur radio population (as code is eliminated), shifting proportions of mode use on the amateur bands, newer technology, enabling experimentation, and efficient spectrum utilization.
"It doesn't adequately describe in any clear detail, how any potential interference issues would be addressed."
It allows more freedom to move elsewhere if interference is encountered. For example: If you want to operate on 60M you listen before you transmit. If you hear *any* traffic or if unidentified transmissions begin, even if you can't ID them, you move on or avoid starting the QSO in the first place. Why, because it is a shared band and amateurs might be interfering with government services (which aren't necessarily going to ID). You simply move off. Similarly, under the CTT proposal if you plan to operate voice on 14.286 you listen or detect traffic on the frequency any way you can and, if there's traffic, you move on. Propagation will change and some interference will occur. We deal with that now. Attempting to regulate or legislate common courtesy is an exercise in futility well illustrated by the worst case scenario folks. Conversely, the ops who are do not interfere and are considerate operators do not need more regulation. Effectively more regulation constrains those who follow the rules and does nothing to those who will not. Further, to those "on the edge", more restrictions may push them to defying the regs because they cannot find a place to operate.
Illustrated differently, put more and more people in a crowded room and eventually someone will try to take anothers space. Increase the size of the room or allow access to areas previously unavailable and you mitigate the problem.
"When moving forward with this proposal, it would be prudent and in everyone's best interests to openly consider and assess *all and any* potential serious impact this proposal might have with respect to our current and accepted operating practices. This should be accomplished *before* the proposal is tabled in front of the ham community for our consideration otherwise the proposal would be incomplete."
Waiting for "*all and any*" to be accommodated is an excuse to do nothing because it cannot be achieved. As we have seen, attaining even limited consensus is equivalent to herding cats. Someone is always going to feel slighted and oppose for that reason alone. Interpretations and experience vary. Many people I have exchanged posts with have great ideas, but they wait, and wait, and post, and are never willing to go out on the limb and do something. Therefore nothing gets done. The ARRL is allowed to run rampant because no one will put their names on the line. The FCC could well interpret no counter proposal as acceptance of the ARRL plan. Well, no nickels, no jackpots.
Check this out: Dissenting Recommendation of the ARRL Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee - http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html
Thanks for your input,
Art
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4SX on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reference: RM – 11305
To whom it May Concern,
The proposed changes submitted requesting the Commission to essentially deregulate the Amateur Radio bands are unwarranted. I do not support the petition to the FCC to eliminate segmentation of emission modes. The petitioners suggest "to discontinue mandatory segregation of emission modes and the activities using these modes in the Amateur Service." The petitioners propose to substitute "a voluntary system of coordination" on the bands. A voluntary system of coordination will create chaos and dysfunction within the Amateur Radio Service. The petitioners assert, "There is a chronic need to allow greater leeway in selecting a place to operate" on the ham bands. "We propose ending mode-based sub-bands in the Amateur Radio Service, and we seek affirmation of established operator responsibility against interference as part of this request for greater latitude in frequency selection," the petitioners state. I disagree.
In closing, this proposal for rule making negatively impacts Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio does not need less regulation. The heavily populated bands and those in our society, who do not possess self-control and common sense, need increased regulation. RM-11305 would not enhance Amateur Radio service but diminish the operational environment and effectiveness of the operating spectrum.
The FCC has designated the petition as RM-11305. Comments are due by February 6.
Respectfully,
Ron – K4SX
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4SX on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reference: RM – 11305
To whom it May Concern,
The proposed changes submitted requesting the Commission to essentially deregulate the Amateur Radio bands are unwarranted. I do not support the petition to the FCC to eliminate segmentation of emission modes. The petitioners suggest "to discontinue mandatory segregation of emission modes and the activities using these modes in the Amateur Service." The petitioners propose to substitute "a voluntary system of coordination" on the bands. A voluntary system of coordination will create chaos and dysfunction within the Amateur Radio Service. The petitioners assert, "There is a chronic need to allow greater leeway in selecting a place to operate" on the ham bands. "We propose ending mode-based sub-bands in the Amateur Radio Service, and we seek affirmation of established operator responsibility against interference as part of this request for greater latitude in frequency selection," the petitioners state. I disagree.
In closing, this proposal for rule making negatively impacts Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio does not need less regulation. The heavily populated bands and those in our society, who do not possess self-control and common sense, need increased regulation. RM-11305 would not enhance Amateur Radio service but diminish the operational environment and effectiveness of the operating spectrum.
The FCC has designated the petition as RM-11305. Comments are due by February 6.
Respectfully,
Ron – K4SX
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4SX on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reference: Comments on RM – 11306; Regulation by Bandwidth
To whom it May Concern,
The proposed changes submitted by the ARRL’s Petition for Rule Making filed November 14, 2005, RM-11306, asking for the Commission to regulate the Amateur Radio bands by necessary bandwidth rather than by mode will not enhance experimentation and knowledge growth. The petition recommends the change will create “a shift in regulatory philosophy that will encourage and enable development and refinement of digital techniques and advanced technologies”. I disagree. Enter-mixing voice modes, (SSB as an example), with digital modes have the potential to create conflict, discontent, and confusion within the amateur bands. Encouragement, development, and refinement of digital techniques require segmentation of operating modes. I can see where considering the enhancement of amateur bandwidths for certain modes of operation would be advantageous but would also suggest any changes to bandwidth should be accomplished within the operational segments allocated for that mode of operation. In addition, the ARRL’s proposed changes will not eliminate the need for “cumbersome procedures” to determine whether or not new digital modes are legal under Part 97 but potentially create more work and “red-tape” for the FCC due to the operational confusion and operator conflict created by the proposed deregulation.
In closing, Amateur Radio does not need less regulation, indeed due to the heavily populated bands and those in our society who do not possess self-control and common sense, we need increased regulation. The ARRL’s proposed changes would not enhance Amateur Radio service but diminish the operational environment and effectiveness of the operating spectrum.
Respectfully,
Ron – K4SX
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi all . . . please don't feel ignored if I don't respond to questions aimed at me for a couple of days. It is Jan VHF contest weekend.
-ap
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "Think Tank" never thought this through.......
http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm
Ignoring how things actually work is not the best way to start a new plan.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It appears that W8JI has his detractors. However, his technical arguements are sound for why RM-11305 deserves no support. With careful work, the ARRL proposal (RM-11306) could be salvaged. However, IMO, RM-11305 deserves to die without support. As soon as I perfect my draft, I'm going to express my position on both. This is no time for complacency as these RM's have the potential to wreak havoc in our world.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W9AC on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any proposal in which such sweeping changes are contemplated is bound to be "flawed" from the beginning.
In my opinion, the Canadians have demonstrated some of the most progressive thinking I've seen concerning amateur operating parameters. Moreover, moving toward the Canadian standard would establish some operating congruency here in North America.
While the Canadian plan is more-or-less open with respect to operating mode and frequencies, we do not see the bands unraveling with problems stemming from so-called "mixed modes." Please, save the "sky is falling" mentality for a more relevant issue.
More information concerning the VE RIC-2 rules can be found at the following URL (watch for word wrap):
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric2e.pdf/$FILE/ric2e.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The RAC policy cannot be compared to the USA because of the extreme difference in number of USA Hams and Canadian Hams.
Even ignoring that difference, the Canadans CONSTANTLY break the "bandplan" on 80 meters. The Canadian Bandplan is 3.635-3.725 CW. 3.650 to 3.725 is commonly occupied by Canadian SSB stations, even though the RAC bandplan calls for no SSB below 3728 (LSB).
Canadian SSB was a problem when I was a Novice, it is a problem today for traffic nets. This is with very few Canadians active compared to USA stations!
One reason a bandplan works after a fashion in Europe is some countries restrict maximum BW to a reasonable amount. In Germany, for example, anything wider than 2.7kHz is illegal on HF bands.
Don't let the people who want to use unreasonable bandwidth sell you by comparing apples to oranges. Unrestricted any mode any bandwidth anywhere will seriously hurt anyone except those who use the widest modes.
If I drove a 10 foot wide vehicle, I'd probably want all the traffic lane lines and bicycle lanes removed in the spirt of "better traffic flow".
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The reason that the bands haven't gone to hell is only because the USA with its sheer numbers of active hams on HF has been a defacto standard that has determined the tempo on HF.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have yet to hear any coherent explaination as to how and why removal of bandwidth limitations leads to greater frequency utilization. Of course, it would lead to greater utilization of spectrum by fewer users, squandering bandwidth. All I hear is that the wider bandwidth modes want the additional spectrum now used by narrowband modes. It seems quite evident there is a significant selfish element out there that is bent on complete HF spectrum domination.
It reminds me of a quotation attributed to Jack Kilpatrick, "Civilized men build institutions for savages to tear down".
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JII on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I have yet to hear any coherent explaination as to how and why removal of bandwidth limitations leads to greater frequency utilization."
And you won't--------------because it doesn't!!!!!!!!!!!
73, Ron
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Paul,
You have something there: "In my opinion, the Canadians have demonstrated some of the most progressive thinking I've seen concerning amateur operating parameters. Moreover, moving toward the Canadian standard would establish some operating congruency here in North America."
I would be quite pleased if the result of all this was a plan and regulation exactly like the Canadians . . .
I remember fondly chatting mixed mode with a VE, CW to AM, when I was a novice. Good folks and a good plan.
73,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also remember chatting, mixed mode with Canadians in the early '60's. When my pipsqueak am signal disappeared in their receiver, I could switch over to cw and complete the qso. Then I got wise and quit using am.
If you think Canadians are so progressive and Americans aren't (implied in the statement), nothing precludes your moving north of the border in search of your element.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N5GLR on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Intersting .... the FCC has not posted comments concerning either proposal since 1/17/06.
One wonders why? I know for a fact that it's not because there aren't any.
Garry
N5GLR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It was never an issue before, until the AM'ers made it so. AM is an inefficient, power and spectrum wasting mode and should be eliminated below 29 mhz. Scores of narrow bandwidth signals can make much more efficient use of the spectrum wasted by 1 high level AM signal. The petition and those behind it seeks more room for spectrum wasting AM signals and higher bandwidth digital signals. Just say no!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" Intersting .... the FCC has not posted comments concerning either proposal since 1/17/06. "
Yes, it is. I will check with Gbrg and get back to you . .
-ap
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
My contact isn't directly involved with posting the comments but speculated they may have received so many there is a delay in the mechanics of getting them posted.
73
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The comments are no longer in order. If you bring up 'all' comments and scroll down about half way you see the more recent comments posted.
73,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I reviewed the comments for both '6 and '5 and must admit the biggest concern expressed (next to simply a aye or nay) was the fear that higher bandwidth modes would take over the bands. While I think an op who uses wider bandwidth modes has to know their bandwidth and make sure it is clean, defined, and there isn't any one in their TX band pass, apparently there's a lot of folks who think this will not be done.
However, Listening on the bands I notice CW QSOs started up on frequencies in use in AM and SSB QSO's. The ability of (even QRP) CW to get through on top of wider bandwith signals is demonstrated quite well. 600Hz filters really allow all your power to be concentrated.
While operating SSB on 2M this weekend I noted several strong signals and was able to pull out weak stations quite near them as well. Sometimes on CW, sometimes on SSB.
I also listened to an op come on AM on 80M that apparently was unfamiliar with his rig in that mode. He was 16Kc wide due to overdrive and poor AF adjustment of his rig. That was very different from the AM folks who had their AF tailored to cut off at 2.8Kc or so (yes, I know that's 5.6Kc counting both sidebands). Those folks were stronger than the 'unfamiliar' op but were significantly more controlled and constrained. The bottom line here is there are people who don't know how to use their equipment and probably those who don't know when to use wider or narrower bandwidth modes. I think they better learn . . . regulating the rest of the ops because of the ignorance of a few is nonsense. The increased focus on non interference is going to catch a lot of people in its net.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The real nonsense in this proposal is the idea of allowing wide bandwidth modes free reign of the bands unbridled. Segregation by bandwidth has been a time honored approach to bypass the multitude of problems that such thinking ultimately leads to. What we have now isn't broken except in the minds of those who would squander our precious frequency resources to use their "hogish" modes. I would caution those who either have no respect for the "why things were done the way they were in the past" or who just feel inclined to want to change things because , after all, change is good, to stop and think carefully about this. If change does occur and it doesn't produce the results you hoped for, the aftermath might just be very longlasting and unpleasant.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3XF,
You and the "Think Tank" are not living in the world of real radios.
Modern SSB radios have been deteriorating in suppression of very wide distortion products. If you had taken the time to look at any QST review, you would see modern radios and tetrode/solid state amplifiers have low level "junk" 30-50dB down extending out many kHz.
Not only can't a wide receiver NOT detect low level desired signals, it can't detect undesired signals. The higher noise power in the wide bandwidth masks weaks narrow signals.
Your very own Bud Chiller WD8BIL had spectrum analyzer plots of his own transmitter that showed it to be over 25kHz wide at -40 to -45dB, but of couse since it damages your position of obtaining more spectrum he removed it from his web page.
Your only vocal supporter here has been an ESSB wide audio operator.
You fail to provide any technical article showing why mixing wide voice transmitters of unlimited bandwidth, giving people free reign to operate anything anywhere, is a good idea.
Now you claim people "only have to watch their own transmitters" when your very own spokesperson proudly runs a "Viking Bud" on a crowded band like 75 or 40 meters, and the garbage from that transmitter has very poor high order distortion rolloff.
If your own group members set a bad example, why do you think the rest of the USA will conform?
Freedom to hog a 50kHz slot at -65dB from 1500 watts from any frequency the operator deems "clear" based on who-knows-what noise floor is not a good idea.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3XF writes:
"That was very different from the AM folks who had their AF tailored to cut off at 2.8Kc or so (yes, I know that's 5.6Kc counting both sidebands). "
What a load of horse raddish that is.
AM transmitters for amateur service historically have very poor rolloff of modulation byproducts.
To be a good AM modulated stage, the stage has to display an almost perfect square of power with a doubling of voltage. It has to be an ideal mixer. Most AM rigs are plate modulated tetrodes that are barely into class C. When i read AM pages by AM "guru's" they very clearly don't understand the technology behind a clean AM signal.
They add negative feedback to modulator stages at the same time they extend bandwidth of later stages to dozens of kilohertz or more. What a contradiction!
Now you would have us believe that CW should just live with new QRM from these transmitters because you "heard a CW station working through a phone station"! That's a silly argument.
I hear dozens and dozens of QSO's where narrow SSB wipes out weak CW. Anyone who works CW on the bottom of 80 or 40 meters all too aware of the problems caused by foreign ops using SSB on the low end of those bands.
The same is true for anyone who has spent any time working 160 meter CW.
QRM is a daily occurance, not a rarity.
I suppose if I lived in a city with S-9 noise, or operated mostly AM, SSB, or ESSB, I'd think like the Think Tank.
"Those folks were stronger than the 'unfamiliar' op but were significantly more controlled and constrained. The bottom line here is there are people who don't know how to use their equipment and probably those who don't know when to use wider or narrower bandwidth modes."
The bottom line is really in QST reviews, and even in the spectrum graphs that were removed from WD8BIL's pages. Voice transmitters have trash extending out many orders of the difference between the highest and lowest modulating frequency.
We can bury out heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist, but it is verifiable by measurement or even review of existing public information. While the levels of such stuff is lost in the blend of distortion products of dozens of other wide signals on Ham bands, it is devistating to weak signal narrow band operators.
The Think Tank has no argument against this, and has even removed evidence of the problem from web pages of memembers.
Wide modes and narrow modes do not mix. Let's not pretend like they do. SSB and especially AM transmitters are not terribly linear or free from broadband distortion. Let's not pretend like they are.
If the "CTT" had worked for several years with ICOM, Kenwood, TenTec, and Yaesu or asked for regulations that transmitters had to meet certain realistic specs for odd-order distortion, you might have had a leg to stand on. As it is right bnow a small group of people is trying to do a huge disservice to other amateurs.
Shame on you.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Overview of Comments
Some of the goals proposed in RM-11306; specifically, the expansion of the service to allow new modes of operation, and the expansion of the existing phone bands, would be of benefit to the Amateur Service.
However, RM-11306 also seeks to impose severe and unreasonable restrictions on the Amateur Service in general, and on how specific modes of operation are used, by creating a complex matrix of bandwidth-based regulations that affect existing modes, where no new regulations of these modes are needed.
The general theme of RM-11306 also suggests that innovation is only taking place in the Digital Communications arena. This is a very narrow view, and does take into account the fact that innovation is taking place in other areas of the hobby. If RM-11306 were to be adopted, these other areas of experimentation and innovation could effectively be squelched.
With the modifications proposed herein, the (reported) major goals of RM-11306 � permitting of certain new modes of operation and expansion of the phone bands - can be realized without the undesirable negative side effects of other parts of the proposal.
Specific Items
1) The proposed Bandwidth Restrictions are not needed
As RM-11306 accurately points out on page 4, the Amateur Service is fundamentally a technical service. It is not a commercial service, and therefore does not need, and should not have specific frequency response or hard number bandwidth restrictions, particularly with respect to existing modes and emission types.
Amateur operators have been operating under the current set of rules regarding phone, CW, RTTY and data operations for many years, and there is no need to re-regulate these modes or operations by imposing a specific, numeric bandwidth to them. Good practice has been quite successful for many years in keeping transmitted bandwidth in line with the particular operational mode.
The bandwidth of new, non-phone modes can be permitted under FCC Rule 97.307 f (2), applying to all non-phone emissions.
This should be sufficient to allow new modes to be freely deployed, and offer sufficient guidelines for operational and technical standards with respect to interference to other stations using currently existing modes.
Therefore, the following is proposed:
Amend section 97.305 as follows:
(d) Uncategorized Emission Types: A station may transmit any emission not otherwise specified in this section, on any frequency where Image is permitted and if the frequency is authorized to the control operator�s license. The bandwidth of the emission shall be subject to Section 97.307 f (2).
2) Sub-Band Reallocations
RM-11306 proposes elimination or reduction of some mode based sub-bands, and this makes sense, given the current usage of the HF bands. There is significantly less CW / RTTY activity than phone activity, and an expansion of the phone band is a logical change. However, for historical reasons (if nothing else), it makes sense to reserve some portion of the HF bands for CW and RTTY exclusively.
Furthermore, as technology changes, there may be more operations that use automated or semi-automated transmissions of data. Since it is not known at this time the extent to which these technologies will be deployed, nor do we fully understand the compatibility (or incompatibility) between these automated technologies and traditional Amateur uses (such as phone and CW), it makes sense to (possibly temporarily) restrict these operations to certain portions of the Amateur bands. The Commission could consider a date, at which time and after an appropriate comment period, the restriction could be modified or eliminated.
The following modifications to section 97.305 are proposed:
A: The lowest 50kHz of the 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meter Amateur bands, and the lowest 25kHz of the 17 and 12 meter bands shall be specifically allocated for RTTY and data only, as currently defined in the regulations. The remainder of these bands shall be allocated for all permitted emission types.
B: Automatic and Semi-Automatic transmissions shall be permitted in the following sub-bands (Note: all other modes are also permitted in these sub-bands):
160 Meters: 1820-1850 kHz
80 Meters: 3550-3700 kHz
40 Meters: 7050-7150 kHz
20 Meters: 14050-14150 kHz
17 Meters: None
15 Meters: 21050-21200 kHz
12 Meters: None
10 Meters: 28050-28500 kHz
Suggestion: Perhaps a higher license class (maybe Extra Class?) should be required for automatic and semi-automatic transmissions.
3) Station Identification
The changes proposed in RM-11306 to section 97.119 (page 21, bottom section of RM-11306) make sense.
4) Automatically Controlled Stations
The changes proposed to section 97.221 (c) by RM-11306 make sense. The changes proposed to 97.221 (b) are covered above.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Perhaps a higher license class (maybe Extra Class?) should be required for automatic and semi-automatic transmissions."
Hit the road with this elitist ideal in your hand!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good point. Would you suggest all classes of license can be responsible for semi or full automatic transmissions? Maybe it's a moot point if CW is eliminated anyway . . .
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nothing directly. It was an inference that the current and future regulations relating to licensing are diminished. Given that, perhaps having a more advanced class license doesn't mean as much as it once did and wouldn't be required for semi or full automatic station control.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I agree that the city should remove that annoying stop sign at the end of my street as it really serves no useful purpose, it is still mounted in place for a reason. The stop sign isn't there to prevent you from driving your vehicle, it is placed there as a safeguard to protect the users of the road.
Similarly, you are proposing that we lift bandwidth restrictions on HF as they serve no useful purpose. You suggest that these restrictions prevent us from using newer modes of operation on HF in the future.
While I do agree and support the principles of keeping FCC controls to a minimum in the amateur radio service, I feel that we still need to maintain order on the bands as we also demonstrate on the public roads in our own society.
So from a metaphorical perspective, when the city decides that stop sign at the end of my street is starting to impede traffic, the neighborhood will petition and we will decide to have it removed and install traffic lights instead.
However, until that day comes to pass, it would be best to keep that stop sign there.
...At least for now.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Charles,
Good metaphor. I think what is being proposed in RM-11306 is a brick wall at the end of the street with respect to experimentation in amateur radio. Defining the mask of future technologies now implies they know that the future will bring. As we have seen here, these predictions can range from sunshine to falling sky.
I think what we have now is a very old stop sign that isn't likely to work much longer. It was set up at a time when conditions were appropriate for it but that time is passing.
What we really need is more road for the increased traffic if we are to avoid collisions. I am coming around to the bike path . . . .
-ap
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your recent changes show you still are not looking at worldwide allocations or what people want.
For example, the lower 50kHz of 160 is the only spot shared world wide for communications. Most European contries have only 1810-50 kHz. Now you propose allowing automatic operation in that band, and that act alone will assure you every serious 160 operator will speak against you.
On the other hand if the CCT included the lowest 40kHz of 160 meters as narrow mode exclusive with NO automatic operation, as well as setting aside the lower 50kHz of 80 through ten meters you would get a significant percentage of support.
If you look at the past proposal to segment 160, it has 500 supporting comments and very few negative comments!!!! Think about that, when you consider your proposal now has only a 150 replies posted and *almost all are negative*.
The real problem with RM-11305 that would remain is it sets no bandwidth limits on signals outside of narrow subbands. I don't think that will ever fly.
If you search QRZ forums and other places for ESSB, you will see the overwhelming majority of people hate ESSB because of the bandwidth.
If the CCT had researched by looking at what people really want, they would have restricted bandwidth of SSB and AM transmitters doing voice communications to a reasonable rolloff at high frequencies.
I'm afraid without major revisions RM-11305 is a flop, and will be a disaster for Ham radio.
The ARRL proposal is actually much easier to fix. It only needs 160 added and a way to control the automatic stations.
The comments to date show nearly an even split on the ARRL proposal passing, while almost no one likes the CCT proposal. That speaks volumes about what people really want. People WANT wide modes controlled, because a few people do not act responsibly and use wide modes on crowded bands.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think what is being proposed in RM-11306 is a brick wall at the end of the street with respect to experimentation in amateur radio.
-----
Yes, I see this and I feel you are making a valid point. The fundamental basis of amateur radio is all about the experimentation process wide band or not.
However, my concern isn't whether we can experiment or not but rather what would be the consequences when bandwidth limitations are not restricted or present in any way on an already crowded band. After all, we cannot just ignore the possibility that interference may occur by simply justifying it in the name of experimentation.
The extra elbow room you are proposing is good for the amateur radio experimentation process, but I have yet to understand how it can have equal benefits for all the users in the same allocated spectrum.
Why not simply propose a new sliver of bandwidth created say below 40 or 80 meters or something dedicated specifically to this experimentation? Does it really need to be the entire HF spectrum or can this experimentation sandbox area be setup and conducted in a specific and controlled play area for that intended purpose?
In other words why not propose they create a new sliver / portion of a given band and put the Wide band AM, New Digital and Hifi SSB guys in their own corner of the proverbial sandbox to experiment. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that if everyone gets along and it's done on an experimental basis.
But you see, that's the trouble, this idea needs to ensure everyone gets along. That is why I feel this proposal can only be successfully accomplished by maintaining the current methods of segmented control we have in place on any given band.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yes, I see this and I feel you are making a valid point. The fundamental basis of amateur radio is all about the experimentation process wide band or not."
The FCC states this is so right up front in part 97. . . contributing to the advancement of the radio art . . .
"However, my concern isn't whether we can experiment or not but rather what would be the consequences when bandwidth limitations are not restricted or present in any way on an already crowded band. After all, we cannot just ignore the possibility that interference may occur by simply justifying it in the name of experimentation."
Interference will occur, and incidences of interference will increase unless we provide proportionate room for the ops who are now becoming licensed. Whether we like it or not they are often phone operators. If we don't accommodate them we are asking for more interference. Experimentation cannot be quantified by bandwidth or differentiated because what is experimentation today becomes routine ops tomorrow (eg SSB).
"The extra elbow room you are proposing is good for the amateur radio experimentation process, but I have yet to understand how it can have equal benefits for all the users in the same allocated spectrum."
Equal access to all frequencies by all modes = equal benefits to all. I can't see how giving one mode run of the band and restricting others benefits all either.
"Why not simply propose a new sliver of bandwidth created say below 40 or 80 meters or something dedicated specifically to this experimentation? Does it really need to be the entire HF spectrum or can this experimentation sandbox area be setup and conducted in a specific and controlled play area for that intended purpose?"
Because experimentation is a fundamental use of amateur radio not a peripheral item to be relegated to an obscure corner. This concept restricts experimentation just as much as 11306.
"But you see, that's the trouble, this idea needs to ensure everyone gets along. That is why I feel this proposal can only be successfully accomplished by maintaining the current methods of segmented control we have in place on any given band."
Lot's of people want this and the easy way would be to agree. But I can't. More and more "modes" will be coming on line going forward (some of which will die out)and the concept you propose taken to an extreme would fractionalize the bands into smaller and smaller slices creating inefficient frequency allocation.
On the other hand, I understand there's going to be problems. There will be lots of new hams who may not be interested in anything but their Yaecomwood and an amp. My sense is compressing these ops into the current frequency allocation won't work.
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing universally common to RM-11305 supporters is the idea wide bandwidth is the future of communications systems.
For example, the AM and ESSB guys think they are advancing the state of the art by doing things to make signals wider for the same general type of information we convey in a 2kHz occupied bandwidth SSB channel.
The Wide-Fi SSB ops are an example of how seriously flawed this concept is. They actually claim Wide-Fi SSB improves DX communications, something absolutely false!!!! They base this claim on a white-paper that was written to sell high fidelity announcement systems.
All of the AM articles I have read make similar technical gaffs, claiming low distortion 180% modulation is possible with their modulated tetrode stages.
The HiFi ESSB and AM experimenters have each formed closely knit groups inside our amateur radio fraternity where they delude themselves into thinking they have superior technical ability and the right to hog several times the necessary bandwidth through some lame justification, generally that they are improving communication systems.
All this "we need unlimited bandwidth in the name of experimentation" is really just a bunch of selfish people wanting more room to waste experimenting with modes that have pretty well been technically milked out 25 to 50 years ago.
Charles has the right idea. Set aside a limited slot for experimental operation, disallow any emissions OUTSIDE that slot, and let them have a ball "experimenting".
Let's not pretend the free-for-all Think Tank proposal had anyone's interest at heart except AM and ESSB operators. If you search archived web sites you'll find it was 100% HiFi ops who want the free-for-all of any mode any bandwidth anywhere. Of course they quickly removed those links when I posted examples on my web page, so you have to look at archived pages.
It has nothing to do with the vast majority of HF users. It's all about getting space for intentionally wide phone signals by trying to convince others they are looking out for our future.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"When the FCC recently rejected a petition to establish the first-ever mandatory reserved space on 160 meters for weak CW use, the message from regulators was clear -- we are supposed to continue sorting out for ourselves where our activites are best situated, and resolve among ourselves instances of conflict, deliberate or not."
Fortunately, as illustrated by FCC response to the proposition for regulation on 160 for CW use . . . the comment number against was great but the FCC was able to see through the repetition and diatribe. They rejected that petition as unnecessary.
The FCC similarly rejected a bandwidth restriction proposal by another pair of wide bandwidth phobics.
So, once again, this isn't an election. The FCC will do what works for the FCC. It's up to us to try to guide that thinking in a logical direction. If it makes sense to allow all modes equal access to the bands from a regulatory perspective and voluntary band plans, then 11305 is the right choice. If you simply want digibots to have access to all parts of the band and increase regulation on all other modes 11306 is appropriate. If we want to P&M about how the bands are becoming overcrowded with phone ops all we have to do is say everything is OK as it is.
Ultimately the FCC will make rules based on a combination of inputs; 11305, 11306, and the everything is OK camps.
Please make your comments to the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's not pretend the free-for-all Think Tank proposal had anyone's interest at heart except AM and ESSB operators. If you search archived web sites you'll find it was 100% HiFi ops who want the free-for-all of any mode any bandwidth anywhere. Of course they quickly removed those links when I posted examples on my web page, so you have to look at archived pages.
It has nothing to do with the vast majority of HF users. It's all about getting space for intentionally wide phone signals by trying to convince others they are looking out for our future.
73 Tom
------
Yes, K3XF I will make my comments to the FCC, however it will be based soley on the future preservation of the HF bands as I see fit.
I will *NEVER* submit to the idea that we should totally elimate all controls in place that keep the HF bands in order through the segmentaion process that are currently in use.
Not that I currently use HF at present, but you can bet your last nickel that I will defend HF until my last dying breath and nothing less will ever do.
You have my name and callsign on that.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Charles,
That's great! I am glad you will be making your comments to the FCC. Activism is good.
Many times the CTT has been accused of independent thought and representing themselves. Some of the posters on this board claim to know the motivations of the CTT, that they are biased in favor of the people who make up the CTT. *You are absolutely correct.* Whether you acknowledge that members of the CTT are drawn from a cross section of operating habits or not we are doing something about: the ARRL, the crowding and the to be more crowded conditions on the HF bands, and apathy in general.
If you don't like it or agree totally, my response is the same, get off your butt and do something about it.
All the best,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"wide bandwidth phobic"
I like that ! :o) You can feel free to call me a wide bandwidth phobic!
Help stop K3XF and other wideband hogs and just say no!
Make your position known on RM-11305 and RM-11306 today. Times running out.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W9AC on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI:
"For example, the AM and ESSB guys think they are advancing the state of the art by doing things to make signals wider for the same general type of information we convey in a 2kHz occupied bandwidth SSB channel."
I think what most ESSB operators are advancing is the concept that until the advent of DSP, producing SSB audio response down to 100 Hz without significantly affecting the opposite sideband energy is (and was) very difficult with crystal filtering and the phasing method of SSB generation.
"The Wide-Fi SSB ops are an example of how seriously flawed this concept is. They actually claim Wide-Fi SSB improves DX communications, something absolutely false!!!! They base this claim on a white-paper that was written to sell high fidelity announcement systems."
You may find one or two who support such a claim, but the ESSB operators I know of are the first to admit that unless the carrier-to-noise ratio is reasonably good, ESSB is actually worse for DX communication since the low frequency response tends to mask the higher audio response due to a lower carrier-to-noise ratio in the upper audio frequencies.
"All of the AM articles I have read make similar technical gaffs, claiming low distortion 180% modulation is possible with their modulated tetrode stages."
Although technically possible, I would also agree.
"The HiFi ESSB and AM experimenters have each formed closely knit groups inside our amateur radio fraternity where they delude themselves into thinking they have superior technical ability and the right to hog several times the necessary bandwidth through some lame justification, generally that they are improving communication systems."
Again, I think this gets back to the use of digital control of an analog modulation which is still a relatively new concept to amateur radio -- at least within the last decade. The ESSB operators I know simply want reasonable accommodation of the ESSB mode -- not a total desecration of the band.
"All this "we need unlimited bandwidth in the name of experimentation" is really just a bunch of selfish people wanting more room to waste experimenting with modes that have pretty well been technically milked out 25 to 50 years ago."
The problem with the Think Tank's recommendation is there is no reasonable bandwidth limit. Had they simply proposed an open system like that of Canada, but placed reasonable limits on bandwidth, their PRM would offer more credence to their cause.
"Charles has the right idea. Set aside a limited slot for experimental operation, disallow any emissions OUTSIDE that slot, and let them have a ball "experimenting"."
Amen. And I think the majority of ESSB and AM operators would be 100% in agreement here.
"Let's not pretend the free-for-all Think Tank proposal had anyone's interest at heart except AM and ESSB operators. If you search archived web sites you'll find it was 100% HiFi ops who want the free-for-all of any mode any bandwidth anywhere. Of course they quickly removed those links when I posted examples on my web page, so you have to look at archived pages."
Not sure what links you're talking about. None that I'm familiar with.
"It has nothing to do with the vast majority of HF users. It's all about getting space for intentionally wide phone signals by trying to convince others they are looking out for our future."
Perhaps. But the entire issue could be put to rest by offering a window on each band for experimentation of ANY mode up to some reasonable amount of bandwidth. For example, if IMD is truly an issue with the ESSB mode when using significant bass frquencies, here's a platform to flesh out the issues and make transceivers better.
IMO, neither petition adequately and fairly addresses real world operating conditions.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ron,
Your activities seem to be fairly focused on CW so I guess the "imbalance" of focus on a specific mode could also be attributed to you. Claiming some sort of self serving motivation is a weak argument at best so lets get to what matters:
Since phone operation is increasing (due to licensing changes) and, left solely to the FCC and increasing numbers of phone ops, the bands will probably be opened to phone anyway. At least now we can impact and shape that decision.
You object to 05, and 06 . . . do you also complain that foriegn phone is encroaching on your activities now? Those pesky VEs are carrying on with phone in the US CW sub bands (because they align with the rest of the world).
What is your proposal? Putting your head where your voice is muffled (in the sand, of course) does less than nothing.
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N8XD on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just got an email from the ARRL Section that said the ARRL is starting to work on the new band plan for the regulation by bandwidth.
It appears this regulation by bandwidth will put complete control of where hams transmit various modes in the hands of the ARRL board. (And changeable by whim of whomever is elected to the ARRL board without FCC comment periods).
Though there seems like there is nothing to stop alternate voluntary bandplands from being used.
I remember reading at one point in 1998 the ARRL asked that the FCC enforce their voluntary band plan. I don't recall much about it though.
I did pointedly ask my ARRL Division head, what benefit does this proposal have to the "common ham". He couldn't think of a single benefit for the "common ham"
I smell trouble, The ARRL is doing so well with the public relations of BPL, but is doing so poorly with regulation by bandwidth. It feels like they are sneaking around.
I noticed that since their support in the FCC comment area is not doing so well, they no longer have a link on their home page inviting people to go there and comment.
Best Wishes,
--Keith
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N5GLR on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It appears that HF experimentation today means "wider is better" ... no matter the mode (ESSB, Pactor III, digital voice, etc.). Exactly opposite of what's needed today.
When CW testing goes away, there will be a flood of new General class operators occupying the HF bands. We're about to find out what "crowded bands" really mean. Take a number and wait.
Any further experiementation in operating modes should be focused on narrower modes.
We need more room but, I seriously doubt FCC is going take HF spectrum away from someone else and give it to Amateur radio. So, the alternative is NARROWER signals so we can squeeze more folks into the HF bandwidth we have.
Garry
N5GLR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Any further experiementation in operating modes should be focused on narrower modes."
Good point. Consider, SSB with a phasing transmitter was pretty darn wide, subsequently more efficient methods were introduced for producing SSB. Today we can carry on a conversation in about 1.5KHz. Assuming properly adjusted equipment. It wasn't particularly narrow in its experimental phase.
"We need more room but, I seriously doubt FCC is going take HF spectrum away from someone else and give it to Amateur radio. So, the alternative is NARROWER signals so we can squeeze more folks into the HF bandwidth we have."
I agree. The FCC is unlikely to take HF spectrum away from others to provide more room for US amateurs. In fact, I believe we need to occupy the bands we have efficiently or risk losing them. Part of efficient utilization is narrower modes in crowded conditions, another part is allowing the greatest percentage of operators access to the bands.
Ultimately, there won't be room for 'wide band' operation because there will be too many hams to find a spot to use wider bandwidth. Those who use such modes will either go higher in frequency or reduce bandwidth to get a word in.
Training operators is but one point cited as a basis for amateur radio (part 97). Advancing the radio art also includes experimentation. We should provide for both . . . at least we shouldn't restrict them.
Providing an environment for those who have diverse interests also facilitates emergency communications. My mobile station (even the AM equipment) was available and used for H&W communications during the aftermath of the hurricanes last summer.
Bluntly, only firing up my Yaecomwood into an amplifier wouldn't have held my interest sufficiently to make this available.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3XF on January 30, 2006 wrote:
"Part of efficient utilization is narrower modes in crowded conditions, another part is allowing the greatest percentage of operators access to the bands. Ultimately, there won't be room for 'wide band' operation because there will be too many hams to find a spot to use wider bandwidth. Those who use such modes will either go higher in frequency or reduce bandwidth to get a word in."
The spokesman for the CCT, Bud Chiller, posts this viewpoint of bandwidth:
"DON'T LIKE A.M. ????
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards to your recent objections. Here are some facts you need to keep in mind.
1 – A.M. is a legal mode.
2 – No on “owns” a frequency. If it is clear at 7 p.m. I’ll use it. If you come on at 7:30 p.m. and operate on or near that frequency so as to cause interference YOU are not following the rules.
Tisk Tisk!
3 – I don’t really care that you and your friends have been using that frequency since Adam bit the fruit.
4 – There are no bandwidth limits specified in Part 97. In fact is says: “ (a) 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 97.307a
So ya see, bandwidth is dependant upon mode.
If you’re SOOOO concerned about bandwidth then operate CW. Your sideband signal uses the spectrum of 4 cw qsos.
5 – I’m sorry the VFO on your expensive ricebox only works on one frequency.
6 – I am absolutely positive that I operate in a legal and considerate way.
I expect the same from you !!
7 - I don’t care about your OPINION. Part 97 is the ONLY thing that governs the operation of my station.
8 – Your harassment on or off the air will not change things for me.
There is nothing you can send to Riley that will affect my license or operating status.
In closing let me say I find your objections and behavior quite childish ! This is a hobby. We’re suppose to have fun doing it. It is unreasonable for you to get so worked up over something that can be solved with the turn of your dial.
If you insist on operating near an AM group don't come cryin' to me about interference!
I won’t fire up on or near a frequency you are already operating on.
I won’t be bullied off a frequency I’ve been on for an hour. That’s the way it is.
Like it or not.
J.B.Chiller WD8BIL
Lorain, Ohio"
Which Think Tank position is correct? Is K3XF ignoring the position of fellow Think Tank member WD8BIL, who says "if you don't like my wide mode too bad"?
WD8BIL's position shows EXACTLY why allowing someone to operate anywhere with any bandwidth will cause a problem. It appears members of the so called "CTT" will be part of the problem in making this work.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3XF on January 30, 2006 wrote:
"Part of efficient utilization is narrower modes in crowded conditions, another part is allowing the greatest percentage of operators access to the bands. Ultimately, there won't be room for 'wide band' operation because there will be too many hams to find a spot to use wider bandwidth. Those who use such modes will either go higher in frequency or reduce bandwidth to get a word in."
The above statement, beside being in opposition to WD8BIL's opinion of bandwidth and sharing, is not how things really work.
A wide signal can dominate a range of frequencies. What will happen is the wide high power signals will disrupt and squeeze out weaker narrow band signals.
For example, an equal strength PSK signal will not bother a SSB signal no matter where he parks in the passband. All the SSB op needs to do is flip on a notch filter, and the PSK is gone.
On the other end the PSK station will have interference he cannot remove. A weaker PSK station would actually have interference OUTSIDE the SSB voice channel, because modern SSB radios have poor odd-order IM performance. It is the very poor IM distortion performance of AM transmitters that often causes problems to adjacent channel SSB stations. A typical AM transmitter is by far much worse than any typical modern SSB receiver for out-of-channel undesired responses!!
There is nothing reasonable, rational, or responsible about endorsing a free-for-all where only the inability to use a band ultimately determines who can operate and who cannot.
The idea of unlimited restriction on bandwidth and mode is so silly I can't believe anyone who actually understands how communications systems works would ever think any mode any bandwidth any where is good for our hobby.
What might happen, if the FCC wants to get rid of us, is they might just turn it all loose. After ten years of that they will have an excuse to close it all down by removing the several thousand wide stations who are left.
The Think Tank very well might be driving a nail in the coffin of amateur radio.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading the responses to '05 and '06, and communicating with a lot of hams, my sense is having more room for phone is a good idea from a pure number of operators perspective, CW should still have a protected area, and automatic/semi automatic/data that transmits without listening should be provided a place as well. All these allocated in proportion to their current and maybe projected use. We can continue graphs of usage into the future if we make some assumptions.
Does this capture the essence of a reasonable plan?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A reasonable plan would include ALL HF bands, and that means 160.
A reasonable plan would set maximum bandwidth limits for -45db and -80dB limits.
I would base that on the fact a typical rural location has about 80dB dynamic range minimum in signal levels, while a typical urban location would be more like 50 dB.
Bandwidth limits and automatic control limits are needed. Nothing else will work.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art,
I agree with your overall philosophy of lessening FCC controls & reducing restictions that impede the experimentation process on the bands. In fact, I'm all for this idea in principle.
But...
We must be realistic in the fact that the proposed plan must be revised to accomodate both wide band modes and the current conventional modes currently in use.
I have to agree with Tom, in the idea that this can only be achieved through segmented frequency allocations on ANY given band AND only if a that frequency segment is allocated & intended for this specific purpose.
But hey, on the bright side I like your idea in principle and concept. It's truely in the spirit of experimentation and the advancement of amateur radio.
The problem is that the reality of this proposal's implementation process starts to set in and I start to envision chaos on the bands as the end and final result.
Perhaps a revised version is in order.
My Best,
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles,
The problem will always come back to the fact we are allowed a great deal of power, voice transmitters are not really that clean outside the desired channel width, and incompatable modes cannot be mixed without creating problems.
Maybe you can convince them.
In my opinion the Think Tank should have looked at all this BEFORE submitting a plan. I really don't know why they didn't. Since the proposal is totally unworkable as submitted, they should withdraw it. Submitting an unworkable proposal needlessly drains FCC resources and puts all of us in harm's way.
If they had read their own member's web sites without polarized reading glasses they would have seen the potential problems. When one of their own key members feels obligated to post an entire page saying how if he is there first he owns a frequency and warns others to not complain about how wide he is, that's a problem. Even worse, he openly states so long as he passes part 97 he will use all the bandwidth he wants, that's a big red against removing bandwidth restrictions of part 97.
I have a difficult time understanding why our community should stand aside and allow attitudes like that to have total freedom to use any bandwidth on any mode anywhere he wants, or why our community should stand aside and allow a few people to ask for rules changes removing restrictions when a key person in that group openly states the only thing he listens to are the very rules he wants removed!
It's like Bonnie and Clyde's gang wanting to write petitions to change banking regulations!
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes Tom, I agree that good engineering practices should be considered as a part of any proposal placed on the table.
I'm afraid this proposal isn't it.
My Best,
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by N9WB on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I understand that the deadline for comments is Feb. 5. ?
Does anybody know how to get an extension of the deadline for 30 days?
There are many issues in the ARRL proposal that need to be considered before we let the ARRL proposal go through.
Vy 73, Walt N9WB
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Charles,
"Perhaps a revised version is in order. "
Agreed. Any single proposal would be stretched to accommodate all situations. A blend of positions and the willingness to work for a greater good is critical to any process.
"We must be realistic in the fact that the proposed plan must be revised to accomodate both wide band modes and the current conventional modes currently in use."
The reality is we are working with wide band modes mixed with narrow band modes now. 'short of outlawing wider bandwidth and obstructing both experimentation and hobbyists who choose to use wider modes (an agenda item of some hams. . ref. the previous, rejected, bandwidth restriction proposal(s)), I don't see how to create a regulation that will meet all parties requirements. 'with the FCC agenda being number one. The FCC is not going to create a more rigorous regulatory climate in a diminishing resource (budget) timeframe.
"I have to agree with Tom, in the idea that this can only be achieved through segmented frequency allocations on ANY given band AND only if a that frequency segment is allocated & intended for this specific purpose."
I think this will pack more people in a smaller space and create the opposite of your well meaning intention. This point is a polar difference in our perspectives.
I adapt to band conditions and occupancy. Others will probably take some time to realize cooperation is superior to confrontation.
"But hey, on the bright side I like your idea in principle and concept. It's truely in the spirit of experimentation and the advancement of amateur radio."
There are many positive points that have been presented here that have provided valuable input to the ongoing process of regulation formation.
"The problem is that the reality of this proposal's implementation process starts to set in and I start to envision chaos on the bands as the end and final result."
True, the devil is in the details. Maybe it is niave to believe amateur radio operators will be able to sort out their differences with relatively minimal (as on 160) issues. Obviously, if you increase the population, even if the percentage of those who would violate regulations remains the same, you will have increased incidences of regulatory and civil 'opposition'. I believe the best and most fertile field is one which is unencumbered by fences. I am beginning to think some fences are inevitable. . . that the US amateur radio ops want to feel warmly protected from each other. I think segmentation of the bands is an illusion though, in the face of increasing use of frequency resources.
That being said, providing for CW, data, and phone in proportion to their use makes sense when considering the extreme reactions (fear) of deregulation. Perhaps I am carrying segmentation to an extreme in my mind. I picture three segments. Were you considering more?
. . .and Charles, thank you for elevating the postings to a transactional level. Transactional postings foster constructive conversation.
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles writes:
"I have to agree with Tom, in the idea that this can only be achieved through segmented frequency allocations on ANY given band AND only if a that frequency segment is allocated & intended for this specific purpose."
Art replies:
"I think this will pack more people in a smaller space and create the opposite of your well meaning intention. This point is a polar difference in our perspectives.
I adapt to band conditions and occupancy. Others will probably take some time to realize cooperation is superior to confrontation."
The key words in the above text are "I think" and "Others will probably take some time to realize cooperation is superior to confrontation."
I don't know why you misread 160 so much. Probably you don't understand the real history of the band.
160 is an entirely different situations because very few people have the antenna space and equipment to work 160. It also grew slowly, unlike other bands. We were given 25kHz at a time, so long term users (which are over half the active people) had to learn to share small spaces. In early 1963 when I first became active, the entire band for my location was 1800-1825 with 200 watts daytime and 50 watts night power.
Gradually over many years we were given increased space and power. 160 historically, because the overall number of users are small and largely know each other, been **different than all other bands**.
Even with the gradual controlled growth, we need to look at the user data on 160 before using that band as an example of something that "works". There have been groups of people that are LARGE as a percentage of people who have intentionally caused problems.
There were a dozen people, out of perhaps 500 overall USA users, who established an intentional QRM net. They did this despite tremendous peer pressure to stop. I know a W8 near Dayton who was a member of that group who has now been violating bandplans on 160 meters since I became active on 160 in 1963. As recently as a few days ago he was calling CQ on SSB on top of existing CW QSO's.
There is no way to control him without rules and he knows it. All he has to do is pretend like he can't hear someone else and in effect he is not breaking any law. The others have largely died, although some who died have been replaced by new hams.
The FCC has had to get involved in sorting people out several times since 1980. The sole reason was a lack of segmentation. This is on a band that had only 1000-2000 steady users.
160 is growing and changing, and not for the better. A recent petition to segment 160 had about 500 responses. Of those 500 responses, very few were opposed!! A vast majority, about 4/5th, said segmentation was needed.
Using 160 as an example only works when we UNDERSTAND the band.
I know you don't like to hear it Art, but I'll keep saying it hoping it will sink in. The CCT did a VERY poor job collecting and analyzing data. The 160 issue illustrates how poorly things were thought through before you filed a petition. If you have the same PERCENTAGE of problems on 75 or 20 meters we have on 160, it will be bad. The different composition of people on other bands will make it a disaster, especially when a whole group of no-code voice ops with some having only CB HF experience are turned loose.
You really need to look at things objectively through the eyes of people with direct experience, and that should have been done BEFORE a group of several people decided they would name themselves "think tank" and elect themselves to be the ones who control our future world.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W5CMP on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i think this hole thing has got out of hand.to much changing going on. but they get started they cant stop.leave things alone.new is good but.there are limits.
73 w5cmp
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"to much changing going on"
I agree. There are many changes. The elimination of CW and similar restructuring of the amateur radio service licensing processes will bring about many changes. These changes are already in the works. They will bring many hams to amateur radio. If the new hams operate phone, and most will if the trend continues, more room will be required. CW use is declining but narrow data modes are growing so that's about a wash. Other data is clearly desired by a relatively small number of hams, boaters, and missionaries. These are all changes that should be managed appropriately. I don't think the ARRL has the right answer, the CTT proposal seems to be too much of a stretch if responses to the proposal are an indicator, and doing nothing is permitting others, with agendas and vested interests, to control in their favor at the expense of others.
I wish we could operate as we do now into the future. I just don't think it's going to shake out that way.
73
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art,
I was just wondering.
Who elected you, WD8BIL, and the other Think Tank members to represent our community, hold court, and decide what was good for all of us?
Just curious why you guys think you should run the show and decide our future by filing an RM that makes such a radical change.
This is a very serious issue. You guys could kill our hobby by making a mistake with this. Is that a risk you are willing to take?
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the Topband reflector today. In another long discussion about potential 160 QRM problems:
"Of course we could also talk about what happens to the CW band during a
phone contest despite the band plan calling for SSB only above 1.843...
CW is completely eradicated for the duration. Or we could talk about the
routine SSB operations below 1.843."
"There are many potential problems inherent in current contest practices
on both CW and phone. We do open ourselves up to "mode war" problems. I
am open to suggestions on how we can better the situation, but I have to
say I'm not particularly optimistic. We have very limited spectrum with
thousands of stations trying to squeeze into it.
73,
Paul N1BUG"
xxxxx
So you see, mode wars are a constant worriment on 160. N1BUG also knows SSB routinely operates below 1843, where the bandplan says "narrow modes only". As BUG points out, this is not just in contests (although contests devistate the band for other non-contest modes).
We need segmentation on all bands.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
160m is considered as a "Gentleman's Band" which explains why Tom often frequents it.
It was once explained to me that when LSB carriers are set to 1.840 MHz, the sideband frequencies will extend down by as much as 3 kHz.
This means that weak signal CW operations in the range of 1.837-1.840 MHz may be "overlapped" by LSB operations in the range of 1.840-1.843 MHz.
As it was proposed back in 2001, the simplest way to mitigate this "overlap" would be to specify that 1.843 MHz be the lower limit for SSB in a revised bandplan.
This revision will assure that the sideband frequencies are always above 1.840 MHz and lessen or eliminate problems that now exist.
Either way, segmenting and adequate engineering is required in any band plan proposal in order to co-exist.
Thanks Art. Your comments are insightful and I enjoyed your constructive thoughts on the subject.
Polish the idea up a little and I think you might be on to something. Why not use statistics in your proposal analysis?
For example, If I were to write a similar proposal to the FCC, (not that I would without considerable backing from the AR community) I might suggest something like .......way back in 1960, there were "X" amount of radio amateur operators using 160m, but today we are faced with a problem that is two fold.
1. First, we have a push for newer digital communication and experimental technologies and wide band modes that clearly occupy additional bandwidth.
2. Secondly, we have an increase in the amateur radio ranks between the years of 1960 -2006 that represents an "XX" % increase in overall users.
3. Combine all that with additional users that will occupy this band when the code requirement is dropped which accurately represents an additional "XX" % of new operators that will occupy the same amount of 1960 band space in the year 2006. (Do you see where this is going yet Art?)
Therefore I would formally propose that we open additional band space on the 2.100 - 2.115 mhz. band (an example) and move all wide-band mode of operation currently used on 160m to that new segment in order to accommodate the overwhelming influx of new operators when compared with 1960 figures and technology used on the 160m band.
...Well, this is obviously not really a proposal but you should get the main thrust and idea.
Art, we simply need additional space for your idea in a segmented manner of speaking.
I feel many aeronautical services have abandoned HF communications over the years and turned to satellite communications anyways. So why not make your case to the FCC based on these ideas and ask for a portion of some of these underutilized bands to become part of the ARS?
That would be the direction I would take.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those interested, I found a really neat HF bandplan chart to print and hang in your shack.
http://www.yankeecruisah.com/w1cgs/art/hfband.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on February 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom,
Thank you for reaffirming my policy of not responding to personal attacks.
I was talking about you with a friend at the feed and seed store. I gave him my opinion of your behavior: extrapolating way beyond the validity of any facts you present, taking statements out of context, focusing on the past, 'needing' to be the center of attention, attacking people instead of working issues (even to the extent of putting web pages up practically dedicated to attacking them), refusing to contribute to a constructive process even when asked nicely accompanied by free beer. My friend looked at me a moment and said, "I have no idea what half the words you just said meant, but it sounds like you are trying to teach a pig to dance . . . . do you really care if the pig dances?"
No answer was required.
73,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by K3XF on February 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Charles,
What a refreshing difference. You make a lot of good points. I think some have been presented to the FCC already and rejected. However, your post merits more thought and attention than an off hand response. I will run it by a few friends and get back to you.
All the best,
Art
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art,
I know the best policy is to ignore hard questions. That is why I expect you to ignore me and deflect the issue to me, and to try to call me a "pig".
But the fact is, as anyone who searches on the callsigns of the "Think Tank" will find out, that most of the Think Tank are AM operators from the Great Lakes area.
I find it beyond all common sense that five AM operators and one person who says he doesn't even like Ham radio and prefers Internet would get together and hold court like someone appointed they Czars of our bands!
At least you could have formed your group from Hams having a wide variety of interests, and not Great Lake area AM operators.
You should retract RM-11305. It will kill our hobby for anyone except those who want to run wide modes. Think about the other people Art, not just yourself.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JII on February 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I have no idea what half the words you just said meant, but it sounds like you are trying to teach a pig to dance . . . . do you really care if the pig dances?"
There are a great many of us pigs out here Art that are unwilling to dance to to the ill advised, self serving poorly choreographed dance that the "Magnificent 7" has proposed. It's hard to teach a pig to dance when the teacher has no sense of rhythm ..............73, ron
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Assigns Bandwidth File Numbers!
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Five of the seven Think Tank members work AM.
One claims he isn't even active any more, he just works Internet and points to Howard Stern as a hero.
One doesn't turn up much in a search.
One removed half his web pages and all references to his transmitter bandwidth when I called attention to them.
The AM Window web site removed all references to RM-11305. It used to be a banner headline before I pointed to it.
RM-11305 is a thinly veiled proposal to let AM operators move to any frequency and have any bandwidth they want in HF bands. It has nothing to do with what is good for Ham radio, or 99% of the Hams. It is a .1% make-out-good-and-the-rest-pay-the-price proposal.
Now one of them is trying to make it my shortcoming I don't coddle to them like a puppy and embrace their narcissistic group as my master. Who put them in charge of our future? They did.
The problem is the FCC might view Hams as such a PITA after all the BPL stuff that they might pass RM-11305 just to get rid of us. After all, any-mode any-where is just like freeband CB. Coupled with no-code, it will kill amateur radio as we know it today, just so a few AM guys can use the CW bands.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
