eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     


[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Fact or Fallacy?

Tom Rauch (W8JI) on May 8, 2007
View comments about this article!


Fact or Fallacy?

The ARRL recently published a press release at

This release contained the following statement:

“Sumner concedes that the subset of proposed rule changes in RM-11306 would provide less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than the League's original proposals afforded, but not less than the existing rules provide. "In fact, protection against interference from wideband digital modes would be increased, not decreased, even by adoption of the subset," he contended.”

What Really Happens?

The entire 160 and 30 meter bands and the non-phone areas of 80, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 12 meters would have the following changes:

FCC rule 97.307(F) (3) presently states:

“Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.”

See:

…or see your copy of the present FCC rules.

The ARRL would have this section modified to say:

“The bandwidth of a RTTY or data emission must not exceed 3 kHz.”

See:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/appendixA.html

What Really Changed?

Gone is the 1 kHz frequency shift limit on RTTY. The ARRL would have it expanded to 3 kHz. In addition, the 300 baud symbol rate is dropped.

You don't have to take my word for it; you can look at the links and see for yourself!

What Effect Will This Have?

Anyone with communications engineering experience probably understands wide and narrow modes cannot be mixed. If you question why this is true, I have a page that explains the reason at:

Wide modes traditionally suffer less from nearby narrow mode transmission than the reverse. This is why operators who primarily operate wide modes push for unlimited access to all frequencies, while operators who enjoy spectrum conserving narrow modes generally want protection from broad signals.

While there is a lot of talk about Winlink and automated “robots” taking over amateur bands, the truth is Winlink is an unlikely threat. After years of operation there are only a very limited number of automated stations active, and those stations are very susceptible to QRM. They don't want to scatter among CW and SSB transmissions!

The real danger is from casual operators with sound card interfaces. There are multiple programs available that run audio from sound cards into the unclean audio chains of conventional SSB transmitters. There are many thousands of people already doing this, and with the abandonment of CW proficiency examinations we can expect many thousands more. While RTTY and digital mode operators often ignore QRM to modes other than the one they are on, at least there used to be some hope they would recognize a CW QSO. That hope will rapidly diminish now that CW proficiency is not required to operate in traditional CW areas of our bands.

Anyone who operates 40 meter PSK or CW already understands how bad the RTTY problem is, and also understands the problem is expanding at a rapid rate.

The evidence above clearly shows the recent ARRL Appendix A expands the bandwidth of RTTY by a factor of three times. It also removes all limits on baud rate for data emissions (higher baud rate = wider bandwidth), and effectively sets a SSB bandwidth for RTTY and digital modes in the traditional narrow mode areas of our bands. This not only affects CW, but it is deleterious to any spectrum conserving mode on virtually all bands below ten meters.

We should openly present and discuss changes to our bands before bothering the FCC with petitions. We don't need self-anointed “Communications Think Tanks” or the ARRL running off with proposals that don't have the blessing of a reasonable number of amateurs. It makes us look unorganized and foolish. With Internet, it isn't that difficult to solicit input before pestering the FCC. We also should be forthright about changes, so we all understand exactly what the changes are. We get enough spin from Washington; we don't need it in our fraternity.

Personally, I'm all for segmentation by bandwidth. I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire.

What do you think?

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by LNXAUTHOR on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
- i don't think the existence (or now, lack of) CW proficiency exams has anything to do with misuse of a digital mode - a LID is a LID no matter what mode or license...

- the fact is that no matter what the regs are, or what gentlemen's agreements are in place, there will always be an operator with an ID-10-T problem...

- i do agree that there needs to be segregation, at least to bring some order and common sense guidelines to allow all modes...
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KX8N on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"- a LID is a LID no matter what mode or license... "

What a perfect way to sum it up. Thank you!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by NI0C on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
LNXAUTHOR wrote "i don't think the existence (or now, lack of) CW proficiency exams has anything to do with misuse of a digital mode - a LID is a LID no matter what mode or license... "

I agree with Tom that interference is less likely to occur when people can readily copy what is being sent. I also agree that it is the narrow band modes that generally lose when there is a conflict on the band.

Those who wish to experiment with wideband digital modes should be able to do so in the VHF and UHF bands where there is room for that sort of thing. Our existing narrow-band modes make efficient use of scarce HF spectrum and permit large numbers of amateurs to enjoy it. Let's keep it that way. The ARRL and FCC should just say "NO" to the loudmouths who claim that they are in "technology jail" and want to take over our HF bands.

73,
Chuck NI0C
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
1KHz FSK shift does not equate to 1KHz occupied bandwidth. The bandwidth depends on both the shift and the symbol rate.

The ARRL's contention, as I understand it, is that the present shift and symbol rate limitations are NOT cumulative over multiple carriers. Effectively for a multi-carrier system like OFDM, there is presently no bandwidth limit, only an effective limit on the bandwidth of each individual carrier.

I think the concept of an occupied bandwidth limit is a good one. One could easily argue that 3KHz is too wide a limit for the entire non-phone segment. On the other hand one could argue that the proposed 3KHz is only the regulatory limit and the non-voice segment would be further broken down by a voluntary band plan. I don't think that the ARRL's intent is that CW and PSK31 stations share frequencies with 3KHz wide digital modes.

I think the ARRL's mistake once again is that they requested regulatory changes WITHOUT also proposing (and gaining acceptance of) a voluntary band plan. That leaves the impression that if the regulatory changes are made then a free-for-all will occur on the bands.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N4KZ on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom, W8JI, has credibility on this topic.

Some of the other people out there who have claimed WinLink and digital robot stations would take over the phone bands, etc., have put a huge amount of spin on their attempts to stir the pot of public opinion. Unfortunately, too many people believed these guys with agendas without verifying their mumbo-jumbo.

And it's been very disappointing to see some web sites report some of these past ridiculous claims as being "news" when, in fact, they their real purpose was to manipulate public opinion with little concern for the real facts.

Thanks, Tom, for setting the record straight on the spin masters.

73, N4KZ
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K6AER on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
One of the problems with digital modes in the HF band is aberrant behavior for the most part carries very little self enforcement. This is due to most hams not having that particular technology and there fore can not identify the offending station. Bringing up a PSK31 signal on top of an ongoing QSL leaves the effected parties not knowing who the interfering station is. Forget the FCC, they have no time for monitoring the ham bands and will reluctantly pursue legal action only when the offending station becomes an embarrassment.

Many of time I have heard the frequency of 14.230 not in use by the local slow scan groups. The unsuspecting new ham comes along and asks if the frequency is in use, no one answers. They call CQ and then a slow scan signal comes up on frequency for 15 minutes of continuous transmission. This sense of entitlement will be come more of a problem with mixed mode formats.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W6TH on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.
Who is and what are/is this ARRL, are they to make rules and regulations concerning ham radio.

Seems to me this ARRL want to bring in all automation and systems to communicate, to satisfy the products produced by the big three and other electronic firms. Why not leave well enough alone?

Read behind the lines; the ARRL wants satisfaction for their own personal greed and profits, like parasites.

.:
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N4QA on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Before we embark on some sort of feeding frenzy here as regards 'the RTTY problem', let us remember that conventional RTTY...I mean 45.45 Baud, 170 Hz Baudot-encoded FSK... has a 'necessary bandwidth' of about 249 Hz.
Granted that, in practice, the 'occupied bandwidth' of a given conventional RTTY emission may be larger, depending upon system design and the use or misuse of that design.
The vast majority of RTTY operators are using conventional RTTY and *not* some much wider, convoluted form of RTTY. Some persons like to include the term 'RTTY' to encompass any number of modes in addition to conventional RTTY.
You may not like the ever-increasing popularity of conventional RTTY, but, please, when we discuss today's ever-greying definition of just what *is* RTTY, remember that conventional RTTY is *not* the same 'problem' as so-called 'RTTY' modes having much wider shifts, multiple carriers, higher symbol rates etc.
72.
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K3UD on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Incompatible digital modes pose problems.

Here is an interesting example.
I was reading the article in QST concerning WinDRM which is digital voice protocol. For some time AOR has been
advertising a commercial product for HF digital voice.

Guess what? you can't use WinDRM to talk to a station using an AOR voice modem, or vice versa. This is the beginning of a ham radio Tower Of Babel

Incompatibility raises its ugly head yet again and we have competing modes vying for shelf space on the bands and acceptance. The author of the article pointed out that the noise WinDRM makes is like an out of control buzz saw, so once again, you do not know who is causing the QRM.

There is really only a few pracitcal way to solve this.

We either separate the bands by mode AND bandwidth or we warehouse all digital/sound card modes on specific bands. Maybe 30 and 12 meters. 150kHz where digital can play all day.

73
George
K3UD
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This is due to most hams not having that particular technology and there fore can not identify the offending station
---------------------------------------------------
There's a really simple solution to this. Require all stations to identify with CW at the end of a QSO.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by WB4M on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't see how mixing modes would work. I cannot see SSB and RTTY in the same space. And to those WinLink lovers, WinLink robots would indeed spring up everywhere just as packet stations did on HF years ago and really ruined some prime RTTY frequencies. And to the ham who suggested "warehousing" digital modes to only 12 and 30 meters, that is one of the most ignorant suggestions I've ever heard.
I've been on RTTY since 1981 and RTTY ops are the best op on the bands. Don't confuse us with the RTTY DX'ers, please.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K4JF on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Who is and what are/is this ARRL, are they to make rules and regulations concerning ham radio."

RIGHT THERE is the problem with trying to do it by bandplans or "gentlemen's agreements". ARRL has never tried to make rules. They have published and coordinated procedures and custome, but many today will only recognize FCC rules, not the needs and wishes of other hams.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by KB9RQZ on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
throughout the "code wars" we told how CW always get through and along sid e we were told and continue to be told that CW needs protection from Other modes

when, and if you make up your minds on this do let me Know
 
Look at this thread for proof.  
by AI2IA on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"We should openly present and discuss changes to our bands before bothering the FCC with petitions. We don't need self-anointed “Communications Think Tanks” or the ARRL running off with proposals that don't have the blessing of a reasonable number of amateurs. It makes us look unorganized and foolish. With Internet, it isn't that difficult to solicit input before pestering the FCC. We also should be forthright about changes, so we all understand exactly what the changes are. We get enough spin from Washington; we don't need it in our fraternity."

Unfortunately this idea is utopian. Just watch how the quality of the input degenerates as this thread progresses until it ends in bigotry and nonsense.

The best we can hope for is that cool heads prevail both in the ARRL and the FCC.

 
Even the author lacks objectivity.  
by AI2IA on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire."

Don't insult people with nonsense and then expect their cooperation. You detract from all the good you might have done.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by K0RFD on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What I think is that we got along just fine for many years and this proposal is unnecessary.

The only tweak I'd make is to set aside a little bit of spectrum (a VERY little bit) as a ghetto for the automated PACTOR robots that step on other communications without listening. Let them step on each other for a change.
 
RE: Even the author lacks objectivity.  
by KB5DPE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire."

"Don't insult people with nonsense and then expect their cooperation. You detract from all the good you might have done"

My opinion: It may sound like an insult, but "the truth often hurts". The technical demands made of an operator, for this type of a plan to work, simply exceed the available knowledge of the great majority of hams active today. An anology might be a newly licensed private pilot stepping into the left seat of a 767 and expecting to make sound decisions about it's operation. NOT GONNA HAPPEN! I think Tom's intent was to point out that, in order to prevent chaos on the bands, regulation of their use must take into account the ability of their users to understand and comply with those regulations. NO INSULT AND NO NONSENSE TO THAT!
73 Tom
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji:"While there is a lot of talk about Winlink and automated “robots” taking over amateur bands, the truth is Winlink is an unlikely threat. After years of operation there are only a very limited number of automated stations active, and those stations are very susceptible to QRM. They don't want to scatter among CW and SSB transmissions!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tom,

Respectfully this just isn't true. Pactor II and III are very agressive, ARQ modes with long timeouts once a session is established. I have seen them interfere with everything from packet to rtty to cw to olivia to SSB (canadian). Never once have I seen the other mode win once a Pactor II or III session gets going.

There are over 96 Winlink stations in the CW/RTTY portions of the bands, most monitoring multiple frequencies on multiple bands for connection requests.

Since Winlink Pactor stations will even interfere with themselves (since most don't have busy detection turned on) they tend to spread out horizontally as much as possible. If even a quarter of them are within the same propagation window, they would need almost 75khz to prevent inter-station interference. Even if half of these share the same frequency you are still talking about needing 37khz for their operation.

That *was* at least one of the main purposes behind RM-11306, to give the Winlink operation more space to operate in. That *is* why they want out of the automatic operation sub-segment jail they are presently in.

As far as the bandwidth segementation paradigm, I have yet to see any real justification for moving to it. We *know* how the existing paradigm works. The only real problem I have seen about the existing paradigm is the ability to do multi-media, i.e. voice, data, and image all in the same transmission session. I have not seen where there is a big demand for this, however.

The bandwidth segmentation plan does carry a risk of stifling experimentation. If the next killer mode just happens to be 3.5khz wide, experimentation with it would be artificially limited by a bandwidth limitation.

Nor does bandwidth limitation provide a buffer between non-compatible modes of the same bandwidth. A 2.5khz Pactor III signal of 100watts will barely be fazed by a 600watt pep SSB signal. And this doesn't even begin to address what will happen on bands with international propagation whose bandplans will be incompatible with such arrangements.

Perhaps someone could provide a list of pros for bandwidth segmentation that would provide a basis for discussion.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N5GLR on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB9RQZ on May 8, 2007 said:
"throughout the "code wars" we told how CW always get through and along sid e we were told and continue to be told that CW needs protection from Other modes
when, and if you make up your minds on this do let me Know"


I think you're confusing QRN with QRM.

When, and if, you learn the difference, do let us know.


 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4LR on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom,

Very thought-provoking.

First, a correction, on your web page <http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm> you have the sentence:

"If we look at spectrum restrictions we see CW and other narrow band modes are generally allowed to operate any frequency within a certain license class,...."

This statement is not true. While CW is allowed to operate on any frequency, "other narrow band modes" are NOT. The ability to operate just about anywhere is unique to CW. We should be careful when making regulatory changes that we don't fall into this trap. I'm convinced that the FCC did exactly this when they decided at the last minute to extend 75m all the way down to 3600 kHz, displacing many digital operators.

Second, as for the mixing of wide and narrow-band modes, it does not make any technical sense that a narrow-band mode is more adversely affected by wide-band signals. Narrow-band modes use more limited bandwidth, and therefore filter out more of the wide-band signals -- a discriminating quality that wide-band operations lack.

The issue here isn't a technical one -- it's more purpose-driven. The real conflict you touch on is weak-signal versus wide-band. This situation can exist on 160m, as you pointed out, but is more severe on VHF and UHF bands.

For example, it would be perfectly legal for someone to operate FM on 432.2 MHz, but doing so would deafen many operators trying to do weak-signal work on that frequency. For this reason, the bandplans are constructed to discourage the use of FM in these weak-signal areas.

Conversely, it would be legal for someone to try to do weak-signal work on 446.0 MHz, but it would likely to be pointless, since there are a number of FM signals nearby.

This really boils down to the "operator problem" as you put it -- it doesn't take but a handful of poor operators to ruin the fun for dozens or hundreds of others.

We can write all the regulations we want, but the way to eliminate poor operators is through education and peer pressure.

Third, I don't see why the existing regulations are so problematic. The ARRL has published editorials implying that there's no bandwidth limitation to multi-channel signals. However, the way I interpret the FSK shift rule is that no two elements of a digital signal be more than 1 kHz apart. This, coupled with the baud (symbol) rate limitations, makes for an effective bandwidth limitation.

The baud rate limitations aren't particularly onerous, either, because high symbol rates aren't practical at frequencies well below the MUF due to inter-symbol distortion from multi-path propagation.

Forth, one problem we have with our regulations is that we're not back in the 1930's any more. We can't just think of the regulations being just CW and Phone operation. Digital modes are playing a larger and larger role on the bands, and their influence will increase. There has to be room for digital operations to grow.

You mention operators using sound card operations as if this is a mode of operating to be avoided or prohibited. Properly adjusted, there is no discernable difference between a digital signal being passed through an SSB transmitter and one generated directly by other means. The issue isn't the sound card interfaces, nor are the SSB transmitters having "unclean" audio chains. It's the improper adjustment thereof.

Just as an improperly adjusted linear amplifier can cause distortion products up and down the band, the use of SSB transmitters can cause unintended signals. Here again, the issue is one of education and peer pressure.

Fifth, you mention the "RTTY problem" on 40m. There is no "RTTY problem" on 40m. The real issue is the inequitable world-wide allocation of 40m. RTTY operators trying to find DX stations are forced to work low in the band, because that is where the DX operators are allowed to operate.

RTTY operators can't just work high in the band, because of the large number of wide-band SSB DX signals. (And didn't you just make the point that you can't mix narrow and wide-band modes?)

Fortunately, this problem has a solution, and it is coming in 2009, when 7000-7200 kHz will be worldwide exclusive amatuer. Then, you can expect to see SSB above 7100, and RTTY above 7050. Until then, expect to see a lot of frequency flexibility, especially on contest weekends.

Lastly, I must disagree with you on allowing a "free-for-all". Most amatuer radio regulations are set up exactly this way -- no sub-bands -- amatuers are free to operate any mode anywhere within their allocated bands. If most of the world can function this way, why can't US hams do the same.

The key benefit of this is the frequency flexibility that it allows -- during periods of high demand (a contest or an emergency situation) stations can spread out on to frequencies that are not being used. We already see this sort of flexibility on 40m during CW, RTTY and SSB contests in regions 1 and 3.

What we need to solve to make this work is the "operator problem" so a couple of inconsiderate operators don't ruin things for everyone else.

In conclusion, I agree with you Tom that the ARRL's proposal was without merit, but I disagree that we need regulation by bandwidth. What we need instead is less regulation and more good operators.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA1RNE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"With Internet, it isn't that difficult to solicit input before pestering the FCC. We also should be forthright about changes, so we all understand exactly what the changes are. We get enough spin from Washington; we don't need it in our fraternity."


>> Absolutely, and exactly what I proposed on April 28th in response to the ARRL's article on withdrawing their current R by B proposal:

"Get the necessary consensus from all interested amateurs via the ARRL website. Create a questionnaire that is open to ANY interested amateur, not just members. The ARRL should provide lots of advance notice by posting articles on eHam, QRZ and other websites."


"Personally, I'm all for segmentation by bandwidth. I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire. "


>> Your asking for your cake and eat it to. You can't have one without the other; that's the crux of the problem. The ARRL's proposal essentially converts the present Phone band and more into a mel'ee of sorts where data, SSB and CW occupy the same spectrum. This just invites the free-for- all that you, me and most other hams wish to avoid.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/Bandwidth-Charts.pdf


Today we have 1 not-for-profit group (for some anyway) that wants to be ham radio's voice. Problem is, the "voice" is more interested in how it's board members feel than it's membership and more importantly, the overall amateur population. Funny how ham radio is supposed to be about communicating.

Looks like the "voice" needs to get with the program.


....WA1RNE
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K9FV on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>"where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers"

Tom's comment here might sound hard, but when an extra asks "how do I build a dipole?" or "how to check SWRs" - something is WRONG!!! when an EXTRA class license asks those questions (SWRs????). I can accept a Tech or perhaps even a general asking, but an EXTRA class???

Tom usually does have a common sense approach to problems, and again he has show some common sense - thanks Tom... and several others have make good common sense comments. Thanks to all

73 de Ken H>
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by NT4XT on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I commented on this already, from a News article here on eHam that was published on-site around March 23rd 2007.

I agree with Mr. Rauch in that the concept of regulating spectrum based upon emission bandwidth is a good idea.

My opinions in March 2007 and now are unchanged, concerning the now withdrawn proposal that the ARRL had which would make 3Kc wide transmissions in the CW sub-bands legal, if not for the most part culturally acceptable.
Awe heck, I'm just gg to paste my March comments in here:
-----------------------
"What makes sense is, if you want to have emissions 3Kc wide, then do it in the phone band, where it is generally accepted practice for emissions of such girth! "
-----------------------
Ah, granted I said more than just that, but taking the emotions out of it, it basically comes down to that.
If 3Kc wide data transmissions, especially RTTY or similar, become generally practiced in the CW, or better to call it, the narrow mode segments of the bands, plus- we have a law/rule on the books that says 3Kc is legal- then we have effectively reduced the whole idea of regulation by mode into nothing meaningful. If the idea of regulation by mode, was because of emission bandwidth considerations, then making the NARROW sub-band legal limit for emission widths 3Kc wide is too wide, obviously, it takes no genius to know that. So redo the proposal to be say, half that wide, and I'd call it a good compromise.

As far as Fact or Fallacy, who knows? I only know my own interpretation of a proposal and my opinion on it, hi hi.


 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4LR on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
One other note.

As originally drafted by the ARRL, regulation was to apply by bandwidth, except for 30m, where phone was to be prohibited.

The reasoning went something along the lines of "there's not enough space on 30m to allow phone operation."

This made no sense. If signals are regulated by bandwidth, what did it matter if the 3 kHz wide signals are digital or phone? I wrote a comment to the ARRL, and apparently so did others, and this language was dropped from the proposal sent to the FCC.

It is curious that, at least for 30m, the relaxing of regulations to allow 3 kHz wide transmissions would only be applied to digital communications. This lends a teeny bit of credance to the WinLink conspiracy theory.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The reason a narrow band signal is more affected by a wide band signal is because a wide band signal can wipe out the entire sprectrum of a narrow band signal. A single narrow band signal can only wipe out a small portion of the wide band signal and the wide band signal can often continue operation without that piece of spectrum.


"the way I interpret the FSK shift rule is that no two elements of a digital signal be more than 1 kHz apart."

Okay, even with your interpretation suppose my signal consists of 100 carriers all separated by 1 kHz. How wide is my signal? Way over 3 kHz. Take digital voice as a current example. I don't believe there is any regulation that limits digital voice to 3 kHz. It was voluntarily limited to 3 kHz by the developers who wisely chose not to use any more spectrum than a typical SSB signal. Likewise PactorIII voluntarily limited bandwidth to 3 kHz because that is the bandwidh that the majority of amateur stations (SSB) utilize. They could pass twice as much data in a given time if they used up 6 kHz (like AM) or three times as much data if they used 9 kHz. There are trade-offs to be made.

Its amazing how many of the anti-digital arguments sound like 1950 when SSB was first starting out. That "donald duck" stuff has no place on the ham bands. Ham bands are for AM and CW :-)
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K0BG on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I've read all of the posts up to this point, and I still have a question: Why fix something that isn't broken?

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W6TH on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.
There you go again, squawking your guts out and the ARRL ready to stab you in the back, again and again.

I will prove it:

Dumbing down the Amateur Radio Operators testing, ridding of the code and now behind your backs, making all operating radios obsolete and building a new market of mechanical means to communicate.

Hey! Money walks and BS talks.

.:P.S. Did you notice all the no coders chasing dx with automatic code senders, de w*** 5nn tu.

.:
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by NK9R on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I have always found Tom's comments to be the voice of reason and common sense. Thanks Tom.

I don't see the ARRL's proposals as malicious or self serving, just slightly premature. As Tom said, I don't think we have a concesus yet. We need both protection for some modes and room to experiment and grow for others.

I do recognise the CW/RTTY issue on 40 meters, and I sure wish there was a lower limit on RTTY. 40 Meters, however is unique and will be a problem until the band becomes larger world wide.

For me a big issue of compatibility, is the problem of identifying the digital mode and who is transmitting. If the average ham cannot identify an interfering signal, then self policing cannot work. The old RTTY rules that specified CW id, were cumbersome but worked. Now that CW is no longer the lowest common denominator, I don't see a practical method of protection besides mode segmentation. Those who operate CW or SSB, both low tech modes, are totally unprepared to identify an interfering digital signal and need protection. Digital operators, however, are better equiped to identify other digital modes by nature of the computers they are using; so I don't have problem with grouping them altogether. Proprietary modes have no place whatsoever, unless a means of decoding is readily and freely available to other digital ops. The ham bands never have been, and should not now be a place for private/secret/confidential communication.

So, for me the issue boils down to protecting the "human" (CW, traditional voice) modes from the modes that are only decodable by machine. As a secondary matter, if the machine modes need further segmentation by bandwidth, OK, that would be reasonable. Whatever we do, however, needs to be based on worldwide usage not just domestic concerns. All tall order, I'm sure.
 
RE: Problem solved  
by RADIOGUYR2 on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Easy.
Rtty is old and antiquated. Its not needed anymore. We have new technology such as digital and PSK 31. Like CW it needs to be put into a grave and buried for good. Come on get with the new tech program. Digital is in.. RTTY is out.

PROBLEM SOLVED.. just give them RTTY boys only 25kc to play in and let darwins law take effect similar to what the ARRL did to the CW boys and section.

Band plan on 80 mtrs is the pits when a equal amount of space is given to extra class no nothing dummys for exclusive use so they can flap their lips and the cw section where now most hams are squeezed into 75 kc.

What was the ARRL thinking. More extra class book sales?? (get your extra class license book 29.95 )

I hear they are miffed at the eham and QRZ for putting the Ham Exams,test questions, on the computer. Seems their sales of books has hit the floor and fell through the bottom.

Whats it all about??

Go figure!!!
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by N5YPJ on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I just don't see (or hear) it, maybe having a 100 watt xcvr and wire antennas is a blessing in disguise. The biggest problem I've noticed is folks running bad PSK31 signals, that I assume are caused by too high off a mic gain setting. This does knock any weaker signal out of being copied. I believe our present minimum in the solar cycle has us cooped up on the few bands that are more reliably open, I've see PSK31 signals on 20 mtrs pop in mid qso from nowhere s-7 or so and then shortly after fade away. Myself, I've been guilty of the same - that just seems to be the state of propagation there and above. I do notice a lot of CW operation right around 7.035, according to the band plans I've seen this frequency is for PSK31 in ITU region 1 - I've worked lots of PSK31 DX there. As to the "new" 80 meter allocations - for the life of me I can't figure out why so much band space was given to phone, no doubt there are going to be problems here caused by the new band plan, there just is no space for anyone else. I've been licensed for over 25 years and have heard all along about CW being the quality control of ham radio entrants - to borrow another posters words - a lid is a lid is a lid PERIOD. IMO there are many more lids crawling out from wherever and wreaking havoc on the bands during the contests. On a contest weekend it seems as though there are no rules for contesters, a definite lack of respect for the rest.

It's funny how often times I will tune throught the bands and be disappointed in the lack of activity, we aren't running out of space, we only need to learn a little respect for others, a little tolerance, how to follow gentleman's agreements (we do like to be thought of as civilized human beings) and maybe a better band plan for 80 meters, along the lines of the 40 meter band plan.

73

Richard
 
RE: Problem solved  
by KX8N on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Tom's comment here might sound hard, but when an extra asks "how do I build a dipole?" or "how to check SWRs" - something is WRONG!!! when an EXTRA class license asks those questions (SWRs????). I can accept a Tech or perhaps even a general asking, but an EXTRA class???"

What's wrong is when an Extra HAS to ask a question like that, because it indicates that local hams aren't willing to take the time and help a fellow ham. And it's worse that the Extra gets belittled when he DOES have the courage to try to seek out the answers to his questions. We aren't supposed to be a 5th grade class at recess shunning the new kid, we are supposed to be a brotherhood. And the breakdown in that brotherhood can't be placed on the shoulders of the new guy - it has to be placed on the OT's.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by NT4XT on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
DE AA4LR: "It is curious that, at least for 30m, the relaxing of regulations to allow 3 kHz wide transmissions would only be applied to digital communications. This lends a teeny bit of credence to the WinLink conspiracy theory. "
I don't know about that. I do know that with No Code now in full blossom- we can and should expect more operators on HF. Fine with me.

However, it is probable that such will find their first forays into the world below 50MHz, via means of a microphone, maybe next, sound card interface. But seeing as how we all can talk, it's likely that crowding will occur in the current phone segments of the bands.
The question next is, how to make room for the added phone transmissions that are a result of added phone operators who previously were not present mostly only because of the infantile 5wpm requirement?
Well, first, you make it culturally acceptable, and the norm, to have to battle for space with other signals that occupy space six times what was previously considered normal. Once wide transmissions of any kind become commonplace and generally- normalized- the next step is simply, doing away with the digital specification, and simply saying, that 3Kc wide signals are proliferating anyway, legally too- so there is no more sense in disallowing A3J=>J3E emissions (SingleSideBand suppressed carrier).

The concession next becomes, something like, don't worry, we are still requiring A3E or full-on AM, to be practised only in the previously known as Phone/Voice portions of the bands.
That, is one very plausible and implementable way, to blurr the lines and consolidate all HF bands into a free for all, "anykine way" of "less regulation by government" and more "regulation by individual self governance."
But we NEED some government, we NEED some regulation. The alternative is complete chaos.
But that's just my humble layman's opinion. And we all know about opinions- they are like...

 
RE: Problem solved  
by RADIOGUYR2 on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What's wrong is when an Extra HAS to ask a question like that, because it indicates that local hams aren't willing to take the time and help a fellow ham. And it's worse that the Extra gets belittled when he DOES have the courage to try to seek out the answers to his questions.



ahhh excuse me but arn't extra class hams supposed to know what they are talking about when they get the extra class rating? What sets them apart from the other no code dummys? Memory only?

While were changing things lets change the wording.. ham radio bands to commucators band. That way we won't be fooling anyone with fancy words.

If one looks at the new K3 one can understand the way ham radio is going today. What technology

In days of old hams used to get jobs because they EDUCATED themselves. Today not even the red cross wants 'em because they are SOFT, WEAK and dont know what they are doing.

Thanks ARRL no doubt a product of the new generation of technology games.

But, wait their is more.

One says were supposed to help new hams learn. Great but last I checked it was TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND what one needs to know. And when the EXTRA class ham says, OH well good thing they sell one that works, makes you real glad to be a member of the group..nice.

No my predition is that once the new guys find out that their biggest hit on ham radio is checking into a net where they call you and then listen to all the old windbags talk about THEIR problems, The dogs worms, and the wx. (leading one to commit sueiside..LOL) They will be bored and --- that will be that. They will be asking themsleves why did I pay this much money to listen to this? The real fun in ham radio is the mental comprehension and practical application.
Something these new people just don't seem to want to learn now a days. They have their computers and can do more with less even without disturbing the neighbors TV.

So does it really matter to them if their is PSK or CW? the only mode they know is flapping their lips on the mic.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N4KC on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting discussion and, as previously noted, very similar to the SSB/traditional-AM argument that was raging about the time I was first licensed, back when Marconi was a Novice.

The fact is, we need some kind of regulation that will protect the rights of ALL existing modes while allowing for development of ones we have not even thought of yet (though I can't imagine why we need anymore "keyboard" modes, considering how many of us waste precious on-air time and the last remnants of manual dexterity on these threads!).

Self-regulation and voluntary band plans? Maybe a start but certainly not the long-term answer. Listen to the new Extra portion of 80/75 at night. There's plenty of room to voluntarily move SSB back up to 3.65 or 3.7 and leave 3.6 to 3.65 or 3.7 to CW. Then digital can have 3.55 to 3.6 back to themselves, right?

Implement that and see how long it lasts.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W7ETA on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom, once again, thank you for the relevant information you've created for us.

This is the first time I've seen any information presented that helps to evaluate the wisdom of mixing narrow and wide modes.

My only reference has been segregating phone, ie an exclusive segment for CW, and allowing CW in the phone sub-band.

The few times I've heard CW in the phone sub-band I've heard people complaining, on SSB, that CW should go back to the CW portion of the band. I can't imagine the reaction of a significant number of hams that HATE! CW will be more reasoned.

If the criteria for wide band modes operating near narrow band modes is if they can hear the narrower mode, narrower modes will suffer.

I also suspect that the proliferation of wider roofing filters in HF rigs will also exacerbate this problem.

Restricting wider modes to specific spectrum, to reduce the wide mode interference, seems to make sense.

73
Bob
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W9OY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why should there be any robot operation on the low bands at all?

I think this is the real issue. If there was a time commitment involved by an operator much interference would be avoided. Or if there is robot communication then it must be smart enough to abort if ANY other signal shows up on at a given freq. In other words all robot communication must always be secondary. The robots are accomidated but not at the expense of the humans.

73 W9OY
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by W3WN on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Good article Tom.

One thing that would be helpful, and this preferably from an unbiased source, is a chart or list comparing side-by-side how we presently do things with how things would change under the (now withdrawn) proposal. A third column with a compromise or alternative would also be helpful.

There are several realities which must be faced.

One is the fact that the US is one of only a small handful of countries that at present mandate mode separation aka sub-bands. Most of the world operate on "gentlemen" agreements most of the time (and let's hold off on discussing what is a "gentleman" for the time being!) What affect would having the legal restrictions on the US lifted have?

Another is that the ARRL proposal, flawed as it is, may have simply been premature in it's essence (even though parts of it appear flawed). Is it that heart breaking to look towards the future and plan accordingly, even if we don't want to implement those plans right away?

Yet another, as is self-evident in many of these posts, is that there is a small but vocal group that is against the proposal in whole or in part because it was proposed by the ARRL -- and they don't trust or don't believe the League's motives or agendas. So, is it possible for an independant third party to evaluate the proposal, fix or replace the aforementioned alleged flaws, and come up with another solution that would be removed from the allegations of bias (true or not) that are automatically slammed on any proposal out of Newington?

There must be a way to make using our bands more flexible without requiring lengthy debates with the FCC over relatively minor changes, and to accomodate new modes without severely handicapping existing users.

We need to look forward and prepare accordingly. This doesn't mean dump everything we've been doing on a moment's notice, but it does mean that we have to take the blinders off.

73
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by W2AVC on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
... a very lucid explanation. Thanks. It is too bad that the ARRL "represents" the ham fraternity as they have in recent years. It reminds me of the labor union to which I was required to be a member. They represented us in a way favorable to the union, not necessarily good for the individual member, and there is a difference!
The League has its own agenda. I guess it's just "too bad" if we narrow-bandwidth folks get stepped on.
W2AVC
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W6TH on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.
kx8n, the voice of Jackson OH...

We aren't supposed to be a 5th grade class at recess shunning the new kid, we are supposed to be a brotherhood.

Look whose talking. LOL. A picture is worth a thousand words.

.: 88,s my love, W6TH a non vanity call.

.:
 
RE: Fallacy  
by STRAIGHTKEY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"There you go again, squawking your guts out and the ARRL ready to stab you in the back, again and again.

I will prove it:

Dumbing down the Amateur Radio Operators testing, ridding of the code"

I am so tired of hearing this! The ARRL pushed for a 5 WPM Extra!!!!

IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ARRL AT LEAST COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING THEY ACTUALLY DID, NOT BLAME THEM FOR EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE!!

IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ARRL AT LEAST COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING THEY ACTUALLY DID, NOT BLAME THEM FOR EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE!!

IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ARRL AT LEAST COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING THEY ACTUALLY DID, NOT BLAME THEM FOR EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE!!

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY writes:

"Why should there be any robot operation on the low bands at all?"

Because there are hams who want to operate that way.

Because amateur radio is about developing and using new as well as old modes - 'because we can'.

And because if a certain mode is excluded completely,
it sets a very bad precedent IMHO.

That said, I don't think robot operations should be allowed all over the bands. Their very nature precludes it. But a complete ban isn't a good idea either.

"I think this is the real issue. If there was a time commitment involved by an operator much interference would be avoided. Or if there is robot communication then it must be smart enough to abort if ANY other signal shows up on at a given freq. In other words all robot communication must always be secondary."

Why?

If the robot is there first, why should it be secondary to anyone?

"The robots are accomidated but not at the expense of the human"

But there's always a human involved somewhere in robot operations.

-

Consider beacons - they simply transmit all the time, without listening. They're limited in power and clustered in certain parts of the bands, but they don't move for anyone.

Or consider HF repeaters (10 meter FM). They don't listen on their output frequency to see if it's in use. If they are coordinated repeaters, they take precedence over simplex or uncoordinated ones.

Just like on VHF/UHF. Should we shut down all repeaters? They're essentially 'robots', too.


73 de Jim, N2EY
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI writes:

"The ARRL recently published a press release"

ARRL has also pulled the whole proposal from consideration.

"FCC rule 97.307(F) (3) presently states:


“Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.”"

That's right - been that way a long time.


"The ARRL would have this section modified to say:


“The bandwidth of a RTTY or data emission must not exceed 3 kHz.”"

"Gone is the 1 kHz frequency shift limit on RTTY. The ARRL would have it expanded to 3 kHz. In addition, the 300 baud symbol rate is dropped."

True - but it's not the whole story!

The 1 kHz shift rule applies only to FSK RTTY, not to other modes that use multiple carriers, or don't use FSK. There's no clear bandwidth limit on those other modes!

The 1 kHz rule dates from the days when the *only* data mode allowed was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY, and 850 Hz was a common shift.

"Anyone with communications engineering experience probably understands wide and narrow modes cannot be mixed."

I agree 100%. Keeping them separate is a Good Idea.

What "Regulation By Bandwidth" did was to take that Good Idea and do a poor implementation. The Idea is still good, it just needs a better implementation.

"Wide modes traditionally suffer less from nearby narrow mode transmission than the reverse. This is why operators who primarily operate wide modes push for unlimited access to all frequencies, while operators who enjoy spectrum conserving narrow modes generally want protection from broad signals."

Well, that's one reason. Another reason is that a given band can support fewer wide signals.

"While there is a lot of talk about Winlink and automated “robots” taking over amateur bands, the truth is Winlink is an unlikely threat. After years of operation there are only a very limited number of automated stations active, and those stations are very susceptible to QRM. They don't want to scatter among CW and SSB transmissions!"

If their numbers are so limited, then there should be no problem if their operations are confined to a small part of each band.

"The real danger is from casual operators with sound card interfaces. There are multiple programs available that run audio from sound cards into the unclean audio chains of conventional SSB transmitters. There are many thousands of people already doing this, and with the abandonment of CW proficiency examinations we can expect many thousands more. While RTTY and digital mode operators often ignore QRM to modes other than the one they are on, at least there used to be some hope they would recognize a CW QSO. That hope will rapidly diminish now that CW proficiency is not required to operate in traditional CW areas of our bands."

The problem isn't the use of soundcards. The problem is the basic incompatibility of some modes.

"Anyone who operates 40 meter PSK or CW already understands how bad the RTTY problem is, and also understands the problem is expanding at a rapid rate."

The solution, IMHO, is to have parts of the bands for the various mode bandwidths. The original ARRL proposal divided the bands into 200 Hz, 500 Hz and 3000 Hz segments. That part was a Good Idea. It was other parts that caused so much opposition.

"The evidence above clearly shows the recent ARRL Appendix A expands the bandwidth of RTTY by a factor of three times. It also removes all limits on baud rate for data emissions (higher baud rate = wider bandwidth), and effectively sets a SSB bandwidth for RTTY and digital modes in the traditional narrow mode areas of our bands. This not only affects CW, but it is deleterious to any spectrum conserving mode on virtually all bands below ten meters."

That's why the older version was better.

"We should openly present and discuss changes to our bands before bothering the FCC with petitions. We don't need self-anointed “Communications Think Tanks” or the ARRL running off with proposals that don't have the blessing of a reasonable number of amateurs. It makes us look unorganized and foolish. With Internet, it isn't that difficult to solicit input before pestering the FCC. We also should be forthright about changes, so we all understand exactly what the changes are. We get enough spin from Washington; we don't need it in our fraternity."

I agree 100%.

I think what FCC really wants from us hams in the area of proposals is for us to hash out the various issues among ourselves, then present the FCC with a nice clean revision package that they can just cut and paste into the regs if adopted.

Such a package should not cost them more administrative work, *and* should get a wide majority of support in the comments.

But putting together that sort of proposal takes a lot of gruntwork.

"Personally, I'm all for segmentation by bandwidth. I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire."

Agreed - but what you're referring to is RM-11305, the CTT proposal (also withdrawn) not RM-11306.

---

THERE IS HOPE!

A day or so ago, I got an email from ARRL asking for member input. They have set up a system where you answer a survey and it is sent to the appropriate ARRL folks. I don't know if this is League-wide or only in my section/division, but it's a step in the right direction.

You can bet I'll send in my opinions!

But there are other steps needed. All of us need to send in our input - what we like and don't like. Plus the League should publicize the results, so we all know what the amateur community wants.

73 de Jim, N2EY


What do you think?

 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI writes:

"The ARRL recently published a press release"

ARRL has also pulled the whole proposal from consideration.

"FCC rule 97.307(F) (3) presently states:


“Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.”"

That's right - been that way a long time.


"The ARRL would have this section modified to say:


“The bandwidth of a RTTY or data emission must not exceed 3 kHz.”"

"Gone is the 1 kHz frequency shift limit on RTTY. The ARRL would have it expanded to 3 kHz. In addition, the 300 baud symbol rate is dropped."

True - but it's not the whole story!

The 1 kHz shift rule applies only to FSK RTTY, not to other modes that use multiple carriers, or don't use FSK. There's no clear bandwidth limit on those other modes!

The 1 kHz rule dates from the days when the *only* data mode allowed was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY, and 850 Hz was a common shift.

"Anyone with communications engineering experience probably understands wide and narrow modes cannot be mixed."

I agree 100%. Keeping them separate is a Good Idea.

What "Regulation By Bandwidth" did was to take that Good Idea and do a poor implementation. The Idea is still good, it just needs a better implementation.

"Wide modes traditionally suffer less from nearby narrow mode transmission than the reverse. This is why operators who primarily operate wide modes push for unlimited access to all frequencies, while operators who enjoy spectrum conserving narrow modes generally want protection from broad signals."

Well, that's one reason. Another reason is that a given band can support fewer wide signals.

"While there is a lot of talk about Winlink and automated “robots” taking over amateur bands, the truth is Winlink is an unlikely threat. After years of operation there are only a very limited number of automated stations active, and those stations are very susceptible to QRM. They don't want to scatter among CW and SSB transmissions!"

If their numbers are so limited, then there should be no problem if their operations are confined to a small part of each band.

"The real danger is from casual operators with sound card interfaces. There are multiple programs available that run audio from sound cards into the unclean audio chains of conventional SSB transmitters. There are many thousands of people already doing this, and with the abandonment of CW proficiency examinations we can expect many thousands more. While RTTY and digital mode operators often ignore QRM to modes other than the one they are on, at least there used to be some hope they would recognize a CW QSO. That hope will rapidly diminish now that CW proficiency is not required to operate in traditional CW areas of our bands."

The problem isn't the use of soundcards. The problem is the basic incompatibility of some modes.

"Anyone who operates 40 meter PSK or CW already understands how bad the RTTY problem is, and also understands the problem is expanding at a rapid rate."

The solution, IMHO, is to have parts of the bands for the various mode bandwidths. The original ARRL proposal divided the bands into 200 Hz, 500 Hz and 3000 Hz segments. That part was a Good Idea. It was other parts that caused so much opposition.

"The evidence above clearly shows the recent ARRL Appendix A expands the bandwidth of RTTY by a factor of three times. It also removes all limits on baud rate for data emissions (higher baud rate = wider bandwidth), and effectively sets a SSB bandwidth for RTTY and digital modes in the traditional narrow mode areas of our bands. This not only affects CW, but it is deleterious to any spectrum conserving mode on virtually all bands below ten meters."

That's why the older version was better.

"We should openly present and discuss changes to our bands before bothering the FCC with petitions. We don't need self-anointed “Communications Think Tanks” or the ARRL running off with proposals that don't have the blessing of a reasonable number of amateurs. It makes us look unorganized and foolish. With Internet, it isn't that difficult to solicit input before pestering the FCC. We also should be forthright about changes, so we all understand exactly what the changes are. We get enough spin from Washington; we don't need it in our fraternity."

I agree 100%.

I think what FCC really wants from us hams in the area of proposals is for us to hash out the various issues among ourselves, then present the FCC with a nice clean revision package that they can just cut and paste into the regs if adopted.

Such a package should not cost them more administrative work, *and* should get a wide majority of support in the comments.

But putting together that sort of proposal takes a lot of gruntwork.

"Personally, I'm all for segmentation by bandwidth. I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire."

Agreed - but what you're referring to is RM-11305, the CTT proposal (also withdrawn) not RM-11306.

---

THERE IS HOPE!

A day or so ago, I got an email from ARRL asking for member input. They have set up a system where you answer a survey and it is sent to the appropriate ARRL folks. I don't know if this is League-wide or only in my section/division, but it's a step in the right direction.

You can bet I'll send in my opinions!

But there are other steps needed. All of us need to send in our input - what we like and don't like. Plus the League should publicize the results, so we all know what the amateur community wants.

73 de Jim, N2EY


What do you think?

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KX8N on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Look whose talking. LOL. A picture is worth a thousand words.

.: 88,s my love, W6TH a non vanity call."

Another cryptic post from Vito, where we get to try to figure out what he's talking about. Save your hugs and kisses for somebody else.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The problem isn't the use of soundcards. The problem is the basic incompatibility of some modes.

------------

The problem is neither because it's really a "people" related issue.

This occurs when a technical lack of understanding exists of how various data modes function in terms of operational bandwidth with one another.

Contrary to popular belief, sounds card interfaces are not a simple "plug and play" matter in an environment when outputting data signals into their HF radio equipment.

The article addresses a valid concern accurately identifying the potential for creating problems in certain instances where some "plug and play" hams may not adequately and/or technically understand the overall intention to achieve and maintain a non interfering and bandwidth conforming signal. Perhaps, even completely unaware their equipment may be causing any problems.

I am not discouraging people from experimenting with data signals or any other mode of operation for that matter, it's just that some people may not fully understand it's potential implications in situations when it's not technically studied and adequately understood in advance of engaging in what I would like to refer to as "plug and play radio."

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by WS4Y on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for the article Tom. Your call certainly
adds credibility to this issue. However regarding
the interference caused by WinLink Pactor II -
III I agree with the views of Tim AB0WR.
Way too many RM petitions get filed these days.
Even though I am still an ARRL member I have no
trust they represent the interest of their members.
I have asked my director that future RM petitions
be confirmed by a ballot of the membership. As
you might expect no indication that this will happen.
I have submitted a survey to eHam regarding David
Sumners continued employment by the ARRL. I don't
think they will run it but I wish they would. My
feeling is he should go. We need an ARRL that will
provide leadership consistant with the interest of
it membership and in the best interest of the amateur
service. I don't think this will be possible with
the current leadership.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W9OY on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why no robots? 7.0 to 7.3mhz is 300 khz wide. At 3khz bandwidth per station that would be 200 stations that can be accommodated in that bandwidth 24/7 at any location, with one station on each end of the circuit. There are about 750k hams in the US, not to mention world wide.

I'm soooo glad you want to do it because it interests you. Are you getting a clue? oink oink?

73 W9OY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by THERAGE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Gud 'ol Blood 'n Guts Vito. Always full of pi$$ 'n vinegar. And, a true ham in his own words too. Sit back and relax and he'll guide us through the days of yesteryear the way it once was. To anyone that holds an amateur license after the year 1938 should sell their station and get out of amateur radio immediately!!

7 and a 3
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I would also like to add the following:

To answer the question of, "Is segmentation by bandwidth the way to go?" really doesn't seem to depend on any fact or fallacy determination but rather depends on the intended future direction ham radio is going along with the type of users we have in our ranks today.

For example, if the majority of users are technically savy in scope, then I don't see any valid reason why we should even need to address the segmentation by bandwidth issue. Alternatively, if the users are less than technically savy, then I would understand the need to address and to provide additional controls in consideration of other spectrum users.

Historically hams have always preferred the path of "less control." Hams more traditionally prefer to utilize gentleman's agreements and commonly accepted engineering principles in our operating practices. In contrast however, the idea of providing more "restrictive controls" on hams might exhibit the potential to limit or restrict our experimental communication abilities in the future. Perhaps even elimiting the potential possibility or ability to communicate using modes that we have not yet experienced or even created.

Some hams would read the above and suggest I am simply implying the obvious, however it does seem that even stating the obvious in the ham radio community these days, doesn't always seem to be so obvious.

Food for consideration on the subject or otherwise known as my two cents.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W6TH on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

THERAGE AND kx8n,

When the testing of ham radio was dumbed down, the FCC had you two in mind.

The answer to dumbing down was due to some have it and some don't.

The old days, hams before those that could handle the class "A" and class "B" had logic and were creative.

What has the new have to offer? Tell me your imaginative BS.

W6TH.

.:
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by THERAGE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
There's not a dry eye in the house, Vito. You put us all to shame.
 
RE: Problem solved  
by KB5DPE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"What's wrong is when an Extra HAS to ask a question like that, because it indicates that local hams aren't willing to take the time and help a fellow ham."

The libraries have closed their doors? ARRL has stopped selling books? Local ham radio clubs have stopped holding "Technician" classes? I doubt it. Some people just want to be "spoon fed" their knowledge (like everything else they want) without having to lift a finger to help themselves. As a pre-teen I knew basic electronic theory and things such as ohm;s law, reactance and resonance calculations and most of the basic electronics math. and I knew how to use basic test equipment such as multimeter, oscilloscope, tube tester AND SWR bridge. Where did I learn these things? I had/have no hams in my family, none of my neighbors were hams and I was not aware of any ham radio clubs in my neighborhood. I learned by hanging out at the local radio (and later TV) shop after school, scrounging whatever books and information I could (my first ARRL handbook was dated 1939, three years before I was born) and STUDYING the material over and over until I UNDERSTOOD it. I was lucky in that I did have parents who would (grudgingly) buy me some simple test equipment that usually came from one of those radio shops when they updated their equipment. All of this is meant to show that, if a person truly WANTS to learn (anything!!!) they CAN find a way to do it. It doesn't have to be "spoon fed" by the neighborhood ham. And today, because of the internet, its easier than ever to learn. All a person needs is the gumption to get off their axx and do it! Most of the posts and articles that I read on the internet no longer get me too stirred up. I've seen enough on this second generation boob tube to kind of "numb my senses"; but one thing that still gets the juices boiling are the whiners that cry, "I caaaaannn't!" or "Nobody'll helllpp me!", or the like. If I'd had that attitude, I'd probably (still) be pushing broom nights in some school's hallway just to eat! As it says in a great book, "Let he who has ears, hear"!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KE5FRF on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"throughout the "code wars" we told how CW always get through and along sid e we were told and continue to be told that CW needs protection from Other modes

when, and if you make up your minds on this do let me Know "

With all due respect, this comment was stupid and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KB5DPE on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Or consider HF repeaters (10 meter FM). They don't listen on their output frequency to see if it's in use."

EVERY station that uses a repeater, regardless of the band, listens on it's output and SHOULD not transmit if traffic is heard, regardless of whether that traffic is on the repeater or not. The repeater does not bring itself up on the frequency without the action of someone using the repeater. Also, there is SUPPOSED to be a control operator monitoring every repeater at all times that the repeater is in operation with the ability to bring the repeater down if necessary for any reason. Do "automatic" stations meet these criteria?
Tom
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K4JF on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"What's wrong is when an Extra HAS to ask a question like that, because it indicates that local hams aren't willing to take the time and help a fellow ham. And it's worse that the Extra gets belittled when he DOES have the courage to try to seek out the answers to his questions."

The point being: how did he ever pass his Extra without knowing such basic NOVICE-level stuff as dipole measurement and proper use of SWR measurements?
 
Oh, yes you do!  
by AI2IA on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"We don't need self-anointed “Communications Think Tanks” or the ARRL running off with proposals that don't have the blessing of a reasonable number of amateurs. It makes us look unorganized and foolish." - from the article by W8JI

Sad to say, but just take a long look at this sorry, sorry, thread. How many sane, logical comments do you see? Mighty few, OM! Ignorant, puffed up bigots abound. Leadership is needed, and that leadership is not found here among the grumblers, the foolishly proud of small accomplishments, the reactionaries, the kooks, the creeps, hollow shells. Most of you may console yourselves and find contentment in your shared criticisms, but the real leadership is not here. Here is where it is unorganized and foolish. You will never put your own house in order because you don't have alternative organizations. You who are outside the ARRL will forever be disorganized. It's part of your very nature. Howl on ineffectively. Howl on.
 
RE: Oh, yes you do!  
by MACGUFFIN on May 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"That government which governs least is one that governs best."

This regulation by bandwidth is taking an overly complicated bandplan and making it even more complicated. The ARRL claims that this is to better serve Amateurs.

One aspect that the FCC grants us Amateurs is the liberty to self govern when appropriate. It allows us to best define our purpose and to truly advance the state of the art and technology in radio communications.

We don't need this regulation by bandwidth to keep the peace on the air. The FCC requires all Amateurs to not interfere. That should be sufficient. Beyond that we should be able to figure it out on our own, be it through "gentleman's agreements" or simple courtesy. Those that lack such courtesy need to be reported as a menace and let the FCC deal with them.

Other countries have a regulation by bandwidth and they tend to be very simple. It usually reads something like, 3kHz bandwidth below 25 MHz, 10kHz on 10 meters, 25kHz on 6 and 2 meters, within the bounds of the Amateur bands above 150MHz.

Beyond the rules set by their respective license authorities Amateurs and their clubs in these countries tend to follow the band plans suggested by their respective IARU regions.

Here it is for region 2:
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html

The ARRL, being the largest member of the IARU, should be fully aware of the IARU band plan. I would also expect them to do what they can to enforce the IARU band plan. Instead they come up with a petition to needlessly complicate FCC rules.
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by KC8VWM on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Other countries have a regulation by bandwidth and they tend to be very simple. It usually reads something like, 3kHz bandwidth below 25 MHz, 10kHz on 10 meters, 25kHz on 6 and 2 meters, within the bounds of the Amateur bands above 150MHz.

-----------

Good comments and keep in mind that "we have the technology" and any such requirement to provide any remedy to avoid potential interference to other spectrum users may also be equally achieved by addressing the issue with radio equipment manufacturers rather than by addressing the issue by submitting and endless barrage of emails, petitions, and other various legal scrolls sent by pigeon carrier to the FCC.

Hams have a responsibility to maintain our bands in the area of self regulation. This should translate to mean that if a problem should ever exist between mode users operating in similarly related spectrum, then I suppose our remedy should involve educating those hams to better observe instances where a mode may or may not cause potential interference with other spectrum users.

It seems lately that the FCC has become the proverbial football coach for each members of the team to start crying for each and every individual problem hams should ever encounter.

I suspect we could just needlessly regulate everything to the point of installing channel selectors instead of VFO's on our radio equipment, however this activity would clearly not serve us in our best interests.

Ultimately, regulation doesn't always effectively address the solution to each and every potential technical problem we should ever encounter.

I see this as a technical issue involving bandwidth and modes that requires additional technical clarification and awareness in the amateur radio community as the primary solution to the problem.

Perhaps the solution can start with us, like as in you and me as actively responsible spectrum users. The FCC has granted us the latitude to experiment with these modes and the I suspect the last thing they want to hear about is us crying on their shoulders about the freedom they have granted us.

I suspect the ongoing think tanks, petitions, alterations, addendum's, proposals and proposal modifications, emails and other similar legal paper flying activities are not helping our cause.

Basically, the way I feel about it is that I don't need a city official to install a stop sign at the end of my driveway to know that I should stop my vehicle before I proceed down the road.

Similarly, the FCC shouldn't be required to intervene in each and every technical / bandwidth / mode matter we should ever encounter any differently. It's just not necessary and if we as a group of individuals who share a common interest cannot experiment with various modes and get along utilizing the principles of accepted engineering practices, common courtesy, elmering and education in our ranks, then I suspect the core foundation is lost and there will never be any consensus achieved, Ever.

More complicated FCC regulations would attempt to provide an alternative and temporary solution to this particular problem today, however it doesn't serve as a long term replacement for our primary responsibility involving the principles of self regulation when we should encounter a similar, but newer problem in the future.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by W4LGH on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Personally I feel that ALL the current Amateur radio problems started with the VE program. This was the first step in "dumbing down" the hobby, and unlocked the door. The ARRL is the next biggest problem, as they have been prying on this door to get it wide open for years! Element 1 should have never been dropped from our service. If they wanted to get more people involved, they should have given the Tech Class license, some HF privledges, both CW & PHONE. This would have actually gotten MORE people curious into the wonders of HF, created better operators, who
would have had more longevity with the hobby.

Most of these new Generals will NOT stay in the hobby, as they did not have to put forth any effort to get their license, its that "easy come, easy go" theory that is a big part of human nature. The ARRL is NOT our friend anymore, as they have followed the dollar and become more a business. They think by gving everything away, creating more amateurs, they will reap more money.

As for bandplans, again personally I think it is a good idea, and has been generally accepted for the past 80 years. Its just like living in Florida these days. We are having a hugh influx of people moving into the state from New Jersey, the first thing they want to do is make their area of Florida like New Jersey. Hey this is Florida, this is how we do it, if you want it to be like Jersey, move back to Jersey!
The newbies into Ham radio have the same ideas..they want it their way, and NOT the accepted way it has been for a long time. I am not picking on the newbies, we all started sometime, but all the requirements for them ,that would have tought them the accepted ways, have been removed.

Water will always run DOWNHILL, I don't care what laws the govt writes or changes, it will continue to run downhill and then seek its on level.

73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by LNXAUTHOR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
off topic:

"Its just like living in Florida these days. We are having a hugh influx of people moving into the state from New Jersey, the first thing they want to do is make their area of Florida like New Jersey. Hey this is Florida, this is how we do it, if you want it to be like Jersey, move back to Jersey!"

- it's *much* better on the Gulf Coast; there's no way i'd live on the east coast of Florida...

on topic:

- i'd have to agree with your posit about the current state of affairs... but what surprises me is that things go as smoothly as they do!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY writes:

"Why no robots? 7.0 to 7.3mhz is 300 khz wide. At 3khz bandwidth per station that would be 200 stations that can be accommodated in that bandwidth 24/7 at any location, with one station on each end of the circuit. There are about 750k hams in the US, not to mention world wide."

Why does that mean no robots?

How many SSB QSOs will fit in the same spectrum? How many AM QSOs? Should those modes be banned because they use up so much spectrum?

"I'm soooo glad you want to do it because it interests you."

I didn't say I was interested in operating that way. In fact, I'm not interested in robot operation at all. I just think that they should not be completely banned, only regulated in a reasonable way.

"Are you getting a clue? oink oink?"

I'm getting a clue that you're not serious.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To add to Charles's excellent comments, there is one additional problem with "regulation". Regulations are very slow to change. While you can write a regulation that works very well today, tomorrow technology will change and the regulation will no longer fit.

We've seen this demonstrated many times over the years. For many years U.S. hams were restricted to baudot because that was what was described in the regulations. Packet radio was not permitted in the U.S. for quite some time after it was in use in Canada and other countries, for example. The rules we have today (which were at one time quite clear) are "bent and twisted" by FCC interpretation as they try to permit new modes without re-writing the regulations.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
For those who say that other countries having no bandwidth limits or mode limits work fine, I would offer that I think you are merely repeating propaganda.

In my comments to the ARRL before they filed RM-11306 I offered some quotes from reports filed by various countries at the last IARU meeting. Several countries, including Great Britain and Denmark put comments in the record that "gentleman agreements were NOT working well in several instances. If I remember correctly most were concerned with SSB operators encroaching on CW and digital specified areas in the gentleman's agreements.

*ANYONE* here who would not expect United States SSB voice to dominate the entire amateur spectrum if given free rein to do so is just living in a dream world, at least in my opinion.

That is why some kind of regulation is needed. I happen to think the existing mode regulation works fine. I have yet to see anyone who has offered a single benefit for bandwidth regulation. It may sound nice because it is "new", but change is only good when it *is* good. It is not good just because it is new.

Does anyone have any concrete benefits to put forth for bandwidth segmentation regulation?

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To those that say the current rules don't apply to OFDM signals I would offer the comment that you are misinterpreting them. Those that use wideband OFDM signals in the narrow portions of the band *are* risking a lot.

It is a fact that the rules today are to limit the bandwidth of RTTY and other FSK modes. That is all that existed when the rule was written.

But you have to interpret the intent of the rule as well as the letter of the rule when applying it to amateur radio. And the intent is certainly to limit bandwidths.

Ethical operators will follow both the letter AND the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is certainly to limit bandwidths in the narrow portion of the band to 1.5khz or less.

Unethical operators will only look at the letter of the law and say the law doesn't apply to them. They are scofflaws. They are unethical amateur operators.

That is why the propaganda that Bonnie, kq6xa, pushes that there are no bandwidth limits in the ham bands for digital signals is so destructive. She turns the unknowing into becoming scofflaws right along with her. Such operation *will* cause a penalty to be paid sooner or later. Either the rules will get a lot more restrictive or the perpetrators will actually suffer sanctions.

We need to push ethical operation for our amateur community. Ignoring the spirit of the law for purely selfish reasons is *NOT* being ethical.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by N2EY on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W4LGH writes:

"Personally I feel that ALL the current Amateur radio problems started with the VE program. This was the first step in "dumbing down" the hobby, and unlocked the door. The ARRL is the next biggest problem, as they have been prying on this door to get it wide open for years! Element 1 should have never been dropped from our service."

All of those changes were pushed on us by FCC. Not ARRL, not the amateur community in general.

The VE system was invented by FCC as a way to save *them* a lot of work and money. Instead of paying Federal employees to do the exams, the work was handed off to unpaid volunteers.

FCC first pushed for a nocodetest ham license in 1975. They tried again in 1983 and finally pushed it through in 1991.

"Its just like living in Florida these days. We are having a hugh influx of people moving into the state from New Jersey, the first thing they want to do is make their area of Florida like New Jersey. Hey this is Florida, this is how we do it, if you want it to be like Jersey, move back to Jersey!"

What, exactly, are they doing that you don't like?

(I'm not from or in New Jersey or Florida - I just want to know what is so different about NJ and FL people.)

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by KX8N on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The point being: how did he ever pass his Extra without knowing such basic NOVICE-level stuff as dipole measurement and proper use of SWR measurements? "

You're right, Jim. I will agree with you on that. But my point is that to get licensed, things are different than they used to be. Thirty years ago, if someone wanted to become a ham, they would learn from another ham. Granted, they COULDN'T go out and buy a study guide, but they didn't have to. They had a ham that was willing to sit down and say "this is what you have to do, and this is why you have to do it". Today, prospective hams don't have that "hands on" experience. There are things in those study guides that some hams will never need to know (for instance, I don't plan on leaving the country, so I don't need to know what the rules for that are). And of course there's a lot of stuff that you DO need to know. It's hard for a new ham to know which is which.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W8JI on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Regulation by bandwidth is actually the most simple and most easily enforceable way to reduce conflicts.

The problem is many people involved in the rulemaking process don't really understand communications systems and how they work.

For example? Look at baud rate. Many people assume baud rate or information rate sets the bandwidth. It's actually the transmitter characteristics that limit the baud rate, and a transmitter can have a significantly wider bandwidth than baud rate and mode dictates.

Look at something very simple like off-on keying CW. Some well-educated people think the CW speed sets the bandwidth. That just isn't true. The only place sidebands are generated (in a hum, noise, and spurious frequency clean transmitter)is during the rise and fall transition, and the bandwidth is set by the slope of the rise and fall. How fast someone sends has nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth limits the speed, but the speed being sent does not limit the transmitter actual bandwidth.

RTTY and other modes are the same. There is a MINIMUM bandwidth needed based on the data rate, but a transmitter can easily exceed that minimum number.

The same is true for AM and SSB. There is a minimum bandwidth for a certain audio passband but the transmitter can (and always does) exceed that minimum bandwidth.

Anyone who understands people and who also understands the technical limitations of communications systems knows perfectly well the existing method of regulation is very poor. Any reasonable person also understands this is less and less of a technical hobby and is increasingly occupied by people who have a narrow interest. This isn't a problem with amateur radio, it is a trend with society in general.

It's also rapidly becoming less fashionable to self-police through peer pressure, and that's a general social trend also. There's a lot less consideration of others then there used to be, both in driving cars and operating radios. Recent social trends are that witnesses to crimes are to ignore the crimes and not be witnesses....let alone speak out.

One of the most enlightning things for me was reading the personal comments of a few people who wanted all bandwidth and regulations to be removed. They actually had things on web pages saying if they were on a frequency first and their needlessly wide signals bothered others, tough.

It would be a simple matter to limt areas of bands to maximum occupied bandwidths, and then inside those limits have bandplans that sort the various modes out.

If we think about how bandwidth works and how people work, regulation by bandwidth makes perfect sense. The problem is all in the way it has been presented, and how a few people have distorted or exaggerated the facts.

73 Tom







 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
But you have to interpret the intent of the rule as well as the letter of the rule when applying it to amateur radio. And the intent is certainly to limit bandwidths.
----------------------------------------------------
That's exactly the problem. If the "intent" is to limit the bandwidth then why not just say that you want to limit the bandwidth and say what the limits are. That way everyone knows what the limits are instead of trying to "interpret the intent of the rule". Trying to limit the bandwidth by describing the modes and modulation types that fit into the desired bandwidth is a loosing proposition in today's fast changing world, in my opinion.

The interpretation of the "intent" of the rules seems to change with time. At one time most people would have said the FCC's "intent" was to limit HF amateur operation to AM and CW. The interpretation seems to be continuously expanding. The problem then becomes one of who is the interpreter of the "intent" of the rules. Yes, the FCC is the ultimate authority but then hams are supposed to be self-policing. So outside of the FCC, who is the official interpreter of the rules?
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by NI0C on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tim, AB0WR wrote: "We need to push ethical operation for our amateur community. Ignoring the spirit of the law for purely selfish reasons is *NOT* being ethical."

And Tom, W8JI wrote: "If we think about how bandwidth works and how people work, regulation by bandwidth makes perfect sense. The problem is all in the way it has been presented, and how a few people have distorted or exaggerated the facts."

These are excellent comments by thoughtful, intelligent people. Bravo! The ARRL should read and heed their advice.

73,
Chuck NI0C





 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by KC8VWM on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To add to Bob's well thought out comments I feel the "intent" of any such proposals really has very little to do with limitations in bandwidth in itself, but rather involves the idea of inconsiderate operators causing harmful interference to other spectrum users.

It seems part 97 already adequately addresses the issue of intentional and harmful interference with other spectrum users.

Regulation by bandwidth and/or mode only serves to duplicate this same intention which is already clearly spelled out in Part 97.

Basically, if an operator is unaware his/her signal is causing interference to other spectrum users regardless of the particular technology or bandwidth used, then I feel the issue becomes one of technical understanding to mitigate the interference and not one involving regulation involving operational mode or bandwidth.

Being inconsiderate is plain inconsiderate and the only way to address every instance of being inconsiderate would otherwise be to effectively enact 100's upon 100's of individual regulations and laws which would cite each and every individual instance of being inconsiderate and effectively turning them into FCC rules to cover all the bases of being inconsiderate.

That is why I feel the current rules surrounding intentional and harmful interference caused to other spectrum users already covers such instances of inconsideration regardless of the communication technology or mode it might involve.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by KC9JUB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
If you believe the comment below, you probably also believe the earth is flat or that little green men frequent Roswell, NM.

VE(s) put their licenses on the line every time they participate in a VE testing situation. I am a VE for two VEC(s). I don't get a penny for spending my time doing this. The rewards I get are the smiles on the faces of those who got new grants or upgrades. That is worth more than any money.

Why don't we make amateur radio a whole lot harder to enter, sort of like a secret society? Really wring people out, so that damn few can ever get a license? That would be great for growth, yes? I am sure young people would be real interested in joining up. I can see them lined up now.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB

W4LGH:

<<Personally I feel that ALL the current Amateur radio problems started with the VE program. This was the first step in "dumbing down" the hobby, and unlocked the door.>>
 
RE: Problem solved  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"What's wrong is when an Extra HAS to ask a question like that, because it indicates that local hams aren't willing to take the time and help a fellow ham. And it's worse that the Extra gets belittled when he DOES have the courage to try to seek out the answers to his questions. We aren't supposed to be a 5th grade class at recess shunning the new kid, we are supposed to be a brotherhood. And the breakdown in that brotherhood can't be placed on the shoulders of the new guy - it has to be placed on the OT's."

KX8N, you are one of the "new breed" of Extras that undoubtedly went through the pool a couple of times and got a license. If you condone the stupidity and ignorance of today's Extra, you're part of the problem. The fact that today's Extra doesn't know how to build a dipole, doesn't know anything about resonance and Standing Wave Ratio, doesn't know anything about Ohms Law and doesn't know how to solder a PL259 onto a piece of coax is a sad commentary on today's ham. The proof is in the pudding. Today's ham is dumber and more ignorant than a box of rocks. The dumb-down is now complete. Be proud, KX8N. You are part of the new wave of CB/hams of the Twenty-first Century.

Don't try to put the burden and blame for the ignorance of today's ham on the old timers. The standards for obtaining a ham license never should have been lowered to the point where a retarded amoeba can pass a test and call himself a ham. As others have said before me, thank you ARRL and FCC. The gates have been torn down. Now the simplest of simpletons will be calling themselves hams and asking how to turn the radio on and how to key the microphone. Maybe the ARRL can run classes (for a fee of course) on how to turn on your radio and key the microphone. We were worried about CB lingo, but wait until we start hearing the belches, grunts, snorts and other animal noises from the new breed. AR has gone to hell in a hand basket.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
ala
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji:"Regulation by bandwidth is actually the most simple and most easily enforceable way to reduce conflicts. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, I respectfully disagree. It is easy to classify modes. You are using CW, rtty (for direct printing), data, image, or voice. It is not so easy to always classify bandwidths, especially if you depend on occupied bandwidth as you mention further down in your message. If you use occupied bandwidth you will always have conflicts about who is too wide and who isn't, at least as long as homebrew or user adjustable transmitting equipment is allowed on the ham bands. The ARRL attempted to bypass this problem by using "necessary bandwidth" instead.

Using necessary bandwidth might very well work but it doesn't address the issue of mixing incompatible modes of operation. I assure you that Pactor III and SSB voice, even though they are the same bandwidth, do not mix well, not at all. This is the main problem with bandwidth segmentation regulation. I have yet to see anyone address it.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji"The problem is many people involved in the rulemaking process don't really understand communications systems and how they work.

For example? Look at baud rate. Many people assume baud rate or information rate sets the bandwidth. It's actually the transmitter characteristics that limit the baud rate, and a transmitter can have a significantly wider bandwidth than baud rate and mode dictates. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shannon's Law gives one the relationship between bandwidth and bit rate. Since baud rate is related to bit rate in some manner in any system, it is also specified. Whether the system being used is designed to maximize the approach to Shannon's limit is a different question entirely. Baud rate *does* determine required bandwidth. If actual bandwidth is more than is required, that is an equipment design issue, it doesn't invalidate the relationship between data rate and required bandwidth.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji"RTTY and other modes are the same. There is a MINIMUM bandwidth needed based on the data rate, but a transmitter can easily exceed that minimum number.

The same is true for AM and SSB. There is a minimum bandwidth for a certain audio passband but the transmitter can (and always does) exceed that minimum bandwidth."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Some transmitters approach it very closely, however. Some not so closely.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji"Anyone who understands people and who also understands the technical limitations of communications systems knows perfectly well the existing method of regulation is very poor. Any reasonable person also understands this is less and less of a technical hobby and is increasingly occupied by people who have a narrow interest. This isn't a problem with amateur radio, it is a trend with society in general. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is an argument for going to type-accepted, non-user adjustable radios (with channelization perhaps?), not for bandwidth segmentation regulation. Maybe two license classes like Canada? One who must use type-accepted equipment and a higher license level with more demonstrated technical knowledge that can use homebuilt equipment?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It would be a simple matter to limt areas of bands to maximum occupied bandwidths, and then inside those limits have bandplans that sort the various modes out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please not *occupied bandwidth*. The arguments and complaints this would generate would dwarf those of today. 99.9% of hams today have no way to measure occupied bandwidth using equipment with traceable calibration.

I would also point you the formal statements other countries (in Europe) have made saying that voluntary plans there are not working as they were expected to.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If we think about how bandwidth works and how people work, regulation by bandwidth makes perfect sense. The problem is all in the way it has been presented, and how a few people have distorted or exaggerated the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If such a plan requires depending on occupied bandwidth, it won't work. Not unless we go to type-accepted equipment. This is NOT an exaggeration or a distortion.

If Europe is having a hard time making voluntary bandplans work, why would we expect them to work here? That is not an exaggeration or distortion. Ask yourself why Canadian hams operate below the US phone band on 80m. Do you really expect US hams to not do the same under a voluntary plan when there are no real penalties involved?

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Problem solved  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KC9JUB, I rest my case. You too are a part of the problem.

"Why don't we make amateur radio a whole lot harder to enter, sort of like a secret society? Really wring people out, so that damn few can ever get a license? That would be great for growth, yes? I am sure young people would be real interested in joining up. I can see them lined up now."

In your sarcasm, you speak much truth. Yes, the tests should be a whole lot harder. Only those who have at least half a brain, are serious about becoming a ham and want to learn and are willing to work for the ticket should be able to get a ticket. We need quality hams, not a bunch of ignorant people who don't know the difference between day and night.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W9OY on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The point is of course People discriminate and do not operate 24/7. People engage in social discourse and observe at least some modicum of demeanor on the air, in general quite good demeanor. Robots do none of this. They just grind and grind and grind regardless. Guess u missed that point.

Would you care to dig your hole even deeper? I'm of course now clear you are the one who has lost his seriousness. You will note my original proposal required the robot to have even greater discrimination than a human since it is on the air 24/7. So my proposal did not ban robots it just required the robot builder to make the robot smart enough to not screw up the bands for the rest of us. Seems like a reasonable request and one that should be within the bounds of technology. This is not unlike the rules that govern the robots you call repeaters. Just see how far you get putting up a wide coverage uncoordinated repeater.

You are about to cross the line beyond foolishness to fanaticism. Do you really want to go there?

73 W9OY
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"That's exactly the problem. If the "intent" is to limit the bandwidth then why not just say that you want to limit the bandwidth and say what the limits are. That way everyone knows what the limits are instead of trying to "interpret the intent of the rule". Trying to limit the bandwidth by describing the modes and modulation types that fit into the desired bandwidth is a loosing proposition in today's fast changing world, in my opinion. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But that *is* what they said. The problem is that the rule was written before the pc/soundcard revolution. That does not change the intent behind the rule.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The interpretation of the "intent" of the rules seems to change with time. At one time most people would have said the FCC's "intent" was to limit HF amateur operation to AM and CW. The interpretation seems to be continuously expanding. The problem then becomes one of who is the interpreter of the "intent" of the rules. Yes, the FCC is the ultimate authority but then hams are supposed to be self-policing. So outside of the FCC, who is the official interpreter of the rules?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is more scofflaw rationalization. There was *never* any "intent" in any rule that I am aware of to limit hams to AM and CW. Perhaps you could provide a quote from old rules as confirmation of your claim?

The interpretation is only being expanded by those with a selfish reason to not abide by the spirit of the law. This is the exact rationalization liberals have used for the past 5 decades to try and get around what the Constitution actually says. It isn't right for them, it isn't right for the amateur radio scofflaws.

To further the understanding of the intent of the rules look at the verbiage in the Omnibus R&O issued last year:"The NPRM also noted that limiting the occupied bandwidth of image emissions in data segments of the HF bands to 500 Hz or less would provide the amateur service community greater flexibility in developing communication systems and communications technology, thereby furthering that purpose of the amateur service while maintaining the narrow bandwidth nature of the data emission band segments."

"maintaining the narrow bandwidth nature of the data emission band segments" would seem to be unambiguous, at least to me. Unless, of course, you want to argue that 3khz is narrow?

I'll repeat, ethical hams will follow both the spirit and letter of the law. Scofflaws will "interprete" the laws in any manner needed to meet selfish purposes.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>W8JI
>>Regulation by bandwidth is actually the most simple
>>and most easily enforceable way to reduce conflicts.

>>The problem is many people involved in the rulemaking
>>process don't really understand communications
>>systems and how they work.

I don't believe this is the case unless you go to a strictly channelized spectrum. Even then you can have co-channel interference. As long as amateurs are allowed to choose operating frequencies you will have overlapping choices and subsequent conflicts.

By moving to a channelized spectrum you reduce the spectrum effiency possible when modes with different bandwidths can operate together in an interspersed manner. Reducing spectrum effiency means fewer hams can operate at the same time. Perhaps channelization is what is needed recognizing the culture we currently have, but it does have its own set of negative problems.

>>For example? Look at baud rate. Many people assume
>>baud rate or information rate sets the bandwidth.
>>It's actually the transmitter characteristics that
>>limit the baud rate, and a transmitter can have a
>>significantly wider bandwidth than baud rate and mode
>>dictates.
>>
>>Look at something very simple like off-on keying CW.
>>Some well-educated people think the CW speed sets the
>>bandwidth. That just isn't true. The only place
>>sidebands are generated (in a hum, noise, and
>>spurious frequency clean transmitter)is during the
>>rise and fall transition, and the bandwidth is set by
>>the slope of the rise and fall. How fast someone
>>sends has nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth
>>limits the speed, but the speed being sent does not
>>limit the transmitter actual bandwidth.
>>
>>RTTY and other modes are the same. There is a MINIMUM
>>bandwidth needed based on the data rate, but a
>>transmitter can easily exceed that minimum number.
>>
>>The same is true for AM and SSB. There is a minimum
>>bandwidth for a certain audio passband but the
>>transmitter can (and always does) exceed that minimum
>>bandwidth.

Some of your statements are not true and other are. The speed of Morse Code does directly affect the bandwidth required.

You need to read up on the definitions in Part 2 concerning "neccesary" and "occupied" bandwidths. The necessary bandwidth is a caclulated value of the minimum bandwidth required for any given ideal signal. As you say, "... the transmitter can (and always does) exceed that minimum bandwidth." This is the definition of occupied bandwidth.

The necessary bandwidth of a CW/Morse Code signal is DIRECTLY related to the speed of the signal. The occupied bandwidth is a measured value and for CW/Morse Code it includes the necessary bandwidth but also includes the additional bandwidth caused by the key clicks from the "transitions" you discuss.

The problem with occupied bandwidth is that each and every amateur operator would need to measure directly the signals they place on the amateur bands. This means each and every ham would need to purchase a spectrum analyzer and learn how to use it. Not exactly what you want to do to make amateur radio accessible to all at a minimum cost.

Today's regulations covering interference and good amateur practice are probably the best solution in MOST cases and allow amateurs to "police" themselves while leaving the FCC as the last resort.

>>Anyone who understands people and who also
>>understands the technical limitations of
>>communications systems knows perfectly well the
>>existing method of regulation is very poor. Any
>>reasonable person also understands this is less and
>>less of a technical hobby and is increasingly
>>occupied by people who have a narrow interest. This
>>isn't a problem with amateur radio, it is a trend
>>with society in general.
>>
>>It's also rapidly becoming less fashionable to
>>self-police through peer pressure, and that's a
>>general social trend also. There's a lot less
>>consideration of others then there used to be, both
>>in driving cars and operating radios. Recent social
>>trends are that witnesses to crimes are to ignore the
>>crimes and not be witnesses....let alone speak out.
>>
>>One of the most enlightning things for me was reading
>>the personal comments of a few people who wanted all
>>bandwidth and regulations to be removed. They
>>actually had things on web pages saying if they were
>>on a frequency first and their needlessly wide
>>signals bothered others, tough.

>>It would be a simple matter to limt areas of bands to
>>maximum occupied bandwidths, and then inside those
>>limits have bandplans that sort the various modes
>>out.

See the discussion above about occupied bandwidths. Measuring the actual occupied bandwidth just isn't something that can be done with amateur radio. Now if you really mean necessary bandwidths, you are on the right track.

>>
>>If we think about how bandwidth works and how people
>>work, regulation by bandwidth makes perfect sense.
>>The problem is all in the way it has been presented,
>>and how a few people have distorted or exaggerated
>>the facts.
>>
>>73 Tom

The problem with bandwidth regulation is that it will probably limit experimentation. One example, what if a new data protocol comes along that requires 6 kHz yet will allow 6 or 8 or more stations to simultaneously communicate with an automatic station for retrieving email. This isn't unreasonable, packet can do it today. Packet's problem is sharing 500 Hz/6 users gives about 80 Hz per user and it gets very slow. 6000/6 gives 1000 Hz per user and would translate into considerably better performance. It might not be as fast as one station using 3 kHz but the spectrum efficiency would be 6*3=18/6=3 times better. Yet with a bandwidth limited to 3 kHz we will never see anything like it in the US.

If someone wants to use a 20 kHz bandwidth on HF all they need to do is find a place and time where it will not interfere with ongoing communications of other hams. Using groundwave on closed bands with nearby hams or at 2 am in the morning shouldn't be a problem. Why would we want to limit this kind of experimentation?

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Problem solved  
by KC9JUB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
My postings speak for themselves. So do yours. I am very comfortable with that. :-)

End of discussion.

KC9JUB

DUALGATEMOSFET:

<<KC9JUB, I rest my case. You too are a part of the problem.

"Why don't we make amateur radio a whole lot harder to enter, sort of like a secret society? Really wring people out, so that damn few can ever get a license? That would be great for growth, yes? I am sure young people would be real interested in joining up. I can see them lined up now."

In your sarcasm, you speak much truth. Yes, the tests should be a whole lot harder. Only those who have at least half a brain, are serious about becoming a ham and want to learn and are willing to work for the ticket should be able to get a ticket. We need quality hams, not a bunch of ignorant people who don't know the difference between day and night.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One >>

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by NI0C on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA0LYK wrote: "The necessary bandwidth of a CW/Morse Code signal is DIRECTLY related to the speed of the signal. The occupied bandwidth is a measured value and for CW/Morse Code it includes the necessary bandwidth but also includes the additional bandwidth caused by the key clicks from the "transitions" you discuss."

Your theory is correct. However, in practice, few (if any) amateur transceivers vary the rise and fall times of the transitions with speed. Thus the occupied bandwidth of a CW signal at 5 wpm is about the same as one at 50 wpm from the same transmitter.

73,
Chuck NI0C
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA4DOU on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"You're right, Jim. I will agree with you on that. But my point is that to get licensed, things are different than they used to be. Thirty years ago, if someone wanted to become a ham, they would learn from another ham. Granted, they COULDN'T go out and buy a study guide, but they didn't have to. They had a ham that was willing to sit down and say "this is what you have to do, and this is why you have to do it". Today, prospective hams don't have that "hands on" experience. There are things in those study guides that some hams will never need to know (for instance, I don't plan on leaving the country, so I don't need to know what the rules for that are). And of course there's a lot of stuff that you DO need to know. It's hard for a new ham to know which is which."

While this is a popularly held view by many, it is not in harmony with the facts. Many of us, decades ago,did not have "elmers". No one took us by the hand and guided our early transition from crawling to walking. We bought magazines and books and applied ourselves to the learning process. We had no Internet and the abundance of information sources freely available today. The writers of articles in CQ, 73, QST, the ARRL Handbook, etc, therefore were defacto "elmers" to us. No one made, helped make, or assisted in putting up many of our first antennas. We learned that from books too. We also had local "elmers" to the extent that we rubbed shoulders with local older hams and we learned something from many of them because we had been taught as a generation to take in knowledge and to learn in every way possible. Many of us today are doing just that. It is a relatively few that aren't applying themselves and whinning about a lack of help and guidance. There really are a lot fewer of us that are interested in the technical side of amateur radio these days. Many just want to talk and are looking for the path of least resistance to get there.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB
>>That's exactly the problem. If the "intent" is to
>>limit the bandwidth then why not just say that you
>>want to limit the bandwidth and say what the limits
>>are. That way everyone knows what the limits are
>>instead of trying to "interpret the intent of the
>>rule". Trying to limit the bandwidth by describing
>>the modes and modulation types that fit into the
>>desired bandwidth is a loosing proposition in today's
>> fast changing world, in my opinion.
>>
>>The interpretation of the "intent" of the rules seems
>> to change with time. At one time most people would
>>have said the FCC's "intent" was to limit HF amateur
>>operation to AM and CW. The interpretation seems to
>>be continuously expanding. The problem then becomes
>>one of who is the interpreter of the "intent" of the
>>rules. Yes, the FCC is the ultimate authority but
>>then hams are supposed to be self-policing. So
>>outside of the FCC, who is the official interpreter
>>of the rules?

You are defining "intent" as something a priest in a religion would do. This is not the case. Here is the rule.

97.307 Emission standards.
(f)(3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified
digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be
transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds,
or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift
between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.

Now go read up on necessary bandwidth in Part 2. Defintions for each type of signal are given along with the simple arithmetic calculations needed for calculating the necessary bandwidth.

Come back and let eveyone know what the necessary bandwidth of a 1000 Hz shift, FSK signal at 300 baud with a k factor of 1.2 comes out to be. Hint: use the "Direct-printing telegraphy using a frequency shifted modulating sub-carrier single-sideband suppressed carrier" definition!

You should come up with something close to 1500 Hz.

It doesn't take a lot of interpretion of intent to decide that using the "maximum" values specified in the rules would give you an approximate value of what the widest "intended" necessary bandwidth would be.

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA2DTW on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To Chuck NI0C

"Thus the occupied bandwidth of a CW signal at 5 wpm is about the same as one at 50 wpm from the same transmitter".
Then why is QRSS needed for VLF experimentation?

73
Steve WA2DTW
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>NI0C
>>WA0LYK wrote: "The necessary bandwidth of a CW/Morse
>>Code signal is DIRECTLY related to the speed of the
>>signal. The occupied bandwidth is a measured value and
>>for CW/Morse Code it includes the necessary bandwidth
>>but also includes the additional bandwidth caused by
>>the key clicks from the "transitions" you discuss."
>>
>>Your theory is correct. However, in practice, few (if
>>any) amateur transceivers vary the rise and fall times
>>of the transitions with speed. Thus the occupied
>>bandwidth of a CW signal at 5 wpm is about the same as
>>one at 50 wpm from the same transmitter.

I'll have to get the math books out but I don't think speed has anything to do with the occupied bandwidth. The spectrum generated is governed only by the rise and fall time of each edge and the waveform shaping. That means each edge of a pulse will generate a specified set of sidebands consisting of a series of odd-harmonic sine waves. The speed that the individual pulses are generated don't affect this, only the shape of each edge. The perceived level of the sidebands, if averaged over time, say in an agc circuit would show a higher value as speed is increased, but the instantaneous values would only vary depending on the power level being generated.

This does result in, as you say, a similar range of sidebands. However, if proper waveform shaping is done, then the levels of the sidebands should be far below the fundamental. Certainly, some rigs do this far better than others. Varying the shaping based upon speed is not necessary, only having a good shape on the rising and falling edges regardless of speed is what is necessary. Ultimately, the sidebands should be low enough that they don't contribute to the occupied bandwidth.

This does bring up the issue of measuring occupied bandwidth though. The definition is:

2.202 Bandwidths.
(a)Occupied bandwidth. The frequency bandwidth such
that, below its lower and above its upper frequency
limits, the mean powers radiated are each equal to 0.5
percent of the total mean power radiated by a given
emission.

Ultimately each rig could have a different occupied bandwidth and the only way to insure that is within the regulated bandwidth limit as defined above is to measure it with an accurate spectrum analyzer. Not a good thing for amateur radio!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>WA2DTW
>>To Chuck NI0C
>>
>>>>"Thus the occupied bandwidth of a CW signal at 5 wpm
>>>>is about the same as one at 50 wpm from the same
>>>>transmitter".
>>Then why is QRSS needed for VLF experimentation?
>>
>>73
>>Steve WA2DTW

See my explanation above. Waveform shaping is necessary for a CW waveform to insure the sidebands generated are of a low enough level to be "outside" the occupied bandwidth. Otherwise, you can hear these sidebands and they are commonly called keyclicks. These keyclicks can be of a sufficient level that they are included in the occupied bandwidth measurement.

Assuming the sidebands (keyclicks) are low enough, the occupied bandwidth should be very, very close to the necessary bandwidth. This means the bandwidth required IS dependent upon the speed sent. See Part 2 for the definitions and calculations. This is why QRSS is required, to limit the bandwidth used.

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Jim, why would you not want to simply say the maximum bandwidth permitted is 1500Hz in lieu of stating it in terms of symbol rate and shift and then working the math backwards to come up with the maximum bandwidth? It seems to me it would be better for the rules to simply state what they intend in the first place.

Probably those rules were origionally intended to limit the modes as well as the bandwidth. In later years the FCC has done all sorts of "back door" interpretation trying to force-fit new modes into the old rules. I'm thinking about such things as saying that PSK31 is ASCII because the original characters were ASCII before they were converted to varicode for transmission. I appreciate their interpretation permitting PSK31 but it sure makes it difficult to understand the rules without the interpretation.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KE3HO on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<< Look at something very simple like off-on keying CW. Some well-educated people think the CW speed sets the bandwidth. That just isn't true. The only place sidebands are generated (in a hum, noise, and spurious frequency clean transmitter)is during the rise and fall transition, and the bandwidth is set by the slope of the rise and fall. How fast someone sends has nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth limits the speed, but the speed being sent does not limit the transmitter actual bandwidth. >>>

Tom, this is an interesting statement, and I would like to understand this better. Let’s say you transmit CW at various speeds, always maintaining the same relative ratios of dot, dash, character space, and word space timing. The rise and fall times of the transmitter are fixed and do not change with keying speed. As the CW keying speed increases (with all ratios of width fixed) the percentage of time that you spend in the rise and fall time (generating sidebands) increases. In fact, as you go faster you will eventually reach a point where your dots are entirely rise and fall time with no “flat top” area. If I understand what you are saying regarding the bandwidth and the rise and fall time of the transmitter, the total bandwidth is set by the rise and fall times. Keying faster does not change that bandwidth. However, keying faster puts a greater fraction of your power into the sidebands, so is it fair to say that while keying speed does not change the bandwidth, it does change the distribution of power within that bandwidth and that faster keying speeds putting a larger fraction of the transmitted power further out in the bandwidth?

73 - Jim
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"Jim, why would you not want to simply say the maximum bandwidth permitted is 1500Hz in lieu of stating it in terms of symbol rate and shift and then working the math backwards to come up with the maximum bandwidth? It seems to me it would be better for the rules to simply state what they intend in the first place. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because you are then in the realm of having to measure occupied bandwidth to insure the rules are being met. By specifying the rule in the manner in which it is currently written, this is not a necessary step. If your system operates within the specification given, it is fine, as long as your system meets other requirements (i.e. typical amateur operating spec's).

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Probably those rules were origionally intended to limit the modes as well as the bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What do you mean with the phrase "intended to limit the modes"? It is obvious you mean something other than limiting the bandwidth of the modes because you make bandwidth into a separate item.

I simply cannot find anything on the internet anywhere to back up this claim. I can't find anything where the FCC has ever been interested in blocking the use of any mode. They have, as with spread spectrum power output, implemented rules to limit the impact certain modes might have but they have never, to my knowledge, done anything to "limit the modes".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In later years the FCC has done all sorts of "back door" interpretation trying to force-fit new modes into the old rules. I'm thinking about such things as saying that PSK31 is ASCII because the original characters were ASCII before they were converted to varicode for transmission. I appreciate their interpretation permitting PSK31 but it sure makes it difficult to understand the rules without the interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can't find anything that shows the FCC has claimed psk31 is "ASCII". They have put it under the "direct printing" classification of RTTY.

Take a look at how they have changed the RTTY definition:

"RTTY. Narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; B as the third symbol; and emission J2B. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted."

The FCC defines three specfied digital codes in the US, 5-unit Baudot, 7-unit Amtor, and 7-unit ASCII.

They also differentiate between the digital code used and the transmission technique used to send it. Specifically mentioned in the rules are Clover, G-TOR, and PacTOR (Pactor I) as transmission methods.

The rules go on to state that unspecified codes may be used with some restrictions. One of the restrictions is associated with using unspecified codes on international transmissions to countries we don't have a specfic agreement on allowing the use of that digital coding. Another is associated with a restriction against using unspecified codes to obscure the meaning of any communication.

So it is obvious that the FCC differentiates between transmission method and digital coding.

psk31, as implemented, is a transmission method using an unspecified digital coding. It is fully covered under the rules, specifically the ones listing emission designators for "transmission methods" and by the ones on "unspecified digital codes". I don't see where any "back door" rules interpretation is needed by anyone in order to allow its use.

A strict interpretation of the rules would probably show that some US to DX contacts are violating the rules about using unspecfied digital codes to countries we don't have an agreement with. To that extent, those contacts are both unethical and illegal. I would only argue that I cannot find anyplace that lists countries with which we have agreements on unspecified digital codes. If you can't find the rules to follow it is a little hard to argue that you are being unethical in not following them.

The rules, as written, simply are not that difficult to read in order to glean the both the spirit and the letter of law. We are not in a technology jail as some would claim. You may not be able to use a 20khz wide OFDM signal on 75m or 20m like some would wish, but that is hardly a limit on developing new technology. Doing so would be nothing more than using existing technology to further the selfish interests of bandwidth hogs who would use the amateur bands with no regard for other users.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Problem solved  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"My postings speak for themselves. So do yours. I am very comfortable with that."

To KC9JUB,
I know you are very comfortable with it. That's why you are part of the problem. The smiling faces you see when someone upgrades are those of lazy bums whose entire effort was to memorize questions and answers to a Sesame Street type of exam. No code = no work. The smiling faces on the "new hams" are the unwashed CB sludge who did the same. Yes, you are part of the problem. You are helping to bring the unwashed masses into what was once a fine hobby. The ARRL should be proud of you for doing their bidding. You are another one of the new wave, like KX8N. A couple of wanna-be's with Sesame Street licenses. Candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize. That's what you get in Cracker Jack.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ke3ho:"In fact, as you go faster you will eventually reach a point where your dots are entirely rise and fall time with no “flat top” area."

In fact, this describes what is called an impulse function or a dirac function.

It is defined as the the sum from n=0 to n=infinity of

sin[ (n+ 1/2)x ]
---------------
sin[ (1/2)x ]

In other words you get an infinite number of odd harmonics required to form the impulse - i.e. infinite bandwidth.

I don't want to put words in Tom's mouth but the way I am reading what he is saying is that the occupied bandwidth is always going to be higher than the needed bandwidth. At CW keying speeds there is a big difference between the two because of the transmitter design characteristics as opposed to the needed bandwidth for the keying speed.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8QFP on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Simple fix, take 11m back, no more CB, and use it for this instead. It's a good DX band just going to waste.
II meters for digital, QRP, whatever, a dedicated band for those guys that want a band all for themselves.

73, Don
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8QFP on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL = Asian Radio Retail Litigaters
It's all about selling radios made by slaves in Asian factories. Goodbye US jobs! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

cheerz or jeerz! Don
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>KE3HO
>>>><<< Look at something very simple like off-on keying
>>>>CW. Some well-educated people think the CW speed sets
>>>>the bandwidth. That just isn't true. The only place
>>>>sidebands are generated (in a hum, noise, and
>>>>spurious frequency clean transmitter)is during the
>>>>rise and fall transition, and the bandwidth is set by
>>>>the slope of the rise and fall. How fast someone
>>>>sends has nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth
>>>>limits the speed, but the speed being sent does not
>>>limit the transmitter actual bandwidth. >>>

>>Tom, this is an interesting statement, and I would
>>like to understand this better. Let’s say you
>>transmit CW at various speeds, always maintaining the
>> same relative ratios of dot, dash, character space,
>>and word space timing. The rise and fall times of the
>> transmitter are fixed and do not change with keying
>>speed. As the CW keying speed increases (with all
>>ratios of width fixed) the percentage of time that
>>you spend in the rise and fall time (generating
>>sidebands) increases. In fact, as you go faster you
>>will eventually reach a point where your dots are
>>entirely rise and fall time with no “flat top” area.
>>If I understand what you are saying regarding the
>>bandwidth and the rise and fall time of the
>>transmitter, the total bandwidth is set by the rise
>>and fall times. Keying faster does not change that
>>bandwidth. However, keying faster puts a greater
>>fraction of your power into the sidebands, so is it
>>fair to say that while keying speed does not change
>>the bandwidth, it does change the distribution of
>>power within that bandwidth and that faster keying
>>speeds putting a larger fraction of the transmitted
>>power further out in the bandwidth?

Keying speed DOES effect the bandwidth required. To say otherwise ignores all kinds of things. Without going into the math that describes a keyed CW signal, a well accepted example is Shannon's law. This is a statement in information theory that expresses the maximum possible data speed that can be obtained in a data channel. It is expressed as:

c = b * log2(1 + s)

Where c = bit rate in bps, b = bandwidth in hertz, and s = signal to noise ratio.

Changing the equation to find the relation of b gives:

b = c / (log2(1+s))

As you can see the bandwidth required increases directly as the bit rate increases. Therefore, the faster you key the more bandwidth you need.

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Problem solved  
by KC9JUB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I was first licensed as a Novice in 1964. The call, WN8OGC, is in the Spring 1965, Radio Amateur Callbook Magazine. The license I now have was earned under the rules that existed at the time I took the tests, like anyone else. It is certainly no concern of yours.

You have no clue what I know, or what my background is. Frankly, it is none of your business.

For all I know and care, you may not even have a call sign.

The fact that trolls are tolerated here is another reason that eHam.net is a near-total wasteland.

KC9JUB

DUALGATEMOSFET:

To KC9JUB,
I know you are very comfortable with it. That's why you are part of the problem. The smiling faces you see when someone upgrades are those of lazy bums whose entire effort was to memorize questions and answers to a Sesame Street type of exam. No code = no work. The smiling faces on the "new hams" are the unwashed CB sludge who did the same. Yes, you are part of the problem. You are helping to bring the unwashed masses into what was once a fine hobby. The ARRL should be proud of you for doing their bidding. You are another one of the new wave, like KX8N. A couple of wanna-be's with Sesame Street licenses. Candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize. That's what you get in Cracker Jack.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB
Jim, why would you not want to simply say the maximum bandwidth permitted is 1500Hz in lieu of stating it in terms of symbol rate and shift and then working the math backwards to come up with the maximum bandwidth? It seems to me it would be better for the rules to simply state what they intend in the first place.

Probably those rules were origionally intended to limit the modes as well as the bandwidth. In later years the FCC has done all sorts of "back door" interpretation trying to force-fit new modes into the old rules. I'm thinking about such things as saying that PSK31 is ASCII because the original characters were ASCII before they were converted to varicode for transmission. I appreciate their interpretation permitting PSK31 but it sure makes it difficult to understand the rules without the interpretation.

=======================================================

I am not saying that this rule wasn't written some time ago before the different digital techniques of today. What I am saying that it does define what the FCC expected for maximum bandwidth at that time and that hasn't changed. However, the way it is written also allows considerable leeway in experimenting. One is free to interpret the rule as saying "I only need to keep my baud rate below 300 or (not and) keep my frequency shift below 1000 Hz.

Keep in mind, a 300 baud signal at HF is probably unattainable with a single pair of tones regardless of the modulation type.

I would say it is pretty well written.

The FCC has hinted at this in their last order modifying the 80/75 and 40 meter bands. Their written comments indicated that the FCC expected to have a narrow-bandwidth and a wide-bandwidth segment. Another hint was limiting image in the data segment to 500 Hz. Another hint was reducing the data segment on each band. One should also note that they didn't limit all bandwidths to 500 Hz which does allow for experimentation. However, one will probably have to be careful using wider bandwidths because interference complaints will probably be decided in favor of the more narrow bandwidths.

By not specifying an actual bandwidth, either necessary or occupied, the FCC has left open future experimentation in the data segment. A specified limitation would hinder experimentation. The only other choice is to allow wide bandwidth data in the phone segment and I'm not sure anyone, the FCC included, is willing to fight that battle at this time.

The fact that folks using multi-tone modems to extend the bandwidth doesn't change what the traditional expectation was. It simply means that folks have found a way around the written definition. Some of us have discussed at length if these do actually violate the intention of the rules. The FCC will be final arbitrator of this. Meanwhile, folks are free to experiment with the wider bandwidths. In the end, regardless of bandwidth, the interference rules and regulations are what is going to control the day.

Jim
WA0LYK
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by N0AH on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom, funny that you write this touching article since you bulldozed a revised bandplan on 160M in 2000 for and your 3 friends to find more CW space where phone or cw was allowed on 160M.

Then any one calling CQ on SSB below 1.840MHz got jammed- Wonder who that was...........Gee, the DX up there was great, right? NOT

We all DX'ed belowed 1.840MHz....why 1.823MHz had to be an excluse CW window really makes this article a joke. Oh and for those of you wondering what I am talking about, most DX on 160M is below 1.838+- phone or CW until the goons got their way-

Can you explain this since you are so busy talking about bandplans? Because I didn't enjoy having to retune my Inv L for your pleasure. And not all of us have the ability to tune up and down 40KHz on 160M.

Yes, after 7 years, I still hold a grudge as I do for the smokey RCS-4.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N4KC on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
DUALGATEMOSFET and KC8QFP:

You fellows paint with a mighty broad brush. The best way to insure the health and vigor of our hobby is to welcome all comers. Politely and positively correct bad ops. Shun them if they persist. Most will get the message and either straighten up or go away.

I confidently predict the quality of tomorrow's amateurs will be a direct reflection of how well we mentor them. And I also confidently predict that the overall rate of bad op to good op will be very close to what it always has been.

I'd like to see how many of the hams who are so upset about recent changes could pass the CW requirement that was in place for their class of license when they took their exams. Or the written exam that is in place today.

73,

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W4VR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL was so intent in submitting that petition to the FCC, they probably did not think of all the consequences this could generate, for FCC as well as for hams. When I was in the petition-submission business as a telecommunications consultant, we always pre-coordinated our proposals with the FCC to reduce the chances of having egg on our faces....I would think the ARRL would have pre-coordinated its petition with the FCC but it does not appear that they did. It's unfortunate for ARRL, and their constituents, that they chose to rescind their proposals for the reasons cited. By the way, too bad you're not working for ARRL...they need some expert guidance over there!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W7ETA on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
How does going from, let's say 10WPM, to 35WPM, impact regulation by band width?

The main point for me, from Tom's web site, is that if "narrow" and "wide" have to coexist next to each other, I can no longer rely upon simply listening on a frequency and asking if it is in use, to insure that I am not unintentionally interfering with a fellow ham.

But, if I limit myself to using "wide" in a sub band reserved for narrow and wide, I lessen the chance of unintentionally interfering with fellow hams; using "narrow" in a narrow only limits the chances of me being unintentionally interfered with.

Many times, we literally have to exist side by side. As a result, we have to be able to gauge, simply and easily, if we can transmit without unintentionally interfering with someone else.

Using my receiver, and the appropriate filter for the mode I want to use, seems to be the way to go.

73
Bob
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC defines three specfied digital codes in the US, 5-unit Baudot, 7-unit Amtor, and 7-unit ASCII
-----------------------------------------------------
So where does PSK-31 fall? As I recall some time ago the ARRL got a determination from the FCC that they would consider PSK-31 as 7-unit ASCII. I don't know where it is available in writing.

It appears to me that unspecified digital codes are NOT authorized in the HF bands so it can't be considered that.


 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'd like to see how many of the hams who are so upset about recent changes could pass the CW requirement that was in place for their class of license when they took their exams. Or the written exam that is in place today."

I could. No problem at all. BRING IT ON!

Code test? I'm a CW op and have greatly increased my skills since those days.

Written exam? Every couple of months I take some of the online practice exams just to be sure I'm up with the latest Q&A pools. To make it more of a sporting course I do all the math in my head. Never a problem.

But being able to pass tests is just one data point. There's lots more to being a ham than a one-time test.

The way I look at it is this:

When I bought my first VCR, way back in the 1980s or so, it cost me $300, which was a lot of money back then! Plus it was the most basic model available then.

Today, if you can even find a new VCR for sale, it will cost maybe $100 and include a DVD player and lots of other features.

Should I be mad at the person who buys their first VCR today and pays so much less than I did 25+ years ago?

73 de Jim, N2EY

1970 Extra

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Keep in mind, a 300 baud signal at HF is probably unattainable with a single pair of tones regardless of the modulation type.
------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What is HF Packet?
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by VE3WGO on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AA4LR mentions "The real conflict you touch on is weak-signal versus wide-band. This situation can exist on 160m, as you pointed out, but is more severe on VHF and UHF bands"

In fact the ARRL proposal seemed to remove any mention of weak signal band segments on VHF/UHF and Microwave bands altogether.

Judging by the rarity of mention in ARRL publications and proposals these days, I feel that weak signal work on VHF to microwaves is not getting the attention it deserves.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Doing so would be nothing more than using existing technology to further the selfish interests of bandwidth hogs who would use the amateur bands with no regard for other users.

tim ab0wr

--------------

You seem to agree this is more of a inconsiderate "people problem" than a mode specific or operational bandwidth problem?

Seems part 97 already has provisions in place for addressing the issue of causing harmful and malicious interference.

For example, Part 97 states the following:

Start Quote:

"97.101 General standards.

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice.

(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station.

(c) At all times and on all frequencies, each control operator must give priority to stations providing emergency communications, except to stations transmitting communications for training drills and tests in RACES.

(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

End Quote.

Can anyone possibly elaborate why we would "need to" establish individualized and supplemental regulatory controls to address the very same potential harmful interference concerns at the end of the day?

Again, it seems we are really trying to address a "people problem" that is not necessarily limited to any specific communication mode or technology they may or may not be using.

Maliciously causing interference with another station is not specifically limited or targets any bandwidth, lack of bandwidth or any specific mode of operation or communication activity.

We operate, we experiment and we don't intentionally cause malicious interference with one another in the process. However, that is not to imply or somehow suggests it's a free for all either, but there are accepted and unaccepted practices and correct me if I am wrong but I suspect causing malicious interference with another station regardless of mode or bandwidth is not one of them commonly accepted practices today on May, 9th 2007.

Again, I am forced to conclude that this becomes less of a regulatory issue and becomes more of a technical understanding issue involving "people" and the daily operation of their equipment at their individual stations.

I suspect that anyone intentionally causing malicious interference with another station would be dealt with in the same exact manner as any additional regulatory rules would equally impose on offenders. So what will change in terms of actual enforcement?

Logically this seems to suggest that adding additional rules to what already seems to exist in Part 97 is kind of redundant and unnecessary.

I am not so sure if additional restrictions listed in part 97 would necessarily serve in the best interests of the "good guy" experimenters in the future because we would have already closed that door of opportunity for them today.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Keying speed DOES effect the bandwidth required. To say otherwise ignores all kinds of things."

"As you can see the bandwidth required increases directly as the bit rate increases. Therefore, the faster you key the more bandwidth you need."

What's being missed here is the difference between "the bandwidth you *need*" (necessary bandwidth) and "the bandwidth you *use* (occupied bandwidth).

In practically all transmitters, the rise and fall times, and the shape of the rise and fall waveforms, are set in the design and do not change. They're usually adequate for up to 50 or 60 wpm. Thus the occupied bandwidth - the bandwidth actually used by the signal - is the same for all keying speeds up to the point where the rig cannot follow the keying anymore.

In a well-designed rig, that occupied bandwidth is 200 Hz or so, unless the rig has been modified for QRQ operation beyond 50-60 wpm. (Yes, there are folks who can go that fast.)

Of course it is possible for a rig to have poor design and take up lots more bandwidth even at slow speeds, due to key clicks - the Morse equivalent of splatter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC *today* doesn't intend to limit modes but back when many of these rules were first written they certainly did. I can remember a time when we were limited to 60WPM baudot because that's all the FCC monitoring stations had equipment for. I can remember a time when Packet was not permitted except for a few stations that had an STA. Had the FCC not *originally* intended to limit modes then they wouldn't have written a regulation specifying only three digital codes (Baudot, Amtor, and Ascii).

My opinion is that it is impossible to determine "intent" from a simple reading of the rules as written. If that's true then why not change them to more clearly specify the intended requirements.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by W3ULS on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What W8JI's article and the subsequent comments illustrate is the terrible, terrible job the ARRL has done with developing and submitting the "regulation by bandwidth" proposal. Where did this come from? It's not even clear it was the League's idea in the first place (see below).

Aside from a few David Sumner musings in the front of several QSTs, there were no warnings, explanations or solicitations of input from members. I would guess directors were not solicited either (and I would hazard a guess that not one of the directors has the expertise necessary to carry on a conversation with Tom Rauch on this subject! I know I don't. So what useful purpose the directors serve is unclear.)

Given the League's inability to communicate, what happened when the proposal came to light was predictable. Throw in some unanswered allegations about conflicts of interest among the League's leaders, and the brew thickens. For example, is it true (or not)that a select, appointed group consisting of WinLink officers actually wrote this proposal and that the ARRL simply rubber stamped it and sent it on to the FCC?

It's certainly true that an off-the-record meeting was held at the FCC in February wherein top League officers proffered a revised proposal. Were the secretly-prepared revisions the work of the League, or of WinLink? If prepared by the League, did WinLink approve of them prior to submittal?

Of course, with the League's track record of absolute nondisclosure, members will never learn the answers.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by K0RGR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I think the original post was a reasonably fair assessment of where things really are.

U.S. amateurs have a strange view of the world. We are one of the few places where the ham bands are divided into subbands by mode. What we seem to think is natural would be blasphemy in most countries.

Unfortunately, our license structure is also based on subbands - a serious impediment to making any worthwhile change.

I'd like to see some relaxation of the current rules, but any big change will require a wrenching change in the underlying structure of the HF priveleges.

Personally, I'd like to see all the subbands go away. Let Techs have all non-voice modes on 80,40,15, and 10 and phone on 10. Generals get all modes on 80,40,20,15, and 10. Advanced and Extra get the WARC bands 60,30,12, and 17 meters. Rely on gentlemen's agreements to rule it all.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>N2EY
>>What's being missed here is the difference between
>>"the bandwidth you *need*" (necessary bandwidth) and
>>"the bandwidth you *use* (occupied bandwidth).

>>In practically all transmitters, the rise and fall
>>times, and the shape of the rise and fall waveforms,
>>are set in the design and do not change. They're
>>usually adequate for up to 50 or 60 wpm. Thus the
>>occupied bandwidth - the bandwidth actually used by
>>the signal - is the same for all keying speeds up to
>>the point where the rig cannot follow the keying
>>anymore.
>>
>>In a well-designed rig, that occupied bandwidth is
>>200 Hz or so, unless the rig has been modified for
>>QRQ operation beyond 50-60 wpm. (Yes, there are folks
>>who can go that fast.)
>>
>>Of course it is possible for a rig to have poor
>>design and take up lots more bandwidth even at slow
>>speeds, due to key clicks - the Morse equivalent of
>>splatter.
>>
>>73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, the bandwidth occupied that is over the necessary bandwidth is directly attributable to the key clicks/splatter. At 25 wpm, the necessary bandwidth is 100 Hz. Therefore the additional 100 Hz you describe comes from the odd harmonics generated by the pulse shape.

What the wave shaping does is minimize the number and amplitude of the odd harmonics that Tim, AB0WR defined with the mathematical formulae. These are directly generated from the pulse shape not the speed.

I will have to take your word that most ham rigs can only restrict these odd harmonics outside of 200 Hz. I do not have a spectrum analyzer to actually look at the bandwidths on my Icom rigs so I can't verify it directly. However, at 50 wpm, the necessary and occupied bandwidths would coincide. Any speed higher than that would be controlled by the necessary bandwidth. I do understand that the wave shaping does limit the speed you can use. I don't know what that actually is and it would be rig dependent.

Jim
WA0LYK

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by WB4M on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Here in NC, we are having an influx of people from Florida. They come here and build summer homes in the gorgeous mountains. Their house are large and look out of place perched on top of a mountain, ruining the scenery and view. They live in them perhaps 6 months out of the year and pay locals to take care of them while they are back in Florida. The first thing they do is try to make this area of NC like Florida. Hey, this is NC, if you don't the mountain culture, go back to Florida. Learn how to read a ballot and vote while you are there.



"Its just like living in Florida these days. We are having a hugh influx of people moving into the state from New Jersey, the first thing they want to do is make their area of Florida like New Jersey. Hey this is Florida, this is how we do it, if you want it to be like Jersey, move back to Jersey!"
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W6TH on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

Personally, I'm all for segmentation by bandwidth. I'm opposed to turning amateur bands into a free-for-all where anyone who can memorize a few dozen answers can place any bandwidth mode on any frequency they desire.

What do you think?


I think you are absolutely 100 percent correct Tom.

The ARRL are in it for the $$$,$$$,$$$ and just think how many suckers will fall for it, the blind leading the blind.

Thanks for the eye opener Tom.

.:
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
aa4pb:"It appears to me that unspecified digital codes are NOT authorized in the HF bands so it can't be considered that."

Really? When was the last time you read all the way through Part 97?

(hint 97.309)

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
kc8vwm:"You seem to agree this is more of a inconsiderate "people problem" than a mode specific or operational bandwidth problem? "

I agree that a lot of the problems we have a people problems. Not all are, however.

Consider:

You may be able to fire up a 20khz wide data connection on 40m some night if you are lucky without interfering with any other current conversations. So this would not be an "interference problem".

What is the spectrum efficiency of that one session? (for maybe two hams if the session isn't being used for internet access -- although I don't know why you would need a 20khz channel for keyboard to keyboard!)

Answer- very, very low. Spectrum efficiency in the ham bands has two main metrics. 1-amount of spectrum denied to others. 2-the time spectrum is denied to others.

The spectrum denied to others is very high. Assuming 500hz bandwidths as typical, you would be denying as many as 80 other hams the ability to initiate sessions with on the band.

The time the spectrum is denied to others I can't even estimate. If it is being used for an internet gateway, it could be as long as 24/7. You would have to consider this just like the old telephone dialups used to be. Lots of people would dial in and keep the connection up forever so they would be assured access when they needed it.

In any case, it should be obvious that the spectrum efficiency of such a mode, at least on HF with limited spectrum, would be horrendous compared to narrower modes.

This isn't a "person" problem. It is a spectrum efficiency problem.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"The FCC *today* doesn't intend to limit modes but back when many of these rules were first written they certainly did. I can remember a time when we were limited to 60WPM baudot because that's all the FCC monitoring stations had equipment for. I can remember a time when Packet was not permitted except for a few stations that had an STA. Had the FCC not *originally* intended to limit modes then they wouldn't have written a regulation specifying only three digital codes (Baudot, Amtor, and Ascii).

My opinion is that it is impossible to determine "intent" from a simple reading of the rules as written. If that's true then why not change them to more clearly specify the intended requirements."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ROFL!! I'm sorry but you said the FCC intended to limit mode introduction and then use Packet as an example. The mere fact that Packet is (or at least used to be) ubiquitous in this country is mute evidence that the FCC didn't LIMIT anything.

You are using evidence of the FCC providing for controlled introduction of new modes as evidence of the FCC *limiting* the introduction new modes. It just doesn't fly!

Even the existence of the STA process is evidence that the FCC doesn't *intend* to limit the introduction of new modes. If they did intend such, the STA process would not exist!

The fact that YOU can't tell what the intent of the rules are is not proof that the rules *have no* intent. I would have thought that the words of the FCC in the Omnibus R&O would have given you pause in your claim that the rules have no intent but you seem to have totally ignored the plain language the FCC put in the R&O!

The fact that you ignore the existence of Part 97.309 and that you ignore the plain language of the FCC (written as recently as the fall/2006) tells me that you have another agenda here than the one you are stating.

I'll repeat again: The spirit and the letter of the law in this matter are quite plain. The intent of the FCC in this matter is quite plain. Those that say they aren't plain and understandable have a selfish agenda that they think can be advanced by ignoring the spirit of the laws and saying that the letter of the law doesn't apply to them -- they are scofflaws. There just isn't any other way to describe such a person.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by WA1RNE on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Let's fix the problem today:

During contests, all modes are segmented by frequency;

All other days, the bands are segmented by bandwidth.


Shoot, that won't work, we have too many contests by "mode" ultimately setting our bandwidth priorities.

....a.k.a. the "Amateur Conundrum".


...WA1RNE

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ROFL!! Sorry, but you just don't get it Tim. I guess we all need to read the rules interpretation according to Tim or risk being termed scofflaws.

To each his own, I guess.
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by W8JI on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Jim WA0LYK,

Even though it is commonly taught or presented as a fact, it is absolutely incorrect to say speed changes bandwidth of a typical transmitter.

If I send a single dot the bandwidth of that dot would be determined by the slope of the rising and falling edges. The power levels of those sidebands would be determined by the rate of amplitude change during each part of the amplitude transition.

It doesn't matter at all how many dots I send per second.

It is just as silly to assume CW speed affects bandwidth just as much as it is to assume how fast we talk affects a SSB transmitter's bandwidth.

What people forget when they want to mix modes and mix bandwidths are the unavoidable imperfections in both operators and equipment.

SSB and AM operators using better designed radios forget they have -40dB trash out at 3rd order distances, and they forget the sensitivity of their receivers is at least 10dB less than a narrow filtered CW rig on the same antenna.

PSK and digital mode operators using sound cards into SSB rigs sometimes forget they have only the dynamic range of the SSB channel to ensure reliable adjacent frequency operation.

We all tend to forget that many operators cannot even recognize other modes, and that is on top of the bandwidth problems that always cause some receivers (even with the very same ambient noise and antennas) to be "dead" compared to receivers in other bandwidths.

It really makes no sense at all to mix bandwidths or incompatable modes. The bandwidths should be sorted out by the FCC, because then we have a legal tool to keep problem people in line. It also ensures that receivers in a given area of the band have an equal chance of detecting weak signals, and that transmitters are on relatively equal footing.

As for modes, we should have flexible logical bandplans that prevent excessive problems. There should be a legal tool available that encourages good operating practices from that occasional intentional problem that comes along.

It really should be easy to create something understandable in plain English that is technically sound and still get the vast majority of people behind one plan.

73 Tom



 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W8JI on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N0AH,

I generally ignore wild comments like yours, but I'd like to set the record straight again. You can check and verify this.

1.) I was not a part of the bandplan committee on 160. I simply made comments like others did to members of that comittee. There should be a public record of who was on that committee, and I won't be named.

2.) I actually argued to have the DX Window remain in the plan. Unfortunately the east coast amateurs who have an easy time working DX and don't need a Window won.

3.) I argued to maintain a space on the low end for digital modes and for QRP and ragchewing.

I would certainly rather be liked, but it's also OK if you or someone else doesn't like me. I view this as a brotherhood where we all try to help each other no matter what we like to do, and even if we disagree we should all be on the same overall team doing what is best for Ham radio in general.

By now we should all have some social maturity.

73 Tom


 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by K4ELO on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
That's certainly a hornet's nest, if I ever saw one.

However, this article raises a very important question in my mind.
and I intend to contact the ARRL to get clarification on it.

The issue I have is this: exactly when did the ARRL contact dues paying members to get their vote on what should be proposed to the FCC?

Since I don't recall ever having been contacted, I'm feeling like this is a case similar to taxation without representation. Depending on how they respond, I may have to reevaluate my ARRL membership.
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by WB9NJB on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I will comply with the edicts of the FCC, but the ARRL can go pound sand. I have been a member for many years, but I question the value of my membership.
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by WA0LYK on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>W8JI
>>Jim WA0LYK,
>>
>>Even though it is commonly taught or presented as a
>>fact, it is absolutely incorrect to say speed changes
>>bandwidth of a typical transmitter.
>>
>>If I send a single dot the bandwidth of that dot would
>>be determined by the slope of the rising and falling
>>edges. The power levels of those sidebands would be
>>determined by the rate of amplitude change during each
>>part of the amplitude transition.
>>
>>It doesn't matter at all how many dots I send per
>>second.
>>
>>It is just as silly to assume CW speed affects
>>bandwidth just as much as it is to assume how fast we
>>talk affects a SSB transmitter's bandwidth.

This just isn't right. A square wave is made up of a series of sine waves consisting of the odd harmonics. The more square the edges are, the more harmonics you need to add together. Pulse shaping, i.e. rounding the leading and trailing edges is done to limit the number of harmonics needed. Without the shaping, you get very high values of odd harmonics which sound like key clicks. These harmonics are multiples of the fundmental frequency and show up quite a distance away.

If you shape the square wave properly, you remove all the odd harmonics and end up with just the fundamental sine wave. The sine wave will have a period length the same as the pulse width.

If the period of the pulse is 1 second, you end up a sine wave of 1 Hz. This would give you a bandwidth of 1 Hz.

Now if you shorten that pulse, i.e. send faster by a factor of 10, to 0.1 seconds and shape it to remove all the harmonics you end up with a sine wave with a period of 0.1 seconds. This works out to 10 Hz and would give you a bandwidth of 10 Hz.

And so on, and so on.

The shaping only determines the number of odd harmonics you have. They are related directly to the period of the fundamental sine wave which is exactly the same as the period of the square wave. If you shape the wave to include up to the 3rd harmonic you will end up with bandwidths of 3 Hz and 30 Hz in the above example. If the shaping allows up the 5th or 7th harmonic, you will have wider signals yet but the differences will remain between the two.

However, the the fact is that the faster you send, the wider the bandwidth required.

This is why the Shannon's Law I quoted above holds. With your explanation, the speed in bits per second wouldn't determine the bandwidth, only the shaping would do this and the law would be invalid.

I realize my explanation is simplified but it should allow one to understand the basic concept. Without doing the actual math, it is a little sparse.

What determines the bandwidth of a SSB transmitter is related to the frequencies input to it just like the bandwidth of a CW/Morse Code signal is related to the sine wave frequencies required to form a square wave.

Jim
WA0LYK
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC5CQD on May 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Tom's comment here might sound hard, but when an extra asks "how do I build a dipole?" or "how to check SWRs" - something is WRONG!!! when an EXTRA class license asks those questions (SWRs????). I can accept a Tech or perhaps even a general asking, but an EXTRA class???"



I've already experienced it, brother. hihi!

I've recently had a newly licensed General Class Op email me to ask me tons of fundamental antenna questions. He was quick to tell me that, "I don't know much about antennas. The whole theory confuses me." This guy has a friggin' license. Disgusting. But....

I've been the patient Elmer throughout it all. I've not condescended and have offered all the advice and technical support that I can. I'm most proud of myself for convincing him to throw that coaxial crap in the trash and build himself some good old-fashioned open wire feeder. hihi!

Maybe we older hams have more influence than we realize.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W8JI on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<
This just isn't right. A square wave is made up of a series of sine waves consisting of the odd harmonics.
The more square the edges are, the more harmonics you need to add together. Pulse shaping, i.e. rounding the leading and trailing edges is done to limit the number of harmonics needed. Without the shaping, you get very high values of odd harmonics which sound like key clicks. These harmonics are multiples of the fundmental frequency and show up quite a distance away. >>

Thanks for proving my point!! That is exactly correct. It is the waveshape and rise and fall times of the envelope that determines ultimate transmitter bandwidth, not the number of times that waveform is repeated.

<<<If you shape the square wave properly, you remove all the odd harmonics and end up with just the fundamental sine wave. The sine wave will have a period length the same as the pulse width. >>

That's correct, and each rise and fall is 1/2 of a full sine wave. You can consider it a raised sine wave.

<<If the period of the pulse is 1 second, you end up a sine wave of 1 Hz. This would give you a bandwidth of 1 Hz. >>

You are correct again, and this further proves my point that the bandwidth is set by the envelope shape and period, not the number of times it repeats.

<<<Now if you shorten that pulse, i.e. send faster by a factor of 10, to 0.1 seconds and shape it to remove all the harmonics you end up with a sine wave with a period of 0.1 seconds.>>

This is where you have screwed up.

The waveshape and time does NOT change as you send faster and slower. The off time generates NO sidebands, and the ON time at full power generates NO sidebands. The sidebands are only generated at the transition in waveshape, and the ultimate bandwidth is determined by the time and shape of the transitions. Since that time and shape does NOT change the ultimate bandwidth does not change.

This shows why we have to explain carefully to everyone how the systems we use work so misunderstanding or misapplication of what would actually be correct science doesn't taint the process.

On the surface it may appear you are correct, but when we look carefully what we see is unless we readjust transmitter keying characteristics the ultimate bandwidth remains exactly the same regardlessof keying speeds so long as the on or off times don't become shorter than the predetermined rise and fall times.

If I have the equivalent of a raised sine wave with a period equivalent to a 10Hz waveform, then the bandwidth would be 20Hz. It would have a 10Hz USB, a 10Hz spaced LSB, and during steady on times a pure carrier occupying one frequency. If I made that sine wave appear slower nothing would change except the sine wave would be appearing and disappearing at a slower rate than the sinewave frequency of 10 Hz. If I tried to transition the transmitter off and on times at a higher frequency than 10Hz the transmitter would simply no longer be able to reach zero or full power, so the amplitude of the sidebands would decrease.

Now if we took this frequency domain analysis and looked at it over a long period of time with a significantly slower than 10Hz keying speed, it would look like we had small sidebands inside the bandwidth of the 10Hz upper and lower sideband. The slower we keyed the closer spaced the artifacts inside the 20Hz bandwidth would look.

But for all effective purposes that's a moot point. We can't have a receiver narrower than 20Hz without losing the sidebands that convey the transition information. So any receiver wouldn't know what was happening at the slower off an on rate, it would only know or indicate the bandwidth of the 20Hz wide 10Hz upper and 10Hz lower sideband of the AM signal genenerated by keying.

It's all really pretty simple when we understand what the rules really mean. The transmitter and receiver bandwidth sets the ultimate information rate, not the other way around.

73 Tom

 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by N4CQR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Here in KY we are having an influx of Mexicans and, well, never mind..


Here in NC, we are having an influx of people from Florida. They come here and build summer homes in the gorgeous mountains. Their house are large and look out of place perched on top of a mountain, ruining the scenery and view. They live in them perhaps 6 months out of the year and pay locals to take care of them while they are back in Florida. The first thing they do is try to make this area of NC like Florida. Hey, this is NC, if you don't the mountain culture, go back to Florida. Learn how to read a ballot and vote while you are there.



"Its just like living in Florida these days. We are having a hugh influx of people moving into the state from New Jersey, the first thing they want to do is make their area of Florida like New Jersey. Hey this is Florida, this is how we do it, if you want it to be like Jersey, move back to Jersey!"
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'll repeat again: The spirit and the letter of the law in this matter are quite plain. The intent of the FCC in this matter is quite plain."

Not really.

If they *were* quite plain, you wouldn't have to explain them and interpret them. For example, nobody who has read and understood the rules needs an interpretation to know the band edges, because they're all spelled out quite plainly. Some other parts of the rules aren't so clear.

"Those that say they aren't plain and understandable have a selfish agenda that they think can be advanced by ignoring the spirit of the laws and saying that the letter of the law doesn't apply to them -- they are scofflaws. There just isn't any other way to describe such a person."

Sure there is: They're people who disagree with *your* interpretation.

For example, in another post you applied the 300 baud rule and the 1000 Hz FSK shift rule to come up with a maximum allowed data bandwidth of 1500 Hz for *all* data modes.

That's *your* interpretation of FCC's intent. I think it's a reasonable one, but it's not spelled out in the letter of the law. For example, what if a data mode doesn't use FSK at all?

If FCC's intent is a 1500 Hz maximum bandwidth, why not
simply state that and be done with it? The band edges are clearly stated, why not the allowable mode bandwidths?

As for agendas, mine is to have a reasonable amount of space where I can operate CW, and for others to have a reasonable amount of space where they can operate their favorite modes, with a minimum of avoidable interference.

73 de Jim, N2EY




 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The issue I have is this: exactly when did the ARRL contact dues paying members to get their vote on what should be proposed to the FCC?
-----------------------------------------------------
They didn't send each individual member a personal letter, but they did ask for comments. It was in QST, on the web page, and in the broadcast.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4LR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB Wrote:
"Okay, even with your interpretation suppose my signal consists of 100 carriers all separated by 1 kHz. How wide is my signal?"

Your "signal" is the sum of all the carriers. So long as the difference between ANY two carriers is 1 kHz or less, you are ok. If you have 100 carriers, they would have to be spaced 10 Hz or less in order to fit in the 1 kHz.

Plus, each carrier must be 300 baud or less (below 28 MHz, so the overall bandwidth is in the neighborhood of 1.3 kHz.

"I don't believe there is any regulation that limits digital voice to 3 kHz."

This is where I'm confused by the regulations. The ARRL recently published an article promoting the use of digital voice on the Phone sub-bands. The way I read the regulations, this would be illegal, since the transmission is digital. The content of the digital tansmission should not determine the frequency subband used.

"They could pass twice as much data in a given time if they used up 6 kHz (like AM) or three times as much data if they used 9 kHz. There are trade-offs to be made."

True enough. They could pass a lot more data if they just used the whole band, right? The regulations impose reasonable constraints so that there's an opportunity for everyone to make use of the band.

"Its amazing how many of the anti-digital arguments sound like 1950 when SSB was first starting out."

There was absolutely NOTHING in my post that was "anti-digital". In fact, I was attempting to shed some light on the digital side of the problem. Too often in our regulatory process, we seem to digress to the 1930s, where it's just CW and Phone.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The content of the digital tansmission should not determine the frequency subband used.
--------------------------------------------------
I agree but the rules, or at least some people's interpretation of them, seems to consider the content. With today's technology you can have a fixed digital signal, a "pipe" in essence. If you shove voice or still images down the pipe you need to be on one band segment. If you shove keyboard characters down the pipe you need to move to a different band segment. Same "pipe", same data format, same occupied bandwidth - just different content. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by W9OY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
How did this turn into a pissing contest regarding CW bandwidth? CW is the least of our problems (unless you run a yaesu).

73 W9OY
 
RE: Is More Regulation Necessary?  
by W9OY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
How did this turn into a pissing contest regarding CW bandwidth? CW is the least of our problems (unless you run a yaesu).

73 W9OY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Your "signal" is the sum of all the carriers. So long as the difference between ANY two carriers is 1 kHz or less, you are ok. If you have 100 carriers, they would have to be spaced 10 Hz or less in order to fit in the 1 kHz.
-----------------------------------------------------
That's a reasonable interpretation. Apparently however, everyone is not coming to that same conclusion by reading the rules. I'm still wondering, if you want to limit the bandwidth to 1.3 kHz why not just so. Why make everyone go through the interpretation and the calculations. That just leaves it open to misinterpretation and error, in my opinion.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"If they *were* quite plain, you wouldn't have to explain them and interpret them. For example, nobody who has read and understood the rules needs an interpretation to know the band edges, because they're all spelled out quite plainly. Some other parts of the rules aren't so clear. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not interpreting them. I am quoting the rules as written. I have directly quoted the FCC from the Ominbus R&O in 2006.

Just what is there in these quotes that is not as plain as the nose on your face?


ab0wr:"Those that say they aren't plain and understandable have a selfish agenda that they think can be advanced by ignoring the spirit of the laws and saying that the letter of the law doesn't apply to them -- they are scofflaws. There just isn't any other way to describe such a person."


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Sure there is: They're people who disagree with *your* interpretation.

For example, in another post you applied the 300 baud rule and the 1000 Hz FSK shift rule to come up with a maximum allowed data bandwidth of 1500 Hz for *all* data modes.

That's *your* interpretation of FCC's intent. I think it's a reasonable one, but it's not spelled out in the letter of the law. For example, what if a data mode doesn't use FSK at all?

If FCC's intent is a 1500 Hz maximum bandwidth, why not simply state that and be done with it? The band edges are clearly stated, why not the allowable mode bandwidths? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've answered this at least twice. Why is it so hard to figure out? My calculation of the necessary bandwidth for an FSK signal using a 1000hz shift and a 300baud data rate is NOT an interpretation. Let me repeat that with emphasis - *NOT AN INTERPRETATION*. The FCC spells out how to calculate this in great detail in various places. Do a google on "emission designators" and start doing some research.

The FCC typically avoids laying down specfic occupied bandwidth limits when it comes to bandwidths in the amateur service. Necessary bandwidth and occupied bandwidth are not the same thing. *You* would have them start specifying occupied bandwidths which would require every ham to have a spectrum analyzer with a traceable calibration in order to insure they are not violating the occupied bandwidth rules. The FCC isn't going to propagate a rule like that and you know it and so does aa4pb.

Would *YOU* like to be required to buy a $10,000 (or more) spectrum analyzer before you could transmit so you would know your occupied bandwidth was within limits? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't like it one bit.

Can you imagine the FCC wanting to arbitrate complaints like: "Well my spectrum analyzer is better than yours with later calibration and it says you are 10hz too wide!!"

The only other alternative would be to go to using type-accepted rigs with no user adjustments other than frequency. That is not a viable alternative either, at least in my opinion. Talk about killing off experimentation!!

If the necessary bandwidth limit of 1500hz is spelled out by describing an allowable FSK signal, why would you think that the FCC intent was *not* to apply that limit to all types of signals in the narrow-bandwidth portion of the bands? Especially when they establish their intent of having the cw/RTTY portions of the bands as being narrow bandwidth in no uncertain terms in the Omnibus R&O? Why would the FCC have the intent to limit the bandwidt of FSK signals but not OFDM signals? Why would the FCC have the intent to limit image transmissions in the CW/RTTY portions of the bands to 500hz but not put a limit on OFDM sgnals?

Do you truly believe that the FCC intent is to have NO bandwidth limits in the narrowband portion of bands? if you believe their intent *is* to have a limit, as spelled out in the Omnibus R&O, then where else would you suggest we look for guidance? In Part 97? In the stars? In chicken entrails?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As for agendas, mine is to have a reasonable amount of space where I can operate CW, and for others to have a reasonable amount of space where they can operate their favorite modes, with a minimum of avoidable interference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do you truly believe this agenda can be accomplished if no bandwidth limits exist in the rules? If 100khz OFDM data signals are truly legal under the current rules, just how many CW signals do you think will be able to find operating space on 80m, 40m, or 20m in the next five years?

I'll repeat: It is obvious that the FCC wanted to limit the bandwidths of signals in the CW/RTTY portions of the bands. This intent is laid out in Part 97 for the most prominent signalling method in use at the time the rule was written and is reaffirmed in the Omnibus R&O when discussing allowable bandwidths for image transmissions.

Perhaps I am being dense but it makes no sense for me for the FCC to have written Part 97.307(f)(4) and characterized the CW/RTTY portions of the band as "narrowband" without having *some* kind of intent in mind.

The only reason for calling this guidance from the FCC "unclear" is to be able to rationalize the fact that you don't wish the limits to apply to you. That is a scofflaw attitude.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"That's a reasonable interpretation. Apparently however, everyone is not coming to that same conclusion by reading the rules. I'm still wondering, if you want to limit the bandwidth to 1.3 kHz why not just so. Why make everyone go through the interpretation and the calculations. That just leaves it open to misinterpretation and error, in my opinion. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've given you this answer multiple times. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Hint: necessary bandwidth vs occupied bandwidth.

Hint: FCC arbitrating arguments about occupied bandwdith measurments.

Hint: traceable calibration of spectrum analyzers

Hint: every amateur having to own a spectrum analyzer with traceable calibration

Exactly what is there about this that you don't understand?

Even the ARRL understood the difference between occupied and necessary bandwidth and changed RM-11306 to use necessary instead of occupied bandwidth for bandwidth regulation.

Why is this so difficult of a concept to comprehend?

Once you understand this then 97.307(f) begins to make sense. Is that why you think it is so unclear?

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hint: Specify the necessary bandwidth and forget it.

On one hand you say that the FCC *has* set bandwidth requirements by describing FSK limits. On the other hand you say that you don't want the FCC to specify bandwidth requirements because that would require you to purchase a spectrum analyzer. With that reasoning you could say that the FCC shouldn't specify the band edges because that would require you to purchase a frequency counter. Oh wait! They already have specified spurious signal levels so I guess we should already own spectrum analyzers to verify that.

Give me a break!
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4LR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA0LYK Wrote:

"Keep in mind, a 300 baud signal at HF is probably unattainable with a single pair of tones regardless of the modulation type."

HF Packet is 300 baud MFSK with a 200 Hz shift. (Bell 103-style modems) It's pretty close to MSK (minimum-shift keying -- that would be 150 Hz shift).

HF Packet isn't so popular any more, but it worked pretty well on frequencies that were pretty close to the MUF. On 10m, there was even some 1200 baud work being done with Bell 202-style modems (1 kHz shift), although that was right at the limit of the rules.

Packet also allowed a degree of frequency sharing, when several contacts could take place on the same frequency with minimal interference.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4LR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY Wrote:

"That's *your* interpretation of FCC's intent. I think it's a reasonable one, but it's not spelled out in the letter of the law. For example, what if a data mode doesn't use FSK at all?"

I would think it would be reasonable for such a data mode to conform to the basic limits of an FSK signal -- symbol rates of 300 baud and all carriers within 1 kHz.

Interpreted that way, it would appear that the current rules don't need "fixing", because they aren't "broken".

Now, we might want to revise the language of those rules to make this intent more clear, but it seems obvious to any reasonable person that the FCC intended digital signals on HF (160-15m) to be occupying much less than 3 kHz of spectrum. (On 10m, the FSK limits are 1200 baud and 1 kHz -- which is practically 3 kHz)

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by G3RZP on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The definition of 'necessary bandwidth' from international law (because it's in the Radio Regulations, and countries sign up to those as an international treaty)is to my mind, pretty woolly anyway. Measuring the 'occupied bandwidth' wouldn't be that easy because you'd have to make sure that you integrated the speech pattern over a long enough period, and that the mic level didn't change during that time. So at best, it would be well averaged sort of thing.

One thing you can be sure of. If someone, somewhere sees a way of using OFDM that's far wider than 3kHz, sooner or later, they will. Incidentally, how are the present HF digital modes cosidered as legal since they are OFDM?
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K4ZMV on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
So far, a really good discussion thread despite the off-topic comments. W8JI assesses the situation very well when he wonders what the influx of new hams will bring. It's my impression that a great majority of new hams are not very technically inclined. As some have previously stated, they are of a 'plug and play' mentality. I really think we need some time to see where this takes us in terms of use of allocated spectrum. If present use is any indicator, we can expect a lot more spatter, clicks, and boorish behavior. That all points to a regulation requirement, not gentlemen's agreements. It ain't working in the rest of the world and I don't know how anyone can expect the independent streak in all of us US hams to suddenly calm down and cooperate. Best leave things as they are for now.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Interpreted that way, it would appear that the current rules don't need "fixing", because they aren't "broken".
--------------------------------------------------
But the bandwidth issue is only part of the problem. The present rules also segregate by "content" (i.e. phone, image, and RTTY/Data). That's what is currently placing digital voice modes in the phone segment along with analog SSB. It won't be very nice when the SSB stations start having to listen to the "buzz" of digital voice stations all around them.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
That all points to a regulation requirement, not gentlemen's agreements.

------

I think it points to radio manufacturers myself.

Even if there was a new regulation requirement in place and the "plug and play" crowd was supposed to follow such a new rule, do you really think they would be able to interpret signals on a spectrum analyzer?

How would they delve into thier radio equipment and adjust their transmitters to meet the new bandwidth regulation requirements?

The answer is they can't and they probably won't.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by STRAIGHTKEY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"It's my impression that a great majority of new hams are not very technically inclined. As some have previously stated, they are of a 'plug and play' mentality. "

"Plug and play" mentalities aren't anything new. Look at how many old time Extras won't use a soldering iron and instead purchase a Rigblaster or commercial computer-to-rig control interface. Even our elite veteran contesters have $10K rigs that do everything but make the QSO for you.

One person's derogatory plug and play is the next guy's high technology.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by STRAIGHTKEY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"How would they delve into thier radio equipment and adjust their transmitters to meet the new bandwidth regulation requirements?

The answer is they can't and they probably won't."

The reality is no one will. Will you? Do you know where to go in your Icowoodaesu to adjust your bandwidth?

It's a safe assumption that most any modern rig will have the appropriate bandwidth for each mode. Few hams, including technically qualified ones, have audio sweep generators and spectrum analyzers to measure the frequency response and bandwidth of their transmitters.

I don't necessarily agree with regulation by bandwidth, but the idea isn't about enforcing 3 db bandwidth specifications, it's about separating emissions types, though in a roundabout way.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The intended objective of such a rule in place would be intended to reduce interference with other spectrum users isn't it?

The point being is that the regulation would be intended to prevent the so called "newbies" "plug and play" operators or whatever you wan't to refer to them as from operating excessive bandwidth and causing interference to other spectum users yet such a rule wouldn't exactly address how they would conform to such regulation requirement when using their equipment and we are right back to square one on the issue.

This seems to bring us back to the idea of viewing this as a "people problem" or a lack of technical understanding.

Imposing additional and unnecessary regulations are not a substitute for providing a solid technical foundation and understanding of how a transmitters mode and bandwidth requirements work.

Not sure if implementing a new regulation in itself would successfully achieve that intended result if they should lack the necessary technical understanding in the first place.

It doesn't seem to be successful in other places of the world, so why would it be any different here?

So perhaps someone can suggest what the final and effective solution (that would actually be effective and really work) to the problem should be?

I think it starts with "education" and not regulation myself.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by STRAIGHTKEY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The intended objective of such a rule in place would be intended to reduce interference with other spectrum users isn't it? "

That would appear to be the goal.

"The point being is that the regulation would be intended to prevent the so called "newbies" "plug and play" operators or whatever you wan't to refer to them as from operating excessive bandwidth and causing interference to other spectum users yet such a rule wouldn't exactly address how they would conform to such regulation requirement when using their equipment and we are right back to square one on the issue. "

Again, interference prevention may be the stated goal, but not in the way you're interpreting it. If someone's bandwidth is 2.6 khz versus 3.5 khz, that won't necessarily reduce interference. No one would have to adjust their current rule compliant transmitter tommorow if regulation by bandwidth went into effect. I think the motive is to have "similiar bandwidth" modes operating together. If you look at the ARRL's bandwidths in the proposal, there's really no new bandwidths per se; they all correspond to today's normal mode bandwidths. The reduction in interference supposedly should occur through segregating similiar bandwidth modes, not enforcing the mode bandwidths themselves. Plug and play operators would merely have new subband edges to watch out for, not pop open their rigs and tweak them.

"This seems to bring us back to the idea of viewing this as a "people problem" or a lack of technical understanding. "

I agree with you on this point, I just don't agree with your interpretation of regulation by bandwidth and the way you're applying it to this issue. Furthermore, I don't think ARRL intended this proposal to help with the non-technical newbies issues, and I don't think newbies operating with excessive bandwidth is a widespread problem. If anything they wanted to accomodate data modes better. I'm not defending the proposal. I think they should go back to the drawing board. When you get down to brass tacks, it's the mode where the compatibility or lack thereof exists, not bandwidth. There's plenty of valid objections to the ARRL proposal, but I wouldn't attribute its lack of effectiveness in dealing with newbies operating with excessive bandwidth as it's not a stated goal.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Those are valid and well thought out statements.

All points well taken.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL's RM-11306 had a lot of words back in 14 November 2005
when they submitted it. Looking at the voluminous text shows
very little change over the existing regulations. One rather glaring
oversight by Booth, Freret, Imlay and Tepper (law firm supposedly
dealing with communications law) exists in regards to the Radio
Regulations of the ITU and the emission designations as they
were changed at WARC-79, 28 years ago. To do what RM-11306
originally stated would make US amateur radio regulations
different in so far as emission designators are concerned. NOT a
good thing considering that amateur radio is a minority radio
service in the USA; the rest of the radio services don't have to
conform to amateur rules. Rather, amateur radio regulations here
have to be in step with a standardized set of emission designators
that apply to ALL radio services. The ARRL's proposal wasn't that
coherent as to the WHY of changing except for a lot of emotional
phrasing about "stifling technical advancement" and other things.
It was just as well that B, F, I, and T withdrew the whole thing.

The way I saw it was that the League was just making noise to
attempt showing that they "care" or something, damage control
to get around their ultra-conservative approach to holding fast to
the status quo prior to FCC 06-178. The ARRL doesn't appear to
have the "power" it once had as a special-interest group for the
old-line conservative hams, now a minority although a very vocal
minority (they have the time to comment now that so many are
older). They seem to be in dichotomous activity: Trying to
please the old-timers (making up their affluent core membership)
but still trying to look "with-it" to potential members...such as
trying to bend the existing rules (which they lobbied for and
mostly got a long time ago).

K4ZMV wrote: "It's my impression that a great majority of new
hams are not very technically inclined. As some have previously
stated, they are of a 'plug and play' mentality." Heh heh heh,
I've always been older than the FCC and first tuned up a 1 KW
HF transmitter in February 1953...spent a working career in
radio-electronics until retirement. My first ham license was
granted 7 Mar 07. I happen to LIKE "plug-and-play." I've
already done the whole gig from paper design to production
prototype, able to handle all the crafts along the way. Why
keep on re-inventing the same wheel? Work on NEW wheels.

I thought amateur radio might be a fun hobby. No, it seems
to be filled with lots of "boyz in da hood" gangs busy carving
out status-quo Mode Turf. That's MY impression from
viewing these "news articles." :-(

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR writes:

ab0wr:"Those that say they aren't plain and understandable have a selfish agenda that they think can be advanced by ignoring the spirit of the laws and saying that the letter of the law doesn't apply to them -- they are scofflaws. There just isn't any other way to describe such a person."


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Sure there is: They're people who disagree with *your* interpretation.

For example, in another post you applied the 300 baud rule and the 1000 Hz FSK shift rule to come up with a maximum allowed data bandwidth of 1500 Hz for *all* data modes.

That's *your* interpretation of FCC's intent. I think it's a reasonable one, but it's not spelled out in the letter of the law. For example, what if a data mode doesn't use FSK at all?

If FCC's intent is a 1500 Hz maximum bandwidth, why not simply state that and be done with it? The band edges are clearly stated, why not the allowable mode bandwidths? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"I've answered this at least twice. Why is it so hard to figure out? My calculation of the necessary bandwidth for an FSK signal using a 1000hz shift and a 300baud data rate is NOT an interpretation. Let me repeat that with emphasis - *NOT AN INTERPRETATION*."

It's not an interpretation for an FSK signal.

But it *is* an interpretation for a non-FSK signal!

"The FCC typically avoids laying down specfic occupied bandwidth limits when it comes to bandwidths in the amateur service. Necessary bandwidth and occupied bandwidth are not the same thing."

Of course, but that's not the issue.

"*You* would have them start specifying occupied bandwidths which would require every ham to have a spectrum analyzer with a traceable calibration in order to insure they are not violating the occupied bandwidth rules."

Why would a spectrum analyzer be required? That's not obvious at all.

Under current rules, all amateurs are required to keep their transmissions inside the frequency assignments for their license class. How that is done is up to the individual amateur. There is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the signal meet the requirements of being inside the band - nothing more.

Or consider the regulations about spurious emission rejection, and how many dB down they must be for all amateur transmitters. Again, there is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the spurious emissions meet the requirements of being below the specified level - nothing more.

There are plenty of other similar requirements on the current rules. For example, anything less than a pure DC carrier (T9) on a CW/Morse signal is Not Acceptable to FCC. Yet FCC simply sets the requirement and leaves it up to us hams to figure out how to comply.

Why would regulation-by-bandwidth be any different? Why would a rule that says "no signals wider than X Hz in this part of the band" suddenly require precision measurements of compliance?

"The FCC isn't going to propagate a rule like that and you know it and so does aa4pb.

Would *YOU* like to be required to buy a $10,000 (or more) spectrum analyzer before you could transmit so you would know your occupied bandwidth was within limits? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't like it one bit."

*WHY* would that be required, when FCC doesn't require anything like that for any other technical requirements in the amateur service?

FCC trusts me and every other ham to keep our signals clean and inside the bands. They don't specify how we do that, either, just that it's our responsibility to do it.

Why would regulation-by-bandwidth be any different?

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't think ARRL intended this proposal to help with the non-technical newbies issues, and I don't think newbies operating with excessive bandwidth is a widespread problem. If anything they wanted to accommodate data modes better.

----------------

if this intention to "accommodate" digital mode better were true, (I have my reservations about that) then this would mean it would also serve to create a division between hams (like CW vs. SSB does) at the same time.

Basically, the "majority" (SSB operators) would have to give up a portion of their operating spectrum to accommodate digital operators to avoid interfering with them and vice versa. Technically that would make sense however the radio spectrum would in effect become channelized according to mode of operation and SSB operators stand to loose a portion of spectrum in the process.

What bothers me about this entire thing is that I can't help but be forced to conclude that any intended proposal placed on the table for consideration (this or any other proposal for that matter) should be intended to serve in the majorities best interests of everyone involved.

However if you should sit back and consider that any such proposal intended to remove spectrum away from SSB operators (who are clearly the majority in this instance) to accommodate digital data operators (the minority), then it's rather obvious to me that this proposal must have another underlying agenda in mind other than the idea of serving in the majorities best interests.

I'll let someone else take it from there.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Why would a spectrum analyzer be required? That's not obvious at all.

Under current rules, all amateurs are required to keep their transmissions inside the frequency assignments for their license class. How that is done is up to the individual amateur. There is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the signal meet the requirements of being inside the band - nothing more. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bandwidth and frequency are two different things.

If the FCC were to change 97.307 to say that 1500hz is the allowed occupied bandwidth in the CW/Data portions of the band, how would you determine your bandwidth without a spectrum analyzer?

Would you just go ahead and transmit and hope for the best? What would you do if someone complains you are 10hz too wide and provides the FCC with a graphic printout from their spectrum analyzer showing that?

Using necessary bandwidth as the specification is *exactly* what you talking about. It does *not* require measuring actual occupied bandwidth. As long as the mode you are using has a necessary bandwidth within the limits and your transmitter is set up per the rest of the rules you are ok.

The rule, as written, SPECIFIES what the necessary bandwidth limit is. Those who say that the rule doesn't specify necessary bandwidth either haven't read the FCC rules or are scofflaws.

You seem to want your cake and eat it too. Things don't work that way. The rule *does* specify necessary bandwidth, no other clarification is needed to calculate it. The only other possibility you can be asking for is for the FCC to specify *occupied* bandwidth.

I just can't believe that we have hams today who would like the FCC to start regulating us based on occupied bandwidth. Occupied bandwidth is NOT a "fuzzy" thing like necessary bandwidth spec's. You can get by without measuring anything when using necessary bandwidth. That's just not so for occupied bandwidth.

Ask the ARRL why they changed their proposal from asking the FCC to specify occupied bandwidths to using specifying necessary bandwidths. I think you'll get the same answer I am giving you. I know *my* Director will give you the same answer.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Or consider the regulations about spurious emission rejection, and how many dB down they must be for all amateur transmitters. Again, there is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the spurious emissions meet the requirements of being below the specified level - nothing more."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do you just use your equipment and hope for the best on spurious emissions? If you build a new transmitter do you just build it and hope for the best on spurious emissions? Or do you do your best to make sure they are as good as they can possibly be? Do you even own an oscilliscope to try and make an attempt at measuring the linearity of amplifier stages? Or do you just hope for the best?

Yes, the FCC doesn't care what a transmitter has for spurious emissions as long as they are below the limits.

But I would be very curious how you handle building a new transmitter as far as spurious emissions go. If you really do just cross your fingers and hope for the best, are you *really* meeting the spirit as well as the letter of the law? Or are you just "hoping for the best"?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Why would regulation-by-bandwidth be any different? Why would a rule that says "no signals wider than X Hz in this part of the band" suddenly require precision measurements of compliance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'll reiterate. Ask the ARRL why they changed from occupied bandwidth regulation to necessary bandwidth regulation. You'll have your answer. All you will have to do is learn to accept it. I can't help you with that. The rules already specify a necessary bandwidth limit in the CW/Data portions of the band. Asking the FCC to start specifying occupied bandwidths instead would be a big, big mistake, at least in my opinion.

Is there anyone else who agrees who would like to explain this? I don't seem to be having any luck!

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
However if you should sit back and consider that any such proposal intended to remove spectrum away from SSB operators (who are clearly the majority in this instance) to accommodate digital data operators (the minority), then it's rather obvious to me that this proposal must have another underlying agenda in mind other than the idea of serving in the majorities best interests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Man! You said a mouthful here!

You did forget another possibility, however.

Stupidity.

I wouldn't rule it out. It comes from making decsions based on hyperbole like "DIGITAL IS COMING", instead of using fact based information like a real spectrum usage study.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
g3rzp:"The definition of 'necessary bandwidth' from international law (because it's in the Radio Regulations, and countries sign up to those as an international treaty)is to my mind, pretty woolly anyway. Measuring the 'occupied bandwidth' wouldn't be that easy because you'd have to make sure that you integrated the speech pattern over a long enough period, and that the mic level didn't change during that time. So at best, it would be well averaged sort of thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure what you mean by "wooly" but your points on measuring "occupied" bandwidth are well taken. That *is* one of the problems that using necessary bandwidth avoids, having to specify measurement techniques as well as specifying bandwidth limits.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
g3rzp:"One thing you can be sure of. If someone, somewhere sees a way of using OFDM that's far wider than 3kHz, sooner or later, they will. Incidentally, how are the present HF digital modes cosidered as legal since they are OFDM? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This would be even more true if all we had were "gentleman's agreements" to keep it from happening.

OFDM is perfectly legal on the ham bands, at least in the US. It isn't the transmission method that is the problem, it is the spectrum efficiency and interference mitigation issues that come with it. OFDM signals like mt63 and mfsk16 are typically not problems. The users find spectrum holes to work in and manually handle interference mitigation quite well. Some of the ARQ modes are not so nice, especially the ones that start out narrow (like 200hz) and then expand out to 3khz without any manual control and, in doing so, wipe out two or three other adjacent conversations. I'll leave it to you to determine what that mode is.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Nope, no sale on that point. The stupidity theory is too far fetched to believe considering the organization has been writing similar proposals for almost 100 years.

The only other conclusion is that there is some sort of unclear agenda. No organization could be "that" stupid unless it was somehow intentional.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The rules already specify a necessary bandwidth limit in the CW/Data portions of the band. Asking the FCC to start specifying occupied bandwidths instead would be a big, big mistake, at least in my opinion.

-------

I can only speak for myself but I feel that most people concur with that way of thinking. Many people have indicated things along the lines of, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

..So tell me.. Why does this proposal exist and why is there this sudden need to fix anything exactly anyways?

I don't see any reason. Nor do I feel they have presented this proposal clearly because they have not proven or explained any so called need.

I have heard and I do understand the technical aspects of mixing modes in a similar portion of spectrum however the reality seems much different than the theory I am hearing.

There are no widespread problems reported and everyone seems to be getting along just fine without it.

So far this proposal seems based on unsubstantiated fallacy without any cold hard facts and so called "need" for digital bands. This especially when the majority of users are SSB operators and digital operators are the minority in the real world.

Again, why is there this sudden "need" to change the operating criteria from necessary bandwidth limits to occupied bandwidth limits and what exactly is the "real" agenda behind implementing such unnecessary proposals?

Maybe they don't even know why themselves? (I have a hard time with that though.)

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by G3RZP on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
From memory, and I don't have a copy of the latest versions of either ITU-R Rec. SM.328 or 329 to hand, necessary bandwidth is the "bandwidth necessary to accomadate an emission with a given degree of degradation." Incidentally, the WARC 79 definitions have changed a bit with the revisions of SM.329 (spurious emissions) and SM328 (Out of band) emissions after the ITU-R TG1/3 and TG1/5 groups finished their work..

Which is why I say the definition of necessary bandwidth is 'woolly'.

In general, the gentlemen's agreements DO work. Where they fall down is at times of super high activity on one mode or another. CQWW SSB easily reaches 30k callsigns active: what people don't wish to recognise is that if all those guys came on for a ragchew, it would be just as much QRM as a contest - maybe more. Especially at a time of sun spot minimum. So there is an argument, especially in R1 on 7MHz, for flexibility in the application of the band plans. But such suggestions are anathema to the anti-contest brigade.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by K5YF on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Welcome aboard Len(AF6AY) and thank you for your participation!
-------------------------------------------

The regulations in this regard are broken and need fixing....

This thread reads like a “territorial” squabble because, of course, it is. In the past there was sparky’s VS cw, then cw VS am, then am VS ssb, and on and on, ad nausium. Those desperately clinging to the past will try to squelch the upstart punks while conveniently ignoring that in the past they were themselves the upstart punks.

We should remove FCC regulation of the amateur service bands by mode or emission width. That is to say that operational station standards and frequency sharing (as in nobody owns a frequency on the ham bands) should remain. Call it a “free market” approach to the ham bands. The people who actually USE the bands would get to choose how they are used simply by using them.

An additional note about that bothersome sharing thing….. If someone is already using a frequency, it is illegal (that means it is not legal and you can be fined and/or imprisoned) to intentionally interfere with other communications either inside or outside of the Amateur bands. [Readily available and simple to construct computer interfaces make it incredibly easy to record on-air activities.] Anyway, that means stations shouldn’t begin a new or unrelated communication on top of any existing communication. Period!

The FCC has shown that they DO listen to the ham bands and they DO fine those who break the law. If YOU don’t like what you hear on the air and YOU have the slightest inkling that it was illegal, record it and email it to the FCC. Complaining about it here doesn’t help. Assisting the FCC gather evidence for an enforcement action WILL help.

Government regulations can’t and will never replace good operating technique. Listen, in every mode you have (cw, cwR, usb, lsb, am, fm), for a LONG TIME before you transmit. That means before you tune up! Turn the NB off and listen. For that matter take all filters out of line and give a good long listen.

If people follow these steps, how are modes going to be incompatible next too each other on the bands? I mean, you know how wide your signal is, right? And you know how wide the other person’s signal needs, right? So if you listened first, and you are following a good operational technique, and you know how wide your signal is, and you know how wide the other fellow’s is, you can figure out how far away you need to be, RIGHT?

I know someone wants to say, “Yea, but that bla-bla guy/gal doesn’t know all that stuff and will mess it up for all the rest of us.” How well do the current regulations prevent the bla-bla folks, and in what way would more or different regulations help that?

The regulations as they are now were put in place to protect one mode in particular. Later they were revised to include a couple of others, and specifically to exclude spread-spectrum.

Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the future from arriving. Because if the future doesn’t show up in Amateur Radio at some point, the only thing this service will be good for is nostalgia, and that would be irony worthy of a mini-series. Well, at least an after school special.

Best 73 and be well,
de
Brandon, N5JYK
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ab0WR writes:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Why would a spectrum analyzer be required? That's not obvious at all.

Under current rules, all amateurs are required to keep their transmissions inside the frequency assignments for their license class. How that is done is up to the individual amateur. There is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the signal meet the requirements of being inside the band - nothing more. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Bandwidth and frequency are two different things.

If the FCC were to change 97.307 to say that 1500hz is the allowed occupied bandwidth in the CW/Data portions of the band, how would you determine your bandwidth without a spectrum analyzer?"

Calculation and measurement.

"Would you just go ahead and transmit and hope for the best? What would you do if someone complains you are 10hz too wide and provides the FCC with a graphic printout from their spectrum analyzer showing that?"

I'd make the signal 11 Hz narrower.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Or consider the regulations about spurious emission rejection, and how many dB down they must be for all amateur transmitters. Again, there is no requirement for any specific piece of test equipment, nor traceable calibration, etc. All that's required by FCC is that the spurious emissions meet the requirements of being below the specified level - nothing more."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Do you just use your equipment and hope for the best on spurious emissions?"

Nope. But neither do I have a $10,000 NIST-traceable spectrum analyzer hooked up to it.

Do *you*? How do *you* know your rig meets FCC spurious-emission specifications?

"If you build a new transmitter do you just build it and hope for the best on spurious emissions? Or do you do your best to make sure they are as good as they can possibly be?"

What do *you* do, Tim?

"Do you even own an oscilliscope to try and make an attempt at measuring the linearity of amplifier stages?"

I have a 'scope, but measuring the linearity of the amplifiers won't help much if they are Class C.

"Yes, the FCC doesn't care what a transmitter has for spurious emissions as long as they are below the limits."

So why should they treat bandwidth any differently? How often is the typical amateur transmitter checked for spurious emissions?

"But I would be very curious how you handle building a new transmitter as far as spurious emissions go. If you really do just cross your fingers and hope for the best, are you *really* meeting the spirit as well as the letter of the law? Or are you just "hoping for the best"?"

Calculation and measurement, Tim.

Have the rules about spurious emissions caused hams to stop building? Does every ham who builds a rig need access to a $10,000 NIST-traceable spectrum analyzer to be sure it meets the regs? Is FCC shutting down amateur stations for this?

I think not. So why should regulation-by-bandwidth be any different?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Why would regulation-by-bandwidth be any different? Why would a rule that says "no signals wider than X Hz in this part of the band" suddenly require precision measurements of compliance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"I'll reiterate. Ask the ARRL why they changed from occupied bandwidth regulation to necessary bandwidth regulation. You'll have your answer."

You're ducking my question, Tim. I think that's because you know that FCC won't make a big deal about it.

And if the rules specify necessary BW, so much the better.

"The rules already specify a necessary bandwidth limit in the CW/Data portions of the band."

For some modes. Not for all modes.

"Asking the FCC to start specifying occupied bandwidths instead would be a big, big mistake, at least in my opinion.

Is there anyone else who agrees who would like to explain this? I don't seem to be having any luck!"

Maybe that's because you're not answering my questions.

Here's what really goes on:

FCC does not spend much time prowling the bands looking for amateurs violating the rules. They just don't have the resources.

Instead, they depend on complaints. If someone seems to be running superpower, or is causing interference because of a rig that doesn't meet spurious-emission regs, etc., FCC listens, does measurements, etc. And if the complaints are valid, FCC goes after the violator.

That won't change a bit with regulation-by-bandwidth.

73 de Jim, N2EY


tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KC8VWM writes:

"if this intention to "accommodate" digital mode better were true, (I have my reservations about that) then this would mean it would also serve to create a division between hams (like CW vs. SSB does) at the same time."

The current rules are the result of decades of patching.

In the bad old days, 99.99% of hams on HF used either CW/Morse Code or AM voice.

Then hams started getting on HF with NBFM and SSB voice. Fine, says FCC, just keep the NBFM no wider than an AM voice signal. And since SSB is just AM without the carrier and one sideband, it's covered by the existing regs that cover AM. No problem. (There were hams on the air with SSB in the early 1930s, and with NBFM in the late 1940s. SSB caught on bigtime in the '50s and '60s, NBFM use by HF hams faded away).

Then some hams got on the air with RTTY (1948). That took a bit more doing and a rules change. Same with SSTV (1958 or so)

But relatively few HF hams used modes other than Morse Code/CW, SSB voice and AM voice, because of the added equipment required. All that changed when computers became inexpensive, easy to use, and near-ubiquitous.

But the rules didn't change.

"Basically, the "majority" (SSB operators) would have to give up a portion of their operating spectrum to accommodate digital operators to avoid interfering with them and vice versa."

Not really. Note that the original regulation-by-bandwidth proposal also proposed widening the subbands where SSB is allowed.

"Technically that would make sense however the radio spectrum would in effect become channelized according to mode of operation and SSB operators stand to loose a portion of spectrum in the process."

What has happened instead is that the CW/data ops lost spectrum. Look at 80/75 meters: 80% of it is not available to data ops.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I've recently had a newly licensed General Class Op email me to ask me tons of fundamental antenna questions. He was quick to tell me that, "I don't know much about antennas. The whole theory confuses me." This guy has a friggin' license. Disgusting. But...."

I have the ARRL License Manuals for 1948, 1951, 1954, 1952 and 1971. Back in the days before the VE system and published question pools.

In the 1948 LM, there are two questions involving antennas. One is part of a draw-a-diagram question about transmitters and the other is about lightning protection using a grounding switch. Both questions are in the Class B/C study guide - *nothing* about antennas in the Class A study guide! Nothing at all about dipoles, SWR, or antenna theory in either.

In the 1951 LM, there are two questions involving antennas. Both are part of a draw-a-diagram questions about transmitters. Both questions are in the General Class study guide, which was also used for Technician back then. *Nothing* about antennas in the Novice or Advanced Class study guides! Nothing at all about dipoles, SWR, or antenna theory in any class.

In the 1954 LM, there are two questions involving antennas in the General/Technician study guide. Both are part of a draw-a-diagram questions about transmitters. *Nothing* about antennas in the Novice Class study guide!

There are several questions about antennas in the 1954 Extra study guide. But the ham you mentioned wasn't an Extra. Nothing at all about dipoles, SWR, or antenna theory in any class except Extra.

In the 1962 LM, there are two questions involving antennas in the General/Technician study guide. Both are part of a draw-a-diagram questions about transmitters. *Nothing* about antennas in the Novice Class study guide!

There are several questions about antennas in the 1962 Extra study guide. But the ham you mentioned wasn't an Extra. Nothing at all about dipoles, SWR, or antenna theory in any class except Extra.

In the 1971 LM, there is one question about antennas in the Novice study guide, but it's about the maximum permissible height of an antenna and FAA notification.

There are two questions involving antennas in the 1971 General/Technician study guide. One is about SWR and transmission lines, one about the length of a halfwave dipole - and that's it.

There are several questions about antennas in the 1971 Advanced and Extra study guides. But the ham you mentioned wasn't an Extra or an Advanced.

In looking over those LMs, it's clear to me that someone 'back then' could know little or nothing about antennas and still pass the General exams easily. Even at the Advanced and Extra level, antenna questions made up only a small part of the total questions.

"I've been the patient Elmer throughout it all. I've not condescended and have offered all the advice and technical support that I can."

That's great!

"I'm most proud of myself for convincing him to throw that coaxial crap in the trash and build himself some good old-fashioned open wire feeder. hihi!"

Coax has its uses. It's not "crap" unless it's misused.

"Maybe we older hams have more influence than we realize."

Yep - if we're willing to use it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"If the FCC were to change 97.307 to say that 1500hz is the allowed occupied bandwidth in the CW/Data portions of the band, how would you determine your bandwidth without a spectrum analyzer?"

Calculation and measurement. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Measurement, eh? Measurement of what, exactly? Operating point, perhaps?

And if you are figuring bandwidth of a mode based on calculation you are determining *NECESSARY* bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth.

As this thread started out, you can't tell your occupied CW bandwidth from necessary bandwidth calculations (at least until your speed gets pretty high).

And that is about the simplest mode around.

If you have a 200hz occupied bandwidth limit in the narrowest part of the band (isn't that what the ARRL proposed?) and, as Tom points out, 200hz is about as narrow as most CW signals get, what happens if your transmitter is one that has a little sharper rise and fall time? Do you just stop operating CW? Do you buy a new transmitter? Do you dig into your transmitter and modify the shaping circut? How good are you at SMT desoldering and soldering?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"I have a 'scope, but measuring the linearity of the amplifiers won't help much if they are Class C. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you can't tell occupied bandwidth from calculations when using CW, then how *would* you tell if you were within occupied bandwidth limits?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"I think that's because you know that FCC won't make a big deal about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"Instead, they depend on complaints. If someone seems to be running superpower, or is causing interference because of a rig that doesn't meet spurious-emission regs, etc., FCC listens, does measurements, etc. And if the complaints are valid, FCC goes after the violator. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree that It won't be the FCC making the big deal out of it. It will be the a**hole who makes a complaint against you using evidence from *HIS* spectrum analyzer that you are exceeding occupied bandwidth limits.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"I'd make the signal 11 Hz narrower"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Glib answer but rather lacking in specifics. How would you make it narrower if it were a sound card mode you are running that is based on software you didn't write?

Just stop using it, perhaps?

Only use modes *well* within the occupied specifications?

That would be real good for experimentation and advancing the technical phases of the art, wouldn't it?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n2ey:"That won't change a bit with regulation-by-bandwidth."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The point is that there are *ALREADY* bandwidth limit regulations stated for the narrowband portion of the band. They just happen to be stated in terms of necessary bandwidth and not occupied bandwidth. A necessary bandwidth limit is *NOT* mode specific. It may be stated in terms of a specific mode but that does not change the intent. You can specfically calculate what that limit is.

No one seems to want to address the specific words of the FCC in the Omnibus R&O where they stated that they want the CW/RTTY portions to be NARROWBAND.

Instead all I see are people arguing that the rules don't apply to any mode except FSK and that other data modes like OFDM can be as wide as they want to be.

If that isn't a scofflaw attitude I don't know what is.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
n5jyk:"Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the future from arriving. Because if the future doesn’t show up in Amateur Radio at some point, the only thing this service will be good for is nostalgia, and that would be irony worthy of a mini-series. Well, at least an after school special. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am going to paraphrase the words of another ham here because I don't yet have permission to directly use his words.

He says in another posting that those who are attempting to change amateur radio into another paradigm basically choose to not see amateur radio as a source of innovation or technology. The problem is that amateur radio is like a seeding ground where the result is our productivity and innovation. Just like a seeding ground there will be times when it will produce a harvest and sometimes when it will lie fallow and rejuvinate.

What we see from those who refuse to acknowledge the true character of amateur radio is an attempt to turn it into a crippled emulator of a common carrier providing access to the internet for a few people. They see any amateur activity that is not internet related as something to discourage, as something to run down and disparage, and to attempt to squash. They view other hams and their activites as enemies, as if they had done them harm and need to be eliminated.

The sad part is that internet access on HF will always be crippled because of the limited spectrum available and the fact that it has to be shared. But we still see the push for wideband digital modes, as wide as 20khz to 100khz on HF so that a *few*, and I mean a *FEW* people can have internet access nodes up and running for hours per day. What that does to those other hams who want to use other modes is irrelevant because it isn't the same "future" that the bandwidth hogs foresee as being the "savior" of amateur radio.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tim, give it a break please. You are going round and round in circles. On one hand you say that we already have bandwidth limitations and don't need any more. On the other hand you say that if the FCC prescribes clearly stated bandwidth requirements then we will all will have to measure it with spectrum analyzers. Bull!!!

It seems to me that *you* must have some kind of personal agenda here to keep pushing this smoke and mirrors idea.

How will we handle the bandwidth? Just like we handle frequency and spurious signal requirements now. The developers of new hardware and software use test equipment to measure the bandwidth. Mfgs. of transmitters do a proper design and they measure the bandwidth during development. The average ham doesn't have to set up a spectrum analyzer and monitor his bandwidth any more than he needs a certified frequency counter to monitor his frequency or a spectrum analyzer to monitor how clean his signal is.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
By the way, instead of wasting your time trying to convince everyone that clear regulation of bandwidth is a bad thing, your time would be better spent trying to come up with reasonable bandwidth limits. I don't agree with 3kHz across the board but I do know that the present system needs to be changed to account for the new technology. Its coming whether we like it or not so it is better to modify the requlations to reasonably account for and control the new technology. Quit living in the past and contribute to some reasonable regulations for the future.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Here are some points to consider, as I see them:

1) With the ever-increasing number of modes, trying to give each mode is own space in the spectrum is a loosing proposition.

2) Trying to assign spectrum space based on the content of the transmission (voice, image, RTTY, data) doesn't make any sense when you consider that the trend is toward digital transmission of all of types of content. Digital transmission is a "pipe" through which you can send any type of content without changing the modulation technique, bandwidth, etc.

3) Modes like SSB and CW, where a human listens directly to the receiver, will be very annoying to listen to if surrounded by digital signals. We have this annoyance now to a limited extent when there is interference from AM or slow-scan stations. Is there enough spectrum to provide a protected space for analog modes?

4) What should the maximum bandwidth be? 3kHz would accommodate every present mode except AM. If 3kHz is set as the limit, should there be an exception for AM?

5) Should there be band segments set aside for narrower bandwidth signals?

6) Should all digital signals be limited to a narrow bandwidth segment? Some content like voice and high-speed data require the 3kHz bandwidth. Why should it be permissible to use 3kHz of spectrum for some content (voice) but not for others (high speed data)?

7) Should we clarify the requirement that stations are not permitted to utilize more bandwidth than necessary to transmit the content? This would prevent using 3kHz of bandwidth to transmit slow speed data, for example, when it is technically possible to do it in a 500Hz bandwidth.

8) Stations under automatic control or the so-called semi-automatic control are a different issue that is not directly related to bandwidth regulations. These stations should be highly restricted in the spectrum that they are permitted to use. This regulation needs to be added at the same time any bandwidth regulation change is implemented in order to prevent problems that could occur with opening new spectrum to these stations before new restrictions are in place.

9) Should "automatic control" be re-defined to include any station for which a control operator is not physically located some short distance (say 1 mile) of the transmitter? This would include stations who only respond to requests from manually controlled stations. In lieu of the distance there could be a requirement that the control operator be able to listen to a receiver located at the transmit site in order to check for a clear frequency.

10) Should there be defined exemption to the frequency limitations for automatically controlled stations during an "FCC declared" emergency? The intent here would be to allow more spectrum for passing digital traffic during a true emergency.

11) The ARRL should direct the development of a voluntary band plan based on the new regulations. This needs to have input from affected countries outside the U.S. A draft should be made public before any regulation proposals are submitted to the FCC so that everyone will have an idea of the overall intent.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"Tim, give it a break please. You are going round and round in circles. On one hand you say that we already have bandwidth limitations and don't need any more. On the other hand you say that if the FCC prescribes clearly stated bandwidth requirements then we will all will have to measure it with spectrum analyzers. Bull!!! "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You still don't understand the difference between necessary and occupied bandwidth do you? Have you asked your ARRL Director to explain why they decided occupied bandwidth was NOT the way to go? The only circle that is happening here is the one caused by your short circuiting the defintions of necessary and occupied bandwidths.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4bp:"It seems to me that *you* must have some kind of personal agenda here to keep pushing this smoke and mirrors idea. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My agenda is to correct those that say the regulations are unclear and those that say no bandwidth regulations exist for modes other than FSK. Both are incorrect. The regulations are clear and they *DO* cover all modes. Only scofflaws look for ways to say that clear, specific regulations don't apply to them.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"How will we handle the bandwidth? Just like we handle frequency and spurious signal requirements now. The developers of new hardware and software use test equipment to measure the bandwidth. Mfgs. of transmitters do a proper design and they measure the bandwidth during development. The average ham doesn't have to set up a spectrum analyzer and monitor his bandwidth any more than he needs a certified frequency counter to monitor his frequency or a spectrum analyzer to monitor how clean his signal is. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You continue to show a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations. It's no wonder things are unclear to you. You have no need to measure your exact frequency as long as it is inside the band. *Most* people either have crystal calibrators to use in accomplishing this task (i.e. staying within the band) or do it by calibrating their frequency determining device to a standard like WWV.

Change the regulations for frequency to be like you are asking for with occupied bandwidth and you *will* have to measure your frequency with a calibrated measuring device. Channelize the ham bands with freq tolerances of +/- 10hz, the effective equivalent of your "occupied bandwidth" regulations, and you can bet that people will be scrambling to buy calibrated freq counters.

Too many hams have gone the route of appliance operators today. They depend upon manufacturers to build equipment that cannot be operated with spurious emissions outside the FCC specified requirements, i.e. type-accepted equipment. Sadly, far too many of these same appliance operators then operate their equipment, that they suppose to be bullet-proof, in manners that *do* violate the rules, particularly by running mic gain and compressor settings far above manufacturer recomendations. Take a look on the psk frequencies sometime for confirmation. If this continues to where it becomes a problem, then the day *will* come where the FCC will either force the amateur service into using type-accepted equipment (good bye experimentation and mic gains and power level adjustments) or it will force it into recognizing the technical side of the service once again. While I don't have a spectrum analyzer I *do* use my scope and vtvm to measure the bias points and linear operating points of my equipment on an annual basis and then I stay within those limits.

When was the last time you checked anything to do with your transmitters?

Or do you just depend on a wing and prayer also?

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W8JI on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Tim,

The present rules only work under the assumption people throughout the process have some actual understanding of transmitters and receivers and that they also have a desire to not cause unnecessary problems.

Manufacturers for example almost always only work to meet the very minimum technical standards accepted even if it is just pennies to improve things. Some of this comes from engineers at the factories either not fully understanding problems or not caring about adjacent channel problems. An increasing part of the blame falls on end users who have an urge to modify systems in harmful ways. For example it is increasingly popular to readjust the transmitter ALC loop to allow rigs that are at best marginally good at 100 watts to run 150 watts or more.

We all know this happens.

There is also increasing abuse of necessary bandwidth, some people claiming 6-20kHz of spectrum is "necessary" to them.... even on crowded bands or in poorly chosen areas of bands.

Compounding this we have digital modes generated in external devices with uncontrolled interfaces that are run through the audio channel of a SSB transmitter, a system nortoriously easy to create spurious emissions within the filter BW of the transmitter. Most of the people writing articles about using those modes appear to not understand ground loops in audio systems.

It is a strawman argument to say regulation by bandwidth would require everyone to measure bandwidth. Historically we have NEVER had to measure and certify any complex parameters, we are only responsible if someone reports we are violating regulations to make some effort to determine if we are complying or not.

The fact is nothing would change for the considerate operator, but at the front end of the chain manufacturers would understand the engineering goals better. The inconsiderate operator or operator modifying or adding accesories that modified bandwidth or signal purity would have firm limits that provide a clear enforcement tool instead of a lengthy argument about what is necessary or not, what is harmful or not, and what is a good or poor practice.

All this exaggerated "Chicken Little" stuff like "The Robots are Coming" or "Every station would have to own a spectrum analyzer" isn't true, and does our fraternity no good. Regulation by bandwidth would streamline the enforcement process and give everyone throughout the system firm guidelines and goals rather than allowing argument and abuse.

Imagine the shape our SHARED public highways would be in if any size vehicle could operate in any lane they like as long as they had the minimum necessary speed and lane width. Radio highways are no different.

We have NEVER been forced to own spectrum analyzers to masure the technical standards we have now. We don't even have to own devices that determine the frequency we are on, despite very clear rules of what those frquency limits are. There is absolutely no logical reason at all to assume that would abruptly change because the FCC sorts things by bandwidth.

The real problem is all of this is the ARRL has poorly communicated the problem. They use the same time-worn people to make a case and have refused to engage in what are really some very valid questions.

I expect a minority of very vocal minority of people who enjoy the current poorly defined standards to come up with every argument they can to preserve their ability work the system. Some of us will want to preserve a system that was built around good human nature and intention, such as the FCC's required use of "minimum necessary communications bandwidth" as a standard.

We can certainly accomodate the people who like to play radio announcer through wide bandwidth segments, just like busy highways work better with defined truck and HOV lanes. We can create a tool that gets the CB transistor amplifiers off the Ham bands, a tool that also can be used against the same CB mentality behind cranking up the power limit pots in radios.

What we need to stop is all this Chicken Little politics that flys in the face of reason. This same nonsense got us into trouble as a country, and now it is holding amateur radio back.

Let's do the right thing for the hobby instead of ourselves.

73 Tom
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"By the way, instead of wasting your time trying to convince everyone that clear regulation of bandwidth is a bad thing, your time would be better spent trying to come up with reasonable bandwidth limits."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We *already have* clear bandwidth regulations for the CW/RTTY portions of the band.

It *is* a good thing. And they *are* reasonable.

Refusing to accept this is nothing more than saying the rules don't apply to you. That *is* a scofflaw attitude.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
w8ji:"All this exaggerated "Chicken Little" stuff like "The Robots are Coming" or "Every station would have to own a spectrum analyzer" isn't true, and does our fraternity no good. Regulation by bandwidth would streamline the enforcement process and give everyone throughout the system firm guidelines and goals rather than allowing argument and abuse. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While I agree with most of what you say, I have some fundamental disagreements here.

Necessary bandwidth specifications allow leeway. Occupied bandwidth specifications don't.

Necessary bandwidth specs allow an experimenter to push the frontiers and still be "off" a little. Occupied bandwidth specs don't.

Under occupied bandwidth specs, every social misfit with a calibrated spectrum analyzer could make life miserable for the amateur community by inundating the FCC with complaints that *this* ham or *those* hams are continually violating the very clear OCCUPIED bandwidth limits.

Yes, not every ham will have to have a spectrum analyzer but if you don't have one, and don't use it, then you lay yourself open to those misfits that DO have one. How will you answer an FCC inquiry about what methods you will employ to prevent further problems in the case of a valid complaint? That you will sell your equipment? That you will buy a spectrum analyzer and start monitoring your bandwidth?

It *would* kill experimentation. It woud not be a nice environment to operate in -- just waiting for the social misfits to jump on your 10hz too wide signal.

It would supress new entry into the hobby by raising equipment prices and would hasten the exit of those whose equipment doesn't measure up.

*AND* if you propagate occupied bandwidth rules and then refuse to enforce them then you do nothing but encourage further disregard for the rules by those scofflaws who don't think the rules apply to them in the first place. You are better off with NO rules than with rules which the enforcing agency publically refuses to enforce. You've already seen people on here rationalizing that clear rules with clear intent, affirmed by direct FCC statement, don't apply to them. Can you imagine the rationalizations that would occur by these same people if the FCC were to publically admit that they wouldn't enforce the rules?

BTW, the robots are already here. We have seen, just within the last year, the number of automated email systems on the ham bands go from one to two. Do *you* know of something the rest of us dont that will limit their growth?

tim ab0wr

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"We *already have* clear bandwidth regulations for the CW/RTTY portions of the band."

Wrong! And how about the Phone portion where digital voice operates???

"It *is* a good thing. And they *are* reasonable."

Wrong!

"Refusing to accept this is nothing more than saying the rules don't apply to you. That *is* a scofflaw attitude."

Wrong again!

I know the difference between "occupied bandwidth" and "necessary bandwidth". They can use either one and it won't requiring monitoring your signal with a spectrum analyzer.

I think you are just trying to scare people into maintaining the status quo because *you* are afraid of change, Tim.

Anyone who thinks the rules aren't broken hasn't spent any time reading them and trying to apply them to modern digital transmission methods. You've got to make a lot of assumptions, some pretty far out, to make them fit in today's world. It is time to fix them.

Calling people scofflaws isn't going to work to change my mind, Tim.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
aa4pb:"7) Should we clarify the requirement that stations are not permitted to utilize more bandwidth than necessary to transmit the content? This would prevent using 3kHz of bandwidth to transmit slow speed data, for example, when it is technically possible to do it in a 500Hz bandwidth. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I haven't had a chance to review all of your suggestions. This one stood out.

How do you classify "slow speed data"?

How would you accomodate a "fast" packet network handling multiple users sharing one frequency doing several different keyboard-to-keyboard sessions?

Certainly kybd-to-kybd data is "slow speed data" at the typing speeds most people use. Would you limit the interaction speed between individual sessions by artificially limiting the bandwidth the group of users on the frequency can use?

Better yet, who will be the final arbiter of what is and what isn't slow speed data? The FCC? The ARRL? A slow speed data coordinating council?

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB writes:

"1) With the ever-increasing number of modes, trying to give each mode is own space in the spectrum is a loosing proposition."

It's only a *losing* proposition if each mode is supposed to have its own space defined rigidly in the regulations.

But it's a winning proposition if similar modes are grouped together.

"2) Trying to assign spectrum space based on the content of the transmission (voice, image, RTTY, data) doesn't make any sense when you consider that the trend is toward digital transmission of all of types of content. Digital transmission is a "pipe" through which you can send any type of content without changing the modulation technique, bandwidth, etc."

Agreed to a point.

It seems to me that in the CW/phone days the big divide was wide (phone) vs. narrow (CW). Now we've added a third dimension: Human vs. machine.

"3) Modes like SSB and CW, where a human listens directly to the receiver, will be very annoying to listen to if surrounded by digital signals. We have this annoyance now to a limited extent when there is interference from AM or slow-scan stations. Is there enough spectrum to provide a protected space for analog modes?"

Why not?

"4) What should the maximum bandwidth be? 3kHz would accommodate every present mode except AM. If 3kHz is set as the limit, should there be an exception for AM?"

I favor 3.5 over 3.0.

Why not have the bands broken down like this:

250 Hz and narrower
500 Hz and narrower
3.5 kHz and narrower
7 kHz and narrower

"5) Should there be band segments set aside for narrower bandwidth signals?"

YES!

"6) Should all digital signals be limited to a narrow bandwidth segment? Some content like voice and high-speed data require the 3kHz bandwidth. Why should it be permissible to use 3kHz of spectrum for some content (voice) but not for others (high speed data)?"

Good question!

"7) Should we clarify the requirement that stations are not permitted to utilize more bandwidth than necessary to transmit the content? This would prevent using 3kHz of bandwidth to transmit slow speed data, for example, when it is technically possible to do it in a 500Hz bandwidth."

Too unwieldy.

"8) Stations under automatic control or the so-called semi-automatic control are a different issue that is not directly related to bandwidth regulations. These stations should be highly restricted in the spectrum that they are permitted to use. This regulation needs to be added at the same time any bandwidth regulation change is implemented in order to prevent problems that could occur with opening new spectrum to these stations before new restrictions are in place."

Agreed. In fact, this is where ARRL really made a big booboo, IMHO, in that the "regulation by bandwidth" idea was overshadowed by the "robots everywhere" alarm.

"9) Should "automatic control" be re-defined to include any station for which a control operator is not physically located some short distance (say 1 mile) of the transmitter? This would include stations who only respond to requests from manually controlled stations. In lieu of the distance there could be a requirement that the control operator be able to listen to a receiver located at the transmit site in order to check for a clear frequency."

No. The definitions should look like this, IMHO:

- there's local control, which mean a control op works the station directly.

- there's remote control, which means a control op works the station remotely through a link.

- there's automatic control, which means there's no control op.

The key question that determines "control op" is this: Does a human operator decide if the station transmits or not, for *every* transmission?

IMHO, "semiautomatic" control is just a flavor of automatic control where the robot station only transmits in response to an interrogation.

"10) Should there be defined exemption to the frequency limitations for automatically controlled stations during an "FCC declared" emergency? The intent here would be to allow more spectrum for passing digital traffic during a true emergency."

No need for that. FCC can declare rules suspensions whenever they want, such as declaring a certain part of the band for emergency traffic only.

"11) The ARRL should direct the development of a voluntary band plan based on the new regulations. This needs to have input from affected countries outside the U.S. A draft should be made public before any regulation proposals are submitted to the FCC so that everyone will have an idea of the overall intent."

ARRL is going to submit something sooner or later. Best to be proactive and let them know what we want and do not want.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't have any problems with change as long as it's for the better of the majority involved. I agree in the fact that the overall intention has not been very well presented and it seems to have overtones which coveys the idea of type acceptance for equipment which means hams would have great difficulty with using non type accepted equipment on the air.

For example, some would interpret this to mean this means they would no longer be permitted to use old antiquated "out of spec" boatanchors on the bands?

Perhaps it doesn't mean that at all but when you do say the words "type acceptance" it isn't exactly clearly spelled out and because of that, many assumptions and conclusions are drawn on their own causing an avalanche of other concerns in the process.

I do agree with Tim in the fact that some social misfits as he called them might show up to police the bands and cause problems for individuals. Their personal ego's would use this redefined bandwidth limit as the primary tool in their toolbox to start reporting people they may have personal issues with. I disagree that would never be a problem and I disagree that would never occur. I wouldn't completely discount that possibility and it's only logical to assume that activity would place an additional burden on the FCC to investigate complaints.

As far as any Ted Baxter radio announcer's using the HF bands go, I don't necessarily feel they are doing the right thing either however at the same time I feel they should be afforded the latitude to play radio announcer as a matter of principle in the spirit of radio experimentation if that is what they so choose. Perhaps this proposal would place them in their own sandbox to play in and this might end up being a good thing for other spectrum users.

On the other hand, if this point isn't clearly and precisely spelled out in the language of the proposal then I suspect people would start assuming this activity is illegal and they would start taking on air measurements and I suspect the tapes would suddenly start flying into the FCC as soon as the rubber stamp hits the paper. That's not speculation, it's just human nature and the reality of things when personalities clash on the bands. Let's face it, that does happen more than we would care to admit. This is why it is of critical importance to spell out everything in any such proposal in very precise terms and conditions or else we will just end up at square one with the same sloppy rules that are open to interpretation as seems to be the case at present and nothing will change at all.

I am all for anyone interested in technical excellence of a transmitted signal, however if you tighten the rope too much, then I could only assume the result would mean hams will be making more than just a few mistakes on the bands. Probably unintentionally but mistakes will be made non the less. Basically any rule imposed should consider that people are human and might subject them to making unintentional mistakes. On the other hand, the problem when defining the parameters very precisely would also mean they are just written in plain black and white and because of this fact, they won't always work well together when a certain level of human latitude comes into focus.

Bob, AA4PB had some interesting and excellent points and questions for consideration. I feel if the ARRL had presented the proposal in a similar manner then perhaps the ham community would have considered their proposal more closely.

However as it stands at the moment no one is exactly sure of the overall intention behind the proposal because it doesn't clearly outline the Pro's and Con's in any adequate light. Basically, the problem is that the ARRL came along and dumped a proposal into people's laps and expected them to make a rational decision on the subject without any level of further consideration on the matter. I think this is where the ARRL has failed in this particular instance. Perhaps they really are trying to do the right thing for amateur radio, but the problem is that "we don't know that" and it's human nature not to just automatically assume that.

It's not that I completely disagree with this proposal in it's entirety and it does have some good points for consideration however, it's just that it's not very well conveyed and seems to generate more Grey area questions than clear cut answers.

Whatever rule is finally decided I will gladly follow because that is my responsibility as a licensee of this service, however at the same time all hams have a responsibility to ensure any such proposal doesn't harm or affect the future experimental nature of amateur radio in a negative manner. We must ensure any such proposal isn't intended to serve a small special interest group, ("think tank" comes to mind) or any other single individual for their own self serving interests for that matter.

The intended agenda must be stated clearly and it must be specific. It just isn't that way at the moment and until everything is spelled out in plain black and white, confusion, speculation about it's intentions and the continued reluctance of hams to accept it will remain and continue to exist.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
aa4pb:"I know the difference between "occupied bandwidth" and "necessary bandwidth". They can use either one and it won't requiring monitoring your signal with a spectrum analyzer. "

aa4pb:"Anyone who thinks the rules aren't broken hasn't spent any time reading them and trying to apply them to modern digital transmission methods. You've got to make a lot of assumptions, some pretty far out, to make them fit in today's world. It is time to fix them. "

ROFL!!

You know the difference between occupied and necessary bandwidth but then turn around and say that you have to use "assumptions" to apply necessary bandwidth to today's world.

You don't have to make any assumptions. Necessary bandwidth calculations for any mode we use are laid out in FCC documents easily available to anyone. No assumptions are needed to use them.

The problem here isn't what the regulations say. It's not knowing the regulations and theory behind them well enough to apply them.

You are conflating ignorance of the rules with them being "unclear".

aa4pb:"I think you are just trying to scare people into maintaining the status quo because *you* are afraid of change, Tim."

Nah, you haven't even thought the issues through.

What would you make the occupied bandwidth for the minimum bandwidth segment? 200hz? Tom already pointed out that this is going to cause a problem for many CW signals. Are you going to force all CW into a medium bandwidth segment?

Or will you use an occupied bandwidth of 500hz? Pactor II has a necessary bandwidth of 470hz (or there abouts). It's quite easy to exceed a 500hz bandwidth from some transeivers. Will you force Pactor II into the medium bandwidth segment along with all the wider modes? Or will you force everyone wanting to use Pactor II into buying a spectrum analyzer to make sure they aren't exceeding 500hz?

Or are you going to set the limits and then say they won't be enforced? The minute you do that anything will be able to go anywhere. You may as well not have *any* limits.

What will you make the occupied bandwidth maximum for a medium bandwidth segment? 1000hz? What about 1000hz Olivia that can easily exceed 1000hz from some transceivers?

Or will you make it 1500hz? Do you know of any modes that have this for a necessary bandwidth? If you don't know, perhaps you better find out before you set it as a limit.

If your answer is to set "fuzzy" or "wooly" limits, then how is that any different than what we have today with necessary bandwidth limits?



aa4pb:""3) Modes like SSB and CW, where a human listens directly to the receiver, will be very annoying to listen to if surrounded by digital signals. We have this annoyance now to a limited extent when there is interference from AM or slow-scan stations. Is there enough spectrum to provide a protected space for analog modes?"

Modes like SSB and CW, where a human is the listener, *ARE* already very annoying to listen to when surrounded by other SSB or CW signals. How will the interference from digital signals be any different? QRM is QRM, be it from SSB, CW, Olivia, Pactor, or DRM. You seem to want to put some kind of special "characteristic" on digital that makes it especially "annoying". Exactly what is that characteristic and how do you measure it?

Do you even understand what the problems with mixing the two really are? It isn't QRM, per se. I'll give you a hint: the first word starts with an "i".

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
How do you classify "slow speed data"?
--------------------------------------
"slow speed data" was simply an example I used. Keyboard to keyboard for example. Don't get hung up on example terms. The point was not to use any more bandwidth than necessary to transfer the data. You would not want to use 3kHz of bandwidth to transfer data at 300 baud, for another example.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
But it's a winning proposition if similar modes are grouped together
---------------------------------------------------
The problem is that "modes" keep expanding. If you are going to define it by "modes" then you have to keep changing the rules to add new modes as the come along. If you define it by "bandwidth" then new modes are automatically permitted as the come along. All you have to do is determine what the bandwidth is and put it into the appropriate segment.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Charles, you make some very good points. I don't think anyone is talking about "type acceptance" or "certification" however. I don't think a well defined bandwidth requirement implies FCC type acceptance any more than any of the present regulations do. For example, present regulations put a well defined 500Hz bandwidth limitation on the so-called semi-automatic stations. That hasn't required type acceptance and it hasn't resulted in massive numbers of "bandwidth police" filing complaints with the FCC that some station has been measured at 510Hz.

The "boat anchor" issue is a good one. One option is to make an exception to permit these old rigs to continue to be used? Another option is to force them to retire (spark is no longer permitted). If we make an exeption for transmitters manufacured before 19xx most of them will eventually go away anyway. My sense is that there probably aren't enough of them now to have any significant impact on the bands so probably they should be given an exception and permitted to operate in the widest bandwidth segment.

I fully agree that there are plenty of details to be worked out on the whole issue. My post was an attempt to identify some of them and get people thinking about it in a reasonable fashion. Unfortunately there are people who are opposed to any change at all. It is a big job to consider all of the input and make certain that the right changes are implemented. If we refuse to change then amateur radio is on the way out, I'm afraid.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
From a practical aspect I think that even with bandwidth regulation, the average ham will still think in terms of modes. He will know that I operate SSB here, PSK31 there, and RTTY over there. The benefit will be that when a new mode is developed, the developer will say that it is 500Hz bandwidth and belongs in that segment with the RTTY stations. Nobody will have to get a "reading" from the FCC to find out if it is legal and in which segment it should be operated.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
aa4pb:"From a practical aspect I think that even with bandwidth regulation, the average ham will still think in terms of modes. He will know that I operate SSB here, PSK31 there, and RTTY over there. The benefit will be that when a new mode is developed, the developer will say that it is 500Hz bandwidth and belongs in that segment with the RTTY stations. Nobody will have to get a "reading" from the FCC to find out if it is legal and in which segment it should be operated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ROFL!!

That's *exactly* what we have today with the use of necessary bandwidth specifications!!

And you accuse *me* of going around in circles?

Now take it to the next step.

If you have a narrow-bandwidth segment, a medium bandwidth segment, and a wide-bandwidth segment then how do you make the most efficient use of the spectrum?

If the narrow-bandwidth portion is sparsley populated some night (maybe all the psk operators are in the SSB contest), but the medium and wide bandwidth segments are full, how do you keep the narrow-bandwidth part of the spectrum from being wasted?

Or do we just have to live with the extra wasted spectrum that three segments (or more) will give us? How is that better than having two segments, especially when one of the segments has far, far more users (i.e. SSB) than the other segment?

Take it to the third level. If you further split digital data from analog signals -- even knowing that SSB makes up over 66% or more of the spectrum usage on the ham bands -- how do you maximize spectrum efficiency (i.e. the smallest amount of spectrum denied to users for the smallest amount of time) for the highest usage mode when the spectrum allocated for the lowest usage mode (digital data) is not completely in use?

I have yet to see any bandwidth regulation proponents address even part of these problems. They usually just answer with the hyperbole: "DIGITAL IS COMING", as if that is a factual answer to *anything*.

The present regulation paradigm, especially for HF, still works well. The use of necessary bandwidth regulations coupled with separation by content (with some content mixing allowed by rule) maximizes spectrum efficiency and interference mitigation for *everyone* quite well.

Those who complain the most about the current paradigm are those bandwidth hogs that want 10khz, 20khz, and even 100khz data channels on our HF bands. Some even go as far as to say they are allowed under the rules today -- the true scofflaws. They are the bandwidth hogs that want to make HF into amateur-to-3rd party common carrier infrastructure (i.e. internet junkies). They are not interested in amateur-to-amateur communication, only in being able to make the ham bands unusable for those *not* interested using the ham bands as internet access links.

Yes, there is a problem with sending voice, data, and image all on the same frequency today. Guess what? It is apparently a vanishingly small number of hams that want to do it. There haven't even been any FCC filings asking for a reservation in which to do this. Some small reservations for this could certainly be carved out of our spectrum, just like the automatic sub-bands were. They wouldn't be exclusive assignments (the auto sub-bands aren't either although the Winlink people act ss if they are) but it would be allowed there. And it could be done under today's regulatory paradigm which works well for everyone else.

If you have some facts and figures to show that bandwidth segmentation regulation would provide better spectrum efficiency and interference mitigation on the ham bands than today's paradigm, then trot the data out. But spare me the "DIGITAL IS COMING" mantra. I've been hearing it for 30 years and it still represents less than 5% (and that is probably high) of HF usage.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
That's *exactly* what we have today with the use of necessary bandwidth specifications!!
---------------------------------------------------
ROFL!!

Show me in the regs where it specifies the necessary bandwidth for anything on HF other than automatically controlled digital stations.

You "assume" that the necessary bandwidth of an FSK station with specified maximum symbol rate and shift applies to all stations in the CW sub-band but the regs don't state that. That is "your" assumption and everyone may not see it your way. What "assumptions" are you making about the phone sub-band?

Obviously you prefer to make "assumptions" rather than to have it spelled out clearly in the rules.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Everyone is still at it in "da hood" I see...even after the ARRL
withdrew RM-11306 and its "regulation by bandwidth." The core
of the arguments seems to be of two varieties: (1) It sounds
different, can't be tuned in on a boatanchor, therefore is evil;
(2) Without regulation change there can be no advancement.

As to my item (2), is everyone in here posting with 300 Baud
ASCII or are they using the (now) standard 56K BPS modem?
Modem design was standardized at working in a 2.7 to 3.0 KHz
communications environment...imposed by the telephone infra-
structure and practicality, not by some hard-and-fast regulation.
The first modems worked at 100 WPM rates, then 300 WPM,
then upped to 1200 BPS, 2400 BPS, 9600 BPS, and finally
managed 56K BPS (self-adjusting between 48K and 56K).
Each and every rate constrained by an ~3 KHz bandwidth.
With each rate increase beyond 100 BPS, there were the
BAWAs hollering "it can't possibly work!" Unfortunately, all
of those rates worked. :-) Technological advancement DID
happen over a very constrained-bandwidth circuit...56,000
bits per second over a 3000 Hz analog voice channel.

Recently, off-line, I heard someone say that "modem band-
width is much higher than 'they' say, why just listen to all
that noise!" Implication being that 'noise' is always high-
frequency therefore well about 3 KHz. Not so. Those listening
to rare digital voice on HF ham bands will hear those strange
hissings as being "beyond regulatory limits!" or similar. More
nonsense. It is just strange to those unfamiliar with it.

Compare the modes used on HF ham bands today. CW
sounds "mechanical" to those who don't know morse code.
SSB voice sounds "artificial" if the receiver tuning isn't quite
on the suppressed carrier frequency. RTTY of the old kind
does sound "mechanical" (because it is rhythmic and of
longer duration than most CW QSOs). Is electronic-keyed
CW "mechanical" compared to all-manual? Some CW ops
say it is, most not so. Those are all receivable on the
'boatanchor' type radios (RTTY usually requires some kind
of terminal unit for best results). They are now 'legacy' modes.

Digital voice, such as by OFDM, needs a decorder, sounds
terrible bare. Decoded, though, it sounds like the even-volume
voice on strong FM, nice with no interference from anything.
Ah, but it "interferes with the [legacy] modes!" Or does it?
One can't find a band position just off of it to reduce that
alleged interference or is it just that it is 'strange' therefore evil?
Well, SSB voice with an adjacent carrier just 1.5 KHz away
sounds 'uncomfortable' to my bad ears but it CAN be
listened to. CW receivers with 500 KHz bandwidths shouldn't
be bothered at all by such things. So DSB AM on some bands
bother/irritate SSB AM users. "Regulation by bandwidth" will
not necessarily reduce that unless DSB AM is specifically
prohibited in the ham regulations here.

Let's face it on petitioners. The ARRL hasn't 'scored' anything
since the 60m "channels" were permitted by the FCC. They
didn't get the band they proposed. The ARRL couldn't stop
the ending of code testing for ham licenses. The League
seemed to be reaching far for something to "score" on, to
make its "presence known." It hasn't done that lately.
Wisely (I think) they withdrew RM-11306 because it wasn't
reasonable or practical nor in with the ITU emission
designators or "in" with the IARU. The ARRL needs to
regroup and think things through...better than they did a year
and a half ago.

73, Len AF6AY af6ay@arrrl.net LenAnderson@ieee.org
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
aa4pb:"Show me in the regs where it specifies the necessary bandwidth for anything on HF other than automatically controlled digital stations. "


-----------------------------------------------
Per the NTIA red book, Annex J, Guidance for Determination of Necessary Bandwidth, rev 5/2006

Direct-printing telegraphy using a frequency shifted modulating sub-carrier, with error-correction, single-side band, suppressed carrier (single channel)

Bn = 2M + 2DK M = baud rate/2, D = shift/2, K= 1.2


-----------------------------------------------


In essence, Bn = baudrate + (1.2)(shift)


----------------------------------------
Part 97.307(f)(3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in Sec. 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.
-----------------------------------------

For a 300baud, 1000hz shift FSK signal, the necessary bandwidth, Bn = 1500hz.

QED.

But that's ok.

You win.

There isn't any limit on bandwidth in the data portions of the band. The FCC really didn't mean what they said in the Omnibus bill.

And when the first 1.5kw, 100khz wide data signal fires up on 80 meters at 3am in the morning and stays on for the next 28 hours downloading MP3s from the internet you can shout --

WOOHOO, WE WON!

While you are waiting for tomorrow to get here when MAYBE you can squeeze in a CW QSO.

Or even better, you can petition the FCC for a 3khz occupied bandwidth limitation on the ham bands and then you can shout --

WOOHOO, WE WON!

while the rest of the world is using the next killer app that has 3 times the spectrum efficiency of any mode in use today but just happens to have an occupied bandwidth of 4khz.

I am reminded of the song "The Winner" by Bobby Bare. It fits you perfectly.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
while the rest of the world is using the next killer app that has 3 times the spectrum efficiency of any mode in use today but just happens to have an occupied bandwidth of 4khz.
----------------------------------------------------
Well, you won't be able to use it if the rules stay as they are (unless it is phone) because you say we are limited to 1.5kHz for digital modes.

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AA4PB on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tim, lets just agree to disagree on this one. I'm not likely to convince you that any kind of change is needed and you aren't likely to convince me that everything is okay as it stands. We've both made our positions known and people can make up their own minds.

73, Bob
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Time will tell.

Thank you gentleman.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W4LGH on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL is DEAD...we all need to forget about them and move on. They only want the money & will be coming up with some really wild and crazy ideas, thinking it will gain them members. Everything grows old and dies...its past time for the ARRL.

I have mixed ideas about digital voice. I have been playing with it some and own an AOR box. It works great, audio is pretty clear, but un-decoded it does sound pretty bad. I think once the new radios come out with it built in, the radios themselves will mute the un-decoded audio, or at least it should, when in SSB or any other non-digital modes.

It makes not much difference what we want, the whole concept of Amateur radio is going to change for the better or the worse, depending on your ideas. As far as I am concerned, it has changed for the worse over the past 10 years, but thats my opinion. Some may agree, and some may dis-agree. Doing completely away with element 1 was a big mistake in my opinion, not that I care about code, but it showed the person was willing to put forth the effort to achieve the goal. I have never believed in any give away program, as it teaches people the wrong things. Now it has filtered into our hobby.

Thats my 2cents worth...
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com


 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by G3RZP on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tim said:

>And if you are figuring bandwidth of a mode based on calculation you are determining *NECESSARY* bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth.<

Now that's definitely NOT the case at all. Go back to source of the definitions, which is ITU-R Rec. SM329. Necessary bandwidth is the bandwidth necessary for transmission with a given degree of degradation.

Given the modulation, data rate and the IMD performance of the Tx, the occupied bandwidth can be calculated. It's what communication systems simulators are good at.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now that's definitely NOT the case at all. Go back to source of the definitions, which is ITU-R Rec. SM329. Necessary bandwidth is the bandwidth necessary for transmission with a given degree of degradation.

Given the modulation, data rate and the IMD performance of the Tx, the occupied bandwidth can be calculated. It's what communication systems simulators are good at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am definitely not an expert on ITU recommendations but I thought 329 was for out-of-band emissions.

The NTIA Red Book annex for calculating necessary bandwidth is based on SM328.8, Spectra and Bandwidth of Emissions, not on SM329, Spurious Emissions. It is based on the definition: Necessary bandwidth-For a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions. This seems to be a pretty common definition.

As Tom pointed out in the very first message of the thread, strict definitions of the modulation used in an amateur transmitter don't exist. Each manufacturer is allowed to set their own rise/fall times for a CW pulse and this could vary from unit to unit in the same model depending on the manufacturing run it is from. This same issue is going to apply to almost anything you want to consider in an amateur transmitter. It is quite likely that the exact IMD performance of the transmitter won't be known either. Nor will the ALC performance (i.e. attack times and gains) be specified with any accuracy. And this doesn't even begin to address homebrew equipment.

What you are left with is establishing the necessary bandwidth based on "typical" measures such as baud rate, fsk shifts, and "factors". Hopefully these calculations will give an approximation of the minimum bandwidth needed. Whether a specific transmitter even begins to approach this established minimum is left to the owner of the transmitter to determine. Some will, some won't.

At least this type of "fuzzy" bandwidth regulation doesn't put everyone in the position of being afraid of "gotcha's" by someone with a spectrum analyzer and a chip on their shoulder. Yet it still provides some assurances that transmitters meeting the other guidelines in the rules and regulations will at least be in the ballpark of the bandwidth limits specified.

I simply cannot wait until someone files a complaint with the FCC over someone else using more than a 500hz bandwidth to send images in the CW/Data subbands. Since the R&O set this up as an OCCUPIED bandwidth limit I'll almost guarantee you that sooner or later someone is going to complain. Then we will see just how people like being governed under occupied bandwidth specifications. My guess is that there will be all kinds of whining and complaining.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR writes (paraphrasing another amateur):

"He says in another posting that those who are attempting to change amateur radio into another paradigm basically choose to not see amateur radio as a source of innovation or technology. The problem is that amateur radio is like a seeding ground where the result is our productivity and innovation. Just like a seeding ground there will be times when it will produce a harvest and sometimes when it will lie fallow and rejuvinate."

"What we see from those who refuse to acknowledge the true character of amateur radio is an attempt to turn it into a crippled emulator of a common carrier providing access to the internet for a few people. They see any amateur activity that is not internet related as something to discourage, as something to run down and disparage, and to attempt to squash. They view other hams and their activites as enemies, as if they had done them harm and need to be eliminated."

Tim,

I agree 100%! When you see phrases like "legacy mode", "reinventing the wheel", "nostalgia", etc., it's often a clear indication of that all-new-is-good-all-old-is-bad mindset.

Here's another way of looking at it:
Once upon a time, the government took a very active role in the regulation of radio. They'd seen the chaos of pre-1912 maritime radio, and 1920s broadcasting, and wanted no more of that. They also knew how much
havoc a malfunctioning transmitter could cause.

The key (pun intended) to their approach was licensing - both operators and of stations. They knew, understood and supported the concept of the skilled, knowledgeable Radio Operator in all radio services.
In some services the required skills and knowledge would be mostly technical, in others they would be a mixture of operational and technical, but in all
cases the licensed Radio Operator was indispensable.

Thus there were Amateur licenses, Commercial Radiotelephone and Commercial Radiotelegraph licenses.
There were station licenses and operator licenses.
There were several operator license classes, serious test requirements, and a whole flock of endorsements for things like radar.

Amateur radio was often the first step in the licensing process, too.

All those regulations created not only a lot of jobs but a whole profession. Every radio service needed licensed Radio Operators of various levels for various tasks, be it doing routine transmitter checks at a daytime-only AM BC station, running a vital maritime shore station, or any of dozens of other jobs. And these were pretty good jobs, with decent pay and benefits.

Someone could have a Ph.D. in EE, the Nobel Prize in physics, etc., etc., but without the proper license they were not a Radio Operator and could not legally
do any of the Radio Operator's jobs.

I'm old enough to remember a time when a commercial license of the right type, plus a highschool-equivalent education and a clean record, were almost a golden ticket to a decent-paying career. I don't mean to say that the jobs or the licenses were easy to do or to get, nor that you didn't have to really know your stuff. Just that it was a way for folks who knew radio to get a decent living without a college degree
and a whole bunch of competition, both domestic and "offshore".

The problem was that the captains of industry didn't like paying all those licensed Radio Operators, nor their benefits. Unionized or not, the license requirements meant they couldn't hire just anybody for the jobs, nor could they combine certain jobs to reduce the head count.

So the captains of industry got the rules and the regulators changed.

Over a number of years they succeeded in all but eliminating the concept of the skilled, knowledgeable, *licensed* Radio Operator. Saves them money and
aggravation. All we have left now are pieces of the old rules and requirements.


And since they did it for commercial services, there are those who would apply the same ideas to the Amateur Service. But the Amateur Radio Service is
all about the technically knowledgeable, operationally skilled Radio Operator.

Some folks just don't seem to understand that concept. Or if they do, they want to stamp it out.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by W3ULS on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I see Rick Lindquist is retiring at age 62 (looks as if he gave his employer 3 weeks' notice) after a career mainly in journalism and a 12-year stint at the ARRL as its news editor.

Speaking solely for myself, also a former journalist, I would have found it very wearing to be told by League management that certain huge events--such as the near-total adverse reaction to the proposals that precipitated this article and thread--may NOT be covered at all in the ARRL publications until management has come up with a party line announcement which then must be parroted word-for-word.

Whatever that is--corporate PR, whatever--it ain't journalism. Good luck and bon voyage, Rick.
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by W5PVR on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
We know that the arrl is extremely cw oriented. It is obvious that wide band digital modes will interfere with cw. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude this is a protective measure. Many new ssb stations are beginning to operate in the "phone bands". They are not yet able to avoid that qrm and will just "turn it up". I went through the am ssb all knobs to the right conflict in the mid 40's. Can we just leave things alone they are mostly working. Why mess it up?.

Bob
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W5PVR wrote:

"We know that the arrl is extremely cw oriented."

How so?

Look at the record of the past decade or so:

- In 1998, ARRL proposed reducing the code test speed for General to 5 wpm and for Extra to 12 wpm.

- In 2001, ARRL decided not to oppose changing the ITU treaty that required Morse Code testing. It was changed in 2003.

- In 2003, ARRL proposed eliminating the code test for all license classes except Extra.

- In its "refarming" proposal, and also in its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, ARRL proposed widening the HF band segments where SSB and other voice modes could be used.

- ARRL is promoting WinLink2000 as the traffic mode of the future, and downplaying its own National Traffic System (which has both cw and voice nets).

"Extremely cw oriented?" How so?

"It is obvious that wide band digital modes will interfere with cw. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude this is a protective measure. Many new ssb stations are beginning to operate in the "phone bands". They are not yet able to avoid that qrm and will just "turn it up"."

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

As it is right now, HF voice ops are protected from digital QRM of any kind except digital voice. PSK31, RTTY, pactor, etc., are not allowed in the 'phone subbands at all (in the USA, anyway).

Look at 80/75 meters: 400 kHz for voice, 100 kHz for CW,RTTY,and all forms of digital.

Why are digital ops kept off of 80% of that band?

"I went through the am ssb all knobs to the right conflict in the mid 40's."

Back then the modes hams used were CW, AM, SSB, NBFM - and that was about it. Today it's a completely different game, and new rules are needed.

"Can we just leave things alone they are mostly working. Why mess it up?."

The ARRL has pulled its proposal completely. They will probably file something else at some point in the future, but for now there's nothing to oppose.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N5JYK wrote: "Welcome aboard Len(AF6AY) and thank you for
your participation!" Thank you, Brandon.

"The regulations in this regard are broken and need fixing...."
I say NO for a variety of reasons.

"This thread reads like a “territorial” squabble because, of course, it is.
In the past there was sparky’s VS cw, then cw VS am, then am VS
ssb, and on and on, ad nausium. Those desperately clinging to the
past will try to squelch the upstart punks while conveniently ignoring
that in the past they were themselves the upstart punks." True
enough. :-) I can still remember the words read and heard about
that dangerous new mode called 'single sideband' by old-timers in
the 1950s US amateur radio. However, some of the "upstart punks"
you describe were very late comers in 'radio operating,' despite their
self-described authority in their are middle-age. :-)

"The people who actually USE the bands would get to choose how
they are used simply by using them." That's both draconian and
ill-advised for the majority (even though I approve of that logic). It
would totally remove the beloved bandplans that seem to
guarantee 'protection' for legacy-mode users. It is NOT in-line
with ITU Radio Regulations concerning technical regulations on
all radio services. The FCC is not constrained to changes its
technical regulations to accommodate some amateur hobbyists.

"Anyway, that means stations shouldn’t begin a new or unrelated
communication on top of any existing communication. Period!"
That's only common sense. The FCC has also had the proviso
that an amateur 'must use only enough RF output power to insure
communications,' something that is consistently broken daily by
most radio amateurs.

"Government regulations can’t and will never replace good
operating technique." I don't think that was the intent of the law.
FCC regulations are there to govern their lawful activity of
regulating all civilian radio users in the USA. In order to mitigate
interference, the FCC has inserted certain 'operating' guidelines
into regulations. Too many interpret that 'government telling
them what to do!' as if that were against their (imagined) intrinsic
'right' to do as they choose. :-(

"The regulations as they are now were put in place to protect one
mode in particular. Later they were revised to include a couple of
others, and specifically to exclude spread-spectrum." It seems to
be (in here at least) that, if a mode can't be 'heard by ear' (without
aid of special decoders, equipment), it should be banned. SS is
definitely in the special group and some regard it as a threat to
Homeland Security, before there ever was a Homeland Security.
As a result, any form of SS in US amateur radio regulations is
way over-regulated; too much trouble to try out let alone use.

"Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the
future from arriving." ABSOLUTELY. But, one has to examine the
middle-aged mindset in here: The known, the familiar, the mode
at which some are 'good' at all good comfort symbols that they
can feel all warm and cozy in; the nostalgia factor revisited far too
many times reminds them of their youth and times long ago when
they felt immortal and 'on top of the world.' Being older than the
FCC I've seen and felt what they must feel inside. :-)

The future, the unknown can be a terribly dark place to some
that don't want to venture there. It is an INSECURE place and
some feel it as 'dangerous' to try. They want the known, the
worked-out, the examples of possible new things. They haven't
really looked at all the NEW things in other radio services in
detail, only snarl about those and make fun of them. :-(

Is there NO example of what can be done in a mode using the
existing technical or practical regulations? I've tried to show that
with the everyday 56K BPS modem running on 3 KHz very-
constrained bandwidth circuits. No 'regulations' needed to be
changed, just an innovative application of known Information
Theory. One big "duh" from the group ensued. The dots can't
be connected by the 'knowledgeable' types in here. Legacy
modes are their thing, the known, the safe. They want changes
in regulations (however nebulous) to 'protect' them. <shrug>

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W4LGH wrote: "The ARRL is DEAD...we all need to forget
about them and move on."

I disagree. The ARRL leadership needs changing, not the
organization. To disband or ignore a membership that is
a quarter of all licensed US radio amteurs would be a gross
mistake.

"As far as I am concerned, it has changed for the worse
over the past 10 years, but thats my opinion. Some may
agree, and some may dis-agree. Doing completely away
with element 1 was a big mistake in my opinion, not that I
care about code, but it showed the person was willing to
put forth the effort to achieve the goal. I have never
believed in any give away program, as it teaches people
the wrong things. Now it has filtered into our hobby."

Consider me one of the 'infiltrators,' then. 54 years ago the
US Army "gave me" the opportunity to experience operating
three dozen high power HF transmitters. All FREE along with
room and board and continuing training on how to kill others.
The FCC "gave me" the opportunity to get a First 'Phone in
1956 and some broadcasting stations "gave me" pay for
helping to run their transmitters and studios. The aerospace
industry "gave me" employment in California (as long as I did
what was expected for them). Several colleges "gave me" a
formal education (which required payment for night classes
since employers were so busy "giving me" work during day).
I "gave" myself continuing education to keep up with the state
of the art in radio-electronics. All "free give-away" programs,
right? All about my "not putting forth effort," right? :-(

For $14 the ARRL VEC "gave me" three tests on 25 Feb 07
and then the FCC "gave me" an amateur radio license even
though I did not have to "work to prove my worth" on morse
code skill. Gosh, I must be such a "freeloader," yes? :-(
Excuse me while I tune up the Icom 746 that AES "gave
me" (in exchange for money). I feel so sorry for myself that
I "never worked" for any of that. :-(

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY writes: "When you see phrases like "legacy mode",
"reinventing the wheel", "nostalgia", etc., it's often a clear
indication of that all-new-is-good-all-old-is-bad mindset."
And those who write the above show the inclination to
'all old is good and all new is bad.' :-)

"Once upon a time, the government took a very active role
in the regulation of radio." They still do. Once upon a time
(in 1934) the FCC was created. That was 73 years ago.

"All those regulations created not only a lot of jobs but a
whole profession. Every radio service needed licensed
Radio Operators of various levels for various tasks, be it
doing routine transmitter checks at a daytime-only AM BC
station, running a vital maritime shore station, or any of
dozens of other jobs. And these were pretty good jobs,
with decent pay and benefits." They did? I must have
missed those "decent pay and benefits" things beginning
in civilian broadcasting in 1956.

"I'm old enough to remember a time when a commercial
license of the right type, plus a highschool-equivalent
education and a clean record, were almost a golden ticket
to a decent-paying career." Being always older than the
FCC, I never found that golden ticket but maybe I didn't
"put forth the effort" enough? I moved to California and
better, more interesting jobs in the aerospace industry.
That even involved modes of communications which still
aren't allocated to US radio amateurs to this day!

"The problem was that the captains of industry didn't like
paying all those licensed Radio Operators, nor their
benefits. Unionized or not, the license requirements meant
they couldn't hire just anybody for the jobs, nor could they
combine certain jobs to reduce the head count." Darn
those captains of industry and the unions! I'll bet they
wanted faster, more accurate written communications than
manual morse code!

"Over a number of years they [captains of industry]
succeeded in all but eliminating the concept of the skilled,
knowledgeable, *licensed* Radio Operator. Saves them
money and aggravation. All we have left now are pieces
of the old rules and requirements." Interesting factoid,
another thing I missed in the aerospace industry. None of
the jobs I was involved in for DoD contracts required any
radio operator license...and those jobs did involve radio
and radio communications.

"And since they [captains of industry] did it for
commercial services, there are those who would apply
the same ideas to the Amateur Service. But the
Amateur Radio Service is all about the technically
knowledgeable, operationally skilled Radio Operator."
Is it? I got into amateur radio as a hobby in retirement.
I didn't need to be operationally skilled in morse code
since none of the radio communications I was involved
in for 54 years needed any operational skill in morse.

"Some folks just don't seem to understand that concept."
Some folks seem to have lost the subject for this article
which concerned FCC technical regulations about
amateur radio mode definitions.

73, Len AF6AY

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by W4LGH on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"For $14 the ARRL VEC "gave me" three tests on 25 Feb 07 and then the FCC "gave me" an amateur radio license even though I did not have to "work to prove my worth" on morse code skill. Gosh, I must be such a "freeloader," yes? :-(
Excuse me while I tune up the Icom 746 that AES "gave
me" (in exchange for money). I feel so sorry for myself that I "never worked" for any of that. :-(

73, Len AF6AY"

If you had worked so hard in radio, why was it until 25 Feb 07 that you waited to get your ham license? Seems to me that if you were so engrossed in radio all those years, that you would have wanted to get your ham license many years ago? I could be wrong here, but it certainly looks like you didn't want to learn an important part of ham radio, or didn't CARE enough about it to work on learning the code. Lets recap...looks like 30+ years in radio, 1st class license, so you knew the theory, but something must have kept you out of ham radio, or it wasn't worth the effort to you? You stated this info yourself! I am surprised you didn't wait until they grandfathered
everyone who could spell radio! Hell even that would be too much effort for some.

I am sorry you feel so bad about yourself, I guess the quilt is more than you can bear.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W4LGH wrote: "If you had worked so hard in radio, why was it until
25 Feb 07 that you waited to get your ham license?"

FCC 06-178 went into legal effect on 23 Feb 07. That an ARRL
VEC team was examining on a Sunday, 25 Feb 07, just a mile and
a half from my residence made it convenient. :-)

"Seems to me that if you were so engrossed in radio all those years,
that you would have wanted to get your ham license many years ago?"

I was not "engrossed," nor "involved" in amateur radio many years ago.
Please do not read into my rather sarcastic comment any imaginings
of yours. Had you read any of the Comments on Docket 05-235 you
would have seen my name on several of them plus an Exhibit after
the Comment period was officially over.

"I could be wrong here, but it certainly looks like you didn't want to
learn an important part of ham radio, or didn't CARE enough about it
to work on learning the code."

You are both wrong and right. Personally, I don't "CARE" one bit
about using or "reading" morse code in radio. Neither does
every other U.S. radio service except certain U.S. locations of
maritime radio. Those other radio services either never considered
using it to begin with or gave up using it in favor of more efficacious,
faster, more accurate means of communications. Neither did
hundreds of thousands of no-code-test Technicians who became
licensed in that class after 1991 and up to 22 February 2007.

"Knowledge" (actually the ability to DO it) was valuable in amateur
radio of 1940. However, this is not 67 years ago. To persist in the
Belief that radiotelegraphy ability is "important" today is to continue
in a delusion of self-importance, nourished emotionally by the
continuing insistance of that mode's "importance" by the ARRL and
other special-interest ham groups.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against those who LIKE
the mode actively using it on amateur radio. What I am against is
the mistaken belief (almost a religious aspect) that skill at on-off
keying CW is "important" enough for the FCC to require it for U.S.
amateur radio licensing exams. The FCC had taken that opinion
in 1990 and even the IARU thought enough about its unimportance
to lobby for the rewrite of ITU Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03.
While I am not adverse to the FCC bandplans continuing some
protection for amateur radiotelegraphy use, I would not, could not
give such radiotelegraphers special treatment over and above any
other mode.

"Lets recap...looks like 30+ years in radio, 1st class license, so
you knew the theory, but something must have kept you out of ham
radio, or it wasn't worth the effort to you?"

Wrong recap. I began HF communications in February 1953, 54
years ago, not "30+." An Army station, 36 transmitters ranging
from 1 to 15 KW RF output on HF, expanded within 3 years to 43
transmitters with 1 to 40 KW RF output. 24/7 operation (and
maintenance) done by four teams. If you wish to see more, go to:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/My3Years.pdf

That was enough for me to change my career goals from illustration
to electronic engineering and engineering design. I did that until my
retirement from regular working hours. At no time in 1953 until the
present day was I ever required to use or even "know" radio-
telegraphy. That work encompassed DoD contract work, plus radio
communication and navigation electronics in the air, on the water,
and on land. My First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial)
Operator License was granted after passing one 4-part exam at an
FCC Field Office in 1956. I kept that renewed until it was changed
to a "GROL" and then made lifetime, no renewals needed. That
test was considerably easier technically than most college exams
I had after that.

"I am surprised you didn't wait until they grandfathered everyone
who could spell radio!"

I am still surprised by the antipathy and general bigotry expressed
by some of the "elite" radio amateurs who sneer and denigrate
those who haven't expressed a love for, or declared absolute
importance about amateur radiotelegraphy. I have encountered
such for the last half century and am used to it. However,
continuing alienation of (at least) half of the active licensees in
U.S. amateur by accusations of sloth or stupidy by "morse
mavens" is NOT a good thing.

"...I guess the quilt is more than you can bear."

L.A. is warming up and two blankets are quite sufficient at night.
Thanks for asking.

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N6KYS on May 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
All.......

"Baud rate".....UGHHH!!!

It's just "Baud"......"Baud rate" is annoyingly redundant and shows your lack of understanding.



Whew,

Brad
N6KYS

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by G3RZP on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I guess the argument on one side is that 'knowing the code meant you had to have commitment', and on the other, 'code is outdated and knowing it doesn't make you a better operator or technical person'. I believe that there's actually truth in both. It does seem, though, that on some of the reflectors, the questions asked by people with Advanced and Extra class licences appear to be things that they should have known to pass the exams - (that's leaving aside the fact that some of the questions, especially at Extra class, have the wrong or incomplete answers!) It's the same over here, too -and that is, I think, what people object to as 'dumbing down'. Having taken part in exam question production over here, I know it's not that easy. Unfortunately, I found it almost impossible to get past the non-engineers (strangely enough, all people professionally involved in education) who wanted simple answers to exam questions, even if they weren't totally correct, rather than reframe the questions so that there was only one correct answer no matter the level of your technical knowledge.

There's also criticism of some new hams as to why they didn't bother getting a licence until it became easy. A few cases that I know of, their work required security clearances such that they were 'advised' that a ham licence was 'not appropriate', and so they didn't become amateurs until they retired - despite being exceedingly well qualified technically.

I've been licenced continuously now for 44 years, and I prefer CW, so I'm not trying special pleading for me here.
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by KC8VWM on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the future from arriving."


-------

This isn't about that. For example, I own may boatanchors that I taken the time to resore.

I have no problem with advancing techology but why can't things at the same time be "backwards compatible" to accomodate what is old into what is new?

You see, this isn't just about being "sticks in the mud" Some of us have actually invested a great deal of money into restoring older gear.

73 de Charles - KC8VWM
 
Fact or Fallacy?  
by N9LYA on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the future from arriving."

We are not trying to stop the future from arriving.. We are trying to save Ham RADIO for the future..
We do not need any damn Wideband Internet linked modes on HF... We do not need Amateur Internet...
Narrow is wise.. Wide is stupid..

73 Jerry N9LYA
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N2EY on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Keep your modes of nostalgia. But STOP trying to prevent the future from arriving."

What "nostalgia modes"?

SSB? Hams have been using it since the 1930s.
AM? Goes back to the earliest days of radio.
SSTV? Hams began using it almost 50 years ago.
RTTY? Hams began using it almost 60 years ago.

Not that hams *originated* all those modes, just that hams have been *using* them for a long time.


KC8VWM writes:

-------

"This isn't about that. For example, I own may boatanchors that I taken the time to resore."

"I have no problem with advancing techology but why can't things at the same time be "backwards compatible" to accomodate what is old into what is new?"

"You see, this isn't just about being "sticks in the mud" Some of us have actually invested a great deal of money into restoring older gear."

And that's the problem!

By putting your time, effort and money into restoring older equipment, you're *not* buying new stuff.

Nor are you supporting the concepts of planned obsolescence and "ending is better than mending".

Consider the personal computer industry. Look how quickly a 'dream machine' depreciates into a doorstop.

Less than ten years ago, people paid thousands of dollars for ~500 MHz Pentium II computers running Win98SE. Now you can't even *give* such machines away.

Yet most ten-year-old ham rigs, and many twenty-year-old ones, are perfectly usable and worth a good part of their original purchase price - and not as "nostalgia" or "antique" rigs, either.

Go back even farther, and a ham can have a lot of fun with even older rigs.

None of that stops "progress" - except that if you're fixing up and using old stuff, you're not buying new.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
af6ay:"Is there NO example of what can be done in a mode using the existing technical or practical regulations? I've tried to show that with the everyday 56K BPS modem running on 3 KHz very-constrained bandwidth circuits. No egulations' needed to be changed, just an innovative application of known Information Theory. One big "duh" from the group ensued. The dots can't be connected by the 'knowledgeable' types in here. Legacy modes are their thing, the known, the safe. They want changes in regulations (however nebulous) to 'protect' them. <shrug>"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As an extra class licensee, you seem to be rather un-informed as to the technical aspects of transmitting data over telephone lines versus transmitting data over the radio.

There are *VERY* good reasons why we don't see 56kbs circuits over 3khz channels on HF radio.

Why don't you do some research and then come back and tell us all what the impairments and associated limitations are on each transmission media?

(hint: think bits per baud, noise, fading, multi-path)

Do you honestly think you are the first to ask why you can't simply use a modem designed for wired-line telephone circuits on HF radio?

Before you start hollering about all the old timers wanting to protect all the "old ways", perhaps you should learn something about how the old ways work. And then learn something about how the new ways work.

Then perhaps you can objectively evaluate whether the "new ways" will *actually* work, as well as judging whether they are "better" or not.

Right now you are just castigating people over something you obviously don't know much about. That really gains you a lot of respect.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by N4KC on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dictionary.com defines the word "bigot" as:

"A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Sound like some people responding to W8JI's post?

You are not a REAL HAM unless:
a) You were born before 1950.
b) You took a Morse code test to get your license, even if you failed it six times first. And never mind that you can't take a code test today, even if you wanted to!
c) You use the code exclusively or most of the time, whether you enjoy it or not (pain is part of the initiation!).
d) You can build a multi-band transciever from a sardine can and a spool of hookup wire.
e) You got tubes in your radios and they are either all homebrew or built right here in the US of A, the way God intended.
f) You don't have to ask anybody about anything electronic- or RF-related because, dammit, you know it all already!
g) And no one need bother ask you a question about anything related to the hobby. Either you'll tell me what you want me to know anyway or inform me I should go out and learn it the hard way, just like you did, and not to come back until I do. Oh, and go back to 1980 and take that 13 WPM code test if you ever want to be considered a REAL HAM.
h) All of the above.

Or, you are not a REAL HAM unless:
a) You can copy and decipher digital data in your head...while, at the same time, entering another post on eHam decrying those who are holding back the hobby.
b) You have at least six cables running between your rig and your computer, and you don't have to touch a single knob to operate.
c) You think guys who insist on operating CW and SSB are wasting valuable spectrum, better used by folks like you who are ragchewing, working DX, exchanging signal reports and the local weather conditions on PSK31 or RTTY.
d) You maintain that any radio that does not have a serial port should be crushed and buried for landfill.
e) You think Morse is good for only one thing--getting a Boy Scout merit badge...and figure having the kid etch and populate a modem board from scratch would be a better test anyway.
f) You would prefer that the FCC mandate that all VHF/UHF repeaters go digital tomorrow...mostly so you would have someone to talk to...about going digital.
g) All of the above.

Now do you understand why the ARRL is having such a difficult time trying to determine what type of band plan is best for the hobby while attempting to protect the interests of...well...all those bigots, who chant, "My way or nothing!"

I would hope the eventual solution--after well-documented and well-reasoned input by many--will both protect the wide interests of all of us while allowing for the hobby to grow and change as it inevitably must if we wish to continue to attract bright newcomers and accomodate new modes that are not even little digital glimmers yet.

73,

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
45-year ham, 20-WPM Extra, Code Proficiency certificate at 35 WPM

 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AF6AY on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR wrote on May 13, 2007: "As an extra class licensee, you
seem to be rather un-informed as to the technical aspects of
transmitting data over telephone lines versus transmitting data over
the radio."

"There are *VERY* good reasons why we don't see 56kbs circuits
over 3khz channels on HF radio."

Despite your attempt at making me the center of an electronic bris,
I began HF communications with all the "data" (TTY) sent over
telephone lines. In 1953, using techniques that were done in the
early 1930s. :-) Think also "carrier" and SSB of the 12 KHz
variety. Yes, I am familiar with the "selective fading" phenomenon
on HF and some other little tricks of the ionosphere.

I used the commonplace (now) computer modem as a general
example. Think about sending 56,000 events of anything per
second over a bandwidth of less than 3,000 Hz. That rings no
bell?

"Why don't you do some research and then come back and tell
us all what the impairments and associated limitations are on
each transmission media?" ALOHA alone would fill a book.
The late Claude Elwood Shannon did that much better in 1947.

"(hint: think bits per baud, noise, fading, multi-path)"

Shannon used those in his seminal paper and those became
part and parcel of the (colloquial) "Shannon's Law." BTW, his
examples in that paper used a TTY circuit. My copy is courtesy
of the University of Illinois Library Archives, a reprint of the Bell
System Technical Journal that carried the original paper.
[bits per second, not "bits per baud"]

I have done work involving severe multi-path and distortion on
radio circuits from high-HF on up to L-Band. I don't pretend to be
a "Professor Irwin Corey, Foremost Authority" character but I do
have some familiarity with those problems.

"Do you honestly think you are the first to ask why you can't
simply use a modem designed for wired-line telephone circuits
on HF radio?"

I like to think honestly and logically. In that manner I dropped a
hint as to Information Theory as applied to increasing the rate of
information (aka "throughput" in colloquial engineeringese) in a
severe bandwidth-constrained channel. Nobody picked up that
hint but some saw it drop...then accused me of "littering!" :-)

As I already said, the commonplace modem was used as a
general example of use of Information Theory to increase
throughput. Do YOU know how that is done in detail? Can
YOU explain how it does that without violating Shannon's
Law? Hint: Think of both amplitude and phase modulation
at the same time. Think of general principles of operation,
not specific details of finished products.

"Before you start hollering about all the old timers wanting to
protect all the "old ways", perhaps you should learn something
about how the old ways work." You mean like on-off keyed
telegraphy? :-) I know about that. I *am* a chronological
old-timer, begin always older than the FCC. :-)

"And then learn something about how the new ways work."
You mean like the various "TORs" or Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplex (OFDM)? No sweat. :-)

"Right now you are just castigating people over something you
obviously don't know much about." In other words, deficiency
in telegraphy skills means "knowing nothing about radio?" :-)

"That really gains you a lot of respect." I learned 25 years ago
that looking for love and respect in a computer-modem comms
environment is NOT the place to be. :-) These environments
are good for tossing out general ideas, doing sampling of
opinions, and so forth. Some use these venues for posturing
and preening. Some confuse castigation with castration in
their replies. :-)

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: Fact or Fallacy?  
by AB0WR on May 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
af6ay:"As I already said, the commonplace modem was used as a general example of use of Information Theory to increase throughput. Do YOU know how that is done in detail? Can YOU explain how it does that without violating Shannon's Law? Hint: Think of both amplitude and phase modulation at the same time. Think of general principles of operation, not specific details of finished products."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, I understand it. I also understand that Shannon's law describes a theoretical maximum. Whether a physical implementation approaches that maximum or not is another thing indeed.

I also understand that asking for 56kbs on a 3khz HF channel is an exercise in futility, at least with the technology available to work in the HF environment we have today.

In order to maximize spectrum efficiency of shared spectrum it just isn't possible for hams to keep increasing output power in order to provide more "bits" per symbol. So it is necessary to go the other way and devise methods of detecting signals at ever lower signal powers. Many people don't understand, however, that when they see something like a mode able to work at -18db SNR that this assumes a noise distribution that is not constant. Even the best modes we have can't detect a signal at an instant when the noise is stronger than the signal. So we are also caught in a box on the weak signal side of the equation as well. Multipath and selective fading work to keep adjacent signals from getting too close together so we are also caught on the spectrum efficiency side for using multiple adjacent carriers at arbitrarily s