The AM Forum

ARRL Board of Directors held its Second Meeting of 2009 July 17-18 in Windsor, Connecticut. The Board considered and acted on a number of recommendations from committees as well as motions by Directors.
Topics Included:
Inappropriate Use of Amateur Radio
Emergency Communications Advisory Committee
Amateur Auxiliary/Official Observer Program
Emergency Liaison Station
Narrow band Channel Spacing
Volunteer Consulting Engineer Program
Annual Audit
ARRLWeb Redesign
IARU
ARRL Strategic Plan

Some info here, http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/07/24/10980/?nc=1 but I assume the meat of the meeting will be forthcoming in the meeting minutes which have yet to be posted (as of 7/24, 2:42PM EDST).

Some possible inappropriate use of amateur radio:

Key in a box of cereal
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/328639702_ff97392aee_o.jpg)

Animal cruelty - listening to 75M during the evening
(http://www.nakedauthors.com/uploaded_images/hamdog-714692.jpg)

Field Day in Michigan(?)
(http://blogs.augusta.com/files/u22437/Ohio-St-Michigan-Foot.jpg)

Hey Pete,

What's up with the Channel spacing on VHF/UHF, You have any idea what's up.

73
Jack.

 

Maybe they are trying to work out and define AM calling frequencies on 144, 222, 432, and above. This way we can use without fear of reprisal, the phrase, "see you on the channel".

LOL...

 ;D

Yep, Rin Tin Tin endorses this key - like he knows a good one from bad.
 
I can imagine the poor kid that gets it and tries to set up a "telegraph station"  as suggested.  "Hey dad, I need to run this pair of wires through the neighborhood over to my friends house." 


About as realistic as that 8' latex weather balloon I bought mailorder expecting it to hold up an inverted vee. It burst at 4' and covered me with white powder.

T

See my post on the Board of Director's Meeting Minutes or go to http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0907/ to read the Minutes.

They want hams to follow commercial practices and move repeaters to narrowband spacing. I assume for 2.5KHz deviation. So, every repeater in the country, and every mobile or base rig will also be obsolete because of commercial practices?  What are these loons drinking? Next it will NarrowBanding AM. Geeez. Like the VHF bands are overflowing with FM activity these days.

Pete

So lets see:

They offer QST for remedial reading
QEX for technical material
And the minutes for humor

Whereas that little section on channel spacing is a load of self-serving drivel that looks like it could have been penned by the senior caucus of the Chinese central committee during the 1970's.

If the league really believes that the proper direction for amateur radio is to follow selected commercial practices then I hope they drop their opposition to BPL since the best use of spectrum is that which brings in the most money (and yes I am being sarcastic).  Perhaps we could all be "channelized" to commercial spacing on 11 meters-this must be part of the league's fantastically excellent long-range plan to get back our old 11 meter band band.

Here we go again.

This 10 kHz 10 meter FM channeling was in the IARU Region 2 new band plan adopted January 2008 that was rubber stamped by the ARRL at the September 2007 convention in Brazil.  (Remember the flap over the "no normal AM bandwidth operation anymore" in that new Region 2 band plan?)
 
Region 2 rolls over to what Region 1 came up with first for a new band plan adopted 2006(our socialist friends in Europe).

I will post the pdfs below for Region 1 and Region 2 band plans.  Region 1 has better footnotes on the 10 meter band than the Region 2 pdf does.

My emails with Dave Sumner at the time on the normal AM operation being "slighted", I commented to him on what was up with the 10 meter 10 kHz FM channels with 2.5 kHz deviation bit and he replied that he was baffled too about it, or so he said.  So you can see the man at the top apparently had no idea what they were agreeing to at the time.  My view is that the ARRL at that IARU Region 2 conference was not too well orchestrated.

Below is what Item 29 of the minutes say. There is no discussion here about HF band plans. There is no mention of 10 meters nor 10 kHz spacing for FM in the meeting minutes. I would also suggest that you read the IARU Region 1 "VHF Managers Handbook" Version 5.40 updated July 25, 2009.  ( http://iaru-r1.org/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=173&func=startdown&id=178 )  Briefly, in Region 1, FM maximum bandwidth for 6 meters is 12 kHz, 2M is 12 kHz, and 432 mHz is 12 kHz. HF band plans, whether domestic U.S. or international, are different animals then VHF/UHF band plans. Let's get the story straight. QEX magazine won't help here either.

WQ9E says: "They offer QST for remedial reading"  Dictionary says: remedial reading  >>> "Intended to correct or improve deficient skills in a specific subject."  My recommendation then is that many members and nonmembers need to read QST each month.

Meeting Minute #29:
29. On motion of Mr. Sarratt, seconded by Mr. Frenaye, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, there is current substantial amateur radio movement, activity, and innovation in the digital narrowband area; and

WHEREAS, the FCC has mandated that by 2013 commercial radio move to narrowband channels and Amateur Radio manufacturers normally follow commercial practices; and

WHEREAS, the VHF/UHF Amateur Radio band plan currently uses 15 and 20 kHz FM channels; and

WHEREAS, with the increasing use of narrowband across the country amateurs are placing and using narrowband equipment outside the repeater subband because there is no real place to fit the narrowband pairs; and

WHEREAS, for ARRL to remain a respected leader in technology, we must be actively involved in innovative solutions to problems by bringing about a productive discussion on a technical paradigm shift; now

THEREFORE, the President shall appoint a study committee for the purpose of research and to consider developing a plan to move the US amateur community to narrowband channel spacing.

Pete, why do you feel this excludes HF?

10 meters is generally listed as part of HF band plans. Some might say that 10 meters exhibits some of the same propagation characteristics as 6 meters, so it should be considered the lowest member on the VHF/UHF band plan scale. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. As was quoted in Item 29, "VHF/UHF Amateur Radio band plan currently uses 15 and 20 kHz FM channels". If you believe the upper part of 10 meters (FM portion 180 kHz) is part of a VHF/UHF band plan, then it does. The 15 kHz and 20 kHz bandwidth spacing came about in the late 70's and early 80's, and much of if was probably based not only geographical locations but also the nature and technology of the equipment being used at the time.

Thirty years have past. Commercial services are moving to narrower channel spacing and most of Region 1 has moved (or is in the process of moving) to a 12 kHz spacing. The ARRL probably feels it time to revisit the situation as they point out in one important point, "with the increasing use of narrowband across the country amateurs are placing and using narrowband equipment outside the repeater subband because there is no real place to fit the narrowband pairs". In my opinion, this is going to be an uphill battle with lots of current repeater owners and users. Narrowband pairs would have the same problem on 10 meters although I haven't heard of any problems at this time.

I go by the standard definitions:

                                      Frequency             Wavelength
MF    medium frequency     300kHz to 3000kHz    1km to 100m
HF    high frequency          3MHz to 30MHz      100m to 10m
VHF  very high frequency   30MHz to 300MHz    10m to 1m
UHF  ultrahigh frequency   300MHz to 3000MHz    1m to 10cm.

I think the ARRL's "Whereas" about VHF/UHF is just being used as one thing to point out a precedence, not to be taken literally and explicitly for the "Therefore" future effectivity.

LOL

How valid can the conclusion be when most of the premises are incorrect?

what hogwash. These 6 and 2 sets are not narrowband. I should give them up? never!

Amateur radio manufacturers such as Yaesu, Icom, and Kenwood, who all make radios for the commercial world, have repeaters on the market that include a wide or narrow bandwidth selection. Wide in their world is 25 kHz and narrow is 12.5 kHz.  I have no idea what percentage of these users are wide versus narrow today. However, it makes sense to prolong equipment obsolescence by offering wide and narrow in today's market. Wide keeps current customers happy, and on or before 2013, customers can transition, and still keeps the current customers happy. I also checked several commercial HT's and they also have the option of wide or narrow. Some of newer digital repeater boxes are way cool:

(http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/systems/repeaters/fr5000_fr6000/Image5.gif)

I would suspect 90 to 95 per cent of all the HT's and mobile/base FM type rigs that are in use today are probably made by the big 3 mentioned above. It should be fairly easy to implement "narrow" in most of the FM VHF/UHF rigs going forward. I believe some of the newer HT's and maybe even some of the mobile/base rigs, already have a "narrow" position on the transmitter. However, in my opinion, the big hurdle will be to convince repeater owners and repeater coordinators that going "narrow" is a good thing for amateur radio.

And please, to the peanut gallery, we talking about VHF/UHF FM channels. No reason to get your AM/SSB shorts all twisted up.  :D

And it wouldn't be too far of an stretch to include all of the amateur bands in regards to current technologies. I believe that would knock SSB out of the running too.

Pete

You have to forgive Pete, WA2CWA, he views the world through ARRghL glasses.

It appears that the desired goal by the "trendsetters" is to monkey with the existing voice modes and degrade the audio quality until it sounds like SSB.

I've heard many a good sounding SSB signal on the bands over the years.


I need no forgiveness.  You can have your amateur radio move to be stale, stagnated, dried up, and eventually die out, or you can look forward to keeping it vibrant, exciting, interesting, and moving forward with technologies. It's your choice with or without anyone's glasses. Some just like to sit on the front porch rocking chair and watch the rest of the world pass them by. Ugh, what a way to go.

Pete said:
I'm glad we have people sitting on the front porch in rocking chairs, (like JN, and KYV) to counter every bonehead move the (be)League(d) tosses out.

So have I relative to other SSB signals.  But stock Johnson 300 Hz to 3 KHz AM audio sounds a lot better than the same response on SSB. 

Let's get a little perspective.  ARRL leadership continues to swagger around as if it is 1970; the reality is ARRL isn't the FCC; they don't make legally enforceable rules and they no longer can even enjoy some sort of cozy relationship with the FCC out of sight from licensed hams.  I mostly ignore them now since I know anything they come up with I can comment on directly to the FCC via the ECFS.

This is a hobby.  It quit driving technological development around 30 - 40 years ago.  For example if we simply had to be right up there doing the latest AM, we'd be running solid state rigs with Hilmer Swanson's RF PA module switching design and transmitting IBOC. 

Now the ARRL is concerned with channel spacing?  First ARRL has to make this a relevant issue by generating activity on FM repeaters since no one uses them now since everyone (except me) has cell phones.   This is another example of ARRL blindly swaying forward obsessed as always with "spectrum conservation" (as if spectrum gets used up like oil) with no attention to circumstances.  The last time spectrum conservation was a serious issue with regard to a transmission mode was when hams were running spark rigs. 

Manufacturers have offered "cutting edge" communications technology to hams (D Star and those AOR digital audio boxes for SSB rigs for example) -- hams mostly ignore them.  That's because unlike IBOC, a guy in a suit can't tell a ham to start using a digital box on his ham station or he's fired. 

I think everyone would be a lot happier if ARRL quit trying to control everything and accepted the hobby for what it is, a way for people to fool around with electronics and radio and have fun, and devoted their time and energy to controlling outside forces having a negative affect on ham radio, which to be sure, they have been doing in part, and for which they should be commended.

Whoops, it's daylight here now--time to get back to work on the K5UJ antenna farm.  Today the new 65 foot vertical is going up.  Going to hold a wire for 40 m., 160 m. inverted L, be driven directly for 75 m., and hold up one end of a dipole for 80 and 40 m.   50 feet of guyed 3" o.d. aluminum tube with a 15 foot stinger on top.  :D

73

Rob K5UJ

 

Anyone who thinks amateur radio is up to date with technology need to put down the crack pipe. It's doubtful amateur radio was ever on the cutting edge but they most certainly have not been since WWII. The technological advances thaw occurred during the war left amateur radio in the dust.

Imagine walking around a fester with those Shades on ....LOL... wonder how long it'd be before you got bum rushed....LOLOL ;D

When I was involved with the Western Pa Repeater Assoc a few years ago this was news back then an some of the owners were a little upset...but there were more interested in it happening...there's alot of folks that want their own Pairs, their own little deals on VHF/UHF Let them go they aren't hurting a soul...

73
Jack.

Even SSB was old technology by the time hams finally began to experiment with it in earnest.  I have in my personal collection a series of three articles from 1933-34 that appeared in R/9 magazine, first explaining the theory of what SSB is, followed by DIY construction information on building a prototype 75m filter type exciter.

I need to scan that article and have it posted here or on the AM Window site. Many are totally convinced that SSB was invented after WW2.

Maybe amateur radio did accelerate the acceptance of SSB worldwide.  In the late 40's, O.G. Villard, W6QYT,  ran a series of articles in QST that sparked new amateur interest.  Then Art Collins saw a new market for a new product and converted his manufacturing line from AM (32V series, KW-1, 75A-1/2/3 receivers) to SSB (75A-4, KWS1). http://www.wa3key.com/crads.html  Thanks to Art's relationship with  Gen. Curtis LeMay, the military adopted SSB for strategic communications links, and then commercial interests got on the SSB bandwagon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

I've yet to see a ham radio with P25 or trunking capability.  Mebbe they exist, but as you know I don't peruse the ads in QST anymore.

I forgive you Pete - even if you don't want it - but the ARRL's premise is still invalid  ;D

Change takes time...but it is coming....for some just not soon enough.. :)


73
Jack.

Instead they have "D-star".. Somewhat costly but people are experimenting with its features.

I don't know of any amateur rig currently on the market that has trunking capability.


You said this twice but you have yet to provide a reason.

In the overall realm of amateur pricing, it's not that costly.
D-STAR is fast growing in popularity. The current D-STAR Repeater Directory: http://www.dstarusers.org/repeaters.php Watch it grow in real time: http://www.dstarusers.org/dsm_growth.html We announced the E-Z Guide to D-STAR Operation publication at this past Dayton. These things keep flying off the shelf as fast as I lay them down.

John Carson applied for a patent on single sideband in 1915. The patent was granted in 1923.

From the patent:

In a signaling system, an alternating current source of constant frequency, a modulating current comprising a band of frequencies, a modulator, means to impress said constant frequency current and said modulating current upon said modulator to produce a current having two side band components and an unmodulated component corresponding to said constant frequency current, said modulator comprising two elements so balanced with respect to each other as to balance out said unmodulated component, and means for selecting one of  said side band components to the exclusion of the other.


Read the entire patent in the attached file.

My point exactly.

To spell it out, one of the ARRL's justifications for this narrow BW FM nonsense is that the ham manufacturers follow the commerical radios.  Not true.  Hence, faulty premise.

If you read the 2nd "WHEREAS" in Item 29:
"WHEREAS, the FCC has mandated that by 2013 commercial radio move to narrowband channels and Amateur Radio manufacturers normally follow commercial practices"

"normally follow" and "always follow" are two different things. Trunking implementation is mainly designed around software, i.e. handshaking, programming station personalities, probably some type of system key or protocol, etc. At present, I know of no VHF/UHF band where trunking would be necessary at this time. I would suspect that many of the current VHF/UHF mobile/HT rigs have the necessary hardware and firmware chips available that could possibly implement some type of trunking function. However, some amateur "group" would have to define the requirements and features as they relate to the various amateur bands where trunking would be considered, and then someone(manufacturer) or some group, would have to implement it all in writing the software.

However, given that in some areas of the country under the current bandwidth spacing, repeater pairs are not even available on certain bands. Narrow banding would allow more repeaters to occupy an existing frequency segment. As the ARRL has indicated, "with the increasing use of narrowband across the country amateurs are placing and using narrowband equipment outside the repeater subband because there is no real place to fit the narrowband pairs" within the present repeater subband. If they're moving outside the present repeater subband, they're moving into other parts of the band where generally other modes are used. If repeater narrowbanding fizzles out, a possible solution, at least in heavy populated repeater areas, would be to consider the trunking application.

Actually there are a number of faulty premises put forth by the people who for now are running the group in Newington.

This one tickled me:


The first reason this is funny is obvious. But to lay it out for those blinded by loyalty to their subscriptions, there is no significant basis for an assumption the ARRL is a leader in any technological field.  Perhaps such leadership exists and is accorded to certain active licensees, but not to the club as a whole.

I am more troubled by the assumption that the ARRL's managers have correctly identified a problem, and that those people have assessed that it actually needs a solution. I'm then skeptical about having their version of a "solution" thus promoted by their group. 

They should have learned from past misguided campaigns that it's not nice to leave out the people who could be affected by ARRL "solutions."  I see nothing in their WHEREASes to suggest they plan to poll the broader community of radio hobbyists to make sure the League knows what it's supposed to do, if anything.

As for "moving forward" in the radio hobby, that's become the latest hackneyed phrase to hide reality with wishful thinking. The other one that the ARRL's people adopted was "we are committed," which invariably means "we don't give a szht."

WHEREAS: The second part of this sentence need not be connected with the first. (divided by the word and)

Is SSB even used anymore by the military or commercial industrys?
I mean, aside from a few fisherman?

Looks like AM won out afterall, by it's continued innovation for AM broadcast
and it's unique abilities for aircraft traffic in the aviation world.... ;D

Just what we need, more unused repeaters.

Tom said:

Touche' Tom!

I agree. Looks like a bad choice of words in that phrase. Maybe, promoter of..., or leadership role..., etc., rather then "respected leader"


The move to narrowband repeater splits in the VHF/UHF FM part of the bands is already underway. In heavily populated repeater areas, new repeater pairs, based on the traditional 15 or 20 kHz bandwidth, are nearly exhausted, if not already. This is causing new repeaters (digital, D-STAR or equivalent) to migrate out of the current repeater subband under the current band plan. This is a problem.

Whether they plan to socialize the issue with the entire amateur community remains to be seen. However, the meeting minutes are a matter of record for member and nonmember review. As is indicated in the meeting minutes, "THEREFORE, the President shall appoint a study committee for the purpose of research and to consider developing a plan" The "research" definitely needs to include input and discussion with all repeater owners and concerned users since they will be most affected by a switch to narrowband repeater use. Of course, doing nothing in this problem area (leaving current repeaters as they are), may then require a review and possible revised VHF/UHF band plan to manage these new narrowband FM repeater pairs from over running other parts bands where non FM modes would be affected. It's not clear to me that if you're just an HF user on AM, SSB, or CW, there would much interest in how the VHF/UHF FM subbands might be massaged into something more efficient.

If the League really wanted to remain a respected leader in amateur radio technology, they would not have removed the technical and construction articles from their regular membership publication.

Even if those articles were of limited interest to the majority of readers, the fact that the articles would be there for all to see would have inevitably enticed some interest in the technical aspects of radio on the part of members who otherwise would never have any reason or occasion to be exposed to this type of material.  ...And this would have been in keeping with the League's expressed motives for promoting Incentive Licensing.

When QEX was first started, it was touted to primarily contain esoteric, in-depth, highly technical material of interest more to engineering types than to radio amateurs, the type of material you would more likely expect to see in IRE/IEEE Proceedings and similar publications, than in QST.  But as years progressed, gradually, more and more of the technical articles were taken out of QST and put into QEX, to the point that now, QST strongly resembles the old Ham Radio Horizons with a highly watered down technical section, and now nearly all serious technical and construction articles, even those aimed primarily at the general amateur community, are published in QEX.

The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il.

Please somebody, send Don a QEX magazine
Wow, Don, twice in less then 30 days - QEX and incentive licensing in the same breathe.
I think the stylus is stuck in the groove of amateur radio past life.

Another mistake along these lines (i.e. limiting exposure to something) was made years ago by eliminating the Novice license.  The entry license became the Technician and before the Tech. Plus I think the lowest band they could operate on was a limited part of 10 meters.  For a long time new hams mostly bought and operated 2 meter FM shack-on-a-belt rigs, got bored with it quickly, and dropped out, never finding out that the real fun of radio was stringing up a wire and working someone 2000 miles away on HF.   I see now the Tech.+ can operate phone on 10 meters but interestingly (I never noticed this before), phone is specifically given as SSB phone.     

Regardless of the details, getting rid of the Novice license in my opinion was a big mistake.  It was a simple test, allowed some privileges on HF and a new ham immediately got his feet wet setting up and operating a HF station and hearing all the skywave QSOs, and experiencing the core culture of ham radio instead of timing out the repeater.

I've known hams who have held a Tech license for the last 40 years because, for them, the real fun of amateur radio is 50 mHz and above. Stringing up a wire is probably not their idea of fun. How about throwing up a 4 by 4 array, 16 elements per antenna, for 432 mHz. For many, that's their idea of fun. 2000 miles is a piece of cake if you're doing EME, sporadic E, or even Tropo. Don't underestimate the Tech or Tech+. Techs have had 10 meter SSB for a number of years.


Ah, "experiencing the core culture" of 75 meters, and even some of the other bands, might make a new ham wipe their wet feet, put on their shoes, and run the heck out of there.

FYI: The ARRL tried to bring the Novice/Beginner license back in a proposal to the FCC several years ago but the FCC shot them down.

About that Core Culture...LOL..Yea man Pete, Listen to Old Vic and the Liberty Net...LOLOL........I couldn't resist.. ;D

is he still around.?

73
Jack.

The way this "stuff" is worded is part of the problem Pete, and its easier to solve than a problem such as a lack of slots in coordinated repeater pairs.

Anyone here remember how Radio Moscow and Radio Peking used to write their "newscasts" ?  It was a fascinating, clever style of delivery where the main purpose was affirmation of the government, NOT the delivery of a clear position or reasoned proposal.

As time goes on, I see the same theme emerging in ARRL Board Minutes, their Executive Reports, and even their damn newsletter that gets posted weekly on QRZ.com.

It not only distracts from any point they might wish to make, but it does little to curry favor with those they're trying to influence.

Since the most recent "restructuring" the Tech can also work CW on 80, 40 and 15 in the CW bands everywhere except in the Extra class portions.  So in a way, the Tech has replaced the old renewable Novice, but with more privileges, no longer confined to narrow "novice" bands.  So, by taking a slightly more difficult (?) test, the candidate can still have something like the old CW novice priveliges with more generous frequency assignments, plus slopbucket phone on 10, and all amateur privileges at 50 mHz and above.

But a change in the name of the Technician class is long over due.  "Communicator" might be a better term, since "Novice" is already assigned to the remnant of the old Novice  class licence.  With the advent of the HF cw privileges, perhaps "Entry" would be appropriate.

They should get rid of the slopbucket-only restriction for 10m.  It serves no purpose whatever.  This is a holdover from the old "Novice Enhancement" docket that ARRL promoted, but they were paranoid that if AM phone were allowed in the "enhanced" Novice segment, CB'ers would get a Novice or Tech licence, modify their good buddy rigs, and turn the new Novice phone band into an extension of 11m.  A bogus argument from the outset.  New hams should be encouraged to homebrew simple AM phone rigs for 10m, or modify old AM CB rigs to the band.