The AM Forum

For those that don't read the ARRL section of the forum:

ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations[/color][/b]

For all the info, go here:
http://amfone.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4462

Whelp (to borrow a phrase) I see that they got the 160 meter band right!

What's interesting is that Sumner admits "using the FCC rules to subdivide the amateur HF bands is the wrong approach. The FCC rules are too static and too difficult to change". His words! and yet the very basis of the proposal is to subdivide the amateur bands.

Talk about inconsistency!




--Larry W8ER[/b]

I hope I am not rehashing something already beat to death but I was concerned about this bandwidth proposal and I'm having trouble understanding something.
I am heavily involved with the original equipment on the USS Salem. I also run the annual Museum Ship Radio event and try and encourage all the museum ships to operate thier ships original equipment on AM.
I am concerned whether this old WW2 equipment will meet the requirements. The FCC defines bandwidth as the - 26 dB points and the league is proposing allowing AM to have 9 KHz bandwidth.
The RF generation part of this old equipment might have, for instance, a two pole filter driving the final and a 3 pole filter on the final output. I guess that is ok but I don't remember seeing anything more than a one or two pole RC filter on the audio. (6 dB/octave vs 12 dB/octave)

Has anybody ever measured the bandwidth of some older commercial or military transmitters for the 1940's or 1950's vintage?

I would hate to have to tear into these rigs. But ofcourse they already sound constricted so maybe the carbonium microphonium already limits the frequency response. AM I all wet?

Q,
The Viking 1 was bulit as a kit in1950.
The Viking 2 is maybe, 1954 ???
Checkout the scans on my webpage.

www.wd8bil.com

The "H" is silent, like the "Q" in "Billiards" or the "P" in "Swimming" :lol:

WHELP was correct!

Jack spelt it wrong in the first place!


--Larry w8er

Hi Q,

Jocularity aside, I participated in a Technical thread on measured AM transmitted bandwidth last August and September.  Unfortunately that thread and most all others on this bulletin board were lost a few months ago.

I was trying to come up with a spectrum analyzer standard measurement procedure.  There was very little participation/response to submit data on their AM transmitters; just Bud WD8BIL and myself as I recall.

The procedure I came up with was to use 300 Hertz resolution bandwidth, set video bandwidth to maximum (per Bud), set the analyzer display for peak hold, read the “Rainbow passage” which contains all English sounds, for at least 2 minutes.

I have 4 AM transmitters here and use no external speech processing.
This was the results; BW @ -26dBc.:

Icom  IC-706         6.2 kHz.
Kenwood TS-430    6.7 kHz.
Johnson Viking II   7.4 kHz.
Collins 32V-3         7.5 kHz.

(Note that the Icom and Kenwood rigs pass their modulator signal through a crystal filter.)

I went into this study with the preconception that the new specification might be difficult to meet.  So I was somewhat surprised at the results.  Bare in mind that this is just my voice and no external processors were used.  

I have observed however some amateur signals over the air that were probably greater than or equal to 14 kHz wide at -26 dBc.   These observations are with my Drake R-7 receiver, not my HP spectrum analyzer.

In my experience I have never found a correlation between the quality of audio heard on channel and the total bandwidth, surprisingly!  Some really hyellowy signals that you’d think must definitely be spattering were not.  And some very good sounding signals are much wider than the impending rule.  (In my opinion, the most consistently very good sounding AM signal and yet always very clean and narrowest bandwidth is of Bob, K1KBW.)

When the announcement of the impending rule came out and I posted my results here and there was no outcry.  So I presume people are largely content with the situation.  Of course this is based solely on the response, or lack of, to my postings last September.  But people are not obligated to response to this forum. They may have written their opinions to the FCC and/or ARRL hopefully.

I don’t have any knowledge or experience with the big WWII behemoths.  But my guess is if you are using the transmitter in the original configuration with the mic right into the audio and the modulator has no technical problems, you should be o.k.

After the results of my last post here on the topic of bandwidth, I should know better, but I have to at least point out a few technical points.

The rules do not say to measure the -26 dB points. Occupied bandwidth is defined as the bandwidth outside of which the mean power of the emissions is 26 dB less than the mean power of the emission.  To calculate the occupied bandwidth, one must compare the total power in the emission with the total power outside of the occupied channel and when you find the bandwidth at which the sum of the power outside the bandwidth is 26 dB less than the total power, that is the occupied bandwidth.  From what little I started to do before deciding that I was much better off not being interested in bandwidth, this would usually occur at about -23 dB or so from the peak of the emissions in the channel.

This is complicated, however, by the "mean-power" issue.  That has a precise definition, but there is still a question about the time period over which the mean power should be determined.  In general, I believe that amateurs should take the least restrictive interpretation of FCC rules.  This would mean that the mean power should be determined over the total time of a transmission. In that case, for SSB signals, the majority of the energy is found in the lower-frequency components. The higher frequency components occur infrequently, so their mean power is less.

A technique that uses "peak hold" is NOT looking at the mean power of an emission, but the peak power. OTOH, I have seen a developing ITU-R standard draft that requires that peak hold be used. This is not fully compatible with the FCC definitions of occupied bandwidth by my interpretation of the rules.   Peak hold would measure the mean power over a short time period. I have no idea how this will shake out in the long run.

AM, btw, has a natural advantage in terms of mean power and occupied bandwidth.  That carrier is 3 dB higher than the modulation product peaks, and its mean power and peak-envelope power are the same, so that really does make a big difference in terms of measuring mean power occupied bandwidth if measured over the entire period of a typical transmission.
 
To test rigs, the easiest way I could think of that hams could do would be to heterodyne a transmitted signal down in frequency to LF, typically 5 kHz of so, so it could be analyzed with a sound card. I then started a piece of Visual Basic software with an FFT to analyze about 10 seconds of trasmitted audio. The software then calculates occupied bandwidth to find the bandwidth outside of which the power is 26 dB less than the total power.  At this point, the software is unfinished and I don't expect to do any more work on bandwidth issues unless our DC technical guys need me to do something specific.  

For a number of reasons, this really is my last and only post on the subject. I don't want to be part of the firestorm that some are creating over this issue, or the lashing out that seems to occur any time I post on this topic. But I did want to explain the difference between -26 dBc and the actual definition of occupied bandwidth. You are on the right track in making bandwidth measurements.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

Thanks for the post, Ed.  I *hope* nobody here is dumb enough to shoot the messenger.

This measurement is complex enough that many late-model spectum analyzers have an automatic bandwidth-power measurement.

Which underscores how miserably this effort by the ARRL will fail in the real world.  Most hams can't even understand  the relationship between modulation mode, modulation frequency, bandwidth, and power.  All it's gonna do is generate bitter complaints to the FCC about someone running too much bandwidth.

Grrr.....

73 John

Kinda like the PEP power rule.  If you took a poll of active licensed hams, wonder what percentage would be able to correctly describe what PEP is, and its relationship to emission mode and the actual transmit power?

I suspect most hams just stick in a wattmeter (often a miserable cheap one) inline and swear by what it reads in the "peak power" mode, without considering such things as SWR and load mismatch.  Kids in school often do the same thing with calculators.  They punch in a bunch of numbers, and swear by the result that pops up on the display, regardless of how absurd their "answer" may be.

If the bandwidth rule is adopted, sooner or later someone will market a "bandwidth meter", some kind of cheap pseudo spectrum analyser that (allegedly) displays the signal bandwidth on a numerical display.  Maybe it'll even have a peak and average mode.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure occupied bandwidth per Ed's definition over a distance via skywave propagation, due to the noise and fading.  Like power measurements, it must be done at the actual transmitter site.

Ed, thanks for clarifying the definition.  It makes sense.  I have always thought of it as how far you tuned through a signal until the signal level reads 26 dB down from the point of maximum signal amplitude (in the case of AM, the carrier), but I can see how ambiguous that definition would be.

Hi Ed... good to see ya again.

A while back Bill KD0HG posted the criteria for AM broadcast measurements. IIRC the analyzer was to be on peak hold for 10 minutes.

Bill..... can you repost that please ???

Hi Ed .. thanks for the information on bandwidth.

I look at your elegant explanation and am reminded of the QSO I heard on 3865 SSB several months ago where a guy running legal limit with a big Ameritron and an Icom was trying to figure out how to tell which was the positive terminal on the coil of a 12 VDC relay.

John .. are you looking at your crystal ball again: ;)  


--Larry W8ER

Larry, what can I say?  I'm just clairvoyant, I tell ya! :badgrin:

For broadcast, the FCC has a spectral emission mask. The mask is nothing more than limits on radiation referenced to the carrier. I don't see why the FCC couldn't develop mode appropriate masks to meet the mean power requirements Ed detailed above.

With the mask, making a bandwidth measurement is easy. Just take a spectrum shot with the appropriate times and bandwidth. Then overlay the mask. If all emissions are within (less than) the mask, everything is FB. If not, then there is a problem.


Below is the mask for FM broadcast.

(http://www.hallikainen.com/lpfm/comments/USADRf1.jpg)



And this is a mask for SSB derived from 47 CFR 2.989 (c)(4), FCC type acceptance.

(http://www.doug-smith.net/mask.jpg)

I'm Always Glad when Ed comes in, It Brings out the best on the Board here and the Technical Conversations are Always first Rate.

Well, since they claimed they were unable to come up with a mode appropriate power rule, could you expect them to come up with a with a mode appropriate bandwidth mask?

At best, they would come up with some one-size-fits-all approach like the p.e.p. power limit rule or  the Docket 20777 bandwidth proposal.

Steve and Don,

There are two problems that I see:

1. The level of technical expertise necessary to understand the method by which we are to measure bandwidth and the necessary equipment is out of the reach of most amateurs, both financially and operationally. It simply is expecting too much. If you say .. phone starts here and CW starts here .. well that's a no brainer and that's what you can expect from the average ham today. Notice I said average ham and not AM'er!  :roll:

2. The FCC itself is unsure of the measurement and role it plays and this proposal isn't going to help that. Take for instance the Advisory Notices that were issued to the ESSB boys and the later stand that the FCC took on specificity of bandwidth rules. How much more contractdictory can the situation be?

Sumner ARRL CEO said:

The ARRL article from which that quote was taken is published on their web site. I can only ask, what would happen if the speed limits on todays roads were treated the same way?  That is:

Larry W8ER proposes:

This is not a "firestorm" or "lashing out" as some would have us believe! This is just plain common sense leveled at an organization whose leaders say that FCC rules in this area are not wise, as a preamble to proposing such rules!  :idea:



--Larry W8ER

Yes I could. If we expect and demand nothing, we will get nothing.





All the more reason for amateur radio to be proactive not reactive. The ARRL should develop the masks now.

Sumner ARRL CEO said:

There is a precedent for that in the power limit rule.  The amateur community expressed concern about hams being able to accurately measure PEP output power.  So the FCC deleted the former requirement that amateurs must have the means to measure power.

One of the statements in the R&O on that docket was that amateurs "have means for determining their output power other than accurate measurement."

I never was able to figure that one out.

One problem I do see for AM is that every appliance operator with a crappy-front-end receiver will be jumping in on top of AM QSO's hollering on SSB, "You're exceeding your bandwidth."  It's bad enough now with the P & M'ing we hear about "wide" signals (and yes, even "wide" carriers).  Wait till they think they have a legal basis to do so and decide it's their duty to play kilocycle cop.


Check out this:

 New Bandwidth Thread on QRZ (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=6a274f22d38e4389165325b6d9cdb778;act=ST;f=3;t=89234;st=0;r=1;&#entry380794)

> The ARRL article from which that quote was taken is published on their web site. I can only ask, what would happen if the speed limits on todays roads were treated the same way?

Do you feel the same way about all of the technical requirements for amateur radio that could involve measurement, or just bandwidth?

How often do you measure the spurious emissions of your station operating in-situ into its real antenna system?  

Ed Hare, W1RFI

Good Morning All,

I don't know fellas, 26dB is way down, A need to define this 3kc idea of theirs is bothering me, looking at my analyzer of a ssb signal in real time here doesn't flush with this idea of theirs, i have to put in 1.5 Kc of filtering to see the bandwidth they want, using my new Yeasu FT-897D to the HP Analyzer and that won't add to any plus in intelligbility and Sounds like crap.

Now either i'm reading their requirement wrong, or my test is wrong, either way, for my test to be 26 dB Down between the 6 dB points i'm showing a narrower filter to meet this...of course now each rig is it's own animal and filtering being what it is, slope figures etc, This Not a Cool Idea...IMHO.

Now all i did was to talk into the mike and pipe off the spectral graph to the gaterway and read the signal on a couple of these freeware spectrum programs i got off of the net...

I'm probably doing something wrong here...this just doesn't add up....

Ed, I would think that anything that is specified in Part 97 as having a quantity and a reasonable capability of being measured, such as frequency and power ... should be, yes. Does that mean that I think bandwidth should be measured under Part 97 (currently)? Not as long as it states "  in accordance with good amateur practice" and does not specify a specific amount!

Under the the ARRL proposal, bandwidth is going to be the deciding factor of where we can transmit! It therefore becomes critical to understand it and measure it. That's not in the cards unless MFJ comes out with a "automatic bandwidth analyzer" let's call it the lucky MFJ-777 analyzer and I'll bet it will read 5 khz one day and 2 khz the next cause even it won't know how to measure bandwidth!!!!

Let's not only talk about the hams, let's address the FCC. Here we have the enforcement division handing out Advisory Notices to ESSB guys about excessive bandwidth and then FCC division comes along and trounces the proposal to limit bandwidth, stating that traditional rules are reasonable.

It's time Ed .. make all of the band plans look just like the 160 band plan! Sumner is right, the FCC rules are too difficult to change and he's right that something need to be done to allow the hobby to keep up with technology but sub divison by bandwidth (such a obscure and difficult thing to measure) is not right.

and yes Jack, the 3 khz figure bothers me too. All of the current transceivers do that and more. the TS-870 (3100 khz), the TenTec Jupiter (3900 khz), etc etc. BUT HOW IS THAT MEASURED? and darn sure some little twit is going to come along and tell me that I am using 3002 khz of bandwidth! Jack I just don't understand the how and why of this whole thing, it doesn't make sense! Why do you think the ARRL is insisting on making such a proposal?


--Larry W8ER

From this week's ARRL LETTER


==>ARRL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE READIES BANDWIDTH RECOMMENDATIONS

Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and comfortably
accommodate present and future operating modes and technologies over the
long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has reached consensus on
recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for a regulation-by-bandwidth
proposal. The recommendations the panel adopted April 9 in Denver will form
the basis of a draft ARRL petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of
amateur spectrum by emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals
remain only EC recommendations at this point, and the League will file
nothing with the FCC until the ARRL Board gives its go-ahead. Five of the 15
voting Directors sit on the EC. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, says a key
principle underlying the League initiative is that the amateur community
must shoulder the responsibility for resolving conflicts among potentially
conflicting modes and not expect--or wait for--the FCC to impose its own
solutions.

"We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in amateur HF operating
patterns, and it's impossible to predict where this shift may lead," Sumner
said. "The FCC rules should not stand in the way of where technology takes
us in our fulfillment of the bases and purposes of Amateur Radio." The
bandwidth initiative is aimed in part at encouraging new digital modes, but
the primary emphasis is to avoid having to write a new rule every time a new
mode bursts onto the scene. The League's proposals will establish a
framework that creates an environment for change over the next decade--and
perhaps longer, Sumner concluded. The Board will consider the draft
petition, now on the drawing board, at its July meeting.

The EC recommendations abandon efforts to have the FCC segregate digital and
analog emissions by rule. As the EC sees it, the FCC rules should simply set
out band segments in which amateurs may employ bandwidths of up to 3 kHz,
with any further subdivision left up to amateur band planning. The EC
acknowledged a need to improve band planning mechanisms for this approach to
work well, however.

"Certainly there have to be mechanisms to minimize interference between
analog and digital stations, since they cannot compatibly share the same
frequency," Sumner explained. But, he says, using FCC rules to subdivide the
HF bands is the wrong approach, in part because they're too static and too
difficult to change.

Resolving two issues that have been hanging fire, the EC's proposals would
permit semi-automatic control (ie, with a control operator at the querying
station) throughout the amateur HF bands. Sumner says that while this
carries some risk of interference, the EC believes the amateur community can
manage it more effectively through a combination of technology and
respectful operating practices. Additionally, automatic control would
continue to be permitted at bandwidths of up to 3 kHz in narrow segments of
some HF bands.

The EC made no change to its earlier recommendation that the rules continue
to permit double-sideband, full-carrier AM and independent sideband (ISB) as
specific exceptions to the 3 kHz bandwidth limit--with restrictions of 9 kHz
and 6 kHz respectively--on all bands now allowing 'phone transmissions. (In
ISB, or independent sideband, each sideband of a double-sideband signal
carries information or data independent of the other.)

FCC rules now permit RTTY and data emissions throughout the HF CW subbands.
"It is only through compliance with 'gentlemen's agreements' that RTTY and
data signals are not heard in the parts of the band that are generally used
for CW," Sumner notes. The ARRL would propose limiting bandwidth in the "CW
subbands" to 200 Hz, which also will accommodate data modes such as PSK31.
In addition, the League's proposal would set bandwidth limits of either 500
Hz or 3 kHz in the rest of the bands below 29 MHz. The proposals would not
affect 60 or 160 meters.

"The objective is not to expand the phone bands to let robot stations run
roughshod over the phone bands, or to effect any other immediate change in
amateur operating practices," Sumner emphasized. For example, while the
3-kHz bandwidth segment of the 30-meter band theoretically could accommodate
voice, this is prohibited by international band plan agreements because the
band is so narrow. Additionally, the Amateur Service is secondary on 30
meters and must protect the primary fixed service from interference.

Sumner pointed out that there now is no effective bandwidth limit on HF
digital operation. The existing 500 Hz bandwidth limit applies only to
automatically controlled stations in semi-automatic operation. Band segments
limited to 200 Hz and 500 Hz respectively provide greater protection for
narrowband operations than exists today, Sumner stressed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the EC recommendations are available on
the ARRL Web site
<http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/bw-faq.html>. Direct
comments on these proposals via e-mail to <bandwidth@arrl.org>.

Hi Larry,

 Welp, Daves Idea is to source a bandwidth proposal to encourage the new  Digital modes, I'm OK with that if they stay with that...Naturally they are not, and feel the need to address all aspects in their wisdom to further their own agenda...Now here is where we have to step in and make our thoughts known...AM and ISB respectively to be addressed at 6 and 9 Kc's in general.., That's gona put some Tall ships outta buisness... i know it and you know it...Good Hi-Fi comes with a Price and some have found a common ground at 6 and 7 Kcs and some have a bandwidth exceedingly high BUT have paid attention to good Amateur practice and addressed the Asymetrical elements and actually even though bandwidth is exceeded the Splatter elements are at a minimum compared to some stock rigs with squeaky Yellowie Audio...We all Know this....getting it accross to the leaders at hand is another problem So..Dave in his Wisdom has decidedly factored this and feels the need to compare Conflicts with The Plug and Play crowd and Covered the Morse crowd covetedly,, Hi Hi,, So We this crowd here aren't getting any more room...we're are going to have to tighten up our signals..........IMO...

 Now this just being my opinion and not the Facts as of yet with the rules we have now, the meeting is up and coming so we the Free need to act on our freedom of expression and relate our thoughts to these leaders...Quite  strongly I might add....


 Like Steven says " if we expect and demand nothing..we will get nothing"

Their agenda quoted below, or maybe they're going to develop a line of bandwidth measurement tools, or maybe it's some dark government conspiracy to screw all amateurs that don't embrace the new digital modes coming down the road. "Good" Hi-Fi is great on your home sound system.  Amateur Radio is not Hi-Fi heaven. If you can't sound "good" in 6, 7, or 8 KHz, you probably need to go back and review the design.

If this proposal makes it to the FCC, it offers the opportunity to have subbands eliminated altogether.  Based on some of the comments on QRZ, it might be more appropriate for any remaining subband segmentation to limit unattended operation instead of signal bandwidths or  emission modes.  Very often, a rulemaking petition ultimately results in action by the FCC that has little resemblance to the initial proposal.  A case in point is incentive licensing.  The original ARRL proposal was to go back to the pre-1951 class A/ B licence structure.  The FCC went in a different direction altogether, deciding to segment the bands instead.  Once the petition is submitted to the FCC, it is beyond the control of the petitioner and there is no guarantee that the outcome will be identical to what was originally proposed.

Thtat brings up a worrisome aspect to this whole thing.  The proposed stardard bandwidth limit is 3 kc/s with a clause that grants an exception for AM.  It is not carved in stone that if this petition is adopted into the rules, the FCC will include the special 9 kc/s povision for AM, or that it would be permanant.  We could end up with something like the 7-year sunset clause that came with the power issue.

Petey,

 Come on Now, you and I are both members of the same element here, and neither of us are working from some "Dark Avenger" Conspiracy theory, i did a test yesterday on a piece of new equipment and it doesn't add up, Now is their ideal from the corner of a "Flat Response" or a defined set of Brackets..?  subsequent reason for my Post on a defined set of parameters...Define for me what their ideal is...

 I did the math and the Test and to stay within what I have percieved to be their Limits {Proposed} the signal Intelligibility is Suffered to the point of "Telephone Audio" not going to be much help in a DX pileup on Scientific Set Back...we both know that Intelligibility increases with Bandwidth and there is a point of aqueisence, now i've always figured that to be at the 3.5 Kc level at a Flat Passband, most filtering being done at 2.4 or 2.8 with 6 db points rolloff Psychocousticly speaking a sound can be found that is somewhat pleasing in a rag chew or tighten up for dx..But That is with what we have now...I'm fine with that...they should Leave this alone...

 Again if they want to address the up and coming Modes Fine address them and keep the service Fluid to make room, but to do this Does not require "Limits" on what we have now...you do the Test on AM with thier ideal and tell me what your passband will look like at 6Kc Brickwall approach...what will it look like graphicly and audibly... :D  is this what you want..? I'm Fine with the rules we have now OM....

Again, Or am I in error on their approach...tell me i'm lost trying to keep up with them at 26 db Down...when most filters specify a bandwidth distance between 6 db points...I don't Know... :?

Pete quoted Sumner's statement's
Pete .. I have been asking and will be asking for a while yet ... WHAT digital modes?

This is like building highways that give cars and trucks one lane, reserving all others for vehicles as yet undefined and unknown. I do not accept that hams are on the cusp of major mysterious revolution that would require such attention that Sumner would have us all believe! Is the sky falling Pete?

It sure seems to me that the 160 band plan works well. On a contest weekend I actually heard AM'ers and SSB guys give way to the contest ... darn it seems to work. Using the same theory on the rest of the HF bands, wouldn't it give us the required flexibility if such a major revolution really happened ... without the need for further FCC rulings?

And for heaven sakes, WHY just WHY would we want to propose adopting any bandwidth specific restriction where we have none today? That's like having the Porche Club of Germany proposing speed limits on the autobahn!

Let's do this ... Let the FCC make all ham bands look like 160 and let the ARRL propose band plans that are keeping with the technology!

 :?:  :?:  :?:

--Larry W8ER

Hmmmm 160M works fine 95% of the time. The other, "more regulated" bands have problems?. . . . so the logical choice is to add more regulation?

Any one been in a digital QSO lately? . . . not CW, or Pactor, or narrow band this or that. . . . digital voice?

I look in Qstreet and see one ad for a digital voice adaptor . . . no rigs that I can think of . . .  'gonna convert your old Nextel phone for 902?

That analogy of the road for other than cars, busses, and trucks was a good one . . .

Assuming this proposal has any merit. Are we defining the way digital voice should develop? . . . or delimiting such development?

We have a declining use mode that is allocated huge chunks of spectrum and a purportedly increasing use mode that may require spectrum. 'any one want to follow this logic through?

This proposal makes no sense to me. It made little sense to the FCC. Perhaps I am not viewing the big picture. . . .


-ap

WA2CWA sez:



Why not? You give no technical or logical reasons for this statement. The facts are that limiting bandwidth only limits the chances of amateurs developing a new and better comms system. The case of Armstrong and wideband FM should serve as an example. The "experts" of the day scoffed when Armstrong claimed he achieved better SNR at wider bandwidths. This is counterintuitive to most of us, even today. But it was true. Claiming that 6 or 7 kHz is enough sounds too much like the "experts" of yesteryear.

Gather up the comments the FCC made in the R&O when they rejected the recent bandwidth petition, plus those made by ARRL itself regarding flexibility in the rules and possible future modes, and you already have a convincing argument AGAINST the subbands-by-bandwidth proposal.

It appears to me that the League's position translates to admitting that the existing subband structure is outdated, but instead of petitioning to go the 160m/Canada/rest of the world route, they refuse to let go and have instead proposed a last-ditch effort to save the obsolete subband system at any cost, rather than simply relegating subbands to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Some of the discussion on the QRZ.com thread brings up valid concerns regarding automated unattended operation.  That could be adequately addressed under voluntary band planning that would limit unattended operation to appropriate segments within each band.  If necessary, this could be enforced by the FCC much in the manner that repeater coordination is enforced today.

One positive aspect for the AM community to come out of this discussion is that I have seen no grumbling about the special bandwidth provision for AM, with an arugment that the mode should be eliminated.

Don .. you said:

That is exactly how it appears! BUT WHY?

I cannot conceive of one good reason. It doesn't financially benefit them. It doesn't win them new members. It certainly doesn't give them status of any kind. It doesn't win them advertisers. It doesn't benefit the hobby. I just don't get it!

Any ideas?


--Larry W8ER

Don said,
 Why? Probvably because it wasn't of their own thinking. Not original enough. What will happen is that the FCC will come and decree something that everyone dislikes. That will be our desserts and we will have to eat it.
Just an opinion from my desolate corner of the universe.

Ya know Don i'm a member of the WPA Repeater Association and Glad i am and alot of good does get done, and things get handled and the people stick together and work problems out and the system works...I agree with you...a reminder that WE are a Self Policing Force....Good thought OM... :D

I will start by saying that my personal view is that rules that said, "There are  your band edges; these are your power limits -- stay within them" would work for me.

From the discussions I have seen about this, the objections seem to run the gamut, from those that think that sub-bands should be scrapped altogther to those that think that the proposal does not offer enough sub-band protection to their favorite mode.

I will offer some personal views.  No cc's to my boss this time, guys, okay?

I will start with the premise that the present sub-band mechanism no longer works well.  As hams want to experiment with new modes, the regulatory wailing and gnashing of teeth really gets in the way of that.  Any attempt to find a home for something like digital voice under the present scheme is destined for failure.  Without some changes, would it be fair to try to shoehorn in digital voice on top of the already crowded phone sub-bands?  I don't think so.  But digital voice is coming, and wider digital modes are in use by the rest of the radio world, and Amateur Radio is not serving itself well to be as far removed from them as it is. Like it or not, that is the future of radio in general (it is the present of radio in general for that matter), and Amateur Radio should be as much a part of modern radio as it was when the modes we all enjoy were first introduced into our Service.

So if some change has to be made, ARRL is in a position of having to propose a change that encompasses the views of a diverse membership.  I fear that if it abolished sub-bands altogether, the backlash would be pretty serious.  What it is proposing is to segregate signals by bandwidth, not by mode, with the premise that signals are most compatible with signals of similar bandwidth. If you try to slot in a 3 kHz wide signal, then a 50 Hz wide signal, then a 1 kHz wide signal, then another 50 Hz wide signal... well, you get the idea.  As I look at those who are afraid that the proposal will not offer them enough protection from other modes, we all have to recognize that the desire for some sub-band regulation of some sort is not a minority view at all.

All in all, I think the concept has merit. The Devil is in the details.  Some feel that the bandwidth limits set forth are an attempt to actually regulate bandwidth. I don't see it that way.  From the testing I have done, it appears to me that a 3 kHz bandwidth will encompass virtually all of the signals that are on the bands today, and virtually all rigs -- with human speech.  Remember, the spectral content of speech is not uniform, and when one makes a measurement that includes the characteristics of speech; the shape of the transmit and audio filtering in rigs and the way that spectral content varies with time to obtain measurements of mean power, the 3 kHz limit is a defacto good representation of present operation.  Heck, with that carrier ripping along and adding to the mean power of the emission without adding any bandwidth, I bet most full-carrier, double sideband signals would fit in 3 kHz. :-)

So who loses and who gains in the proposal?  IMHO, there are no losers.

o Under the present rules, that 3 kHz wide digital signal could appear on 14.005 kHz.  The "weak-signal" CW bands would be offered protection.

o Under the present rules, it is not at all certain that a 3 kHz wide digital signal could be used at all, and certainly not one that was spectrally efficient, but exceeded the symbol rate limits mandated by the present rules. The proposal permits more digital experimentation.

o Under the present rules, digital voice must operate on the "phone" allocations.  The proposal would offer more room for digital data and phone signals to operate.

o The proposal does mix phone and wider digital signals, but in a wider band, limited not by regulation, but by band plan.  When and as needed, band plans -- or individual operators, would have more flexibility and the bands could change on an ad hoc basis as needed -- maybe giving the Old Buzzards a bit of breathing room on the DX Phone 'test weekend.

So, would a band-plan only scheme work?  I can think of a few bad apples that would help ensure that it doesn't.  It has happened on 160 M - ask the CW DX community if they think that band planning is always a solution. It has happened with 2 meters, with FM being legal on 144.2 MHz, and some operators sticking to their guns and creaming the weak-signal guys. And when ARRL asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling that operating outside the band plan was a prima facia indicator that the station was in violation of the rules to use good operating practice, the wailing and gnashing of teeth was pretty loud.

The ARRL Board has voted in principle to propose some for of regulation by bandwidth (not regulation of bandwidth, so much).  It decided to put forth its proposal to the amateur community up front, in advance, and ask for input. That input has effected changes in its proposals, and at this point, the proposal is a recommendation by a Board Committee, to be put forth to the entire Board.  If there are still things that need to be changed, put them (or put them back) on the table.

I have views on this  and I will again communicate them to Tom Frenaye.  In general, I like the concept, but I can see a few changes that could address some of the concerns of some hams.  Unfortunately, some of those concerns probably can't be addressed, as in some cases, some of what I have seen on eham and qrz looked like little more to me than soapbox oratory, and just as useful. :-)

Just my personal opinion, of course.  Now back to my hidey hole. :-)

Ed,  it will work and benefit the majority of us. It is not good to assume that there will be a few bad apples and for that reason alone proceed with the labor of dividing up the HF bands into protected little communities. If a mode works .. it will succeed. If it doesn't, it won't.

To that statement look quickly at the mode you tout as being the future .. digital phone. It is well documented that digital phone cannot tolerate interference. I don't think we have to go any further to see what kind of future that has in amateur radio, broadcasting is different. So I simply ask, what do we do, set aside a portion of the band for digital phone because the mode can't handle it any other way?



You can't deny that the line between "ED the ARRL guy" and "ED the guy" is blurred somewhat.  Your boss should understand this. When we see you and Jim Haynie posting, side by side, it is easy to put you on the same level and cc'ing your boss is no different than cc'ing interested parties! Maybe he should be running the lab and you should be President of the ARRL!



I think everyone (almost) would agree with that!



I seem to remember that experimental modes met with much favor when refined in less crowded spectrum like VHF and UHF. On those bands, bandwidth is much less of an issue. Take FM for instance, I believe that the bulk of the experimentation was done on 50 mhz and above. It also became evident during this experimentation that it was not suitable for use in the HF spectrum. Why not take these digital experimental modes into spectum space where it does not impact the present activity?



So let's see Ed, back 50 years ago we should have set aside part of the HF spectrum by allocating a sub band (by FCC edict)  for FM experimentation because it was the future of radio? and yes we all hear Radio Mondiale encroaching on the top end of 75 meters. I don't think any of us are impressed!



Oh where's the scrote!!! :shock:  :shock: If you want to be thought of as being the leaders you have to be bold, you have to look at everything but the backlash! Do you think Truman looked at backlash when he decided to drop the "bomb"?



No I don't. You are again assuming that the population has the knowledge and equipment to make it so. It doesn't and won't. I'd like to be a fly on the wall and watch you teach a class of 60 and 70 year old hams how to measure bandwidth and how to use an MFJ spectrum analyzer! You know, the ones that will be bitching to the FCC that they heard a guy on last night that was in the 3 khz portion of the band but was 3.5 khz wide! Do you really understand the impact of what sub bands by bandwidth is going to do? It's not a bad idea if everybody understands but so far I believe that I can name a couple of hams that do .. you and HUZ .. and I'll give you a handfull of others BUT what about the guy with the IcomWood transceiver that barely knows how to turn it on and has a guy running an AL-1500 right down the street? Do you want to take that call?



 

It's not fear ED, it simply won't work because of lack of knowledge about it and the ability to properly measure it and people are trying to tell you that!




Why not? This is exactly like the Porche Club of Germany proposing that speed limits be set on the Autobahn. We have no definition or limits today and this proposal sets them .. and further does not indicate the intracies of how it is to be measured! From that aspect alone the ARRL proposal sucks.



Of couse there are. The losers are those who may occasionally open up their audio and ocassionally exceed 3 khz of bandwidth or 9 khz of bandwidth in the case of AM. Some of us may do that occasionally at 3 in the morning ED, or when the band is not so crowded! That's just one example.



Digital experimentation above 30 mhz would be great and I don't see that there is a lack of spectrum spact to allow that in the present allocation. In fact the ARRL bandplan for 2 meters has sections that are defined as for "experimantal" modes! I also don't see the need to complicate the HF band plan just to accomodate "digital dabblers" (experimenters)! This concept that you propose is really a new concept.



Ed, sure there a few examples on both sides about how 160 or band plans work or don't work but for the most part, it does work and it works well! I have been on 160 exclusively for the past few months and it has worked like a well oiled machine. I've listened extensively and rarely heard a problem and there was always pleanty of activity and room for each mode. You know what, when the 160 CW sweepstakes came on, the whole band was CW practically. The ssb/am activity was nill until the last point was made and then I fired up on 1885 with a big ol AM signal from my Ranger II and bullshitted for two hours and it was fun!



I hope that some of "my" personal opinions on the matter could get to Tom Frenaye also. I see this as an opportunity to get into step with the rest of the world and leave this sub band crap behind. I also see it as an opportunity for the ARRL to start behaving like a leader in this matter. Now that would be a WIN WIN situation!

--Larry W8ER

"From the discussions I have seen about this, the objections seem to run the gamut, from those that think that sub-bands should be scrapped altogther to those that think that the proposal does not offer enough sub-band protection to their favorite mode. "

Ed this is only correct to a very small degree. The vast majority of amateurs that I know; AMers, keyboard digital mode users, CW ops (to a much lesser degree), and the one person I know who has digital voice capability (me). Running the gamut is a correct statement even if 95% have opposing opinion and 5% are in support. You are fairly safe.

If this proposal is designed to protect the capability of amateur radio to expand into digital voice why would you delimit the ability to do so at this time in its development by imposing a mask that may not apply?

Amateur radio is a service which includes experimental in its justification, why would you inhibit the capability to experiment? SSB was wide at one time, AM was less controlled than it is now, (yes, I can run my SDR-1000 at +-10KHz, but I don't on 75M on Sat. night), FM was not as advanced either. Your'e a smart guy, you get the idea.

So, I am an active ham who buys the products advertised in QST. I am a life member of ARRL. I know many who are like me in this respect who think additional regulation is ill advised at best.

The multi part question: Why is the ARRL pursuing a path that its membership, with the exception of direct beneficiaries, doesn't want? 'doesn't make technical sense from an administration or station operation  perspective, will probably inhibit development of the mode for which it purports support, and is in conflict with demonstrated successful operation on 160 in the US and around the world. :has not been answered.

It's a solution in search of a problem.

Why?

-ap

Regulation will only serve to protect the special interests of a few, and band plans and gentlemens aggreements are just that, an informal form of Regulation.  Maximum growth and advancement happens when things are wide open.   Yes there are problems with that, interference and Lids have been around since the earliest days, and no amount of Rules or regualtions will rid us of them. (Maybe better a wide open band and a very hard to get ticket??)  
If the intent (of the ARRL) is to encourage experimentation and growth of Amature Radio, then the regulations need to be reduced, NOT increased.
Especially by rules that only about 10% of todays ham population can correctly interpret and more importantly measure.   Band Plan by band width is equivilent to Speed limit without speedometer!!!!  How can you tell if your within the limitations? Acurate measurements are the only way, but who's going to drop the $$$$ for spectrum analyzers and training to correctly use and interpret the instrumentation??  On the other side, how could you prove you were operating correctly to a Hyper active FCC enforcement type, They are so understanding and knowledgeable about the rules and technical aspects of radio today after all.
 
 "Digital" is the magic word now-a-days.  Just like "atomic" back in the fifties.  If you aren't "Digital" capable then you must be behind the times, with no regard as to weather the Digital mode (of whatever you're using) is actually better. Cell phones being a perfect example.

Personally I think this is an attempt, by the ARRL, to show some political types (FCC?) that they are accomodating the "New and So Much Better" Digital world.

Just my $.02

(how come keyboards don't have the cent sign anymore?? :) )

Ed asked:


From the keyboard 2 and then Alt +0162
2¢ or 2¢ or 2¢

"We have carefully considered all comments filed, including comments filed in support of the Petition,  and some alternative proposals.   We conclude that Petitioners’ request for an amendment of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service.   The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community  -- is either warranted or necessary.  In this regard, we note that most operators use the amateur service spectrum in a manner consistent with the basic purpose of the amateur service. "

-ap

"Moreover, the Commission has previously declined to restrict bandwidth for AM because to do so would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of amateur service and our desire to offer amateur operators the opportunity to experiment with various types. "


- Federal Communications Commission
   DA-04 3661 

Why do we ned more regulation? Someone have nothing to do?
I wonder if why things need to change when there are less hams.
Many problems are self correcting anyway. I tune across the bands and find lots of open space. It isn't like we share 40 chanels even though many belong on 40 channels. What is the motivation?
I wonder who wants to take all the old rigs off the air so we have to buy new rice boxes.
Just like gun laws we do not need any more.

GFZ ... when you question the need for change ... what about HALF of our HF spectrum being reserved for the CW mode. When you listen it is empty.

Listen to our phone bands and they get crowded. There are squabbles daily because the SSB guys say AM'ers take up too much bandwidth and the AM'ers say the window is too small, let's spread out.

Of course we could leave it alone, leave it like it is, like you say and 10 years from now the CW portion of the HF ham bands could still be empty and Jim Haynie could be before congress asking for more amateur HF spectrum space again.

Hmmm .. wouldn't an extra couple of hundred khz be nice? If you think not, listen to the Canadians down on 3725 on AM at night! It's a clear frequency, no QRM, they sound good. They have fun! At the same time us Americans are up in the Window being QRMed by the SSB guys.

Personally I think a change would be refreshing for the hobby, just not the change the ARRL is proposing!

--Larry W8ER

Let's not bust Ed's balls here.  As he stated in his post, his views only, not those of the ARRL.  WHile I agree with most of the statements made here on this subject I respectfully submit we should save the flames for those who can/should actually do something about this abomination - your division director and, when the time comes, the FCC comment system.

73 John

John, et al. . . .

Quite the contrary . . . I respect Ed in the extreme. He has the stones to join in and directly discuss a difficult subject with the general amateur pop. That's more than ARRL fearless leader types seem to be doing. . .  not first hand knowledge, admittedly. . .  but if they are talking with a cross section of the amateur population. . .they are ignoring their input. . .

I don't see Ed as the problem. . .  I see (best case) well intentioned, ignorant ARRL leadership.

My problem is it seems like I have paid them to act on my behalf and they aren't.

'did a good job on BPL tho . . . .

Yes, I will convey this via other means to the ARRL. . . .

-ap

Wonder when the FCC is going to air the petition that's already before them,
http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-petition.pdf

This in itself will cause major changes to the populating of our favorite amateur bands. It's hard to imagine the ARRL will hit the FCC with another "major" petition in July unless they feel a two barrel blast is better than one.

Oh man  ...



So We're not dumb enough yet apparently.  And people thought the getting to know your rig column was overboard.  

Might as well get a big ole CB and Linyear...

maybe we can save 160m...

Up front, let me say I am an ARRL member. I think they do a lot of good for Amateur Radio in Education, in getting Ham Radio publicity, learning aids for new Hams and other publications, against threats to our bands and BPL. In short, what other organization does any of this (or any thing at all) for Ham Radio?

In my opinion, there is a possible "Why" for their proposal……

I feel the ARRL must act because they feel that to lead is to act. So, like any other organization, to justify their real or imagined position of leadership in their field they are compelled to act in order to appear to be doing something. To fail to act is to appear to be impotent. Also, nature abhors a vacuum. There have been no other proposals that I am aware of that cover what the ARRL is attempting to address; the "new" modes.

We all know there are new modes coming. Hams of certain interests are experimenters. The QRP, Class E and Digital guys are just three of the experimenter groups out there. So, with the "new" digital modes gaining popularity, the League probably feels the need to advance these new, experimental modes by taking what it feels is a leadership position and therefore doing something. After all, this experimentation and mode development advances the "art" and that is part of the Amateur Service.

To this point I say "OK FINE!"  But, what the ARRL wants to do along with advancing these new modes is not something I would want to see it happen.

Let’s say that at some date the FCC is sitting on a Novice Reallocation proposal, No Code and this from the ARRL plus a couple of other proposals. If you remember the last time the FCC ruled on proposals it sort of threw them in a drum, shook them up, and out came a rule making. The rule making depends on what is in the drum at the time (or at least appears to be).

Now, I don’t like the maximum bandwidth parts of this plan for SSB and AM any more than any of you for just the reasons many of you have stated. I also feel that if you are going to "protect" spectrum for digital use, then keep it all there. The introductary comments from the ARRL on their web page about the proposal seem to be in direct contradiction with the proposal itself. I will comment against the proposal if it is put forth for these reasons.

 I would prefer to support an alternative proposal. But where is it? Has anyone filed one that asks for the 160/Canada/ Rest-of-the-World style band plan? Is there any other plan? There is nothing else "in the drum" that I am aware of. Due to this, we will all need to fight this if it becomes a formal proposal, but it would be better if we had a plan to put forth and support as an alternative. We need to find a positive direction to go.

End of random thoughts……….  

I'm confused.  One of the objectives of the
ARRL bandwidth based proposal as I
understand it, is the accomodation and
segregation of digital modes.  Some of
these modes use 50 kHz of bandwidth.  
It seems that for the most part, the widest
digital signals are coming from a handful of
stations using a protocol for email forwarding.
As I understand it, the email is being
forwarded to remote users (e.g., RVers)
and it originates on commercial ISPs.  
Some of these emails apparently have
commercial content.  If that's the case,
can someone please explain what such stuff
is doing on the amateur bands in the first place?

I wasn't going to further any more opinons here but in any case, if the obvious questions, problems were to be addressed first,  then the anticipated activities will fall into place by subsequent logical order by mode/frequency space alotted.

Predelection towards advancement "ie" enhancement of the service should always remain Fluid and Diverse and ANY Limit imposed on any one part will only add stress on the remaining subparts.....

While looking at the bandplans we are given and the rules for engagement that have been handed down through time, and what are the Actual Happenings Now today, there are needs that are being ignored in lue of a protectionist leadership.

I see it no other way.......

Whatever Da Duck is drinkin' I want some!

--Larry W8ER

You couldn't be more correct, Jack.  One of the excuses for this proposal is supposedly to "encourage experimentation with digital modes."  

I fail to see how further restrictions with further that goal.

73 John

I see what you are driving at, but let's put that to the test.

Only a few hams cause intentional inteference.  Do you think that band plans and gentlemen's agreements would be enough there?

Only a few hams violate the rules about unattended bulletin transmissions. Why can we not rely on band plans to regulate that?

I can give example after example that show that only a few hams do things that are not acceptable to others.

Why do we need rules at all?

Most hams want rules, though, but want to see rules that prevent their own oxen from being gored, but not rules that put limits on their operation.

"Most hams want rules, though, but want to see rules that prevent their own oxen from being gored, but not rules that put limits on their operation."

Right on . . . but how, beyond the apparently ineffective contact the section manager, do we communicate that to the folks at ARRL who don't seem to share your view?

Our oxen is experimentation. That is a primary purpose of the service and I see this proposal as delimiting.

Further, I see it as pandering to a relatively few operators.

When presented with the question in the format . . . . do you want anarchy? you will, of course, get a "we must have rules to live by" response. This is irresposible, manipulative, and transparent.

Yes, we need band plan reform and 160M is a successful template.

Less is better.

-ap

.

Remember that is exactly what happened with AM power.  I recall talking with Dave Sumner at a hamfest ARRL forum and he specifically pointed out that K1MAN's lawsuit against the FCC was premature because administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and that the lawsuit had "hardened" the FCC's position on the issue so that it would be much more difficult to get the commission to follow through on their commitment, as expressed in the initial R&O, to reconsider in 1990 if there was "any justification to do so."

Sure enough, at the next FCC forum at Dayton, I raised the question to Johnny Johnston.  His  reply: "You took us to court, remember?"  When I pointed out that it was Glenn Baxter who took it upon himself to take the FCC to court, he responded, "As far as I'm concerned, it was the amateur radio community.  That's an issue that got caught up in circumstances,"  then without further comment he continued on about something related to special event callsigns or some other issue on the fringe of importance.

The problem is that the courts routinely defer to the "expertise" of the regulatory agencies, claiming that judges and juries don't have the technical knowledge to  rule on these issues.  About the only way to get a reversal on a rulemaking decision is to get the FCC to rule against itself.  Good luck.

The few times the FCC has been successfully challenged in court have been on administrative and legal issues such as station ownership, but rarely on technical matters.

This is precisely why, if the ARRL persists in this proposal, we must organize better and faster than before (though we did do well on the previous idiocy), and respond effectively and clearly to a proposed rule making if it gets that far.
If an individual can be viewed as a representative of the entire amateur population a group should have little difficulty getting a point across.
If the ARRL wants to commit suicide . . . so be it.

-ap

The place to communicate views about any ARRL policy is your ARRL Division Director. See http://www.arrl.org/divisions.  

In doing so, do ensure that you understand the proposal and its implications thoroughly, and if you see technical issues or errors, focus on those.  Some of the opinions I have seen spouted about this issue (such as the implications that ARRL must be taking money from the Winlink folks) will only get in the way.


Compared to a rule that says "These are your band edges; these are your power limits; stay within them," it is limiting.  But do you really want to see the rules relaxed that much?  What would you think of a 500-kHz wide digital signal operating spread spectrum across the entire 80 meter band?  Or is that different, because it might gore your particular ox?

Compared to the present rules, the proposal is opening up a lot of experimental possibilities.  Right now, any data on HF and most VHF and UHF is limited by symbol rate.  By using good encoding methods and ample signal-to-noise, it is possible to send a high data rate in a relatively small bandwidth.  By portioning access to the bands by bandwidth instead of arbitrary partitions such as symbol rate or mode, the ability to experiment is increased, not decreased.

The proposal also is a step towards deregulation, not a step into it.  The "3 kHz" wide segments are wider than they are right now, and, by my read, that would permit voice operation lower down the band, regulated by bandplan, not regulation.

The real concerns that I have seen expressed here are not so much with the concept of bandwidth vs mode, but with concerns that a 3 kHz bandwidth for voice may not encompass the present spate of phone rigs. Ditto with the 200 Hz limit and CW.  From the testing I have done, I don't believe that to be the case, and the only ox that may get gored would be the HiFi operators.  (I agree that when the bands are not heavily occupied, such experimentation does no harm, but not all operators have been considerate 100% of the time...)

I am not sure that Amateur Radio is ready for a band-plan-only scheme, at least not in the US.  I know that a number of the 160 M CW ops are NOT convinced it works as well as the phone ops who operate in the DX window because it is legal.  But if we are to have partitioning of the bands, bandwidth makes a lot more sense to me than mode.  And it is more flexible than the present rules by far.

Some have wondered whether a simple solution to the concerns could simply be to impose the specific bandwidth limits on digital modes only, where, with a properly adjusted transmitter, the actual bandwidth can be easily calculated or measured.  The rules for analog voice or manually-sent or decoded CW could be left as "good engineering practice" only, as they are right now. This accomplishes the same objectives, I would think, but without some of the baggage that goes along with it.

And I must note that although the ARRL has proposed a 9-kHz limit for DSB AM (and independent sideband), one point noted here is that there is no guarantee that the FCC would go along with that. ARRL proposed grandfathering the old 1 kW AM power limits, and FCC said no.  

I see a lot of opinion  here, and I urge all of you to make your views known to your ARRL Division Director. (This is NOT the same individual as your Section Manager).  Do so in a reasonable and respectful manner, and stick to the issues.  I suggest that even if you have done so already, now is a good time to do so again, as the Board has responded to its original proposal with additional changes.

This may be the only board where I will still do it, and even then, after seeing Larry say that he felt he could cc my boss any time he wants, my presence here on this issue will be limited pretty much to what I have said already.  Dave Sumner got cc's of several of my posts on eham and the QRP lists. He took it in stride, but unlike Jim Haynie, who enjoys reading this list from time to time, I figure that if Dave wanted to read the amfone.net list, he would.  Those that feel that they can make the rules that the normal netiquette that people don't send cc's to participants employers selectively not apply to me accomplish only one thing -- I go away. This is not my job, and if my participation on a list will be treated as anything other than personal, I have a simple solution at hand, and one I have the stones to use. :-)

But my stones are in pretty good shape, all in all. Last July, I went to a BPL industry meeting in Denver, CO.  I was in a room of about 75 BPL people and utilities... and me.  A few of my friends said that I had some pretty big ones.  I responded that, yes, I do... and their composition is solid brass. :-)

:D -.-  ED..very well said...

Your Presence here is Welcome and Admired by all, and very much appreciated ..... Tell the bosses to come on in and Join the foray.. it's snowing outside what else is there to do... :D

Have a good Day Ed and Thanks...

"but how, beyond the apparently ineffective contact the section manager, do we communicate that to the folks at ARRL who don't seem to share your view?

The place to communicate views about any ARRL policy is your ARRL Division Director. See http://www.arrl.org/divisions."

"In doing so, do ensure that you understand the proposal and its implications thoroughly, and if you see technical issues or errors, focus on those. Some of the opinions I have seen spouted about this issue (such as the implications that ARRL must be taking money from the Winlink folks) will only get in the way."

Tnx, I will try to avoid implying the ARRL must be corrupt or insane to make such a proposal.
The implications are simple. More regulation is not a good idea even if technical reasoning is applied. We are currently required to operate such that we do not interfere with others. That's the current regulation. If spitting on the sidewalk is illegal we do not have to define the composition and size of the ejecta.

"Quote:
Our oxen is experimentation. That is a primary purpose of the service and I see this proposal as delimiting."

Compared to a rule that says "These are your band edges; these are your power limits; stay within them," it is limiting. But do you really want to see the rules relaxed that much? What would you think of a 500-kHz wide digital signal operating spread spectrum across the entire 80 meter band? Or is that different, because it might gore your particular ox?"

This I believe is an example of 'do you want anarchy?'. I have already answered this perspective.

"Compared to the present rules, the proposal is opening up a lot of experimental possibilities. Right now, any data on HF and most VHF and UHF is limited by symbol rate. By using good encoding methods and ample signal-to-noise, it is possible to send a high data rate in a relatively small bandwidth. By portioning access to the bands by bandwidth instead of arbitrary partitions such as symbol rate or mode, the ability to experiment is increased, not decreased."

I disagree. Regulation and constraint do not create innovation.

"The proposal also is a step towards deregulation, not a step into it. The "3 kHz" wide segments are wider than they are right now, and, by my read, that would permit voice operation lower down the band, regulated by bandplan, not regulation."

How about making the band open to all modes? . . . kinda like CW can operate anywhere in the band.

"The real concerns that I have seen expressed here are not so much with the concept of bandwidth vs mode, but with concerns that a 3 kHz bandwidth for voice may not encompass the present spate of phone rigs. Ditto with the 200 Hz limit and CW. From the testing I have done, I don't believe that to be the case, and the only ox that may get gored would be the HiFi operators. (I agree that when the bands are not heavily occupied, such experimentation does no harm, but not all operators have been considerate 100% of the time...)"

All operators, however, would be regulated because of those operators. Then when wideband is criminalized only criminals will have wideband. The entire regulation abiding community restricted because of operators who will likely disregard the regulation anyway.

"I am not sure that Amateur Radio is ready for a band-plan-only scheme, at least not in the US. I know that a number of the 160 M CW ops are NOT convinced it works as well as the phone ops who operate in the DX window because it is legal. But if we are to have partitioning of the bands, bandwidth makes a lot more sense to me than mode. And it is more flexible than the present rules by far."

I operate CW, AM, and (even) SSB. I can always find a voice QSO but sometimes have to give up on CW. 'not a large sample to be sure and we can always point to Saturday afternoons on the low end of 20. The 160M plan works well. It is rare to find discord. Why fly in the face of precident?

"Some have wondered whether a simple solution to the concerns could simply be to impose the specific bandwidth limits on digital modes only, where, with a properly adjusted transmitter, the actual bandwidth can be easily calculated or measured. The rules for analog voice or manually-sent or decoded CW could be left as "good engineering practice" only, as they are right now. This accomplishes the same objectives, I would think, but without some of the baggage that goes along with it."

How about the digital transmitter operators listen to establish their proposed transmit frequency(ies) are clear before transmitting? Those that don't, won't if it is a formal regulation. Those who will, do.

"And I must note that although the ARRL has proposed a 9-kHz limit for DSB AM (and independent sideband), one point noted here is that there is no guarantee that the FCC would go along with that. ARRL proposed grandfathering the old 1 kW AM power limits, and FCC said no."

In fact, the FCC has stated they will not go along with any bandwidth restriction regulation. The bobsey twins at least elicited this from the FCC. 'guess it proves some good can come from even the most ill advised proposal.

"I see a lot of opinion here, and I urge all of you to make your views known to your ARRL Division Director. (This is NOT the same individual as your Section Manager). Do so in a reasonable and respectful manner, and stick to the issues. I suggest that even if you have done so already, now is a good time to do so again, as the Board has responded to its original proposal with additional changes.:

Thanks Ed. I was barking up the wrong branch of the tree . . .  

-ap

"But my stones are in pretty good shape, all in all. Last July, I went to a BPL industry meeting in Denver, CO. I was in a room of about 75 BPL people and utilities... and me. A few of my friends said that I had some pretty big ones. I responded that, yes, I do... and their composition is solid brass. Smile"

Thank you!

BPL is becoming recongnized for what it is. . . a technical and economic farce. The concept is noble. We have done some incredibly stupid things with noble intent. The ongoing demise of BPL is encouraging. Even if the ARRL does put some lame stuff on the table occasionally the BPL response is both informed and effective. . . . and benefits all modes . . .

July 2004 – Minutes of board meeting:  “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages the deployment of e-mail via Amateur Radio (as exemplified by Winlink 2000)…“

August 2004 – Planned ARRL Petition to the FCC to Regulate Subbands by Bandwidth:   “The main objective is to make appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands...”

April 2005– ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations:  "The EC's proposals would permit semi-automatic control (ie, with a control operator at the querying station) throughout the amateur HF bands.”

Gentlemen, I submit for your consideration that these little snippets  reveal the true agenda for the Newington outfit’s band plan.  Transmitter bandwidth regulation is conveniently bundled in at no extra charge.  

73 Mike

Ed W1RFI wrote:

Ed added:

Ed, I don't remember saying anywhere that I felt I could cc your boss about anything that you posted and further I have never done so. Let's not put words in my mouth.  

I said that I could understand how the line could be easily crossed because this is a public forum and Jim posts here and so do you. There is little distinction. It's not so different than being at a public gathering and in a group discussion.

Also, I do not make up "netiquette". Neither do I repeatedly threaten to go away if people don't follow what ever rules I want followed.

Since it appears to me that you have a bone to pick, I invite you and suggest that it go private,  larry@w8er.com , where the size, composition, and weight of body parts is much more appropriate! Otherwise let's keep to the issue of the ARRL proposal and take it out of the personal nit picking category!

--Larry W8ER

I don't recall ever seeing "Jim" post on this forum. He's not listed as a member.

That's what they are: snippets. Reading only these will generally take you down the wrong road. Many of the QRZ discussions on this topic are also based on "snippets" rather than the entire proposal.

Pete, you infer there is a right road in increased regulation. What is it?

If you want to say they are insane, that would at least be a matter of opinion, although there is a lot more that can be said than a single word description.  The posts I have seen that imply some sort of hanky panky just don't make any sense to me.  


I agree with you, but the proposal to regulate by bandwidth instead of the present method of regulation is a step toward less, not more, regulation. If you don't believe it goes far enough, that is what to put on the table.

Pete, you are correct. Sorry. He did post and was quite vocal on Steve's AM Window. He also is extremely vocal on "other" forums, where he and Ed do a tag team routine. Jim posts until the flames get hot and then Ed jumps in and picks up and Jim goes away. I've watched this repeatedly.

It is because of this, that the distinction between the two is a blur and how anyone can expect the fray to distinguish the difference or understand that Jim is Ed's boss is hard to imagine. However this is not on topic and if anyone wishes, the email address, larry@w8er.com , works.

Anyway, I am much more interested in the comments on the ARRL bandwidth proposal. I am seeing some names and comments here that that it much easier for me to read the forum instead of posting in it! I no longer feel like I am standing alone on my views of the proposal and frankly the absolutely GREAT posts by ART and KA3TGV and Mike W8MW and Don KYV give me hope that ham radio is not as dead as the ARRL is trying to make it!

And I still wish someone would explain to me, because no one has yet, what are these great digital modes that we are supposed to be planning ahead for, since they will so heavily impact amateur operations on the HF bands today. My crystal ball, unlike other balls we have been hearing about, just isn't functioning!

--Larry W8ER

It is kinda' hard not to take it that way, Larry:




Either I can post here as a ham with personal views or all you can get out of me is what ARRL has set as its policy.  You don't get it both ways.

And I never did mind folks cc'ing Jim Haynie. He hasn't posted here that I recall, but he has done so on qrz.com and eham.net. But when Dave Sumner started getting cc'ed on the things I discuss here, it really crossed the line.

I haven't posted on eham.net or qrz.com since, nor the QRP lists, my own part of QRP.  It only takes one or two to really mess it up, Larry. No one else here would tolerate people sending cc's to this list participants' bosses.
 
I will trouble you no further, and it isn't a threat.  Best wishes to you all.

Ed, I am extremely disappointed in you. This is not the place and I offered to take it offline with you and you chose not to. You appear to want to make it appear that I am the reason that you no longer wish to post here and appear to be making accusations that I did some cc'ing or emailing that I did not do.

Beyond that you have repeatedly threatened to not post here, not just now either. I have always found that kids who brought toys to the playground with the threat they would take them and go home, didn't have toys that were valuable enough to play with!

The AM Forum will survive!

--Larry W8ER

"I agree with you, but the proposal to regulate by bandwidth instead of the present method of regulation is a step toward less, not more, regulation. If you don't believe it goes far enough, that is what to put on the table."

Good Ed. I would like the policy changed to no regulation by bandwidth or mode on all bands but suspect this would be too revolutionary. Though the CW ops are declining as a percentage of amateur radio operators they are still the second largest oxen I think. However, changing the regulations to the 160 format does seem achievable. I probably didn't make that clear previously.

If that is what the proposal is I have misinterpreted it.
 
This leaves the amateur radio operator to police themselves and the FCC to track down the offenders of a much clearer concept. No or little court activity due to clear and concise regulation.

Amateur operators would be responsibile for the current regulations as they relate to interference and the FCC would not have to increase its enforcement (which isn't going to happen) department.

Invariably we come back to the relatively few misadjusted operators at this point and I have to mention they will disregard whatever regulation put on the books. . . . thought I would save the time . . .

A technical point:
When I brought the Nextel system up in LA in the early 90s we didn't even have a mask until later when the technology was solidified. Does the ARRL know what technology will be utilized going forward in amateur radio? Or has digital become a mantra . . .


-ap

Great question, although you know the answer. They don't know (unless it's being rigged for Winlink). Any honest tech forecaster will tell you their crystal ball gets real fuzzy when predicting what will happen more than 2-3 years out. The market, regulatory and technical variables are just too many to determine what's going to happen.

Thanks Steve. Sometimes I don't convey the idea well but you have captured it.

Since we cannot predict the technology defining a mask for it at this time cannot be conducive to the advancement of digital radio.

Defining a mask at this time infers other interests are being served.

However, none of that matters if we deregulate to the 160 model. We don't have to define what digital radio is. We don't have to constrain development of any technology or mode.

If you want innovation to really take off allow digital anywhere in the band and CW, and voice, and SSTV, and keyboard modes, etc. etc.

The CW folks should be the last to gripe . . . who else can kick in a 25Hz filter and qso on a contest weekend?

One thing I notice in their proposal is:
Their goal is to regulate by bandwidth not mode.... so what do they do ????

They specify "phone" bandwidth as 3KHz then exempt AM and ISB with 9Khz and 6Khz respectively.

Why not just say maximum modulating frequency is 4.5KHz regardless of mode. By putting the 3KHz limit in THEN exempting AM and ISB they, in effect, have segregated by mode!

So would this mean ESSB is no longer permitted ???

Art, Steve ...


I don't consider myself a technical giant and am having trouble understanding the concept of a mask. There isn't a whole lot on it out on the web unless you want a war mask or bug mask ..  :D

Could somebody explain that in a little more detail and at a level that maybe me and a few others can grasp?

Buddly asked:


Absolutely! To say nothing of the little guys who think they understand bandwidth with Icom 756's with bandscopes grabbing their magnifying glass so they can see the pixels and email Riley everytime they see an extra pixel lit up! Just a small part of the problem with the "proposal"

--Larry W8ER

The mask is the outline of a spectrum analysis that a transmission cannot exceed and still be in compliance with regulations.
A way to visualize a mask in this context is spectrum analysis of an FM transmission. The FCC commercial FM mask consists of the center section which is the carrier and 120KHz on either side at 0dB (reference) this includes the program AF sidebands which are down about 13dB from the reference, the next 120KHz increment is down from the reference by 25dB so you can include subcarrier information on the FM carrier. The next step from 240 to 360KHz must be down 35dB from the main carrier.  Greater than 360KHz on either side must be down 80dB.
The mask looks kind of like a two step porch on either side of the main carrier with the sidewalk 80dB down.
A Digital mask would enclose analog and digital components which contain sidebands and separate carriers. If you imagine simultaneous AM and FM signals and define the bandwidth and amplitude of each component from main carrier, sub carriers, and modulation products, and then plot the resultant characteristic you would be generating a mask.  
The GSM mask looks kind of like a Mayan pyramid with a flat top and one major step with angular rise above and below the shallow run in the middle.

The mask for FM is shown in a previous post in this thread.

http://amfone.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=33984#33984

Thanks!

The FACT is that they want to re-regulate us, and provide for AM in a "special exemption" much as the KW  grandfather clause. They then can just elimainate the exemption.

To keep discussing the technical merits is a waste of time. They don't want the facts, they have there minds made up, and are only agreeable to amend them slightly to get it implemented. They then  figure they can change it simply by taking out the exemptions!

There is something BIG driving this, and I can't figure out what!

I just recieved this from "my" section leader:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tentative proposals by frequency band:

   160M - Entire band = up to 3 kHz
   75/80M - Segments of up to 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 3 kHz.  A sub-segment
of 3 kHz would be open to automatic control.  AM and Independent SB
(ISB) would be authorized by special exemption.
   40M - Same as for 80/75.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read this as no exemption for 160M. Therfore NO AM.

What can we do????? We need to get together and get something started or we are going to lose big! Discussion of technical aspects, which they seem to ignore,  will not help.

We need somehow to present another face to the FCC or I'm afraid we will lose our operating privileges and can forget Ham Radio as we know it!

I don't know how to do this, but hope we have an attorney or someone on this list who does.

Sounds to me like we need to start a fund to fight this. Anybody got any ideas?

I like my hobby. Don't want to give it up for "automatically" controlled "digital" operation!!!!!!

Gary WB8BEM/8

Gary,

Several months ago, I too felt that we were in a crisis and that losing functionality was imminent and that something had to be done immediately. Actually it doesn't!

First withdraw your support of the ARRL!  There is no way to justify supporting any organization that would further a proposal like this. There is no way to work through them, that has been tried. They are not a representative organization, despite their org charts.

Encourage your friends to do the same. If their base erodes, and all they have left is life members, they may start to see that they have done something wrong. I doubt it but it's the only statement that can be made that will have an eventual effect.

Next wait until the proposal, in all of it's glory hits the FCC and then sit down and write a very well thought out response. It is going to be a huge response and it's not likely that the ARRL is going to come out of this, on top. There are too many faults in their proposal when all is considered. They won't listen and you can bet that they will do it their way! So trying to discuss the merits is indeed a waste of time.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy 160 Gary, it's not over until the FCC sings and I believe that it's going to be a while.

You might also try starting a rumor on the internet that Newington Connecticut is really a code name for Camp David and make sure that it's picked up by AlQueda.

--Larry W8ER

Larry Yer Bad.... :D