Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/11/d132647312/htdocs/Amfone/mkportal/include/SMF/smf_out.php on line 47
ARRL BOD Modified Draft Petition Subbands by Bandwidth




 
The AM Forum
December 02, 2021, 05:28:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ARRL BOD Modified Draft Petition Subbands by Bandwidth  (Read 18334 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« on: January 27, 2005, 01:04:02 PM »

From the ARRL web site:

Draft Petition to Establish Subbands by Bandwidth Modified
Following recommendations of the ARRL Executive Committee, the Board adopted changes to the League's pending petition that would propose segmenting bands principally by maximum bandwidth rather than by emission type. The petition remains in the draft stage, although the Board has reviewed the document and membership input.

Board members okayed three amendments to the draft. These would call on the FCC to permit non-telephony emissions not exceeding 3 kHz at 10.135 to 10.150 MHz, to prohibit "continuous" test transmissions on most frequencies above 51 MHz, and to clarify 97.309 of the rules to specify that amateur stations may use any published digital code, as long as other rules are observed.

Additionally, the Executive Committee will evaluate whether to recommend retaining, deleting or amending 97.221(b) and/or 97.221(c) of the rules regarding automatic control of digital emissions. "This evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, the effect of these rules, and the effect of proposed changes in these rules, on APRS and other current and planned digital communications in the HF bands," the resolution noted.

The Board will consider the amended bandwidth petition and the Executive Committee's further report at its July meeting. The League is not expected to file the petition with the FCC until later this year at the earliest.

The full ARRL Board Meeting Story is here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/01/27/1/?nc=1
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2005, 12:14:05 AM »

Quote
Draft Petition to Establish Subbands by Bandwidth Modified


Anybody asked themselves why the ARRL fails to listen to the cries for more spectrum space for expanded phone operation (3 khz bandwidth) in the HF bands? Has the ARRL ever explained their thinking on this? I would really like to know why they continue to think that half of the HF spectrum should be reserved for modes that are least used and most likely will continue to be the least used for many years to come.

--Larry
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10062



« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2005, 01:07:43 AM »

With the drop off of activity ( the bands ARE less congested than they were a few years ago), one wonders why the bands need to be segmented at all.

Particularly on 75-80m, if everyone could spread out, there would be enough spectrum to allow all modes, AM, SSB, CW and digital to operate with little or no QRM even during prime time (except of course during CQ Contest CQ Contest periods).
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2005, 07:09:54 AM »

Recently, I've been looking at 75 and 40 with my spectrum analyzer running in peak hold mode.  Most nights there is a huge empty space from 3725 or so down to 3650, a few CW and digitial stations below 3650, and the phone section is filled up solid.  The space from 3725-3750 is well populated with Canadian phone stations.  

On 40, there is a strong foreign broadcast station at about 7140 but below that the band is pretty empty.

There VERY few digital emissions noted on either 80 or 40.

This is a vivid illustration of the relatively crowded nature of the phone bands as opposed to the dearth of activity in the CW sub bands.

Perhaps a small set-aside should be made for CW, but IMHO the best policy ought to be "these are your band limits, doesn't matter what mode you run within them".

73 John
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
W1RFI
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2005, 08:24:17 AM »

Quote from: w3jn
Recently, I've been looking at 75 and 40 with my spectrum analyzer running in peak hold mode.  Most nights there is a huge empty space from 3725 or so down to 3650, a few CW and digitial stations below 3650, and the phone section is filled up solid.  The space from 3725-3750 is well populated with Canadian phone stations.

If your analyzer can talk to your computer, graph the results and publish them. I intend to do some similar measurements on 3.5-4 MHz in mid February. I did some in July, but the QRN made it look as if there were actually signals below 3.65 MHz. :-)

A spectrum analyzer generally doesn't have enough sensitivity to pick up the weaker signals, although on 75 M with an outside antenna, that may not apply. Make sure the noise level seen on the analyzer increases when you connect the antenna.

Quote
On 40, there is a strong foreign broadcast station at about 7140 but below that the band is pretty empty.

Not my experience at all.  On a receiver, there are plenty of CW and digital signals on 40 meters.

Quote
This is a vivid illustration of the relatively crowded nature of the phone bands as opposed to the dearth of activity in the CW sub bands.

The only band on which I think one could make that statement with certainty is 3.5-4 MHz.  In my experience, 40 meters and 20 meters are pretty well used for CW and digital operation. Above that, especially as the sunspots continue to decline, band occupancy appears to be lighter.

Quote
Perhaps a small set-aside should be made for CW, but IMHO the best policy ought to be "these are your band limits, doesn't matter what mode you run within them".

That is the rule in most countries.

But I have to ask, why the set aside for CW? Isn't CW the mode that gets through when all others fail? If so, it should be able to operate zero beat with one of the broadcast stations! :-) :-) :-)

But more seriously, it is my *personal* opinion that there is some value to regulating bands to keep essentially incompatible modes separated.  If that is to be done, doing so by bandwidth makes more sense to me than by mode.    However, as the ARRL has seen, there certainly are pitfalls to avoid.  Not restricting present operation is tantamount. (More on that later from me.)  But it is also critical, IMHO, that any divisions be fair.  As I see it, if more operation is going to be shoehorned into the "wide" portions of the bands, what is fair is to increase those portions proportionally.  As a 99% CW op, all I have the right to expect is that my access to spectrum to do my thing in amateur radio is fair.  When I tune some of our HF bands, I can't say that it is ME that is getting the short end of the spectrum stick. :-)

Those of you who haven't done so, please take the time to really read through what is on the plate, assess its strengths and weaknesses and then tell your  ARRL Division Director what you think ARRL should do and why. See http://www.arrl.org/divisions.  If you are not a member, you can still contact the ARRL Director for your Division.  

Please do NOT email the entire board. These people are volunteers and it is enough to expect that they will correspond with the approximately 10,000 members in their own divisions. ARRL's representation is is regional, and I imagine that when some of these folks get an email spammed to the entire board, they probably don't take the time to check whether the member is in their own division or not.  Spam is spam, and away it goes.
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2005, 09:48:31 AM »

Ed - the spectrum analyzer I use is an old Hp3571A tracking specan with HP 54503 digital scope used for the display and a HP3330 sweep sig gen used as the 3571A's LO.  The scope has a HPIB output but I don't have a HPIB interface for the computer (also, the analyzer is in the garage and the computer is in my wife's "office".  I can send you digital photos if you like.   And you're right - a burst of QRN or power line noise ruins a scan set as it fills in everything.

I'm using 300hz RBW on the specan, ant is a longwire, input impedance on the specan is 1 megohm, and it's MORE than sensitive enough.  In fact the specan makes a pretty fair receiver, connecting the video output to an audio amp instead of the scope.  I say "pretty fair" because the analyzer has a logarithmic detector vice a linear one, and the resultant audio isn't too great.  I can go down to 3 HZ RBW on this, but doing so limits the window I can look at because the 3330A is limited to 1000 freq steps (at this RBW I can only look at a 3KHz window - and at that RBW you need to sweep V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y)

Unfortunately this unit has a top end of 13 MHz so I haven't looked at (nor do I have much interest in) 20/15/10.

I'm happy to collect a few photos and write up some conclusions, but I don't think it's probably enough (or appropriate) for a QST article as you really can't draw any long-term or valid conclusions from me doing this on random occasions on the east coast.  It may not present valid results for the rest of the country.

73 John
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2005, 04:04:14 PM »

Ed W1RFI,

First, thank you for the January issue of QST. I enjoyed not only the Ranger article but many other things I found while looking at the issue.

I do not want to start an ARRL bash but you should know that I will not re-up my membership because of the rediculous position that the ARRL has taken on the issue of sub band allocation(my pet issue) and the totally out of line position taken by our Division Director. What is being pushed by the ARRL is exactly the opposite of what I believe would be the best solution for the hobby. I will not support that.

In your post you said, in relation to lack of activity:
Quote
The only band on which I think one could make that statement with certainty is 3.5-4 MHz.

Why not then support a change in the proposal for a significant increase in the space where bandwidths up to 3 khz can be used on 3.5-4 mhz? After all, I think we all agree that there is a vast area of unused spectrum there and the proposal does break the allocation down by band. Even this small change would allow me to see that the ARRL is being a little more reasonable!

You also said:
Quote
But more seriously, it is my *personal* opinion that there is some value to regulating bands to keep essentially incompatible modes separated. If that is to be done, doing so by bandwidth makes more sense to me than by mode.

First, "*personal*" Ed, please do not tell us that you have "NO" influence on the product. I don't believe that for a second!

Second, look carefully at what you just said. Did you not refer to keeping incompatible "modes" separated? Why did you not refer to keeping signals of "compatible bandwidth" separated? Actually a digital signal and a CW signal, of similar bandwidth are totally incompatible!

It appears that "mode" is really the best separating device and "bandwidth" just simply confuses the issue.

and please Ed, let's not bring "digital" signals up to the level of "phone" signals when we talk about quantity or proposed quantity. The ARRL always lumps "digital" with CW but the "digital" activity appears to be going nowhere. It appears to be a ruse and something vague to lump with CW to validate the reasoning behind keeping "CW" space. If you take ALL of the CW activity and digital activity and add them together, the numbers are not there and not likely to be there in the reasonable future.

You also said:
Quote
As a 99% CW op, all I have the right to expect is that my access to spectrum to do my thing in amateur radio is fair. When I tune some of our HF bands, I can't say that it is ME that is getting the short end of the spectrum stick. :-)

I wish, as a phone operator, I could say the same! You have access to 100% of the HF spectrum. I have access to approximately 1/2.  Is that what you refer to as "fair"? There we go talking about "MODES" again and not "bandwidth".

You also said:
Quote
If you are not a member, you can still contact the ARRL Director for your Division.

Why would I do that? Contacting my Director when I was a member was totally a waste of my time. In the end, he made an arbitrary personal decision to blindly and totally support the ARRL bandwidth proposal in spite of communication from not only me but several other ARRL members who were opposed to it.

I want to be an ARRL member. I just need the ARRL to be reasonable on this issue and give me a Director that does not force me to communicate in a public forum!  :Huh:  

--Larry W8ER
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2005, 07:38:30 PM »

Quote
You also said: Quote:
If you are not a member, you can still contact the ARRL Director for your Division.
 

Why would I do that? Contacting my Director when I was a member was totally a waste of my time. In the end, he made an arbitrary personal decision to blindly and totally support the ARRL bandwidth proposal in spite of communication from not only me but several other ARRL members who were opposed to it.

I want to be an ARRL member. I just need the ARRL to be reasonable on this issue and give me a Director that does not force me to communicate in a public forum!  

--Larry W8ER


You probably didn't count all the ARRL members and non-members that contacted the Director and were not opposed to it.

You want a Director that believes in your views, then beat the bushes to find a prospective candidate, then lobby like hell with as many people as you can find, to vote the existing Director out of office the next time he/she comes up for re-election.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2005, 08:08:28 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
You probably didn't count all the ARRL members and non-members that contacted the Director and were not opposed to it.


Au contrare!!

Pete, you have forgotten earlier posts that I made regarding this issue. My Director DID say how many he got for and against the proposal. He claimed 4 were in support and 3 had issues or were against.

Interestingly, four readers of this forum and members of the ARRL and residents of this Division, responded that they had sent him negative responses regarding the proposal.   :oops:  Now you tell me .. what are the chances?  

--Larry
Logged
W1RFI
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2005, 05:06:51 PM »

Quote from: W8ER
You also said:
Quote
But more seriously, it is my *personal* opinion that there is some value to regulating bands to keep essentially incompatible modes separated. If that is to be done, doing so by bandwidth makes more sense to me than by mode.

First, "*personal*" Ed, please do not tell us that you have "NO" influence on the product. I don't believe that for a second!

The proposal was initially authored by ARRL's Chief Technology Officer, Paul Rinaldo.  He did not ask me for any input or ARRL Laboratory work.

Quote
Second, look carefully at what you just said. Did you not refer to keeping incompatible "modes" separated? Why did you not refer to keeping signals of "compatible bandwidth" separated? Actually a digital signal and a CW signal, of similar bandwidth are totally incompatible!

All signals that try to occupy the same spectrum at the same time are fundamentally incompatible. But is easier for an anarchistic system like Amateur Radio to have stations identify and use communcations channels within a band if they are operating near other stations of similar bandwidth.
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2005, 05:35:37 PM »

Ed,

I said that I could not believe that you had no influence on this proposal.

You said:
Quote
The proposal was initially authored by ARRL's Chief Technology Officer, Paul Rinaldo. He did not ask me for any input or ARRL Laboratory work.


I am not talking about just the authoring of the proposal and Rinaldo! This is obviously a very important project, maybe one of THE most important in decades for the ARRL and you really want me to accept that you have had NO input, no influence, on it? Nobody asked you to look it over for technical correctness or anything like that and you have not discussed it with anyone?

Let's not banter about modes and bandwidth and things like that because we could debate the sanity of each position for decades. I do have one question however.

1. Why has no one addressed the disparity in the space that is overcrowded and the space that is grossly underutilized? It seems that the ARRL should have addressed that as a prime requirement to any restructuring proposal.

--Larry
Logged
W1RFI
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2005, 10:10:09 PM »

Quote from: W8ER
You said:
Quote
The proposal was initially authored by ARRL's Chief Technology Officer, Paul Rinaldo. He did not ask me for any input or ARRL Laboratory work.


I am not talking about just the authoring of the proposal and Rinaldo! This is obviously a very important project, maybe one of THE most important in decades for the ARRL and you really want me to accept that you have had NO input, no influence, on it? Nobody asked you to look it over for technical correctness or anything like that and you have not discussed it with anyone?

What didn't you understand about what I said, Larry. If you don't believe the things that I say to you, don't waste my time or yours.

I am not involved in this project so I cannot answer your question.  This is one you will have to ask your ARRL Division Director.

And learn to give a little respect to get a little, will you, Larry? Your snotty attitude is getting old.
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2005, 10:37:35 PM »

Ed,

I try very hard to reserve both my respect and my attitude for those that earn it.

Thank you for your insight.

--Larry
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2005, 01:25:44 AM »

Quote
Interestingly, four readers of this forum and members of the ARRL and residents of this Division, responded that they had sent him negative responses regarding the proposal.  Now you tell me .. what are the chances?
--Larry

Beats me. Don't know the guy and it's not my Division. Have you tried asking the Vice-Director what the latest count is?
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2005, 03:44:18 AM »

Pete an ARRL life member and staunch ARRL supporter asked:
Quote
I asked in a previous post:
Quote

Interestingly, four readers of this forum and members of the ARRL and residents of this Division, responded that they had sent him negative responses regarding the proposal. Now you tell me .. what are the chances?
--Larry

Pete asked:
Quote

Beats me. Don't know the guy and it's not my Division. Have you tried asking the Vice-Director what the latest count is?

You know Pete,  

I was invited by Jim Haynie to join the ARRL as part of a discussion that I was having with him. He told me that I could better work within the organization than from the oudside. It made sense to me and I joined. I can honestly say that it made no difference.

Then Ed Hare happened on the scene, at renewal time, and Ed was a cool techie and if for nothing else I rejoined because of his efforts to communicate with this FORUM. I was ready to say the hell with it but Ed made the difference.

Then this stupid proposal for subband allocation according to bandwidth issue came up. No one at the ARRL made any sense. I refused to renew after my Division Director Jim W8JE totally wasted a whole bunch of peoples time asking what they thought about it and then proceeded to ignore the responses and interject his "YES" vote. I considered this the final insult.

As to your question Pete .. the answer is no! I am no longer a member.

--Larry
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2005, 07:35:05 AM »

W8ER wrote:
Quote
As to your question Pete .. the answer is no! I am no longer a member.


Then what are you griping about?  Why are you attacking Ed, who merely offered his personal opinion as well as some sage technical advice on how to provide evidence of band occupancy?

Quote
And learn to give a little respect to get a little, will you, Larry? Your snotty attitude is getting old.


More than a little old.  Respect and a civil tone goes a long way towards the advancement of your position, regardless of how strong you disagree.

73 John
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
W1RFI
Guest
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2005, 10:49:33 AM »

Quote from: W8ER
Ed,

I try very hard to reserve both my respect and my attitude for those that earn it.

Thank you for your insight.

--Larry

I haven't seen any evidence that you "try very hard" to be respectful. You have disrespected me and I have done nothing to you to warrant any such a response.

It seems  to me that you are a lot better at dishing things out than taking them, Larry.  

I had some passing interest in the bandwidth issue and have been doing some private work that I think would have been of some interest to you, but at this point, I think I will find some other things to pique my interest.

Best of luck to you.  With the way you choose to show your "respect" to those that have done nothing but try to help you, I think you are goign to need it...

Ed "Outa' here for at least a while" Hare
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2005, 11:08:54 AM »

John W3JN said:
Quote
Then what are you griping about?

John, if what the ARRL did affected only the ARRL and it's members, I wouldn't have a gripe .. obviously .. but what they do, affects everybody, including me.

John W3JN also said:
Quote
Why are you attacking Ed, who merely offered his personal opinion as well as some sage technical advice on how to provide evidence of band occupancy?


Ed is a good guy. I have never doubted it. He is one of the ARRL people that earned my respect from the very beginning. I love the guy .. well almost.

Ed, in his public side, maintains that he has nothing to do with anything outside of his responsibility for the Lab. This may be true but I keep asking myself .. huh? For instance: The ARRL has this giant of a tekie. He's politically savy, a hell of a PR person, a dedicated employee, a middle manager, a sort of Commander Data. Is it possible that Captain Picard would never ask him for his input? I offer this as an explanation as to what I said in my earlier posts, not to further disrespect Ed. I have to believe that he is being completely truthful in his statement.

I hope that answers your question John. I hope Ed understands as well that I am sorry to have inferred that he was lying .. that twas not the intent even though it is what I said. Ed .. I totally and unconditionally apologize for the inferrence.

--Larry W8ER
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2005, 11:52:21 AM »

My name is John, not Pete.
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2005, 12:12:51 PM »

Ouch:
Quote
My name is John, not Pete.

Sorry John. I my haste to clarify the situation, my focus was on what was said and not who said it. I beg 50 pardons.  :oops:

--Larry
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2005, 12:58:12 PM »

Quote
As to your question Pete .. the answer is no! I am no longer a member.
--Larry


Don't recall seeing where I asked you that question, but that's OK with me.
I'm sure you can find something out there in radio land that you can grab on to and support.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2005, 05:45:48 PM »

:-P  :-P  Too funny.  I always disliked that song though.


Quote from: K3MSB
Quote from: w3jn
My name is John, not Pete.


Im not Lisa, My name is Julie.
Lisa left you years ago.
My eyes are not blue, but mine wont leave you
Till the sunlight has touched your face.

She was your morning light,
Her smile told of no night.
Your love for her grew
With each rising sun.

And then one winter day,
His hand led her away.
She left you here drowning in your tears,
Here where youve stayed for years,
Crying Lisa, Lisa.

Im not Lisa, My name is Julie.
Lisa left you years ago.
My eyes are not blue, but mine wont leave you
Till the sunlight has touched your face.

Im not Lisa.
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4362


« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2005, 09:55:16 AM »

Quote
Too funny. I always disliked that song though.



Me too !
I seriously dated a Lisa just before I met my wife.

In our (wife n' I) first heated disagreement I mistakenly called her Lisa !
Right in front of her mother !!!(Now my mother-in-law)
And her father !!!! (Who just laughed histerically!)

Man.. I hate that song!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 18 queries.