Bandwidth Recommendations

[W8ER]

Whatever Da Duck is drinkin' I want some!

--Larry W8ER

[w3jn]

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

[W1RFI]

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.

Ed --

I can't believe I read this, and I read it a few times to make sure I wasn't missing something!  How many are a "few" and "some" ?  

If the ARRL has put itself in the position of, and is viewed via the FCC as,  the "Chosen Instrument" for amateur radio policy submission, then the ARRL simply can not promulgate policy in order to keep "a few" and "some" of the bad apples at bay, simply because  those "few" and "some" are orders of magnitude less in number than those that would benefit by over-all band plans!    Why penalize the majority for the actions of the few bad apples?  

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.

[Art]

"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

[W3DBB]

.

[k4kyv]

B.p.l. technology will probably fail on it's own because better methods are available. Dave Sumner is making noises about taking the F.C.C. to court over the b.p.l. rollout. Does the American Radio Relay League truly believe the F.C.C. will be favorably disposed toward this bandwidth proposal if the A.R.R.L. takes the F.C.C. to court over b.p.l.?

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.

[Art]

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

[W1RFI]

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.

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?

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.

[W1RFI]

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.

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. :-)

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

-.-  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...

Have a good Day Ed and Thanks...

[Art]

"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

[Art]

"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 . . .

[W8MW]

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

[W8ER]

Ed W1RFI wrote:

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.

Ed added:

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.

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

[Paul, K2ORC]

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

EXACTLY!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.

--Larry W8ER

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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

...these little snippets reveal the true agenda ...

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.

[Art]

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

[W1RFI]

Tnx, I will try to avoid implying the ARRL must be corrupt or insane to make such a proposal.

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.  

"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.

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.

[W8ER]

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.

--Larry W8ER

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

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

[W1RFI]

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.

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

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

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!

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.

[W8ER]

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

[Art]

"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

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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 . . .

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.

[Art]

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?