Bandwidth proposal and 160m AM

[W2INR]

Larry said

Is this something that you wish to do openly on the AM Forum?

Ah  -  Where else Larry - - Ham sexy? :?  I mean there is little that hasn't been discussed openly here to this point.

After all this IS The AM Forum!

[W8ER]

Larry said

Is this something that you wish to do openly on the AM Forum?

Ah  -  Where else Larry - - Ham sexy? :?  I mean there is little that hasn't been discussed openly here to this point.

After all this IS The AM Forum!

Exactly Gary!

First, if you were developing a plan to defend Michael Jackson would you think the front page of the LA Times would be a good scratchpad? I personally think we've telegraphed enough punches to the ARRL from this very platform. They read the forum religiously and despite repeated ill will toward our end of the hobby, they have tremendous support here.

Also, since the ARRL plans to burden all of ham radio with excessive regulation, especially in the area of bandwidth, where there has been none, it's not a matter for just AMers. Do you think it prudent to develop an "AM" plan that regardless of merit, that could easily be discredited by the simple phrase "special interest group" as has been done in the past by the ARRL.

You should really focus on the word "openly" however in what I said. The harm to any such effort to defend the hobby against what the ARRL is promising to do comes in the public discussion of the weak points of their proposal. So far they have adjusted their 3 khz segments to more favorably align their proposal with open criticism. Essentially they are plugging holes! They are not doing anything to favor "our" position but rather strengthen theirs.

There are some GREAT minds here on the AM forum! I think taking some of those minds undergound and working on a defense is the only intelligent thing to do! Having the fox in the chickenhouse was never a smart thing.

I would be happy to listen to any suggestion that you might have.

--Larry W8ER

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Evening Gents,

 Any Representative of any Enity, Body, or Collective,  should have First on it's mind the Equal and Total interest of it's supporters...

 To do other wise, is Chaos...

 That which exsists as I see it...

[W2INR]

Well telegraphing ones moves can be helpful or could do damage. But if a large group of people form an action group there would be no way to ensure that the ARRL would not find out.

Frankly I am surprised that the ARRL even listens to us( the AM Group). Over the years on both this board and the Window the ARRL has been beat to crap( proper use of the word Pete)out of them. They have been insulted and harrased on the boards.  If fact VJB did the same on QRZ. Check out the responses. No consensous there. Is publicly attacking the organization that has our BA's in their hands smart?  Was this for" us" or ones own self centered ideals.

This is all dangerous stuff.

I have many concerns about or mode and the hobby. I have more concerns about people helping us also. The last time a major issue came up was when the 1KW input rule was on the table. Some People said they we going to go to Washington and fight. When all was done we lost the 1kw input class. The people that went o DC pissed off so many people it hurt our mode more than anything.  Will this  happen again?

How do we decide who is going to do this. Do we have a say or is this just going to be some hidden group acting in our best interest? You know the way the ARRL does business. I would not feel comfortable not knowing who was helping "our"  hobby.

Art is right, we need numbers and frankly I don't see that happening. The other modes are really not effected by this proposal . In fact the proposal is for the digital and ssb  people - - - you know the mainstream ham radio operators.  We ARE a specilized group. I would dare say there are less than 5,000 AMers in the country. That is less than .01% of the total ham community. No power there!

I have a question that I really have know clue too .

How did the ARRL become our policy making group? I always thought the FCC did that.

I say enough with the small talk and go for the meat of the problem

 We should start with the ARRL and find as many hams in this country that have issue with the ARRL and file a petition stating that the ARRL does not represent our interests as hams and we do not regonize their authority  ( if you will ).  Oh 300,00 signatures would certainly wake up the ARRL as well as the FCC. But we know this won't happen.

Could we get oh let's say a thousand people gathered on the ARRL's door step. You know a good old fashion Rally.

I have no answers Larry but I do have concerns. I love my hobby and this mode . I would hate to sit back and watch it go down the tubes.

If there is going to be a group of people helping " our" hobby then I want to be fully involved and informed of all ideas, actions etc. I want a say in what they are going to do for our hobby. I am sure there are quite a few that feel the same way.

Pete your idea of audio restiction will kill AM as many know it. Is that what you want? If I have to listen to AM in 3kc I would rather go to SSB - - it would sound better.

There is little we can do until the ARRL files a formal petition. Then we will have the facts to act on.  Like you said .

[W2INR]

Oh !

Yes, If we are talking about a focused attempt  then I am on board.

The frist order of business should be -  what is our agenda.

I can set up a users only room that will require logging in for discussion  and polling.

What ever we need

[W2VW]

How did the ARRL become our policy making group? I always thought the FCC did that.

You just nailed the big issue Gary.
 ARRL repeater coordination  has been accepted by FCC as their own. Look at some of the Rileygrams and see how this has been used. Almost everyone asked says that this is working F.B. Looks like the folks in Newington would like to grab more clout by becoming the H.F. coordinators also.
Any adoptation of the proposed rules under discussion would generate plenty of extra work for those who's job is enforcement.
The sales pitch has always been that amateur radio would be self policing. So  if ARRL wants to "help" FCC with more rules then they must also have a plan to aid enforcement.  Maybe they plan to highlight the merits of their official observer program.

[W2INR]

Interesting Dave,

That could very well be the area of focus.  If they can't make policy then the rest just wouldn't matter.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Gary said - Pete your idea of audio restiction will kill AM as many know it. Is that what you want? If I have to listen to AM in 3kc I would rather go to SSB - - it would sound better.

I never said anything about audio restiction. Given the present bandwidth proposal, and the

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.

9kHz of AM bandwidth will still make you sound "good". Of course "good" can be defined differently by each one of us. There is probably a subset of AM operators who enjoy "AM" for what it is, i.e. a different mode, a change of pace from SSB or CW, and don't have a high desire for "wide-body" AM.

[Art]

why should any mode be an exception? exceptions are relatively easy to eliminate.

if it is what you are interested in at the time you should be able to do it. same with digital . . . it ain't gonna be sveldt and narrow initially . .  its gonna be wide and full of overhead . . . snmp, digitized voice QAM, DPQSK, M16QAM, or M64QAM, within TDMA or even CDMA, synch, repeater capability-handoff.handover, FEC . . .  it took years to narrow to 6 voice slots in one 25KHz channel with huge R&D . . amateurs are going to do this in the minimum bandwidth right out of the chute?

defining modes and attendent bandwidth serves to endorse a specific product or create a regulatory enforcement "opportunity".

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Afternoon Art,

 And, Conjugate Focus on Equipment, Further Reduction of Skills, creating an even less quality Operator.

It's a process Arty.

[Jim, W5JO]

Pete:

Where in this graphical does it say 9 Kcy?

160 Meters
 Proposed Bandwidth
 
1.800-2.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
80/75 Meters
 
3.500-3.580 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
3.580-3.620 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
3.620-3.635 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
3.635-4.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
40 Meters
 
7.000-7.035 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
7.035-7.100 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
7.100-7.105 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
7.105-7.300 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
30 Meters
 
10.100-10.120 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
10.120-10.135 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
10.135-10.140 MHz
 up to 3 kHz
 
10.140-10.150 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control

 
20 Meters
 
14.000-14.065 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
14.065-14.100 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
14.100-14.112 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
14.112-14.350 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
17 Meters
 
18.068-18.100 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
18.100-18.110 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
18.110-18.168 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
15 Meters
 
21.000-21.080 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
21.080-21.150 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
21.150-21.160 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
21.160-21.450 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
12 Meters
 
24.890-24.920 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
24.920-24.930 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
24.930-24.990 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
10 Meters
 
28.000-28.050 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
28.050-28.120 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
28.120-28.189 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
28.189-29.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz
 
29.000-29.700 MHz
 up to 16 kHz
 

I never said anything about audio restiction. Given the present bandwidth proposal, and the

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.

9kHz of AM bandwidth will still make you sound "good". Of course "good" can be defined differently by each one of us. There is probably a subset of AM operators who enjoy "AM" for what it is, i.e. a different mode, a change of pace from SSB or CW, and don't have a high desire for "wide-body" AM.

[Art]

Howdy Jack . . . I understand the process and object . . . first we get the include everybody effort and then we get the exclusivity set up going so the new folks and others who like modes like, say AM frinstance, get squished into a ghetto while undiscovered modes and one with waning popularity are accorded exclusive band space . . . das es ferda shiza . . (Herb will have to correct my spelling . . . )

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

FB Arty,   Excellent..

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Jim, W5JO said - Pete:

Where in this graphical does it say 9 Kcy?

160 Meters
Proposed Bandwidth

1.800-2.000 MHz
up to 3 kHz

I actually agree with you Jim on this one. The PDF chart with the proposal does say at the bottom to "see text for information about AM and ISM emissions" but the table, the one you quoted, does not.

I sent Dave Sumner a note the other day pointing this out along with some other info. Below are the e-mails, edited to just include this item of discussion.

1st Message:
From: peter markavage [mailto:manualman@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:31 AM
To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Cc: Fallon, Frank (Dir, Hudson )
Subject: Fw: Bandwidth Recommendation Chart


Dave:
 
I was reviewing the bandwidth recommendation text, dated April 13, 2005, http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1I , I noticed in the chart at the bottom, the bandwidth exemptions are omitted. Although it's stated in the text of the news update about the exemptions to the bandwidth proposal, not putting them in the chart is a bad idea. Same issue with the PDF chart although it does say to "see text for exemptions" at the bottom of the chart. Good charts can put the entire proposal in a perspective that everyone can understand. People can get bogged down reading lengthy text messages, miss important info, get confused, or just fail to grasp the "meat" of what is being said, but a clear and complete chart can say it all very clearly. Adding an ISB and AM phase to each band phone segment would make the charts clearer and avoid confusion as this information gets passed around and read by many amateurs.
 
As an example below, I added some text to the 160 and 80 meter phone segments.
Not a big deal, but what prompted me to write was that I've read on several forums, that some AM hams thought that if the proposal moves forward, they were going to lose AM operating privileges on 160 meters because "that's what their(ARRL) proposal chart stated".
 
<cut>
 
Sincerely
Pete Markavage, WA2CWA
 
Example:
ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations -dated April 13,2005
160 Meters

Proposed Bandwidth

1.800-2.000 MHz up to 3 kHz, ISB - up to 6 kHz,  DSB full carrier AM - up to 9 kHz


80/75 Meters

3.500-3.580 MHz up to 200 Hz

3.580-3.620 MHz up to 500 Hz

3.620-3.635 MHz up to 3 kHz with automatic control

3.635-4.000 MHz up to 3 kHz, ISB - up to 6 kHz,  DSB full carrier AM - up to 9 kHz

etc. etc. to cover the phone portion of the rest of the bands.[/color]

Response from Dave:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:09:52 -0400 "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org> writes:

Thanks for the suggestion, Pete. We've said it a lot of times, from the very beginning of the process.
 
73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

My 2nd & final Response:
From: peter markavage <manualman@juno.com>
To: dsumner@arrl.org
Cc: n2ff@arrl.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:34:25 -0400

Thanks Dave for the quick response. I'm not faulting the various text presentations on the overall proposal. Personally, I think they were quite clear. However, there may be times when text might get separated from charts or tables (i.e. club presentation putting a slide on a screen) leading people to form different opinions if they only view one and not the other.
 
<cut>
 
Sincerely
Pete Markavage, WA2CWA

[Jim, W5JO]

Pete things would be a lot more palatable if, instead breaking out phone portions, which has implications of regulation by bandwidth/by mode, you simply state Phone 9 Khz or less.  Making AM an exemption is not acceptable.  In fact 9 Khz is too little for some here.  Why not make it 9 Khz and exempting greater bandwidths for DBS w/carrier if there is no interference or other stations on the band as the exemption and lump the modes by bandwidth wihch is what the goofs are proposing anyway?  Better yet make it up to 12 Khz.  

These objections are what make AM people very reactive, including me.  I have already gone on record with my Director against the entire thing because of this issue.  No one understands why the phone mode must be limited to 3 Khz with execptions since this looks like either an attempt to get rid of AM or put it in the out bin with an exception.  This part is not regulation by bandwidth as the proposal states.

[Jim, W5JO]

One other thing Pete, Even with the added text in your mail to Dave, this eliminates the ESSB group by mode, the very thing they are trying to change, regulation by mode.  Would the ESSB boys fit in the ISB + carrier group or the AM group DSB + carrier.  Where would they fit?  Too many cross purposes.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Good Job Pete,

 Thanks for sharing that, and it's good to see David is Aware, Now, at this point Actions will speak Volumes to the masses...

[W2INR]

Pete

You wrote this

Ok, I'll bite.
In the case of audio:
Audio quality that permits 100% intelligibility communications over the frequency of interest.

Well that can be done around 3k. That is restricted audio for AM Pete at least in my book.

[k4kyv]

Bandwidth figures could deliberately be left vague, defined by the non-specified nominal bandwidths of incumbent modes.  Additional modes, not specifically mentioned in the regulations could be permitted on the condition that their nominal bandwidths would not exceed those of certain specified modes, without naming actual figures for bandwidth.  For example the "3 kHz" digital signals could be defined as any other unspecified mode of emission whose bandwidths does not exceed that of a SSB voice signal transmitting within the limits of good engineering practice."  Narrower bandwidths could use the nominal bandwidth of CW as a standard.  Wider bandwidths could use AM or FM as the standard.  

I'd have to find my copy of Part 97, or better still, download a fresh copy off the net to determine the exact section, but as I recall this concept is already in use in several sections of the present regulations, as a result of the Part 97 rewrite of a decade or two ago.  The FCC said at the time that they were deliberately leaving bandwidth figures vaguely defined to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and development of the radio art.

[W8ER]

Guys,

I can't help but be amazed at the attempts to put bandaids on a flawed concept! The ARRL is pushing this one, which is nothing more than an amplification of the work began by W6FDR and the other lunatic Lonicke  to limit bandwidth. The FCC rejected all of that quite soundly if you guys remember.

This is still, first and foremost, a proposal that will limit bandwidth. Each one of you guys in this thread are all discussing bandwith this and bandwidth that. It's a bandwidth proposal! This ARRL proposal introduces bandwidth as a way of allocating sub bands and thus creates limits where there has been none.

It matters not if 3 khz sounds OK or 9 khz sound OK. You guys seem to be accepting of this! It like lowering the speed limit on all US highways to 45 mph and no one is saying whoa! We don't want that! All of you are looking to justify why we should accept 9 khz or 3 khz.

You are focusing on the wrong part. WHY GO ALONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC PROPOSAL THAT WILL TAKE PRIVELEGES, THAT YOU HAVE NOW, AWAY?

--Larry W8ER

[Art]

Pete, well done on the 160M info upload . . .

Now if we could just get em to fix the rest of the ARRL . . .'look at me, I'm important' drivel and really represent the amateur populace they helped generate . . . it would be wonderful.
i have heard of *many* grass roots groups spanning diverse disciplines that intend to submit opposing proposals. They may not have the sophistication of the lawyerd up proposals from the ARRL but will surely serve to dilute the idea that the ARRL is representing a large cross section of the total amateur radio population. There are also very enthusiastic internet board groups who are organizing with the sole intent of shoving the ARRLs face in their own paper at comment time.
And when that occurs, and the ARRL is standing there with toilet paper on their heel and a shot down proposal in their hands. Who will represent amateur radio operators? Where will the ARRLs power base be? What started out to be 'look at me, I'm important' will have become the beginning of the end of the ARRL.
Most organizations do not die . . . they commit suicide. They do this by believing their own org charts and neglecting to turn those org charts upside down to understand the true nature of service to a constituency.

-ap

[Jim, W5JO]

You are focusing on the wrong part. WHY GO ALONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC PROPOSAL THAT WILL TAKE PRIVELEGES, THAT YOU HAVE NOW, AWAY?

--Larry W8ER

Why do you think we are picking at it Larry?  I am against it altogether in it's present form and will be against it unless they do it right.  No limits on bandwidth.  As a member of ARRL my Division Director better answer, he has quite a well versed assistant in the wings waiting for him to either not run or stumble.  I am waiting for him to stumble.

[W8ER]

Jim W5JO wrote:

Why do you think we are picking at it Larry?

Jim, if you reread this topic it is full of statements questioning why does it say this and where does it say that. There should be a resounding .. HELL NO .. at this point, not picking! Even Pete is accepting of audio that is effective at communicating. Pete, I'm a very direct sort of guy and please don't be pissed at me for saying this, but there are guys on this board, in this part of the hobby, that would eat shi* if the ARRL put it's stamp on it.

Look at the beautiful bandscans that Steve did a couple of weeks ago and then tell me if you think that the ARRL should further this proposal in any form!

This ARRL proposal doesn't require further examination for everyone to understand what is under the covers and it should be soundly rejected.

--Larry W8ER

[Jim, W5JO]

Unfortunately for us Larry, we can't have a lot of respect.  I will give the ARRL this, now with the internet and email, they are a little responsive to you and me.  Previously it was quite a chore to type a letter with carbon paper and mail it to your director.  Now some of them actually read these dialogues.  That is a step in the right direction.  
We would have a great impact if we all were members of ARRL, but for one reason or another, we aren't.  The FCC respects the ARRL for one reason only.  It represents the greatest collection of amateurs in the US and for the last 30 years they don't want to be bothered by our hobby.

When the oldest organization that represents the largest group of the hobby files something, the FCC listens.  Now in the past three years, I have seen guys like you have an actual impact on the ARRL and the FCC.  The only way to convince them is to keep pointing out flaws in proposals as we are doing.  Those of us who are members should take those flaws and communicate them to their directors, who should respond to the members concerns.  If they don't they the members should vote them out and put directors in place that will listen.  Enough flaws and we have a chance to get them to dicard the proposal or, at least, rethink it.

These directors have been involved in digital many years and want to foster it's growth, despite the impact on other modes.  Some or them are arrogant and impossible to communicate thoughts about an interest they don't share.  I think we need to continue to pick and fight then file comments if the proposal is filed and becomes an RM

[W8ER]

Jim,

The ARRL has a duty to be responsive to it's members, not just a little, or a bit better lately, but full blown responsive to it's members.

Last year I was a member and spend hours communicating with Jim Weaver, my Division Director. Also Mike W8MW spent hours communicating with Jim as did others regarding this proposal. We tried to work within the system. Unfortunately, Jim announced that he was going to support the proposal because out of the 8 or so responses only 4 were negative in some way. Considering that I was in direct email contact with 5 people that claim to have sent communication to Jim asking that he not support the proposal, I had a bit of a hard time with Jims decision. That is not representative in any way. Vote him out .. why? You see what is going on with the proposal and voting him out will have no effect, afterwards.

What was happening, that I could directly control, is that with my member ship, I was supporting an organization that working against me. I hardly find that palatable!

To the case in point, this proposal. If the membership of the ARRL does not stand up and roar about the restrictions that the ARRL is about to propose, your organization will do it's best to see that ALL amateurs lose priveleges. If what the ARRL did was to only affect it's members, then I would say cool! Go ahead and you'd be able to tell the ARRL members from the non-members by their "communication" sounding signals. But this affects ALL radio amateurs, which the ARRL represents (or doesn't represent as the case may be) less than 25% of. This is patently unfair and unjust!

Imagine for a moment if State Farm were proposing speed limits of 45 mph on all highways. Let's say the guys in this forum were all sitting around discussing how it will save gas and be safer and generally accepting what State Farm was proposing because it was better. Let's say that even some of State Farms members were opposed to the speed limits but were being ignored, for the betterment of the driving public. After all what State Farm was proposing was all goodness, for our own goods, and they know what is coming down the road and this was the best for us!

I use good judgement in my operating practices. Why should I be subjected to this garbage just because the ARRL is the only one with vision and insight and says that I should.  Maybe the FCC needs to understand the relationship between the ARRL and the hobby a little better. That would be secondary to the ARRL admitting it's relationship to the hobby truthfully and stop pretending that it represents us, the majority of hams!

--Larry W8ER