What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Presently, the "suggested frequencies" take up about a ssb voice slice
of bandwidth per band. And that slice is getting pretty busy. esp on 20
meters.

While the short and simple answer is just move to a new frequency, in
practical terms it is nice for low power modes like PSK 31 to have a
place to gather.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 13, 5:01 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Heck, Mike, your first challenge will be to get the gentlemen to
agree. ;-)

Presently, the "suggested frequencies" take up about a ssb voice slice
of bandwidth per band. And that slice is getting pretty busy. esp on 20
meters.

Those suggested frequencies are simply that: suggested.

While the short and simple answer is just move to a new frequency, in
practical terms it is nice for low power modes like PSK 31 to have a
place to gather.

PSK31 isn't just a low power mode, Mike. If you need to boost your
signal to compensate for band conditions, there's nothing precluding
that.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.


Hi Mike,

I'm not a big fan of "gentlemen's agreements". Neither am I a fan of
FCC mandated "segment by mode", a related issue.

If the "market" is demanding more space for PSK31, then let the market
forces prevail. A broader PSK31 segment will occur (or not occur)
based on the priciple of supply/demand.

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:01 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Heck, Mike, your first challenge will be to get the gentlemen to
agree. ;-)

Or even finding Gentlemen!



Presently, the "suggested frequencies" take up about a ssb voice slice
of bandwidth per band. And that slice is getting pretty busy. esp on 20
meters.

Those suggested frequencies are simply that: suggested.


Very true. What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What
would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals worth of
space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em.

While the short and simple answer is just move to a new frequency, in
practical terms it is nice for low power modes like PSK 31 to have a
place to gather.

PSK31 isn't just a low power mode, Mike. If you need to boost your
signal to compensate for band conditions, there's nothing precluding
that.

We've always tried to use as low power as possible. Unless a person's
signal is extremely good - I'm talking about top-notch sound card, very
low drive, and precise transmitter settings - that signal starts getting
very wide, and gets into everyone else's transmissions. Occasionally you
can help a little with turning the ALC off.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.


Hi Mike,

I'm not a big fan of "gentlemen's agreements". Neither am I a fan of
FCC mandated "segment by mode", a related issue.

If the "market" is demanding more space for PSK31, then let the market
forces prevail. A broader PSK31 segment will occur (or not occur)
based on the priciple of supply/demand.

I guess that would mean a group of us PSK'ers would decide to pick
another frequency as secondary and start moving there. Keeping in mind
that we are a tiny (but growing) segment of the activity, just one SSB
signal in width per band essentially. We need to know where to find each
other.



Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

I guess the key would be just how nicely we would play with each other.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 14, 4:28?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What
would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals
worth of
space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em.

I disagree!

It seems to me that the best way for the different modes to
coexist is for like modes to cluster together, rather than being
spread about the band. If PSK31 is currently between
Frequency A and Frequency (A plus 2.7 kHz), and more room is needed,
it seems the most logical thing to do is to
spread out a little below A and/or a little above (A plus 2.7)
That way it's easy to find each other.

IMHO the whole point of gentleman's agreements is not to set
a hard line in the sand that marks absolute territory (the regs
do that)., but rather to be a flexible line that moves as
conditions warrant.

This will be more and more important in the future, as more
diverse modes share the same bandspace, often without the
ability to intercommunicate.

Expecting every amateur station to be equipped to transmit
and receive every possible digital mode in use by hams on
a band just isn't reasonable. So we need gentleman's
agreements.

IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:47:40 CST, wrote:

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all
and is extremely poor policy. The FCC has done far too much of that
in the last 20 years, which pains me no end, and not only in the
Amateur Radio Service. It's the FCC's -JOB - to find out "what the
market wants" and to react to that as regulatory professionals, not to
hide behind the curtain or under the rug.

Time for me to cool down
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:28?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What
would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals
worth of
space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em.

I disagree!

It seems to me that the best way for the different modes to
coexist is for like modes to cluster together, rather than being
spread about the band. If PSK31 is currently between
Frequency A and Frequency (A plus 2.7 kHz), and more room is needed,
it seems the most logical thing to do is to
spread out a little below A and/or a little above (A plus 2.7)
That way it's easy to find each other.

It does make it easy, very true.

A little bit about my seemingly weird rationale.

RTTY signals often trash the segment, especially when there is a
contest going on. A couple RTTY signals in the segment, PSKer's just
turn their radios off (or switch modes) My thoughts were that if there
were a RTTY station in between segments, another RTTY will probably set
up far away from them to give us a little breathing room

IMHO the whole point of gentleman's agreements is not to set
a hard line in the sand that marks absolute territory (the regs
do that)., but rather to be a flexible line that moves as
conditions warrant.

This will be more and more important in the future, as more
diverse modes share the same bandspace, often without the
ability to intercommunicate.

We really get hammered by those robot stations. Open up on top of us
and since they are automatic, not much can be done about it.

Digipan does have recieve software so that we can ID the station and
issue a complaint to the FCC. I haven't seen as much of it lately,
mayber the complaints are working.

I don't mean to sound like a wimp regarding PSK31. It is just a unique
and low power mode that is easily disruptable by other modes.



Expecting every amateur station to be equipped to transmit
and receive every possible digital mode in use by hams on
a band just isn't reasonable. So we need gentleman's
agreements.

IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Mar 15, 3:44�pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:28?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What would be nice would be some extra suggestions. What
would be nice would be to have another couple SSB signals
worth of
space, separated by enough to allow a RTTY signal or two between 'em.

I disagree!

It seems to me that the best way for the different modes to
coexist is for like modes to cluster together, rather than being
spread about the band. If PSK31 is currently between
Frequency A and Frequency (A plus 2.7 kHz), and more room is needed,
it seems the most logical thing to do is to
spread out a little below A and/or a little above (A plus 2.7)
That way it's easy to find each other.

* * * * It does make it easy, very true.

* * * * A little bit about my seemingly weird rationale.

* * * * RTTY signals often trash the segment, especially when there is a
contest going on. A couple RTTY signals in the segment, PSKer's just
turn their radios off (or switch modes) *My thoughts were that if there
were a RTTY station in between segments, another RTTY will probably set
up far away from them to give us a little breathing room

Maybe.

It seems to me that there are really two problems here.

The first is that there are times when there are so many

PSKers' on simultaneously that more room is needed.
That's the situation I imagined, and what my fix was aimed
at.

The second problem is when the band gets busy with
contesters and such. That's a problem every mode faces,
and going elsewhere in the band may or may not solve
it. The WARC bands are one solution.

IMHO the whole point of gentleman's agreements is not to set
a hard line in the sand that marks absolute territory (the regs
do that)., but rather to be a flexible line that moves as
conditions warrant.

This will be more and more important in the future, as more
diverse modes share the same bandspace, often without the
ability to intercommunicate.

We really get hammered by those robot stations. Open up on top of us
and since they are automatic, not much can be done about it.

One solution is to expand the PSK31 watering hole outside
the robot subband.

* * * * Digipan does have recieve software so that we can ID the station and
issue a complaint to the FCC. I haven't seen as much of it lately,
mayber the complaints are working.

Yup. It's important to document such things, particularly
from robots, because one of the arguments put forth for
allowing "semi-robot" operation all over the band was that the
nonrobot end would avoid QRM. In the real world, that may
not work out.

I don't mean to sound like a wimp regarding PSK31. It is just a unique
and low power mode that is easily disruptable by other modes.

Nothing wimpy about it, Didn't sound that way either.

Expecting every amateur station to be equipped to transmit
and receive every possible digital mode in use by hams on
a band just isn't reasonable. So we need gentleman's
agreements.

IMHO.

It seems to me that as the variety of modes used by hams
continues to grow, we need more and better agreements
in order to be able to best use the spectrum available to us.

--

K0HB has suggested that we let "the market" decide.
I think that has been done, in a way.

Some time back, a group calling itself the "Communications Think
Tank" (CTT), proposed simply eliminating all subbands-by-mode from the
regulations. Their proposal
would have allowed all authorized modes on every Hz of
every band.

"The market" spoke very clearly, in the form of comments
to FCC. The CTT proposal was overwhelmingly
opposed. About 7 out of 8 comments on it clearly said NO.
Sounds like a clear message from the market to me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

...
"The market" spoke very clearly, in the form of comments
to FCC. The CTT proposal was overwhelmingly
opposed. About 7 out of 8 comments on it clearly said NO.
Sounds like a clear message from the market to me!

73 de Jim, N2EY


However, if a new market comes forth, one composed of amateurs with
little or no knowledge of CW and only using digital voice and digital
data transmission--it would be market controlled also, and one would
suspect it would self-correct and frown on the use of the bands for
wasteful analog and cw communications.

Let's face it, digital voice is the only way to go. PSK is too slow for
data transmission of LARGE and multi-megabyte amounts of data, end of story.

An "industry standard" for encryption/compaction and
decryption/de-compaction still needs to come forth to deal with HIGH
transfer rates of digital voice and data transmission and availability
to ALL hardware/software developers/manufacturers be assured to such a
standard(s) ...

Great care needs to exercised when proposing and developing acceptable
schemes to the above, we certainly don't need to create a "tower of
babel" by not having free access to algorithms and standard methods in
common use--and free use and experimentation needs to be right up front
and encouraged--this only holds with the tradition of amateur radio!

Regards,
JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com