"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "charlesb"
writes:


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


It seems to me that either this distiction has whizzed over poor Carl's
head, or he is a closet representative of the electrical power industry
who
would like to see the already overcrowded HF bands totally trashed out,
so
that hams will not really mind when BPL comes in and finishes it off.

I think Carl quite understands the situation with BPL. In fact, he
*independently* observed BPL interference at the Emmaus test site and
commented
at length against BPL to FCC. Excellent comments, btw, plus backed up with
'I
was there, I experienced the interference, BPL is a bad idea, period'. Or
words
to that effect.


Yes, I had noticed that. Good to see Carl doing something good.


I don't really care much one way or another about morse code testing, but
yes I do have a definate opinion about the idea of opening up generalized
HF
access to entry-level hams. It's a dumb idea that gets even dumber as our
population grows.

Then what would you set up as the entry requirements? Heck, even if the
code
test stays, it's only a 5 wpm receive-only once-and-done test.

I'll assume here that you mean entry to HF privilege, not an entry-class
liscense that gets you into the hobby. - Let me know if I misunderstood you,
there.

I really don't have an opinion about retaining the morse code exams. If I
were judging the matter on the basis of the debates I've heard, I'd say the
pro-code guys have won every arguement, hands-down. - But I seriously doubt
that it will be judged on that basis, so that's kind of a moot point, isn't
it? Debating points are unlikely to carry the day.

Which ever way it goes, I'll be happy to see the controversy die down. I've
been reading the same four or five arguements on both sides of this issue
for a long time, years of it... Mainly, I'll just be glad to see it all
wrapped up, whichever way it goes.

The ARRL is getting a good start on what I would set up for entry to HF
privilege with it's new certification / continuing education setup. Rather
than cramming for a test from an answer sheet, I'd require the ham to pass a
few of those courses. And yes, I'd make them pay a fee to take the course,
just as it is now.

I'd leave the entry into the hobby about like it is. No-code tech, but I'd
call it something different. That would be the only "freebee" liscense that
would not require taking and passing a course of study to become certified.

I'm weird though.... I'd require ceretification for just about everything
beyond basic VHF/UHF privileges. ... If you wanted to set up a packet node
or a repeater for example, you'd have to get yourself certified for that. I
would even have poor hams taking a course if they wanted to run over 100
watts power but then again, that's just me, and I don't seriously expect the
ham community to go for my stodgy old attitude about this kind of stuff.


Over a period of time, we can expect the number of hams wanting access to
HF
to grow, but the laws of physics will stay the same.

"wanting access" and actually getting on the air are two different things.

The HF rigs will not be expensive much longer. Most of the expense today is
not in the RF deck, it's in the rig's firmware. They won't be able to
justify charging an extra thousand or two for firmware loaded up with
creeping feature-isms for much longer, IMHO. It's just software.

I'll go even farther out on a limb and predict that one day we'll be
home-brewing our HF rigs again, and not missing a single "bell 'n whistle"
because it will be software controlled anyway. We'll just install this or
that software on our computers, depending on how we want the radio to behave
and what we want to do with it.

So I don't see any future in depending on high prices for equipment to act
as a filter to control the number of operators on HF, or to affect the way
the operators behave. I'd rather depend upon the filtering effect to be had
from the education/certification process, because that is something we can
directly control, and tailor to our changing needs.

I understand of course that none of this is likely to come about, but it's
fun to talk about it anyway.


Only so many people can
reasonably expect to get on the HF bands at one time. We can extend that
a
little bit through the use of bandwidth-efficient modes like PSK-31, but
the
fact is that wide-band modes like PACTOR III and Q15x25 are getting more
and
more attention these days because they can do things that PSK31 cannot
do,
such as providing reasonable throughput and effective error-correction.
People who say that overcrowding on HF is a thing of the past due to
PSK31
obviously have not spent much time listening on HF, and are blowing smoke
out of their shorts.

Are all of the amateur HF bands crowded bandedge to bandedge 24/7?

The usable stuff tends to be used. There are of course times when the bands
are hot but hardly anybody is using them, but you don't see that nearly as
often as you would have ten years ago, during the previous sunspot cycle.

Whatever the status now, introducing thousands of new operators will not
improve the situation or make it less crowded.


Example: An ARRL / ARES group is currently looking into linking all the
major NWS EOC's around the country via HF... Their first choice in an HF
mode for this purpose? PACTOR III !

Why?

That's a good question... The short answer would be "ignorance". This post
is already too long.

They ought to make those guys take a course or something.... RF 101 !


They get complaints, nasty E-mails, they get reported even though they
are
legal, and they often even get intentional interference from outraged
hams.
The other night, I heard a guy on 30 meters whistling into his mike, on a
freq where PACTOR III was being used. The whistling disrupted the PACTOR
III
QSO just enough to slow it down and reduce its efficiency without quite
breaking the link. The guy was very patient about the whole thing. I
listened to him whistle for over half an hour. ( I was waiting for the
PACTOR III QSO to end, so I could get in there on 30m with another mode.)

whoa - this snazzy digital mode is vulnerable to some yahoo whistling into
a
mike?

Yes, I could see the PACTOR III station having to constantly re-adjust its
link parameters. Usually that happens in response to the existence of
resends. All of that slows the link down, reduces effective throughput.

All digital modes are vulnerable to noise, most often reacting by a
reduction in throughput. In severe cases, it is impossible to make or
maintain a connection. In that respect, it is comparable to voice or CW.
Noise degrades and slows down the ability to transfer info... A lot of noise
will shut you down.


If it hadn't been for the "whistling clown", the PACTOR III dude would
have
gotten in and out of there a lot quicker! - But that is typical of what
the
few wide-band mode guys put up with, every day. They are not popular, for
the obvious reason.

So what's the cure?

A rational digital network would use the high-throughput, wideband stuff
only for a limited number of long-haul links, organized in much the same way
that AMSAT controls the proliferation of SATGATE BBS stations. Once I was
going to sink several thousand bucks into a SATGATE station, but AMSAT told
me that I was too close to an existing SATGATE - a station located over 450
miles away in west Texas. I could build the station if I wanted to of
course - but I couldn't be a part of the network.

With the wide-band stuff, the idea is to limit its use to where it would do
the most good... Overseas routes, and coast-to-coast routing. Long-haul
stuff. The slower, narrower, cheaper stuff goes for the more numerous
statewide and regional links, with VHF/UHF taking up the slack for smaller
states and for metro areas in the large ones.

That would be rational - but our present system is anarchic, not rational.
We could inject a bit of rationality into the process by requiring education
and certification in order to operate as a part of the network. They have
been doing this in Europe for quite some time and as a result, their digital
network is at least ten or fifteen years in advance of ours. I don't think
we'll do that though, so we'll just have to keep muddling along as best as
we can.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In article , "charlesb"
writes:

I don't really care much one way or another about morse code testing, but
yes I do have a definate opinion about the idea of opening up generalized
HF access to entry-level hams. It's a dumb idea that gets even dumber as
our population grows.

Then what would you set up as the entry requirements? Heck, even if the
code test stays, it's only a 5 wpm receive-only once-and-done test.

I'll assume here that you mean entry to HF privilege, not an entry-class
liscense that gets you into the hobby. - Let me know if I misunderstood you,
there.

Now that I think about it, that question is really three questions:

1) What should the entry-level requirementsbe?
2) What should the HF entry requirements be?
3) Why should there be any difference?l

I really don't have an opinion about retaining the morse code exams. If I
were judging the matter on the basis of the debates I've heard, I'd say the
pro-code guys have won every arguement, hands-down.

Agreed - except FCC doesn't seem to think so.

But I seriously doubt
that it will be judged on that basis, so that's kind of a moot point, isn't
it? Debating points are unlikely to carry the day.

'zactly.

Which ever way it goes, I'll be happy to see the controversy die down. I've
been reading the same four or five arguements on both sides of this issue
for a long time, years of it... Mainly, I'll just be glad to see it all
wrapped up, whichever way it goes.

No matter what is decided, the controversy will continue. Some folks are still
ticked off about incentive licensing...

The ARRL is getting a good start on what I would set up for entry to HF
privilege with it's new certification / continuing education setup. Rather
than cramming for a test from an answer sheet, I'd require the ham to pass a
few of those courses. And yes, I'd make them pay a fee to take the course,
just as it is now.

I understand that in the UK, part of the licencing process is passing an
approved course. But I doubt such an idea would ever get off the ground here.

I'd leave the entry into the hobby about like it is. No-code tech, but I'd
call it something different. That would be the only "freebee" liscense that
would not require taking and passing a course of study to become certified.

I'm weird though.... I'd require ceretification for just about everything
beyond basic VHF/UHF privileges. ... If you wanted to set up a packet node
or a repeater for example, you'd have to get yourself certified for that. I
would even have poor hams taking a course if they wanted to run over 100
watts power but then again, that's just me, and I don't seriously expect the
ham community to go for my stodgy old attitude about this kind of stuff.

The killer problem there is getting FCC to go for it. They want less admin
work, not more.

Over a period of time, we can expect the number of hams wanting access to
HF to grow, but the laws of physics will stay the same.

"wanting access" and actually getting on the air are two different things.

The HF rigs will not be expensive much longer.

Antennas. That's the real problem for more and more hams and would-be hams.
Particularly on HF, and particularly as the sunspots decline.

Most of the expense today is
not in the RF deck, it's in the rig's firmware. They won't be able to
justify charging an extra thousand or two for firmware loaded up with
creeping feature-isms for much longer, IMHO. It's just software.

Perhaps - but the market for ham gear is relatively small, so development cost
has to be amortized over relatively few units sold.

I'll go even farther out on a limb and predict that one day we'll be
home-brewing our HF rigs again, and not missing a single "bell 'n whistle"
because it will be software controlled anyway. We'll just install this or
that software on our computers, depending on how we want the radio to behave
and what we want to do with it.

I'm still homebrewing HF rigs. And building kits. Take a look at the Elecraft
K2 - and then imagine what those guys could do if they set their minds to
building a data transceiver...

So I don't see any future in depending on high prices for equipment to act
as a filter to control the number of operators on HF, or to affect the way
the operators behave.

Se above antennas

I'd rather depend upon the filtering effect to be had
from the education/certification process, because that is something we can
directly control, and tailor to our changing needs.

Yup.

I understand of course that none of this is likely to come about, but it's
fun to talk about it anyway.

Maybe there's a way...

Only so many people can
reasonably expect to get on the HF bands at one time. We can extend that
a little bit through the use of bandwidth-efficient modes like PSK-31, but
the fact is that wide-band modes like PACTOR III and Q15x25 are getting
more and
more attention these days because they can do things that PSK31 cannot
do,
such as providing reasonable throughput and effective error-correction.
People who say that overcrowding on HF is a thing of the past due to
PSK31
obviously have not spent much time listening on HF, and are blowing smoke
out of their shorts.

Are all of the amateur HF bands crowded bandedge to bandedge 24/7?

The usable stuff tends to be used. There are of course times when the bands
are hot but hardly anybody is using them, but you don't see that nearly as
often as you would have ten years ago, during the previous sunspot cycle.

Whatever the status now, introducing thousands of new operators will not
improve the situation or make it less crowded.

To a certain extent, the crowding is needed, because it shows that we need outr
bands and because it acts as an incentive to use more spectrum-efficient
methods.

If the 'phone bands weren't crowded, there'd be a lot less reason for hams to
use SSB instead of AM.

Example: An ARRL / ARES group is currently looking into linking all the
major NWS EOC's around the country via HF... Their first choice in an HF
mode for this purpose? PACTOR III !

Why?

That's a good question... The short answer would be "ignorance". This post
is already too long.

Awww....it was just getting interesting!

They ought to make those guys take a course or something.... RF 101 !

Not about RF at all - it's about human nature.

They get complaints, nasty E-mails, they get reported even though they
are
legal, and they often even get intentional interference from outraged
hams.
The other night, I heard a guy on 30 meters whistling into his mike, on a
freq where PACTOR III was being used. The whistling disrupted the
.PACTOR
III
QSO just enough to slow it down and reduce its efficiency without quite
breaking the link. The guy was very patient about the whole thing. I
listened to him whistle for over half an hour. ( I was waiting for the
PACTOR III QSO to end, so I could get in there on 30m with another mode.)

whoa - this snazzy digital mode is vulnerable to some yahoo whistling into
a
mike?

Yes, I could see the PACTOR III station having to constantly re-adjust its
link parameters. Usually that happens in response to the existence of
resends. All of that slows the link down, reduces effective throughput.

Understood. But unlike an operator-skill mode, it has no real understanding of
what the problem is.

All digital modes are vulnerable to noise, most often reacting by a
reduction in throughput. In severe cases, it is impossible to make or
maintain a connection. In that respect, it is comparable to voice or CW.
Noise degrades and slows down the ability to transfer info... A lot of noise
will shut you down.

Exactly.

If it hadn't been for the "whistling clown", the PACTOR III dude would
have
gotten in and out of there a lot quicker! - But that is typical of what
the
few wide-band mode guys put up with, every day. They are not popular, for
the obvious reason.

So what's the cure?

A rational digital network would use the high-throughput, wideband stuff
only for a limited number of long-haul links, organized in much the same way
that AMSAT controls the proliferation of SATGATE BBS stations. Once I was
going to sink several thousand bucks into a SATGATE station, but AMSAT told
me that I was too close to an existing SATGATE - a station located over 450
miles away in west Texas. I could build the station if I wanted to of
course - but I couldn't be a part of the network.

OK, fine. That means "somebody" has to be in charge, and make wideranging
decisions on who gets to use, say, PACTOR III and who doesn't.

That person or group isn't going to be very popular.

With the wide-band stuff, the idea is to limit its use to where it would do
the most good... Overseas routes, and coast-to-coast routing. Long-haul
stuff. The slower, narrower, cheaper stuff goes for the more numerous
statewide and regional links, with VHF/UHF taking up the slack for smaller
states and for metro areas in the large ones.

Echoes of the old Trunk Line system.

How "wide" are we talking about, anyway? Aren't all amateur HF data modes in
the non-phone/image subbands limited to less than 1 kHz bandwidth,, or
something like that?

That would be rational - but our present system is anarchic, not rational.
We could inject a bit of rationality into the process by requiring education
and certification in order to operate as a part of the network. They have
been doing this in Europe for quite some time and as a result, their digital
network is at least ten or fifteen years in advance of ours. I don't think
we'll do that though, so we'll just have to keep muddling along as best as
we can.

In case you missed it, some time back ARRL petitioned FCC to "refarm" the
80/40/15 "Novice" subbands into more 'phone space. Some of us opposed that
move, and proposed something very different: Turn the "Novice" subbands into a
"developmental wilderness" where all sorts of modes would be allowed. Like
highspeed data, digital voice, whatever. And existing modes too. Tailor made
for PACTOR III.

73 de Jim, N2EY