Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Good plan Jim.

Too good. It will never get passed the ARRL executive
committee. Why?
Because it makes sense.

If enough of us say that it's what should be done, maybe they
will listen. Imagine if the committee is deluged with folks promoting
my plan, or a version of it?

In any event, the main target is the FCC. Because *they* make the
rules.

ARRL has a good idea and a bad implementation, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It
represents
gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't
broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse.

Well, I don't know about that.

First off, what, exactly, does the proposal recommend? If I read it
correctly, it would subdivide the CW/data bands by signal
bandwidth,
rather than having anything allowed anywhere, as it pretty much is
today. PSK31 on 7003 is legal right now. So is 850 Hz shift RTTY on
14010.

It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now
not
allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands.

For example, you can't legally use digital voice outside the voice
bands, even if you figure out how to do it in a 500 Hz bandwidth.
There's also a rather arcane limit on the symbol rate allowed,
regardless of the bandwidth used.

The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue.

The way I see it, the best solution is to have the following:

- Part of the band that's
Take 80 meters:

3500-3575: CW only
3575-3625: "Narrow" data and CW - but no robots
3625-3675: "Wide or narrow" data and CW - but no robots.
3675-3725: All data and CW modes - including robots, Winlink, etc.

What's the dividing line between "wide" and "narrow" data? I'd say
1000
Hz - if it's narrower than 1000 Hz it's "narrow". Otherwise it's
"wide".

Existing Generals, Advanceds and Extras keep what they have.
Novices
and Techs with HF get 3525 to 3725 CW, at the same power level
they're
currently allowed.

Other bands would be similar. The 40 meter problems will improve as
hams outside Region 2 get more kHz - the US should set up its plan
for
the future (worldwide 7000-7300 exclusive amateur)

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

For what its worth....here is what I sent in to ARRL, Alabama SM and SE
Director, etc.

Below are comments from the South East Contest Club reflector. Written by
K4SB.

I find his arguement very compelling. In particular the part of automatic
control.

Additionally I want to say that I beleive a specific segement of CW only
should
and MUST be applied. I suggest the bottom 20 Khz of ALL HF BANDS, this to
include 160 meters and the so-called WARC bands. Open to ALL those licensed
for HF. There is NO need for a Extra class ONLY segement for CW.
And based on the 5wpm code requirement I doubt the new Extras will be too
concerned about a CW EXTRA ONLY segement.

I believe if there is no restricted segment for CW you will find the digital
modes
of under 200 cycle width taking over and running CW off the bands for good.
Attended or otherwise.

Not completely on subject....I feel CW should be continued in Amateur Radio,
and
by allowing ALL HF licensees to use it in the same place, it could indeed
help
in keeping the mode alive.


Daniel L. Jeswald W4NTI
ARRL Life Member

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My own suggestion is to demand that the proposed petition be changed
so that ALL unattended or automatic operations are ONLY allowed in
areas where transmissions over 500 Hz are allowed.

It is important to realize that significance of the 200 Hz, 500 Hz,
and 3000 Hz thresholds is that no signals wider than the threshold
are allowed higher than the threshold frequency, but that signals more
narrow than the threshold are still allowed wherever the wider
signals are allowed.

In practical terms, this means that Winlink could still use Pactor-II
(500 Hz wide) where Pactor-III (2400 Hz wide) is used during the time
Winlink was transitioning from Pactor-II to Pactor-III and SCAMP.

Disallowing unattended transmissions, where either end of the link is
unattended, would
eliminate the QRM from Pactor mailboxes to CW, PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16,
and other digital
modes, that is currently such a problem, without harming Winlink's
ability to handle their 150,000 emails for their currently 0.7% of the
US hams.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote:
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors
for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft
ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum
by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents
gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't
broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse.

w3rv

You know, I recall the ARRL saying that they had no "concensus" wrt
reducing/dropping the morse code exam, but I'll be damned if they
didn't find concensus wrt to this. I'll watch QST for the results of
that "substantive" survey they must've done.

wrote:
subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL
EC)
in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of
Amateur
HF
operations? Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for
the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they
are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show
logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot
produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

They've all been licensed and active in varying degrees for years.
Specific, personal activity levels and mode experiences completely
aside they are senior members of the League hierarchy who make policy
recommendations and decisions. What matters and all that matters is
the
policy proposals they come up with and whether or not thee, me and
the
rest of the ~670k of us support their propsals. Or not.

Why is it that we spend lifetimes accumulating "knowledge and
experience" only to have someone else try and dismiss it when we no
longer look like someone in the centerfold of "GQ" or "Cosmo"...?!?!

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed
out,
I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to
define,
let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA
to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement
for
verification.

That's not what he said but the net result is the same and it's
unacceptable. If the name of the game is mode separation by bandwidth
then the bandwidths obviously have to be specified in detail and
enforced. These "gentlemens agreement" and "self-regulation"
non-rules
worked pretty well in days of yore but in today's world they're shaky
at best and hopeless anachronisms at worst.

The advent of PSK31 et al is only further evidence that we need
appropriate subbands. Mike's experiences with W1AW are not unique, nor
is it any "evidence" of poor operating practice on the wider mode
station's part. Just like oil and water, there are some things you can
mix, others you can't, no matter how aggressively you stir the
contents.

First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and
regs
for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a
while,
so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that
established
first.

I don't know if it's carved in stone in Part 97 or if the
"listen-before-transmitting" rule falls into the nebulous collection
of
"good amateur operating practices" but it's out there and the
unmanned
mailbox-type stations are all in violation of it today. The proposal
recommends herding these modes into specific small slices of the
bands
which is one piece of it I agree with.

And sometimes even when the control operator listens dilligently,
he's going to miss something and someone's going to get stepped
on...Not "maliciously", but it's going to happen.

I've had occassions where I listened, sent "..--.." before my CQ,
then started my call, only to get a terse "QSY QSY" after the fact.

Oh well.

For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM
or
SSB) at any time?

They identify with whatever mode they're using. As long as the FCC
monitoring facilities can decipher it.

I am still of the opinion that some "standard" form of ID should
be included for the benefit of those who DO get interfered with in
order that they may contact the "offending" station in order to work
out differences without FCC involvement.

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF
Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a
service
in the public interest.

That would be nice but unless something very new pops up I don't
think
it's a realistic expectation. The history of the rise & fall of the
NTS
and the rise of the Internet and it's effects on ham radio is the
reality today.

My own beefs against this proposal are two-fold: Very seldom in the
history of regulation has a thicker rulebook generated an improvement
in the long run. The IRS code is a shining example. Secondly it is my
opinion that modes should to be allowed to duke it out on an equal
basis to sort out which survive and which can't stand the heat and
disappear. With some common-sense limitations like we have today like
the lower edges of the phone bands.

If you roll back to the 1950s a whole plethora of HF phone modes
showed
up on the bands and competed with the then-standard AM. We had NBFM,
double-sideband suppressed carrier, single-sideband suppressed
carrier
and variants on those. It was a helluva competitive joust spread over
about ten years.

In the end we basically got what we have today: SSB, a few AM
stations,
and later some SSTV, etc. The general approach to allowing
unfettered
competition worked back then and I don't see what has changed enough
to
essentially toss the whole works and start over just because some
users
of HF digital modes have shown up on the bands in the past few years.

Seems to me that this proposal is another result of the League being
a
whole lot more excited about HF digital modes and their impacts on
the
bands than the rest of us are.

I'm 50/50 with you on this one, Brian...I am not in favor of
thickening up that rule book like you illustrated, however there should
be SOME lines drawn for protecting those very-narrow and ultra-narrow
modes.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80
meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty
well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the
whole
segment.

Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your
area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched
in
an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is
switched
off?

Side issue here but I agree with Dave, something 'snot right in State
College. The W1AW bulletins and code practice sessions are transmitted
by big-bucks squeaky-clean commercial Harris SW transmitters. Yank the
PL-259 out of the back of yer xcvr and stuff the end of ten feet of
wire into the xcvr coax receptacle and tune around W1AW again and see
if you're still hearing spurs from W1AW. If yes your xcvr front end
probably has "issues".

Dave K8MN

w3rv

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Michael Coslo wrote:
1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations?

Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we
should probably drop the "old men" pejorative.

You beat me to it, Mike.

*************************
My profound apologies to those I may have offended by the "old men" term.
This term Old Men, Old Man, or OM used to convey respect or endearment of
fellow operators back in the day. I will add OM to my PC filters.
*************************

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I
take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define,
let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to
3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes
via the
bandplan, same as we have in the past.

I tend to agree.

I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things"
is the
breeding ground of disrespect.

****************************
My ARRL Handbook is from the last century, but nonetheless states:
"According to FCC Rules, occupied bandwidth is: The frequency bandwidth such
that, below its lower and above its upper frequency limits, the mean powers
radiated are each equal to 0.5 percent (-23dB) of the total mean power
radiated by a given emission". ..."Occupied bandwidth...can be measured on
a spectrum analyzer,...". "Occupied bandwidth can also be calculated..."
It is interesting to note that Part 97.3 (a) (8) uses 0.25 percent or
(-26dB). Maybe this definition needs to be refined. But it is there now.
****************************


First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs
for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while,
so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that
established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or
Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct
of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

dunno...

Part 97 is available for free online.

*****************************
After laboring through several passages of the June 2004 version of Part 97,
it is clear that the entire reg. needs a major overhaul. I think the ARRL
EC proposal should state the Part 97 text "before" and "after" to
demonstrate their changes. Otherwise it is not clear at all what is
intended. I do not see Semi Auto DATA defined anywhere in the Part 97
text, but K1ZZ refers to this in his write-up. It would appear that the
entire "Definition" section needs some rework to include these "new" data
terms. Part 97.221 (c) (2) states that the Auto's bandwidth is to be
limited to 500 Hz. K1ZZ, in the full write-up over on arrl.org turns this
around and states that this paragraph doesn't apply to Auto DATA, but only
applies to Semi Auto DATA. Does this need to be changed to accomodate the
ARRL EC plan? 97.305, 307, and 309 also need some revision to remove the
obfuscation, ambiguities, and circuitous logic.
*****************************

Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't
going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz.


We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which
fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is
200 Hz too wide.

The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If
I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments.

********************************
The ARRL EC plan only tweaks the existing specific areas for Auto Data
stations on HF. They are currently defined in 97.221 (b). Sorry, I did not
realize that before I read the June 2004 version. It appears the major
change for the Autos is to allow expansion of occupied bandwidth 7 fold.
********************************
--Clay
N4AOX

Dave Heil wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

CCW N4AOX wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...


"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents
gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't
broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse.

w3rv



I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations?

Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we
should probably drop the "old men" pejorative.


You beat me to it, Mike.


Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.


I happen to know a number of them personally and have had radio contact
with a number of others in numerous on-air activities. Some could be
less active.


2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define, let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the
bandplan, same as we have in the past.


I tend to agree.


I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the
breeding ground of disrespect.


First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while, so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

dunno...


Part 97 is available for free online.


Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink!

Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not
defined? No definition, no rules breaking.


Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't
going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz.


This works on voice HF where you can tune over to

the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-)

Yup!


We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which
fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is
200 Hz too wide.

True, although I thought that the main point is that we aren't going to
tell the robot station anything, braod signal or not.


Everyone knows that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC.


The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If
I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments.


Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us,
and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that
QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or
change bands.


Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their
bulletin frequencies.

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole
segment.


Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your
area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched in
an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is switched
off?

It is a strong signal, but the waterfall display shows spikes that
extend across the whole display. They cut right through any psk signals,
and tend to garble the transmissions. PSK31 is a nice mode, but 10 to 25
watts has a tough time competing with a big and possibly dirty signal.

The NB is off, and although I haven't put in attenuation, the signal
isn't so strong that it desenses the reciever. I'll try that.



So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!


You'll note that none of this is currently etched in stone. If you have
questions or comments, now is the time to voice them to the League. If
you don't, you'll have an opportunity to make your views known to the
FCC.


4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a service
in the public interest. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA
need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak
havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked.

Well put.


Agreed.

Dave K8MN

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:


Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80

meters

wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty

well,

but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the

whole

segment.

Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your
area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched

in

an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is

switched

off?


Side issue here but I agree with Dave, something 'snot right in State
College.

Or the other areas. When W1AW fires up, we all go away.


The W1AW bulletins and code practice sessions are transmitted
by big-bucks squeaky-clean commercial Harris SW transmitters.

Okay, so it isn't possible for W1AW's signal to have a problem. Of
course there is the possibility that we there are all lids. Many people
there note the problem. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80
meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty
well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the
whole
segment.

Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your
area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched
in
an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is
switched
off?

Side issue here but I agree with Dave, something 'snot right in State
College. The W1AW bulletins and code practice sessions are transmitted
by big-bucks squeaky-clean commercial Harris SW transmitters. Yank the
PL-259 out of the back of yer xcvr and stuff the end of ten feet of
wire into the xcvr coax receptacle and tune around W1AW again and see
if you're still hearing spurs from W1AW. If yes your xcvr front end
probably has "issues".

One of the things I forgot about in responding to Mike is that there are
some newer rigs in which the noise blanker is never really out of
circuit despite the position of its on/off switch. Your idea of the
short piece of wire would certainly help, especially if Mike has one of
those rigs.
I've never detected spurs on W1AW's sigs on any band.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul,

What about spread spectrum modes? Supposedly such a
mode could use the entire data subband of a HF band
but have only minimal QRM to other users?