wrote:

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with
the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it
will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will
require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a
significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally
unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham
population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If
a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not
perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably
reached the best possible solution.

We're not there yet ...

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Carl:

Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician!
While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm,
today I am rethinking that analysis!

Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


wrote:

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with
the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it
will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will
require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a
significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally
unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham
population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If
a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not
perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably
reached the best possible solution.

We're not there yet ...

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

John,

Not a professional politician, just an RF engineer with a lot of experience
in negotiating and brokering compromises, both in the international
regulatory arena and in IEEE standards development.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Carl:

Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician!
While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm,
today I am rethinking that analysis!

Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


wrote:

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work
with
the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that
it
will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It
will
require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a
significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally
unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham
population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus.
If
a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's
not
perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably
reached the best possible solution.

We're not there yet ...

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Carl:

You sound like a progressive thinker...

good luck

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:46:50 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

John,

Not a professional politician, just an RF engineer with a lot of experience
in negotiating and brokering compromises, both in the international
regulatory arena and in IEEE standards development.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Carl:

Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician!
While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm,
today I am rethinking that analysis!

Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


wrote:

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work
with
the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that
it
will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It
will
require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a
significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally
unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham
population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus.
If
a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's
not
perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably
reached the best possible solution.

We're not there yet ...

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message

No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the
regs and is the crux of the problem.

Brian,

Most of the "robots" *do* (at least make an attempt to) listen before
transmitting ... however the vagaries of propagation and the highly dynamic
nature of usage in the HF bands cause a serious "hidden terminal" problem
and that results in interference (it's unintentional, but still there - and
it happens more with "robots" because their "listen before talk" is not as
effective as a human sending "Is the frequency in use" and being
appropriately patient before blasting away

I realize that the things are advertsied as "listening before
transmitting" but from any practical point of view they simply don't to
any even half-decent extent, they're deaf as rocks. It's just
advertising hype.

A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an
accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is
illegal. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes
around it's frequency before transmitting. There's one for you
code-writers to chew on.

Solving the hidden terminal problem on HF for automated stations is a
difficult nut to crack ... in addition to the propagation issues and the
dynamics of usage, there are so many modes that a "robot" would have to
sense/detect/recognize to optimize the "clear channel assessment" and it
would have to do it quasi-continuously ...

Depends on how "optimum" is good enough to get the basic job done well
enough within the Part 97 hobby spectrum. I don't see why it would be
necessary for the algorithms to actually decode any of the modulations,
all they need to do is tune up & down 500Hz or so from their center
freq and sum the total level of signal activity/energy over some
reasonable short period of time vs. some threshold and make the
decision to transmit or not. Nor do I see why they should have to
listen continuously either. Once an acceptably intelligent robot
decides the freq is "clear enough" it's *his* and the devil can take
the hindmost. Which is exactly what human ops do.

As far as optimization goes how many times have you watched a
development effort die because the engineers hung too much gold plate
on it?

I'm not saying that it's a
permanently insoluble problem, but for now the mechanisms aren't up to the
level that's needed.

Mmmm . . I dunno . . I'm working on a project right now which is giving
me a good look at what neural network technology can do these days and
it's pretty impressive and it's not just academic pushups, it's fully
commercialized. I can easily visualize even simplistic implementations
of NNT giving robot stations ears which actually work to a useful
extent. But somebody has to actually quit talking about it and actually
DO it which is the ultimate tough nut to crack. Like actually getting
spread spectrum running on any ham band . . heh. Sorry, had to do that
for old time's sake Carl!

My working group, IEEE P802.22, (http://www.ieee802.org/22) is working on
"cognitive radio," but in response to the FCC's NPRM on license-exempt
devices using geographically unused TV channels ... this situation makes the
"incumbent detection/avoidance/protection" a more soluble problem because
there are a limited number of incumbents, they are high power transmitters
at generally fixed, stable locations, they use the same standards (NTSC,
which will be going away, and ATSC the new digital TV standard), the
spectral characteristics of their transmissions have "features" that are
easily detectable (the NTSC carriers or the DTV "pilot carrier"), etc.

.. . OK . . makes sense here . .

However the "detect and avoid" problem becomes much more difficult in an
environment with many lower powered stations that come and go, whose
locations vary, and who use a wide variety of different modulation
techniques ... again, these problems will likely be solved in the future,
but we're not there yet.

Agreed.

In the meantime in ham radio however we have the current flap over the
ARRL proposal to deal with. My bet is that in whatever any final form
the ARRL comes up with and submits the FCC will toss it back at us to
muddle through because the general public has no stake whatsoever, for
instance, in Pactor stations being rude.

73,
Carl - wk3c

w3rv

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't think that unattended stations should
be allowed to "set up camp"
anywhere they choose in the HF bands ... at least
until someont *proves(
that they have solved the QRM problems that such
stations can and do cause
do to the "hidden terminal" problem.

For now, at least, I think the only reasonable
solution is to confine them
to a (reasonably sized - YMMV on what that
means and I would need more data
on the "requirements" to pick a number) sub-band
so that the machines don't
pound the human operators into submission
with their (effectively)
relentless attempts to get a message through.
(Let them figure out how to
"play nice" with the other machines first ...)

I agree 100%, Carl. Give them a nice usable chunk
of each band to work with, but not the whole
enchilada.

Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the
purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific
providers?

I do not believe so ... I think that proprietary modulation
techniques and
protocols are "bad" for several reasons:
1) It locks out the expermenters who could, in
an "open source" model
provide enhancements, additional features, etc.
2) It prevents people from building their own
compatible unit if the want to
and have the necessary level of technical knowledge and skill
3) The lack of competition amongst vendors of
compatible hardware
artificially inflates prices to the detriment
of the user community.
(I am big on "open consensus standards" - something
I do in IEEE 802.)

All reasonable and I agree 100%. But there's mo

4) If the proprietary company decides to stop supporting
the hardware or software for any reason, hams can be
left high and dry, with a "legacy system". (Example:
Win95 was left unsupported by Microsoft after less
than 10 years. Their advice was to migrate to a newer
Windoze version.)

5) Standardization on proprietary stuff acts as a disincentive
for other manufacturers and individual hams to even get a good
understanding of how the system works. Why should they bother
if they can't do anything to it?

6) It's traditional in amateur radio that standards be determined
conceptually, with many ways of realization. For example, hams
standardized on LSB below 10 MHz and USB above decades ago, but
used all sorts of methods to get there - LC filters just above the
audio range, phasing, crystal filters in the ~455 kHz region,
mechanical filters, HF crystal filters, even the "third method
of SSB" were all used by hams. Nowadays HF crystal filtering is
almost universal, but other methods are still usable if someone wants
to bother with them.


73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then
practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide
experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with
and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can
participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A
narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always
be widened if there is sufficient call for such.

A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive
procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a
robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and
handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human
operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in
an emergency or otherwise situation.

I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur
radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to
all...

John

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:41 -0700, N2EY wrote:

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor?

No, CW does *not* "always get through".

No mode always gets through. There are some times when Morse
Code gets through and other available modes do not. This plain,
simple fact has been misquoted and perverted by some.

Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF

No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem.

There's also the issue of what constitutes "listening". A robot
may listen for another Pactor III signal, yet not for a PSK31
or Morse Code signal.

How much of a listen is long enough, and on how much on either
side of the frequency?

A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent
design is illegal.

There's also the 24/7 nature of the robots.

One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes
around it's frequency before transmitting.

Yup. And maybe sends "QRL?" in Morse Code before it opens up.

There's one for you code-writers to chew on.

The situation is somewhat like the dawn of the FM repeater
era on the ham bands. A typical ham FM repeater essentially
takes over two frequencies (input and output)in its coverage
area.

There was a time when a ham repeater required a special license
with special callsign, and the application for it involved a
pretty detailed description of the setup, its operation, etc.,
with things like HAAT specified. Even today we have repeater
coordination.

But VHF/UHF coverage is fairly predictable and consistent. A
typical ham VHF/UHF repeater covers a few hundred square miles
except during unusual conditions. Even a moderately powered HF
station can cover millions of square miles.

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then
practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide
experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with
and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can
participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A
narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always
be widened if there is sufficient call for such.

A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive
procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a
robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and
handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human
operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in
an emergency or otherwise situation.

I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur
radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to
all...

John

Hey Jim, does this ring a familiar bell . . . ? Node clashes . .

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then
practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide
experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with
and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can
participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A
narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always
be widened if there is sufficient call for such.

A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive
procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a
robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and
handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human
operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in
an emergency or otherwise situation.

I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur
radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to
all...

John

Hey Jim, does this ring a familiar bell . . . ? Node clashes . .

"Everything old is new again"

It's really funny to see the neophiles ignore history and what has
already
been learned as "old stuff", then go out and try to solve the same
problems all over again.

Then when you try to Elmer them, you get called a dinosaur.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

I like to think I gauge each and every man and woman on their merits. How
broadminded they are, how current they are, how adaptive they are, if
their pursuits are near mine, if they don't take themselves too seriously,
if they can communicate on the complex, the unique, if they are not
hampered by too many preconceived notions, if they are interesting, if
they are fun, if they are educated (and a few have done a darn good job
of educating themselves with little formal education--and a discussion
with them quickly will disclose that), etc, etc...

I have found about 3-5 out of a hundred are worth a persons time, out in
the general world--usually, at work that ratio comes close to a 50-50%.

I think that is a fairly accurate take on it--a person mileage may vary
with location and type of employment, of course in heaven I suspect this
ratio would be much higher, and in hell it would drop to zero...

John

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:46:18 -0700, N2EY wrote:


wrote:
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then
practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide
experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with
and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can
participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A
narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always
be widened if there is sufficient call for such.

A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive
procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a
robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and
handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human
operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in
an emergency or otherwise situation.

I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur
radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to
all...

John

Hey Jim, does this ring a familiar bell . . . ? Node clashes . .

"Everything old is new again"

It's really funny to see the neophiles ignore history and what has
already
been learned as "old stuff", then go out and try to solve the same
problems all over again.

Then when you try to Elmer them, you get called a dinosaur.

73 de Jim, N2EY