August 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7735] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

As I now understand it, the task the Board has given staff and Chris is to draft a petition for rulemaking that converts the existing rules regarding emission types and standards into rules based on bandwidth, without imposing any new limitations on existing amateur operations (since the Prime Directive is, "No reduction in anyone's privileges"). That's a big job and as Jay has said it is fraught with potential unintended consequences. It can be done. It just can't (and shouldn't) be done quickly. Neither would it be responsible for us then to file the petition without first bringing it back to the Board and explaining the implications, which are considerable. I pointed out one implication in [ARRL-ODV:7663]: data modes would be newly permitted in the subbands that are presently limited to phone/image/CW (since CW is permitted everywhere). I believe the temporal imperative arises from Pactor III. If Pactor III is "documented publicly" as per 97.309(a)(4) it can be used legally in the RTTY/data subbands as long as the symbol rate does not exceed 300 bauds. (One could argue, and I have done so in the past, that the intent of the 1-kHz FSK limit in 97.309(a)(4) is to limit the bandwidth to something on the order of 1 kHz, but I really think it's too much of a stretch to try and apply this decades-old standard, which dates back to 850-Hz-shift RTTY, to current digital practices.) Pactor III cannot be used under automatic control because 97.221(c)(2) limits the bandwidth to 500 Hz. Anything else requires either a rules change, a waiver, or an experimental license. And as Chris has pointed out, a rules change isn't going to happen quickly enough to make the Pactor III folks happy, no matter what. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:26 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: prinaldo(a)arrl.org Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7731] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth In a message dated 8/29/2002 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended It would seem that Jay has hit on an important point here; there are numerous areas where interpretation of Board intent may be required. The first is as Jay has stated. Another is the issue of timing, and what will constitute the next reasonable opportunity to submit the proposal. Cross is feverishly (I say that totally tongue-in-cheek; he is taking forever with a simple NPRM) working on the "omnibus" Part 97 rulemaking incorporating numerous rulemaking petitions as we discussed at the Board meeting. This NPRM will likely be released in November, he says, or at least it will be in October when the Bureau sends it to the Commissioners. It is not likely that another major matter such as this will be included at this point, but perhaps it is not impossible. In any case, as we have essentially committed to batch-filing rulemaking matters, and we have "shot our shot" for this upcoming one, the next reasonable opportunity to do the Part 97 bandwidth rulemaking could well be two years hence. This is likely to be unsatisfactory to the HF data network folks, but would suit the AMers just fine, no doubt. Paul Rinaldo and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow for a coordination session, and he has done yeoman draftsmanship on a rough (really rough, he says) appendix on this subject in what little free time he has had lately. We are not on a fast track on this matter (because Paul has other critical priorities, as you are aware, and we have some domestic spectrum protection issues on the near horizon (Trahos and the new 222-225 MHz skirmish being two). So, unless you all feel otherwise, this rulemaking will probably slip to the next batch, perhaps two years (or even more) hence. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory to Director Bodson, who suggests that we should try to get this into the anticipated NPRM this fall. How shall we proceed in terms of time? 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7734] Re: ARES vests and windbreakers now available
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

The ARES apparel that the VRC and staff have been working on as a result of Director Fallon's January motion are ready for sale. The items are: Orange reflective vest with "Amateur Radio Communications" on the back, $9.95 Blue windbreaker with ARES logo on the front and "Amateur Radio Communications" on the back, $30.95 (can be personalized with name/call) Black equipment bag with ARES logo, $24.95. To see these products, please visit http://www.barkerspecialty.com/arrl/ and click on "ARES Products". The sales/marketing staff is working on promotions for these items. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7733] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

I didn't answer Art's question about SSTV bandwidth back in May. The current rules with regard to SSTV are in 97.307(f)(2): "No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission." I can find no definition anywhere in Title 47 CFR of "communications quality." Part 2 uses the term "commercial quality" and says that the necessary bandwidth of a commercial quality SSB (suppressed carrier) signal is 2.7 kHz. The necessary bandwidth for a commercial quality DSB or ISB signal is given as 6 kHz. However, these are simply "sample calculations." In practice the bandwidth of SSTV signals has not been an issue because the lowest modulationg frequency is 1200 Hz. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 7:46 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7729] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth Dave: 6kHz is not okay for SSTV as it is image. Therefore, bandwidth is limited to a max of 3Khz. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7726] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth Art Goddard suggested I share with you the following exchange that he and I had a few months ago. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:01 PM To: David Sumner K1ZZ Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: Is there a Limit? Hi Dave- At Visalia, a couple of members expressed concern to me about the SSB "Hi-Fi" operation on 14.178, and other frequencies. According to these members, the Hi-Fi proponents have modified their radios for up to 6KHz of audio bandwidth and are unnecessarily disrupting nearby operators. 97.307(a) says use no more bandwidth than necessary. ITT's Reference Data for Radio Engineers states that 3KHz is the necessary audio bandwidth for communications-quality radiotelephone and 4-10KHz for sound broadcasting, "depending on the quality desired". Since broadcasting is prohibited (97.113) what is the justification for broadcast audio in the Amateur Radio Service? Is there any limit? Is SSB with 6KHz bandwidth (J6E) OK? The ARRL FCC Rule Book, 12th ed., p 4-27, appears to side with the HI-Fi folks, bounded only by "good amateur practice". If J6E is OK for SSB radiotelephone, then 6KHz is OK for SSTV and any other non-phone emission (97.307(f)(2)). And if 6KHz is OK for SSB, then 12 KHz is OK for AM. May QST, p13, carries an ad for Ten-Tec's Jupiter radio heralding "Great Audio!" with built-in DSP selection of transmitted audio up to 3.9KHz to "deliver the finest sounding audio in amateur radio". By carrying this ad, we have aligned ourselves with the Hi-Fi proponents, at least in some people's eyes. "It Seems to Us" there's an opportunity for ARRL to provide some guidance here... 73, Art -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:11 PM To: 'Art Goddard' Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: RE: Is there a Limit? Hi Art, Occupied bandwidth is defined as 26 dB down from mean power. The bandwidth of a voice signal is heavily dependent upon the individual voice characteristics. Even if a transmitter is deliberately designed to pass voice frequencies above 3 kHz, it will be a rare voice that contains much energy at those frequencies. Looking at it another way, is there an affirmative obligation on an amateur to filter out of his or her transmitted voice signal, frequency components that are present in his or her voice? I don't believe there is. Poor IMD characteristics and excessive power are more likely to cause problems than broad transmitter filters, it seems to me. But I admit that I seldom listen with a filter wider than 500 Hz. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7731] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by W3KD＠aol.com 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

In a message dated 8/29/2002 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: > > Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended > Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we > intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other > option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris > and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual > opinions of what was intended It would seem that Jay has hit on an important point here; there are numerous areas where interpretation of Board intent may be required. The first is as Jay has stated. Another is the issue of timing, and what will constitute the next reasonable opportunity to submit the proposal. Cross is feverishly (I say that totally tongue-in-cheek; he is taking forever with a simple NPRM) working on the "omnibus" Part 97 rulemaking incorporating numerous rulemaking petitions as we discussed at the Board meeting. This NPRM will likely be released in November, he says, or at least it will be in October when the Bureau sends it to the Commissioners. It is not likely that another major matter such as this will be included at this point, but perhaps it is not impossible. In any case, as we have essentially committed to batch-filing rulemaking matters, and we have "shot our shot" for this upcoming one, the next reasonable opportunity to do the Part 97 bandwidth rulemaking could well be two years hence. This is likely to be unsatisfactory to the HF data network folks, but would suit the AMers just fine, no doubt. Paul Rinaldo and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow for a coordination session, and he has done yeoman draftsmanship on a rough (really rough, he says) appendix on this subject in what little free time he has had lately. We are not on a fast track on this matter (because Paul has other critical priorities, as you are aware, and we have some domestic spectrum protection issues on the near horizon (Trahos and the new 222-225 MHz skirmish being two). So, unless you all feel otherwise, this rulemaking will probably slip to the next batch, perhaps two years (or even more) hence. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory to Director Bodson, who suggests that we should try to get this into the anticipated NPRM this fall. How shall we proceed in terms of time? 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7731] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

IN-Newsletter Vol. 25, No. 34 August 26, 2002 The HQ computer conversion is scheduled for September 3. Data entry in TASS ended August 28, and the data will be converted over the Labor Day weekend, for operation to begin in Siebel/Great Plains on Tuesday morning. There may be some delays in service as we work through the conversion process. Sales & Marketing Although all normal functions of our group continued in motion last week, we did spend considerable time working with the software changeover. Our group is making every effort to insure that our clients and membership do not encounter any service degradation during the changeover. Numerous short meetings were held amongst staff preparing 2003 / 2004 budget input. As part of a board directive made during January's Body meeting, staff was asked to determine how much interest there is among field volunteers in garments identifying their participation as ARES volunteers. Bob Inderbitzen and Steve Ewald circulated a survey, and based on the results, suitable garments have been identified. Samples of the finished items were shared with us last week. The items include a vest, lightweight jacket, and equipment bag. The items will be offered alongside other ARRL garments (sportswear, etc.) available through Barker Specialties. This vendor handles orders and fulfillment. A product rollout is being planned. The survey conducted for The ARRL Antenna Book has produced nearly 200 responses. The information will be used in planning for the 20th edition book, scheduled for 2003. Bob worked with Sue Fagan to produce an ad for the 2003 ARRL Handbook. The ad campaign for the new edition will debut in October QST. We anticipate making our August forecasts for membership and revenues. New QST advertisers in August include PZEF Company and PRC68.com. September typically brings in the start of the winter increases in all measured categories for our group. That combined with the software change promises a busy month ahead. Ray Novak, ICOM America National Sales Manager, met with the Sales & Marketing staff to discuss a number of innovative promotion and advertising ideas. ARRL will prepare a formal proposal within the next several days based on the exchange. Hanan Rayyashi and Dennis Motschenbacher attended the Boxboro Hamfest last weekend to meet with the exhibiting publications and advertising clients. Hanan and Lisa Tardette prepared a special advertising promotion for dealers and suppliers that will appear in November QST. Production/Editorial The October 2002 issue of QST will be released to the printer August 27. We checked printer's proofs for Low Band DXing and the Sep/Oct 2002 issue of NCJ. Membership Services Awards Branch WAS QSL Cards Checked 250 WAS Endorsements 4 WAC QSL Cards Checked 36 25-Year Member Certificate 1 25-Year Member Award 1 50-Year Member Awards 2 60-Year Member Award 1 Long Term Member Inquiries 3 RCC Certificates 6 Friendship Certificates 4 OTC Certificates 2 A-1 Operator Nominations 2 VUCC Endorsement Applications 10 Grids (Data Entry) 521 VUCC Initial Applications 4 Grids (Data Entry) 341 Also: Compiled the latest VUCC awards list for October QST. Ordered the 50- and 60-year member plaques. Ordered the plates for the latest 5BWAS plaque recipients. Processing Status: Current or within three weeks. For the coming week-Code Proficiency and VUCC awards, Extra Class certificates, 5BWAS plaques, process certificates and mail out VUCC awards, and work on budget matters. DXCC Branch Weekly Report August 18, 2002 Beginning Cards 76,670 Cards Received 15,532 Cards Processed 12,539 Ending Cards 75,663 Applications Pending 709 Processing Time 4 Weeks Year-to-date Cards Received 417,469 Cards Returned 443,241 QRP Issued this week 1 QRP YTD 225 DXCC is currently mailing applications received on July 25, 2002. DXCC is currently entering cards received on August 1, 2002. Bill Moore attended Boxboro this weekend. We checked 48 applications, totaling 4,080 country credits. Thanks to Bill Dodge, K1BD, Ann Santos, WA1S, Willem Angenent, K6NDV and Mel Cole WZ1Q for their help checking cards. Contest Branch Work continued on the electronic 2002 Field Day submissions. Final work on the DX CW write-up for both QST and the Web was done. The layout of the Web results is being worked on concurrent with review by the preview team. Numerous emails continue to be handled regarding entries for the 2002 IARU HF Championship. Contest Branch staff has handled over 150 problem electronic logs for entrants - which accounts for approximately 10% of all electronic entries received. Preparation of items for the Web results for the 2002 International DX Phone contest continued. A variety of replacement certificates and specialty plaques were shipped. Certificates for the 2001 EME contest were printed and will be shipped the week of August 26. QSL Branch QSL service status: Current. Cards mailed year to date as of 08/23/2002 - 1,310,725. No cards were mailed this week. Martin Cook & Janet Rocco attended the Siebel training course given by John Proctor. Janet spent 7 hours conducting tours around HQ. W1AW Scott Gee worked on slow and fast code practice runs for the month of September. He also handled some evening phone sales calls in the 5 PM to 8 PM time slot. Joe Carcia attended portions of the Power Line Interference Workshop that was presented by Mike Martin, K3RFI of RFI Services of Maryland, and hosted by the ARRL. As part of the workshop, Martin and the other workshop participants sought to track down the power line noise that has been plaguing W1AW for the past couple of years. (Mike Martin is confident he located the sources of noise, and we hope to work with the local utility company to fix the problem.) Joe also worked on Qualifying Run texts for the month of September, processed regular W1AW QSL card requests, and worked the Friday afternoon/night shift for Scott Gee. W1AW telephone sales year to date (2002): $7,834. Field & Educational Services CCE, CNCS/UTC Grants Howard Robins was welcomed to the F&ES team this week. Jerry, Dan and Rosalie shared information to ramp him up in his job. He has come up with a list of possibilities for future CCE courses. Jerry Ellis is settling into re-organized office space and continuing to complete normal CCE duties of assigning students, opening and processing classes, graduations, etc. A new process for Mentor Stipends has been instituted. Dan Miller says all UTC student registrations slots are nearly full and moving ahead perfectly on schedule. CNCS implementation is also going exactly as planned. For the ARECC Level II course, 24 students enrolled this month. For Level III, 10 enrolled this month. Rosalie took part in an ARISS-Intl telecon meeting, worked on the budget, spent a morning with Debra Johnson, worked with Dan to train Howard, and met with visitors Ray Novak and Riley Hollingsworth. The ISS spacewalk went well with the last two ham radio antennas getting installed. We heard PR about the ham antennas on National Public Radio and television news. Field & Educational Support Team Jean Wolfgang has revised the existing nomination forms for the IOY awards, HPM award and the Technical awards. They are now on ARRLWeb. She is sending out the award plaques to the appropriate people. She also received and handled 3 ARISS applications. Gail Iannone sent 2 initial hamfest application packets to the clubs requesting ARRL-sanctioning for their events, 4 hamfest approval letters to the sponsoring clubs, processed 7 door prize orders, 5 label requests, and sent 20 handout packages for upcoming events. She also sent a Wouff-Hong package for the ceremony to be performed at the New England Division Convention. Margie Bourgoin reports that one new club applied for affiliation, and she is still receiving a large volume of SSC renewals. She is beginning to see a return on the "last chance" (to renew active status) Instructor postcard. She and Jean continued work on a new Youth brochure. Margie also assisted with counting SM ballots. Jo-Ann Arel updated 21 clubs, 3 instructors, and 3 teachers. She also sent out 3 Exhibit Kits, 3 videos, 3 JOTA Kits, 700 brochures, and 26 Grad Kits. She also helped out with a special Contesting mailing and tour coverage. Mary Lau took her Team to the Boxboro Convention on Friday afternoon for a field trip to see the behind-the-scenes preparations that make a regional convention function successfully and to permit convention organizers to meet the HQ staff who handle hamfest, clubs, exhibit materials fulfillment, and youth and instructor support. Incidentally, proceeds from the once-every-two-year event fund the ARRL Foundation FEMARA scholarships. Regulatory Information John assisted amateurs with local government zoning concerns in Cottonwood, AZ (K7AAC); Dunn County, WI, (KB9LUK) and Racine, WI (KC9AAW). He assisted an amateur with covenant concerns in Seminole County, FL (AG4PU). He continues to update the FCC Rule Book for the next printing, and received questions on the status of the 60 meter band. Field Organization/ Public Service Team Victor Madera was re-elected as Puerto Rico SM over Bill Genter with a vote of 173 to 48. Leona Adams headed up the ballot-counting effort. Details of the election and the October 2002 Class of SMs were on the Web and in October QST's "Happenings" column. Leona received a WPA SM nomination form from David Leiser, K3NPX. She handled 14 Technical Specialist appointments this week. Steve Ewald worked with Dan Miller to answer SM questions about procedures to recommend nominees to take the emergency communications course under the new federal grant. They will contact SMs to encourage them to nominate candidates. Chuck Skolaut met Riley Hollingsworth during his visit to HQ for the RFI seminar. Chuck has been corresponding with Riley about an ongoing interference case on 7.240 MHz. At Riley's request, Chuck arranged for OOs to do some special monitoring. Volunteer Monitors have also been in touch with Chuck. 73, Sincerely, Mark Wilson, K1RO Chief Operating Officer MW:lk Staff Absentee List Name Date(s) Reason All Staff 9/2 Holiday Dave Sumner 9/1-9/24 Geneva & Vacation Maty Weinberg 8/27-8/30 Vacation Mahjabeen Kabir 8/23-8/27 Vacation Margie Bourgoin 8/29 Jury Duty Leona Adams 8/26-8/28 Vacation John Hennessee 8/26-9/3 Vacation Dan Miller 9/3-9/6 Vacation `` 9/9 WPA Convention Steve Ford 9/12-9/15 Digital Communications Conference Joe Carcia 8/30-9/6 Vacation Dan Henderson 8/30 Vacation Judy Miller 9/3-9/4 Vacation Joe Bottiglieri 8/27-9/4 Vacation Dennis Motschenbacher 9/26-9/27 Ten-Tec Show / Sales Presentation

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7730] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by John Bellows 29 Aug '02

29 Aug '02

I have full confidence in the ability of Chris and Paul to craft an appropriate petition on this question. With each posting on this topic it is becoming more apparent that the allocation by bandwidth resolution has ramifications far beyond those discussed in July. More specifically there appear to be a variety of opinions as to what the petition is intended to accomplish and the specifics of what is to be included in the request to FCC. Without that information Chris and Paul are left to interpret what was intended. Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended. Jay KØQB Dave: 6kHz is not okay for SSTV as it is image. Therefore, bandwidth is limited to a max of 3Khz. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7726] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth Art Goddard suggested I share with you the following exchange that he and I had a few months ago. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:01 PM To: David Sumner K1ZZ Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: Is there a Limit? Hi Dave- At Visalia, a couple of members expressed concern to me about the SSB "Hi-Fi" operation on 14.178, and other frequencies. According to these members, the Hi-Fi proponents have modified their radios for up to 6KHz of audio bandwidth and are unnecessarily disrupting nearby operators. 97.307(a) says use no more bandwidth than necessary. ITT's Reference Data for Radio Engineers states that 3KHz is the necessary audio bandwidth for communications-quality radiotelephone and 4-10KHz for sound broadcasting, "depending on the quality desired". Since broadcasting is prohibited (97.113) what is the justification for broadcast audio in the Amateur Radio Service? Is there any limit? Is SSB with 6KHz bandwidth (J6E) OK? The ARRL FCC Rule Book, 12th ed., p 4-27, appears to side with the HI-Fi folks, bounded only by "good amateur practice". If J6E is OK for SSB radiotelephone, then 6KHz is OK for SSTV and any other non-phone emission (97.307(f)(2)). And if 6KHz is OK for SSB, then 12 KHz is OK for AM. May QST, p13, carries an ad for Ten-Tec's Jupiter radio heralding "Great Audio!" with built-in DSP selection of transmitted audio up to 3.9KHz to "deliver the finest sounding audio in amateur radio". By carrying this ad, we have aligned ourselves with the Hi-Fi proponents, at least in some people's eyes. "It Seems to Us" there's an opportunity for ARRL to provide some guidance here... 73, Art -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:11 PM To: 'Art Goddard' Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: RE: Is there a Limit? Hi Art, Occupied bandwidth is defined as 26 dB down from mean power. The bandwidth of a voice signal is heavily dependent upon the individual voice characteristics. Even if a transmitter is deliberately designed to pass voice frequencies above 3 kHz, it will be a rare voice that contains much energy at those frequencies. Looking at it another way, is there an affirmative obligation on an amateur to filter out of his or her transmitted voice signal, frequency components that are present in his or her voice? I don't believe there is. Poor IMD characteristics and excessive power are more likely to cause problems than broad transmitter filters, it seems to me. But I admit that I seldom listen with a filter wider than 500 Hz. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7729] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Dennis Bodson 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Dave: 6kHz is not okay for SSTV as it is image. Therefore, bandwidth is limited to a max of 3Khz. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7726] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth Art Goddard suggested I share with you the following exchange that he and I had a few months ago. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:01 PM To: David Sumner K1ZZ Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: Is there a Limit? Hi Dave- At Visalia, a couple of members expressed concern to me about the SSB "Hi-Fi" operation on 14.178, and other frequencies. According to these members, the Hi-Fi proponents have modified their radios for up to 6KHz of audio bandwidth and are unnecessarily disrupting nearby operators. 97.307(a) says use no more bandwidth than necessary. ITT's Reference Data for Radio Engineers states that 3KHz is the necessary audio bandwidth for communications-quality radiotelephone and 4-10KHz for sound broadcasting, "depending on the quality desired". Since broadcasting is prohibited (97.113) what is the justification for broadcast audio in the Amateur Radio Service? Is there any limit? Is SSB with 6KHz bandwidth (J6E) OK? The ARRL FCC Rule Book, 12th ed., p 4-27, appears to side with the HI-Fi folks, bounded only by "good amateur practice". If J6E is OK for SSB radiotelephone, then 6KHz is OK for SSTV and any other non-phone emission (97.307(f)(2)). And if 6KHz is OK for SSB, then 12 KHz is OK for AM. May QST, p13, carries an ad for Ten-Tec's Jupiter radio heralding "Great Audio!" with built-in DSP selection of transmitted audio up to 3.9KHz to "deliver the finest sounding audio in amateur radio". By carrying this ad, we have aligned ourselves with the Hi-Fi proponents, at least in some people's eyes. "It Seems to Us" there's an opportunity for ARRL to provide some guidance here... 73, Art -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:11 PM To: 'Art Goddard' Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: RE: Is there a Limit? Hi Art, Occupied bandwidth is defined as 26 dB down from mean power. The bandwidth of a voice signal is heavily dependent upon the individual voice characteristics. Even if a transmitter is deliberately designed to pass voice frequencies above 3 kHz, it will be a rare voice that contains much energy at those frequencies. Looking at it another way, is there an affirmative obligation on an amateur to filter out of his or her transmitted voice signal, frequency components that are present in his or her voice? I don't believe there is. Poor IMD characteristics and excessive power are more likely to cause problems than broad transmitter filters, it seems to me. But I admit that I seldom listen with a filter wider than 500 Hz. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7728] Re: ARRL HQ Computer System Upgra
by sysop＠bfdin.com 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Mark, Best wishes for a speedy and successful implementation! - Bill N3LLR AR>Dave, Barry and I met with Alan Cohen and the ISD staff yesterday to review

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7727] Re: ARRL HQ Computer System Upgrade
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Dave, Barry and I met with Alan Cohen and the ISD staff yesterday to review the status of the enterprise software. We are comfortable proceeding with the scheduled September 3 switchover from the old TASS system to the new Siebel/Great Plains system. As with any major system conversion, we expect a bumpy ride for the first few days, but a full team including representatives from our software developers will be available and ready to deal with any problems during the transition and startup. Data entry in the TASS system will stop at 5 PM Wednesday, August 28. The database (membership records, appointments, club records, VE activity, publication sales history, etc) as of that moment will be saved and converted to the new system. The conversion will take place starting Thursday, August 29, and will run through the Labor Day weekend. Staff will be here throughout the weekend monitoring and testing the data conversion. Absent unforeseen problems with the data conversion, data entry will resume in the Siebel system when we open for business Tuesday morning (September 3). Any changes, memberships, etc that arrive at HQ between 5 PM Wednesday and 8 AM Tuesday will be entered in the new system beginning Tuesday morning. During the conversion there will be an interruption in the daily updates to the databases that drive the various lookups available on the Web. This information is used to update the club, exam and instructor lookups available to everyone; the member lookups available to the official family and SMs; and the Field Organization appointments displayed on the Section pages and available to SMs. All of the normal lookup features will still be available via the Web, but the information will be as of 5 PM August 28. We anticipate resumption of the regular updates by Friday, September 6 (earlier if everything works as expected). Please note that this also freezes the membership database that controls new registrations for access to members-only features. Members who are already registered for the Web site will experience no change in access to these features, and members in the database as of August 28 will be able to register, but any brand new members will not be able to register for members only Web features until September 6 (or earlier if everything goes our way). We expect to ship some publication orders on Thursday and Friday (August 29-30), but it is likely that orders placed during the conversion period will be delayed by a few days as we bring the new system and business procedures on line. We expect delays in producing the regular monthly reports such as Continuity Breaks, but will get to them as soon as possible as we work our way through the conversion process. No member's continuity will be affected by any delays in entering renewals. We'll publish information at appropriate places on the ARRL Web site to manage members' expectations for service during this transition period. Please bear with us as we work our way through the conversion. Staff is a little nervous about flipping the switch, but excited about seeing all of the work and preparation that went into developing the system turn into reality. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7726] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Art Goddard suggested I share with you the following exchange that he and I had a few months ago. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:01 PM To: David Sumner K1ZZ Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: Is there a Limit? Hi Dave- At Visalia, a couple of members expressed concern to me about the SSB "Hi-Fi" operation on 14.178, and other frequencies. According to these members, the Hi-Fi proponents have modified their radios for up to 6KHz of audio bandwidth and are unnecessarily disrupting nearby operators. 97.307(a) says use no more bandwidth than necessary. ITT's Reference Data for Radio Engineers states that 3KHz is the necessary audio bandwidth for communications-quality radiotelephone and 4-10KHz for sound broadcasting, "depending on the quality desired". Since broadcasting is prohibited (97.113) what is the justification for broadcast audio in the Amateur Radio Service? Is there any limit? Is SSB with 6KHz bandwidth (J6E) OK? The ARRL FCC Rule Book, 12th ed., p 4-27, appears to side with the HI-Fi folks, bounded only by "good amateur practice". If J6E is OK for SSB radiotelephone, then 6KHz is OK for SSTV and any other non-phone emission (97.307(f)(2)). And if 6KHz is OK for SSB, then 12 KHz is OK for AM. May QST, p13, carries an ad for Ten-Tec's Jupiter radio heralding "Great Audio!" with built-in DSP selection of transmitted audio up to 3.9KHz to "deliver the finest sounding audio in amateur radio". By carrying this ad, we have aligned ourselves with the Hi-Fi proponents, at least in some people's eyes. "It Seems to Us" there's an opportunity for ARRL to provide some guidance here... 73, Art -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:11 PM To: 'Art Goddard' Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP Subject: RE: Is there a Limit? Hi Art, Occupied bandwidth is defined as 26 dB down from mean power. The bandwidth of a voice signal is heavily dependent upon the individual voice characteristics. Even if a transmitter is deliberately designed to pass voice frequencies above 3 kHz, it will be a rare voice that contains much energy at those frequencies. Looking at it another way, is there an affirmative obligation on an amateur to filter out of his or her transmitted voice signal, frequency components that are present in his or her voice? I don't believe there is. Poor IMD characteristics and excessive power are more likely to cause problems than broad transmitter filters, it seems to me. But I admit that I seldom listen with a filter wider than 500 Hz. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0