April 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12210] Re: More bandwidth confusion
by K5ur＠aol.com 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

Yep, what Tom said, Ned. Your first post on ODV? Good grief..... I've never know you to be that quiet! (hi) 73, K5UR In a message dated 4/30/2005 4:58:25 PM Central Standard Time, aa7a(a)cox.net writes: Hello all. First posting to this reflector. I finally feel like I know a little bit about something. I was briefing the Southern AZ DX Association on the most recent EC proposed regulation by bandwidth plan. I was questioned by an astute listener as what happens to the CW-only sub bands for the Technician (P) class operators on the HF bands. Even if the ARRL or other entity is authorized to define HF band plans, the FCC surely must still regulate the frequency authorizations for license classes. How does sub band plans regulated by an entity other than the FCC remain de-conflicted from FCC licensing privileges? Does the amateur radio-based regulator recommend and coordinate adjustments to FCC license frequency bands as part of the process? Ned Stearns AA7A Southwestern Division Vice Director

1 0

[arrl-odv:12209] Re: More bandwidth confusion
by Tom Frenaye 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

At 05:57 PM 4/30/2005, you wrote: >Hello all. First posting to this reflector. I finally feel like I know a little bit about something. > >I was briefing the Southern AZ DX Association on the most recent EC proposed regulation by bandwidth plan. I was questioned by an astute listener as what happens to the CW-only sub bands for the Technician (P) class operators on the HF bands. Even if the ARRL or other entity is authorized to define HF band plans, the FCC surely must still regulate the frequency authorizations for license classes. > >How does sub band plans regulated by an entity other than the FCC remain de-conflicted from FCC licensing privileges? Does the amateur radio-based regulator recommend and coordinate adjustments to FCC license frequency bands as part of the process? Hi Ned - Welcome to ODV! I think the short answer to your question is that the Bandwidth proposal assumes the FCC will have enacted the earlier ARRL "refarming" proposal that eliminates the Novice/Tech HF subbands. See the story of FCC ET 04-140 here: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/04/15/102/?nc=1 and ARRL's petition that led to it here: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume… Bottom line is that we proposed that N/Tech+ operators get the same CW access as Generals do. The FCC is expected to act on that old petition any day now... Hope I remember that right... -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12208] More bandwidth confusion
by Ned Stearns 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

Hello all. First posting to this reflector. I finally feel like I know a little bit about something. I was briefing the Southern AZ DX Association on the most recent EC proposed regulation by bandwidth plan. I was questioned by an astute listener as what happens to the CW-only sub bands for the Technician (P) class operators on the HF bands. Even if the ARRL or other entity is authorized to define HF band plans, the FCC surely must still regulate the frequency authorizations for license classes. How does sub band plans regulated by an entity other than the FCC remain de-conflicted from FCC licensing privileges? Does the amateur radio-based regulator recommend and coordinate adjustments to FCC license frequency bands as part of the process? Ned Stearns AA7A Southwestern Division Vice Director ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:05 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:12207] Bandwidth confusion > > Just when I thought I had it figured out, I don't. > Hope someone can help me. > > Looking at the summary charts in the original bandwidth proposal made > public in August 2004: > http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html > And the one most recently announced: > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 > I'm confused. > > In particular, where will SSB (3 kHz) be permitted? And will digital SSB > (3 kHz) be in the same segments or will it get more? > > The August 04 proposal said the limits for 3 kHz (digital and analog) > would be: > (with no automatic control) > > 1800-2000 > 3725-4000 > 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) > 7125-7300 > 10 (none) > 14150-14350 > 18110-18168 > 21200-21450 > 24930-24990 > 28300-29700 > > The recent EC version has limits for 3 kHz and 3 kHz with automatic > control. I've been assuming that 3 kHz means digital or analog, maybe I'm > not understanding it. > > The chart at the bottom of the newest article doesn't make it clear that 3 > kHz with automatic control means digital only (no SSB). Some people see > that and think SSB will be allowed in those segments. Also - see the > notes below. > > 1800-2000 3 kHz > > 3620-3635 3 kHz w/auto control > 3635-4000 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to > 3635 instead of 3725 *** > > 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) > > 7100-7105 3 kHz w/auto control > 7105-7300 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 7105 > instead of 7125 *** > > 10135-10140 3 kHz > 10140-10150 3 kHz w/auto control > > 14100-14112 3 kHz w/auto control > 14112-15350 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 14112 > instead of 14150 *** > > 18110-18168 3 kHz > > 21150-21160 3 kHz w/auto control > 21160-21450 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 21160 > instead of 21200 *** > > 24930-24990 3 kHz > > 28120-28189 3 kHz w/auto control > 28189-29700 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 28189 > instead of 28300 *** > > QRV some clarification. (and whatever the answer, I think the web article > needs to be clearer) > > Thanks! > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12207] Bandwidth confusion
by Tom Frenaye 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

Just when I thought I had it figured out, I don't. Hope someone can help me. Looking at the summary charts in the original bandwidth proposal made public in August 2004: http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html And the one most recently announced: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 I'm confused. In particular, where will SSB (3 kHz) be permitted? And will digital SSB (3 kHz) be in the same segments or will it get more? The August 04 proposal said the limits for 3 kHz (digital and analog) would be: (with no automatic control) 1800-2000 3725-4000 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) 7125-7300 10 (none) 14150-14350 18110-18168 21200-21450 24930-24990 28300-29700 The recent EC version has limits for 3 kHz and 3 kHz with automatic control. I've been assuming that 3 kHz means digital or analog, maybe I'm not understanding it. The chart at the bottom of the newest article doesn't make it clear that 3 kHz with automatic control means digital only (no SSB). Some people see that and think SSB will be allowed in those segments. Also - see the notes below. 1800-2000 3 kHz 3620-3635 3 kHz w/auto control 3635-4000 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 3635 instead of 3725 *** 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) 7100-7105 3 kHz w/auto control 7105-7300 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 7105 instead of 7125 *** 10135-10140 3 kHz 10140-10150 3 kHz w/auto control 14100-14112 3 kHz w/auto control 14112-15350 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 14112 instead of 14150 *** 18110-18168 3 kHz 21150-21160 3 kHz w/auto control 21160-21450 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 21160 instead of 21200 *** 24930-24990 3 kHz 28120-28189 3 kHz w/auto control 28189-29700 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 28189 instead of 28300 *** QRV some clarification. (and whatever the answer, I think the web article needs to be clearer) Thanks! -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12206] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by w5jbp＠aol.com 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

>From the April EC meeting in Denver... " More effective HF band planning mechanisms must be developed by the ARRL and the IARU so that these issues can be addressed effectively within the Amateur Radio community." We need to get started on this right away. Ad-Hoc committee? Keep it under a 100 members? (grin) 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:16:43 -0400 Subject: [arrl-odv:12203] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions or changes do you suggest to it? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Chris (et al), I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends and club members. Win-win. Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to happen with greater ease. Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: > The need for a better explanation of "why" on regulation by bandwidth is an > interesting discussion. It strikes me that, if the draft petition that has been > circulated to the Board on more than one occasion does not adequately explain > to the satisfaction of our own Board why the paradigmatic change is > necessary, then it stands no chance of persuading the FCC and other hams. We will have > a revised version of the petition for you shortly, after EC review, and the > Board may consider critically whether it meets the litmus test of explaining > "why" in a satisfactory manner. > > 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

FW: [Rag Chewers' Club] Digest Number 258
by James Weaver 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

FYI One of my ADs sent the attached item to me. I had not been aware of it even though you all may have been. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Members: The reason ARRL is! -----Original Message----- From: ragchewersgroup(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:ragchewersgroup@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:26 AM To: ragchewersgroup(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [Rag Chewers' Club] Digest Number 258 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Dying to be thin? Anorexia. Narrated by Julianne Moore . http://us.click.yahoo.com/Dtf6vA/gsnJAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> There is 1 message in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Bandwidth Proposal From: "Walter A. Breining" <n9wb(a)nltc.net> ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:40:43 -0000 From: "Walter A. Breining" <n9wb(a)nltc.net> Subject: Bandwidth Proposal The ARRL is proposing to place a petition for rulemaking before the FCC to define emission type by bandwidth. The ARRL is accepting comments and opinions on this proposal. So far the majority of the problems that have been addressed have involved digital operations. Those of us who use SSB on the Amateur frequencies below 28 MHz need to take a very close look at what is being proposed. This proposal establishes a maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for SSB. What is not obvious in this proposal is what is meant by bandwidth. Here is the definition of bandwidth in the Part 97 FCC rules. 97.3 (a) (8) (8) Bandwidth. The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean power of the transmitted signal within the band. Notice that 3 kHz will not be the point where the signal starts to roll off, or even the 6 dB point, it is the point where the signal must be 26 dB down on each side! To comply with this our bandwidth will have to be extremely narrow depending on the slope factor of our filters. I think you will find that with most stock filters, 2.8 kHz, 2.4 kHz, and many 2.2 kHz filters will not meet this requirement. With the common 2.5/1 slope factor of most filters that come stock in most existing Amateur Transceivers, we could not run a filter specified at a width of more than 2 kHz at the 6 dB points to meet this requirements. First, let me explain that I am not a proponent of running extremely wide bandwidth such as 10 kHz. In the days when AM radio was king, many studios were connected to the transmitter by 5 kHz equalized telephone lines. While music sounded somewhat poor by today's standards, the DJ's voices were quite good. My experience has been that intelligibility increases with bandwidth. However there is a point where the returns diminish. In my experience, this point of diminishing returns begins at about 3.5 kHz. Wider bandwidth makes the audio subtly more pleasant, but the rate of increase in intelligibility and pleasantness decreases beyond 3.5 to 4 kHz. Please note that I am talking of a flat bandwidth of 3.5 kHz not a bandwidth that is 26 dB down between points separated by 3.5 kHz. Collins started out with a bandwidth on SSB of 1.8 kHz and soon increased to 2.4 kHz filters. Most filters specify the bandwidth, as the distance between 6 dB points not 26 dB points. If this proposal passes as proposed, in order to fully comply with the rules, we will either have a narrow DX type sound like the Heil HC-4 element or a muffled sound depending on where we place the center of our band pass within the audio range. While I enjoy Dxing and Contesting, I also take pride in the way my audio sounds. Most Amateurs strive to have a good sounding station. Interest in audio quality has always been a part of Amateur Radio. To degrade and limit the quality of H.F. SSB is ill advised and will quench the enthusiasm of many Radio Amateurs. Please do not turn this into an ARRL bashing thread. I am an ARRL member and intend to remain so. I believe that most of the Directors and most Amateurs are thinking in terms of 3 kHz flat bandwidth and do not understand the 26 dB down requirement. What do we do? The ARRL is asking for comments and opinions from Amateurs about this proposal. You should write or e-mail your Division Director and let him know that you oppose the 3 kHz analog bandwidth part of the proposal. Also, you should write the League. If the Directors get a lackluster response in opposition to this proposal, it will probably be submitted to the FCC as is. If letters and e-mails in opposition barrage them, they should correct this situation. The league is governed by a group of Division Directors. League members elect these Directors. They are required to represent us, the members. This is our League. Frankly, I think that most of the Directors mean well by this but do not fully realize the problems that this will cause due to the minus 26 dB definition of bandwidth. It is our responsibility to tell them what we want. In my opinion, if there must be an established bandwidth at all, it should be 5 kHz per side band between 26 dB points. This would also be simpler than the current proposal. Here is a list of Directors and their e-mail: http://www.arrl.org/divisions The thing to NOT do is to get mad and quit the League. To do so is childish and hurts Amateur Radio. If Amateur Radio is to survive, we need the representation. The League has been extremely successful in many areas including preserving our frequencies in a very competitive world. They have made great strides to protect us from ignorant antenna ordinances, and the only hope in defending our interests against the big business BPL industry is strong representation provided by the ARRL. Without the League, BPL will eat us alive and we will find ourselves secondary to unlicensed services. If almost happened with Cable TV. The cable industry tried to hold us responsible whenever we interfered with transmissions through leaky lines. A strong effort on the part of the League prevented Cable TV from doing so. Beside your Division Director, send copies of your letters to bandwidth(a)arrl.org also send a copy to: President: Jim Haynie, W5JBP 3226 Newcastle Dr Dallas, TX 75220 w5jbp(a)arrl.org I would hope that we could resolve this problem now rather than having to oppose an ARRL sponsored petition before the FCC. Vy 73, Walter A. Breining, N9WB ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ragchewersgroup/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ragchewersgroup-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[arrl-odv:12204] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by W3KD＠aol.com 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

In a message dated 4/28/2005 11:38:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, n5zgt(a)swcp.com writes: > > I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about > us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he > understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, > what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. > > We don't disagree at all, Brian. I actually was addressing a different point than the above; I am sure you are correct that the members require some additional justification for why we are proposing to do this. I am concerned, however, about what is going to happen when the petition is filed. It had better be persuasive, and I worry that it is not now. There will inevitably be those, despite ARRL best efforts to pre-educate and pre-sell the petition, who will see it after it is filed and think about it for the first time. If the Petition has not proven persuasive to our own people, who are intimately familiar with it, it will not be persuasive to those who have given the concept no prior thought or only cursory consideration. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12203] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions or changes do you suggest to it? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Chris (et al), I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends and club members. Win-win. Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to happen with greater ease. Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: > The need for a better explanation of "why" on regulation by bandwidth is an > interesting discussion. It strikes me that, if the draft petition that has been > circulated to the Board on more than one occasion does not adequately explain > to the satisfaction of our own Board why the paradigmatic change is > necessary, then it stands no chance of persuading the FCC and other hams. We will have > a revised version of the petition for you shortly, after EC review, and the > Board may consider critically whether it meets the litmus test of explaining > "why" in a satisfactory manner. > > 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

Brian's Thoughts
by Gilgal 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

I believe Brian is correct, most of our members have no idea of the complexity of the issues we are trying to present. They will and always have listened to those who talk the loudest, and we know they may be giving out mis-information. We need to do a good PR job on this one. Rev. Les Shattuck...... K4NK Roanoke

1 0

[arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Brian Mileshosky 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

Chris (et al), I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends and club members. Win-win. Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to happen with greater ease. Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: > The need for a better explanation of "why" on regulation by bandwidth is an > interesting discussion. It strikes me that, if the draft petition that has been > circulated to the Board on more than one occasion does not adequately explain > to the satisfaction of our own Board why the paradigmatic change is > necessary, then it stands no chance of persuading the FCC and other hams. We will have > a revised version of the petition for you shortly, after EC review, and the > Board may consider critically whether it meets the litmus test of explaining > "why" in a satisfactory manner. > > 73, Chris W3KD

1 0