May 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12274] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital
by Frank Fallon 04 May '05

04 May '05

I had a call last evening from W2IHY who makes the W2IHY Audio Equalizer and Noise Gate (he will be across from Heil at Dayton) about how do we measure and comply with this 3KHz requirement. I answered him honestly and confessed that I did not know the particulars. I know Paul made a presentation but it was over my head. He had concerns about some of the older rigs not being able to comply as is. He was NOT in favor of the ultra wide SSB that some guys are playing with. I asked him to put his concerns in an e-mail so I could bring them to the Board. I assured him, I believe correctly, that if there was a problem we would be able to take care of as we are after all asking the FCC to adopt "new" regulations. He had apparently first spoken to Dave Patton who told him correctly to talk to me. I let him know that I thought he had a good question and we would deal with it. Interestingly that was his only concern with the proposal. Rick, it was again refreshing, as it was not about Winlink and pactor III. He was a real gentleman and he is also a QST advertiser. Frank.....N2FF..... k5ur(a)aol.com wrote: > Hi Coy: > > Yes, I've had one comment about that issue. It was from an individual > that likes to pass traffic and is one of the long time NTS guys. I > bounced the discussion around a bit and asked him some questions to > try and better understand, specifically if he thought we needed a > segment for that group, too, like we made for the automatic group (not > semi-automatic). I asked him how many people would really need this > provision given the digital scene today and after some more > discussion, I was left with the impression very few. > > In any event, it did leave me wondering. I asked him to outline his > points and get it to me, but I have not heard back from him yet. > > Like I said, that's the only comment I've received on that issue. > > 73, > Rick - K5UR > > -----Original Message----- > From: n5ok.ok(a)att.net > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Wed, 04 May 2005 20:25:52 +0000 > Subject: [arrl-odv:12268] 3KHz Wide Digital > > If I understand the EC's proposal, the digital modes will be limitted > to 3KHz at HF frequencies. I'm hearing from my digital experts that > this isn't enough bandwidth to keep from severly limitting the data > rates that can be obtained. Anyone else h! earing this? > > Coy > -- > ARRL West Gulf Division Director > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29th St > Union City, OK 73090 > n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12273] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital
by k5ur＠aol.com 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi Coy: Yes, I've had one comment about that issue. It was from an individual that likes to pass traffic and is one of the long time NTS guys. I bounced the discussion around a bit and asked him some questions to try and better understand, specifically if he thought we needed a segment for that group, too, like we made for the automatic group (not semi-automatic). I asked him how many people would really need this provision given the digital scene today and after some more discussion, I was left with the impression very few. In any event, it did leave me wondering. I asked him to outline his points and get it to me, but I have not heard back from him yet. Like I said, that's the only comment I've received on that issue. 73, Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: n5ok.ok(a)att.net To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 04 May 2005 20:25:52 +0000 Subject: [arrl-odv:12268] 3KHz Wide Digital If I understand the EC's proposal, the digital modes will be limitted to 3KHz at HF frequencies. I'm hearing from my digital experts that this isn't enough bandwidth to keep from severly limitting the data rates that can be obtained. Anyone else hearing this? Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12272] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 May '05

04 May '05

Here are the files that make up Paul's July 2003 report on Minute 64. I did not include Annex D, which is a large file comprising a draft revision of Part 97 that has been overtaken by events. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:17 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12270] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital In a message dated 5/4/2005 4:59:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: That's a new one to me. The concern I'm hearing is that 3 kHz at the -26 dB points isn't sufficient for SSB. It's a little surprising that this is surfacing now, since nothing has changed in the proposal in that regard since last August, but we'll research it. Better it's coming up now than three months from now. Dave K1ZZ The issue of what digital modes require what bandwidth was covered in what I thought was exhaustive (and exhausting, pardon me, Paul) detail by Paul Rinaldo in a study that was distributed to the Board in July of 2003. Granted, it was not a paper which predicted what future HF systems might look like, but Paul's paper is as good a resource for us as exists on the subject, as far as I know. Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12271] Washington trip report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 May '05

04 May '05

Here's a report on a series of meetings in Washington last Tuesday, April 26. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<050426 DC Trip Report.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12270] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital
by W3KD＠aol.com 04 May '05

04 May '05

In a message dated 5/4/2005 4:59:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > > That's a new one to me. The concern I'm hearing is that 3 kHz at the -26 dB > points isn't sufficient for SSB. It's a little surprising that this is > surfacing now, since nothing has changed in the proposal in that regard since last > August, but we'll research it. Better it's coming up now than three months > from now. > > Dave K1ZZ > > The issue of what digital modes require what bandwidth was covered in what I thought was exhaustive (and exhausting, pardon me, Paul) detail by Paul Rinaldo in a study that was distributed to the Board in July of 2003. Granted, it was not a paper which predicted what future HF systems might look like, but Paul's paper is as good a resource for us as exists on the subject, as far as I know. Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12269] Re: 3KHz Wide Digital
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 May '05

04 May '05

That's a new one to me. The concern I'm hearing is that 3 kHz at the -26 dB points isn't sufficient for SSB. It's a little surprising that this is surfacing now, since nothing has changed in the proposal in that regard since last August, but we'll research it. Better it's coming up now than three months from now. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: n5ok.ok(a)att.net [mailto:n5ok.ok@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12268] 3KHz Wide Digital If I understand the EC's proposal, the digital modes will be limitted to 3KHz at HF frequencies. I'm hearing from my digital experts that this isn't enough bandwidth to keep from severly limitting the data rates that can be obtained. Anyone else hearing this? Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12268] 3KHz Wide Digital
by n5ok.ok＠att.net 04 May '05

04 May '05

If I understand the EC's proposal, the digital modes will be limitted to 3KHz at HF frequencies. I'm hearing from my digital experts that this isn't enough bandwidth to keep from severly limitting the data rates that can be obtained. Anyone else hearing this? Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12267] Has the Bandwidth Discussion Been Highjacked?
by dick＠pobox.com 04 May '05

04 May '05

4 MAY, 2005 - 1515 CDT My response to Jay's latest message is... AMEN!!! - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12266] Re: Has the Bandwidth Discussion Been Highjacked?
by Jim K8JE 04 May '05

04 May '05

Jay, As you noted somewhat earlier that you plan a message on the subject, I too am working on one of my Division newsletters and am including the three whys as well as related discussions. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 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: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:25 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12264] Has the Bandwidth Discussion Been Highjacked? In Daves recent It Seems To Us he suggested there are three guiding principles behind the Bandwidth Proposal: 1) If Amateur Radio is too thrive and hold its own against competing Commercial attempts to grab or frequencies we need FCC rules changes that can stand the test of time for at least 5 to 10 years. 2) Amateur HF operating patterns and technology are shifting. As they evolve the FCC Rules need to accommodate both that change and current uses. 3) The FCC rules and system for modifying the Rules are to slow and inflexible to meet necessary changes. Up to now the focus hasnt been on the reasons why the Proposal is needed. The discussion has been Hijacked by the Pro and Anti Winlink zealots and the Pro and Anti automatic and semi-automatic zealots. So long as we continue to let them frame the message and dictate the discussion we can forget about any meaningful consideration of reasons for the Bandwidth Proposal. The purpose of the proposal was to strengthen and protect the Amateur Radio Service. The purpose of the proposal was to provide a means to evolve cooperatively to meet and adjust to changes. The purpose was to.. Either we figure out what our purpose is and how to frame the message and discussion and take back the discussion or we are consigning ourselves to a Summer of moderating a Winlink Rules, Winlink is the Devil shouting match with no resolution in sight.. (If you prefer you can insert automatic/semi-automatic operation for Winlink in the prior sentence.) Lets get the discussion back on the reasons behind the Proposal. Lets move the spotlight to the reasons for the Proposal and make it clear the Winlink and automatic/semi-automatic discussion are on the periphery not the center of the discussions. If we cant do that, lets move on to something we can do. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:12265] Re: Has the Bandwidth Discussion Been Highjacked?
by Andy Oppel 04 May '05

04 May '05

Great thinking, Jay. Thanks. Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 07:25 AM 5/4/2005, you wrote: >In Daves recent It Seems To Us he suggested there are three guiding >principles behind the Bandwidth Proposal: >1) If Amateur Radio is too thrive and hold its own against competing >Commercial attempts to grab or frequencies we need FCC rules changes that >can stand the test of time for at least 5 to 10 years. >2) Amateur HF operating patterns and technology are shifting. As they >evolve the FCC Rules need to accommodate both that change and current >uses. >3) The FCC rules and system for modifying the Rules are to slow and >inflexible to meet necessary changes. > >Up to now the focus hasnt been on the reasons why the Proposal is needed. >The discussion has been Hijacked by the Pro and Anti Winlink zealots and >the Pro and Anti automatic and semi-automatic zealots. So long as we >continue to let them frame the message and dictate the discussion we can >forget about any meaningful consideration of reasons for the Bandwidth >Proposal. > >The purpose of the proposal was to strengthen and protect the Amateur >Radio Service. The purpose of the proposal was to provide a means to >evolve cooperatively to meet and adjust to changes. The purpose was to.. > >Either we figure out what our purpose is and how to frame the message and >discussion and take back the discussion or we are consigning ourselves to >a Summer of moderating a Winlink Rules, Winlink is the Devil shouting >match with no resolution in sight.. (If you prefer you can insert >automatic/semi-automatic operation for Winlink in the prior sentence.) > >Lets get the discussion back on the reasons behind the Proposal. Lets >move the spotlight to the reasons for the Proposal and make it clear the >Winlink and automatic/semi-automatic discussion are on the periphery not >the center of the discussions. If we cant do that, lets move on to >something we can do. > >73, > >Jay, KØQB

1 0