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

[arrl-odv:12426] Test Message
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 26 May '05

26 May '05

This is simply a test message, please disregard. Barry, N1VXY

1 0

Approaching BOD meeting
by Richard J. Norton 26 May '05

26 May '05

Whereas there certainly are reasons why wider bandwidths may be justified, the paragraph below, from the member, is simply technical nonsense. That is unless "greater bandwidth" implies that the frequency can be moved to one where good propagation exists, or there is no interference. 73, Dick, N6AA On 5/24/05, Bob Vallio <rbvallio(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Comments from a member re signal bandwidth proposal: > In a similar context, HF modulation constellations of wider bandwidth > can be more robust during periods of poor propagation than a narrower > signal for the same effective data rate. While the modulation schemes > are still to be developed, greater immunity to noise, multipath and > interfering signals can be obtained at the cost of greater bandwidth.

1 0

Wired Magazine's Web Site
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 25 May '05

25 May '05

We make Wired Magazine's web site!!! Our mention is on page 2: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67615,00.html?tw=wn_story_mail er Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org/

1 0

[arrl-odv:12423] April Financial Reports
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 24 May '05

24 May '05

The April, 2005 financial reports have been posted to the ODV section of the web page at: http://www.arrl.org/members-only/ODV/docs/Financial%20Reports-2005/ If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[arrl-odv:12422] FW: Debra Jahnke
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 24 May '05

24 May '05

Dennis and I were rather surprised by the suddenness of this announcement, particularly based on our earlier information. However, I would have to say that while we are both very saddened that Deb is leaving the organization, we are glad that the family is staying together. Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 <http://www.arrl.org/> _____ From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:03 PM To: Bloom, Jon, KE3Z; Ford, Steve, WB8IMY; Hare, Ed W1RFI; Jahnke, Bart, W9JJ; Mills, Wayne N7NG; Motschenbacher, Dennis K7BV; White, Rosalie, K1STO Cc: Pitts, Allen W1AGP; Campanello, LouAnn; Patton, David NN1N; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Hobart, Mary K1MMH Subject: FW: Debra Jahnke It is also with great regret that I ask you to please share this news with your staff as you feel is appropriate. Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 <http://www.arrl.org/> _____ From: Motschenbacher, Dennis K7BV Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:17 PM To: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Subject: Debra Jahnke Harold, It is with great regret that I must inform you that I accepted the resignation of Debra Jahnke, our Sales Manager. Deb will leave us on June 22 when she departs with her family to their new home in Wisconsin. Deb, who has held a number of positions during her twenty-five years with ARRL, has done an incredible job building a powerful and respected sales organization during the short time since the Sales Manager position was created. I am delighted to know that, while keeping the family together was the prime reason for the move, Deb did find a terrific opportunity in Wisconsin that should allow her to turn her relatively new-found advertising talents into a new career in that focus area. Deb and I have enjoyed a wonderfully open and honest working relationship that has provided me with lots of laughs and much satisfaction. Their is little else that pleases me as much as seeing one of my staff "make good." I wish to thank Deb for giving me so much satisfaction, for she certainly has "made good" during the years I had the privilege of working with her. I am sure that Deb will be missed by her staff, fellow workers, our members and our commercial clients. I, too, will miss having such a dependable talented partner on my management team. Deb's loyalty and skills will be very hard to replace. Dennis Motschenbacher

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:12415] Re: Approaching BOD meeting
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 24 May '05

24 May '05

Bob, Jim, and All, Our HSMM WG also have some issue with the maximum digital bandwidth within the proposal as it would stifle future development. One or two years ago they were looking for some bandwidths that would seem entirely impractical below 28 MHz. Last year I suggested to them to consider to target 10 or 20 kHz in a fixed band segment, in effect, a channel. They too have difficulty to understand why we support 9 kHz for DSB AM and at the same time, in their view, propose to stifle new development with similar bandwidth. Of course, none of us want complexity and inflexibility in the regulations. The premise of Novice Refarming supports digital allocations to some extent. If the proposal supports the beginning of new development today and some new technology gains wide acceptance, how long do we wait for further expansion? Part of the problem with wider bandwidth is we do not have a system waiting to go on the air or even a defined purpose to make us of the spectrum. One high speed digital channel at, for example, 3650 to 3660 kHz would provide for dial up speed at HF. It could coincide with 3 kHz maximum users of today's known modes. Compared to what we do at HF now, it will be blazing fast. A second channel at 7100 to 7110 would allow coverage with propagation variations. The 10 kHz bandwidth would be much more efficient than 3 kHz and would allow for OFDM with FEC. The opportunity is for better spectrum efficiency which the FCC wants. Imagine if today's Winlink users could be accommodated in 10 kHz using collision avoidance and short burst transmissions. That would reduce the apprehension of "unattended interference to SSB". Among the HSMM group, Walt DuBose, K5YFW, of the West Gulf Division is knowledgeable on this subject and has experience with various digital modes. This is not HSMM however it is close enough that we should consider the HSMM input. Howie, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:16 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12415] Re: Approaching BOD meeting I'm curious about the identity and credentials of your mystery member, Bob. He makes some good points but I'm uncomfortable with anonymity. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Vallio, Bob (Dir, Pacific) Sent: Tue 5/24/2005 2:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: Fwd: Approaching BOD meeting Comments from a member re signal bandwidth proposal: I have a few concerns about issues likely to come before the ARRL board that I'd like to present here. I was gratified to see many of my suggestions incorporated in the description of the revised proposal for regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. However, the proposal described on the ARRL website still contains serious internal inconsistencies that detract from it's credibility. These inconsistencies also preclude some likely future technical developments. Unless and until these inconsistencies are satisfactorily resolved, the proposal should not be adopted. In July 2002, the ARRL Board of Directors directed that (Minute 64): "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." My concerns are that making a special dispensation for AM/ISB mode is inconsistent with this direction and not including wider bandwidth segments below the 10 meter band will preclude future technical developments. Petitioning the FCC with this inconsistency detracts from the credibility of the proposal. An approach that is consistent with the proposal would be to assign spectrum in additional HF bands for signals of 9 KHz or less bandwidth. However this is not the best approach to take in this case. The current proposal has no bandwidths greater than 3 KHz allocated below 10 meters. Given that one of the goals of this proposal is to preempt possible requests for future FCC action, it is inconsistent to preempt the future development of wider bandwidth modulation schemes, presumably digital. The advantages of wider bandwidth on HF include, for comparable modulation constellations, faster data rates. Given the apparent intent of the ARRL to provide the capability for emergency bridging of discontinuities in the Internet via WinLink2000 and the like, precluding the use of wider bandwidth signals is inconsistent. It is also inconsistent with the goals set in 97.1 of the commissions rules. In a similar context, HF modulation constellations of wider bandwidth can be more robust during periods of poor propagation than a narrower signal for the same effective data rate. While the modulation schemes are still to be developed, greater immunity to noise, multipath and interfering signals can be obtained at the cost of greater bandwidth. Presumably an adaptive scheme will be able to trade data rate for noise immunity over a continuum, depending on conditions. However this option will not be available if no accommodation for wider bandwidth signals is made in the HF bands, as is the case in the current proposal. In order to provide for these potential developments and also to provide for existing AM/DSB activity in a manner that is consistent with the remainder of the proposal, it is imperative that there be allocations for wider bandwidth signals on the HF bands below 10 meters. It seems wise to make these allocations as general as possible. I would suggest that 20 KHz of spectrum be allocated in the 160m, 80m, 40m and 20m bands for signals whose transmitted bandwidth shall not exceed 20 KHz. In other words, the widest allowed signal will just fill the subband. It seems prudent to select these subbands so that they include the frequencies currently used for AM/DSB "by gentlemens agreement". This will allow for three simultaneous AM/DSB QSOs (assuming that AM/DSB requires 6 KHz of bandwidth) and allow the future development of wider bandwidth digital HF signals. In summary, the revised proposal for regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the boards direction for its creation and less supportive of the goals in 97.1 of the FCC rules than it might be. These issues must be satisfactorily resolved before the proposal can be adopted by the board.

1 0

[arrl-odv:12420] Re: Motorola Announces Radio-Friendly BPL Product
by Henry R. Leggette 24 May '05

24 May '05

Hi Dave, Thanks for this information! It is worth looking into further. On the surface, it appears better than the initially BPL. I am very much interested to see how they go with it. Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12401] Motorola Announces Radio-Friendly BPL Product Officers, Directors, and Vice Directors: The following news release from Motorola is in fact very good news. The ARRL technical staff has been working with Motorola under a non-disclosure agreement as they developed a BPL system that addresses the interference issue seriously. First and foremost, Motorola's BPL product does not use the medium voltage (MV) power lines. Even its name, Powerline LV, reinforces this fact. The system design uses the Motorola Canopy wireless system to bridge between the fiber or wireless backhaul and the low-voltage side of the customer's power transformer. This eliminates from the BPL interference equation the factor for which there simply is no solution: radiation from the MV lines. Second, Motorola has added hardware notch filters to the notches already programmed into HomePlug modems. Third, if in spite of these steps there is interference in a particular installation, Motorola will simply substitute a wireless link for the low-voltage BPL link. The first installation will be near Spartanburg, South Carolina. Motorola already has been in touch with South Carolina SM Jim Boehner, N2ZZ, for help in recruiting the operators of high-power HF stations in the vicinity to participate in egress and ingress interference tests. The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. We can't put an "ARRL Seal of Approval" on a system that we haven't actually seen, nor would we want to. However, we will congratulate Motorola for doing the right thing by avoiding the MV lines entirely, for proactively adding the hardware notches, and for having a wireless fallback for the more difficult situations. We have been saying all along that we are not opposed to BPL -- we are opposed to the interference. Motorola is reinforcing our argument against putting BPL on the MV lines while giving us the opportunity to be something other than nay-sayers (and, not incidentally, to make the point that the FCC could have gone much further to protect radio services without preventing BPL deployment). Whether Motorola's product will succeed in the marketplace remains to be seen, but it should drive out at least some of the BPL players who have demonstrated neither interest nor competence in dealing with the interference issue. Dave K1ZZ Motorola's Commercial Broadband Over Powerline Solution Debuts at "Telecom 2005" Company Introduces First Powerline LV Utility Customer LONG BEACH, Ca., - 23 May 2005 - Motorola (NYSE: MOT) today announced the introduction of a wireless to low-voltage Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) solution, Powerline LV (Low Voltage). Powerline LV's introduction to the utility industry was made during the United Telecom Council's "Telecom 2005" Expo in Long Beach, Ca. Powerline LV unites Motorola's CanopyT Broadband Internet Platform with enhanced HomePlugT technology to provide an end-to-end Broadband Over Powerline solution for the utility market. The first wireless to low-voltage solution for widespread commercial use, Powerline LV combines the Canopy platform's reliable high-speed Internet service with the lower-cost and non-invasive benefits of a low-voltage BPL option. By operating the Canopy HomePlug system on low-voltage powerlines, Powerline LV is significantly less susceptible to interference. Motorola developed a solution that does not use medium-voltage wiring, greatly reducing high-frequency (HF) interference. Motorola also integrated true radio-frequency (RF) notch filtering, providing additional protection for amateur radio transmissions. "Motorola created a low-voltage broadband solution that is both economical and extremely easy to install and maintain, enabling an attractive business case for utilities entering this market," said Chris Banakis, Motorola Vice President and Director of Enterprise Utilities Solutions. "Powerline LV combines the best of both worlds - proven technology with a commercially effective BPL system." Powerline LV is an extension of Motorola's integrated broadband solutions offering, including end-to-end hardware and software to deliver broadband services to telecommunications providers world-wide. Operating Efficiency for Utilities With Powerline LV, only three pieces of equipment are needed to connect a customer to the broadband network - the Powerline LV access point cluster, integrated antenna and bridge router and home plug modem. Because no cabling or other wiring is required to bring the broadband signal to service areas, start-up costs and installation requirements are minimal. "On top of offering significant business expansion opportunities for utilities, Powerline LV supports many of today's core utility applications, making the solution's value proposition even stronger," continued Banakis. Grid management applications such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) and Substation Monitoring can easily be supported by Powerline LV's Canopy platform. Many of Canopy's existing utility customers already use the system to successfully support a variety of core business applications. Broad River Customers Up-to-Speed with Powerline LV As many as 13 million U.S. households remain unable to receive broadband services from traditional cable modem or DSL providers.[1] Broadband Over Powerline options such as Powerline LV bring the power of broadband to cities and municipalities underserved by current broadband providers. A distribution cooperative serving approximately 25,000 rural utility customers in upstate South Carolina, Broad River Electric represents one of the nation's underserved markets. Broad River receives networking communications and project management support from New Horizon Electric Cooperative. Earlier this month, Broad River and New Horizon established a relationship with Motorola to launch Powerline LV within Broad River's South Carolina service area. "As an electric cooperative in an area with very limited broadband service options, we were actively seeking ways to bring high-speed Internet to our customers," said Michael Varner, Vice President for Information Services, New Horizon Electric Cooperative. "Powerline LV presented a cost-effective approach to serving customer needs within a rural, underserved market, while also satisfying Broad River's need for managing core business applications on an IP system. As a result, we see return on investment potential in both areas." Leveraging the CanopyT Broadband Internet Platform Canopy's point-to-multipoint technology allows utility customers to create a broadband network of virtually any size. Once in place, the Canopy network can serve as a dedicated data link or as a back-up network for the enterprise. "The Canopy system provides the scalability and control necessary to target specific areas for service delivery without requiring a full buildout," said Tom Hulsebosch, Global Director of Business Development for Motorola's Canopy Wireless Broadband group. "This level of flexibility is especially important for utilities introducing their customers to the new offering since costs are incurred only as customers are added to the system." "With more than 15,000 Canopy sites deployed worldwide, we have worked with customers to implement and support a wide range of wireless broadband networks, and can now bring this expertise to the Powerline LV solution," said Hulsebosch. Powerline LV Development Team Powerline LV was developed through a partnership between Motorola Government and Enterprise Mobility Solutions and the internal commercialization arm of Motorola Labs. "We recognized Broadband Over Powerline as an important emerging technology and were eager to facilitate development of this unique BPL solution," said Jim O'Connor, vice president, Motorola technology incubation and commercialization. "Ubiquitous broadband will be a key enabler of Seamless Mobility and solutions such as Powerline LV are bringing that vision to life." Powerline LV represents the latest addition to the Company's expanding portfolio of integrated wireless communication solutions for the Enterprise Market. Motorola's Enterprise Mobility Solutions connect data and decision maker for improved productivity, competitiveness, profitability and differentiated customer service. Motorola's end-to-end broadband and wireless technologies for the utility industry, including Powerline LV, will be showcased at Booth #311. About Motorola's CanopyT Broadband Internet Platform The Canopy system is a scalable, robust, and reliable platform for voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), video and broadband data applications. Its superb performance promises one of the lowest total costs of ownership and can significantly reduce a provider's start-up, maintenance and leased-line costs. Governments, enterprises, carriers and Internet service providers have deployed Canopy wireless broadband products to provide wide-area WiMAX like broadband and VoIP service to hundreds of thousands of subscribers in more than 85 countries worldwide. Please visit our website at www.motorola.com/canopy and the online magazine Connections at www.connectwithcanopy.com About Motorola Motorola is a Fortune 100 global communications leader that provides seamless mobility products and solutions across broadband, embedded systems and wireless networks. In your home, auto, workplace and all spaces in between, seamless mobility means you can reach the people, things and information you need, anywhere, anytime. Seamless mobility harnesses the power of technology convergence and enables smarter, faster, cost-effective and flexible communication. Motorola had sales of US $31.3 billion in 2004. For more information: www.motorola.com # # # Media Contact: Heather Robinson Motorola +1-847-576-1638 (office) +1-303-506-0259 (mobile) MOTOROLA and the Stylized M Logo are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. All other product or service names are the property of their respective owners. ©Motorola, Inc. 2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] The Brattle Group, April 2005 © Copyright 1994-2005 Motorola, Inc. All rights reserved.

1 0

[arrl-odv:12419] Email Address Change
by w6rod＠ix.netcom.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

For those of you that try to keep a list of "real" email addresses up to date for those persons on odv, here is my new "real" email address: w6rod(a)comcast.net 73, Rod

1 0

[arrl-odv:12417] Re: Approaching BOD meeting
by Jim K8JE 24 May '05

24 May '05

Bob et al, I have a couple of related concerns regarding our bandwidth proposal. I've already raised one of these a couple of times generically. Either I've not received a good answer to it or I'm sufficiently ignorant to know that I've received it. This relates, once again, to the adequacy of a 3 kHz maximum standard bandwidth on HF. Most specifically, is 3 kHz sufficiently wide to support experimentation and possibly ultimate wholesale use of digital phone (with good, communications-quality fidelity -- not necessarily Hi Fi). Is 3 kHz sufficiently wide to host currently-unforeseen forms of transmission that may prove to advance communications technology in the future as significantly as SSB did vs. AM? Conversely, is 3 kHz too narrow to allow for the very experimentation we propose to encourage? Another question I admit comes from an oft-repeated concern made not only by anti-digital storm troopers, but by a few members of the pro-digital force, also. This question relates to the manner in which incidental (but maybe fairly wholesale) interference from operations of semiautomatic digital to dissimilar other forms of communication (e.g., SSB) can be managed readily or warded off. If we expect digital to become increasingly pervasive on our bands, have we adequately anticipated and prepared for effective prophylactic as well as therapeutic management of this issue? How? So, who has a fully accurate crystal ball? How do we get rid of queasy feelings in our stomachs as the final up or down vote approaches when we do not have definitive answers to questions that hold possibly-controlling answers? I'd just as soon be certain we won't be recreating another well-intentioned but flawed action as "we" did way back in the 20th Century with Incentive Licensing. I'd sure like to know. 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: Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:27 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Approaching BOD meeting Yes, perhaps I should have included his name. I wanted to get it to the Board as soon as I could, so decided not to wait for his permission to send it. The author is former SCV SM, Glenn Thomas, WB6W. On 5/23/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > I'm curious about the identity and credentials of your mystery member, Bob. > He makes some good points but I'm uncomfortable with anonymity. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vallio, Bob (Dir, Pacific) > Sent: Tue 5/24/2005 2:08 AM > To: arrl-odv > Cc: > Subject: Fwd: Approaching BOD meeting > > > > Comments from a member re signal bandwidth proposal: > > > I have a few concerns about issues likely to come before the ARRL > board that I'd like to present here. I was gratified to see many of my > suggestions incorporated in the description of the revised proposal > for regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. However, the proposal > described on the ARRL website still contains serious internal > inconsistencies that detract from it's credibility. These > inconsistencies also preclude some likely future technical > developments. Unless and until these inconsistencies are > satisfactorily resolved, the proposal should not be adopted. > > In July 2002, the ARRL Board of Directors directed that (Minute 64): > "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to > revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by > mode." My concerns are that making a special dispensation for AM/ISB > mode is inconsistent with this direction and not including wider > bandwidth segments below the 10 meter band will preclude future > technical developments. > > Petitioning the FCC with this inconsistency detracts from the > credibility of the proposal. An approach that is consistent with the > proposal would be to assign spectrum in additional HF bands for > signals of 9 KHz or less bandwidth. However this is not the best > approach to take in this case. > > The current proposal has no bandwidths greater than 3 KHz allocated > below 10 meters. Given that one of the goals of this proposal is to > preempt possible requests for future FCC action, it is inconsistent to > preempt the future development of wider bandwidth modulation schemes, > presumably digital. > > The advantages of wider bandwidth on HF include, for comparable > modulation constellations, faster data rates. Given the apparent > intent of the ARRL to provide the capability for emergency bridging of > discontinuities in the Internet via WinLink2000 and the like, > precluding the use of wider bandwidth signals is inconsistent. It is > also inconsistent with the goals set in 97.1 of the commissions rules. > > In a similar context, HF modulation constellations of wider bandwidth > can be more robust during periods of poor propagation than a narrower > signal for the same effective data rate. While the modulation schemes > are still to be developed, greater immunity to noise, multipath and > interfering signals can be obtained at the cost of greater bandwidth. > > Presumably an adaptive scheme will be able to trade data rate for > noise immunity over a continuum, depending on conditions. However this > option will not be available if no accommodation for wider bandwidth > signals is made in the HF bands, as is the case in the current > proposal. > > In order to provide for these potential developments and also to > provide for existing AM/DSB activity in a manner that is consistent > with the remainder of the proposal, it is imperative that there be > allocations for wider bandwidth signals on the HF bands below 10 > meters. It seems wise to make these allocations as general as > possible. I would suggest that 20 KHz of spectrum be allocated in the > 160m, 80m, 40m and 20m bands for signals whose transmitted bandwidth > shall not exceed 20 KHz. In other words, the widest allowed signal > will just fill the subband. It seems prudent to select these subbands > so that they include the frequencies currently used for AM/DSB "by > gentlemens agreement". This will allow for three simultaneous AM/DSB > QSOs (assuming that AM/DSB requires 6 KHz of bandwidth) and allow the > future development of wider bandwidth digital HF signals. > > In summary, the revised proposal for regulation by bandwidth instead > of by mode is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the boards > direction for its creation and less supportive of the goals in 97.1 of > the FCC rules than it might be. These issues must be satisfactorily > resolved before the proposal can be adopted by the board. > >

1 0

Approaching BOD meeting
by Bob Vallio 24 May '05

24 May '05

Yes, perhaps I should have included his name. I wanted to get it to the Board as soon as I could, so decided not to wait for his permission to send it. The author is former SCV SM, Glenn Thomas, WB6W. On 5/23/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > I'm curious about the identity and credentials of your mystery member, Bob. > He makes some good points but I'm uncomfortable with anonymity. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vallio, Bob (Dir, Pacific) > Sent: Tue 5/24/2005 2:08 AM > To: arrl-odv > Cc: > Subject: Fwd: Approaching BOD meeting > > > > Comments from a member re signal bandwidth proposal: > > > I have a few concerns about issues likely to come before the ARRL > board that I'd like to present here. I was gratified to see many of my > suggestions incorporated in the description of the revised proposal > for regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. However, the proposal > described on the ARRL website still contains serious internal > inconsistencies that detract from it's credibility. These > inconsistencies also preclude some likely future technical > developments. Unless and until these inconsistencies are > satisfactorily resolved, the proposal should not be adopted. > > In July 2002, the ARRL Board of Directors directed that (Minute 64): > "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to > revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by > mode." My concerns are that making a special dispensation for AM/ISB > mode is inconsistent with this direction and not including wider > bandwidth segments below the 10 meter band will preclude future > technical developments. > > Petitioning the FCC with this inconsistency detracts from the > credibility of the proposal. An approach that is consistent with the > proposal would be to assign spectrum in additional HF bands for > signals of 9 KHz or less bandwidth. However this is not the best > approach to take in this case. > > The current proposal has no bandwidths greater than 3 KHz allocated > below 10 meters. Given that one of the goals of this proposal is to > preempt possible requests for future FCC action, it is inconsistent to > preempt the future development of wider bandwidth modulation schemes, > presumably digital. > > The advantages of wider bandwidth on HF include, for comparable > modulation constellations, faster data rates. Given the apparent > intent of the ARRL to provide the capability for emergency bridging of > discontinuities in the Internet via WinLink2000 and the like, > precluding the use of wider bandwidth signals is inconsistent. It is > also inconsistent with the goals set in 97.1 of the commissions rules. > > In a similar context, HF modulation constellations of wider bandwidth > can be more robust during periods of poor propagation than a narrower > signal for the same effective data rate. While the modulation schemes > are still to be developed, greater immunity to noise, multipath and > interfering signals can be obtained at the cost of greater bandwidth. > > Presumably an adaptive scheme will be able to trade data rate for > noise immunity over a continuum, depending on conditions. However this > option will not be available if no accommodation for wider bandwidth > signals is made in the HF bands, as is the case in the current > proposal. > > In order to provide for these potential developments and also to > provide for existing AM/DSB activity in a manner that is consistent > with the remainder of the proposal, it is imperative that there be > allocations for wider bandwidth signals on the HF bands below 10 > meters. It seems wise to make these allocations as general as > possible. I would suggest that 20 KHz of spectrum be allocated in the > 160m, 80m, 40m and 20m bands for signals whose transmitted bandwidth > shall not exceed 20 KHz. In other words, the widest allowed signal > will just fill the subband. It seems prudent to select these subbands > so that they include the frequencies currently used for AM/DSB "by > gentlemens agreement". This will allow for three simultaneous AM/DSB > QSOs (assuming that AM/DSB requires 6 KHz of bandwidth) and allow the > future development of wider bandwidth digital HF signals. > > In summary, the revised proposal for regulation by bandwidth instead > of by mode is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the boards > direction for its creation and less supportive of the goals in 97.1 of > the FCC rules than it might be. These issues must be satisfactorily > resolved before the proposal can be adopted by the board. > >

1 0