I apologize for sending this to you separately. It had been my intention to provide in one package everything you would need to review the Ad Hoc Digital Committee's report. However, I have received the good suggestion that since both the report and the dissenting recommendations reference the IARU Region 1 band plan, it might be useful for you to have it for reference. As it may also be helpful for you to have the original charge to the committee, I am including that as well. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:16 AM To: hfdigital Subject: [hfdigital:13] Charge to the committee Paul Rinaldo is taking a few days of well-earned vacation over the holidays. Here is the charge to the committee that was prepared just before he left. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ _____ Gentlemen: Thank you for your willingness to serve on the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. As a reminder, here is the text of the motion that authorized the creation of the committee: "Minute 63. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Bodson, it was unanimously VOTED that the President is authorized to appoint an ad hoc working group to study the new HF data modes in the Amateur Radio Service. The Terms of Reference are to develop recommendations for introduction of voice-bandwidth data modes and to advise the board on amateur-Internet linking and HF automatic control with a final report to the Board by January 2003." The following have been appointed to serve: Victor D. Poor, W5SMM, Chairman Howard Teller, KH6TY Steve Waterman, K4CJX Melvyn Whitten, K0PFX Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU Peter Martinez, G3PLX Board Liaison: Tom Frenaye, K1KI Staff Liaison: Steve Ford, WB8IMY To begin with, through no fault of yours the committee is getting off to a late start. Obviously, no meaningful final report can be completed prior to the Board Meeting of January 17-18, 2003, and the Board will have to be asked for additional time. The next Board Meeting after January will be July 18-19, 2003. The task that is before you can be broken down into three parts: 1. Develop recommendations for introduction of voice-bandwidth data modes. At the present time RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz are limited to symbol rates not to exceed 300 bauds, "or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz." Clearly this language predates modern digital techniques and requires updating. Three specified digital codes are permitted. Fortunately, in addition amateur stations using these codes are authorized to "use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications." CLOVER, G-TOR, and PacTOR are simply examples; additional techniques have been documented publicly to the satisfaction of the FCC. Rather than get bogged down in drafting proposed changes in the FCC Rules, it is preferable for the committee to focus on desired operational outcomes: what should be permitted, and what shouldn't be? By the way, the committee's responsibility does not extend to the introduction of HF digital voice. Another group is working on that issue. Your mandate is for the introduction of voice-bandwidth data modes. However, the signal characteristics may be similar and you may wish to consider whether there should be an operational overlap between the two. 2. Advise the Board on amateur-Internet linking. Again, this is in the context of data rather than voice modes. The rules governing message forwarding systems, Section 97.219, were written to permit the interfacing of Amateur Radio with the Internet while ensuring that the amateur stations involved are held appropriately accountable. The committee is invited to review these provisions and identify any changes that would be desirable. 3. Advise the Board on HF automatic control. At the present time automatically controlled HF digital stations are limited by Section 97.221 of the FCC Rules. Communication between two automatically controlled stations is confined to the specific band segments of 3.620-3.635, 7.100-7.105, 10.140-10.150, 14.095-14.0995, 14.1005-14.112, 18.105-18.110, 21.090-21.100, 24.925-24.930, and 28.120-28.189 MHz. Communication by an automatically controlled station in response to interrogation by a station operating under local or remote control can take place anywhere RTTY or data emissions are authorized, provided that the occupied bandwidth does not exceed 500 Hz. The committee should consider what changes, if any, to recommend. It may be useful for you to have the revised IARU Region 1 HF Band Plan that was adopted in San Marino last month, so I am attaching it for your information. Note that the Region 1 Band Plan is voluntary, so they are free to treat such things as "maximum bandwidth" as guidelines rather than as a black-and-white line of demarcation between what is legal and what is not. This is Region 1's first attempt to define HF operations in terms of bandwidth in addition to type of emission and is generally regarded as evolutionary rather than as revolutionary. Even so, in the context of your committee's work it is significant that certain segments were identified for "digimode" with bandwidths of up to 2700 Hz: 1840-1842, 3600-3620, 7040-7045, and 14101-14112 kHz. The ARRL Technical Relations Office staff stands ready to assist the committee as a technical resource. 73, Paul Rinaldo, W4RI Technical Relations Manager <<HFC 54 annex 1.rtf>>