I do not share the opinion of my colleague from the Pacific Division that our bandwidth proposal is on the wrong track. The proposal is an excellent step, but the member comments have shown there is a need for some tweaking before we submit it to the FCC. However, there is another problem related to our proposal that has festered and now, I believe, requires an ARRL response. Recall, we all received a missive from Skip Teller on 9/20/2004 restating his opposition to the proposal (attached). Vice Director Mondro provided an excellent response to Teller's latest sour grapes on 9/22/2004 in ARRL-ODV:11259 which unfortunately, did not receive much comment or support from the Board. Also on 9/22/2004, Vice Director Oppel informed the Board in ARRL-ODV:11268 that Teller had taken his case to a "higher court": QRZ.com. A QRZ.com article written by ARRL member AG4YO pushed Teller's counter case hard while totally incorrectly stating that ARRL members had no say in the current proposal (quite a claim to make in the middle of the ARRL member review and comment period!) and implying that the Board is once again ramming another issue down the throats of the membership. I have received several responses from Midwest Division members demanding that Teller's counter proposal be posted and acknowledged by ARRL and wondering why the Board is not listening to the membership (again, a curious concern in the midst of the ARRL member review and comment period!). Going back to the QRZ.com thread shows where this "thought process" is coming from. (Could this be what you are seeing in the Pacific Division, Bob?) Now, emboldened by his support on QRZ.com, Teller has restated counter proposal to the Board in his e-mail of 10/11/2004 (attached). Vice Director Mondro, in his role as ARESCOM chairman, has been deflecting criticism of the proposal, ARESCOM, and ARRL fairly regularly since Teller popped off in September and seems to be growing weary of the task when there seems to be little response or interest from the Board. See Dick's response to Director Goddard which I received 10/13/2004(attached). I normally do not take what is posted on QRZ.com too seriously. There are a lot conspiracy theorists who have a forum there and the quality of material I find there reminds me of the now defunct 73 magazine. Much of the input there concerning our bandwidth proposal is no exception to my early observations. However, because of the level of misinformation, distortion, and other falsehoods posted there regarding our proposal and the responses from otherwise good folks from this division alone who seem to be taken in by Teller and his ilk on QRZ.com, I think a response to this misinformation is required by ARRL. I propose that ARRL Chief Technical Officer Paul Rinaldo formulate a brief response to Teller's flawed proposal (hopefully it can be brief) for posting on QRZ.com. Vice Director Mondro has already countered many of Teller's proposal points and I am sure he would not mind that his response be included. We must state the facts of our proposal so that the more open minded folks who frequent QRZ.com (not intended to be an oxymoron) would understand the flaws in Teller's proposal and why the Board gave it the attention it deserved last year. I do not expect to sway those who view the Board as the amateur radio anti-christ and other conspiracy theorists. There are ARRL members who frequent QRZ.com whose opinions of ARRL and the Board are being poisoned by Teller and others and I fear that number is not small. As I said earlier, I normally do not take the QRZ.com threads too seriously but ARRL is being damaged by the misinformation on this issue. Should we risk serious damage to the organization when a factual response would help set the record straight? Let's fine tune our bandwidth proposal based on the thoughtful member comments received. However, before the proposal is submitted to the FCC, the Teller misinformation must be dealt with. This should be a discussion topic at the Executive Committee meeting this weekend. 73, Wade W0EJ Subject: Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:13:01 -0400 From: "Howard Teller" <hteller@comcast.net> To: <k5rav@arrl.org>, <n5ok@arrl.org>, <nz6t@arrl.org>, <w6xd@arrl.org>, <w4ru@arrl.org>, <w4rh@arrl.org>, <ws7w@arrl.org>, <w0cp@arrl.org>, <k4nk@arrl.org>, <w4pwf@arrl.org>, <n6ajo@arrl.org>, <w6rgg@arrl.org>, <k9jf@arrl.org>, <w7oz@arrl.org>, <k1twf@arrl.org>, <k1ki@arrl.org>, <k0bj@arrl.org>, <w0ej@arrl.org>, <ka2anf@arrl.org>, <n2ff@arrl.org>, <w8fqt@arrl.org>, <k8je@arrl.org>, <wd4q@arrl.org>, <k5ur@arrl.org>, <n0jph@arrl.org>, <k0qb@arrl.org>, <k9km@arrl.org>, <w9gig@arrl.org>, <n3llr@arrl.org>, <n3efn@arrl.org> CC: "Jim Haynie" <W5JBP@aol.com>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org> September 20, 2004 To all ARRL Division Directors and Vice Directors: Two weeks have now passed without any response to my two emails to ARRL President, Jim Haynie, asking whether or not you were given the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation for reference when you reviewed the planned petition to the FCC to regulate subbands by bandwidth instead of by emission mode. So, to be sure you are in possession of complete information as you decide whether or not to continue to support the proposed petition, here is a link to the official Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation, which is part and parcel of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee output, as noted by the Committee chairman in the letter of transferal of the Committee report: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/committee/editedrecommendation.htm This version of the Dissenting Recommendation has been very slightly edited, in the introduction only, in order to forestall a second threat of a lawsuit unless it is recanted, which it will not be. You can refer to the original unedited Dissenting Recommendation passed to you electronically by Dave Sumner in March of 2003 if necessary. If you cannot locate the original document, this one should suffice, as only the introductory paragraph has been changed. Paul Rinaldo might agree to supply copies of the email exchanges of the committee members should you feel it necessary to confirm any details reported in the Dissenting Recommendation. Although Dave Sumner advised me by email when he electronically distributed the Dissenting Recommendation to all of you last March of 2003, I am sure a year later, when asked to support the proposed petition of which the Ad Hoc HF Digital committee output was a major input, you probably did not remember all that the Dissenting Recommendation said unless you were provided with another copy in July 2004. The ARRL proposed petition, which appears to be based on only the majority recommendation of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, proposes to legislate the following changes to the amateur radio bands: 1. The entire 160 meter band could be blanketed with unattended Pactor-III robot transmitters if so desired. 2. All of the SSB phone bands could be blanketed with unattended Pactor-III robot transmitters if so desired. 3. PSK31 operations would be forced down into the CW activity regions in order to escape the interference from unattended Pactor-II robot transmitters that currently avoid some of the PSK31 activity area, effectively reducing the available space for CW-only activity. 4. A multitude of HF Packet networks, supported by public service volunteer radio amateurs, that depend upon autoforwarding on the airwaves, would be instantly legislated out of existence by making autoforwarding on the air illegal. 5. SSB phone operators, already faced with insufficient space to accommodate all users, would be barred from large segments of the bands in order to protect wideband digital modes, such as unattended Pactor-III email robots, from any interference by SSB phone, but which is not in turn afforded any protection from interference by unattended Pactor-III, Pactor-II, or Pactor-I email robots. The following is a quote from a bulletin that has been placed, as of September 3, 2004, on the Winlink 2000 servers by the Winlink Network Administrator: "One of the purposes of the proposed Petition is to open up more spectrum for digital modes such as those used by Winlink 2000." You must study the Dissenting Recommendation carefully to decide if you think this is necessary or not. The correct answer hinges on whether or not the increased speed of Pactor-III over Pactor-II is worthwhile, using five times the bandwidth as Pactor-II, for an average overall speed gain (for typical-length emails) of only 30%. Because that increased demand for spectrum has to be taken out of space already allocated to everyone else (currently kept free by FCC regulation from interference by digital signals), it will have to be taken from all the already crowded SSB phone segments of the bands. The following is from the copyrighted press release posted online by the ARRL on August 25, 2004: "The draft petition represents expert input from the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, which submitted its report prior to the Board's July 2003 meeting." Note that the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee was chaired by Victor Poor, W5SMM, who is also the architect of the Winlink 2000 network, who is also the author of the committee report. Note also that the draft petition "represents" the expert input from the Committee, implying that the two are very much one and the same, but the charter of the Committee, and the terms of reference, did not include any bandplan, as it addressed *only* Minute 63, and it was Minute 64 that addressed the need for a bandplan. The Committee was without expert representation for operators of modes other than digital modes, and therefore was not qualified to submit a bandplan that affected all other modes, such as SSB phone. Winlink 2000 uses Pactor-I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III digital modes for operating a wide-scale network of unattended Pactor robot transmitters as email gateways to the Internet for less than 5000 users (representing less than 1% of the FCC-licensed radio amateurs). Yet all of the HF frequencies, except for the CW activity regions, would now be opened to unrestricted use by unattended Pactor-I, Pactor-II, or Pactor-III robot transmitters that do not share frequencies, cannot and do not listen first for a clear frequency, and cannot and do not, respond to a request to QSY. Perhaps it was not clear just how exponentially cross-mode QRM will increase if the proposed petition actually goes forward. Because digital modes and SSB phone modes cannot understand each other, they cannot negotiate for the use of a frequency, and therefore both will wind up always trying to use the same frequency at the same time, with no way to resolve the conflict. When there was only phone and CW, and all radio amateurs understood CW, the two different modes could cross-communicate, so CW was permitted in the phone segments of the bands. CW and phone are understood by LISTENING on the frequency, but digital modes used for text transfer are understood by READING text on a computer screen, and don't absolutely require listening to the frequency at all. As a result, they cannot successfully be mixed with CW and phone, as intended by the proposed petition, because the digital operator may not even have the ability or need to listen on the frequency. This is especially true for Winlink 2000 operations, which are necessarily channelized on predetermined, advertised, meeting frequencies, so there is not even a need to listen on a frequency for tuning in a station. 73, Skip Teller, KH6TY Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee member cc: Jim Haynie, Dave Sumner Subject: A Simple Solution Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:08:55 -0400 From: "Skip Teller" <hteller@comcast.net> To: <k5rav@arrl.org>, <n5ok@arrl.org>, <nz6t@arrl.org>, <w6xd@arrl.org>, <w4ru@arrl.org>, <w4rh@arrl.org>, <ws7w@arrl.org>, <w0cp@arrl.org>, <k4nk@arrl.org>, <w4pwf@arrl.org>, <n6ajo@arrl.org>, <w6rgg@arrl.org>, <k9jf@arrl.org>, <w7oz@arrl.org>, <k1twf@arrl.org>, <k1ki@arrl.org>, <k0bj@arrl.org>, <w0ej@arrl.org>, <ka2anf@arrl.org>, <n2ff@arrl.org>, <w8fqt@arrl.org>, <k8je@arrl.org>, <wd4q@arrl.org>, <k5ur@arrl.org>, <n0jph@arrl.org>, <k0qb@arrl.org>, <k9km@arrl.org>, <w9gig@arrl.org>, <n3llr@arrl.org>, <n3efn@arrl.org> CC: "Jim Haynie" <W5JBP@aol.com>, <bandwidth@arrl.org>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org> Gentlemen, On October 7, I sent an outline of a very simple solution to the interference problem caused by unattended Pactor mailbox stations to Jim Haynie, but I do not know if it arrived, if he has seen it, or if you have received a copy from Jim, as I have received no acknowledgement. Therefore, to be sure you have this information, I am distributing it myself to all of you. This solution is fully supported with accurate current factual data with reference links, as Jim Haynie has asked all of us to do instead of just making an emotional appeal. The solution, presented in this document, amounts to nothing more than just requiring that ALL unattended operations (of any sort), be required to stay in an appropriately-sized space, away from all other operations, so they can be avoided, and so they will not interfere with others. What could be more simple! This is certainly not asking for very much on the behalf of the 99% of FCC-licensed radio amateurs who can just send email from home instead of having to use the Winlink 2000 network, is it? Additional high levels of ARESCOM traffic would still be able to pass over the current Winlink network unimpeded, as the load factor of the Winlink network appears to be averaging only about 30% or so (dependent on time of day and propagation), using the current number of Winlink channels. This should be subject to confirmation with hard data, of course, and if necessary and properly justified, more channels could be allocated, but in a contiguous manner, so there is no return to the current QRM problem. I suggest that you please first consider this essential separation BEFORE you address the segmentation of bandwidth issues, so there will not be any confusion between the two, as there currently is among the membership. In case attachments are blocked on your end, here is a link to the same document: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/simplesolution.htm . After you study this document, please just ask yourself, "Why not!". Thank you for your attention. 73, Skip KH6TY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: simplesolution.htm simplesolution.htm Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html) Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Mondro" <w8fqt@arrl.org> To: "Art Goddard" <w6xd@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 7:01 PM Subject: RE: A Simple Solution
Art,
Has it really developed a determined opposition, or is it the same guy, who's committee all voted against him because he is wrong? Is the balance of the HF Digital Committee all wrong? If so why then did the BOD embrace their opinion?
Tellers current factual data is not fact and is in error. Simple math and a little intelligence proves it!
Sub-bands are no longer necessary and are very restrictive. His logic regarding how many Winlink stations will fit in a sub-band is absurd. His 30 percent increase in efficiency for P3 is not true. He is trying his best to kill the concept of bands by bandwidth. He is also suggesting that Winlink be put in sub-bands because he claims it is a machine-to-machine forwarding service, which is not true. Winlink 2000 is initiated by human beings.
He is like a child that did not get his way. His tactic is to raise enough hell to try to reverse what the HF digital committee, the ARRL Staff, and the BOD relatively independently determined was the proper course. He is attempting to turn his dissenting view into the majority plan, and have it his way. He is also suggesting the deletion of Pactor 3 since he claims it is only 30 percent faster than Pactor 2. 3600 bps is not 30 percent greater than 800 bps. Pactor 3 is by far the most efficient and effective digital mode known today.
His plan would totally kill any future experimentation with digital data transfer. Only the interactive modes would be left such as CW, RTTY, PSK-31, MT63, and the other such conversational modes. Data transfer would be dead on the ham bands. Do we want to join the 21st. Century or go back in time? I have spent two weeks answering questions of this kind because this person is posting his misinformation to qrz.com and people are believing him without checking the real facts. The board does not seem to want to take the initiative to respond to this guy and I am not a spokesperson for the board, the EVP is. I have wasted too much time on this and I have more important things to do. People can use WL2K if they wish or not use it, it's their choice and their loss if they do not. We are offering an option here that works and is being embraced by more people than we have time to work with. There are numerous articles in QST including one in November on WL2K in the jungle.
Art, I posted a response to Tellers accusations on the ODV several weeks ago and only one person was concerned enough to respond. Does anyone out there really care that the idiots of the world are taking pot shots at the BOD? I do and it upsets me greatly but everyone else seems to be pre-occupied with other things.
Has anyone thought of asking Paul Rinaldo what he thinks about all this? He is our chief technology officer, why not ask him what he thinks? Better yet, why not ask Teller to prove his claims rather than ask me to dis-prove them?
My thoughts Art, thanks for asking, but I do resent being looked upon as the bad guy here. When I am asked to do a job, it would be nice if I had some support. Jim Weaver has been supportive, but that's not enough.
73, Dick
Dick Mondro, W8FQT Vice Director ARRL, Great Lakes Division w8fqt@arrl.org http://greatlakes.arrl.org