CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future
From: Richard Thorne <rthorne@rthorne.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:27:25 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
If there aren't going to be that many pactor-4 signals on the air due to the cost of modems, the signals should have a bandwidth limitation. In addition there should be a band plan for pactor-4 signals by keeping them above 100khz from the bottom of the band. I suspect that if pactor-4 is allowed in the lower portion of the bands that the cost of modems would come down.

Emergency communications, which are important and luckily don't happen very often, could be handle above 100khz.

The experimentation idea doesn't hold water either. We know that sending more data at faster speeds requires more bandwidth. How much data needs to be sent during an emergency? Amateur frequencies are intended for amateur use, not commercial use.

Twisting the big knob when a pactor-4 station comes on frequency, without checking first, is not an option in my book.

That being said, if you don't agree with pactor-4 being allowed in the cw/rtty sub-bands you better start writing the ARRL and making an appropriate comment against RM-11708.

Rich - N5ZC


On 8/23/2016 3:43 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
First, I do agree with N9NB that there needs to be a bandwidth limit in the amateur bands - this has been confirmed by the FCC in numerous communications and opinions about overly-wide phone signals and also by 97.307(f)(1) which limits the modulation index of angle-modulated phone emissions to less than 1 at the highest modulating frequency. Clearly, the idea of a maximum bandwidth is considered good practice in the phone sub-bands and a similar limit in the RTTY/data sub-bands does not need to strangle technical innovation. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to rely on the "necessary" and "good practice" wording in 97.303(1) because neither is strong enough to be meaningful without creating endless arguments and perceived loopholes. So just place a reasonable "roofing bandwidth" on amateur radio emissions below 30 MHz - 3 kHz? 6 kHz? 10 kHz? - and let us sort it out as we do every day!

[If the maximum bandwidths of phone and data signals are to be linked in one rule, a simple administrative fix could be made by the very simple change of applying 97.307(f)(2) to all of the HF bands - renumber it from 97.307(f)(2) to 97.307(g) or add (2) to all of the HF bands in 97.305. Digital voice would remain confined to the phone bands because even though it is transmitted as bits, the overall package is still classified as a phone emission, just as digitized images are still considered image emissions (facsimile). (See 97.3(c) and 2.201)]

Let's get a grip, though...in my opinion:

PACTOR 4 is already permitted everywhere else in the world and has not ruined ham radio yet. PACTOR 3 and PACTOR 4 modems are expensive - the rush to use >$1000 modems to exchange non-commercial traffic at <10 kbps (at best less than 1/5th of dial-up rates) over HF is not a very strong business case. While it is popular to gnash our collective teeth about those impure "boaters," (Oh, the fiends, checking their stocks via amateur radio!) the primary use of the Winlink system is rapidly shifting toward emcomm/public service, which is prominent in our Basis and Purpose of 97.1(a). Using faster modems actually reduces band occupancy in terms of Hz-sec for any particular message - although better performance *might* increase the number of messages. But at <10 kbps and with the horrible things that HF does to a channel...I just don't see a stampede materializing.

More importantly, ham radio needs to get with the program - our over-reliance on decades-old analog modes is laughable. You want new technical blood to fulfill 97.1(d)? Try explaining to anyone under 40 that our primary HF digital modes run at 31 baud or use the 80-year-old 5-bit Baudot code developed for electromechanical printers and which can't even handle the full alphanumeric character set. Inform them of our 300-baud symbol rate limit below 30 MHz and, after their initial disbelief, you will get a look of pity followed by complete disinterest. In most student papers at engineering conferences everything under 1 GHz is considered BASEBAND AUDIO!

Nor is it a good idea to further splinter the ham bands - it just creates unreasonable expectations of ownership or occupation. Many operators discovered during the W1AW/portable year how channelized 40/75 meters had effectively become, simply due to squatter's rights. We are always pooh-poohing band plans during contest weekends - rightfully - and any kind of reserved-for-narrowband allocation will simultaneously create the expectation that narrowband signals stay within it. There is lots of room on the bands for all kinds of signals if we could only get over the notion of reserved sub-bands, calling frequencies, net lists, and been-here-for-years. We have these Big Knob thingies we can use. We're not rockbound any more. Frankly, I think the whole notion of band plans needs to be greatly de-emphasized. We are the most flexible telecommunication service of all - why are we so intent on throwing that away?

Consider the use of "smart spectrum" SDR-based displays showing where all the signals of various types are and aren't. (The RBN almost does that now...) With so many different modes and more on the way, it seems to me that approach is a better way of going forward in line with the "cognitive radio" approach to spectrum management and our mandate in 97.1(b) and (c). Alternatively, if the bands are going to be segregated, then do it according to behavior (see my Contest Update editorials of Sep/Oct 2005) which is the root cause of most inter-mode conflicts, anyway.

A real problem that has been identified by many, and which is something we really *do* need to address for *all* modes, is transmitter linearity and noise. We have fantastic receivers that can hear a skeeter fart but the bands are full of our own trash from non-linear and noisy transmitters - even the expensive ones. (That we are still dealing with key clicks in the year 2016 is ridiculous.) There are plenty of techniques that we could adapt from the wireless data industry, such as pre-distortion and higher-voltage final transistors, all well-characterized mature technologies. The linearity issues with complex I/Q data signals are the same as for speech modulation. Let us solve noise and transmitter IMD and it will be a lot easier for everybody to get along. Digital modes can be a lot more noise-tolerant, too, and that might help a lot with the new reality of all spectrum, just as FM was invented by Armstrong in response to AM static.

Also...this CW...I turn on my radio most weekdays and wonder where is this precious commodity we are trying to preserve? Sure - contest weekends sure load up the bands - but the other 90%+ of the time the CW areas are pretty empty. I love CW but I am not of the opinion that we have to hobble the service and keep it increasingly technically irrelevant in order to preserve a century-old mode that isn't the backbone of the service it once was.

The sky is not going to fall. Yes, I will swear like a sailor when a data signal wipes out my CW run frequency, but then I'll use my Big Knob and start again somewhere else. (Or just stay there and duke it out.) Ham radio needs to accommodate useful data modes if it is going to survive to celebrate its second century.

73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>