[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

[Ward Silver]

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