[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

Thu Aug 25 01:16:02 EDT 2016

I'm not sure what the reality is of any scenario, short of all
infrastructure breaking down (meaning effective absence of government),
where Amateur Radio is the centerpiece of Emcomm .. we're getting into
science fiction territory there (which doesn't mean it is not possible).
Short of that, it seems likely to me that it will be at best, auxiliary.
There are many dedicated EmComm volunteers who would of course vehemently
disagree with that.  

What I am sure of is, whatever the reality of day to day use of these modes
is (e.g. cheap shipboard email) or EmComm utility in a real crisis, the
EmComm *people* consider them crucial.  Emergency drills up here *are*
Winlink focused, VHF and HF (since the geographical distances up here
require it).  I'm not sure if this is still the case, but at least as of a
few years ago .. BP maintained Amateur HF equipped radio stations "in town"
(the BP Building in Anchorge) and the three major North Slope locations
(Deadhorse, Kuparuk, and Alpine) as a backup to their own (including
dedicated fiber optic).  I believe MARS is WinLink focused as well, though
someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a potential hit on us, though I suspect a lot less than the DQRM we're
already getting, but .. if one wants to be purely pragmatic, even if the
EmComm stuff is mostly "this is my HT, this is my rubber ducky, one is for
talking, one is for _____" weekend warrior types, they buy us good will and
some spectrum insurance in an age where the FCC exists to sell bandwidth to
the highest bidder, and ..it gets them out of the house, which has probably
saved many a XYL a prison sentence.

73
Steve KL7SB/Witness Protection Program

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Jeff AC0C
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:24 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

I was talking to a local emcomm coordinator who is very active and who I
consider an expert in the category - the question was about the use of file
transfer in a emergency communication situation.

He cited a couple of logical uses (spreadsheet file to hold personal roster,
or lists of available supplies, etc) which I could understand.  He told me
normally this is done using VHF/UHF stuff now.

So I asked what sort of emergency would call for needing to use file
transfer on HF.  He said if the disaster area covered multiple states and
was the sort where you could not get close enough to use UHF/VHF.  What sort
of emergency scenario is that?  A nuclear attack was the only answer he
could come up with.  How would that work, I asked?  He said the military has
a similar system and the area would almost certainly be under military
control and how the ham emcomm support would mix in would determine on the
nature of the event.

Now I don't know much about emcomm strategy myself, but I am pretty sure
that in the event of a nuclear attack, I could not envision how transferring
spreadsheets over HF would actually be a priority given the disruption in
every aspect of society.

So in the argument of what the file transfer need is, it's a lot easier to
comprehend a guy wanting to avoid the subscription costs of using a
commercial service and handle his email over HF needs.  Than it is to say we
need this expanded bandwidth to handle a disaster scenario that is going to
be rare, and is going to have military priority, and would be so severe that
the utility of this feature would be on the back end of the emergency.

Maybe I'm missing the big picture.  But it's not for lack of trying to
understand the emcomm-wide data need/benefit case, where the Winlink et. al.

users need is really easy to understand.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Thorne
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:27 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>

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

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