Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can do is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without stepping on someone else.
Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes. Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, (OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind of segregation is needed. There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete. I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits. For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is not being held back at all by the rules. As you know, I have submitted questions to the FCC on this very subject and am waiting on a return response. Your fellow promoter of ALE, Bonnie, KQ6XA, was livid that I even dared ask these questions and yet the amateur community has a right to know how the rules should be properly interpreted. And a major one is whether we can operate certain kinds of modes on the high speed portions of the HF bands, otherwise known as the voice/image portions. Maybe they will stretch the rules to allow use of mixed image and text, maybe they won't, but I want to know what we can and can not do. I am convinced that the FCC will support the use of ALE modes, including the very modes you mention below providing that that content is image/fax. I personally have sent many faxes over the years that don't even have one picture in them and were all "text." Even if they say we can not send a pdf, or a doc or an xls, we can still send jpg and jp2 files as the WinDRM folks actively do ever day for real world testing. And we can coordinate this with SSB voice too. Something we can not do in the text data portions of the bands. Although I did ask the FCC about the single tone MILSTD/FEDSTD/STANAG modem use in the text data portions of the bands, they would have to make changes to the rules to allow such use. My preference is to keep the narrow modes in the text digital area, and rename this the narrow areas and then allow us to use the wide modes in the voice/image areas. But here is the rub. We can do that any time we want now ... right? All you have to do is make it an image and you have no limits on the baud rate, even 2400 baud ... right? And I have asked this question many times on these groups. No one even wants to try it? Why is that? Is it possible that you have tried it or others have tried it with poor results? The professional contacts I have in the business of emergency/military communication tell me that these modes don't work all that well, even on dedicated channels. Something we don't have in the amateur shared frequency bands. When I asked the ARRL, Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, he felt that the reason we don't use the single tone modems may be due to the need for increased computing power to make it work. Either way, why is no one working on this now? It does not add up. Why do we need wider modes? The reality is that HF is a terribly difficult place to get high speeds with weak signals. The wider modes tend to work less well than the narrow modes in most cases. Even Pactor 3 drops to way under 1,000 Hz and only 2 tones when conditions get really difficult. The wide 8FSK125 ALE mode at around 2000 Hz wide compares very poorly with the narrow 8FSK50 mode at only 400 Hz when it comes to sensitivity. It is very difficult to find 2000 Hz of clear frequency to even operate such a mode and yet 400 Hz is much more useful and ham friendly. 3000 Hz or more is even more than a communications quality voice bandwidth and is a step backward in technological achievement with shared bandwidth services such as we have with amateur radio. For those hams who are not aware, the ham who convinced the FCC (over the objections by the ARRL) to allow image/FAX to be used in the text data portions of the bands, which some have tried to lobby for more than 20 years, was Mark Miller, N5RFX. Ask yourself why did the FCC go along with this reasonable idea at the maximum 500 Hz bandwidth? Why not make it 1000 Hz or 2000 Hz, etc. The answer has to be that they really expect the lower portions of the bands to move to narrow bandwidths. Take a look at the new IARU Region 2 Bandplan that was promulgated primarily by ARRL leadership at the IARU conference. Note that there is no wider bandwidth than 500 Hz in the 80 meter band below 3600. Same below 7040, 14100, etc. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > Hi Rick, > > You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of > RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old > story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by > an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and > practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio > Service is all about in my opinion. The outcome of what takes place > within the Amateur Radio Service as to what is and what is not > accepted as technology and practices needs to be driven by the > development of technologies and the choices made by the Amateur Radio > community where the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service allow > for the needed experimentation and development of new technology and > practices rather than tightening of the rules to limit such. > > I have no love for proprietary PACTOR x or any proprietary protocols > or for automation systems based stations that just sit parked on one > frequency rather than frequency multiplexing. I believe the future of > the Amateur Radio Service will be based on open standards, the best > of which currently are U.S. Federal, Military and NATO standards > which the ARS can adopt as they exist of use as the basis of derived > protocols adapted to the exacting needs of the ARS. However we need > to be moving in the opposite direction of RM-11392, we need 3Khz > bandwidth and relaxation of a number of existing rules here in the > U.S. to keep pace with the world Amateur Radio community. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > >
