Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting "protectionism" as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.
Now with digital modes, we see the use of either analog or digital SSTV image transmissions interspersed with SSB voice. It may someday be possible to merge DV with image since both need about the same signal strength (steady +8 dB or so) in order to operate.well so they are closely matched. They also sound the same and there is no practical way to filter out multiple OFDM type carriers since they pretty much fill the spectrum in their bandwidth. The segregation of narrow and medium and wide modes (as per the new Region 2 Bandplan) will help clarify things a bit if many hams adopt it. The ARRL attempted to get the FCC to create a new rule that would make bandplans a legal requirement, but the FCC chose not to accept this. Theoretically, you could be cited for not following a bandplan and I understand that this has come up from time to time. Where I find the rules ridiculous is where you can operate analog or digital voice and can operate image, but even though the signals may sound identical, you can not send text. As you know, I have asked the FCC to let us know what they interpret image and fax to be. I have no problem with whatever the FCC interprets, which may surprise you. None of this stuff is that important. What matters to me is that we understand what we can and can not do, even if that causes extreme reactions from proponents of ALE and other modes. It is true that when a government official makes a determination on such matters, it does have the force of law (contrary to what I have seen from other commenters). But once you have this clearly established, you can then ask for adjustments in the interpretation. I have done this professionally in my career in Environmental Safety and Health. Sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. But at least everyone then has the information. If there is a specific rule holding us back, I would like to hear what it might be. Almost no hams would support wide text data modes,on HF certainly not those wider than what would be considered a communications quality voice bandwidth. If you can not meet that standard, it is not much of a technological achievement to just go wider and wider to make something work better. The technological achievement is to use spectrum conserving modes that enhance the radio art. As you know, when conditions deteriorate there are fewer operators on the bands. That is the time that wider modes might be more appropriate to use. When conditions are good, there are a drastically increased number of operators. Remember that we have a shared band, not a specific channel with a specifically authorized bandwidth. Few of the wide modes are all that effective when conditions become poor. Even Pactor three drops to below 1000 Hz in width. As far as an agenda, of course you have an agenda. It is focused on ALE, and rightly so, if that is your special interest area. We all have one or more of them. Mine is to promote technology and cooperation that works for emergency communications. It can be digital or analog depending upon which is a better fit for a given solution. I have several other agendas such as promoting amateur radio as a leader in my county AR club, provide many classes to bring new hams into amateur radio, provide many test sessions over the years to make this happen, etc., etc. You stated that the MILSTD serial tone modem waveforms exceed both symbol rate and bandwidth in the current digital sub bands. This may be true of the symbol rate, but where do you see any restriction on bandwidth? Currently, is there any real bandwidth restriction in Part 97? ARRL's argument was that by their petition for bandwidth, they would eliminate wide bandwidth modes from developing. Hopefully, in answer to the question of attached files and other types of files being sent in the voice/image areas of the bands we will have an answer from my query to the FCC. The reason that I support a mixed voice/data concept in the voice area is because it is very unlikely that we will ever be given voice modes in the text digital area. The voice areas here in the U.S. are the largest part of the bands now. We already can use analog and digital voice and image any place we want in the voice portions of the bands athough a number of hams seem to not be aware of this. Adding in some text is really minimal. Especially if you are mixing the image/text. After all, the SSTV folks do this now with headings on their "images." As for the capability (or not) of the wide bandwidth single tone modems, we don't know when it comes to amateur shared band use. You say they work extremely well. Other professionals who I personally know and discuss this with say that they leave a lot to be desired. The last people to ask about this are the manufacturers. They are promoting their equipment the best way they can to get you to buy it. I want real world information from end users. Just like my contact with military government use. I do know from personal experience that the FAE 400 ARQ mode is about the best mode that I have personally ever used on digital text. It has a quasi duplex operation like Clover II, seems to work deeper into the noise (but can not prove since it has been well over a decade that I last used Clover II or Pactor) and is about the same bandwidth or a bit less. It may not be able to operate at the higher speeds since it is non adaptive, but we have developed soundcard modes that can operate at the higher speeds. SCAMP could run at close to 1000 wpm with good conditions, but it could not adapt downward. By combining some of the these modes, we could get some impressive results. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > > As I have stated before what is needed within the ARS is segregation > of narrow vs. wide digital modes. The approach taken should be to > split in half the digital sub bands so that the bottom half is used > for emissions below 500hz and the 2nd half for emissions greater than > 500hz, regardless of automated operations or not. > > I agree that we have too little frequency allocation on most bands, > period, not just when it comes to digital sub bands, personally I > would like to see a 500Khz wide band for each segment below 10 > meters, but that's a dream, we come close to that on 15m, a bit less > so on 20m ( and about the same for 40m in North America ) and we hit > the mark on 80/75m but elsewhere we are no where near being close. > With or without 500Khz bands I see no reason why each band allocated > to the ARS could not be split 50/50 between Digital and Voice, I > actually see no reason why that should not be the case with the > allocations already in place personally. I would also like to see the > availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency > Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode > Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency. > > > >> 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. >> > > Well the problem with a large segment of AM/SSB stations is that they > are over driven and splatter, those driving QRO level amplifiers make > the situation even worst during their on-the-air pursuits. Its not > like AFSK digital mode stations are immune from this either, I see a > number of PSK-x stations and others over driven as well. > > >> 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. >> > > Again, I am all for segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes on a > normal basis. > > > >> 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. >> > > Don't take your Amateur Radio Digital Voice experience to heart and > tell Government and Military users that, they will laugh at you. We > Radio Amateurs are slapping together various equipments for digital > voice operations that are either firmware/hardware digital voice > modems or Software/PC OS based modems with common Amateur Radio SSB > transceivers, change that paradigm to the use of full up 3Khz radios > and Vocoder modems designed for the task and the results are quite different. > > > >> 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. >> > > You have to be kidding? > > > >> For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is >> not being held back at all by the rules. >> > > Rick I have NO agenda as you state, I am NOT promoting anything, do > you really think that? All my software development which I am > involved that has to do with digital waveforms and data link > protocols are in support of the MARS program. I am directly > associated with G4GUO as my efforts with MARS-ALE is based on his > efforts with PC-ALE and he asked that I update aspects of PC-ALE that > have to do with Radio Control and interfacing, but I do not do any > development of that tool with respect to the digital data operations. > > > >> As you know, I have submitted >> questions to the FCC on this very subject and am waiting on a return >> response. >> > > Good luck and don't be to surprised when/if you get one as to what it > will contain. > > >> 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. >> > > If you have issues with Bonnie, take them up with her. > > > >> 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. >> > > Unfortunately for U.S. based Amateurs the use of serial tone modem > waveforms and others that are specified in MIL-STD-188-110x and > various NATO STANAG standards exceed both the symbol rate and > bandwidth under the current FCC Part 97 Rules for data transmissions > in the current digital sub bands. > > I have yet to fully form an opinion regarding the sending of image > files as attachments using said modems within the Voice/Image sub > bands, taking into account other recent developments in that arena, > such as WinDRM, it would appear that such use is acceptable, but I > will refrain from doing so until I am sure. > > > >> 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. >> > > I agree. > > >> 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. >> > > That approach if I read you correct is a mixed Voice/Data multi-mode > concept where you are stating that all wide mode digital regardless > of Text or Image base you would rather see in the Voice sub bands. I > too would like to see such on an ECOM event basis, however I don't > think such on a daily basis would go over well with the ARS on a > whole or for that matter with the FCC. The better approach I feel is > to split the digital sub band in to 2 parts as I detailed earlier. > > > >> 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? >> > > Ask the FCC. > > > >> 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. >> > > Really? Again, go tell that to the Government/Military users of > MIL-STD modems, start with the manufacturers with your Q&A. > > > >> 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. >> > > To implement such modems as software based PC OS modems there is a > huge increase in CPU processing required verses an 2FSK+ MFSK modems, > no question about it! However, that computing power is readily > available to most any Radio Amateur today that is interested in the > pursuit vs. the purchase of an expensive hardware based modem that > has many limitations compared to software based modems. > > > >> 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. >> > > Narrow modes are fine for the average Radio Amateur in pursuit of > daily ragchew's or DX, I highly recommend that such pursuits be > contained to modes less than 500hz. > > However for station-to-station message traffic handling or > remote-to-automated station traffic automation in support of moving > book message traffic with or without file attachments in support of > various Amateur Radio communications, especially Health/Welfare and > ECOM, the throughput offered by 500hz and less waveforms is inferior > to wider band width, higher symbol and data rate protocols. Its that > simple, it should be obvious to you or anyone else without a just > plain old anti-wide mode agenda. > > >> 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. >> > > The answer actually has to be that it was a reasonable thing to allow > and that it served the best interests of the Amateur Radio Service > and those that the ARS serve, especially in times when the ARS is on > the front lines providing Emergency Communications if you want my opinion. > > > >> 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. >> > > Those are all fine break points for 500hz, now what is needed is > 3600-3700, 7040-7080 and 14100-14200 configured for nothing but 500hz > and greater band widths and we will be on our way to a vast > improvement for the future of HF digital communications within the > Amateur Radio Service on those bands. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > >
