First, let me say that these recommendations are based solely upon hopes and dreams. There are no facts or data with by which one can adequately assess the recommendations. If you want to convince someone that further segmentation of the rtty/data segments into smaller and smaller pieces is a good thing, then you need some actual spectrum usage studies to back up your recommendations.
What you are addressing is interference mitigation. Trying to minimize interference through segmentation will ultimately result in complete channelization. Further, your hypothesis deals with eliminating interference between "live chat modes" and ARQ modes. How is restricting morse code to a smaller and smaller segment going to provide interference mitigation between these two chat modes and ARQ modes? More space is not the answer, because you also indicate that these modes will grow thereby resulting in more and more mixing, and consequently more and more interference between the two types of data communications. So nothing will be solved. More and more space is not the answer because there simply isn't space to continue to expand. Reducing interference is best dealt with by proper interference mitigation techniques, not segmentation. These techniques must be developed and implemented by all modes. The most basic should be a busy detection feature for all unattended and attended automatic stations. Let me share some thoughts from Peter, G3PLX. I take no credit for them. They are all his ideas but pertinent. The use of ARQ in a congested band is counter-productive, since in the face of co-channel interference (which results from congestion), it INCREASES the amount of time-bandwidth it uses, thus making the congestion worse. To be able to survive congestion in an unregulated band, there must be a mechanism that causes individual transmitting stations to REDUCE their output (in time-bandwidth terms) when faced with undesirable congestion. The AX25 protocol, much maligned for HF use, did achieve this. Traditional one-to-one amateur operation has this desirable feedback mechanism - an operator faced with QRM due to congestion will shorten his transmissions or close down, thus reducing the congestion. Amateur radio in an unregulated environment where the level of activity is congestion-limited, will ONLY be stable and self-limiting if there are enough people on the air who are just there for fun, and who will QRT if/when it stops being fun. If we ever got to the situation where a significant fraction of the activity is by people who need to be on the air for a purpose, then there will be an increasing tendency for congested bands to exhibit 'grid-lock' behavior. Every time I hear a boater saying they must have winlink to receive weather reports and to communicate with family I think to myself, this is not being described as a recreational use but a vital communications that needs a specific time and place to operate. The fact that AX25 'backed off' in the face of errors (which could be due to congestion) meant that multiple AX25 links could share a channel in a stable way. Pactor has no such characteristic. Co-channel QRM between two Pactor links results in neither link passing any traffic until one link aborts. The logistic consequence of this is that Winlink sysops will always choose to operate on a channel on which they can be sure no other Pactor link will take place. They will always prefer to be subjected to random QRM from another service than to be subjected to QRM from another Pactor link. The result is making sure that there are no overlapping winlink stations, maximizing the amount of amateur spectrum used. This unfortunate characteristic has meant that the interference from Pactor to other services is maximized rather than minimized, and it also means that the Winlink organizers complain bitterly that there is insufficient space within the designated automatic sub-bands. The total volume of traffic handled by these unattended stations could easily be passed within the automatic sub-band limits, given a mechanism by which the stations involved could co-ordinate their activity. However, it cannot be done with Pactor or Winlink in their present forms, and if these stations are free to roam the bands, there will be no incentive to improve their channel utilization. In theory at least, the same arguments for segregating unattended ARQ stations applies to ALL amateur activity which has a purpose other than recreation. Only truly recreational activity is self-limiting without regulation. Any other activity in which amateur radio performs a service to/from a third party, will be vulnerable to grid-lock in the face of band congestion in an unregulated channel structure. To be truly a service to the community, these activities should have their own channels outside of the amateur bands. This would be worth exploring. Ask yourself how close we are to turning the amateur bands into a "service" oriented mechanism, where recreational/experimental traffic becomes the non-priority traffic, and emails or other communications with third parties becomes the priority traffic demanding exclusive space for this purpose. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia \(Elaine\) Gibbons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Regarding the continuing vocal disagreement (and flame-wars) between the > "live chat" operators, "Morse" operators, and the > "BBS/Winlink" or "ALE network" operators: > > Two HF bands are discussed below as examples of possible ongoing > evolution throughout the amateur radio service's spectrum allocations > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------- > > There is some history that relates to the popularity and use of various > non-Morse > operations prior to year 1995, and now . Non-Morse operation in the past > was only live keyboard to keyboard mode until the innovative spirit of > amateur > radio operators realized the value of ARQ modes for error-free message > handling, starting first with HF Packet forwarding. > > Back "in the stone age" of amateur radio, and before the advent of > "sound-card modes", > the prevailing location for Amtor and pactor was specifically between > 14070 and 14080, with 14080 to 14099 being for RTTY operations. > > Back in this "Stone age", 40 meter Amtor/pactor was allocated to the > 7070 to 7080 KHz segment, and RTTY operations from 7080 to 7099 KHz .... > > As time passed, fewer individual stations were using Amtor/pactor/G-tor for > live-chat, which left primarily the pactor stations being used for BBS > mailboxes > and message forwarding ... This change in usage was primarily due to the > preference of radio amateurs to adopt less-costly methods of digital > communications > that did not require the investment of $300 or more for multi-mode TNC's > of the time such as the early versions of the Kantronics KAM; MFJ-1278, and > AEA PK-232 hardware modems. > > A solution to the interference problem between ARQ modes and widely popular > "sound-card", and other types of "Live chat modes" using data > communications > would be to migrate "live-chat" operations farther down the band, such as > > 7050 to 7070 , and 14050 to 14070 .... > > Due to the elimination of Morse code as a requirement for an amateur radio > license, it is likely in the future that the "current use" of the > "RTTY/DATA" > bands would be inverted in usage, i.e. Morse code operations would > *primarily* > be in a more narrowly-defined sub band, while data modes would exist over a > much > larger band segment in each amateur radio band than Morse operations ... > > On a legal basis, Morse operations would continue to have access to the > full allocation of each amateur radio HF band... > > This may "ruffle the feathers of the old-timers", however Morse code will > still be of major importance as a very simple and manual mode of > communications > when more robust modes are not available.. Morse code will also remain > important > in the future as a part of living history ... > > It is likely in the future that, for example, Morse operations may be in the > > 14000 to 14050 segment, and data modes between 14050 and 14099 > and 14101 to 14120 KHz, while Morse operations on 40 meters may > be between 7000 to 7050Khz with RTTY/data between 7050 and 7150KHz. > > Message forwarding operations would likely be toward the upper-portions of > the > RTTY/DATA bands, while manual, "Live chat" operations would be farther down > in frequency with respect to the BBS/forwarding stations > (whether they are Winlink or other modes yet to be developed) > > Flame on this idea if you wish, however robust "live-chat" sound-card modes, > ARQ messaging modes, and Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) > modes will all gain increased popularity, acceptance, and adoption because > of their more efficient and reliable communication capabilities as compared > to > manual and non-keyboard modes .. > > Elaine ... > > -- > Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons > WA6UBE / AAR9JA > http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube > "Being a bush pilot does not > mean that I care much for our President !!" >
