Andy,
I petitioned the FCC for just that (inside the automatic "subbands"),
but it was rejected for the status quo. So-called "semiautomatic"
operations is permitted anywhere RTTY/data is permitted as long as the
bandwidth does not exceed 500 Hz. For fully automatic operations, the
automatic "subbands" already exist, and the FCC view is that there is
sufficient space there for all automatic actvities whether 500 Hz or
2700 Hz.
The HFlink idea of expanding the amount of space for automatic
operations of any sort is simply not workable, because the demand for
space for person-to-person, non-automatic operations, is too great and
will become greater as the sunspot numbers grow. I see no reason that
Winlink and HFlink could not work together and negotiate for a space in
the automatic subbands just for 500 Hz-wide automatic signals that would
not interrupt person-to-person communications. Although the rules still
require "listening first", this is impossible to do with automatic
stations, so what is needed is a protocol like AX-25 where space can be
shared by more than one station and do that in the automatic subbands so
users there did not feel so cramped for space.
This Winlink business of scanning more than one frequency is one of the
worst wastes of spectrum you can imagine. What happens is that a Winlink
client will call and call on an empty frequency (which someone else
could use) for a Winlink host station that is already busy on a
secondary frequency and will NEVER answer until it is finished on that
secondary frequency and starts scanning again. Meanwhile, the client
station occupies a frequency fruitlessly, preventing someone else from
using it. I am sure you have seen such calls many times -they call, and
call, and never connect, and then connect on a different frequency. Just
eliminating scanning would probably free up as much as 20% more space in
the automatic subbands, but continues because of the imagined
convenience that scanning will make it possible to get a link sooner.
Nothing can be farther from the truth. If there were no scanning, simply
listening to a frequency would tell if it were already in use. If is not
in use, changes are the host station is available if in range. Instead,
the frequency appears to be empty, but there is no host station
available for traffic passing!
Clean up the automatic station network's act BEFORE even talking about
additional space being needed!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing
view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the
"wide" modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections
if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended"
under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of
complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle
of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic
unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do
so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment?
(actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz
sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all
that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there
really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use
narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate
schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are
primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be
secondary.
Andy K3UK
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj <n9...@comcast.net
<mailto:n9...@comcast.net>> wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Andy obrien
<k3uka...@...> wrote:
>
> Andy K3UK
Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I
cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better
served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and
PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or
"advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which is relatively
recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why
they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic
sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on
pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no
offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots
being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic
and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation.
Bill N9DSJ
>
