[digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. If adopted, this would give Bonnie her own frequencies...channels if you will, that she or ANYONE else from the HF-ALE network could claim...and then chase away legal ops using her/their frequencies. It's pretty shameful on her part that she waited until the last possible minute to sneak her proposal through to the ARRL. If we had known in advance of her antics, she would have heard an earful from many, I'm sure. Hopefully, this pathetic excuse for spectrum sharing will be turned down. John KB2HSH
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:37:25PM -, kb2hsh wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. If adopted, this would give Bonnie her own frequencies...channels if you will, that she or ANYONE else from the HF-ALE network could claim...and then chase away legal ops using her/their frequencies. It's pretty shameful on her part that she waited until the last possible minute to sneak her proposal through to the ARRL. If we had known in advance of her antics, she would have heard an earful from many, I'm sure. Hopefully, this pathetic excuse for spectrum sharing will be turned down. I hope so. But it's going to take some shouting down to get her proposal nuked. Show of hands from those who mailed in some sort of opposition, please? -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
kb2hsh wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink operations. The only exception to this would be that we would now have a US bandplan that aligns with a more reasonable international one, which is not the case now. But it would not increase ALE operations at all, nor change current centers of activity unless forced to by the new plan. So tell me again how this benefits ALE ops? How would it be a frequency grab?? In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking for places to operate, including new modes yet to be defined. That may not be important to you. But it is to some! What if psk was never able to stake out a center of activity? Other modes As to timing of the submission? You guys are empowering Bonnie way too much. We just found out about it not too long ago when it was posted in another group. Bonnie was traveling for a bit, and submitted when she settled in. No more no less. It's too easy to villainize people who do not practice your hobby the way you like, and it weakens the entire hobby! I'd ask, why did we all just find out about this Why was this input session not pro-actively positioned to the key user groups so they would have time to comment? Seems to me like the fingers need to point to the people soliciting input. Reminds me of the Hitchhiker Guide to the Universe where the input sessions for destruction of earth was posted on Alpha centauri. But you had time to provide input No one replied!!!. I can tell from most of the responses so far that most did not even read the proposal, or some of the others floating around. It protects CW, and that is a key component of Bonnie's position for years. Nowhere that I see does it restrict CW ops to 15khz If this mindset prevailed, we'd still not have SSB, at best using AM CW. Or spark! The same end of the world arguments took place when SSB was introduced! sorry, guys but if conspiracy theories are the best we can come up with, we all lose! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Transmitting soundings without checking for activity on the frequency, or by not sounding if there is activity, is an AUTOMATIC operation. Do you deny that soundings that cover many frequencies in a short time are not transmitted without ALWAYS listening first! That would be hard to believe! Is the HFlink proposal a frequency grab? Well if it results in any expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations by taking space already in frequent use by other activities, of course it is an attempted frequency grab. It would give ALE ops more frequencies to legally transmit signals as wide as 2700 Hz without having to listen first - in other words, sounding or high-speed messaging. There has always been limited interest in high-speed messaging on the HF bands, because they are used mostly for person-to-person communications, DXing, contesting, ragchewing, etc., so THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION in giving up person-to-person communications for a very poor (relatively slow speed) radio emulation of email or texting over the Internet. This IS the 21st century and, except for a very few individuals, higher speed communications than over the HF bands is available to almost everyone. Ham radio is a HOBBY activity, with occasional public service during emergencies, and even then, most communication is by voice over repeaters, with a scattering of long distance relays. Even after the Haiti earthquake, there were few HF emcomm activites, but temporary repeaters were rushed in to handle most of the messages. We need to preserve our HOBBY and not let it be taken away by a few who try to tell us we are antiquated just because we do not think high-speed communications should displace communications at the speed of a QSO. Lets compare the HF link proposal with the FCC part 97.221 current allocations for automatically controlled digital stations over 500 Hz in bandwidth: HFlink: 3575-3625 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 50 kHz FCC: 3585-3600 KHz = 15 kHz HFlink: 7050-7060 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 10 kHz FCC: 7.100-7.105 = 5 kHz HFlink: 7100-7125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz HFlink: 10125-10150 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz FCC: 10.140-10.150 = 10 kHz HFlink: 14090-14099.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 14.0950-14.0995 = 4.5 kHz HFlink:14100.5-14125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 24.5 kHz FCC: 14.1005-14.112 = 17 kHz HFlink:18095-18109.5 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 14 kHz FCC: 18.105- 18.110 5 kHz HFlink: 21090-21149.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 59.5 kHz FCC: 21.090-21.100 = 10 kHz HFlink: 24920-24929.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 24.925-24.930 = 5 kHz HFlink: 28120-28199.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 79.5 kHz FCC: 28.120-28.189 = 69 kHz HFlink: 28200.5-28300 (2700) BEACONS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 99.5 HFlink: 28990-29300 (6000) ALL MODES, FM, AM, SSB, DIGI, AUTOMATIC = 310 kHz HFlink: 29510-29700 (6000) FM, REPEATERS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 190 kHz If the HFlink idea is for ARRL to support the HFlink proposal for IARU Region 2, and then petition the FCC for new rules to align the bands with the proposal, a huge additional amount of spectrum used by non-automatic stations (ragchewing, DXing, contesting, etc.) could become covered with both Winlink and ALE messaging robots that do not listen first. Is that what you want to see happen! I have submitted my opposition. If you agree to give up more space for robot messaging stations, then do nothing. If you do not agree, then you should send in your comments without delay! ARRL will continue to read comments past the announced deadline, just as the FCC often does, so just submit your comments, regardless of the announced deadline, but do it NOW! Remember that HFlink is not alone in wanting more space to avoid QRM of their own kind, but Winlink wants it also, and that would be the most serious consequence. HFlink has a history of also supporting expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations which would benefit less than 1% of the ham population at the expense of everyone else using the bands. The sunspots are returning, and if you think the bands are not crowded now, just wait! They soon will be, and you would wish for that space back! 73, Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages! The whole design approach of ALE as practiced by amateur radio is that of standardized frequencies, one per band, with designated alternates for qso for extended traffic under manual control. This is already in place working. And not likely to change. It's also already allowed per FCC regs, so it's very unlikely there would be a net reduction in that. So the whole idea that this is a frequency grab for ALE ops is simply misinformed and displays ignorance of how ALE works and is used in the amateur world. Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! You are right about one thing... there are many other players in the mix. ALE ops would be minimally impacted by Bonnie's proposal. It's future modes that will be impacted. Witness the reoccuring I invented a new mode, try it on 14.xxx. No, you can't go there, that's the XYZ mode center of activity.. So I'll ask the question: how do we enable the development use of new modes, ideally more efficient ones when there is no place for them to operate? Want to keep the status quo, and miss the next psk? Express yourself. Or propose your own solution! Make it about individuals, or even user groups, you just wasted your input! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
It does not matter if ALE ops do not intend to USE more frequencies or not. Apparently the interest in PC-ALE is so small, the impact would be minimal anyway. However, to support changing any allocations to provide more space for wide-bandwidth automatic stations, no matter who will use them, is simply contrary to the concept of using the limited spaces on the HF bands for person-to-person communications, and there is simply not enough space for that. The HFlink proposal does not suggest that more space is needed for only ALE stations, but for ALL wide automatic stations. For that reason, it should be vigorously opposed. BTW, I asked my invisible companion if I had made a huge leap of paranoia, as you inferred, and he assured me that I am definitely not paranoid, and that he would have to leave me if I were! ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages!
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! I think this misses the point. Yes, there are some who have been harmed enough times by being stepped on by automatic stations that they would like to see them go away. And, yes, this is not likely to happen. However, to suggest expanding the space where automatic stations can operate shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of bandplanning and current band usage. Messaging, of all kinds, is by far the minority use of the ham bands, and the automatic stations already have more space in proportion their representation than they fairly whould have. The idea is not to get rid of automatic (or semi-automatic) operations, but to stop any additional space being allocated to such operations because it takes away from non-automatic operations that already have insufficient space in which to accommodate all users. The point has been made many times that automatic stations would not need more space if they used a protocol that supported frequency sharing (the way AX-25 does), but they do not. The solution therefore is for the automatic stations to use a better protocol to let them share better and not try to spread over more and more space needed by the far greater majority of operators who have no interest at all in messaging, high-speed or otherwise, oh the HF bands. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages! The whole design approach of ALE as practiced by amateur radio is that of standardized frequencies, one per band, with designated alternates for qso for extended traffic under manual control. This is already in place working. And not likely to change. It's also already allowed per FCC regs, so it's very unlikely there would be a net reduction in that. So the whole idea that this is a frequency grab for ALE ops is simply misinformed and displays ignorance of how ALE works and is used in the amateur world. Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! You are right about one thing... there are many other players in the mix. ALE ops would be minimally impacted by Bonnie's proposal. It's future modes that will be impacted. Witness the reoccuring I invented a new mode, try it on 14.xxx. No, you can't go there, that's the XYZ mode center of activity.. So I'll ask the question: how do we enable the development use of new modes, ideally more efficient ones when there is no place for them to operate? Want to keep the status quo, and miss the next psk? Express yourself. Or propose your own solution! Make it about individuals, or even user groups, you just wasted your input! Have fun, Alan km4ba
