Dave, I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject for the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to stop..and by agreement for most.
Specifically when and where is your conflict with automatic controlled stations, currently. I mean not in concept, but on the bands? Where is your conflict with stations under local and remote control? I note that you are talking about FEC(maybe) narrow band protocols at typing speeds being interfered with by high speed data transfer. Won't the current band plan eliminate that issue? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set forth > in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. This > doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but > does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful violation. > > There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, PSK, > MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub- > bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared > between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the fact > that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to call > CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear before > calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I won't > call. > > In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict > between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a > remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the hidden > transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing QSO > whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It is > important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation when > it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques > that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed. > > At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is > constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, > operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal > eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic > stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of any > 3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If the > ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict between > attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will escalate as > message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for their > services. > > To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal includes a > stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure to > establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband > allocation petition, and, until such time as that band plan is in > place, the existing band plan will be in force." This quote is taken > from http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2005-arlb017.html . > > The ARRL's existing band plan has been obsolete for years. Besides > ignoring not-so-recent developments like PSK, it makes no attempt to > resolve the conflict between attended and remotely controlled > automatic operation. Despite the widespread concern expressed over > its proposed elimination of constraints on remotely controlled > automatic operation, the ARRL has not seen fit to provide a > prototype band plan that would illustrate how this conflict might be > resolved, or to describe the process by which such a band plan would > developed and evolved, or to describe how longterm, willful > violations of the band plan would be addressed. > > We can have our cake and eat it too. Allocating frequencies based on > bandwidth rather than content would be a step forward, and automatic > operation is fully consistent with the principles of amateur radio. > Where the ARRL proposal falls fatally short is in eliminating the > current constraints on remotely controlled automatic operation > without providing a credible means of eliminating its conflict with > attended operation. > > Restricting remotely controlled automatic operation to subbands > until the effects of hidden transmitter QRM are reduced to levels > experienced with attended operation would correct this fatal flaw in > the ARRL proposal. Techniques for accomplishing this reduction -- > busy detectors, universal QRL -- are available. History has shown > that they will not be deployed unless incentivized by regulation. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Herein lies the dilemma. Can we reduce regulation to allow > amateurs to > > control emissions on the bands, without providing some sort of > enforcement > > mechanism? While I agree that reducing regulation can enhance > operation on > > the HF bands, can it be done without reducing the capacity of a > finite > > resource due to increased QRM possibilities? Today, can we really > rely on > > the FCC with their limited resources to enforce the regulations > already on > > the books? We have strong interference regulations, and those > regulations > > would remain in place under the ARRL petition and the > Communications Think > > Tank petition. The question then must be asked, what regulations > are today > > enforced by the FCC, and how would that change under the ARRL > petition and > > the Communications Think Tank petition? Are U.S. amateurs > disciplined > > enough to work in a deregulated environment? > > > > Today, the Part 97 rules dealing with the 80 though 10 meter bands > > segregate emissions by their content and control. Within the > control > > regulations automatically controlled stations are limited to > certain > > subbands when their emissions are greater than 500 Hz. RTTY/Data > emissions > > are segregated from Phone/Image emissions. Digital emissions are > > authorized in 100% of the 80 through 10 meter bands. The > segregation of > > digital emissions, rtty/data/phone/image is based on the content > of the > > emission. I do not recall any FCC warning or citation based on > content > > violations. Content violations have occurred and do occur every > > day. Either the amateur community is not concerned with this type > of > > violation and have not informed the FCC, or the FCC is not > interested in > > enforcing these regulations. It really does not matter what is > the cause, > > the fact is that these regulations are not enforced, so why have > them on > > the books? QRM occurs every day too, and amateurs seem willing to > report > > such violations, and the FCC seems willing to enforce them. > Realistically, > > QRM is the issue and the enforcement of interference regulations > by the FCC > > will not change when content restrictions are dropped. > > > > 73, > > > > Mark N5RFX > > > > At 08:45 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote: > > >The issue is the expanded use of > > >remotely-controlled automatic stations without the means to > prevent > > >hidden-transmitter QRM, and the elimination of any incentives for > > >operators to comply with the band plan (e.g. losing operating > > >priveleges). We can have separation by bandwidth, increased > > >flexibility, and polite automatic operation without turning the > > >bands into a free-for-all, which will be the outcome if the > > >ARRL's "voluntary band plan" proposal is accepted. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
