Dave, I would think that using signal detection techniques would solve that issue. We have been experimenting with them lately and yes, there is work to be done, but that is what this is all about.
Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I responded to most of this in my previous post. > > The ARRL proposal will allow remotely-controlled automatic operation > everywhere. If its adopted, I assume that message passing services > will rush to escape the current automatic sub-bands; you confirmed > this in your previous post. I agree that most will use wider digital > modes, which may indeed reduce QRM to PSK and RTTY operations. But > the potential for conflict between attended and remotely-controlled > automatic stations will greatly increase. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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/
