[FADCA] It's not about WL2K - It's about the future of Ham Radio
K4CJX
k4cjx at comcast.net
Sat Feb 4 22:19:27 EST 2006
Dave, if you and I are in a CW contact at 65 WPM, it is safe from casual
monitoring. There is NOTHING illegal about Pactor 3 or the FBB protocol.
Sorry. Sure, let's just keep everything just the way it is. Get no support
from any agencies that can keep things like BPL and other such interests
from eating us alive. By the way, Winlink is under "local or remote control,
not "automatic control."
It is a well known fact, at least by the FCC Engineering and Technology
division, that HF propagation is such that even if two stations are manned
on HF, interference may occur to a third station on frequency, even though
neither station can hear the third (or more) stations. reciprocity (VHF/UHF)
does not apply on HF. Specifically, the "Law of Reciprocity" DOES NOT apply
to HF signals propagated by the ionosphere because the ionosphere is a
plasma with both birefringent and anisotropic scattering properties. In
other words, twoidentical HF stations (i.e. same transceiver, power output,
antennas,
Same baseline noise level) may not report the same signal reports about
oneanother. Furthermore, in some cases Station A may not even hear
Station B when Station B can easily hear Station A. This occurs on HF radio
REGARDLESS of mode of operation, and this is a law of physics that cannot be
changed! So, when this happens with SSB and CW, or any other mode, should
they not disallowed from the HF bands. When this phenomenon is observed by a
Radio operator, that operator likely assumes he is hearing a "lid" on the
channel who will not respond when if fact the assumed "lid" cannot hear the
First radio operator due to the birefringent and anisotropic scattering
properties of the ionosphere.
If you're interested the actual physics showing this scattering property you
can look at standard E&M textbooks. One written by the distinguished
Berkley physicist J.D. Jackson, is a good one, and of course there are many
others.
Secondly, the apparent low percentage of wider band digital transfer
protocols is primarily due to a simple fact that there is no incentive for
further development of such protocols since there is no place to use them.
Thus, the purpose of the deletion of 97.221(c). I was there in the "AM
domination days" when they wanted to put SSB in its small sub-bands.
Thankfully, those with vision and courage prevailed. I would think that
every protocol (mode) of operation should have some space to operate. By
your example below of the amount of space a signal greater than 500 Hz can
use under local or remote control, I would say such development will die on
the vine. Good? For who? No one wins.
Reasonable people should agree that the ARRL band plan is consistent with
the FCC's comments in their Order for RM-10740 (November 2004), where they
said:
"Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue
different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or
segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows
the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur
service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and
technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into
disfavor."
In a recent FCC Order, the FCC indicates their desire for change in the
present Amateur Radio regulatory environment, which they think is impeding
the advancement of the radio art. Take particular notice of the last two
sentences below. The FCC wrote:
"As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur
service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. We believe
that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new
communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent
with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our
Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator's development of
new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the
reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications
that combine image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency
segments where data emissions are authorized is not a technical reason, but
rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image
and data emission types on any HF frequency segments. We also note that
amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and
technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they
are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we are
persuaded that our Rules are NOT in harmony with current emission and
operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio
operators in advancing the radio art."
The ARRL's proposed band plan is consistent with the FCC statements, and
deserves our support. In the United States in particular, and generally
elsewhere, Amateur Radio has a long tradition of operating primarily by
voluntary band plan agreement. One example that should be well known by
Winlink HF operators is that on 20 or 40 meters, per Part 97.221, domestic
Winlink 2000 HF stations now operating under "local and remote control" that
are 500 Hz or less (such as Pactor1 or Pactor 2) voluntarily agreed to limit
their upper operating edge at 077, which is well below the voluntarily
agreed upon RTTY area of these bands. Winlink also voluntarily agreed not
to operate in the 070 to 072 areas where PSK31 operates voluntarily. Even
though Winlink 2000 HF stations operating Pactor 1 or Pactor 2 have every
right to operate to the bottom of these bands (assuming the control operator
has a proper license), it does not, voluntarily. CW, which has the legal
right to operate anywhere within the HF Amateur spectrum, has also found its
place voluntarily, and has operated in their agreed upon space for years.
Long before I was licensed, AM dominated the HF voice spectrum, and SSB was
viewed as being incompatible with AM operations. SSB was not copied by
those who did not have "expensive" receivers, and was viewed very negatively
by the status quo. Think what would have happened if the ARRL had
petitioned the FCC for a separate space to further develop the "duck quack"
mode. Fortunately, both mode types were placed in the same spectrum, and
the more popular mode dominated. The ARRL shows its vision and courage by
offering the Amateur Radio service a similar opportunity again, by not only
allowing for protocols yet to be developed, but also protecting those which
now exist. I admit that during some contests, the normal voluntary
agreements seem to dissolve into chaos, but this is usually short lived and
is by general agreement, at least by the contesters.
The ARRL Band Plan expects Amateur Radio operators will continue to assume
voluntary placement responsibilities, not only for current modes used today,
but also for the development of new enabling technologies by placing similar
bandwidth operations in similar places. For the ever-increasing number of
digital operations, which has permeated the rest of the telecommunications
world, attempting to place a communications system that utilizes state of
the art error control coding and pulse shaped OFDM (which provides the best
spectral efficiency currently available) with a relatively primitive,
encoded, single-carrier DBPSK protocols is ludicrous. Put another way,
wider band analog or digital modes, and especially, high speed, 100 percent
error correcting data transfer protocols have no business in the same space
with the narrow band "conversational" typing speed modes. The experience is
that it just does not work. In fact, any one band space that attempts to
host protocols of such different bandwidths and purposes, be they analog or
digital, does not seem to work, and both the FCC and ARRL seem to be in
common agreement on this subject. I truly believe they are both offering us
the "key" to release us from our present regulatory "technology jail."
For the Amateur Radio service to enhance its impact on emergency
communications, it should at least have the opportunity to develop and
provide services that are up to the standards of the rest of the
telecommunications world. Winlink 2000 is the best available example of an
important EMCOMM tool. I believe that Winlink 2000 is only a sample of the
systems and technology that can be developed, once our service has
regulations that do not continue to impede progress.
Steve, k4cjx
-----Original Message-----
From: David Calder [mailto:n4zkf at n4zkf.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 17:25
To: 'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'
Cc: 'DICK K4FUY SEM CO EC'; 'Steve K4CJX'
Subject: RE: [FADCA] It's not about WL2K - It's about the future of Ham
Radio
O, it gets funnier. Even got your name in it!!!
:)
Dave
RE: The Email Robots Are Coming! Reply
by KH6TY on January 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Peter, AG4RC,
Your beloved Florida Winlink PMBO, Bud, N0IA, is also actively promoting the
violation of 97.113 by Winlink users.
Here are links, taken off the Winlink website, but subsequently removed, to
images promoted in Winlink presentations by N0IA:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/secure.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/secure2.jpg
Note the suggestion to use the BBS protocol (F6FBB) in order to "make them
secure from casual monitoring".
The FCC regulations expressly prohibit using codes or ciphers to obscure the
meaning of the message:
§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
(1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Part;
(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;
(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a
pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer.
Amateur operators may, however, notify other amateur operators of the
availability for sale or trade of apparatus normally used in an amateur
station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a regular basis;
(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere
in this Section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act;
messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except
as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or
false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished
alternatively through other radio services.
The arrogance of Winlink to think they are above the law and can routinely
transmit on top of others in order to download Email at their convenience,
operate outside the ARRL bandplans, ignore the IARU Region 1 bandplan, and
use the F6FBB protocol to intentionally disguise the meaning of the message
(so they can send commercial messages undetected) is appalling!
History shows us that Winlink CANNOT BE TRUSTED to follow any "voluntary"
bandplan, so RULES to contain them are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!
Gentlemen, amateur radio has a very serious problem here. Please be sure to
file comments to the FCC and tell them that ALL automatic stations must be
confined BY REGULATIONS to the 97.221(b) subbands, as the FCC has already
decided in 1995.
For the survival of HF ham radio as COMMUNICATIONS intstead of raio Email,
PLEASE take the time to file comments and encourage everyone you meet on the
air to do so likewise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Aww, Dave - you've been bamboozled by Skip Teller!
Or did you forward this to FADCA as a joke?
The shame of it is that Skip knows better - but he has let his personal
agenda get in the way of what could be a good thing for ham radio. He has
been on this anti-WL2K vendetta for almost two years- heavily for a year -
and has convinced a lot otherwise uninformed folks that WL2K is bad. This
is the real bad part - Skip - nearly single handedly has made the ARRL band
plan by bandwidth proposal about WL2K - when it should be about the future
of ham radio.
I'm really surprised you didn't check out more on details before forwarding
that inflammatory e-mail Skip has been sending around... Also hacks me off I
must take time to respond here! But . . .
I can't assume it is a joke - pardon me if it was - and you owe me!
But here goes -
> ARRL wants to let Email Robots cover the phone bands.
Right - wouldn't that be a mess! Who would believe that statement, much
less take action on it? Well, some uninformed folks who would not know
better. It's politics - need I say more?
> The current practice of Winlink 2000 is to scan two channels by each
> fully automatic Pactor-II station when they are allowed to operate
> anywhere in the RTTY/Data/CW areas of the bands.
> If a single Pactor-III Email robot requires a 2.5 KHz channel, then a
> fully automatic Email robot scanning two channels will use 5 kHz.
There is no correlation to the number of scanned frequencies and the
bandwidth a Pactor station uses - it is only 2.4 KHz for Pactor III and
under 500 Hz for Pactor 1 or 2 - one frequency at a time. Skip knows that!
Actually my WL2K PMBO scans seven HF frequencies total (on 80, 40, 30, 25,
17, and 15M), but only six on four bands at a time - dropping 80 m in
daytime and dropping 15 at night. Pactor stations can only operate on one
frequency at a time. I know Skip knows that. However, his terminology
would have the inexperienced masses think that a single Pactor station
occupies 5Khz - that's not legal - viz- WL2K is doing something bad - let's
all get on board and call the FCC!
'Fully automatic' conjures two stations under computer control contacting
each other w/o a control operator on either end. I'm not sure there is
anything in the FCC Part 97 Rules that cover 'fully' automatic - perhaps
there is but I believe 'Automatically controlled digital station' what is
covered. Again, Skip knows that, but this is just more of his
misrepresenting terminology to conjure up bad stuff, eh?
WL2K PMBOs do not operate 'fully automatic' - So far as I know the only
"fully automatic" operation is packet BBS to BBS forwarding which is allowed
above 50Mhz. I'm not sure if there is an HF packet network autoforwarding
on HF still - but you would know.
The WL2K PMBOs NEVER call each other - there is no BBS-to-BBS forwarding by
WL2K PMBOs - The WL2K operation is classified under 'local or remote
control' in Part 97.211.(c) (1) (below) and it is the calling station
(Skip's "MOBILE STATIONS") that must be under local or remote control. Here
is how the pertinent section reads as clarified/modified by the FCC in 1995:
97.221 Automatically controlled digital station.
(a) This rule section does not apply to an auxiliary station, a beacon
station, a repeater station, an earth station, a space station, or a space
telecommand station.
(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY
or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the
a.. 28.120 - 28.189 MHz
b.. 24.925 - 24.930 MHz
c.. 21.090 - 21.100 MHz
d.. 18.105 - 18.110 MHz
e.. 14.0950 - 14.0995 MHz
f.. 14.1005 - 14.112 MHz
g.. 10.140 - 10.150 MHz
h.. 7.100 - 7.105 MHz or
i.. 3.620 - 3.635 MHz segments.
(c) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY
or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types
provided that:
(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under
local or remote control; and
(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station
occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.
Hence, my original question: What is a Robot?
There are none. Sorry, Skip.
The rest of Skip's note is just as inflammatory as the garbage he's been
promulgating on QRZ blog for two years. The real bad news is he has other
folks worked up who have not taken time to really check all this stuff out -
Skip knows better - he really does understand how WL2K works - but he has a
personal agenda (from his position on an ARRL committee several years ago
that did not go well for him) that transcends getting anything accomplished
to advance the state of the art. And this from the co-inventor of DigiPan-
one of the marvels of our day!
> It is as easy as 1-2-3-4 to file a comment!
Now that is about the only factual statement he made!
Do it - everyone - Take a break before the Super Bowl!
I will be taking Skip's advice and submitting my comments late today or
tomorrow before the Feb 6th. deadline. I hope everyone does - but that they
do so as an informed decision, not passing on some BS from someone else.
It's really too bad that this has come to a head on Super Bowl weekend- sure
glad I'm not a football fan.
73,
bud N0IA
386 574 4124
386 956 0386 Sprint Cell
_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
More information about the FADCA
mailing list