ARRL seeks commentary on digital modes

[n6hcm]

the full story is here: http://www.arrl.org/news/view/arrl-board-requests-member-comments-about-digital-modes

[W3WN]

Anyone want to set odds on how long it will be before The Usual Suspects complain?

The complaint will either be that there is a hidden agenda by the digital proponents to force a particular mode or modes to the exclusion of others; or to repartition the sub-bands to increase digital zones to the exclusion of other modes; or just that the ARRL is up to no good and should butt out, or words to that effect. Or have I missed something?

[KJ3N]

Meh....

About the only digital mode I use these days is RTTY.

[ad4mg]

Anyone want to set odds on how long it will be before The Usual Suspects complain?

The complaint will either be that there is a hidden agenda by the digital proponents to force a particular mode or modes to the exclusion of others; or to repartition the sub-bands to increase digital zones to the exclusion of other modes; or just that the ARRL is up to no good and should butt out, or words to that effect. Or have I missed something?

I have only one comment to offer.

RM-11306.

That is all.

[WN9HJW]

Anyone want to set odds on how long it will be before The Usual Suspects complain?



"The usual suspects" (TUS) usually complain about the ARRL doing things without asking for input from the ham community. Now the ARRL is asking for such input. I wonder if TUS will actually provide any such input.

[KJ3N]

I have only one comment to offer.

RM-11306.

That is all.

They still haven't learned.... :rofl:

[WN9HJW]

"The usual suspects" (TUS) usually complain about the ARRL doing things without asking for input from the ham community. Now the ARRL is asking for such input. I wonder if TUS will actually provide any such input.

Oops. Check that. Conspiracy theory still has life. The ARRL is asking for MEMBER input, not input from all hams. So TUS can still bitch about ARRL doing things that affect the whole of amateur radio without consulting everybody. Never mind.

[n0iu]

I am waiting for the JT65 crowd to ask for protection from all other modes and forms of operating (like contesting) so they can have uninterrupted interference-free access to their frequencies 24/7/365.

[ad4mg]

In fairness to the ARRL, at least they are openly asking for input this time. They only mumbled incoherently about such a request during the last round.

I disagree that input is accepted only from ARRL members. Some of us, not members, have valid positions, and we are capable of submitting lucid opinions and polite disagreement if necessary.

Having read RM-11708, what would matter to me as much as the RM would be who was on the committee who wrote it. I still believe that the part of the amateur community that figured out just who wrote RM-11306 played a large part in defeating it.

I totally soured on the ARRL when they had the audacity to tell the amateur community that RM-11306 was defeated because "amateurs didn't understand it". I think they understood it quite well.

[ad4mg]

Oops. Check that. Conspiracy theory still has life. The ARRL is asking for MEMBER input, not input from all hams. So TUS can still bitch about ARRL doing things that affect the whole of amateur radio without consulting everybody. Never mind.

So, in your world, the ARRL is above reproach? One should not be critical of the ARRL? Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

I was quite actively involved in the discussions that lead to the defeat of RM-11306.

[WN9HJW]

So, in your world, the ARRL is above reproach? One should not be critical of the ARRL? Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Not even close to what I said. Read it again.

[ad4mg]

Not even close to what I said. Read it again.

Read it several times, couldn't 'connect' to where you were coming from, so I asked.

Me, I'm not quite, but close to being one of the usual suspects. FB for those, like Ron, who support the ARRL. I simply don't trust them (the ARRL) for a variety of reasons.

[KK4AMI]

I am new to the hobby and still amazed that people can hear my voice on SSB. I'll admit that I'm a novice and fairly ignorant about other communications modes. Someday soon I would like to get into WSPR or digital comms. I guess I'm not sure why various modes cannot be accommodated in ARS. Granted I would not increase bandwidth just to help the Sailboaters (let them buy a SATPhone) but surely there are hams that would like to experiment. Why is the FCC so stingy with frequency allocation? I think I have observed a decreasing use of the HF for Military and Commercial use since I was a DXer in 1965. I would think we could increase our frequency allocations allowing older equipment to stay in the original ARS bands and moving the Digitiers with what I assume to be newer radios into the newer allocations. Amateur radio can keep the customary modes while allowing room to grow and develop newer techniques.

[suddenseer]

The last time I listened, W1AW was still busting into qso's in progress to broadcast code practice. It must be policy, so they have no credibility in my book.

[K7SGJ]

The last time I listened, W1AW was still busting into qso's in progress to broadcast code practice. It must be policy, so they have no credibility in my book.

But, but, but.......it's THEIR frequency. Kinda like the MMN.

[kb2vxa]

They can argue they don't hear anyone on the frequency because of one way skip. Oh, that only happens on CB, sorry.

[K0RGR]

Everybody has an equal right to a frequency, but W1AW is more equal than most. Good filters make for good neighbors, and this is no exception.

I've sent my comments on the inquiry. To summarize briefly:
1. Most claims of interference from and between digital modes are 100% pure unadulterated bullshit. Too many hams have no idea what the RF Gain control and AGC do to their receiver performance. If they did, there would be a lot more harmony.

2. Some of the newer digital modes are highly impervious to QRM and QRN. I copy overlapping JT65 and Olivia signals all the time. I can copy a weak Olivia signal with a strong RTTY signal on top of it. PSK31 is so narrow, it's hard to interfere if the AGC isn't being pumped. Digital signals do interfere with CW ops who use wide filters or no filters. Many complainants are using direct conversion receivers that lack 'single signal' reception capability.

3. We should consider the digital modes to be the equivalent of CW in the 21st century. All non-voice modes should be allowed everywhere, just as CW is today.
This would allow many useful things, such as incorporating digital into phone traffic nets - running the net on phone and switching to data to pass traffic. But it would also relieve the crowding in some digital segments today, particularly at 80 meters, where we have many digital nets operating in the same segment. Most of these nets are using Olivia 250 or 500, but some use MT63/1K and even wider modes.

[kb2vxa]

I just thought of a few things like adding a comment to the sarcastic but true one above about "one way skip". Whiskey 1 Apple Wine drunk with power, all 1500 watts of it, doesn't listen first or ask if there's anyone on frequency like the lesser animals on the farm do, the more equal than others pigs just go busting in rather than disrupt their precious schedule. That's just one reason IMO the ARRL deserves no respect, the one that caused me to quit was they're a bunch of know-it-alls who won't pay attention to the membership like the rep who when at a club meeting refused to answer my question and just brushed me off with rude remarks. What cemented my position, albeit after the fact, is their bad habit of ramrodding proposals to the FCC without so much as informing membership let alone inviting opinions and comments. Does the old Revolution battle cry TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY ring a bell? Collecting dues and donations without representing membership is the same bloody thing! Those of you who support the Always Ram Rodding League (Of Extraordinary Gentlemen) are entitled to your opinion, all I ask of you is please allow me to be entitled to mine, it's called respect.

Re AMI with a few giggles, sorry 'bout that:
"I am new to the hobby..."
And already up to 4,262 posts, WOW, you're a busy little bee.
"...and still amazed that people can hear my voice on SSB."
Spend more time on the air instead of on the internet my friend, you'll learn what a product detector is and how it works. (;->)

"I guess I'm not sure why various modes cannot be accommodated in ARS."
Oh they ARE, by hams with proper receivers and know how to use them. (;->)

"Why is the FCC so stingy with frequency allocation?"
They're not stingy at all, we have more than enough spectrum to play with and the FCC knows it. That's why they're constantly trying to take it away from us and they started by taking our 11M band and giving it to CB which in a few years blew up in their faces. What you may not know is the FCC took their much larger UHF assignment and gave it to public service, MURS and business users, then gave them 11M as "replacement spectrum". Replacing spectrum perfectly suited to the intended use of CB with that causing so many rules to be broken even unintentionally was the first of many brainless moves, way to many to mention all of them. Now it's commercial interests, they gave the bottom end of 1.25M to UPS and it too blew up in their faces, UPS never used it and we never got 11M or 220MHz back. Now there's not only the military (primary assignment) actively using 70cM for radar and the latest was PAVE/PAWS shutting down repeaters in Massachusetts and California. Between the time of drug interdiction radar along the Canadian border and PAVE/PAWS there was satellite radar mapping crapping up the band worldwide.

"I think I have observed a decreasing use of the HF for Military and Commercial use since I was a DXer in 1965."
You think what all SWLs think and have observed including myself since 1957. The trouble with that logic is you can't observe the world from where you're sitting. Sky wave propagation only brings in a small percentage of signals out there for quite a number of reasons too much to go into here. One I can go into partially is there is no need for long haul HF communications on the battlefield so they use portable NVIS antennas bouncing signals off the ionosphere back down around them like umbrellas where they're needed, not thousands of miles away. While commercial use has declined, military and government use has vastly increased. Signals are all over the place and I don't mean maybe, but we have no idea what we're listening to. It's all using digital modes with top secret encoding/decoding software so even what isn't encrypted on top of that is still electronic gibberish to all but intended recipients.

"I would think we could increase our frequency allocations allowing older equipment to stay in the original ARS bands and moving the Digitiers with what I assume to be newer radios into the newer allocations."
If you would think you wouldn't think that way. (;->) It's easier done than said, with a simple mod my Icom IC706Mk2G will transmit wherever it receives, 30KHz to 30MHz plus all over VHF and UHF well outside the ham bands. Don't forget you're dealing with the FCC and other spectrum users trying every day to get their grubby little paws on our bands. Money talks, BS walks, they have money and we don't, so guess who wins in the end. Don't forget the lack of enforcement, we're lower than the lowest man on the totem pole, we're the dirt holding it up. How does it feel knowing you're dirt?

Oh now don't get the idea I'm picking on the new kid on the block, just living up to my elected position of grumpy old bastid. Hey, I didn't ask for it, I EARNED it and got it by popular demand. Now get off my lawn and take your antenna with you!
Seriously, (Who, ME?) when we were young and just starting out we were elmered by the crusty old farts. Now they're all dead and we're the crusty old farts, now it's our turn to elmer those who we once were. Any time you have a question never be afraid to ask and we will answer to the best of our ability and try not to confuse you with too much math some around here use as a weapon trying to out science each other. (;->) There is no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid people. Trouble is while knowledge is the cure for ignorance there just ain't no fixin' stupid. (Inspired by comedian Ron White.)

Check out the 10cc quote in my sig line below. That tells you why some of my greatest inspiration comes to me in the bathroom. Now look a little lower to see where the power comes from. Electricity powers the kingdom, but the power of the throne comes from beans.

[AC6AT]

OK, but seriously, can somebody please explain to me--preferably without using the words "EmComm," "proprietary," "whacker," or "sailboat"--what earthly purpose is served by symbol rate restrictions on amateur frequencies?

[W3WN]

So, in your world, the ARRL is above reproach? One should not be critical of the ARRL? Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

I was quite actively involved in the discussions that lead to the defeat of RM-11306.Hell no. ARRL -- specifically, the ARRL Hq staff -- like any membership organization of it's size, needs to be reminded that we, the members, are the organization. Not them. They work for us; we don't exist to benefit them.

The basic concept behind RM-11306 wasn't necessarily a bad one. The suggested application of those concepts definitely was. (In other words, I'm agreeing with you that the RM, as presented, deserved to be shot down as poorly written, and very one sided to benefit a relative few at the expense of the rest of us; but I digress).

The defeat of RM-11306 demonstrates that the ARRL leadership can, should, and does listen when enough of the membership squawks.

Now, with that in mind... I have no problem with the ARRL leadership & headquarters staff asking the Membership for input to craft the direction that the Membership wants them to take. That's exactly what they are supposed to do, after all.

For those who are not members, and want to put in their 5 cents worth (was 2 cents worth, but after a few decades of inflation...): Do it. Write the Hq staff. Write your Division Director & Vice Director. Write the ARRL President (Kay is a nice lady, although we don't see eye to eye on many subjects). Tell them. What's the worse that they're going to do, anyway? You may just find that you do have a voice; many of these people (I won't say "most" because I don't know all of them, but of those I do know, "most" ) will take your views under consideration.

Of course they'll ask you to join... would you expect otherwise? Don't let that sidetrack you.

If you DON'T take action, your views may well be ignored. If that happens... whose fault is it?

And: For those of you non-members who live in the Atlantic Division (PA MD DE DC SNJ NNY WNY)... and that means you too Jim... if you DON'Tt write N3LLR and/or W3TOM, I don't want to hear any kvetching. If you DO write them, and you get blown off, then I DO want to hear about it, as I will take it up with them directly.

[W3WN]

OK, but seriously, can somebody please explain to me--preferably without using the words "EmComm," "proprietary," "whacker," or "sailboat"--what earthly purpose is served by symbol rate restrictions on amateur frequencies?Sure.

The symbol rate restrictions are a relic of FCC regulations of the late 1970's and early 1980's, when the regulation of what we now call the digital modes were in they're infancy.

To put things in perspective: RTTY (primarily Baudot) meant a physical used teletype with an electronic terminal unit to "translate" between the radio & the machine; FAX and SSTV used analog means as well. The personal digital computer, the primitive ancestor of what we take for granted nowadays, barely existed (although that was rapidly changing as electronics improved and prices dropped). Cell phones? Packet radio? Didn't exist in the mass market, although there were experiments in place. Including the initial development of AX.25 and all that, but I'm deliberately glossing over that right now.

Anyway: The FCC, at that time, had very specific regulations in place to spell out what we could and could not do. Including what are now termed the "symbol rate restrictions", although that was not a term used in those days.

And one of the reasons for many of these restrictions -- such as limiting RTTY, initially, to Baudot only (permission for using ASCII on the air came later) -- was so that the FCC could monitor these communications themselves. Simply put, they didn't want someone using a non-standard or non-permitted code on the air that they couldn't decipher; yes, some of them were still fighting the Cold War and worrying about espionage and all that.

A lot has changed. One thing that hasn't was this rather quaint & archaic restriction. Maybe it was an oversight; maybe no one thought there was a need.

Things have changed. We can do much more today with the various available digital modes than was even thought possible/practical back then. We could do even more, at least in theory, if some of the more restrictive rate restrictions were eased. (I did NOT say eliminated).

So what purpose is served today? Not as much as it was 30 years ago.

[AC6AT]

Now let's say, for the sake of discussion, that symbol rate restrictions were eliminated, but bandwidth limitations (appropriate to freq) kept or imposed. What part of the sky would fall, how quickly, and upon whom?

[kb2vxa]

NOW you're up to speed in the world of modern digital communication!

Flipping back a few pages to the technical reason which BTW is more applicable than FCC monitoring, symbol rate determined occupied bandwidth so this is what they had in mind when they imposed restrictions. Symbol rate using uncompressed data directly affected bandwidth of a signal, and with no practical way for the average ham to measure bandwidth (spectrum analyzers are still very expensive) the practical way to limit bandwidth was to limit symbol rate.

Fast forward, today with our whiz-bang newfangled radios filtered up the wazoo bandwidth is limited by the circuitry so unless you beat the snot out of something the on air signal will comply with bandwidth limit rules. With modern digital technology symbol rate has little to do with bandwidth, look at your ISP and computer data storage for example. Using data compression you can fit a lot of information in a small file and data rate over the internet is vastly accelerated with little to no increase in bandwidth. Apply this technology to Amateur Radio and your on air data rate flies with no increase in occupied bandwidth. Bottom line here is that ancient rule restricting symbol rate (the dinosaur words replaced with data rate) has to go when all that matters is how wide the signal is.

Just one error in the previous post by another, the FCC must be the best equipped spy busters on the planet with their astounding ways of DFing signals and then narrowing it down to the exact location with mobile units, but you already knew that. (;->) Real "espionage agents" have never used the ham bands. Have you ever heard a Cuban numbers station on a ham band? Hey, I'm being serious here, during WW2 several high power US AM broadcast stations heard regularly abroad used extremely narrow FSK on the main carrier to send messages to our spies in Europe. Being so narrow, similar to today's PSK31, nobody ever noticed except those equipped to receive it. This fact, although unclassified information, was never "officially" published but it's floating around the internet somewhere which is how I learned of it. Back to the FCC, codes, cyphers and electronic encryption would drive them buggy, which they're intended for in the first place, which is why quite logically they're against the rules. Same thing with nonstandard modes commonly used by government and military radio communications, that's why the rules were written that way. Data compression is so common everybody with a computer uses it so why not the FCC?

Back to the bottom line, the symbol rate rule has to go, and replaced by the logical way of doing things, limiting bandwidth of signals applied to digital. Oh, replacing some of the useless lawyers with engineers, that is taking a step backward to the old FCC WITH A BRAIN sure would help!

[AC6AT]

Things have changed. We can do much more today with the various available digital modes than was even thought possible/practical back then. We could do even more, at least in theory, if some of the more restrictive rate restrictions were eased. (I did NOT say eliminated).

So what purpose is served today? Not as much as it was 30 years ago.

So what I guess I'm really trying to find out is: if there still is some purpose served by these restrictions today, even if it's less relevant today than 30 years ago, what exactly is that purpose? What is the very best ad rem argument in favor of keeping any symbol rate restrictions at all on amateur freqs, assuming that the restrictions if lifted would be replaced by bandwidth restrictions? Or is the answer to that question really "there is none"?

[WN9HJW]

So what I guess I'm really trying to find out is: if there still is some purpose served by these restrictions today, even if it's less relevant today than 30 years ago, what exactly is that purpose? What is the very best ad rem argument in favor of keeping any symbol rate restrictions at all on amateur freqs, assuming that the restrictions if lifted would be replaced by bandwidth restrictions? Or is the answer to that question really "there is none"?


The main argument you'll see in favor of keeping the symbol rate restriction is based only on fear. Fear that eliminating symbol rate limit and imposing a new, generous (about 3kHz) bandwidth limit on data modes, will result in an explosion of new users of such wide data modes to the point of crowding out users of narrow data modes and CW. There was quite a lot of discussion about it in all the ham forums a couple months ago when ARRL filed the petition. I don't think I saw any serious technical arguments against it; just the fear-mongering.

[KC2UGV]

In fairness to the ARRL, at least they are openly asking for input this time. They only mumbled incoherently about such a request during the last round.

I disagree that input is accepted only from ARRL members. Some of us, not members, have valid positions, and we are capable of submitting lucid opinions and polite disagreement if necessary.

Having read RM-11708, what would matter to me as much as the RM would be who was on the committee who wrote it. I still believe that the part of the amateur community that figured out just who wrote RM-11306 played a large part in defeating it.

I totally soured on the ARRL when they had the audacity to tell the amateur community that RM-11306 was defeated because "amateurs didn't understand it". I think they understood it quite well.

That RM sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

I just wish the FCC would regulated bands by bandwidth, instead of by mode.

[W3WN]

So what I guess I'm really trying to find out is: if there still is some purpose served by these restrictions today, even if it's less relevant today than 30 years ago, what exactly is that purpose? What is the very best ad rem argument in favor of keeping any symbol rate restrictions at all on amateur freqs, assuming that the restrictions if lifted would be replaced by bandwidth restrictions? Or is the answer to that question really "there is none"?IMHO, there is no relevance, today, that I know of, to the current symbol rate restrictions. Note that someone with more technical knowledge of the digital modes we use may know of such a reason.

In other words, the current rules are obsolete from a technical standpoint, as technology has superseded them.

The rules ought to be rewritten to clearly state maximum allowable bandwidths for both "narrow" and "wide" digital modes. This would be a de facto limitation by rate, since faster rates require greater bandwidths, all else being equal.

And all too many existing users, a good many of whom do NOT really understand the mode(s) they use, would be against such a change out of "fear of the unknown" and "the law of unintended consequences". (These include people like the PSK-31 users who run at a full 100 W out, because they either don't know how to reduce power output on their rig, or refuse to believe that PSK was meant to be a low-power mode... all these folks know is plug this into that, load software, run, and GTHOML; they don't care how PSK works, as long as it works -- even if it's badly)

[K0RGR]

That RM sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

I just wish the FCC would regulated bands by bandwidth, instead of by mode.

What he said... I wish we could eliminate all subbands. But that would just simply make too much sense. If we just declare digi modes to be the equivalent of CW and allow them where CW is allowed today, we achieve much the same thing.

[AC6AT]

(These include people like the PSK-31 users who run at a full 100 W out, because they either don't know how to reduce power output on their rig, or refuse to believe that PSK was meant to be a low-power mode

Well...since I'm not too big on faith-based interpretations of these sorts of things, I have to say that I wouldn't believe it either unless I saw some evidence.

[kb2vxa]

"What he said... I wish we could eliminate all subbands."
Bad idea when you stop and think of the consequences. CW ops being (generally speaking) more courteous and gentlemanly stick to the CW portions of the bands although it's legal anywhere within the bands. It makes sense, birds of a feather flock together. If all modes were allowed everywhere there would be chaos, QRM to beat the band, (and a silly pun) a king of the hill situation where only the strong survive. What's the point getting a license if you can't drive the car?

Our service/hobby is in decline as it is, no sense killing it altogether. Better to bring rules into the 21st century in keeping with technology and still keep cows with cows and chickens with chickens rather than have cows trampling the eggs.

[KC2UGV]

"What he said... I wish we could eliminate all subbands."
Bad idea when you stop and think of the consequences. CW ops being (generally speaking) more courteous and gentlemanly stick to the CW portions of the bands although it's legal anywhere within the bands. It makes sense, birds of a feather flock together. If all modes were allowed everywhere there would be chaos, QRM to beat the band, (and a silly pun a pun) a king of the hill situation where only the strong survive. What's the point getting a license if you can't drive the car?

Our service/hobby is in decline as it is, no sense killing it altogether. Better to bring rules into the 21st century in keeping with technology and still keep cows with cows and chickens with chickens rather than have cows trampling the eggs.

Better rules would mean Narrow modes in slot A, Medium modes in slot B, and wide modes in Slot C.

[W3WN]

Well...since I'm not too big on faith-based interpretations of these sorts of things, I have to say that I wouldn't believe it either unless I saw some evidence.You're kidding, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSK31
[This narrow bandwidth also concentrates the RF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency) energy in a very narrow bandwidth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_(signal_processing)), allowing relatively low-power equipment (25 watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt)) to communicate globally using the same skywave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave) propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation) used by shortwave radio stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_listening).
< snip >
Also: http://www.mymorninglight.org/ham/psk.htm

< snip >
Because of the extremely narrow bandwidth (31Hz!) you don't need a lot of power to have a good signal. Most DX PSK31 contacts are made with power levels at or below 30 watts!
As a default "standard", 20 watts is considered a "normal/maximum" operating power. Because PSK is so efficient, it is almost never necessary to run more than this. For this reason, QRP operation on this mode is common.
< snip >

There are more.

The point is that PSK was designed to be a relatively low power mode. There should simply be need to run more than 20-25 watts output. That is not to say that there aren't times when more power is required... just that it should not be required most of the time.

To blatantly run 100 W output on PSK at all times, whether or not conditions call for it, causes other technical headaches for other users, too numerous to mention here... and kind of defeats the whole purpose.

That's not faith. That's facts.

[NQ6U]

Or, conversely, just ask any ham who's trying to use PSK31 correctly and having his receiver completely desensitized by the lid running 100W a couple of miles away.

[KJ3N]

If we just declare digi modes to be the equivalent of CW and allow them where CW is allowed today, we achieve much the same thing.

CW is allowed everywhere.

Would you like to see digital signals all over the phone sub-bands? I wouldn't.

[K7SGJ]

Or, conversely, just ask any ham who's trying to use PSK31 correctly and having his receiver completely desensitized by the lid running 100W a couple of miles away.

I really enjoy digital, but, yeah, this is the one thing about PSK that really pisses me off. There are several QSOs all going on at the same time, coexisting no problem, then some AH gets on running a lot of power and everyone else just goes away. Bastids

[KC2UGV]

CW is allowed everywhere.

Would you like to see digital signals all over the phone sub-bands? I wouldn't.

Why not? 31Hz can slide between MANY SSB convos.

[KJ3N]

Why not? 31Hz can slide between MANY SSB convos.

I can see you don't get it. I suggest you think just a bit past your own nose.

[KC2UGV]

I can see you don't get it. I suggest you think just a bit past your own nose.

Explain it then Jim. Watering holes will still exist, but the ability to slide a PSK signal (Legally) in between two AM QSO's would be in the Amateur spirit of using the bands efficiently, seeing as it's mostly empty now.

[KJ3N]

Explain it then Jim. Watering holes will still exist, but the ability to slide a PSK signal (Legally) in between two AM QSO's would be in the Amateur spirit of using the bands efficiently, seeing as it's mostly empty now.

We'll see if you feel the same way when Winlink obliterates your SSB signal. That's the result of "allow them where CW is allowed today" for all digital signals.

[W2NAP]

I really enjoy digital, but, yeah, this is the one thing about PSK that really pisses me off. There are several QSOs all going on at the same time, coexisting no problem, then some AH gets on running a lot of power and everyone else just goes away. Bastids

awful lid kid bastids running more a lot more power then needed on psk31

[AC6AT]

You're kidding, right?

No.

From time to time I see people claiming what you seemed yesterday to be claiming--that PSK31 was "meant to be" (i.e., was intended by its inventors to be) a "low power" mode (i.e., a mode only to be used subject to some QRP-like maximum output power regardless of conditions, rather than simply an efficient mode enabling the use of relatively low power compared to other modes to achieve usable communication under similar conditions). And I have yet to see any evidence of this. Not saying it's not out there; I just haven't seen it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSK31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSK31)
Also: http://www.mymorninglight.org/ham/psk.htm

Nothing in either of those links provides anything resembling evidence that PSK31 was designed to be a low-power mode.

But then, it looks like that's a moot point, as it now appears--to my great relief--that you don't actually believe anything so silly as that either.


The point is that PSK was designed to be a relatively low power mode. There should simply be need to run more than 20-25 watts output. That is not to say that there aren't times when more power is required... just that it should not be required most of the time.

Ah, now that's more like it. PSK31 was designed to let users achieve communication with relatively low power (and bandwidth) compared to other modes. It wasn't designed with the intent that it must only ever be run QRP lest the operator be guilty of some mortal sin. It's not a "low power mode." It's a robust weak-signal mode, and that's not the same thing.


To blatantly run 100 W output on PSK at all times, whether or not conditions call for it, causes other technical headaches for other users, too numerous to mention here...

So some users claim. Other users claim that those users should learn how to operate their receivers and software a little better. There's probably a little validity to both arguments, and they've been sufficiently flogged in online hammy forums that there's probably not much use in revisiting them.

Disclosure: no ox of mine is being gored here, as I couldn't run clean PSK31 with much more than 25W peak with my gear even if I wanted to.

[KC2UGV]

We'll see if you feel the same way when Winlink obliterates your SSB signal. That's the result of "allow them where CW is allowed today" for all digital signals.

That's an operator problem, not a emission type problem. Rules regarding sub-bands doesn't fix stupid.

[ad4mg]

That's an operator problem, not a emission type problem. Rules regarding sub-bands doesn't fix stupid.

But current rules corral the stupid email bots running pactor with signal detection turned off in their proprietary modems. This provides one the opportunity to more easily avoid teh stoopid.

[KJ3N]

But current rules corral the stupid email bots running pactor with signal detection turned off in their proprietary modems. This provides one the opportunity to more easily avoid teh stoopid.

^This.^

Right now, they have to stay in a sub-band. You lift that restriction and I can almost gaurantee you'll have Winlink bots everywhere.

You think contesters cause Butt Hurt? You haven't seen anything yet.

[KC2UGV]

^This.^

Right now, they have to stay in a sub-band. You lift that restriction and I can almost gaurantee you'll have Winlink bots everywhere.

You think contesters cause Butt Hurt? You haven't seen anything yet.

Automated stations (Digital or not) would still be restricted to sub bands.

[K0RGR]

CW is allowed everywhere.

Would you like to see digital signals all over the phone sub-bands? I wouldn't.

That's exactly what I'm saying... look at what's there now - digital SSTV and digital voice. I don't hear a lot of complaints about those modes. So why can't a person start a QSO on SSB and switch to a data mode in the middle of it? Today, it's OK to send digital voice in the phone bands, and digital images which are actually binary data. Why can't we start out on SSB and switch to a 'data' mode? I see no good reason to prohibit this sort of thing. Unless digital voice suddenly takes over the phone bands - which will only happen if there is a some benefit from it, much as there was when SSB took over from AM, I doubt that you'll see much change, though it would make it possible for all the phone nets out there to handle traffic a lot more efficiently, and who knows, maybe actually reduce the bandwidth they currently occupy.

I would like to see some real studies, not opinions or pseudo-science, to see what the impact would be. In my opinion, the impact would be zero or virtually zero. Many modern digital modes are highly resistant to QRM and QRN. The problem is on the receiving end of the non-digital users. The idea that SSB users need extra protection from digital signals is not supported by reason or current experience.

This all comes down to a matter of WINLINK phobia/envy. The only WINLINK stations that ever bother me today are located in Europe, where FCC rules don't matter at all, so changing FCC rules isn't going to improve that situation. The autobots are still limited to a subband, and that's probably a good thing. But if somebody starts a SSB QSO and wants to send a bunch of email in the middle - I say , let 'er rip!

[K0RGR]

OK, I blew a gasket this morning on the Zed! It's OK to have an opinion, even one that's based on nothing. But on the 'News' page, stated as fact? It's particularly offensive when the rant starts off with a lie, and just keeps on a roll. I know, if you tell a big lie long enough and loud enough, people will believe it - we see this every day in low-information America, and apparently the ham radio community is lower information than most. But on the 'News' page? Horse feathers!

It seems to me that somebody at that website has a major boner for ARRL, and they pick the most offensive, stupid posts they can find to put on the 'News' page.

[NQ6U]

OK, I blew a gasket this morning on the Zed! It's OK to have an opinion, even one that's based on nothing. But on the 'News' page, stated as fact? It's particularly offensive when the rant starts off with a lie, and just keeps on a roll. I know, if you tell a big lie long enough and loud enough, people will believe it - we see this every day in low-information America, and apparently the ham radio community is lower information than most. But on the 'News' page? Horse feathers!

It seems to me that somebody at that website has a major boner for ARRL, and they pick the most offensive, stupid posts they can find to put on the 'News' page.

Hardly a blown gasket, IMHO. You just posted what needed to be said in order to counter the crap posted by the moronic OP.

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?428237-ARRL-Seeks-Comments-on-Issues-associated-with-Wideband-Data-In-the-Ham-Bands&p=3118568#post3118568