Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)(correction)
Here is a corrected version -- VHF came out HF in one spot: I do have a valid extra class license. There are lots of hams who use CW and SSB on the VHF bands and want protection from FM repeaters and other wide-band signals. The bottom 300 kHz of each VHF band should be protected. I was a member of WSWSS and the San Bernardino Microwave Society and partcipated in most 10 meter, VHF, UHF and microwave contests between 1993 and 2001. There should also be spectrum for wide-band modes. I used amateur satellites which had 50 kHz wide HF downlinks and 200 kHz wide VHF and UHF downlinks. There should also a be a place for wideband terrestrial modes. For some reason there is a 20 kHz bandwidth limit on the VHF bands for data but not voice or image transmission. Bandwidth limits should be the same regardless of content as anyone with a computer can mix voice, data and images indiscriminantly. There is certainly space on the 6 meter band for wideband data that exists in the band plans. If you look at the spectrum allocated to repeaters on a spectum analyzer, there is even more space if we had more intelligent methods of spectrum allocation and sharing. The spectrum between 50 and 450 MHz is useful because path losses are low and omnidirectional antennas allow mobile operation and the operation of nets over wide areas. The 20 kHz bandwdth limit on VHF data transmission is antiquated and if you can radiate a 9 MHz wide ATV signal on the 70cm band the same bandwidth should also be available for data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: bruce mallon To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:19 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the " RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE" power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I do have a valid extra class license. There are lots of hams who use CW and SSB on the VHF bands and want protection from FM repeaters and other wide-band signals. The bottom 300 kHz of each VHF band should be protected. I was a member of WSWSS and the San Bernardino Microwave Society and partcipated in most 10 meter, VHF, UHF and microwave contests between 1993 and 2001. There should also be spectrum for wide-band modes. I used amateur satellites which had 50 kHz wide HF downlinks and 200 kHz wide VHF and UHF downlinks. There should also a be a place for wideband terrestrial modes. For some reason there is a 20 kHz bandwidth limit on the HF bands for data but not voice or image transmission. Bandwidth limits should be the same regardless of content as anyone with a computer can mix voice, data and images indiscriminantly. There is certainly space on the 6 meter band for wideband data that exists in the band plans. If you look at the spectrum allocated to repeaters on a spectum analyzer, there is even more space if we had more intelligent methods of spectrum allocation and sharing. The spectrum between 50 and 450 MHz is useful because path losses are low and omnidirectional antennas allow mobile operation and the operation of nets over wide areas. The 20 kHz bandwdth limit on VHF data transmission is antiquated and if you can radiate a 9 MHz wide ATV signal on the 70cm band the same bandwidth should also be available for data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: bruce mallon To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:19 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the " RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE" power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
In part 97 the FCC specifies bandwidths of 20 and 100 kHz on VHF and UHF bands and this is defined as 26dB below the mean power level. That hasn't prevented hams from designing and building their own gear for 6 m through 70 cm. I'm assming the FCC will want similar standards as they are more concerned with adjacent channel interferce than the width of the desired signal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:49 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) One problem with your scenario is that the petition uses necessary bandwidth for data emissions, you are describing occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions. From a practical standpoint there is a BIG difference in determining the two. Data emissions are nice because their parameters are very well defined or you won't be able to communicate. Things like number of tones, separation of tones, phase shift values, frequency shift values, etc. All of these combine to allow EVERYONE to obtain the same value through the necessary bandwidth calculations. Developers can set their parameters so that the necessary bandwidth is 1500 Hz and no problem. Measuring occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions is a totally different matter. This WILL limit experimentation because only a few amateurs can afford adequate spectrum analyzers and understand how to use them. You will also end up with bandwidth cops filing complaints that Joe Blow is 100 Hz too wide and should receive an enforcement letter to take him off the air. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Point well taken, provided that is how the rule is actually written. > > > > > John B. Stephensen wrote: > > I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per octave. > > > > 73, > > > > John > > KD6OZH > > > > - Original Message - > > From: W2XJ > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) > > > > > > I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily > > be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider > > bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments > > based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. > > > > John B. Stephensen wrote: > > > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: > > > > > > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow > > > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur > > > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than > > > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service > > > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice > > > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were > > > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. > > > > > > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and > > > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the > > > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The > > > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory > > > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band > > > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions > > > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). > > > > > > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 > > > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower > > > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments > > > (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, > > > RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard > > > comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 > > > kHz is consistant with limits
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the " RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE" power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I updated my comments to the FCC to change the second to last paragraph: "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usally the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image commnication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwarding as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwith between 29 and 225 MHz. This allows for existing terrestrial FM voice and medium-speed data stations and the prior and existing 50-200 kHz wide FDM transmitters in orbit for the amateur satellite service. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802.xx data transmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve problems more effectivly than those currently in RM-11392 and decrease regulatory burdens in the future." This makes the VHF/UHF narrow-band segments good for SSB and AM but not FM which is more in-line with what the WSWSS would want. Users of the weak-signal segments of VHF and UHF bands mainly want protection from FM repeaters. I also realized that AMSAT linear transponders are wide-band devices. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: > > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. > > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). > > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band se
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
Point well taken, provided that is how the rule is actually written. John B. Stephensen wrote: > I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. > Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of > ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter > at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB > transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per > octave. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > - Original Message - > From: W2XJ > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC > to Kill Digital Radio?) > > > I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily > be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider > bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments > based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. > > John B. Stephensen wrote: > > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: > > > > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow > > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur > > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than > > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service > > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice > > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were > > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. > > > > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and > > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the > > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The > > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory > > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band > > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions > > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). > > > > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 > > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower > > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments > > (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, > > RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard > > comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 > > kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at > > all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows > > simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital > > modulation. > > > > A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be > > established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for > > PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they > > are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications > > infrastructure is compromised. > > > > If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths > > of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz > > between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows > > for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, > > and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be > > 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 > > data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth > > limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within > > the designated bands for the amateur radio service. > > > > The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and > > decrease regulatory burdens in the future." > > > > 73, > > > > John > > KD6OZH > > > > - Original Message - > > From: expeditionradio > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC > > Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to > Kill Digital Radio?) > > > > > > The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) > > http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ > > is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used > > for text messaging without an external comp
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per octave. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: > > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. > > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). > > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments > (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, > RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard > comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 > kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at > all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows > simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital > modulation. > > A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be > established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for > PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they > are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications > infrastructure is compromised. > > If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths > of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz > between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows > for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, > and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be > 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 > data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth > limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within > the designated bands for the amateur radio service. > > The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and > decrease regulatory burdens in the future." > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > - Original Message - > From: expeditionradio > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC > Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) > > > The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) > http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ > is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used > for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also > be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer > soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. > > Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any > of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. > > HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. > All HF bands. > All day. > All night. > > see map: > http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg > > HFN operates within
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: > > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. > > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). > > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments > (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, > RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard > comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 > kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at > all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows > simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital > modulation. > > A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be > established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for > PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they > are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications > infrastructure is compromised. > > If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths > of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz > between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows > for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, > and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be > 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 > data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth > limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within > the designated bands for the amateur radio service. > > The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and > decrease regulatory burdens in the future." > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > - Original Message - > From: expeditionradio > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC > Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to > Kill Digital Radio?) > > > The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) > http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ > is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used > for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also > be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer > soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. > > Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any > of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. > > HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. > All HF bands. > All day. > All night. > > see map: > http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg > > HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data > Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: > http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg > > The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz > bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF > relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text > e-messaging. > > The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief > Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary > purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services, > propagation services, and many other types of features for hams. > > HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same > "channel" on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of > automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The > transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts. > > The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... > for more informat
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and decrease regulatory burdens in the future." 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. All HF bands. All day. All night. see map: http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text e-messaging. The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services, propagation services, and many other types of features for hams. HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same "channel" on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts. The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... for more information about using HFN, click here: http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network does not require the internet to function, but it uses the internet when it is available. It is the only ham radio system of its kind that is truly interoperable on HF for selective calling, voice, and text, with other non-amateur services and agencies. For more information about this, see Interoperable HF Communications: http://www.hflink.com/interoperation/ Who among the "ant
